Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002518 <br /> <br />through reoperation of the reservoir. <br /> <br />Specifically, counsel for <br /> <br />the United States summarized the marketable pool concept as <br /> <br />follows: <br /> <br />If [the 240,000 acre-foot marketable pool] was to be <br />used for other uses, [BUREC] would have to make <br />elections and change the way the uses are allocated- <br />after the NEPA process and all other environmental <br />laws were complied with-and would most likely . <br />[mean] that the hydropower waters would be lessened. <br />The marketable yield is a pool sitting there for use <br />by anybody in Colorado, [including] transbasin <br />di version. . The proj ect was buil t by [BUREC] to, <br />make water available and they have to pay for it. The <br />60,000 subordination was for the Western Slope, as <br />Judge Brown stated exhaustively, [and] was meant to be <br />restricted to in-basin use-juniors only, with a <br />contract-and is compensatory for the local impact of <br />that huge project. <br /> <br />Section 620c of CRSPA authorizes BUREC to enter into both <br /> <br />irrigation and municipal contracts with water users. <br /> <br />See 43 <br /> <br />U.S.C. 5 620c (1994). The beneficial uses listed in the <br /> <br />Aspinall Unit's final decree, Case No. 80CW156, include domestic <br /> <br />and municipal uses. Therefore, although Arapahoe may not obtain <br /> <br />a separate appropriation of the waters already decreed to the <br /> <br />Aspinall Unit, Arapahoe may seek a contract with BUREC to use <br /> <br />. 20 <br />the water for municlpal purposes. See in re Estes Park, 677 <br /> <br />P.2d 320, 327 (1984); Merrick v. Ft. Lyon Canal Co., 621 P.2d <br /> <br />952, 955 (Colo. 1981). <br /> <br />c. TAYLOR PARK RESERVOIR <br /> <br />20 In order to enter into a contractual agreement with BUREC, <br />Arapahoe must comply with federal requirements. <br /> <br />45 <br />