My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC184
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC184
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:03 PM
Creation date
4/22/2007 10:30:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.766
Description
Colorado River Basin - Gunnison River General Publications-Correspondence-Reports
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/17/2001
Author
Unknown
Title
Background Notes 2001 - RE-Colorado River Basin - Gunnison River - Marketable Pool-Blue Mesa Reservoir - As of 01-17-01
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />THE DENVER POST <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />Tuesday, November 21, 2000 <br /> <br />~,r- <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />Court rejects water-storage project <br />Justices uphold <br />decision to deny <br />Arapahoe plan <br /> <br />By The Associated Press I <br /> <br />The state Supreme Court ruled <br />against Arapahoe County commission- <br />ers Monday, agreeing with a water <br />court that denied their applications for <br />conditional water rights for the Union <br />Park Reservoir Project. <br />The water court concluded that there <br />was insufficient water available for the <br />large water-storage project west of the <br />Continental Divide in the Upper Gunni- <br />son River Basin. <br />The county argued that the Gunnison <br />River Basin above the Aspinall Unit <br />contains ample water resources for the <br />transbasin diversion of water across the <br />Continental Divide for ultimate use on <br />Colorado's Front Range. <br />The Supreme Court upheld the water <br />court, holding that it properly deter. <br />mined the amount of water available. <br />The court said Congress intended the <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act to <br />serve as a mechanism for Upper Basin <br />states to develop their water resources <br />and still meet their Colorado River <br />Compact obligations. <br /> <br />METRO <br /> <br />Shot down <br /> <br />./ <br /> <br />The proposed Union Park Reservoir project was shot down Monday when the <br />Colorado Supreme Court upheld a State water court ruling. ... <br /> <br /> <br />The Denver Post <br /> <br />The projects allow Colorado to devel- <br />op its water resources while ensuring <br />that adequate water remains in storage <br />to help meet the compact obligations in <br />dry years. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court also found that <br /> <br />the water colirt correctly implemented <br />Congress' intent to subordinate 60,000 <br />acre-feet to in-basin water users while <br />providing a 240,000 acre~foot market- <br />able pool for future water users. <br /> <br />Arapahoe County Commissioner Ma- <br /> <br />,f C:;;"l <br />o <br />N <br />C:.:n <br />N <br /><=' <br /> <br />rie Mackenzie said the court's ruling <br />was disappointing, and warned that it <br />does not address the future needs of the <br />developing Front Range. <br />"No matter what they say, we need <br />water," Mackenzie said. "By the year <br />2020, the Front ijange will need 300,000 <br />, acre-feet of water that we don't pres- <br />ently know where to get. <br />"One risk is that if we get water for <br />people, we willtake it from the farmers <br />and put agriculture at risk." <br />Mackenzie said the decision mea~ <br />Colorado water will be used to water <br />crops downstream. ':, <br />"We have anywhere from one-half <br />million to 1 million acre-feet of water <br />leaving the state to move to California, <br />Nevada and other downstream states. <br />"We were looking for a way for Colo- <br />rado to store water we are entitled to <br />and use it in the dry years," Mackenzie <br />said. <br />But Colorado Attorney General Ken <br />Salazar said he was happy with the de., <br />cision, which should put an end to the <br />14-year fight that has cost more than $6 <br />million. <br />"The Colorado Supreme Court has <br />acted to protect Colorado water righ~ <br />and Colorado's system of water appro- <br />,priation," he said. <br />Denver Post Staff Writer Ginny Mc- <br />Kibben contributed to this report. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.