Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LEGAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE GUNNISON BASIN <br />Gunnison Basin Roundtable <br />June 5~ 2006 <br />Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br />I. MATTERS AND ISSUES IN LITIGATION. <br /> <br />A. Application for Finding of Reasonable Diligel1ce [for] Union Park Reservoir. <br />Case No. 04CW120, Water Division 4. <br /> <br />1. Application filed July 27, 2004 by Natural Energy Resources Company <br />(NECO), owned by Allen D. ("Dave") Miller. <br /> <br />2. Seeks to continue in effect the conditional water right for Union Park <br />Reservoir originally decreed in Case No. 82CW340. <br /> <br />a. 325,000 acre-feet, with the "right to refill and reuse as part of the <br />Union Park pump back storage hydroelectric project". <br /> <br />b. Sources of water: Taylor River at Taylor Park Reservoir, Lottis <br />Creek, and Willow Creek. <br /> <br />c. Date of appropriation: 1982. <br /> <br />d. "The use of the water will be for the generation of hydroelectric <br />energy and power generation in general. Watt;r will be released from <br />Union Park Reservoir through the primary pumping-generating <br />facilities and into Taylor Park Reservoir in generating mode where <br />said water shall again be diverted by the same facilities in pumping <br />mode into Union Park Reservoir for reuse as part of the hydroelectric <br />power project." <br /> <br />3. On March 9, 2005 the Opposers filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, <br />arguing that completion ofNECO's conditional appropriation for the Union <br />Park pump back hydropower project reqllires the use of Taylor Park <br />Reservoir as a pumping forebay and hydropower release afterbay. The Water <br />Court has previously determined that Taylor Park Reservoir cannot be <br />lawfully utilized for such purposes, and NECO is barred by the doctrine of <br />collateral estoppel from making assertions to the contrary. Therefore, NECO <br />cannot satisfy the "can and will" test applicable in this case and NECO's <br />conditional water right must be canceled. <br /> <br />4. On Augus t 3, 2005, the Water Court granted Opposers' motion and dismissed <br />the application, canceling NECO's water right. <br /> <br />5. NECO appealed the dismissal to the Colorado Supreme Court. The case has <br />been briefed and oral argument is scheduled to occur June 13, 2006. <br />