BOARD00179 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/23/2007
• Description: Director's Report - CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

I
i
!

I
I

and 400 cis down. Over 380 statements of okosition were filed in this case. On April 2, '
2003, the U.S. Department of Interior, Nationkl Park Service, and the State of Colorado
I
entered into an agreement that would quantify the NPS 1933 Federal Reserved Water
Right as a year round baseflow of 300 cis and! furthermore provided that the State of
Colorado file for an ISF water right seeking to protect all flows over and above those
I
needed to satisfy the Aspinall Unit water rig~ts, but not in amounts greater than 14,500
cis for flood control reasons. In short, future consumptive use development of water in
I
the Gunnison would be dependent on AspinaU Unit water service contracts. However,
shortly after the April 2, 2003 Agreement was ireached, Environmental interests filed suit
I
against the Federal Government claiming it was disposing of federal property without
I
due process and a Federal Court Judge agreed setting aside the April 2 Agreement.
I
I
In related actions, immediately following com~letion of the April 2, 2003 agreement, the
NPS, in consultation with the State and other ~ajor water users, developed a uniform
stipulation allowing objectors to withdraw from the case which withdrawals would
I
ultimately lead to a quantification decree. HOWever, when the April 2, 2003 agreement
was set aside the terms of those stipulations when coupled with the original
I
quantification of the federal reserved water right would leave the NPS with a senior and
very large reserved water right, which under s~ate water law had the potential to defeat
any future development of Aspinall Unit waterl The State Engineer and CWCB staff
then felt compelled to object to the terms of tho~e stipulations, to which approximately
100 of the objectors had already agreed. While the State was not opposed to the
protections the stipulations would provide Gunhison Basin water users, nevertheless it
now was necessary to Oppose the selective manher in which the reserved water right
would have to be administer and to the impact the quantification could now have on
I
water rights for the Aspinall Unit and future deyelopment opportunities. The States
objections were viewed as a breach of faith by water users in the Upper Gunnison Basin
I
and strenuously opposed by those water users. ,Furthermore, the stipulations as written
now only served to further the long standing ea~t slope-west slope controversy over
I
water development in the Colorado River Basin. I As a result negative articles were
written in the press about the State's actions and Ian informational hearing before the
Joint Senate-House Agricultural Committee of th~ State Legislature held. The State and
water users have now reached some accords that: have calmed tensions to some degree
and allowed the stipulations to proceed. Howevkr, a large federal reserved water right
will leave the State with a long and difficult road tahead if it is to protect the ability of the
State to utilize any significant Aspinall Unit water for future development.
I
i
I
I

22

'-

.

.

.: