Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001129 <br /> <br />boundaries of the state. See ~ 37-61-101, article III(a); <br /> <br />Interior Solicitor's Opinion, M. 28389 (Apr. 4, 1936). <br /> <br />Counsel for the State of Colorado stated to this court <br /> <br />during oral argument: <br /> <br />The marketable yield pool is water that is currently <br />being used for hydropower. In the future, they can <br />sell it off and use it for other purposes. It could <br />be diverted over the hill. It could be diverted <br />upstream and it wouldn't affect the economic <br />feasibility of the unit. <br /> <br />. <br />This characterization of the marketable pool in no w~y <br /> <br />defeats the intent of the Compacts. First, the storage and <br /> <br />release of water from the Aspinall Unit for Compact delivery <br /> <br />purposes aids Colorado in meeting its Compact obligations, <br /> <br />thereby benefiting the state's water users. Second, the <br /> <br />commitment of the United States to make the marketable pool <br /> <br />available for uses within Colorado will serve the CRSPA purpose <br /> <br />of aiding the state's use of its Compact apportionment. Third, <br /> <br />by enforcing the Aspinall absolute decrees as we would any other <br /> <br />absolute decree, we clarify that the water rights of the United <br /> <br />States carry the same benefits and responsibilities as all other <br /> <br />decreed water rights. See Simpson v. Highland Irrigation Co., <br /> <br />917 P.2d 1242, 1252 (Colo. 1996). <br /> <br />Cities are able to project their reasonable future water <br /> <br />needs and secure those uses through judicial decrees. See City <br /> <br />of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1, 40-41 (Colo. <br /> <br />43 <br />