Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. THE DENVER'PesTe <br /> <br />METRO <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />. ..- <br />Tuesday. November 21. 2000: <br /> <br />\'::i.;\1 <br /> <br />" -.... <br /> <br />Court rejects water-storage project .~. <br /> <br />Justices. uphold <br />decision to deny <br />, Arapahoe. plan . <br /> <br />. By The Associated Press .. <br />The state Supreme, Cou~t ruled <br />against Arapahoe County:. commission- ,. <br />ers Mo~day, 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 courfconcluded that there. <br />was insuffiCient water available for the <br />large water-storage pr.oject west of the <br />Continental Divide in the Upper Gunni- <br />son River Basin. , . <br />The c9unty argued. that the GQnnison <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 \,Iseon <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 projects allow Colorado to devel- <br />The court said Congress intended the op its water resources. while ensuring <br />.Colorado River St~rage Project Act to that adequate water remains in storage <br />serve as a mechamsm for Upper Basin .. to help meet. the compact obligations in <br />states ~o develop th~ir water resources . dry years . <br />.and still meet their COlorado River ' . <br />Compact o~ligations. The Supreme Court also found that <br />. " <br /> <br />.. Shot down <br /> <br />.J <br /> <br />Tfi'eproposed Unton 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 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' acr~foot market- <br />able pool for future .water users. . <br /> <br />Arapahoe County Commissioner ~a- <br /> <br />rie Mackenzie. said the. court's ruling <br />was disappointing, and warned that ~t <br />does not address the future needs of the <br />developing.Front Range. . .'. <br />"No matter what they say, we. nee(l <br />water," Mackenzie said. ."By. the yea~ <br />..2020, the Front ij.ang~ will need 300,000 <br />. acre~feet of wCiter that we don't pres- <br />entlyOl~~ow where to get. .... <br />"One risk is that if vie get water f(!r <br />. people, we will take it from the farm~3 <br />and put agriculture at risk," .' <br />.Mackenzie said the decision: .mea;s <br />Colorado water will be used to water <br />crops downs~r~am. '. {;>. <br />"We haveanywher.e 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 />. . ' , . 'f <br />. "We were looking for a way for ColO1' <br />rado-tO' store water we are entitled to <br />and USl;! it in. the. dry years," MackeDz1e <br />. said.. ,.. ." <br />But: CQlorado Att<irney General Ke~ <br />S~lazar said he was happy with. the dati <br />elsion, which shoulli put an end' to th~. . <br />14-year fight that has cost more than $6 <br />million. . <br />~'The Colorado Supl'e~e Court has <br />acted to protect Colorado wa.ter righ~ <br />and. Colorado's system of.water.appro,:, <br />. priation," he said. . <br />Denver PO$t Staff Writer Ginny Me. <br />Kibben contributed to this report. . <br /> <br />o <br />o <br />t-A <br />N <br />0'") <br />.00 <br />