Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />the owner of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or decreed <br />conditional water right); see Rominiecki, supra at I069. <br /> <br />67. The Court finds pursuant to paragraph 12.D that the water rights which are <br />the subject of the change applications "shall be deemed to have been historically diverted <br />and beneficially used in the full amounts, in the manner and for the purposes set forth in <br />[paragraph 6]," pursuant to the tenns of the Consent Decree. Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 <br />(1991 Consent Decree) at Stipulation to a Consent Decree, 'lf12.D. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />68. Using the percentages provided in the 1991 Consent Decree, the quantity <br />of water deemed to have been historically consumed by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is <br />6,000 af ofM&I water and 21,066 af ofimgation water, for a total. of27,066 acre-feet. <br />Id. at Stipulation to a Consent Decree, ~'16.A.iii. b. The Court finds that, under the <br />circumstances of the filing of a change application, the 1991 Consent Decree limits the <br />Ute Mountain Ute Tribe's diversions for beneficial use ofM&I water to 27,066 acre feet <br />per annum deemed historically consumed. Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent <br />Decrees) at Stipulation to a Consent Decree. 'lf~6.A.iii.b. <br /> <br />l <br />r <br /> <br />69. Furthermore, under subparagraph 6 A.iii.a, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is <br />deemed to have historically used its water based upon the monthly percentage <br />distributions of the available water as set forth in the table found at Paragraph 6 A.iii.a. <br />Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent Decree) at Stipulation to a Consent Decree, <br />16.A.iii.a. The Court finds that, under the circumstances of the filing of a change <br />application, the 1991 Consent Decree limits the timing and duration of diversions by the <br />Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to the monthly percentage distributions set forth in the table <br />fOill1d at Paragraph 6 Ajii.a. Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent Decrees) at <br />Stipulation to a Consent Decree, "'6.A.iiLa. . <br /> <br />70. Actual uses are not presently identified by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe <br />with the result that absolute certainty of all impacts ofthe change from irrigation to M&I <br />cannot be established. Accordingly, it was not possible for Moving Parties to present <br />comparative analysis of the impact of the change in type of use, from irrigation to M&I. <br />The Court fmds that the limitations upon the change of use, necessitated by the terms of <br />the 1991 Consent Decree, are intended to preserve the stream conditions contemplated in <br />1991 when the water rights were decreed. Until the water is applied to actual M&I uses, <br />the Court is unable to identify any injurious impacts that result from approval of the <br />Change Applications. <br /> <br />71. The monthly percentage distributions and the historic consumptive use <br />percentages set forth in subparagraphs 7.A.iii.a. and b. are not legally applicable tt> the <br />motions to amend submitted by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. See Applicant's Ex. 2 & <br />3 (1991 Consent Decrees) at Stipulation for a Consent Decree at '7.A.iii.a.&b. and <br />~12.D. (requiring filing ofan application for a change of water rights in the Colorado <br />District Court for Water Division 7); accord Moving Parties' Post- Trial Brief at 3- 5. <br /> <br />22 <br />