Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I . <br />; <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />12. Although the ALP Decrees limit the ultimate capacity and size of the <br />overall project, the draft on the stream may vary depending upon the types of use to <br />which the ALP water will be applied. See City of Westminster v. Church, supra. To the <br />extent that approval of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe's change of use to M&I uses will <br />affect the timing and duration of ALP diversions, other stream users are entitled to terms <br />and conditions to prevent injury. <br /> <br />13.. The Stipulations to Amend the 1991 Consent Decrees and Change <br />Applications do not result in any expansion of either the ALP water right or the Ute <br />Tribes' allocations of water from ALP so long as the quantification of reserved water <br />rights established in 1991 are incorporated into this decree as conditions. <br /> <br />14. Substitute benefits, as authorized by the 2000 Settlement Act <br />Amendments, cannot be afforded to the Ute Tribes in the absence of amendment of the <br />1991 Consent Decrees. Applicant's Ex. 1 (2000 Settlement Act Amendments); see <br />Stipulation for Amendment to Consent Decree. The 2000 Settlement Act Amendments, <br />and correspondingly, the Stipulations for Amendment to Consent Decree, change the <br />description of each Tribes' ALP water rights to an ALP allocation "with an average <br />annual depletion not to exceed 16,525 acre-feet of water." Change Applications; <br />Stipulations to Amend. Describing the water rights in terms of depletion limits is <br />. necessary in order for the Tribes to participate in the ALP project as reconfigured under <br />federa11aw. See Applicant's Ex. 1 (2000 Settlement Act Amendments). <br /> <br />15. With respect to the Change Applications fIled by the Ute Mountain Ute <br />Tribe, the Court concludes as a matter oflaw that the 1991 Consent Decrees limit the Ute <br />Mountain Ute Tribe's diversions for beneficial use ofM&I water to Ii deemed amount of <br />27,066 afper annum historically consumed. Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent <br />Decrees) at Stipulation to a Consent Decree, ~6.A.iii.b. Furthermore, the Court concludes <br />as a rnatter oflaw that the 1991 Consent Decree limits the timing and duration of <br />diversions by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to that specified in the monthly percentage <br />distributions table found at ~6.A.iii.a. of the Stipulation to a Consent Decree. Applicant's <br />Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent Decrees) at Stipulation to a Consent Decree, ~6.A.iii.A. The <br />Court concludes as a matter of law that the establishment of historic consumptive <br />quantity and establishment oflimitations as to timing and duration of use of water will <br />preserve the stream conditions as contemplated in 1991 when the water rights were <br />decreed by consent. Therefore, there is presently no evidence of any injurious impacts <br />resulting from approval of the Change Applications. Correspondingly, there is presently <br />no evidence of any injurious impacts resulting from approval of-the Stipulations to <br />Amend in relation to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. <br /> <br />16. The Court concludes that the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe's change in use <br />from Agricultural Irrigation uses and M&I uses to only M&I uses is a change to a type of <br />beneficial use. <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />