9450 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Moving Blue Mesa's Marketable Yield: A Myth Fortunately, as Chapter 3 shows, there is a wide array of less-expensive and more practical alternatives available to Front Range water providers that obviate the need to tap into the basin's so-called "marketable yield." Even if export of water from the marketable yield were lawful, the existence of these alter- natives makes it poor public policy for the Front Range to let its uncontrolled and water- wasteful growth injure the existing and future uses of water in the Gunnison basin. A. Origin of Marketable Yield The concept of "marketable yield" first appeared (at least in public) in the 1991 trial , •. i court proceedings in Union Park I. Ron Johnston, from the Bureau's Grand junction office, testified that the United States could .4 sell water out of Aspinall from within its stor- age rights in Blue Mesa Reservoir, an amount that he estimated to be 240,000 AF. Although The Gunnison River. enriching the Basin Mr. Johnston sometimes described the environment and its communities 240,000 AF as a "firm yield"" (i.e., a depend- --photo by Jeff Widen able supply of water every year), he also indi- cated that marketable yield easily could be reduced to zero due to Colorado's delivery obligations under the Colorado River Compact." Mr. Johnston also could have added that Aspinall has obligations to release water for the recovery of endangered fish, sat- isfying water rights for the Black Canyon, and other project purposes. Elsewhere in his testimony, Mr. Johnston offered a useful definition for marketable yield-water left over in the Aspinall Unit after all other project purposes have been met." B. Award and Assignment of Decrees for the Aspinall Unit The water rights decrees for the Aspinall Unit-when first awarded to the River District and when later assigned by the River District to the United States- reveal an intent that water developed by the Aspinall Unit stay inside the Gunnison basin to meet the Basin's needs. CRSPA makes no statement about Aspinall's marketable yield; it neither requires nor prohibits the use of water impounded by Aspinall for trans-mountain diversion. Because state water law applies to the issue of marketable yield " (with the exception of pre-emptive federal environmental statutes discussed below) we must look to the decrees the United States holds for the Aspinall Unit to establish the legal limits for use of water impounded in the Aspinall Unit. The River District obtained water rights for the Aspinall Unit through water rights decrees issued on: (1) March 30, 196074; (2) January 27, 196175; and (3) • 18 • The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies