My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9450
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9450
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:01:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9450
Author
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.
Title
Gunnison Basin Water
USFW Year
2003.
USFW - Doc Type
No Panacea for the Front Range.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Moving Blue Mesa's Marketable Yield: A Myth <br />December 15, 1961.76 These water rights are to serve multiple purposes, including <br />domestic and municipal, irrigation and stock watering, industrial, hydropower devel- <br />opment, flood control, fish and wildlife protection, and recreation. <br />In Union Park II, the Water Court for Division 4, in the context of determining <br />whether the 60,000 AFA subordination was available to Arapahoe County, addressed <br />the place of use of water developed by the Aspinall Unit as follows: <br />It is clear from reading the decrees for the Curecanti [Aspinall] <br />Unit and the Upper Gunnison Basin Project, that the findings contem- <br />plated uses and development of water within the Upper Gunnison <br />Basin, and no mention is made in any of the decrees of any intention <br />to develop water resources for trans-basin diversion." <br />As established in the Union Park litigation, virtually all of the water impound- <br />ed by the Aspinall Unit already is in use. Thus, any diversion of water to the Front <br />Range, without return flows, will of necessity hurt in-basin interests and would be <br />inconsistent with the decrees for the Aspinall Unit. <br />On January 26, 1962, the River District transferred to the United States all the <br />Aspinall Project water rights it had acquired under the above decrees. This put the <br />U.S. in the same position, with the same rights and obligations that were vested in <br />the District by the decrees, which were to meet purposes within the basin. Moreover, <br />the assignment states as follows : <br />This assignment is made by the District and accepted by the United <br />States upon the condition that the water rights assigned will be utilized <br />for the development and operation of the Curecanti [Aspinall] Unit in a <br />manner consistent with the development of water resources for benefi- <br />cial use in the natural basin of the Gunnison River.7B <br />The decrees and assignment create a legal presumption that use of water <br />impounded by the Aspinall Unit is restricted to the Gunnison Basin. <br />C. Marketable Yield and the Union Park Opinions <br />In the Union Park I litigation judge Brown found that the marketable pool was <br />to be put to use inside the Gunnison basin: <br />CRSPA accomplishes its purpose of "storing water for beneficial use" <br />by having developed a marketable yield that is available for sale within <br />the upper basin for irrigation, domestic, municipal or industrial use or <br />for release to the lower basin for beneficial consumptive use within <br />that basin.79 <br />In Union Park II, the judge initially stated: "The Court finds that the BUREC <br />has a marketable yield of 240,000 acre-feet of stored water for sale to water users <br />throughout the state."" <br />Gunnison Basin Water • 19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.