Rebuttal Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District; Case No. 4-02CW038

Home Browse Search

to have a release of water above the reach of the whitewater course. The 1975 Taylor Park Reservoir Operation and Storage Exchange Agreement cited by the River District contemplates management of the first-fill Taylor releases for the benefit of Upper Gunnison Basin users. The second-fill releases are decreed for use in the Upper Gunnison Basin only. Thus, Taylor Reservoir releases should not be cited as a source to effect development of the 20,000 acre-foot depletion allowance below Blue Mesa Reservoir. There is no evidence that the District's non-consumptive recreational water right would interfere with any other as-yet-unidentified upstream release. Thus, the available evidence indicates that the District's recreational in-channel water right will not adversely affect the development of the 20,000 acre-foot depletion allowance, whether such development involves direct diversions and storage below Blue Mesa Reservoir, exchanges and reservoir operations at Blue Mesa Reservoir, or exchanges and reservoir operations upstream of the whitewater course. The 40,000 Acre-foot Depletion Allowance Of the 40,000 acre-foot depletion allowance, it is undisputed that approximately 7,000 acre-feet has already been developed. To the extent that the 7,000 acre-feet of existing development occurs by virtue of water rights senior to the RICD water right, the RICD water right will not cause any adverse impacts. This leaves an undeveloped depletion allowance of only 33,000 acre-feet above Blue Mesa Reservoir. Based on average year flows at the Gunnison River near Gunnison, Colorado gage from May 1 through September 30 using the 1975-2000 period of record and subtracting adequate flows to allow for actual historic diversions by the Kelmel- Owens No. 1 Ditch and the 75 Ditch, there is a difference of approximately 150,000 acre- feet between the flows claimed by the District's recreational in-channel water right and the average gauged flows. Although some of the 150,000 acre-feet may not be available to other users (because some of it may consist of Taylor Reservoir releases and some of it may be water that is subject to a call by, for example, the Gunnison Tunnel or non-RICD users above Blue Mesa), the rnagnitude of the difference suggests that a significant portion of the average year water would in fact be available for development of the remaining 33,000 acre-foot depletion allowance. In above average years, there would be an even greater difference between the flows claimed by the RICD water right and the gauged flows. (For example, in the maximum run-off year in the 1975-2000 period, the difference is six or seven hundred thousand acre-feet.) In such above-average and average year conditions, the RICD water right would not call out upstream users who were diverting under their junior water rights. In such conditions, although upstream junior water rights may be required to provide augmentation water to satisfy calling water rights like the Gunnison Tunnel, it is not the RICD water right itself that is requiring the augmentation plan. When one further considers that at least some of the 33,000 acre-foot depletion allowance could be developed outside the May through September period andJor outside the area upstream of the whitewater course (for example, in the Tomichi Creek, Cebolla, or Lake Fork drainages), it is evident that even more water is available for development of the remaining 33,000 acre-foot depletion allowance and that the 8