Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />In the event the court is inclined to consider it, the proffered deposition testimony merely <br />shows that Mr. Slattery acknowledged that the proposed recreational in-channel diversion would <br />cause impacts on upstream junior water rights under some circumstances but that the water right will <br />not prevent the State of Colorado from fully developing its compact entitlement (see State Ex. M at <br />p. 80 regarding this latter point). The proffered deposition appears to be fully consistent with Mr. <br />Slattery's trial testimony. <br />Recall that, at trial, Mr. Slattery quantified the impact of the District's water right, including <br />the mitigative effects of the District's agreement not to exercise it whenever the Gunnison Tunnel <br />and/or Redlands Power Canal water rights were calling or could call. Exhibit UG-13 expresses this <br />impact in terms of percentage of time that the District's water right would place a call on upstream <br />water rights. The exhibit shows that the proposed water right, with the "no-call" provision, could <br />be expected to place a call on average from 4 to 8 percent of the time during four of the two-week <br />periods, from 27 to 35 percent of the time during two of the two-week periods, and zero percent of <br />the time during the last four two week periods.21 The quantified impact shows that the proposed <br />21 Mr. Seaholm agreed with UG-13 with two exceptions. The first exception, <br />concerning the averaging technique used by Mr. Slattery, resulted in a very slight increase of the <br />percentage of expected calls during some of the two weel: periods, with no effect whatsoever <br />during those periods of time when the "red bar" showed that the Gunnison Tunnel was calling. <br />The second exception concerned the disagreement over whether or not the Aspinall Unit direct <br />-27-