Laserfiche WebLink
Y ? <br />? <br />expected impact of the requested right and ultimately agreed to restrict its calls to protect other <br />interested parties. (Vol. N, 31:18 - 32:1). <br />Upper Gunnison so crafted its application and later stipulation regarding restrictive calls that <br />the requested in-channel diversion would not have any impact on continued use of exchanges from <br />Blue Mesa Reservoir to respond to calls from the largely controlling Gunnison Tunnel or Redlands <br />Power C anal water rights, and would not cause new j unior users on the Ohio, East, and Taylor Rivers <br />to develop augmentation plans. (Vol III, at 1107-1108.) While new junior users on the Gunnison <br />River from the confluence of the East and Taylor Rivers to the whitewater park may have to propose <br />augrnentation plans, the amount of tixne that any new plan will actually have to be operated to <br />respond to RICD calls is considerably limited, as shown on Ex. UG-13. (Vol. IX, Ex. UG-13, <br />admitted at Vol. V, 24:6-9, and explained and discussed at Vol. V, 16:6 - 24:9). <br />The Upper Gunnison Board determined that applying for a recreational in-channel diversion <br />with the requested flows and agreed limits on calls comports with its obligation to promote <br />recreation as one of the water-related interests within its boundaries and with its mandate as a water <br />conservancy district, includang the water supply and augmentation needs of its constituents. (Vol. <br />II at 424 - 427). <br />During its analysis of the project, the Upper Gunnison's manager monitored the progress of <br />Senate Bi11216. (Vol. N, 148:22 - 149:5). Once it passed, she advised the Board that these new <br />statutory provisions recognized the water right that the County needed for the whitewater course and <br />explicitly authorized conservancy districts to apply for such rights. (Vol. IV, 84:21 - 85:10). <br />Because it represented a variety of water users within the basin, including lifelong ranchers, <br />5