My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:49 PM
Creation date
8/3/2009 10:57:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2G
Description
Related Reports
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Author
The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
Title
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
The Gunnison: A Basin In Balance <br />Gunnison Tunnel's rights may call out any rights junior to it, including <br />those of the Aspinall Unit, when natural flows in the river fall below the <br />UVWUAs direct flow rights. <br />6. The biological opinions for the Dallas Creek and Dolores projects commit <br />up to 148,000 AFA from the Aspinall Unit to help recover endangered fish <br />populations. This water is separate from and in addition to the 300 cfs <br />assumed in this case to be committed to the Black Canyon reserved right. <br />7. Federal approval is required before relying on the use of Taylor Park <br />Reservoir as a forebay to serve hydroelectric pumping facilities, as <br />Arapahoe had proposed. <br />8. Both the first- and second-fill decrees for water stored in Taylor Park, <br />including the conditions for release designed to optimize fish conditions <br />below Taylor Park, are entitled to full recognition when determining water <br />available for appropriation above Taylor Park. <br />9. The private instream flow rights in the Basin must be factored into the <br />computation of water availability. <br />These findings and conclusions are binding on all parties, whether or not they <br />participated in the Union Park litigation. They establish conclusively that there is <br />insufficient unappropriated water available from the Upper Gunnison to support even <br />a small trans-basin export of water to the Front Range. <br />D. Conclusion <br />The Upper Gunnison is a basin in balance between traditional and economi- <br />cally productive irrigation and other uses, including the production of hydroelectrici- <br />ty, recreation, the environment, and enabling Colorado to use its share of Colorado <br />River water while standing ready to meet downstream compact calls. In short, exist- <br />ing, legally exercised water rights make use of virtually all of the water that arises in <br />the Basin. <br />Yet some still look to the Gunnison for water to meet the growth and sprawl <br />on Colorado's Front Range. They do so because of a concept called "marketable <br />yield." Marketable yield refers to water stored in Blue Mesa Reservoir already put to <br />use to meet the purposes of the Aspinall Unit, water that some believe may be avail- <br />able for purchase from the United States. In the next chapter, we show why the con- <br />cept of Blue Mesa's marketable yield as a source of water for Colorado's Front Range <br />is an illusion. <br />• 16 • The Land and Water Fund oF the Rockies
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.