C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38

Home Browse Search

• (gage number 09114500) located just upstream of the whitewater course is 550,200 acre -feet based on the entire 75 years of record available (10 \1910 to 9 \1928 and 10 \1944 to 9\2001), which represents about 29% of the total gaged flow passing the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado (gage number 09152500) or at roughly the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. While relatively small by comparison, this represents sufficient water to provide for a reasonably sized transmountain diversion project comparable in scale to the more recent transmountain diversion projects built by Denver, Aurora and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District that provide anywhere from a couple of thousand acre -feet annually to as much as 120,000 acre -feet in a given year. The water that would be protected by the proposed RICD water right is 157,693 af/yr, or 41% of the total flow at the whitewater course during the May through September time period. Protecting this amount of water when considered in conjunction with other water uses in the Upper Gunnison Basin and along the mainstem downstream, in my opinion, further impairs the already limited possibility of any transmountain diversions occurring upstream of the proposed RICD water right. As indicated earlier, there are very few reasonable cost transmountain diversion opportunities remaining. This observation was further supported by a presentation prepared by the Colorado River Water Conservation District which displayed the transmountain diversion projects already in place and the limited opportunities for development of any further transmountain projects from the headwater areas. • One final observation and that is a water right is not a necessity for the UGRWCD to have a viable whitewater course. We would note that rafting has occurred on the Gunnison River from Almont, Colorado all the way down to the upper end of Blue Mesa Reservoir for may years. A kayak course existed on the Gunnison River for many years and may still exist downstream of the current whitewater course. This is because of there are several major water rights downstream which can call water through the whitewater course, including the Redlands, Gunnison Tunnel and Blue Mesa Reservoir. • Furthermore, the 1975 exchange agreement between the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users, the UGRWCD and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation when coupled with the r fill right for Taylor Park Reservoir held by the UGRWCD already provides considerable protection for the whitewater course. Thus, it is not in the least bit unreasonable for the whitewater course to rely on the operation of these senior water rights to provide - for - . water supply for the whitewater course without further impairing opportunities to develop Colorado's compact entitlements upstream of the whitewater course. We would note that the City of Lyons, Colorado recently built a kayak course on the North Fork of the St. Vrain River which operates without the benefit of water rights because the downstream uses pretty much assure that adequate water is available for the course to operate. Based on the foregoing discussion in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 of this report, in my opinion the adjudication and administration of the proposed RICD water right will • impair to some further degree the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlement. The adjudication and administration of the proposed RICD water right will further utilize the waters of the state of Colorado, but not to the extent that maximum utilization of the waters is 11 of17