Union Park Application Denied - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UPPER GUNNISON Spring 2001 Water News Union Park Application Denied On November 20, 2000, the Colo- rado Supreme Court issued a land- mark decision ending Arapahoe County's effort to build a 900,000 acre -foot reservoir at the headwa- ters of the Taylor River, in the Upper Gunnison River basin. The proposed reservoir would have been Colo- rado's second largest, diverting and storing water from tributaries to the Taylor and East Rivers. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected all of the Union Park Reservoir Project proponents' argu- ments and affirmed the district court's previous ruling. In affirming the lower court's 1998 decision, Justice Kourlis, writing for the Court, stated that "...the Gunnison River Basin does not contain enough unappropriated water for the Project ". The proposed project would have diverted water from the headwaters of the Taylor River across two mountain ranges for eventual delivery to thirsty residents in the southern Denver metro area. Consisting of a complex series of pipelines, pump stations, and tunnels, the storage project was intended to provide out -of -basin users with approximately 100,000 acre -feet of Gunnison River water per year. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court's finding that only 15,000 acre -feet of unappropriated water would be available for the project on an annual basis. Central to the out- come of the case was whether or not senior federal hydropower use of water downstream could "call out" Arapahoe County's proposed uses. (In the event of a call, water rights that are senior in priority must be satisfied prior to junior rights receiving water). The Supreme Court ruling is the latest chapter in a battle that began in late 1986 when the Natural Energy Resources Company initially filed in water court on components of the Union Park Project. In 1988, NECO sold the project rights to Arapahoe County, who then filed an amended application for water rights to support the current project configuration. The project quickly attracted widespread opposition locally and across the state. Governmental entities, water districts, environmental groups, and local landowners were among the 30 parties that filed legal objections to the proposal. A water court ruling in 1991 regarding the availability of water for the project was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. A second water court trial held in 1997 was followed in 1998 with another appeal to the Supreme Court. In 1990 and again in 1998, the Upper Gunnison District sought an increase in its mill levy to pay for the mounting legal costs associated with opposing the project. The Colorado River Water Conservation District, Gunnison County, the City of Gunni- son, the State of Colorado, and the United States also contributed sig- nificant resources over the past decade to oppose the project. Although the Supreme Court re- cently found that not enough water is available for appropriation at the Union Park Project points of diver- sion, it did note that there may be available yield in the Aspinall Unit. Aspinall Unit storage water is cov- eted by a number of entities seek- ing water including hydropower in- terests, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, boating and recreation interests, and in -basin water users. Predict- ing the next turn of events is diffi- cult, however, it is likely that Front Range water interests will continue to pursue new water supplies to meet their demand for water. The Upper Gunnison District board of directors is committed to continuing its efforts to protect the basin's water resources by whatever means are necessary. Union Park — Gunnison, Colorado