Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a. to apply the "law of the Colorado river" which includes <br />certain interstate compacts, <br /> <br />b. to recognize certain federal rights and agreements <br />associated with the Aspinall Unit on the Gunnison River {which <br />is comprised of three reservoirs--Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and <br />Crystal}, the Taylor Park Reservoir and the Gunnison Tunnel <br />{features of a federal reclamation project which supplies <br />irrigation water to the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users <br />Association} and an unquantified federal reserved right for <br />the Black Canyon, and <br /> <br />c. to consider minimum in-stream flow rights of the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, as well as certain private <br />minimum instream flow rights in the Taylor River and its <br />tributaries. <br /> <br />14. As a result of the pre-trial motions mentioned above, the <br />Court entered a number of orders which established a framework <br />within which evidence was to be presented regarding the modelling <br />of water availability and regarding the extent to which the <br />Applicant would have to demonstrate compliance with permitting <br />requirements as prerequisites to the issuance of the conditional <br />decrees sought. <br /> <br />15. Because of the complexity of the issues and the lack of <br />precedent, the Court, on the basis of certain motions for reconsid- <br />eration, modified and refined some of said Orders, so that the most <br />recent amendments to said orders, together with the Court's Case <br />Management and Pretrial Orders, became the law of the case. <br />Because of the sheer volume of data and materials bearing on the <br />many issues in these cases, the issues were bifurcated for trial. <br />As a result, the threshold issue of "water availability" was tried <br />first. This Decree addresses that issue and some closely related <br />"permitting" issues regarding the Applicant's legal eligibility to <br />obtain three federal approvals which concern water availability <br />(ie. the impact of the need for special use permits from the United <br />States Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, and the impact <br />of the Endangered Species Act). <br /> <br />16. Some of the significant holdings by the Court in its <br />pretrial orders which were to guide counsel in their preparation <br />for trial included the following: <br /> <br />a. "(T)he operative facts of the case must be determined as <br />of April 15, 1991, or earlier." (1/8/91 Order) <br /> <br />}).. The Applicant may not establish water availability by <br />relying on the prospect of Durchasing water or water rights <br />owned by senior appropriators in order to eliminate the call <br />of those rights. (9/14/90 Order, p. 12) <br /> <br />c. "Federal approval will be required before the Applicant <br />can utilize Taylor Park Reservoir as a fore})ay to serve the <br />Applicant's pumping facilities." (9/14/90 order, p. 14) <br /> <br />7 <br />