PUB00001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2) The Court's March 25, 1991, Decrees in 90-CW-92 and 90-CW-110 upholding the validity of certain private minimum instream flow decrees issued in 1975 in cases: W-1985, W-1986 and W-1991 (addressed in the order in 90-CW-92) and W-1987 (addressed in the order in 90-CW-I10). 3) The Court's Decree issued in May 1991 in 88-CW-183 wherein it found reasonable diligence with respect to certain conditional decrees for the Upper Gunnison River Project (owned by the Colorado River Water Conservation District), but significantly, the Court cancelled certain conditional decrees in said project, including decrees for the East River Canal and the Taylor River Canal. 17. Premises for Analysis of Existing Rights: As part of the law of the case, the Court informed counsel that it defined exist- ing water rights as including all absolute decrees and "major conditional water rights" which had priority over the Applicant's proposed project. {See the Court's pretrial orders of April 4 and May 6, 1991, regarding existing water rights.} The Court recog- nized that in some ways a basin-wide analvsis of water availability was a matter of first impression without statutory or case law to provide well-defined guidelines. Thus the Court indicated a will- ingness to let each party present its theory of the case regarding water availability," . so long as the theory reflects the 'present condition of the river' and not some future condition of the river." (Paragraph 4(g) of Order of 5/6/91 on Existing Rights.] However, while permitting some flexibility of approach, the Court also indicated that in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary it expected the parties to model water availability on the basis of the following principles: a. The model was to reflect the impact of existing water rights senior to the priority dates claimed by Arapahoe. b. The Court utilized April 15, 1991, as the date to determine the quantity of a given right. c. As a general rule, the Court expected the parties to model existing senior rights on the basis of the face amount of the decrees for said rights, while taking into account the decreed purpose of the right -- ie. taking into account for example, that a direct flow irrigation right is not diverted continuously 365 days per year, but rather is utilized only during the irrigation season (commonly from April through October), and that it is diverted only as needed to maintain a given crop. To permit reliable analysis in this regard, the Court authorized the parties to utilized historic data as a guide to the actual use of a given right. Further, the Court established the following guidelines: 1) In quantifying an absolute right, the Court recog- nized that the original decreed amount of an absolute right could be altered by a formal abandonment proceeding or by being re-quantified through a change proceeding or by 9