Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3) Arapahoe's engineers in various scenarios co~sidered <br />the future demand of both the high and moderate or average <br />growth of the Upper Gunnison Basin, in a manner substan- <br />tially similar to that used by CWRPDA. This approach <br />utilizes representative conditional water rights to <br />simulate the future demand for water in the basin. Under <br />present conditions, considering only the water ricrhts which <br />are actual Iv in oDeration at the time of trial, (and not <br />conditional decrees which have not yet been made absolute), <br />there would appear to be a substantial amount of unappro- <br />priated water in the Gunnison River Basin. This is <br />supported by the fact that on the average, 1.8 million acre <br />feet of water per year from the Gunnison River Basin are <br />delivered to the Colorado River near Grand Junction. <br /> <br />4) However, the Applicant I s approach is at variance <br />with the approach recommended by the Court which was to <br />analyze individually the major conditional water rights <br />defined as being a direct flow right of 10 cfs or greater <br />or a storage right of 1,000 a!=re feet or greater. The <br />Court continues to believe that its recommended approach is <br />legally necessary, in spite of the Applicant's representa-. <br />tions that a "basin-wide demand" approach is preferable. <br />The reason for this is that each "major conditional water <br />right" represents a specific legal interest of the water <br />user who owns it, and this present litigation is not the <br />appropriate forum in which to question the likelihood that <br />eventually the conditional water right will or will not be <br />made absolute, except in the situation where two or more <br />conditional rights seek diversion in essentially the same <br />location, and then the most senior should be recognized to <br />the exclusion of the others. <br /> <br />5) The Court generally concludes that the Opposers I <br />experts more faithfully adhered to the modelling of the <br />conditional water rights as recommended by the court. <br /> <br />III. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL RIGHTS <br />BEARING ON WATER AVAILABILITY <br /> <br />(ABSOLUTE RIGHTS) <br />A. THE ASPINALL UNIT <br /> <br />24. The water rights of the Aspinall Unit taken as a whole <br />have the greatest impact on the availability of water in the <br />Gunnison.River Basin. Thus it is necessary to review the Unit's <br />history and the provisions of the Colorado River Storage Project <br />Act (CRSPA), the federal law which created it. <br /> <br />1. The Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA) <br /> <br />25. In 1956, Congress authorized the Colorado River Storage <br />Project (CRSP) (43 U.S.C. S620] in order to initiate the comprehen- <br /> <br />17 <br />