Laserfiche WebLink
<br />must seek to contract with the United States for the use of water <br />which has been appropriated for these purposes. The Applicant <br />admitted on February 8, 1990, that it would require a contract from <br />the United States for the use of this water. (Exhibit 1089). And <br />this Court held in a pretrial order that it would not recognize <br />"purchased water" as available unappropriated water to satisfy the <br />Applicant's claims for water under the subject applications. <br />(Court's Pre-trial Order of 9/14/90, page 12) <br /> <br />38. The Opposers have urged the Court to find that all the <br />waters of the Upper Gunnison River Basin have now been appropriated <br />under decrees awarded to the Aspinall Unit and the Upper Gunnison <br />project. However, this Court concludes that the evidence does not <br />support this proposition. On the other hand, as will be seen at <br />the conclusion of this Decree, the Court is satisfied that the <br />evidence does not support a finding that there is any more than <br />20,000 acre feet of unappropriated water available for appropria- <br />tion at the points of diversion claimed by the Applicant. * To make <br />up the difference which the Applicant would need to provide an <br />adequate supply of water for its project, it. appears that the <br />Applicant would have to contract with the United States for water <br />appropriated by, and stored in, the Aspinall Unit reservoirs, but <br />purchased water cannot be used by the Applicant to support its <br />applications in these cases which seek decrees for unappropriated <br />waters. <br /> <br />39. All water which is released from Blue Mesa and Morrow <br />Point Reservoirs will be discl1arged through the hydroelectric power <br />generating plant at Mo=ow point Dam, up to the capacity of that <br />plant. Mo=ow Point Reservoir has a decreed direct flow hydropower <br />.water right in the amount of 5,450 cubic feet per second. During <br />the 1975-1988 study period, the maximum rate of flow at which water <br />was discharged through the Morrow Point power plant was 4,580 <br />c.f.s. Issues regarding the right of the United States to place a <br />call for hydropower purposes are discussed later herein. (!i59-68 <br />below) <br /> <br />3. The 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act: <br /> <br />40. In 1968, Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Project <br />Act to provide a "program for the further comprehensive development <br />of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin and for the <br />provision of additional and adequate water supplies for use in the <br />upper as well as in the lower Colorado River Basin." Pub. L. 90- <br />537, 82 Stat. 885, 43 U.S.C. 1501. The Act clarified and supple- <br />mented the purposes set forth in CRSPA. In particular, the 1968 <br />Act made recreation and fish and wildlife uses Drimarv purposes of <br />CRSP reservoirs.' The authorized purposes listed by the 1968 Act <br />are as follows: (see top of next page) <br /> <br />----------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> <br />* [This finding is limited to the availability of water at the <br />Doints of diversion claimed bv the ADtilicant, and does not attempt <br />to make findings regarding the quantity of otber unappropriated <br />water, if any, in the Upper Gunnison River Basin.] <br /> <br />23 <br />