PUB00001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

purposes)." [Emphasis supplied] On the other hand, a very important economic objective of the Curecanti unit from its inception was the development of hydroelectric power generating potentialities along a 40-mile section of the Gunnison River. (See: The 1959 Report, Exhibit 182, p. 1) [See: !29 of this decree, supra. ] 62. For the following reasons the Court reaffirms its prior holding that the generation of hydroelectric power is in fact a primary purpose of the Aspinall unit. a. Clearly power generation is a beneficial use, and once decreed, it would be entitled to call against junior decrees. Vranesh, Vol. 1, Colorado Water Law, S3.2, Page 144; Sternber- ger v. Seaton Mountain Elec. Licrht. Heat & Power Co., 45 Colo. 401, 102 P. 168 (1909). ' b. Arizona Power Authoritv v. Morton. 549 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1977) clearly recognizes hydropower as a primary purpose under the provisions of 43 U.S.C. S620. c. The 1959 Economic Justification Report (Exhibit 182, pages 1, 17 and 20-24) demonstrates the importance of hydro- electric power to the success of the Aspinall unit. The power feature of the Aspinall unit was an important aspect of the study which recognized rapidly increasing needs for energy and power throughout Colorado and other states in the Colorado River Basin. The study report acknowledged the importance of power as a revenue source, and concluded that the Aspinall unit (with only. two reservoirs) would generate an power benefit of nearly $3.7 million annuallv over a 100 year period. (Exhibit 182, pages 20-24) The Court concludes that in the absence of the hydropower purpose, the Aspinall unit would probably not have been found to be economically feasi- ble, and thus would not have been constructed. Thus, it must be concluded that the generation of hydropower was and is, in fact, a primary purpose of the Aspinall unit. 63. Having concluded that the use of water by the Aspinall unit for hydroelectric power generation is a primary purpose, and generally is entitled to impose a call against junior water rights, a question still remains with respect to the provisions of 43 U.S.C. S620(f) which states that: "neither the impounding nor the use of water for the generation of power and energy at the plants of the Colorado River storage project shall pre- cl ude or impair the appropriation of water for domestic or agricultural purposes pursuant to applicable state law." 64. The question posed by this language is: even if hydro- power is a primary purpose, did Congress nevertheless intend to preclude a call for the use of water for hydroelectric power generation as against iunior water rights decreed for domestic and 29