PUB00001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

upon Mr. Johnston's testimony and certain exhibits, the Court makes the following findings and conclusions:' a. The Bureau of Reclamation does not release water from the CRSP units solely for the purpose of hydropower generation nor does the Bureau of Reclamation release water from the CRSP reservoirs for any single purpose. The releases serve multiple purposes. It is clear that the Aspinall unit has decreed water rights for the purposes of domestic, municipal, irrigation, stock watering, industrial, hydropower, flood control, piscatorial, wildlife protection and recreational purposes. (Exhibit 1105, Tabs 4 and 87.) There are times when releases are' made from the Aspinall reservoirs in quantities exceeding the amount required by senior downstream users. But said releases often satisfy other purposes of the Aspinall unit: flood control, minimize ice jams, protect the Dolores and Dallas Creek reservoirs from calls otherwise required for the benefit of endangered fishes, regulation of river flow, as well as for wildlife, fish and recreational purposes (recognized under the 1968 Act as primary purposes), and hydroelectric power generation. These purposes are recognized in absolute decrees issued by this court, and the Court hereby recognizes them as senior rights entitled to call for water which the Applicant would otherwise utilize to supply its project. b. The Bureau construes 43 U.S.C. S620(f) as not impeding a call of the River for the direct flow and storage power rights of the Aspinall Unit. No call has been made on the Gunnison River for the Aspinall unit in prior years, because the authorized purposes of the Unit were never in jeopardy. The Bureau now takes the position that power generation is not an incidental purpose but rather it is equal to other primary purposes. In the future, the Bureau intends to make calls on the River for its direct flow rights and its storage rights. The Court accepts this position, except to the extent that the plain meaning of the exception for "domestic and agricultural purposes" as stated in 43 U.S.C. S620(f) mandates otherwise. c. The Court recognizes that Mr. Johnston's testimony was at variance with deposition testimony by Wayne Cook, who at the time of trial was retired from his position as Regional Supervisor in the Water and Land Resources Division of the Bureau of Reclamation. However, Mr. Johnston testified that after the taking of Mr. Cook's deposition, meetings were held which included the Bureau's Regional Director, the Regional. Solicitor and the Department of Justice as well as Johnston. These meetings were held for the precise purpose of resolving the official position of the Bureau with respect to the use of direct flow rights and storage rights under the CRSP general- ly, and with respect to the Aspinall Unit specifically, and the applicability of 43 U.S.C. S620(f) vis-a-vis the Aspinall Unit. His testimony, as outlined above, was based upon said meetings, and therefore, the Court accepts Mr. Johnston's 31