My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00001
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:38:41 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:57:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1992
Title
Transmountain Diversions in 1992 and Arapahoe County Transmountain Litigation of Gunnison River Water
Author
Hillhouse/Hultin/Spaanstra, P.C.
Description
Presentation addressing considerations applicable to a proposed substantial transmountin diversion project and issues about the Gunnison River litigation
Publications - Doc Type
Historical
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
513
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />b. The Gunnison River at Gunnison: a recognized 150 c.f.s. <br />minimum streamflow as the Gunnison River runs past the City of <br />Gunnison. <br /> <br />c. The Redlands Canal Power Diversion: An absolute direct <br />flow right in the quantity of 750 c.f.s. which is diverted <br />from the Gunnison River near the City of,Grand Junction, well <br />downstream from the Aspinall Unit. <br /> <br />d. The City of Gunnison: The City of Gunnison has a variety <br />of water rights to supply the needs of its inhabitants. A <br />summary of the quantities of the absolute decrees in this <br />regard include: <br /> <br />-in excess of 3.0 c.f.s. diverted by wells (with 1981 <br />priority dates); <br />-64 c.f.s. for the Gunnison Town Ditch (1880 priority <br />date under a 1906 adjudication); <br />-15 c.f.s. for the Gunnison Town Pipeline and <br />Reservoir (1883 & 1913 priority; 1941 decree) <br /> <br />e. Spann Ranches: absolute direct flow irrigation rights in <br />various ditches with decreed rights totalling in excess of 300 <br />c.f.s. (including interests in ditches which divert more than <br />250 c.f.s. out of the East River). <br /> <br />f. Trampe Ranches: absolute direct ;low irrigation rights <br />in various ditches with decreed rights totalling in excess of <br />300 c.f.s. (including interests in ditches which divert more <br />than 275 c.f.s. ,out of the East River). <br /> <br />(EXISTING CONDITIONAL WATER RI~S) <br /> <br />88. The Court authorized the parties to develop and present <br />their respective theories in the modelling of conditional rights. <br />Rather than to select and study individual conditional water <br />rights, the Applicant's approach in modelling conditional decrees <br />[as recognized earlier in ii 17 & 23(b)] was to examine the needs <br />of the Upper Gunnison Basin for water over and above the amount <br />already decreed absolute. On the other hand, the Opposers experts <br />by and large selected a few critical individual conditional rights <br />to perform their analysis. <br /> <br />89. In point of fact, there are a large number of conditional <br />water rights in the Gunnison River Basin which affect the avail- <br />ability of water for the Union Park Project. The total amount of <br />conditionallv decreed rights in the entire Basin is 28,908 c.f.s. <br />for direct flow rights and 2,528,893 acre feet for storage rights. <br />(Exhibj,t .1132) The total amount appropriated by the major <br />conditional rights (defined as "in excess of 10/c.f.s. or 1,000 <br />acre feet of storage") is 15,625 c.f.s. for direct flow rights and <br />1,138,811 acre feet for storage rights. These totals represent <br />water rights throughout the entire basin, and some reduction would <br />be necessary to avoid duplication (where two rights seek the same <br />site and the same water) and also adjustment for return flow water. <br /> <br />39 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.