PUB00001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

93. The Court recognizes that it ordered that operative facts material to water availability would to be determined as of April 15, 1991. (Pretrial Order of January 8, 1991) The Court I s Judgment in the above diligence case (88-CW-183) was entered after April 15, 1991, so technically the cancellations ordered by said Judgment should not be considered. However, the Court concludes that it will recognize the cancellations for the purpose of the present decree. This is done to try to recognize what is actually the "oresent condition of the river" at the time of trial. (Pre- trial Order of May 6, 1991) Also, it was the assessment of Opposer's expert, Mr. Spronk, that in view of other conditional rights which were modelled, the inclusion of the East River Canal and the Taylor River Canal would have no significant affect on the yield of the Union Park Project anyway. (See i148 below) Further, even after cancelling the storage right for the Ohio City Reser- voir, the Upper Gunnison Project still holds conditional storage rights for 88,083 acre feet, and this exceeds the 60,000 acre-foot capacity anticipated by the CRSPA le9islation (even without considering the Fruitland Mesa Project and the Bostwick Park Project). (See it 29(b) and (d) above) C. APPLICANT'S HYDROPOWER DECREE 82-CW-340: 94. A conditional decree which is very. important to the analysis in the present cases is one granted for the Union Park Reservoir in case 82-CW-340. This decree was obtained by NECO, the predecessor in interest to the Applicant herein, and is now owned by the Applicant in this case. The decree approved a reservoir with a storage capacity of 325,000 acre feet of water to be used for hydropower purposes, and other non-consumptive purposes. (The Court . recognizes that in case 85-CW-96, 4450 acre feet of the decree obtained by NECO was transferred to another reservoir--see !6(a) above.) The reservoir claimed by the Applicant in the present cases (86-CW-226 and 88-CW-178) actually is an enlargement of the reservoir site claimed in 82-CW-340. The Decree in 82-CW-340 contemplates that sources of water for the Union Park Reservoir would be flows from Lottis Creek (on which it would be constructed) and Willow Creek, as well as water pumped from the Taylor Park Reservoir. The decree provides further that water will be released from Union Park Reservoir through its primary pumping/generating facilities and into Taylor Park Reservoir in generating mode, where said water shall again be diverted by the same facilities in pumping mode into Union Park Reservoir for reuse as part of the hydroelectric power project. 95. Based upon a stioulation between NECO and Opposer Perkins Sams, the Decree also provides for the owner of Union Park Reservoir to undertake an active and conscious effort to work with the United States Bureau of Reclamation to maintain minimum and maximum flows in Taylor River below Taylor Park Reservoir. These stream flows are to be maintained by virtue of releases from Union Park Reservoir into Taylor Park Reservoir. The owner of Union Park Reservoir must also maintain minimum and maximum flows in Lottis Creek directly through releases from Union Park Reservoir. (See: i123 above re the effect of said stipulation.) 41