Laserfiche WebLink
<br />operating WRC's model were the subject of testimony extending over <br />several days. (for additional background data see ~21 above) <br /> <br />101. The model operates through a series of "flow points" at <br />which independent numerical calculations were made based on <br />projected inflows above that point, decreed diversions or historic <br />depletions accUmulated to that point, various Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board (CWCB) instream flow demands and certain <br />downstream constraints as applied through the network function of <br />the model. The model output is expressed in terms of total yield <br />to the Union Park Project based on a series of scenarios using <br />different assumptions. The model was undergoing a continuing <br />process of evolution and the final Scenario F was not completed <br />until four days prior to trial. WRC had never before constructed <br />a network program for computer analysis of the magnitude and <br />complexity of ,that developed for this case. At one point, the <br />principal programmer in WRC worked nearly thirty hours trying to <br />complete and debug the model. The debugging effort was not <br />entirely successful as evidenced by the need for additional runs <br />for correction purposes just prior to the commencement of trial. <br /> <br />B. MODELLING OF THE ASPINALL UNIT AND DOWNSTREAM RIGHTS <br /> <br />102. The theory of the Applicant is that historical releases <br />from the Aspinall Unit have not been made for beneficial uses <br />recognized by the laws of this State and the applicable Federal <br />statutes. For instance, Applicant contends that 43 U.S.C. 620f <br />does not permit calls for water for power purposes as against <br />upstream depletions for domestic and agricultural uses. (See !66 <br />above) Further, Applicant theorizes that flood control , river <br />regulation and protection against Lower Colorado River Basin <br />Compact calls are not beneficial uses under Colorado law. The <br />theory continues that if releases are made for those purposes the <br />United States cannot place a call to refill the vacancy in the <br />reservoirs caused by such releases. <br /> <br />103. The exception to the foregoing theory of Applicant may be <br />their treatment of water rights for the Gunnison Tunnel and the <br />minimum stream flow for the Black Canyon. One of the undisputed <br />issues in this case is that the United States holds an unquantified <br />decree for a minimum stream flow through the Black Canyon to <br />maintain in an unimpaired condition the scenic, aesthetic, natural <br />and historical objects of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison <br />Monument, as well as the wildlife therein, but that for purposes of <br />these cases the flow shall be quantified at 300 c.f.s. <br /> <br />104. The unquantified minimum flow right in the Black Canyon <br />National Monument is a right senior to the Union Park Project, and <br />it was modelled at 300 c.f.s. Nonetheless, the theory of the <br />Applicant was that if the direct flow of the Gunnison River through <br />the Black Canyon is less than 300 c.f.s. the shortage must be made <br />up from storage in the Aspinall Unit and could not callout or <br />impair the storage of water in the Union Park Project. However, <br />the Black Canyon right and the Aspinall Unit rights are separate <br />and distinct water rights. Thus, this theory is inconsistent with <br /> <br />43 <br />