Laserfiche WebLink
<br />of its direct flow right. The <br />preserves the distinction between <br />rights of the United States and the <br /> <br />1975 Agreement appropriately <br />the storage and direct flow <br />Uncompahgre Project. <br /> <br />108. Under the 1975 Exchange Agreement, the UVWUA will be <br />entitled to callout the Union Park Project to satisfy the 1901 <br />direct flow water right whenever the natural ,flow of the Gunnison <br />River is less than the physical demand for water through the <br />Gunnison Tunnel. Under the 1975 Exchange Agreement, the UVWUA and <br />the united States agreed to a methodology in which the water <br />available to satisfy the direct flow water right associated with <br />the tunnel is determined by computing the natural flow of the <br />Gunnison River without regard to changes in storage of the Aspinall <br />Unit and the flow of the Taylor River above Taylor Park Dam. The <br />UVWUA may divert water released from storage in the Aspinall Unit <br />reservoirs only in accordance with the 1975 Exchange Agreement. <br /> <br />109. The Court finds that the 1975 Agreement is consistent <br />with Colorado law and the purposes of both the Aspinall Unit and <br />the Uncompahgre Projects. In fact, the Court, in a separate ,case <br />(86-CW-203) recognized the 1975 Agreement and its purposes by Court <br />decree, and the rights established by said decree are senior to the <br />rights sought by the Applicant-in -the present cases. <br /> <br />110. The UVWUA has not waived its right to place a call on the <br />river to satisfy its direct flow right. Indeed, it did place such <br />a call in 1988. (Exhibit 128-A). Accordingly, no water may be <br />considered to be available to Applicant's Union Park Project at <br />times when the direct flow right for the Tunnel is not satisfied. <br />This includes times at which the UVWUA has historically drawn on <br />its supplemental supply of storage water, either in Taylor Park <br />Reservoir or in its account in the Aspinall Unit under the 1975 <br />Exchange Agreement. During these times, any diversions by the <br />Union Park Project would be out of priority. The Court finds that <br />Applicant's model has improperly allowed diversions by the Union <br />Park Project during these periods of time. By contrast, Mr. Spronk <br />and Mr. Helton have properly accounted for the direct flow rights <br />decreed to the Tunnel and have limited diversions by the Union Park <br />Project accordingly. <br /> <br />Ill. The Gunnison Tunnel also has conditional water rights in <br />the total amount of 1,135 c.f.s. for hydroelectric power generation <br />purposes. In accordance with the Court's earlier orders, these <br />conditional rights must be assumed to be developed in determining <br />whether water is available for Applicant. See S37-92-305(3), 15 <br />C.R.S. (1990 Cum. Supp.) The Court finds that the development of <br />this project, together with the 1901 priority, will result in a <br />continuous demand of water through the Gunnison Tunnel in the' <br />amount of 1,300 c. f. s. during the irrigation season from May <br />through October, and 1,135 c.f.s. during the non-irrigation season <br />of November through April. These rights must be fully satisfied <br />before any water is deemed available to the Union Park Project, as <br />Mr. Spronk has done in scenarios 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 58. (See: i149 <br />supra. also) <br /> <br />45 <br />