Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C. MODELLING THE TAYLOR PARK RESERVOIR and 86-CW-203 <br /> <br />116. The United StateS has a decree for Taylor Park Reservoir <br />for a first fill in the amount of 111,260 acre feet. See !71 above. <br />The Gunnison District owns a water right granted in 86CW203for a <br />second fill in the amount of 106,230 acre feet, which water right <br />will be assigned to the United States when the decree becomes a <br />final judgment. [Exhibit 422] (See: ~84 above)' The manner of <br />operation of the Reservoir is substantially affected by the 1975 <br />Agreement. See ~~74-83 above. Since the construction of the <br />Aspinall Unit, the Reservoir has been operated in substantially the <br />same manner to accomplish the uses and purposes as established by <br />the decrees and the 1975 Agreement. The decree in 86CW203 <br />established with particularity the stream flows which will optimize <br />the fishery in Taylor River and the water rights awarded therein <br />were to be used to maintain such flows. <br /> <br />117. In this Court's September 14, 1990 Order in these cases, <br />this Court advised the Applicant that it must obtain Federal <br />approval before it could use Taylor Park Reservoir as a forebay and <br />that such use would constitute a major operational change which <br />could be made only with congressional approval. The factual <br />premises upon which that Order was based was that the Applicant <br />would have a pumping plant installed in Taylor Park Reservoir and <br />that the Reservoir would be used both as a forebay and as an <br />afterbay in connection with a pumped storage power project. As of <br />the date of trial (and more importantly, as of the deadline of <br />April 15, 1991), the Applicant had not obtained said approval from <br />the United States for the Applicant to make ~ use of Taylor Park <br />Reservoir. Notwithstanding this uncontroverted fact, the subject <br />Applications seek a water right for the use of the Reservoir as a <br />forebay and afterbay, although each WR~ model simply models it as <br />an afterbay by using a tunnel from Union Park Reservoir to release <br />waters into Taylor Park Reservoir. Such distinction is without <br />substance and constitutes a use of a facility belonging to the <br />United States which cannot be accomplished without written appro- <br />val. (See authorities in Court's Order of September 14, 1990.) In <br />addition the written approval of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users <br />Association is required, and said approval has not been obtained <br />either. <br /> <br />118. In WRC scenarios which did not consider the refill right <br />in 86CW203, Taylor Park Reservoir was essentially kept full. The <br />testimony was that it need not be kept full but it needed to be <br />kept at a constant level for the purposes of the model. The <br />testimony of the-United States is that historically there is\some <br />fluctuation and they could not keep the level constant and achieve <br />the purposes of the first fill decree and the 1975 Agreement. The <br />evidence indicated that the model was operated so that in only four <br />years of the entire study period were there any releases from the <br />first fill decree to make up shortfalls at the Gunnison Tunnel. <br />The Applicant was able to accomplish this by making releases from <br />the Union Park Project through the Tunnel to Taylor Park Reservoir <br />and then taking the water through the Reservoir and down to Blue <br />Mesa Reservoir where it was credi ted to the account of the <br /> <br />47 <br />