PUB00001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

have developed a local means of cooperation, combining water usage at several diversion points along the river system from their various decrees in times of shortages to attempt to maximize the total sustained production rather than calling the river. There have been limited internal calls on the East River, notably in 1977 and 1983. Based on this, and uncontroverted testimony tending to show a long and continuing pattern of cooper~tion among principal irrigation users in the East River valley, any reliance by the Applicant on the absence of calls on the East River system as an indication of water availability is unfounded. 129. The senior irrigation decrees in the Upper East River valley, at nearly the same time annually, take command of the stream to the extent they can call down any junior appropriator, e.g. the Applicant, to fulfill their existing irrigation decrees. The testimony of Mr. Trampe, largely substantiated by Mr. Spann, was that on a year-in, year-out basis, the complex of irrigation rights on the Lower Brush Creek and the complex of irrigation. rights beginning at the Verzuh-Young-Bifano Ditch and extending down through the East River No.2 Ditch would cOlllllland the stream as of at least July 1, in some cases even earlier. While this testimony was not, based on expert engineering work, the Court recognizes the substantial practical experience on the East River drainage represent~d by both Mr. Trampe and Mr. Spann and finds their testimony to be reliable. Both of these locations are immediately downstream of five new proposed alternate points ,of diversion of Applicant on East River, Copper Creek, and Brush Creek, but upstream of the proposed Cement Creek point of diver- sion. 130. Notwithstanding the actual facts as they exist in the drainage, an examination of WRC's Scenario F, for instance, reveals that the flow points for the said five new proposed alternate points of diversion are shown as making substantial diversions in the months of July, August and Septernber--the same months during which the ranchers will be competing for the limited water avail- able. (Refer to flow points 6, 10, 28, 33 and 38 in Scenario F, Exhibit 454) For these reasons, it is obvious that the modeling with respect to these points of diversion is inaccurate and unreliable and therefore, the Applications for the said points of diversion are dismissed. F. MODELLING EAST RIVER AND COPPER CREEK PROPOSED DIVERSIONS. 131. The private instream rights in the East River and Copper Creek are owned primarily by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) and are located at the points of diversion described in the Amended Application on East River and Copper Creek. However, by virtue of the Applicant I s stipulation with RMBL, the Applicant agreed to move its proposed points of diversion on the East River and on Copper Creek to points about 3 miles downstream. This was done shortly before trial without seeking to amend the applications, so there has been no resume' publication regarding the new points of diversion. Given this status of the rights, the Court must conclude that the former points of diversion 51