Laserfiche WebLink
<br />basins involved. The Applicant applies said approach to its own <br />modelled yield of 12,000 acre feet as the average annual water <br />available at the Willow Creek Component, and then calculates a true <br />yield (based on area only) of 6,774 acre feet. Applicant acknowl- <br />edges that even this figure should be reduced by 10% to take into <br />account the operation of the decree in 86-CW-203. However, the <br />Court does not find that this analysis is supported by Mr. Spronk's <br />testimony, and thus in the absence of competent evidence that the <br />willow Creek Component was properly modelled, the Court must <br />conclude that this feature of the Applications should be dismissed. <br /> <br />138. As an alternative argument, the Applicant contends that <br />the willow Creek Component claimed in its Applications should not <br />be dismissed because it holds the decree in Case No. 82CW340 which <br />recognizes a right for 340 c.f.s. for the "Willow Creek Collection <br />System" and the "Bertha Gulch Tunnel". This decree for 340 c.f.s. <br />does not control the resolution in Case Nos. 86CW226 and 88CW178 of <br />the issue of whether there is sufficient water legally available to <br />the Willow Creek Component. . <br /> <br />139. The decree in Case No. 82CW340 is not res iudicata as to <br />the legal availability of water to the Willow Creek Component in <br />Case Nos. 86CW226 and 88CW178. In order for a prior water rights <br />decree to be conclusive of an issue in a later action, there must <br />be identity of subject matter, identity of the cause of action, <br />identity of the parties to the action, and identity of capacity for <br />which or against whom the claim is made. Citv of Westminster v. <br />Church, 445 P.2d 55 (Colo. 1968); State Encrineer v. Smith Cattle, <br />780 P.2d 546 (Colo. 1989). <br /> <br />140. There is neither identity of the cause of action nor of <br />the subject '"matter between the decree for 340 c.,f.s. for the <br />"Willow Creek Collection System" and the "Bertha Gulch Tunnel" in <br />Case No. 82CW340 and the issue of the legal availability of water <br />to the Willow Creek Component in Case Nos. 86CW226 and 88CW178. <br />First, the decree issued in Case No. 82CW340 is for an in-basin <br />hydroelectric project, whereas the decrees sought in Case Nos. <br />86CW226 and 88CW178 are for a transmountain diversion project. <br />Further, it appears that the decree issued in Case No. 82CW340 for <br />the "Willow Creek Collection System" and the "Bertha Gulch Tunnel" <br />is for a different collection system and tunnel than the Willow <br />Creek Component for which a decree is sought in Case Nos. 86CW226 <br />and 88CW178. <br /> <br />141. The application for a water right for 340 c.f.s. for the <br />Willow Creek Component should be dismissed. <br /> <br />B. MODELLING CONDITIONAL WATER RIGBU <br /> <br />142. WRC modeled certain conditional water rights which are <br />listed on the last two pages of Exhibit 438. Their theory was to <br />determine for each conditional right what they considered to be the <br />"contemplated draft". They defined "contemplated draft" as a <br />measure of the likelihood and feasibility of a conditionally <br />decreed project to be constructed. They looked at conditional <br /> <br />53 <br />