Laserfiche WebLink
<br />historic flow quantity, and advocates that the Court find that the <br />reasonable contemplated draft of the Tri-County Direct Flow Project <br />if it were built at all, would be 1,465 cfs, rather than 6,060 cfs. <br />In this regard, Arapahoe points out that about 1.0 million acre <br />feet of water enter the Aspinall Unit every year, and yet the <br />demand of the Tri-County project (at 6,000 c.f.s.) would be <br />4,342,770 acre feet per year (ie. four times the flow of the river <br />at the Lazear gauge). But it must be recognized that even if <br />Arapahoe's analysis based upon a maximum flow of 1,465 c.f.s. is <br />used, said flow requires 1,049,860 acre feet of water per year, and <br />this is essentially equivalent to the entire inflow of the Aspinall <br />Unit pointed out by Arapahoe. <br /> <br />147. Further, the very argument that there is insufficient <br />flow in the river to satisfy the Tri-County Project decrees for <br />6,060 c.f.s. would seem to acknowledge that the river is over- <br />appropriated, with the result that there is not sufficient unappro- <br />priated water available for the Applicant's project. The Court <br />realizes that the argument can be made that even though the amount <br />of the direct flow of the water is not adequate at a given point, <br />nevertheless there may be unappropriated water developed upstream. <br />However, the Tri-County Project includes a reservoir with a <br />capacity in excess of 72,000 acre feet, and thus has the ability to <br />store water to develop the power head of 6,000 c.f.s. Therefore, <br />the project would have the right to store water to permit the full <br />utilization of its decrees, and thus the Court concludes that it is <br />improper to model the Tri-County Bydropower rights at less than <br />their fully decreed amount, because such a position is at variance <br />with the amount legally claimed under the decrees. These present <br />cases (86-CW-226 and 88-CW-178) are not the proper forum in which <br />to challenge the amounts decreed under the Tri-county Bydropower <br />rights, or to raise issues which should be considered in a reason- <br />able diligence application regarding said rights. <br /> <br />148. Conditional water rights also exist for the Upper <br />Gunnison Project. The storage rights alone exceed 80,000 acre feet <br />of water, although CRSPA anticipated that only about 60,000 acre <br />feet would be utilized. The Upper Gunnison Project rights were <br />modeled by Mr. Helton, who assumed 40,000 acre feet of depletions <br />above Blue Mesa Reservoir associated with this project consistent <br />with the original anticipated demand of those rights. (EXhibit <br />182, the 1959 Economic Justification Report for the Aspinall Unit). <br />Mr. Spronk also modelled certain of these rights, the East River <br />Canal and Taylor River Canal, even though the Court cancelled said <br />canals in its Judgment in 88-CW-183. However, Mr. Spronk's <br />analysis demonstrated that the inclusion of these conditional <br />rights had no effect on the yield of the Union Park Project in <br />light of the other conditional rights which were also modelled. <br /> <br />149. The conditional water rights for the Gunnison Tunnel <br />irrigation, domestic, and hydroelectric features described above <br />will also affect the yield to the Union Park Project. This is <br />particularly true with respect to the hydroelectric rights for 1135 <br />c.f.s. described in ~91 above. (Also see '\[111) Mr. Spronk modelled <br />both of the conditional water rights for the Gunnison Tunnel Hydro- <br />55 <br />