Laserfiche WebLink
<br />diversions would affect only the timing of flows in the <br />Taylor River, and not the total amount of water available <br />in the river. (Leak, June 10). <br /> <br />4) The 82CW340 water right will rarely, if ever, be in <br />priority because of the senior call of the Aspinall Unit. <br /> <br />5) The minimum and maximum flow rates in Case No. 82CW- <br />340, which were the result of a stipulation between the <br />parties in that case, were not based on any finding of <br />optimum stream flows. (See ~~ 119-120 also) <br /> <br />6) These flow rates are not binding on the United <br />States or other persons who were not parties to Case <br />No. 82CW340. <br /> <br />h. Applicant has assumed that it is obliged to release <br />water from Union Park Reservoir into Taylor Park Reservoir in <br />order to achieve the minimum flows decreed il+ Case No. <br />82CW340, and has modeled an outlet from Union Park Reservoir <br />. into Taylor Park Reservoir this purposes. As se,t forth <br />herein, the minimum and maximum flow rates decreed in Case <br />No. 82CW340 do not apply to the water right application in <br />this case. Water availability in this case is not to be <br />determined in relation to those minimum and maximum flows. <br />However, even if those flow requirements did apply in this <br />case, Applicant would be unable to comply with the 82CW340 <br />stipulation because it has no contract with the United States <br />which would allow it to install outlet works in Taylor Park <br />Reservoir. Such operations would require the Applicant to <br />construct physical facilities in Taylor Park Reservoir to <br />control the reservoir space in order to accoDllllodate these <br />releases, and to control the outlet works of the reservoir in <br />order to ensure that these releases were passed through the <br />dam into the Taylor River. Applicant has no such rights as <br />against the United States, and water availability cannot be <br />premised on these assumptions. See pp. 13 - 15 of this <br />Court's September 14, 1991 Order on Crystal Creek's Rule 56(h) <br />Motion. The decree in Case No. 82CW340 does not establish <br />Applicant's right to construct this facility for the purposes <br />of this separate case. See, Citv of Grand Junction v. Kannah <br />Creek Water Users Ass'n, 192 Colo. 279, 557 P.2d 1169, 1171 <br />(1976); State Enoineer v. Smith Cattle. Inc., 780 P.2d 546, <br />549 (Colo. 1989); Enlaraed Souths ide Irrioation Ditch Co. v. <br />John's Flood Ditch Co., 116 Cola 580, 183 P.2d 552, 555 (1947) <br />(Decree conclusive only as to water right at issue). No other <br />outlet works from Union Park Reservoir exist which would allow <br />it to comply with the stipulated flow rate$. <br /> <br />154. The effect of many major conditionally decreed water. <br />rights in the basin is represented by Mr. Spronk' s Scenarios 2, 4A, <br />4B, 4C, and 5B. The Court finds that these scenarios present <br />conservative estimates of the yield to the Union Park Project, in <br />that the estimated project yield would be less if more than the <br /> <br />59 <br />