Laserfiche WebLink
<br />annually and have amounted to as much as 608,030 acre feet in a <br />single administrative period. The exercise of the direct flow <br />rights averaged 642,961 acre feet annually and has amounted to as <br />much as 1,343,341 acre feet in a single administrative period <br />(Exhibit 2040). <br /> <br />165. The Court finds that it is appropriate to maintain <br />historic storage contents in Blue Mesa Reservoir before considering <br />any excess water to be available to Applicant. The Court finds <br />that Mr. Spronk's modeling of the 800,000 acre foot active storage <br />capaci ty of Blue Mesa Reservoir somewhat high. Mr. Helton's <br />modeling of the 603,000 acre foot maximum historic releases is more <br />reasonable and appropriate to account for and satisfy the absolute <br />domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural water rights of <br />the United States before allowing any diversions by Applicant. <br /> <br />166. Mr. Helton evaluated the yield of the Union Park Project <br />by assuming that the water rights for the Aspinall Unit would be <br />called. Mr. Helton found that by recognizing (a) a Blue Mesa <br />direct flow demand of 2,500 c.f.s. for power purposes, (b) a Morrow <br />.point direct flow demand of 5,070 c.f.s. for power purposes, and <br />(c) an annual storage accrual in Blue Mesa Reservoir of up to <br />608,030'acre feet that water would have been available to the Union <br />Park Project during on Iv two vears of the fortv vears during water <br />years 1950-89. On an average annual basis, the water available to <br />the Union Park Project averaged only 2,546 acre feet. He later <br />revised this estimate (based on subsequent pretrial orders of this <br />court), and eventually concluded that as much as 27,512 acre feet <br />of water would be available to the Union Park Project. (Exhibit <br />2041 and 2041A.) This conclusion was reached without consideration <br />of development of any conditional water rights, except the AB <br />Lateral. Had he modelled other conditional water rights, the yield <br />of unappropriated water available to the Applicant's Union Park <br />Project would have been substantially reduced. <br /> <br />167. The Court finds that the Spronk model, while not perfect, <br />is of value in confirming Mr . Helton 's results. Mr. Spronk' s model <br />with respect to conditional water rights, by and large was consis- <br />tent with 'the Orders of this Court. His final modelling efforts <br />using only existing absolute water rights as constraints, concluded <br />that a yield of 48,590 acre feet would be available to the Unibn <br />Park Project on an average annual basis. (Scenario SA) And after <br />imposing constraints for selected conditional water rights, ,he <br />concluded that about 10,SOO acre feet of water would be available <br />on an average annual basis. (Scenario 5B) This latter scenario <br />includes the modelling of the impact of conditional water rights <br />for the East River Canal and the Taylor River Canal--which this <br />Court has ~ancelled. (See i92 above regarding the conditional water <br />rights for the Upper Gunnison Project; and 1 14S). Nevertheless <br />there are many other conditional rights which could have (and <br />should have) been modelled, so the Court concludes that if Mr. <br />Spronk's use of 800,000 acre feet of active storage capacity for <br />Blue Mesa Reservoir was excessive, said excess is nevertheless more <br />than offset by the impact of conditional rights which he did not <br />model. <br /> <br />63 <br />