PUB00004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Gunnison: A Basin In Balance CD salvo in a bitter and tortuous struggle for control of a significant share of the waters arising in the Upper Gunnison Basin. The Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County later acquired NECD's interests and, in 1988, filed an amended application for water rights for the project. Judge Robert Brown in Water Division 4 later denied this application in 1991, after a six-week trial. Arapahoe County appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court and won a reversal. A second trial was held in water court and again Arapahoe County's application was denied. Arapahoe appealed again, but this time the trial court's denial was sustained. Arapahoe was seeking to store about 900,000 AF in Union Park Reservoir for transport to the Front Range by means of a pipeline capable of carrying over 300,000 AFA. West Slope interests saw the obvious threat of such a massive export of water from its basin of origin: a dramatic change in the current way-of-life and limits on the basin's future. This threat united basin groups with often disparate interests-irriga- tors; cities; fishing, rafting and other tourist industries; the United States; the Upper Gunnison District and River District; and conservationists-to mount a coordinated defense of the Upper Gunnison basin. The big question in this decade-long litigation was whether there was suffi- cient unappropriated water available in the Upper Gunnison to support Arapahoe's application. The answer given by the Colorado Supreme Court was a resounding "no." A detailed account of this serpentine litigation can be found in Appendix 1, the Saga of Union Park. Here, we summarize the key findings of fact and conclusions of law that are now the law of the Gunnison River and of the state of Colorado. In short, the Union Park litigation established that: 1. Notwithstanding that as much as 1,800,000 AFA leaves the basin annually, there is less than 15,000 AFA of unappropriated water available in the Upper Basin at the points of diversion for which Arapahoe County had applied. This is far less than needed to support even a small trans-moun- tain project. 2. The Bureau is entitled to use the full decreed rights it holds under state law for the Aspinall Unit, including for fish and wildlife, recreation, and hydropower. The Bureau puts all of the water that it is entitled to use under its state decrees to beneficial uses. 3. The Bureau does not release water from the Aspinall Unit for any single purpose, but for the multiple purposes authorized in CRSPA and by the Unit's water rights. To do so is a lawful use of the Bureau's state decrees. 4. With the exception of water available under the 60,000 AFA subordination for in-basin use only, Gunnison water is unavailable to other users with more junior priorities. 5. The UVWUA:s water rights for the Gunnison Tunnel do not have to be satisfied by releases from Aspinall Unit storage. This means that the Gunnison Basin Water . 15 .