PUB00004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o Moving Blue Mesa's Marketable Yield to the Front Range: A Myth The Upper Basin's water has long been eyed for its trans- mountain diversion potential."' Most of these projects were pro- posed during the 1940s and 1950s-the heyday of huge federal water projects-near a time when Floyd Dominy (an outspoken advocate of large dams subsidized by the federal government) ran the Bureau and the "Iron Triangle" (comprised of the Bureau, members of Congress, and local project sponsors) was at the height of its influence. Anything seemed possible, whether or not economically or ecologically justified, because federal tax revenues would pay for it. These proposals ultimately foundered because of their huge cost and absence of economic need and also because Congress decided to build the Curecanti Unit (later renamed the Aspinall Unit) as part of the Colorado River Storage Project. By the mid-1980s, only two proposals remained: the Collegiate Range Aurora Project and the Union Park Project. Both have been put to rest: the water rights appli- cation for the Aurora Project was dismissed by Water Judge Brown in 1991" and Judge Brown's dismissal of the Union Park application was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in November 2000.'" The Union Park case made it clear there is insufficient unappropriated water in the Upper Gunnison Basin to support a trans- mountain diversion. But is there enough "surplus" appropriated water available for sale? Some contend there is, that 240,000 AFA of water, or even more, is available out of a "mar- ketable yield" from the Aspinall Unit." Our close review of the question reveals that, due to legal, political, and other reasons, it is unrealistic for Colorado's Front Range to rely on a "marketable yield." All water arising in the basin already is being put to full beneficial use, as Chapter 1 describes. Exporting this water from the basin would compromise these uses, especially in a prolonged drought. Exporting water from the Gunnison from the alleged "marketable yield" is likely unlawful under-water right decrees for the Aspinall Unit, which contemplated that water stored by the Aspinall Unit would be used in-basin only. Gunnison water must meet environmental purposes required by law, uses that would be infringed upon by an export of water to the Front Range. In a prolonged drought, our State's delivery obligations under the Colorado River Compact will leave little or no water on which to rely, rendering the economics and financing of an export of marketable yield extremely problematical. In addition, a water export to the Front Range would face daunting procedural hurdles under federal and local law. The common thread underlying all these issues: exporting Guncison water leaves no return flows in the basin. In contrast, new in-basin uses leave much or all of the water in the basin to support additional, downstream uses. Gunnison Basin Water . 17 .