PUB00004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appendix o was obvious-to irrigation interests in the Gunnison and Uncompahgre valleys; to the city of Gunnison and towns within the Basin; to fishing and rafting and related tourist-based investment; to the United States, and its Aspinall and TPR reservoir rights; to the Gunnison District and River District (both of whom have responsibility to maintain and develop the waters of the Basin for the benefit of the region); and to environmentalists concerned about the impact of the project on natural systems and to the establishment of a principle that water necessary to maintain the web of life in the Gunnison could be taken to feed water-inefficient growth and sprawl on the Front Range. These interests, who at times had been in conflict with one another within the Basin, came together to mount a coordinated defense of the Upper Gunnison basin. B. Legal Context An applicant for conditional water rights in Colorado must, among other things, convince a water judge that it meets the following requirements; (1) that it has the requisite intent to put the water to beneficial use on the date on which it seeks to establish a priority for the water rights; (2) that its application is not speculative; and (3) that it can meet the requirements of the "Can and Will" statute. Absent meeting this burden of proof, the applicant may not obtain a decree for the water rights it seeks. The "Can and Will" statute became the focus of the court proceedings adjudi- cating Arapahoe's application. Issues related to "intent" and "speculation" were post- poned to a later phase of the judicial proceedings. The "Can and Will" statute pro- vides: No claim for a conditional water rights may be recognized or a decree therefore granted except that it is established that the water can be and will be diverted, stored, or otherwise captured, possessed, and con- trolled and will be beneficially used and that the project can and will be completed with diligence and within a reasonable time.'" The question in the Union Park litigation triggered by Arapahoe's filing in Case No. 86-CW-178 was whether its filing met this "Can and Will" test. C. The First Trial-Union Park I Pre-trial motions filed by lawyers on all sides of the case revealed a long list of issues to be addressed by the Court in order to ascertain compliance with this statute. These issues included: the project's economic and financial feasibility; the need for the project; the time frame in which the project was to be built; and the availability of water for the project. Judge Brown decided to address these issues in two phases. Phase 1 consisted of a trial on water availability and closely related permitting issues regarding three federal approvals bearing on water availability, namely Bureau per- mits, Forest Service permits and approvals required under the Endangered Species Act ("ESN). Consideration of all other issues were postponed until Phase 2, which, because of the rulings to come on water availability, did not and will not occur. Gunnison Basin Water .47.