Laserfiche WebLink
<br />@ <br /> <br />End Notes <br /> <br /> <br />57 See MOA between USFWS Director of the Recovery Program, Director of the Colorado Water <br />Conservotion Boord, and Area Manager of the Bureau Uune 5, 2002). <br /> <br />58 See Western Area Power Administration I"WAPA"), 2000 Operations Summarv. at 33 lavailable on-line <br />ct hijp:/ /www.wcpa.gov.media/pdf/20000ps.Sum.pdf). <br /> <br />59 lQ." ct 33, 140. <br /> <br />60 The three hydropower plcnts are part of WAPNs Salt lake City Inte9rated Projects. As a collective, the <br />Integrated Projects generated $146 million in revenue in FY 2000 based on 7.63 million MW-hours generat- <br />ed. WAPA 2000 Operations Summary ct 140. This translates to $19.14 per Me9awaij-hour or $19,140 <br />per Gigawaij-hour. If we cssume that the value of ener9Y generated by the Integrated Projects is averaged <br />across the system, the three dams of the Aspincll Unit created roughly $15,675,000 in revenue <br />1$19, 140/GW-hour multiplied by 819 GWhours). <br /> <br />61 Union Park II, 14 P.3d ct 337; see also 1991 Water Court Opinion, at 29, If 62. <br /> <br />62 Union Park II, 14 P.3d at 338. <br /> <br />63 See ~37-61-101, C.R.S., Art. IIIlal. <br /> <br />64 lQ.", Art. lII(aIl21. <br /> <br />65 This should be distinguished from NECO's interest in the decree in Case Number 82CW340, which sup- <br />ports the smaller project in Union Park described cbove, which it also conveyed to Arapahoe. <br /> <br />66 An early concept, known as the Gunnison~Arkansas Project (/IGunn-Ark"), was proposed by the Bureau in <br />1946. The Bureau suggested 835,000 AF could be exported annually from the Gunnison River to the <br />Arkansas River and Rio Grande, with 460,000 AFA to come from the Upper Gunnison River above the City <br />of Gunnison. A later version of the Gunn-Ark Project proposed to build a 400,000 AF reservoir at Almont, <br />as well as enlorging Taylor Park Reservcir to hold 750,000 AF labout seven times its present size), all for <br />export to the Arkansas River. Early configurations of yet another Bureau concept, the Fryingpan"Arkansas <br />Project ("Fry-Ark"), also contemplated a massive trans-mountain diversion from the Gunnison to the Arkansas <br />River. A 1953 report on the Fry-Ark concluded thct that 500,000 AFA might be trcnsported from the <br />Gunnison Basin. <br /> <br />67 Draft Management Plan, at 4-32. <br /> <br />68 Union Pork II, 14 P.3d at 345-46. <br /> <br />69 Rod Kuhorich, director of the CWCB, claims that there is 300,000 AFA in Aspinall "set aside" for con- <br />sumptive use in Colorado. See leijer from Rod Kuharich to Secretary of Interior Gale Norton IAug. 20, <br />2001). <br /> <br />70 Trial Transcript from Union Park I, at 160. <br /> <br />71 Ron Johnston stated: "[I]f Colorado decided to develop its full entitlement [under the Colorado Compact] <br />without marketin9 cny of this water, then the full 240,000 would be required to meet Compact [delivery] <br />requirements during the drought cycle." lQ." ct 124. During the trial court phase of Union Park II, the Upper <br />Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Colorado River Conservation District reminded the court that <br /> <br />.62. <br /> <br />The land end Water Fund of the Rockies <br />