PUB00004

• Year: 2003
• Title: Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Author: Land and Water Fund
• Description: Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
• Publications - Doc Type: Other

8

the pool is "subject to change or even elimination based upon a variety of factors." Motion for Amendment
ofFindings, Moy 18, 1998, ot 3.

72 At one point in the Union Pork I trail, the testimony went cs follows:

Q: Where does that 240,000 acre-feet come from?

A [Mr. Johnston]: It is a number that was developed by Reclamation looking at the amount of water
that was available to the Aspinall Unit and subtractin9 off the historical depletians and the
other How requirements and project purposes, and you end up with a marketable yield ;n
ttlOt approximate range.

Q: Just testing my understanding of thct, Mr. Johnston. The 240,000 acre-feet is water that's I
left over after the ather purposes of the Aspinall Unit have been met; is that right?

A: Yeah, that's the amount that could be marketed, yes.

Trial Transcript from Union Park I, ct159-60.

73 The maiority of iustices in the Supreme Court case Cclifornia v. United States held that section 8 01 the
1902 Reclamation Act (the Bureau's Organic Act) requires the Bureau to conForm to state water law, both in
when appropriating or purchasing water and ;n its distribution of water. California v. United States, 438
U.S. 645, 678 11978).

.
.
It
It
It
It
It
It
It

74 The water rights governed by this decree, issued in Case No. 6981, are those far the Aspinall Unit (for-
merly called the Curecanti Unit) end are comprised of the starage and direct flow rights for the Blue Mesa,
Morrow Point, and Crystal Reservoirs and Power Plants. These water rights are located in the former Water
District No. 62, encompassing that portion of the Gunnison River Basin lying generally south of the Gunnison
River between the City of Gunnison and the Town of Cimarron, and also including the course of the
Gunnison River through the Black Canyon to the boundary between the Counties of Delta and Montrose.
See March 30, 1960 Decree in Case No. 6981; see clso 1998 Water Court Opinion at 48.

75 The water rights governed by this decree, issued in Case No. 5590, include not only the Curecanti Unit
features described in endnote 1, but also the Fruitland Mesa Unit, which is comprised af: Soap Park
Reservoir, Soap Park Bench Flume, Crystal Creek Tunnel; the Ohio Creek Unit comprised of: Castleton
Reservoir, Ohio Creek Canal, Taylor River Canal; the East River Unit comprised of: East River Canal,
Fruitland Highline Canal Enlargement and Extension. These wcter rights are loccted in the former Water
District 59, encompassing that portion of the Gunnison River Basin lying north and east of the Gunnison
River (from a point near the town of Cimarron), and includes the drainages of the East River and the Taylor
River. See Jan. 27, 1961 Decree in Case No. 5590; see also 1998 Water Court Opinion at 48.

I

76 The water rights governed by this decree, issued in Case No. 5591, include those in the Tomichi Unit
and the Cochetopo Unit. The Tomichi Unit included four projects: Ohio City Reservoir, Monarch Reservoir,
Quartz Creek Canal and South Crookton Canal. The Cachetopa Unit included ei9ht projects: Bancna
Ranch Reservoir, Flying M Reservoir, Upper Cochefopa Reservoir, Cochetopa Meadows Ditch Enlargement,
Cochetopo Canal, Pass Creek Canal, Los Pinos Canal end Stubbs Gulch Canal. These water rights are
locoted in former Water District 28, essentially encompassing the natural drainage of the Tomichi River Itne
eastern border of which drainage is the Continental Divide). The Tomichi River, after being intersected by its
tributary, Cochetopa Creek, joins the Gunnison River near the City of Gunnison. District 2B is bounded on
the narth by District 59 and on the west by District 62. See December 15, 1961 Decree in Case Na.
5591; see also 1998 Wcter Court Opinion at 48.

.
.
.
.
.