Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />July 23, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />The opposition is attempting to rely upon the Aspinall Unit to defeat the Union Park Project in <br />the litigation, The Aspinall Unit was built under the CRSP A to assist in the development of the <br />Upper Basin states' apportionment under the Compact. The U.S. and the State are now asserting <br />that the U.S. can prevent all transbasin diversions based upon the Aspinall Unit, which is directly <br />contrary to the purpose of CRSPA. Further, it severely limits the ability of Colorado to use its <br />Compact apportionment. <br /> <br />We believe that the State's position is not in accord with the Compact, CRSPA or the State's best <br />interests. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss these issues with CWCB. <br /> <br />3. Possible Settlement of the Litigation. <br /> <br />We have met with the State and the U.S. several times, and have provided detailed settlement <br />proposals to attempt to address all stated concerns, as well as concerns voiced by other West <br />Slope opposition. We have never received any written reply from the State, and the only written <br />reply from the U.S. was a brief letter in which it was stated that the U.S. had no interest in <br />settling the litigation. We can make this correspondence available to the Board if you would like <br />to review it. <br /> <br />We believe that CWCB could facilitate discussions of the important Project. Arapahoe County <br />would appreciate CWCB reviewing this case on its merits. We would be willing to meet at your <br />convenience. <br /> <br />Thank you very much for your consideration. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~,}?~y <br /> <br />Marie Mackenzie <br />Arapahoe County Commissioner <br /> <br />Enclosure <br />