Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' ;> <br /> <br />8. Green Mountain ReservoirlHeenev landslide case. <br /> <br />On August 7, 2003, the Colorado River Water Conservation District and several other west- <br />slope entities filed a petition against the Bureau of Reclamation in U.s. District Court for <br />Colorado to enforce the provisions of the Blue River Decree. The west slope petitioners are <br />seeking changes of Bureau of Reclamation policy concerning the in1errelationships of the <br />replacement pool and power pool in Green Mountain Reservoir. <br /> <br />The court heard arguments on April 29 on the motions to dismiss the petition that had been <br />filed by the U.S. and Northern. The Court granted our motion to intervene on behalf of the <br />Division of Water Resources. The Court has yet to issue a written order explaining the terms of <br />intervention or ruling on the motions to dismiss, although it appears likely that some ofthe River <br />District's claims will go forward. <br /> <br />Green Mountain Reservoir administration issues. The Colorado River is dropping and a call <br />is expected this weekend. If the call is the 1941 junior Shoshone call, the question of whether <br />Green Mountain Reservoir can continue to fill will be ripe, The River District argues that all <br />upstream out-of-priority storage must be counted against the storage right at Green Mountain <br />Reservoir. If that position prevails Green Mountain Reservoir would have been deemed satisfied <br />as of June 25 and all inflows to the reservoir must be bypassed to meet the call. The effect <br />would be that Denver and Colorado Springs would owe more water to Green Mountain <br />Reservoir than in past years, but other west slope diversions would not be curtailed. Denver and <br />Colorado Springs argue that Green Mountain Reservoir can continue to fill until the reservoir is <br />physically filled regardless of the amount of upstream out-of-priority storage. Under this <br />interpretation, the amount of water that Denver and Colorado Springs owe to Green Mountain <br />Reservoir would be much less and the historic users pool in Green Mountain Reservoir would <br />replace the diversions of the water rights continuing to divert that are junior to the 1941 calling <br />right. <br /> <br />The State Engineer adopted a policy that compromised the two positions. The policy deems <br />that Green Mountain Reservoir is satisfied when upstream out-of-priority storage and Green <br />Mountain Reservoir contents equal the volume of their storage right, but Green Mountain <br />Reservoir may continue to store with a 1955 right in order to reduce the amount of water Denver <br />and Colorado Springs owe to Green Mountain Reservoir (the Green Mountain Reservoir storage <br />right has a 1935 priority). <br /> <br />9. Application of Citv of Central (Case No. 92CW168). <br /> <br />On April 2, 2004, the Division 1 Water Court ruled that while Central City may be diverting <br />its water rights out-of-priority with respect to calling rights, it is not diverting out-of-priority <br />with respect to the CWCB's right, because the CWCB's right is junior to Central City's rights <br />and historically has been satisfied due to a downstream senior call. The court held because the <br />CWCB cannot call out Central City's senior right, the CWCB cannot show injury to its vested <br />right, and is not entitled to protective terms and conditions in Central City's augmentation plan. <br />The Attorney General's Office filed a Notice of Appeal of this case with the Colorado Supreme <br />Court on May 14. The Supreme Court has not issued a briefing schedule in this appeal to date. <br /> <br />3 <br />