BOARD01411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 93 Page 7 Sen. Campbell introduced S. 2508, cosponsored by Sen. Allard. The State, tribes, water users, congressional staff, and representatives of the Administration resolved their differences relating to environmental sufficiency language, delinking from additional project facilities, and repayment by non-Indians and the language changes were incorporated into Sen. Campbell's bill. S. 2508, which passed the Senate by an 85-5 vote on October 25th. The legislation passed the House as a rider to an appropriations bill. This was a real team effort on Colorado's part. There is still much to be done and I look forward to our continuing to work together to make the settlement a reality. 10. Union Park. Colorado Supreme Court. Issue: Did the water court correctly determine the amount of water available for appropriation of water rights for the Union Park Reservoir Project? Decision: November 20, 2000. Discussion: The time for seeking cert from the U.S. Supreme Court has now past on this case, so this case is officially over. The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously upheld the State's position in this case. Significantly, the court agreed that the provisions of42 V.S.C. ~ 620f (the so-called hydropower subordination), applied interstate only. The court also determined that Arapahoe County could not claim benefits of the 60,000 acre foot subordination between BOR and the Upper Gunnison Basin and that limitation of the subordination to in-basin uses only was not an impermissible selective subordination. The Supreme Court did leave the door open to potential transmountain use of Aspinall Unit water. saying that Arapahoe County could seek a BOR contract for this water. 11 Golden Boat Chute Iitb!,ation, 98CW448, Division 1. Issue: Whether the court should grant an application for recreation flows up to 1000 cfs. Decision: Trial was held in Greeley on March 12-15. Discussion: CWCB argued that Golden had not demonstrated control when the flow of the stream exceeded 30 cfs because the structures were overtopped at that level. CWCS also argued that even if control had been demonstrated, Golden had failed to prove that the amount of water claimed was reasonable and appropriate for the purposed sought and that the water was diverted by a reasonably efficient structure. CWCS concluded its case in chief but Golden did not complete its rebuttal case. The case will be completed on May 10,2001 in Greeley.