|
<br />:3-1-
<br />
<br />! lFR i ".i \\' llF....rUr
<br />
<br />YlliU!1H:-'
<br />
<br />h'lIl'l
<br />
<br />-JRTlCU:: [.'PDA TL
<br />
<br />135
<br />
<br />.1pploj1ri~lli()1~. Thi<.; C:l"'C is :lhO\ltlhc hC~lrt an.d, 50111 of lhe ~ul~r~~do
<br />River, j\l"licn of Ihe Suprellle COllrt,_ because 11 we 10<;(' lh.c ~ 1I1l1110~1
<br />,lCI(-'-I"(:('1 oul or the Clltlni:;on 10 California, we're llever gOIng to get :t
<br />lMck. ,\nd if \\-'(> xccpt the position that the U1\~led Slates conlrols I.h'::,
<br />river hasin ,llHl (::J.1l dctcrmim: who C<1l1 appropnate and can d~-'terlllllle
<br />\klt l11<'r(' ,Ire not trallsb;1sin rliversions, then we've lost the n\"(~r, We
<br />rescn.T the rCllullH\t:-r of our time for rthllllai. Thank you
<br />
<br />QUESTION: Regardless of the modding ;lsSllmptiol1s you do Oil the
<br />refill, right?
<br />
<br />i<<.IR. SIMS: No, primarily it's because Aspinall is a senior right and ca~
<br />call out the Union Park Reser.roir, and therefore if Taylor Park wasn t
<br />taking the water, Aspinall would be taking the water,
<br />
<br />QUESTION: SO giv~n the opc..ration of all the state decreed, ri?h~ for
<br />their purpose, there s, what, b,OOO acre~feet left for appropnalJon.
<br />
<br />ivlR. SI!\'lS: That's correct. So we're not going to discHss Taylor Park
<br />anymore than that, just because it really doesn't nlake any difTerence.
<br />r\spil1~lI is the key. And the key 10 "\'~pinaJ1. 3.S I !laid, w::ts 620f. The
<br />state and th~ Uni.lcd St~tes,a~e both going t(~ a.p[~ear l~efo~e you today
<br />and argue that we are Dotn 111 agreemellt lIl~H 1\.1 <tp.tlloe '" argurtlent
<br />about 020f and hydro-use is JUS! wrong. And it's wrong for five hasic
<br />reasons. First of all, Congress did not intend to impose stricter
<br />conditions on CRSP reset\'oirs than the limitations placed on any
<br />hydro reseI',:oirs by the compact. Ail Congress intended \....as to put
<br />those same hydro restrictions, that the compact put on, on their Own
<br />reservoirs. Nothing more, nothing less. So when you look at it that
<br />way, you reaiIy have [Q underslallJ the corn pact, because the compact
<br />itself makes intrastate water matters off iimits. It doesn't purport [Q
<br />talk to thaI. There is one provision, article 4c of the 1922 compact, the
<br />Colorado River Compact, that makes it dear that intrastate-within
<br />the state of Colorado-the intra.~tatc water regulation issues, are
<br />completely left to the states, The Compact \vas not intended to have
<br />;my impact on that. Also, we .,vi!! show that Governor .Johnson, then
<br />the Governor of the state of Colorado, when CRSP was being
<br />considered in Congress, actually asked for restrictive intrastate
<br />provisions to be placed on the CRSP reservoirs. Specificaiiy he asked.
<br />he said, that if the CRSP reservoirs are allowed to obtain a hydropower
<br />right, we'll be in the same position that we are in in the Green
<br />Mountain/Dillon dispute. And he said. once the United States got
<br />hydro-rights for that reservoir, they were allowed to caU out upstream
<br />water rights, He asked them not to allow hydro-rights to be acquired.
<br />Congress specifically rejected that. When they were having the
<br />discussion in the committee here and Sandra Watkins (all of this is in
<br />my brief), what Sandra Watkins said, well, wouldn't your language
<br />restrict all hydro~generation on these CRSP reservoirs? And Governor
<br />Johnson said yes. So when they actually marked up the legislation.
<br />when they dealt with the legislation that was being discussed in that
<br />committee hearing, about ten days after Governor Johnson's
<br />statements, they struck out any language that referred to waters in the
<br />upper tributaries or in the states, and the reason they gave in the
<br />explanations for why they struck it out was to protect hydropower
<br />generation against other uses,
<br />
<br />~v!R. Sl~IS: Cood morning, my name is Steve Sims. I'm first as~i~t~l1{
<br />Atlom('\" Ceneral. I represent the Slate Engineer and the Dl\~lSJ.O!1
<br />Enginct:! for Water Division ,1. \Vilh me ,in the courtroom today IS th.c
<br />Attorney Geller;1! of Color:.ulo, Mr. Ken Sa1az3.r; also <11 cOUll,seltable IS
<br />special 'litigation counsel for the Department. of J~Stl~C, I-lank
<br />l\.-kshorcr, and Dick Bratton from the Upper GUIllllson Dlstnct. In the
<br />audience with us is lb.l Simpson, the State Engineer of the S~'1I,e of
<br />Coiorado, and WZlyne Schic!dt, tbe division engineer f~)f W~ier
<br />Division number 4. Arapahoe County in this case seeks to build UlIlon
<br />P;1rk RcscJ\'oir. Union Park Reservoir wlll be the second largest wat:r
<br />rig-ht in the state of Colorado-three times the size of Dillon ~eservOlr.
<br />'\;';tp',1ho(~ COUllty'S main problem in this case is, that UllIo,n Pa,rk
<br />Reservoir, the second largest right in the st3.~e, IS_ P~opo.s~~~ ~o ..o~
<br />located just immediately upstream frOlI1l.he :'~i?mall ~ru.t, "N!1lcn IS ll1C
<br />largest water right in the state of Col?rad:L I hIS ca";~ IS r.cally all about
<br />tbe priorit}' system. R(cogn~zing .'i,em?r r!?hts, the ,h.l~tonc use OfYl<:S~
<br />senior rights, and not allowmg a JUIllor nght to divert o\.:! of pnO,nl).
<br />III the simplest way, thaI's what this case is rcally, about. fhe AsplI1~ll
<br />Unit is real1y the key t.o water availability for Union P~rk. and 62?f In
<br />the hydro provisions are really the key to Ul:dcrstandmg t.he Aspmall
<br />rights. Before I get into that, let me Just bnefly comment on the t~n
<br />minutes of argument that we heard about T~ylor Par~ ReservOIr.
<br />Judge Brown kind of hit the nail on the head WIth those Issues to say
<br />'that even if all of Arapahoe County's argument on Taylor Park
<br />Res~n:oir was correct, that water that they deem to be available fO,r
<br />Union Park would only be able to be diverted by Union Park ~f
<br />Aspinall would not call. So it assumed, Taylor Park is only relevant If
<br />Aspinall iSH 't considered.
<br />
<br />QUESTION: Thal's because it's delivered into the Aspinall pool at the
<br />three reservoirs?
<br />
<br />\[R. SI/.-tS: That's correct.
<br />
<br />QUESTION: I'm a little concerned about the argument in the fact that
<br />it suggests to me that perhaps even though there's a theoretical
<br />240,000 acre.foot consumptive use allocation of that project, that the
<br />hydropower rights would be exercised within the state, perhaps even
<br />under the judge's ruling in the trial court, in preference to that
<br />consumptive pooL So what is your response to that?
<br />
<br />. - --."'~- -~ ~"--~'-':--
<br />
<br />"Y'-"~~"''''''''?'r<''~''r.-:-'''''''--:>-,i..,-~...~-.~:_--.-..,y-::,._"-----,:..~.....,~.....-..t-;"llJ
<br />
|