<br />\44
<br />
<br />n~lr[R fA IV HI: \'IFH;
<br />
<br />VniUlIle .;.
<br />
<br />their com par! appOniOllll1C\ltS. [f the Feckral Governlllent were to
<br />lake the same posilion it's taking at the t\spina!! Unit at the other
<br />three primary storage units, there'd be no waleI' left available for
<br />appropriation in the l..Jppe:r Basin states. I think Am:ona u. California
<br />"'as vcry dear that one must look at the entire legislative scheme, the
<br />d.irect Congressional objectives, and the scheme for the storage and
<br />distrihution of water in determining how it should be interpreted.
<br />,\n<l tbat else, I think, is very enlighlellin~ on thi~ issue. We have with
<br />[he Boulder Canyon Project Act, bu( it reall}' set forth the guidelines
<br />011 how a court should interpret a specific Congressional directive like
<br />lhis. Again, if the hydropower operations at CRSPA facilities were
<br />allowed to preclude upper slate appropriations, they couid virtually
<br />shut down the Upper Basin. That's directly contrary to the whole
<br />purpose th;H CRSPA wa.s enacted. You had asked whether the st;He
<br />had bken any po~ition on this issue when the Colorado FJvcr Storage
<br />Project was passed. The Colorado Water Conservation Board
<br />submitted a resolution to the United Stales Congress, which set forth
<br />several very important poinrs for the state of Colorado. One of them
<br />was that specific provisions should be made in authorizing legislation
<br />. t.o assure that no rights vest in the use of water for power generation in
<br />units of the project whrch wm prevent or handic,,-p the beneficial
<br />consumptive use upstream of the waters of the Colorado RJver Systcln,
<br />to which any Upper Basin state is entitled. That was Colorado's intent
<br />when CRSPA was enacteu. The state has taken a new position in this
<br />litigation, and I will say it has taken a new position for the very first
<br />time regarding this issue. The United Stat.es has also never taken this
<br />position at. the other Colorado River Storage Project facilities. The
<br />state of Colorado was also very clear that the primary units were not to
<br />infringe on its ability to place water to beneficial consumptive use.
<br />And one more quote from t.he legislative history, this is again from the
<br />C"VCB resolution that was passed on t.o the U.S. Congress:
<br />
<br />Most importantly the hold over storage reservoirs will not fulfill their
<br />primary function if they are so used as to prevent the authorization
<br />and constnlction of junior Upper Basin projeccs, which use water
<br />within the apportioned share of any state. Due regard for this
<br />important matter must be made, and all priorities awarded any units
<br />of the project.
<br />
<br />The state has absolutely taken the opposite now and says that any water
<br />that passes through the Aspinall Unit is now unavailable for any future
<br />upstream uses.
<br />
<br />QUESTION: That's just not the same thing as saying that Colorado is
<br />blocked from developing its compact entitlement, is it? Because every
<br />acre-foot of water that goes across the statc line, released from
<br />Aspinall, is credited to Colorado's delivery, allowing other uses within
<br />Colorado on other tributaries, through Qther projeCL'i, on other 'Ivater
<br />rights. Isn't that correct?
<br />
<br />!
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />l
<br />I
<br />I
<br />,
<br />I
<br />f
<br />I
<br />
<br />-------. ----
<br />
<br />h.'lIC J
<br />
<br />-JRnC/f {1J'f)47F.
<br />
<br />)45
<br />
<br />~fR. ZI~IS: \,Vell thaI's corren, justice Hobb:,; howl'\'!'
<br />the Aspinall Unit is operated 'under ' ~:' t!l(' \-.ray thar
<br />ba'iically ha<; all the wafer all tJ . f1 Current condItIons is that it
<br />, le III ow, passed down to GJ C
<br />on an annual basis. It's not hId. . - en ,.,anyon
<br />arcn't any consumptive uses rialOt mg any water back because there
<br />5' d' :-. 1 now upstream of the \S' II U '
<br />o It nee s to pass alllhat \....at~r downstream I' p'?a rut.
<br />becomes. what's the ditkrence of havin - h' But .t'1C.g\:c~l1on rcally
<br />havinR it? Basically all 01- tl'1000 '-I g .t, e ASplIlalJ Dolt .and not
<br />. ., ows WOUld end '....... ~
<br />anj'1,....ay. The or.!y thing that the Aspinall Unit h;l.'} r~r~)\~t(llr~len \....anyon
<br />
<br />QUESTION: R!); Ihey wouldn't be rel!ulated flow [. .
<br />carry ()ver Storage end f d OJ s or purposes of the
<br />beneficial consumptive llse ~lIId;~~tght cycles, protecling Colorado's
<br />Ie compact, would LIley?
<br />
<br />MR. ZILIS: Actually they would, becaus h ' ,
<br />hold watcr back As I thi'nk th 'd e t e Aspmall Una does not
<br />. e eVl enee very clearly show . t
<br />average amount of J.2 million acre~feet h s, 1 pa<;ses an
<br />hold water back for dry periods. And t t~~su~h every ye?r. It doesn't
<br />downstream. This is flood control and It. 'ater conu?ues to flow
<br />very d:ar in their testimony' that w~ter is re7~: the U.S. Wltnesse: wer:
<br />contrOi after the !ir.......--i ~."..,t.......i r . . ed for purposes 01 flooa
<br />de .vv..... .....v"uv. .unctl:o[! lS comnic{E'ri Tru'n
<br />store lor compact purposes. t"' --, ~u_u water is
<br />
<br />CHIEF JUSTICE MUL' ,'DV~', TI k' ,
<br />b h ~r. lan you counSel
<br />ot .counsel, all counsel, for your arguments th~
<br />subml-tted, and we'll go on to the next case. '
<br />
<br />I want to thank
<br />case will stand
<br />
<br />- --. ----.-.---.---
<br />
|