Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />