|
<br />:20
<br />
<br />11 A TEi? L! \1' }.:EV}}:-'Ir
<br />
<br />\'O\UI:le,t
<br />
<br />constructloll of sever;\! dalns in the Upper llasin, including Glen
<br />(:(111\'on. Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit
<br />(pn;viollsly C\lr<~,anti). Srr id. S 620. Congre.ss cnact~d CRSPA to
<br />assist the Upper Basin slates in developing their allocatIOn of waler,
<br />producing hyd.ropower. and ensuring Compact deliveries, among
<br />other uses."
<br />Bd. OfCOlllll\' Comm'rs v. Cn-slal CI-eck IIomcowners' Ass'n. 1.1 P.3t! 325. 333 (Colo.
<br />'Z0I.10\.
<br />
<br />"Congress approved the construoion an~ operation of seve::li
<br />dams and ieservoirs, including the Aspinall VIlIt, for the nonexclusive
<br />purposes of regulating the flow o~ ~he .Color~~lo Rive:, storing \~a~er
<br />for beneficial consumptive use, makmg It possible for the States Ol tile
<br />Upper Basin to utiliZt~, consistently with the prOvisions of the Col?racto
<br />River Compact, the apportionments made to and among them m the
<br />Colorado River Cornp<lct and the Upper Color:1do River Basin
<br />C"."'pa..... respectively providing for the reclamation of arid and
<br />scv~iari~t hnd, for th~ control of f1oods, and for the generation of
<br />hvdroelectrlc power, as an incident of the foregoing purposes. Id. S
<br />620. Congress also stated that it did not intend for ~RSP~ to. impede
<br />{he Upper Ba.'iin's ocvciopment of the water apporuonca to It by the
<br />'Comoact. See id, S 620b (1994),
<br />l../ve agree that the CRSPA rcsel\loirs are part of a plan to allow
<br />Colorado to develop and preserve Compact apportionment. However,
<br />we find that the stored water provides Coiorado with an ability to
<br />satisfy the Compact delivery mandates without eroding other rights
<br />decreed to beneficial use in the state. See H.R. Doc. No. 201. at 31
<br />(1959). By banking CRSPA water for Compact deliveries and usin.g the
<br />resel\loirs for their other decreed purposes, Colorado conUnues
<br />development of its water entitlements. See id. The Aspinall Unit holds
<br />absolute decrees, and a right to use the water for the decreed
<br />purposes-including hydropower generation. Cont~ary to ~rapahoe's
<br />assertion, we do not view those waters as bemg avaIlable for
<br />appropriation."
<br />[d. at 334-35.
<br />
<br />"Arapahoe contends that the Aspinall Unit's operations cannot
<br />preclude in.state water users from developing the Basin's water
<br />resources. The water court found that BUREC stored and released
<br />water from the Aspinall Unit not only for hydropower, but for other
<br />beneficial purposes, including flood control, fish and wildlife,
<br />recreation, irrigation, and domestic uses, under the appropriative
<br />rights for the Unit. Hence, in establishing the parameters for water
<br />availability based on our 1995 decision, the water court properly
<br />ordered the parties to respect the historic exercise of the Aspinall
<br />ahsolute decrees for all it.s beneficial uses."
<br />Id, at 336.
<br />
<br />'. .. ~ ~,..;7 :'--"'.~-_~',~... '--" __.-..---....""""~_
<br />
<br />"-,.-.
<br />
<br />ls~lJt" 1
<br />
<br />ARTiCLE L,PDA TE
<br />
<br />121
<br />
<br />"Arapahoe argues that CRSPA section 620 reflects Congressional
<br />intent to subrogate the generation of hydropower Lo other CRSPA
<br />uses, and that section 620b provides that Congress did not intend for
<br />the authorized projects to interfere ,'lith the Upper Basin States'
<br />comprehenslve development of thelr apportioned water. See 43 U.S.c.
<br />SS 620, 620b. Arapahoe posits that these provisions alone demand the
<br />subordination of hydropower generation to other beneficial uses in
<br />Co\orado."
<br />fa.
<br />
<br />"The United States has absolute decrees for the Aspinall Unit. The
<br />decrees permit power generation. and Colorado law defines power
<br />generation as a legitimate beneficial use. See S 37v95-103(2), 1.0 CR.S.
<br />(2000). Thus, senior water rights for hydropower generauon may
<br />place a call on the river. The Gen~ral As~e~bly, and our 19~5
<br />decision in this case, dId not set forth any dlHerent treatment for
<br />hydropower rights.
<br />In the second trial, the water court gave effect to the state water
<br />rights for the Aspinall Unit in order of the decrees. We agree that
<br />federal preemption does not provide othernise.. The water c~:)Urt
<br />recognized that CRSPA authorized the c?nstrucuon of the ~plIlal~
<br />-., I r .. t'r t.nr.fth...,..,..r.i......t \:ne1" TiS" ,
<br />UnIt on y arter economIC JusJ.~lca.JO.. ..." ~..~ t'....,J........~. ...<; oJ '--'. .'--'. ;:;
<br />620. Therefore, the water court directed the parties to model (he
<br />conditions of the river, including the historical use of water by A<;pinalI
<br />Unit for all of its decreed purposes, despite references in CRSPA that
<br />characterize hydropower generation as an incidental us~. . TI~e
<br />historical use of the full decreed amount by the Aspinall DiHt wlthm
<br />Colorado for its decreed purposes prevents Arapahoe County from
<br />claiming any portion of the appropriated water for its project."
<br />lei. at 337.
<br />
<br />"43 U,$,C, S 620f (1994)", plainly states that CRSPA's
<br />hydroelectric powerplants shall not interfere with the other major
<br />compacts affecting the Upper Basin, nor the appropriation of water
<br />for domestic and agricultural purposes under state law.
<br />In this case, the other major compacts impacting the Upper Basin
<br />are the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Basin Compact.
<br />Section 620h of CRSPA specifically demands that courts interpret
<br />CRSPA consistently with the Colorado River Compact and the Upper
<br />Colorado River Basin Compact. See 43 U,$,C, ~ 620h (1994),
<br />Article IV(c) of the Colorado River Compact provides that '[tlhe
<br />provisions of this article shall not apply to or interfere with the
<br />regulation and control by any state within its boundaries of the
<br />appropriation, use and distribution of water.' S 37-61-101, art. IV(c),
<br />10 C,R,$, (2000), This provision defers to Colorado's water law,
<br />Additionally, the Upper Basin Compact states that 'the provisions
<br />of this compact shall not apply to or interfere with the right or power
<br />of any signatory state to regulate within its houndaries the
<br />
|