My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00048
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00048
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:12:32 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:29:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8445
Description
Union Park
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Angela Cortez
Title
Districts Take Up Water Battle
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />"" <br /> <br />..... <br /> <br />[CONTINUED] <br /> <br />Court has held in Arapahoe County's favor once, and another appeal of an adverse Water Court ruling is <br />currently pending, with a second decision expected from the Colorado Supreme Court in early 2000, <br /> <br />Numerous parties have stipulated out of the case, including CWCB, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the <br />State Board of Land Commissioners, the City of Grand Junction and the Rocky Mountain Biologic Laboratory, <br />However, numerous parties continue to oppose Union Park, including the Upper Gunnison River Water <br />Conservancy District, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the United States, the State Engineer <br />and the City of Gunnison, <br /> <br />ISSUES TO IJE RESOLVED The primary issues to be resolved in the second appeal concern the effect of <br />existing federal facilities in the Gunnison Basin on new appropriations. The federal facilities include the <br />Aspinall Unit, which was constructed pursuant to we Colorado River Storage Project Act to encourage <br />development of the Upper Basin States' Cqmpact entitlements. The Opposers in the case take the position that <br />the U.S. can prevent future upstream development in the Gunnison basin, while Arapahoe takes the position <br />that the Aspinall Unit was constructed to encourage projects like Union Park. <br /> <br />USE OF UNION PARK Union Park could provide a !liege new renewable water source to the southern <br />Denver metro area. It could also be integrated into the conjunctive use concept to recharge groundwater <br />aquifers, It would reduce the demands on the Blue River from additional East Slope diversions and would <br />replace non-tributary ground water reliance, Mitig:ltion of impacts to the Gunnison River Basin needs to be <br />explored with the West Slope entities to assure that all adverse effects are addressed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />( <br /> <br /> <br />? <br /> <br /> <br />,...Ct_"" <br />1tS1/,,_ Cr.ek <br />Pumping Pton/ <br />I <br />I <br />tHlJ'ow Cr..k <br />CQ//<<:lion Sp/Ml It runn<< <br />\ <br />) ~~priRu~~ <br />/' Unton flri Pvmp/ \ <br />r'~ Po..,. r;..n..otkJn <br />cf/ Plan t : <br />. C",,""on ~ <br />' . \ <br />a.,::':-A/ <br /> <br />~,.~ <br /> <br />N <br /> <br />t <br />i <br /> <br />''\ <br />", <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />, <br />. <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.