<br />'.-" .,
<br />
<br />
<br />,~pg:tlght>
<br />!(jvet'riYer'.':..~
<br />~ '.!diversi6ii- .:':.
<br />
<br />:., .' .~(; - . ..' ., -'
<br />
<br />. ;tesUnies::'
<br />
<br />. "Bi HFADl8I MeGlIEGIlR . .
<br />TheDailjSenlinEl
<br />! GUNNIsON -,-:' A:/sei:Ond trial:
<br />.: lover AmPaJroe County's propci..atto.
<br />:1iliv.ert~eno1Jgh}raYlor River. water'
<br />..I~a-:~Jn;!I;'1n,neW~menls be:,."
<br />.1 jjU[g-~.HtGwini#iliwa&rcdIirtJJl
<br />f' 'l'biJj, tlme;.,waflil'...,!aWYe'rs",ror
<br />. Arapahoe County and the GumIJllon'
<br />. Basm must present evidence thai
<br />fils a narrow framework set out by
<br />the CoIoradoSuprane Coutl. .
<br />The battle over the Union Park
<br />Project is nearly a decade old and
<br />Western Slope lawyers say the). feel
<br />contideot they eventually can 'win
<br />th~ case and prevent the lrllllsmoun.
<br />I:ain \Vater diversion.
<br />In 1988, Aral'ahoe County and Au.
<br />rora filed in Division 4 water court
<br />for rights 10 divert 90,000 acre-leer. of
<br />water li'om lbe headwaters of the
<br />Taylor River, using a new nlServoir
<br />cl~e 10 the Continental Divide in
<br />Umon Park Gwmison Basin water
<br />w:ers objected, and the case went to
<br />lrial in 1991.
<br />After hearing six weeks of argu-
<br />ments, Water Judlll! Robert Brown
<br />of Delta ruled that just 20 IlOO acre-
<br />~t ofwater was available in the ba.
<br />SIn for diversion. Aurora pulled out
<br />of the case, and Arapahoe County
<br />appealed to the Supreme Court,
<br />
<br />. . The. slale's' high court upheld .
<br />:mnch of Brown's leDgibyrulJng;.buf, ,:
<br />! said the available waler shOllld be"""
<br />. : caIc);daIed dilrereoI:\y, and remand~ ,
<br />ed that portion of thE! case back io' :
<br />Brown's court lOr a two-weektriaL .:-
<br />. Tbe oourt agreed with Arapahoe '
<br />County's ~. that .UDllevel-.,
<br />'.oped, .conditiOlllll.'Water..rights '.
<br />shouldn't be'eOnsidered, and that de-
<br />. 'veIoved.~absolute' rights should be
<br />measured by the amount of water .
<br />acIIllIIlY used, .
<br />. In theory; that meaDs there Is less
<br />water tile objeCfors can say is in use
<br />lindnotavailablefurdiverslon.. ..
<br />But David Hallford, stall' attorney
<br />for the ColOrado River Water eon:
<br />. servation District, said the SUpreme
<br />Courfs niliIlgislMlta problem. ,,'; :.
<br />"Our. expert analysis in lbe llrsI . I
<br />trial ~'t depend on conditional .
<br />water rights anyway, so it's not a .
<br />big cliange in our case to lake Die "
<br />oondilioMls out And ifs the same
<br />: with. the absolutes;., We . bad. Dot . .
<br />I blDwo up '~.lot'Of miter lights )J3~eiJ:'<
<br />1 . . -"l~ .: ~:::r,J-:::-< ~t ;.:~;~ ;~.~t~'~~:f.:4:-';. ~~;;:?~
<br />! ,. ., '. ", ;See'1lIVEII);P8&'e.1.0Ii'.,\I~'~.1
<br />", -:-'.' , ~ ': ~""~". ,_! ....::~: 'j.O!~, :~:.'"i;~~.i:~ir.i
<br />
<br />>
<br />,
<br />,
<br />,
<br />.
<br />
<br />D~~~
<br />
<br />10-<=>'0-97
<br />
<br />RIVER: Loser expected to appeal to Supreme Court
<br />
<br />~ Continued from Page One
<br />
<br />on the decree records, We used the
<br />ga\ij;e records that show wbat's ac-
<br />tually happening," HalIfom said. .
<br />"1'he evidence presented in the
<br />fU'St trial is a lot closer to the Su,
<br />preme Court sIaodail! than you
<br />might think,.. he added..
<br />Arapahoe County is also ex)Jected
<br />to argue thaI it can Iellitimately tap..
<br />Taylor Park Reservoir, part of the
<br />federal water projectlhat supplies-
<br />irrigation waler to the Uncomvah-
<br />gre Valley Water Users Association.
<br />A federal attorney will argue against
<br />
<br />thalidea.
<br />Tbe other key issue in this trial is
<br />whether a Iraosmounl:ain diversion
<br />can use pari of an allotment ofwaler
<br />(or the upper Gtuinison Basin estab-
<br />lished within the fuderal water
<br />rights for Blue Mesa, Morrow Point
<br />and Crystal reservoirs.
<br />"II'. obvious which side people
<br />are on with that one," Hallford said.
<br />Western Slope objectors say no;
<br />Arapahoe County will argue yes.
<br />Regardless of BrowlI'. ruling,
<br />however, the loser is expeeled to
<br />take a second appeal 10 the Supreme
<br />Court.
<br />
<br />If Arapahoe County is successful
<br />in proving that the 911,000 10 l2O,ooo
<br />acre-feet of water it wants are avail.
<br />able, the county then must go
<br />through a second trial focusing on
<br />whether the water is needed and
<br />whether lbe complex transmountain
<br />diversion is feasible.
<br />"They still have a long way to go
<br />in proving up their elalm," Hallford
<br />said. "Without a fmding of a sub.
<br />stantial amount of water available,
<br />they won'l go forward. Bu! if we
<br />don't prevail om this. we still have
<br />very good defenses against their
<br />need and feasibility clallns."
<br />
|