Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />