Laserfiche WebLink
<br />case to augmentation case," unless the court needs to consider subsequent "changed <br />circumsfances" [hat could cause injury to other water rights. Id. at 526. <br />Based on the Williams case, it is possble that the existing calculations ofper share <br />consumptive use, ditch losses and historical return flows could be relied upon to change any <br />additional High Line Canal shares to augmentation user Assuming such a strategy was <br />accepted by the State and any objectors, this strategy could also result in cost savings to <br />Western Fuels. The acceptance of such a strategy by the Stale and other water users would <br />probably depend upon the question, as posed by the Williams case, of whether there are <br />"changed circ+++~~+rces"since the prior calculation of consumptive use which are relevant <br />to the injury analysis. Id. at 526. Utilizing the engineering determinations underlying the <br />existing augmentation plan, and the "water balance" set forth in Table I to the decree, <br />Wes[emFuelsmight be ableto showthat agyout-of-priority depletions associatedwithNH-2 <br />wouldbe adequately covered by additional changed sharesto maintainhistorica]return flows <br />and prevent injury to other water rights. <br />Lastly, it is reasonable to assume that the new mining area at NH-2, which includes <br />Ponds008-015, is withintltetristoricalserviceareaoftheHighLineCanal. Thus, ifWes[an <br />Fuels were to decide [o change additional shares to augmentation use, it is likely that, just as <br />in the current augmentation decree, no change in place ofuse otpoint of diversion would be <br />required. This, too, could result in cost savings to Wes[em Fuels. <br />LI <br />' However, Williams was based on a prior calculation of per shah historical wnsumptive <br />use fora "ditch system" as a whole. As such, the Williams case maybe di~t;no +.¢ishAble from <br />Wes[em Fuels' situation. <br />12 <br /> <br />REVISED MARCH 2006 Attachment 2.05.3(3)-16-21 <br />