n u IN IH[;'1'H1C'l' COUHT IN lIND Fon PEL!lNEY {lND BALCOMB N.lI'I'EH IHVJSION NO, 5 AND JUL 13 1919 '1'11£ S'['A'1'£ OF COLOHJI.DO ,No. IN 1'11E MII1'1'ER OF TilE APp!.rClI'rION Fon ••••J Rim wmR OISTRIOT !lIGIITS 0/;' COLORADO IUVlm CONSEHV/I'rION DISTRICT '1'hls case was tried to the court 1978. October 18, 'l'he following parties appeared by their x:es'pective counsel'. Colorado !liver Conservation District (Applicant) Nest Divide Hater Conservancy District (Applicant) Hasalt Water Conservancy District (Applicant) Hluestone Wuter Conservancy District (Applicant) Johri U. Carlson, lIolland & Hart of . Loyal E, Leavenworth,' J::sq. , and Kevin L. Patrick, Esq., of Musick, Nilliamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth & Cope, P.C. City of Aspen, Colorado (lIppli.cant) Pitkin Colorado (Applicant) Middle Park Water Conservancy District (Applicant) Stanley N. Cazier, Esq., of Daker & City and County of Denver (Objector) Michael L. Nalker, Esq. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; and Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado !'later Conservancy District (Objector) John M. Sayre, Esq., and Robert V. Trout, Esq., of Davis, Graham' Stubbs Vidler Tunnel Wuter Co. (Objector) Glenn E. Porzak, Esq., of Holme, Roberts & OVien Colorado River Water Conservation District and certain wuter conservancy districts have applied for quadrennial findings of reasonable diligence Ilith respect to numerous conditionally decreed water ri9hts, Certain parties hnve filed statements of opposi li.on objec ting to entry of allY such findings. " I FoUowin" the trial extensive briefs were submitted on behalf of all the parties. The court has considered the evidence and briefs and on the basis thereof P.lilkcs the follo'tlin9 findin"s of fact and , - - - - ... - c( the f:oll O\.:j f lil\oJ (Ind i me:no1 ilna\.lm 4 opinion (Inel c.1t:c On May 20, 1976, Colorndo Riv(l\: fi.led iIr' DiU,(Jellce. Conservation District application For. Quadrennial of Reasonable P"d, "Ii1ter ConsOl:vancy District Park"), lllul!"l.one ':I;,ter COllservnncy District ("Bluestone"), Basalt ,"ater Conservallcy Dio;l:rict ("Uasalt District") and 1'lest Divide Vill"'':y Dbtrict of Divide") joinecl in the application. were timely filed by Vidler Tunnel Water Co. ConserStatements ("Vidler"), Lhe City nnel County of Deliver ("Denver"), Northern Colorado "later Con"urvi.ncy Dio;triC:l: ("Northern Colcll:ado"), u;;e] Municipal SUbdist,rict, Horthern Colorado Water Conservancy District ("Municipal Subdistrict"). A pre-trinl conference was held, and a pre-trial ordcr was signed by , the court on August 16, ' Pursuant to the pre-trial order, the ,City of M;pcn ("Aspen") and Pitkin County granted leave to par- ticipate as applicnnts with respect to those water rights and structures in which they have a legal interest. 'l'he application re.liltes to the conditionill "iltcr rights dCGeribed on pagcs 1 to 4 of the pre-triol order doted August 16, 19'/U; it copy of those fOllr paqes is attached as Al?pe.Hlix A hereto. 'I'onopits CDnill (item Ll.b.)* and Tonopils Reservoir (item, I" . .1.a.)'· had been cilncell(!cl by decree of this court dilted May 12, J9'J2, in H-44. Th", pre-trial order reflects that those structures hovc bew. deleted further proceedings in this CDse. On SeptJt;l!r.l --------- ...I n. - 'I'hu con,;,btin9 oJ: the rollowillg 'of the following features: a. Rio Blanco Reservoir, l31,034.5 •. f.; h. Patterson Creek Collection System, I I 75 c.f .5. i c. Piceance Basin Pipeline, ,60 c.f.s.; d, FlattopH Tunnel, 254 c.f.s.; e. Bearl-liIllow Reservoir, 49,29,1:9 a.f.; f. Deep 1.a\[(] Collectj,on System" 200 c.f .5.; g; Flattops Bench Flume, 254 c.f.s.; h. Creek Collection Sy'stem, l75 c.f.s.; i. IIpper Benn-lallo", 1'0I1er Plant; j. Lower Benrwallow Power Plant; k. Uearwallow Conduit, 200 c.f.s. lly iI decr.ee of the Rio Blanco County District Court on November 21, 1966, in cjvil Action No. 1269, l31,034.5 uf water leet conditionallY decreed to Rio Blnnco Reservoir, project No. 512, priot"ity No. 705, priority date October 31, 1961; 75 c.f.s. I \'las " .. nrc1ed to Patterson Creek Collection System, project No. 512, 'I I II priority No. 705A, priority date October 31, 1961; 60 c.f.s. was conditionally decreed'to Piceance Basin Pipeline, project No. 512, priority No. '/05I!, pcioJ."ity clute Oct-,ober 31, 1961; and 254 c.f.s. waH conditiollnlly decreed to Flattops Tunnel, project No. 512, priority No. 705C, pdodty elate October 31, 1961. Each of the alnounts HO decreec1 is for irrigation, domestic, manufacturi'ng, I I -5- I ) .' projec\:, refer'!} to fcatucc5 C.a. thr'ough C,k., above, itO,; part of th,,\: pl'oject,' the decreed features in Civil No. 1269 the same project number and descrilles, generally their interl."(!lc\ tion. By a decrce o,E the County District Court on Scpteciber 13, ]967, in Civil Action No. '1416, 200 c.f.s. was conditionally decreed tu Deep Lake Collection System, structure No. 387, priority No. 480, pri.ority date June 28,' ,1954, for irrigation, domestic,' manufacturing, muriicipal, stock I pisca toriill urposes .. including but 1I0t'limited to the prolluction of" oil ,from shalc, dOr.lestic and municipal 'purposes Hnd s tock te d ng pu rposes. Il,ividt:! Project Here 'fhe for'e9'oir'9 feu'tures of the Nes t project No. 510, appropriation priority No. 715, with priority date of April 22, 1957. The decree recites tha t tlwse fea tllrc.s a re in ter-rC! 1a ted and in terdependen t. By a decree of the Garfield County District Court UII July 9, 1965, in Civil Action No, 4954, 15,450 acre feet was conditiunnllY decreed to Kendi9 Heservoir, priority No. 257; 6500 Hcre feet condition'ully decreed to Nest Hamm Creek Reservoir, priority No. 257-A; 300 "c. L s. conditional1,y decrec'd to West , 'condi tion'll1y Divide Canul, priocity No, 257-1l; nnd 550 c.Ls. I'las ," . lIorsC! 'l'hieE Cullill, priority llO. 2S7-C. 'fhe portions of the \>lest Divide Project covered by Civil Action tlo. 4954, are assi9ned project ND. 183, priority date April 22, 1957, and are for irrigation; stock l1i1tcring, domestic, mUllicipnl, industrial and, generatioq of electrical ellcrgy purposes. Ily a decree oE the Garfield Coullty District COllrt on November 5, 1971, in Civil Action No, 5884, 85 c.f.s. WilS conditionally decreed 'to Fourmile Cnnul, priority No. 755-A and 13,695.04 acre fc!ot I-laS conili tionalJ y c1ocreec1 to Yank Creek Reservoir, priority' NO, 755-1l. h"S i1 ,I Each of these facilities is assigned structure No. 542 and priOl:ity date of August 11, 1950, and is for the purposes of irri9ation, domestic, stock municipal, industrial and other ueneficinl and useful purposes. 1', 'fhe l1iddle Park Project - of the projects nnd their respective features: 1. Tho no 10nger part ot' this app) ien tion, 2. The Project - consistin9 of the £o1.1<"",in'l fentures: D. Deberard Heservoir, 31,575.2 a.f.; b .. Gunsight J.,C1ternl Callal, lleac1gate No.1, 80 c.Ls.; -u- " 'I c. GUllu:i£jht: Lateral Callal, .IIBndgilte No. 2, 25 c,f. s. ; d. Deocearel Canal, lIeadgate No. I, 260 c.t. s.; c. Dcuerarcl Canal, IIcadgatc No. 2, lO c. f. s.; f. Dcberard Ctlnal, lIeildgate No. l, 100 c. Ls.; 9· Duliernrd Canal, He"dgate No.· 4, 100 c.f. s.; h. Deoer.ard CilIlal, Head')ille No. 5, 100 c.f.s. ; i. nCbE:l'ard Citnal, Headgate No. 6, 40 c. f. s By I·Jnster Decree of the Grand County District Cou·rt on September 5, 1964, in Civil ·lIc tion No. 946, as amended by Master Decn,e dnted September B, 19"10, 31,575.2 acre feet \'1as conditionally decr.eed to llebecilril Heservoir, priority No. 21; BO c.f.s. was c:oJl(1.itiollal.ly decreed to Gunsight: Liller.al canill, IJeadgate No. 11 priority No. 2JII; and 25 c.f.s. was conditionally decreed to i.1d:Ot-al. CilIlil.l,IIeilCJ911te No.2, pdority llo"· 21·B. Each of the Lights hns priority date of August IB, 1959, and is for irrigiltion, domestic, stock, municipal, industrial, piscatorial and recreational plll:poses. By tllill: same I·laster Decree, as amended, 260 c.f.s. was· conditionally decreed to Deherard Canal, lIeadgate No.1, priority No. 21C; 30 c.f.s. was conditionally decreed to Deberard Canal, Jleadgate No.2, pdority No. 21D; 100 c.f.s. cc.>nditionally decreed to Deberaed Canal, Head9ate Nos. 3, 4 and 5 .collectively, priority NOH. 21E, 21P Dnd 21G; and 40 c.f,s. was conditionally decreed to Debm:Drd Cnoal, IIcar19ate No.6, priority No. 21H. 1111 of the Deberard CilOill r19htH weee grnnted priority date of lIugust IB,: 1959, Dnd i1re for irrigation, domestic, recreational, municipal, f{sh .illclustricll pu.cposeB. 3. The Troublesome Project - consisting of following features: D. lJaypark Reservoir, 20,l..l5.0 a.f.; b. lJaYPilrk Canal, lIeadgale Nos. 1 and 2, 145 c.f.s,·; c. Kirtz Ditch No.2, Second Enlargement, B2.55 c.f.s.; d. Kremmling Canal, 35 c.f.s. By on Decree of tho Granel County District Court 5, 1964, in Civil Action No. 94G, as amended by Decree daU:d September 8, 1970, 20,115.9 acre feet was c.:ollel.i.lional.ly dC!cl:eed to lJaypark Jleservoir, priori ty No. 20, Hi th -9- - _... I -- ------ ___J priurity of 5, 1959; 145 c.f.s. was conditionally dc(:cceCi to lIi,ypnl:k Ci,nal, lI'-'i1<19"to Nos. land 2, divcrtible from' eiU1C" 0,: both oE t:he tHO date of priority No. 207\, with priority 5, 1959; B2.55 c.f.s. wnD conditionally decreed to I,il:t,. Ditch No.2, Second EIl1.nrC)elllent, priority No. 20D, with pd.od,ty . 720-/\/ >/,ith pL".lo,r,i,ty c1ate of July J/ )962/ for those Sillne purpoSDU; and 620 c.f.s. was conditionillly decreed to Rnngely Power I Conduit, prioril:y No. 720-0/ I of til£! NeSil -:Dllnty in Court on 1\pril 13, II 1\ction No. 133GU, 100 c.£.s. WilS conditionill1y 'decreed to Ilr.ldcJes Switch pumping Pipeline, priority NO: 1042, with priority dnte of June 2, 1964, for industriill, domestic, municipal and irrigation N. I - consisti.ng of the follO\'Jing features: a. Cameo Pumping Pipeline, 50 c.f.s.; b. 'fhe Cameo Reservoir, 10,995.6 a.f. i I fJurpo!;cs. .1 By decl'ee of the Mesa County District Court on IIpril 13, . 1972, in Civil 1\etion No. 1336B, 50 c.f.s. was conditiunally decreed to C"meo Pumpin9 Pipeline, priority No. 1043, with priority date of June 2, 1964, for industri.al, domesti.c, irrigation, stock municipal illlc1 pO\,er gener.ation Plll:ppses; and 10,995.6 acre feet of 'oJater Io/BS clec:reed to Cameo Reservoi.r, priority No. 1044, with 'priority date of June 2, 1964, for inc1u!.ltrial, domestic, stock >Jater, municipal and pOl'lOr generation purposes. n. CONCLUSIONS FlIR'l'lIER FINDINGS; 'l'he relevant peri.od for determination of diligence is May 1, thcough IIpril 3D, 1976 ('fhe "Diligence Period") . During the Di.ligence 1972 'I Period, the applicants have conducted many activities relating directly 0'; indirectly to I:he preservation and development of the proposed 'lJ)pcopriations reflected by I:he Subject Claims. In order to arrive at conclusions whether applicants have eHl:i1blishecl reilsonilbl;' diligence in the development of each proposed i.p[,rCJpriiltiCln (see C.R.S. (1973) 37-92-301 (4», the follOloJing sllb-. jec\:s I'Jlll bc cCln!.li<1erecl: 11. 'l'he relationship among the var.ious projects of CHI'JeD and factor,; affecting all Sl1ch projects; n. IIctivities not di.tectly project-related; C. IIctivities directly tclnted to each of the projects; -13- a!lll.. ·1 D. OruanizHtion and pm,'et!" of the appl.icilnU;; 1::. Leclal !>tilnd,,;:cls ,dl:h re!>pect to reasonllblc d.i11gence; P. Application of leglll stllndilrds to the lIctivities of no(l, the applicant!> dud.ng the Di 1 iClence Per iod. * projects; Factors 1\.. Affect:l.ng all CRI:!CD I'Eojects All the CH'.vCD pr.ojects to some extent) in\:cn:elated. in \vater Divisions 4, 5 and 6 are, CIlI'/CD has more than 20 projects in \vater Divisions 4 and G, combined. Conditional decrees, together with absolute decrees, on the Colorado River excceu the VllIter. supply available to Colorado under interstate compacts. Func1in9 of major CRlvC!) projects probably will rcquire inclusion of those projects as authorized projects under the Cnlorado Hiver Stora'Je Pmject /lct of /lpril 111, 1956, bec:"u<;e of t:h(: magni tude of the costs. (1'.1 .. 84-485) In selection oJ projec'ts for' irlc:lu5ion, the Bureau of Hec:lamaU.on tends to favor those with the more favorable b(:nefit-cost I:ati.os. 'fhus, C\'/RCD projects compete a- mon') themselves and I'Ii.th ot.hm: projects for' avaIlable ,·/ilter and for . fllnding under the Colorado River Storage Project Act. The Colorado River Compact, se'!.) imposes ill. (e. R.S. (1973) 37-61-101 et Obligation on the upper basin states, "hich include'· Colorado, to make certain lCMor basin stotes. of Colorado River "ater to the Until the present time, limited "ater utilization ill the Uppf!r bosi.n sLal:es hus made unnecessary a call by the lower haf,in states fot' their Compoct apportionlf'e'1t. Any future calls ,.ill scrve to limit "ater diversions throughout Western Colorado. The man- n(!l' in Hhi.ch divet·sion,.. pursuant to absolute decrees "ill be curtailed in order to meet a Colorado River Compact call, ·and the rules for necessary have not been establi<;hed. ·1 I Stored Vlater is a potential source for satisying Compact calls. 'In thi,.. discussion the projects of all applicants will be referred 1:0 genera1l.y aD CRt.cn projects. It is the policy of CHI'/CD to encOllrarJe formation of "ater conservancy di.stricts as pro:jects pro'Ire!,,; alld to aSSiC)ll the conditional ,·,ater rights to the ,.ater conS(":VilllCY di.s tr iets cOI1 ... t 0 f: CHI'ICIl pro:i e(; 1:>:,. U. J\ctivit.ier. Not 1\ctivitics of CAWCD not directly project-related include: '1. Litigiltion to protect the water supply necessary to doveloprnent of any or all of the Subject Claim.s;, 2.' Political activities with the United States Congress. the Uepartment of Interior and other federill and state agencies officiills to promote study, funding and of the struc- ,', , tllJ:"(,f; neCl!SSilry to development of all the Subject Claims; 3. Exploratjon of extent and timing of i and hydro- energy needs of various potential users; 4. Efforts to amend the legislation under which wos formed to authorize issuance of revenue bonds as a means of pro- f l' joct financing; 5. Devclopment of a computet" model to assist; in analysis of 'water nVililability; 6. Efforts to finance and construct projects not covered by this applica tion but \'/hich may produce revenue which could be lIst"l to com;tl'lIct or operate projects so covered; 7. Efforts to gather supply and \1ater quality data; 8, Explorntion of privnte financing availability for smal- illlCl, Jer projc{;i;s. vli.l1 be di.scussed indiv.i.duCilly. Eilch of t:hesC! ", : :J:;:-, il, 0 t.i'JaUon Lion!) for Subj ect CIa .llnS -15- .. _----' I t I 1 \ ' 0" June 2, 1972, cm'lco filed an "ppliqation for. 'luildren- t- "ia.1 [i.nelin'l of reasonable diligence I',ith r.espect to the Subjuct Claims, 1'1-'/09 in 1""'" Division 5, \. Objections were filed ilnd the case tdecl in I'lilter COll1:t for !'1ater Division No. '5 on February 28, 19'/3, Objectors' cilse was indefinitely postponed at their request to pennit them to evaluilte the need to present evidence. 1974, Objectors elected not to present evidence. On May' 8, A compro!1lise was l:ei.lched, reGultillg in filldings alld decree issued by the 011 " Judge I'arch 25, 19'15, upon stipulation of the parties, as part of it "as foulld that CHlvCD had exercised reasonable diligence in the completion of all "ppropriations for the Subject Claims. During the (",ely part of the Ililigence Period the prior" application for findin'g of reasonablo diligence, Case W-44 in Water Division 5, was pending ,i n the ColOl:,: =10 supreme Cour t. ] l: I'ms concluded upon 5 tipula tion early in 1973. b. opposition to Applications of Others DlIring the Diligence Period, CHI'ICD monitored all applicationo in the Water Court for Water Division 5 and filed 'oE opposition with respect to any slIch applications which 'in its opinion would adversely aCfect the Subject Claims. These included applications for change of use and plans of augmentation threatened to enlorge historicill lise of water rights senior to variou!) projects or othen-lise to affect adversely the water supply' for pr0j ec ts. Among the appl:'ica tions for conditional H"teL' rights opposed I"OS that of vidler Tunnel I'later 'Company in \'1-2109 in I'later Court: for Nater Division voir, il facility 5 for Sheephorn'Reser- is part of a large prop,Osed tran'smountain di- version project which competes with CNNCD's Azure Reservoir'for water supply and reservoir site. Although CRNCD's Azure Reservoir right is sc,n.Lor to Vidler's Dhaephorn right the competition for the same reHarvoir I,,'<,re to commence tha difficulty which might he presented if vidler COliS l:ruction first had made Vidler' "ourcn of concern to CWoJL:D, 5 application a 1'he litigation Has still pending at tli" conclusion of the l.lil.i9(,nce Period, 'I'he Supreme COUL't of the of Colorado hilS subsequently isslied a rulin9 substuntiallY"fny- -16- i , "I 0,ab1" to CIU'lCD's positi.on in 1'1-2109, Co.1orndo HivelD,i.I,ltd,,!'. Conservation V. Viillul' 'l'lllln(:l l'lnter Co:..' 110. 27968, 8 Colo. 1138 (1979). CHWCD hns resolved disputes by stipulation where such approach proved acJeCjllate \:0 thH''''Jh trial protect its rights nnd has pursued itB opposit;ion CHI'ICD was unable to obtain appropriate protection by CHWCD succesBfully resisted the Bunger claims 'for conditional rights to suppor't a massive transmountain diversion of origi.nating in Divisions 4 and 5, in litigation which resol ved in :. ultimately s favor j;n the Supreme Court of the Sta te of Colorado. 309 (l97G). s objections to certain applications by He[Jervoir and Canal Co. Lakes th respect to change of' via tel" rights having their source in the Hoaring Hiver were resolved by stipulation, inCluding a volumetric limitntion on Twin Lakes diver[Jions. CHWCD also has been actively in resisting the'claims of the United States of America for reserved water rights. This Court for Water Divisions 4, 5 litigation hns been active in the and 6 during the Diligence Period Rnd involves claims by the United Staten to re!.lcrvecl rights prior to some of th" rightH upon which Cm'ICD projectH arc dependent. In a case inVOlving whether claims should be adjudicated ill United States District Co'urts, Cm'lCD successful' ill (!utablinliing Colorado's I'JRter Courts to beapI»:op'r:i,a'te Colorado·· HivAr Water ConservRtion District v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236 (.L976) • David E. Fleming Co. 's engineering services in connection cm'/CD's opposition to applications of others cost $1775.44 during 1:1,0. Diligence Pedod. C.II. 1629-73, iI I I Cil!;e commeneed in the United States IJistrict Court for tile: Dis tr ic tor: Colulllbia I Rnd participnted to protect RgRinst the possibilia LhRt uneconomic treiltm0.nt stRndRrds might be imposed on irrigation [l()I", I'li th n:!;"l t,i River. " ad verse impclC: t on, irr igil tion proj ec ts on the Colorado 'i'h.i.s issue \'lnS ultimntf:ly resolved by ildopted by the of the Uni ted ii tates favorRble to CHI'lCD' s position. -17- ---_.- ----------' CI/','Iell h:.:; actively participiltc(l in liti')iltioll cOJamonly· re- fen'cd to il!' Hilinbow O/IC', 'rhat: l.itigilt.ion involved an attcmpt by (.'l:h(!l7S to pr(:vcnt \'!iltcc ""hich is bein9 impounded i.n Lake PONell b:O!!l !;preil(lin9 into any part of the Or.ielg" National Monu- Such reI ief if granted Houlc1 hilve cut the constructed stor- ,""'lit. I .1 II i"le cal'ilcity of Lilke 1'01,e11 almost in hillE, increasing the vulner-;abilIty' of all western slope Colorado water projects to calls l.'ilscd on the Colorildo Compact, impairin(j some of those pro- jeet:; ilnd re(luL!in(j pOIwr revenue Hhich miCJht othenlise he available for cons trllc tion of those projec ts, litigation ilS reflected CHI'ICD Has success'ful in that a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of J\l'pe[lls in 0.,en<1:> of:--.!;!.!.e 485 F, 2d. 1 (10th Cir. 1973); cert:.' den. 94 S.Ct. 931 (B74), ----- C[l\'1CD is also involved in pendin" l'eecec1 to as 'l'IW, commonly. re- originatin,! in the llnited States District Court for the District of lItah. eUeet of 1.al:o']'0I-le1.1 on the This l.i.ti,!ation al"o relates to the Bridge National 110nument. CHIKD pa.id to the Utah la" firm of Brayton, ,lIlIrIey f, 59 for services relatillg to the Hainbo" One litigation illld the Hili.nhm! to David 1::. 1 i. ti.ga tion (lLlI: ing the Diligence fl:>riod. CHHCD paid Co. for en,lineering services relating to 'I'IW that lit..i'Jiltion c1ud.IHJ that sallie period. CHI'ICD Pill·l:.kipated . .in l i tigation in the United States District Couct ill ne/l"':'1:, Colorado, during the Dili9cnec Period, I·d.tll H!(;pcct to l:c!.IilLi"e riCJhts of the decrees used to' fill Green !IOullt,lin Reseevoir and the rights relied upon by the City and County of: lIenver in.connccLion with its transmountain diversions. of pill'ticipation I""; to protec t the replacement The purpose ter. which Green nounl:ain Itmlervoir IIl:ovlc1cs to the "estern slope to peevent injury (,:0111 diversions hy the ColoradO-13i(j Thompson Project. has opposec1 minimum stream flON applications. It9 challen,!c to the constitutionality of minimum stream floH le9islation hilS only recently been rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. eRNCD rctilins attorneys in Washin9ton, D.C. J.i.Li.c.lntion ill the ll.i.stJ:i.ct of Columh.ia as -Hs- to assist with as to assist ! 1 . 1 '.".:<1,,,:,, t ](e':urvcy for operation of 'J"'J.ing, monitoring and sediment sampling ·stationn in the eolot-ado Hlver lJasin to accumulate additional data for evaluation In 1975. CRI'lCD and the U.S.G.S. of 'I'lality and availability of 'vater. eitch $21,500 for operation of 17 stations. In addition, CIMCD hns maintained a Ilumber of such stations in which the U.S.G.S does participato. CIl\,/CO's activities in Inilintilininy ripproJd.miltely 30 gaging ""d Hilter 'ju1Ility stati.onn Hithin the Diligence Per.iod resulted in of approximately $600,000. IH-(lvlded to. Most of this Inoney Han from third-party sources not identified by the ev.idl:!nce. B. Priynte l'ini1ncinq ]n 1973, helel eXplOJ:iltory discussion" 'vith 1l0S'vorth Sullivilll £ Co., Inc_, ",i th Sillomon Brothers, ilnd 'vith & Co." illvu,,\:raent bankers, ,·d.th r(:spect to ilvili1i1bility and methods of private Ci.lIi1ncing .of unidenti.fied smaller projects not to be financed through t1w Colorado Storage Project Act. The evidence does not indicate. thilt these dincussions hilve progressed beyond the c. Project-nelilted Activities 1. Activities related to more than ohe project. CIlI>JCD contracted nj Bechtel Corporation during the ligence Period to study a number of projects in Divisions _4, 5 and 6 thought to hilve potential for hydroelectric development. purpose of the study to obtain iI The pre] iminar:t analysis of feasibility relative priocities "'ith respect to such"projects in a form which H(I,dd be use fill in tU,;cllssions ,-,ith prospective lenders . . 'rhe study VlilS conductr-!d in t..,o phaf;es and focused on t've) ve si tes for conventional -22- ilyd ,'n-pOHel: <'(evelopment: ilnc] si .. s.i tes fot' pumped storage development. Al] uJte9 in the dcainage basins of the Colorado, tfuite, Yampa alld Gunllison !livers. The evaluation of comparative costs and pOl'ler ilnd I,,,tel: supply potentiill resulted in narrovling the group to. five for ·additionnl anal.ysis in phase tv/O. Among the reviel,ed in phase. onD Hore Hilngely, South Fork, Una, Bearwilllow; Glenwood Canyon, Toponas,' Rock Creck and Azure. otlwr projects j Il Plwse two consisted of Azure, Rangely and three othOl: I-later divisions. Bechtel utili zed hydrology fund.shed by Dnvid E. Fleming Co. in performing v)RAPPS. $29,050.27 of the fleming billings described below related to hydrology work utilized .1 IJY Bechtel in \'/RAPPS. The resul ts of the study are· developed more fully in the description of activities related to projects. The study cost slightly in excess of $100,000. During the Diligence Period, Delaney approximately $177, 000 for legal services. &. Balcomb billed eRl'JCD Only in the last portion of the period can these expenditures be segregated by project. llav id. E, 1"lelll1ng Co. paid approximately $ 34 4, 000 by the Basalt Distl:ict:, $17,100 by I'Jest Divide and $9400 by Park for illl engineering services performed dur.ing 'the Diligence POl-iod. ,-c. billing period f01" which Fleming's services 1, 1972, . to Nay 1, 1976. til(! Oi ligencc Periocl; of thj s This includes summerized ('l'he ]I_pril days not included in . thi s discrepancy has been neglectecl for the purposes Opinion.) These Slims include the sums VIi th respect to specific projects referred to later in this opinion. Hobert 11cCarty, Esq., a \'lashington D.C. paid more thon $131,000 for legal services performed during the Diligence Period. l'ppr.o>:.imiltely 40'l of that amollnt relates to services for Federal COlnmi!;sion (noH Fc,(Jera.l Energy Hegu.latory Commission) penni t applications .in connection l'lith the Flattops: Azure, Hedcliff and Juniper-Cross Mountain projcctn. The remainder is based upon certain of the de!Ocr.ibed cilrlicr .in this opilli.on. ., ! PII[","u"nt to Lhe Fryin(lpan-Arkansas Project ]I.ct of August 16, 1%2, (P.r.. A"/-S90)Lhe I"lasillt Project ",as by Cong.ress as " pC; \.CII t.iil.1. pilrtieipill:in9 pro:j(,ct under the Col.orado Hiver Storage Project Act of April )1, 1956 (P.L. 84-4H5). This D cluty On the illlpo"nd on tile SeCI:etary oC the lnted.or a duty to report on the fWoHibility of a replacement reservoir at or near the Ashcroft ,;.ite, \dth a capacity of approximately 500n acre feet. This hild not been complc,ted hy the beginning of the Diligence ).'eriod. Huedi Ilesel"voir Has cOlopleted i.n 1967 as part of the fryingpan-J\.rkanr;as project anCl has a constructed capacity of ln2,3n'l acre fent. Prior to the \li.li.gence Period, Basalt I'later Conservancy niNtrict had been farmed as a vehicle to study, plun and develOp Project. Basalt \luring the Diligence Period, the District's principal efforts with reRpect to the nosalt project have been to stimulate the Bureau of: Reclamation to complete the required study and report. This was done throuQh informal meetings and discussions between Basalt District rcpl"csentatives and representatives of the Bursilu of Reclamation. These mectinCjs and disclls"ions took place at the Bureau of Reclamation offices ill rirand and salt Lake City and at various conventions of organiKations interested in wuter development. In September, 1974, the District learned that the Dureau of Hec] alnit tion hilc1 comp] eted a wri tten report l"Ii th. respect to the B,osalt project. District \"IilS refused a copy and WilS able to obtain one ullllost a .year later only after repeated requests to the Bureau of Reclamiltion. The report is a written document dated April, 1974, and revised April, 1975. Exhi.bit DOD. It is a status report and lIot con!>titute the, planning report required by. lal"l. original conc:cl't: of tlw [lasillt Project: Ims to use '/ater from Ruedl Reservoir "hich h,l:>r.ior to commoncemc:nt of the Diligence' Pet·ioel, the Bureau of Hc:elilln[ltion llild performed l:econnaisance studies and had expended $47,1,464 for that l'uL"[)ose through lIu9ust. 1971. '1"he Bluestone I'ro:iect conceived to supply irrigation \·,ill:0.r to supplem<:nl: thaI: avaiL1ble to certain lands presently under -/.G- I I j ilnd to brllll'J lIfH](!l- i17r.i.lJati.on lands not histoe.lcally PC.L()J; tCJ the: PC!l"iotl, Bluestone \'later. Conscrvnncy \) i ,; t r ic t h,,,l been formed "s ,I vehicle to s turly, plan and clevelop the Bluestone project. The Bureau of Reclamation performed no in studying til" Blues tone Projec t dill: iny the DilirJence Peri6d, for. Congress made. no funds aV1l.ilable to it for that purpose. henn prepared. No planning repor.t has yet Una Rcservoir, a central feature of the Bluestone Project; lws been tentatively considered by the Bureau of Reclamation for possible development in connection \"ith tile !'Jest Divide Project. During the Diligence Period, the Bureau of Reclamation .spent $5,000 in studying tll"t l'o[;sib,ilil:y. Bluestone.: has limited fillnncinl resources. I ,'I Buclgctu have r.',n'Jed ft:om $1000 to $2500 per annum during the Diligence PCJ:iod. In v,i,e\'1 of the lack of continued funding at the Bureau of Reclamation leve) ilnd 10\< level of financial resources of Bluestone, the board of directors of Bluest.ol'" decided to concentrate on Kobe Canal as tile first development step. In August, 19'11, Bluestone requested the Conservation Sl'niltiv(] L'eservoll: si.t.e referred to as the South l'ork Heservoir, i1'; "lc11, a:, the Hio U lanr.o Heser.voi r. I I Cm'ICD' s extensive ef forts to 1'1'05(,n'O the ability to develop its pOI-1m: project 1'liUJi.n the wilderness ! -29- IL_ and on Ih!t:cmb(:;r 1975, some of the project· f:nil I:llrCl5 , incluuinCJ the Hio Dlanco Resen'oir site anu the South l'ork Ho"ol:voir Bitc, were included within the boundaries of thc Flattops Wilderness Area without renervinCJ to the FPC the ability to create tile power project to the District's permit relates. P.L. 94-146. I3cg1nning in Jl)ne, 1972, David E. Fleming Co. conducted engineering studies to determine alternative reservoir which could bu utilized if the wilclerness houndaries should preclude usc of the sites previously planned. These studies continued through the Diligence \'edod ilnCi culminil ted in an applica tion for change of' water right in JlIly, ill·ca. 1970, to rclocate the Rio Ulanco Reservoir outside the wilderncss Thenc activ.i.tics l'csulted in payments by CRl1CD to David E. Fleming Co. of $8906.41 for engineering services. l"ork pursuan t to thc F'PC permi t conducted cven as' the Jo'lilttopn legislation progressed through Congress. David· E. El:cming Co. performed and coordinated extensive engineering services authorized or requil'cd under the FPC permit, including investigation of a potential pumped ntorage featur.e, environmental studies, geological investigation "nd other activities. These engineering services performed during .the Diligence Period cost CRWCD $83, 216.05. An additional $1600 was paid·to Western Engineers for engineering work with respect to the .1 project during the Diligence Period. Fork Reservoir and l3earwallow Reservoir were included in phase one of the WRAPPS study and report but were not for. inclusion in phase two. Prior to the Diligence Period, CRWCD.had entered into'an ngreement th Colony Development Corporation', Exxon Corporation and Atlantic Richfield Company to participate in construction of I(eservoir. The Iater froln Yeoman Park Reservoir. $1,000 per year is still being received I :1 by CRI-ICD under tha t con tract. An engineering report with respect to the Yeoman Park Reservoir W,IS I prepared by engi llcer Currie.r prior to the Diligence Period. The cost II i estilniltes, contained in Uiilt report are out of date. During the Dili\jcnce Period, engineer currier caused the 10catioJ 01' the IIll t Creck Feeder Canal and Creek Feeder Canal to be staked uut on the ground, after 'first obtaining a special use permit for the purpose from an appropriate government agency. ,These canals constitute pnrt of the Engle Valley Project but are not included in the application for diligence because the conditional decrees are not yet granted. Applications \'lure filed in 1967. to Yeoman Park Ilc5ervoir and These canals are designed to bring water increase the yield of the Eagle Valley Pl'Clject. 'l'he Burenu of Heclnmation performed no Iwrk with respect to the Valley Project during the Diligence Period. CHlvCD's finnllcial statements shol'/ only $91.23 spent on Yeoman -31- I i 1':1.:1; dudn'l the: e .. 1.cncl .. r yeil':s 1972 to 1.975 inclusive, and $5024 in 1976, in I:e,:cnt,i.,lly for the ,"ork lnci,d(ml: to t.he II .. t Creek Feeder Canal and No.1ill1 Crock I,'ced(!}: CHnal c)'tims. e. I'lns!: Il.i,viele Project In 19GB, by the Colorado River Dasin Act of September 30, 19(,0, .1 I (P.L. 90-537), the United States congress 'authorized the Divide Project for construction as a participating project under the Colo,· .. ,10 River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956. Prior to the Diligence Period, (P.L. 84-485). Divide Nater Conservancy Distritt'had been formed as a vehicle to study! plan I'/est Divide ProjeGI;. the Its 'Own finnncial resources are lir.1ited to the app,:oximate amount of $20,000 per annum ,"hich it is able to obtain by a permissible tax levy on real property ,"ithin the district. During the Diligence Period, extensive resistance to the West ' Divide Project developed on cllvironmental concerns. These' cOlleerns were directed principally at the project features in the Crystal River Valley with emphasis on the Placita Reservoir near Marble. In Jalluary, 1975, a citizens' advisory group was Wust Divide. urUDS by This group included representatives of' various geographical within the district and was formed to assist West Divide in d(:t"rmining t.he loca tion and na ture of the fea tures to be constructed. Tlds gl:OUp met a nUlllber of Urnes and produced a Nritten report in jo'l!bnrary, .1976, reLi,ecti.llg a variety of views. The reflected a de!,;ire to 1Iccommodate the needs of the l'lest Divide Creek area for irl:igntion wnter, Cryntal River water in some manner,' but· i1vcdcl.ing structures ,·,hlch ,muld adversely affect the environment of the Crystal River: Valley. During the Diligence Period, the Bureau of Reclamation cOllllucted activities in furtherance of the Nest Divide Project in the following subjectsat the following costs: I .1 -32- I \ I i '/ " .- ,llInc, of: I'l'OjCCt: including morle" of waLer rlelivery (contributed by' CIMCD ilnd t . Divide Di.strl"l! / salinity studies to determine effect of salt loading on River Syutem by construction and opeL'ation of Divide· Project ,JunC!, 1975 Jlllle, Conti.nued Advanced Planning Studies and l'lith Citizens' Advisory Panel; Devel.opment of Project Alternatives . $130,000 Continuoc1 Advanced Planning $170,000 Studies and connideration of incorporation of Basalt Project features within the Hest Divide Project; Una Reservoir as possible storage site for use in 'connection with West Divide 1976 A prodllct of the Bureau of Reclamation efforts is a preliini'nary Statemeritof Salinity Effects with respect to Divide Project dated July 27, 1973 DurincJ the Diligence Period, Dilvid E, Fleming Co, 'performed hydrological studies ilnd prepared reports and maps necessary for furtherance of the West Divide project and was paid $17,135.34 by \'Iost Divide for such services. His I"ork directed developr.1ent of alternative plans to meet environmental ohjections to the [lI:oject: plans, 'I'he [-'leI/ling reports I"ere not offered in evidence. Lecjal services performed by Delaney & Balcomb incident to Hest Divide's activities during the Diligence Period cost approximately $UOOO per annum, During the Diligence Period, representatives of West Divide tn/volle,1 to \'lashington, D.C. to "rpear before Congressional committees for the purpose of seeking continued funding in furtherance of the West Dj v.lde project. During t:ho Diligence Period, West Divide representatives he I d numorous meel'in'j!} wi th members of the puhlic arid governmental "'jL:l/cies to promote understanc1in':J, acceptance and SUPPOl:t for the Nest -33- I I I I I .! of tho Park Pt:ojecl:. and Eilrs also nrc do!;:i.n feuture: $14,1155 in 1972, $32,5B4 i'n 19'13, $953 in 1974, $1:10 in 1975, and none in 1976. The purpose of these expenditul'es callnoL be determined from the evidence. In 1965, CmlCD entered into a contract with Colony Development Co. with respect to participation in the Edwards Reservoir Project. 'l'he nature of the contract does not appear from the evidence. CWiCO received $2,000 per annwn in 1972 and 1973 and $1,000 per annum: in 1974 through 1976 on the basis of this contract. is ·lIt1antic Richfield the !OUCCCS50r. 1:0 the Colony inl:erest. Until lIUgu51:, 1973, the Edwards Reservoir vias planned to be .uti1ized in connection with the Redcliff Project and'it,was involved in the uti license application. In lIugust, 1973, CRWCD decided to the Savnnill He5ervoir in lieu oE the Edv/ards Reservoir for' that purpose. 'j'he only v/OJ:k accomplished Heservoir during respecl: to' I:he Edwards Diligence Period was a high-water-line survey to determine whether ilny improvements had been constructed encroaching on I the reservoir site, I CRWCD's financial statements reflect only a $25.30 expenditure in ]975 and a $2,742 expenditure in 1976 for Edwards Reservoir. the expenditures relate to the I 'I Inferential! survey. j j. 'rhe Canyon Project was included in phase one of Bechtel , t concluded that the site is economically not attractive for power or water supply. DlId,II9 the Dil,ic)ellce Period, very general talks held Hith Lhe City of GleIlH()od Spr.ings ,is to that city's interest in the GleJll100d Cilnyon Project as it [wI,wr sOllrce. Nothing resul ted froJ:\ the talks. CUNeo has discussed within its OHn organization the Glenwood Cilnyon Project as [Jilt it possible pOl,/er source for the \oIest Divide Project not asked the flurc<'1lI of Reclamation to include this possibility -41- I Jr ill .it" >'tudy of \'/ust Il.ivido alternati.ves. SllbseCjllen t to the n.i.l igence Per iod, 'rudol' to perform Cll9.1neering fcnBibility und cost: studies Sitn Frilnc;.i.8co \-alB or: tha project. 1n9 Co. of 'rllclor issued a repol-t in letter form on May 11, 1977, in which it concluded that the benefit-cost ratio is in the area of 2.1 to 1.0 and that consideration of project is deserved. [i.nancial statem8nts reElect approximate expenditures of of only $21.21 in 1972, 0 in 1973, $914.06 in 1974, 0 in 1975 and $10 in 1976 with respect to the Glenwood Canyon project. The of these expenditures does not appear from the evidence. 'j'here was no evidence of any activity directed specifically Lmlilr.cl developnlent of the SnOlo/JTlass Project during the Diligence Period. CIMCIl' opposition to applica tions of others, inclliding an application 5 of ']'"in Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. for change of wilter right and an application of 11.i1ls BlIrger for conditional \-,ater rights to sUl?port a transmollntain . d.iversion em'ICD's counsel testified \·,ould I .1 ) V iind adversely a EEec t the supply to the Snowmass project, was the on- ly ac tivi ty havi n. of: the S\'Jitch Pipe] inc Distci.ct .in 1977. ;·I:·;!:.i:Jncc1 Ln {)J:chLlrrl \oIUS '.'.'hi.s nmount ),''''" cllverten al: a nevI po.i.nt of. tl.ivcrsi.on imel il::>P1ied to bencfici1.l1 ",;c thrO",)h " pipe11.nc vd.th 14 c. f. s. cil!,acity. An "ppliCiltion for c\l,:III'ID of poi.nt of c1,ivendon hilS bcc.:n filed. 15 c. f. n. of the lIridCJes f,v'i tch pumpi.ng Pipeline ri(lht Has :ll1ni\lnecl to Rid9lith the hope that: some Cameo I"mter could purchilse<1. 'J'hel:cilft(,c, in 1977, 15 c.f.s. of the Cameo pumping pipeline l'latel' \'las acquired by Ute !'Jater Conservancy nistrict and an al.l:ernate point: of eli.version is being sought in in l'later Divi- sioll 5 to enable divers.i.on by the new pumping station two to three milcs upstreilm on the Colorado River from the original point of diverniOIl. Physically, 14 c.f.s. has been diverted at this alternate point of diversion and in W-3768 it is sought to have this amount decreed itbrlolute.· 'l'he pUlIlpj IIg pipeUne .for this diversion' cost apr.roximately 'j I 000. D. ancl 1. l'lith Respect to the Organization the Jlpplicants I I CHI'Ien CIMCD \'las created in 1937 pursuant to a statute enacted for -43- -. .._ •. , ·-·d·_·____, I I lit,,\. ""cclf it; 1><11:["";(l. C.II.S. 37-46-101, 01:. soq. ill:ion of: lC(.!.;";].ilti.vc IIllt:posc is set forth i.n C.H.S. 'I'he deelnr- (19'/3) 37-46-101 "37-46·-101. I.c9i.nlat.i.ve deelariltion. In the opinion of the general ilssembly of the state of Colorado the conservation of the \'lCIter of the Colorado river in Colorildo for storage, irrigation, mining, and ufacturing purposes and the construction of reservoirs, ditches, and \;arks for the purpose of irrigation and reclamation of additional 1,lOds not yet irrigilted, as \·/ell as to f.urnish il supplemental sllJ)ply of water for lands now under irrigation, is of. 'vital importance to thc, grOl·,th ilnd develop:nent of the entire district and the of il11 its inhahitilnts and that to promote the health anel general of the state of Colorado an appropriate for the conservation, use a n d . development of the waler resources of the Colorado river am] .its principal tributarie!: should be establish- I ' '1 eel ilnd 9·ivcn such pO\'lers uS may be necessary to safe .. guard for Colol.·ado, all \'Iilters to the state of Colorado is c(!ui tably enti tled under the colorildo river compact. CH',JCll II bCllllldurics cnhl'ucf! all of t\-/elve counties ilnd parts 'of three C.H.S. (:J973) 37-46-103. It 0- is milnilged and controlled.by a bOilr<1 of directoI'S consisting of 15 members, one from each county in the district. proximately '1'he C.R.S. (1973)37-46-104. The district includes'ap- of the land ureil of the State of Colorado. conferred on cm'ICD by statues include the (1) In its corporate .. capacl.ty, such clJ.strl.ct shall have the povler: . * • • "(c) To make surveys and conduct investigiltions to dctermine the best manner of utilizing stream flows within the district, the amount of such flow or other "ilter supply and to locate': ditches, irri9atioll and reservoirs to store or utilize "ater for irrigation, mining, .manafilctuting or other purpose.5, and to JlIill(e filings upon silid \·/ilter ilnd initiate appropriiltions for the use and of the ul-. timate appropriators, and to perfor. illl acts and thing!: necessary or advisable to secure and insure an adequ·. e supply of \·/ilter, nrf'sent and future, for irrigation, mining, rnanufac;tu.t;ing and domestic pur-' pOGes within said districts; "(d) '1'0 make contracts with respect to the relative rights of saiel district under its claims ilnd filings, and tile rights of any other person', ilssociiltion, or organization seeking to divert water from ilny of the strcnrns within said district; r 11 '. J :/ 1 "(e) To contract with any agencies, officers, bureaus, and departments of the state of Colorado or the united States, including the department of institutions, to ohtaill S(,rvices or labol: for the initiat.ion or construction of irrigiltion \-larks, canals, reserVOirs, power plnnts, or retaining ponds' within sRid district, ••• -44- J' 'J'o ocqilni ZC spcc.i.iJl a:H;eSBlIlcnt cl.i.stricts ill: diffC:I:enl: Um ..·" rot" the purpose of cst<>l.>lishinCj· cffectjVl.! iHJ(·nc:ic!... t:o f'.(;Cllr.C funds to construct; rc!.;cr- I' vCJ.irs or oth(!l" iCl:igilti()n \'Iorks unclnr variolls Lypes and f.i,IHlIlc.:lnq, among others, uy isof r.t:Vt:IH1C \'/c.1rrilnl:!i only, by thE! l,fH;UtlnCC of bond!.> (J[' revenue obligations, cansti tuting Cl lien up to n clOlount clgilinnt: the lands in sa.id special .impJ:ovnlll(:nt distdct:, anu p<>y<>hle out of: special a"se'.;""lcnl:<; or by general ohligntions of such special impn)vclnC!nl: dint-.r lets; plun!; "(h) '1'0 contrnct ",ith the United States governlllent, thc hUCCilU of reclamation, or other agencies of the Unitcd States government, for the construction of any such works and the issuance of such obligations as the special improvement distric'ts may have the to issue in payment of costs of construction and maintcnnnce of said works; I I '1 * * • "(I;) '1'0 exercise such implied powers and perform such other acts as Illay be necessary to carry out and effcct ilny of: the express pO\'lers hereby conferred upon such . dist:rict. II CHI'ICD is .empowered to assess property l'lithin the [}iEltrict up to iI lllaximum of mills for the purpose of paying the expenses of tion, for surveys and plans, to pay the salaries of officers and per dicm and expenses of directors as well It-aUve expenses !,ul-suant to C,R.S. (1973) incidental adminis- 37-46-109(1) (a), In ad- clit.ion, cm'ICD is empowerc,d to assess property within the district up to a maximum of. 0.2 mills for the purpose of paying the costs and 8xpenues of construction or partial construction of any project· de:. signC!d or intended to i1ccomplish the utilization of I"ater by storage or ()thenlise for any beneficial llses or purposes. C.H.S. (1973) 3/-46-109(1) (b). Local imr,rovement distl-icts may he created by when I I I ! .I the board oE directors ari! of the opinion that it is feasible and IlCce!J!Hlry that ditches, canals, reservoirs or other I'lorks I'lhich benefit only a part of the district be constructecl. c,n.s. (1973) 37-46- Such subdistricts can be organized to issue revenue warrants, spec.iill. improvement: provements and, })011(15 to finance the proposed l'lorks or other im- .. in circumstances where the benefit will not be less than the bonded obligation, ilsonilblenens of App. 235 (1095); 51. Colo_ J. activities_ applicant is relevant to the Taughenbauqh v. Clark, 6 COlo_ vall.ey D.itch Co_ v_ Filrmers Pawnee Canal' Coo, 545 (1911); Lakes II; TI,in Lal:es Thus,an applicant Hith ample financial ability must usc'that abil- i ty to move " p.:ojec t tOl.al:d completion in order to c1emonstra te ·d11i-· -4U- ·1 And limiu,(l fi.naIH.:ial ability can 'help justify 'rhe number of projects vlhich llIl applicilnt is engaged in dcvcloping has baen found relevant to the ability of the applicant in dc:t:crminntion of the question of reasonable diligence. City and Coun.!:¥. of. Denver v. Nor.lhCl:n Colocildo I'later: Con5ervancy Dist., supra, at p. 391. Dili<)ence in developing one part of a large and complex '. sy!;Lem tum. hilS heen con;;.i.derad to constitute diligence on the entire sys-. 'l'ul.n),akes J; Suburhan I'later Users IIss'n. v. Colo- 'Alteration in plans on part of a I'/ater project in order to 'Jcncrate a more efficient and economical plan'has 'been found to demonstrate diligence. 1 I,ater Users IIss'n. v. Colorado River Conservilt:,ion Dis!:., 159 Colo. 499, 414 P.2d 469 (1966). Such al- terntions demonstrnte continuous engineering studies and diligent ef- i, fort to divert and apply water to J use. Id. But a fundnment- ,! al chilnge of plan may prevent. diligence with respect to the changed project from being considered diligence with respect to the ori9innl'projDCt. In detel:mining l'lhether structures can be considered part of R s1ngle project so that diligence on one structure Ciln be considered" diligence on all, n common npplicant and common ultimate use are not enough. . See City and County of Denver v. Northern Colorndo I,ater Conser- City and 'County of Denver v. vancy' Dist., Colorado Na ter Conser- (involving three transmountain diversion projects on U,[ce different tributaries of the Colorado River,' utilizing three diffOl:cnt trnnsmonntnin diversion tllnnelsJ absence of intent to abnndon a stitule diligonce. right does not con- City and Count)' of Denver v. Northern Colorado -49- j I I I .1 I i t• f ,. I J I !l, 't, 1 . N(:ucl [(II: l1dcl.i.t:inflill Wittur jn j.tcc.1f: i£: not evidence of rOiloonilblc illilc;U.on, Hill IIOl: :;UPPOl:t a (;.tal," of reilsonilble diligence. III Ibid. it HilS obse .... ved ilt p.565 of 171 Colo: "Claimilnts of conditional Hilter rights should not be permitted to hoard these conditional rights in perpetuity Hithout diligent efforts ·to complete their Horl:s to 'the detriment of those seeking to make use of the same Hater." See Dnnv(,l" v. Norl:heJ:n Colorado Water Conservancy District, supra. at' p. 400. F'. App] ica tl,.r9in9' the capaci.ty of: a tunnel and increasing t.he capacity of a large, collection system to gather the water which the enlarged tunnel wOllld tranoport. principle of It would be a VHst of the single system I to hold that principle applicable to the loosely rulated CRI'lell projects 11hich arc the subjects· of the [.>resent ufJplica tion. expresses another principle of Colorado water li.... \>Ih.ich hilS relevance to the p.resonc··later rights should not be permitted to hoard these conditional rights in perpetuity Idthout diligent efforts to comp.lete their \>larks to the detriment of those seeking to make use of the same \>later." 171 Colo. at p. 565. fIJJpr:opl-la te rec09n.i.tion of this policy in the circumstances of this case militates against extension of single system of Litkc"-.J. to the CmlCD projects. -51- 1" } \ ! j .3 It it; concludod that to extend tho single system pd.llciplc to the cllaR no evidence cd' 1tny iI<:tivil:y 1'1i.I:h re"pcct to the 1\t:hcl"oft He,;ervoir dur,ing the Diligence I'cl-j od. It i5 concluded thnt able the Basalt Diutrict hils c>:erciscd renson- in tho clevclopmcnt of i111 components of the Basalt Project, uxccpt 1\shcroft HeHOl"voir. "i thin the pi counties Pm:iud. Sec Users 1\ssociation v. C0101:,1'(10 River Water Conservation' p,ist. Applicant seeks a finding of diligence i1S to Ruedi Reservoir for its constructed cilpncity of )02, 369 a.f. only. nnd the decree should bc so limited. Similarly, the Landis Canal finding should be limited to the 130 c.f.s. applied for rather than 170 c.f.s. originally decreeel. b. Bluestone Pr9i!z..!:. I ' lJufdgnntion of the Bluestone Project as a potenti.al' par,t'iciPatiri g project under the Colorado River Storage project Act has made reasonable and appropriate the decision of the l District to work through the federal funding process to move this project toward construction. Although activities during the Diligence Period as described above "OI:e not extensive, it is relevant that almost' $415,000 had been expenued by the BUl'eau c..f Heclamation for ,reconnaisance studies' thr'O)Jgh August, 1971. earliest Bluestone project decreeD with the earliest priority elates being .1936.' further progress during the Diligence Period Con:ccpt for. the l1umJ)cr of cJaims hcld by CI:I'ICD iln,1 era'ICD' s l..i,OIi I;.,d t: .lnClIll!C!s. :r t is cone1",1c,1 thilt CHI'ICD has not exercised in thu development of the Ea(llc Valley Project ducing the P"riod, c. Hco;t Divide 'J'he Clctivi U,es of to the III vide outlined curlier Divide Project amply demonstral:e re!)peGt ,efforts of pividc proj"ct und the Duraau of Rcclumation to arrive at a. suitable configuration and to adapt the project features to serioua ",1(1 intun:.;c resis:til'llcC of unvironmental groups to certain project. fe", tures. . A" in the caDC of the 1.\usa1t Project, it may be that the pr.o:icct ce,nf.lgurul::lon ultimately chosen I'lill hot utilize all, the eli.tioni,l I,,,ter. rights 'included in the \'lest Divide Project, but it :',"; I!; too early to Bay I'lhich ill terna ti ve ultimu tely will be pursued and . ' i.t is premature to attempt to characterize the efforts of the Divide uS directed to some but not all of the project featureB. It is concluded that \'lest diligence in development of the J)j}igencfl Period. 1. has exerciBcd rensonable, Divide Project during the Sec Four Counties 1'liI tel' Users Associ.ation' v. Color'ado Hil!!bi t Ei,n: ill1d 'fhe condi tiOllill Features for the Habbi,t Ears' ilnd 'froublesome fentures 1'}Cre entered in 1964, but amended in 1970, and all 'features wure awarded 1959 priority dates. 'I'he hydrology studies by David E. Flemili(J Co., the J:ct:onllaissallcc !;urvcy of the proposed municipal I'later line for 1:1:(""OI1.il1g, the u!;e of COHSHI II to obtilin supply and reservoir d.:t.(, (bien, the I'i()r): bC9ull by BooJaoaTl-Edmonston Hith respcct to 'financ.i.n9 (Jf' 1I;'YPdrl: Her;er,voir und the commencement of construction of I\aypark Cillliil uy the 'f.rollu1.C!some Cree): ranche).'s, viClwd ",)ilins t the bau);gJ:Oli'nd :"'57- 'I Clctivity of CR\'.'CD, flf or rli:I;Oc:,iIlU.on, ll. fLG.S. 'FIC(ing st"tion contract, David E. Fleming Co. hyclJ:cd,o'lY o:;tucly IInel otllCe acl:ivil:ic5 detailed in section -5U- :n of ·this , I , I I .,, O\I.ill,j,CIII iHlIl)ly ent.!lhl.i.!ih ,:n:IHCIi"lHb.1(! c1·i 1 \'/.i.th la(!upccl'. to tho I' rcl:icct. :c t j" con(;l .. ,leroi£E.!: extensive elicussions ilnd negotiations betl.een CRWCn and " the Cities of Colorado Springs and Aurora, the engineering work in support of the for utilization of features of the Redcliff Project to supply the tl-lO cities' 1I0mesta!:e Pl:oject, the extensive efforts p"J."falant to the ['ERe stlldy permit: and the other activities detailed in pnrt I I of this Opinion establisll reasonable diligence with respect'to the Hcr.lcliff Project. 1 t is concllldod that CHI-JCD has exercised reasonable diligence in the clevelopment of the Pl:oposed approprations for the Redcliff Project during the Diligence Period. Denvcr's brief: sllggests that some discrepancies exist in quantities adjudicated nnel continued by findings of reasonable diligence in decrees entered over the years for various features of the Redcliff 11rojuct. This question was not aeldressed in the pre-trial order or III the briefs of other parties and I.U,J. not be considered at this time. 9. Edwnrcls Reservoir ------------------ '1'hc coneli tionnl decree for Ech'lards Reservoir, I.i th a capacity, of 3203.1 Hcce fccl:, was ent,n-ed in 1960, and II priority date o,f 1964 HilS cl\..rilrded. The only effort' establishod by the evidence with respect to the r::dl-lc,rcls HeBervoir I.as a high \'Iater line survey to determine the e>:tullt of encroachment of improvements on the proposed reservoir site. The Ecl\-li,rcls Reservoir was to have been part of the Redcliff Project until 1\1l'IIIS!:, 1973, Hiten another reservoir r:i1"/oIrcis Hesel'vo.ix 1'/aS substituted for the function to have peric)rmecl in the Radcliff Project. The ev,i (I"nce eloes not es tab) ish the milliner in which \wter to be stored in Eell'/d I:ds or f i lIil HC!!;(:I:VO.i.L' ncill') e f (CO ,- is nf.M in tenck:cl to l.oo llsed or any plnnl1ing, engineering ts eli ):ec tecl tOI." nl cons truction of the Ech.nrds Reser'voir. Till: evidellce cloes not establish ilny cil-cumstances inhibiting planning -59- If IIS truc tioll ef fell: tt3 H1 til resp('," t to Edwil cds Roservoir, except: !'c,r the numbur of cl;Li.los held hy Cm'ICI) ancl'CHlvCD's'limitcd finances. 1. t is concluded tha t CR\'ICD has 1I0t exercised reasonable in the development of the proposed appropriation for Edwards Reservoir the Diligellce Pel: iod. Glen\'lOod Canyon Project 1.0. I ,I 'J'he only evidence of activity with respect to Glem-lOod Canyon Projact durin9 the Diligence Period was inclusion in phase one of the \VHIIPPS study. 'fhe study report: issued in December, 1971\, contained the conclusion that the GlenHood Canyon project is not economically attractive for \,Iilter or pOHar supply. ! Although '1'udor Engineering Co. 's report in 1977 wus favorable to_further consideration of the project, all of 1 'l'u(l(II:' 5 \'ICJI:k took place outsidc the Dil.iqence Period and was based on cucsory eKilmination and includ(:s a sol.i.cl.tation of authorization for further study. It \olils apparent from the evidence that' talks between and tl)(, City of Glem;ood Springs with respect to the Glenwqod Canyon,project il" " pOl'lf,r source for the city '1ere casual and exploratory only. \·18((' 'l'hey llOt (olloHed by serious negotiations. I t is concludecl tila t C[\\'1CD has not exercised reasonable dil iycnce j·n the Clev(:lupment of tile proposed appropriation fbr Glemmod Canyon I' I-oj ec t dUI'1ng the Ili liCJenc:e Per iod . 1.1. Snowmas" Project IIi11gonce Pariod Has litigation ' , 'J>he only ac.:tivity related to the Project during the opposing the application of others \,}<>ter ri(lhtn anrl chanCJes in water rights which compete for the same Hiltor supply to be utilized by the SnOl-nnass project. Evidence 'respect I to such litigation and its relation to the Sno\'lIlIass Project was vague 1 " ilnd general. 1'here \''''5 no evidence of any planning, design, financin'g or construc.:tion efforts relating to the SnoHmass Project. There no evidence of any circumstances inhibiting efforts, except for the number of: claim:; held by Cm'lCD and Cm'leD' s limited finances. I t is I I I i concluded that cm'ICD has not exercised reasonable d 1.' l 'l.CJcncc: ill the development of the proposed appropriation for the Sno\'lma:;n Project I -60- .-...::::.-.. _--------. -_. ,j 'l'hCI70. \'/lUi nO cvidC:llcc of ilny activity to plan, I or construct ilny l'ilCil.ity to apply to beneficial usa any portion of the 71 c.f.s. condit.i.onnl 'J'hero retDinod by after conveyillg 29 c.f.s. to others. no evidence that the 29 c. f. s. aSliigned has "any relation to 71. c.Ls. retained by Cm'lCD so that the act of the assignees in effo.rts to npply the 29 c. f. s. to beneficial use I"o'uld in any l'lay advance the application of any pact of CRI'ICD's remaining 71 c.Ls. to beneficial use. 'fhe1:e I'lns no evidence of any inhibiting pl.anning, finnnclng 01: construc tion except for the number of claims held by CRI"lCD and CRNCD' s l.iu,i.ted finilnccn. It is' concluded that CIMCD has not exercised reasonable diligence in the developln(!n t of: the proposed appropri.ation for the 71 c. f. s. conditionally decreed to the DiU,gonce Period. 13'r.idges Switch Pumping Pipeline during No pDrty opposes a of diligence I-/ith 1 respect to the portions of the conditional decree whicri have been assigned by cm'ICD and arc in the process of construction or have been fully conntr.ncted. 13. ,Calneo PeoE'.:!: Ther.e was no evidence of any activity to plan, finance or consl1:uct the Camao Reservoir or u facility to utilize any part of the 35 c. f. s. decreed to the Cameo Pumping pi peline and remaining in CRHCD , uCter assignment of 15 C.f.H. to Ute Water Conservancy District. There the 1-!ilB no evidence 15 c. f.:tent it exceeds 130 c.f.s. 4. " th respect \:0 those. of the Subject Claims remaining in I i I i l!ff'<:(;t, cileh respective ilpplicant shall file an application for quadrennial I I I -62- . f.i (o( rCilsantlllIc eli li.9cHlce in lIIilintain the sCline un] hove the devc] opment of the pJ:oposed nny such concli tional riittterson Crcek Collection SYBtcm Piccance Basin pipeline E'l1tUops 'funnel BCilrl'lil1low Heservoir Deep Lake Colleetion System 1;'lDUops Bench 1'1 U1nc POS!.ium Creek Collect ion System lIpper lJearl'lulloll POI'I(,r Plant LOI'ler lJearwilllol'l Power Plant Beil ::\'ID1.1.o\'l Conelu it 131,034.5 a. f. 75 60 254 49,291.9 200 ' 254 175 c. Ls. c. f.s. e.f.s. a. f. c. f. n. c. f. s. 200 c. f. s. c.f.5. 'l'lIll EAGLE VIILLEY PIlOJECT - consisting of the following feiltures: iI. b. c. d. e. E. Ililvcmc:yer C"ntll lllln Hc[;(:rvoir Dnd '1'IIE I'LII'I"1'OPS PHOJEC'f - consisti ng of the follovling b. D. ", 'l'lm BLUEs'rom: PROJEC.T - consbting of the following' feilt" ... ,,[; (n .Il. ) : b. c'. , Resp. tvn i r YeOffiiln Coulee r1ena Canel Sundell Canal IIDt Creek Feeder Cnnal Nolan Creek Feeder Canal ,6,894 ' D. f. ,c. f. s. 75 25 c. f.s. c. f. s. 27 38.5 c. f.s. DIVIDE: PHOJEC'l' - consisting of the feiltures (n.R.): TilE a. b. c. d. e. f. ,I· h. i. j. k. 1. m. n. P)ilcitn UC:5ervo.ir Osgood Heservoir IIvalDnche CDnid & Siphon Placita Power Plant IIvalanche POller Plant 'funnel CilnDl & Siphon l(encl i,) Reservoi[ \'l(:st HalOm Creek Reservoir I'lest Divide CDn"l Horse 'I'hief. CDnal Oli\lood l'ouer Plant Fourmile CDnal Yanl; Creek Reservo i.r -2- __._----- .. 62,009.0 128,728.7 1,000 1,000 170 630 15, to 50 6,500 300 550 a. L a. f. c. f. s. c. f. s. c. f.s. c. Ls. a. f. a. f.' c.f.s. c.f.s. },OOO c. f. s. 65 c.f'.fl .. and ]3,695.04 a. f. I '/ ,I • • 1'. '1'111, IHDIlI.I> PlinK PI\OJEC'l' - consisting of the foHowing Project',,, und tl\(:ir (enf'ectivc fc,Ilures (n.H.): 1. 2. 'rOPONl\f; I'I(OJEC'r - consisting of the, following features: '1'IIE 'rOpOIIl"IS Toponas Chnu} EIIR I'HOJI:C'f - consisting of the following features: c. d. c. L g. h. i. c. d. - 3.1,575.2 a. f. 60 c. f. s. 25 C. f.B. 260 c, f, s. 30 c. f.s. 100 c. f. s. 100 C. f. s. 100 c.f.s .. c. f.s. Consisting of the a.f. ' IIi1YPDrk Meservoir lIaypark Conal, lIeadgate NOS 1 and 2 The Rirta Ditch No.2, Second P.nlar.gcment Krcl1ur.l ing Cilni!1 145 c.f.s. 62.55 c,Ls. 35 c.f.s. 1'\\E GOne PROJf::C'1' - Consisting of the following feilturcB: n. b. c. 'rhe IIzurc Reseevoi( 'rhe Fir5t Enlargement of Azure Reservoir The Azure POVlcr plant 25,51l3.B a.L 63,803.5 1,000 a',f. c, L s. TilE RI\NG8LY PROJECT - consisting of the features; iI. b. c, II. Ile:seevoir Lllteral Canal No. 1 Lateeal. Canal No. 2 Canal No. } Conal No. 2 Canal.No. 3 Canal No. 4 Canal. NO. 5 Canal No. n 'l'\(QUflLESOt,\E PRO:IECT: following features: iI. G. Debcrar.cl Gun!;ight lIci.lclgntc Gunsight IIcaugatc Dc be e ar.d IIci.lugate Debe[aeu lIeodgate ' Debor aed lIeadgate Debcrard lIeurlga te Dcberarcl lIeoc1gate Debernrd lJendgilte '1'118 b. 4. )0,029.9 D. f. 200 c. f. s. 'I'IIE 1\/l13nI'[' a. b. 3. Hcs(;rvo i r (.1. b. Rangely Reservoir Douglas Canal Rangely Power Conduit '1'118 Rlmcr.IFF features: a. b. 63,065,3 120 620 a. f. c. f. s. c.f .s. PROJECT - consisting of the following Iron Mountain Reservoir Pando Feeder 68;042.72 D.L 400 c.f.G. -3- .' I, I •• • I c. d. e. Gilman'powe[ Conduit PeterDon Crcnk Feeder Conduit FHll Creek Conduit c. f. s. c. f:. s. 1 ,000 40 c. f. s. 20 , u. f. 3,203.1 J. TilE GLl';mIOOO ClltlYON PHOJECT - consisting of, the following features: il. b. K. Pacpcke Gerbi!z Conduit Pabst Hcservoir 4,760.1 a.£. 300 c.f.s.·' 73,644.6 a.f. '1'IIE I"IOLCO'l'T PHOJEC'f - consisting of the following features: , a. b. The Wolcott Reservoir The Wolcott pumping Pipe Line 65,975 500 a. f. c.L s. 100 c. f. s. mUDGES SIHTCIl PUI-IPING PIPEL}NI!: IL N. 1,500 c.f.s. 725.B a.L (136,875 a.f.,annually) 'mE SN0lV1111SS PROJBCT - consisting of the following features: a. b. c. L. G) enllOod Canyon Power Plant Glenwood CDoyon Po[ebay 'fflE CMlEO PROJEC'r - consisting of the fo11olling features: a. b. The Cameo pumping Pipeline The Cumeo Reservoir 50 c.f.s. 10,995.6 a.L lifter the application H'Hi. duly resumed in regular. fushion by the Water Court, opposition was timely flIed to said opplicution by Vidler Tunnel Water Company, the City and County of Denvcr, acting by and through its Doard of Water Commissioners, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Ilistrict. 1111 fO,ur opponents opposed the requested finding of qUildrcnnial diligence ',lith respect to all projects, 'on grounds ulleged in the Statements of Opposition. II. UNCONTROVERTED 'FACTS The folloHing facts arc admitted by all parti!s and require no proof thereon: -4- --------