DOCSLIB.ORG

Water-Quality Data Analysis of the Upper Gunnison River Watershed, Colorado, 1989–99

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water-Quality Data Analysis of the Upper Gunnison River Watershed, Colorado, 1989–99 Water-Quality Data Analysis of the Upper Gunnison River Watershed, Colorado, 1989–99 By Jason J. Gurdak, Adrienne I. Greve, and Norman E. Spahr U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4001 NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Prepared in cooperation with the CITY OF GUNNISON COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT GUNNISON COUNTY MOUNT CRESTED BUTTE WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TOWN OF CRESTED BUTTE UPPER GUNNISON RIVER WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Denver, Colorado 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25046, Mail Stop 415 Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225–0046 Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is committed Each assessment is guided by a nationally consis- to serve the Nation with accurate and timely scientific tent study design and methods of sampling and analy- information that helps enhance and protect the overall sis. The assessments thereby build local knowledge quality of life, and facilitates effective management about water-quality issues and trends in a particular of water, biological, energy, and mineral resources. stream or aquifer while providing an understanding (http://www.usgs.gov/). Information on the quality of how and why water quality varies regionally and of the Nation’s water resources is of critical interest to nationally. The consistent, multi-scale approach helps the USGS because it is so integrally linked to the long- to determine if certain types of water-quality issues are term availability of water that is clean and safe for isolated or pervasive, and allows direct comparisons of drinking and recreation and that is suitable for indus- how human activities and natural processes affect try, irrigation, and habitat for fish and wildlife. Esca- water quality and ecological health in the Nation’s lating population growth and increasing demands for diverse geographic and environmental settings. Com- the multiple water uses make water availability, now prehensive assessments on pesticides, nutrients, vola- measured in terms of quantity and quality, even more tile organic compounds, trace metals, and aquatic critical to the long-term sustainability of our commu- ecology are developed at the national scale through nities and ecosystems. comparative analysis of the Study-Unit findings. The USGS implemented the National Water- (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/natsyn.html). Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to support The USGS places high value on the communica- national, regional, and local information needs and tion and dissemination of credible, timely, and relevant decisions related to water-quality management and science so that the most recent and available knowl- policy. (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). Shaped by edge about water resources can be applied in manage- and coordinated with ongoing efforts of other Federal, ment and policy decisions. We hope this NAWQA State, and local agencies, the NAWQA Program is publication will provide you the needed insights and designed to answer: What is the condition of our information to meet your needs, and thereby foster Nation’s streams and ground water? How are the increased awareness and involvement in the protection conditions changing over time? How do natural fea- and restoration of our Nation’s waters. tures and human activities affect the quality of streams and ground water, and where are those effects most The NAWQA Program recognizes that a national pronounced? By combining information on water assessment by a single program cannot address all chemistry, physical characteristics, stream habitat, and water-resource issues of interest. External coordina- aquatic life, the NAWQA Program aims to provide tion at all levels is critical for a fully integrated science-based insights for current and emerging water understanding of watersheds and for cost-effective issues and priorities. NAWQA results can contribute to management, regulation, and conservation of our informed decisions that result in practical and effective Nation’s water resources. The Program, therefore, water-resource management and strategies that protect depends extensively on the advice, cooperation, and and restore water quality. information from other Federal, State, interstate, Since 1991, the NAWQA Program has imple- Tribal, and local agencies, non-government organiza- mented interdisciplinary assessments in more than 50 tions, industry, academia, and other stakeholder of the Nation’s most important river basins and aqui- groups. The assistance and suggestions of all are fers, referred to as Study Units. (http://water.usgs.gov/ greatly appreciated. nawqa/nawqamap.html). Collectively, these Study Units account for more than 60 percent of the overall water use and population served by public water supply, and are representative of the Nation’s major hydrologic landscapes, priority ecological resources, Robert M. Hirsch and agricultural, urban, and natural sources of Associate Director for Water contamination. FOREWORD III CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................ III Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Geology........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Methods of Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Data Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Data Compilation and Comparison ............................................................................................................................. 10 Temporal Trend Analysis............................................................................................................................................. 11 Surface-Water Quality ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Field Properties............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Major Ions.................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Nutrients ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Spatial Distribution and Comparison to State Standards................................................................................... 18 Temporal Trends ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Land-Use Comparison....................................................................................................................................... 22 Trace Elements............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Spatial Distribution and Comparison to State Standards................................................................................... 24 Temporal Trends ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Streambed Sediment .........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado
    Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests April 6, 2012 Beaver Skull Fen in the West Elk Mountains – a moat surrounding the floating mat Barry C. Johnstona, Benjamin T. Strattonb, Warren R. Youngc, Liane L. Mattsond, John M. Almye, Gay T. Austinf Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests 2230 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416-2485 a Botanist, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Gunnison, CO. (970) 642-1177. [email protected] b Hydrologist, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Gunnison, CO. (970) 642-4406. [email protected] cSoil Scientist, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Montrose, CO. (970) 240-5411. [email protected] d Solid Leasable Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service Minerals and Geology Management, Centralized National Operation, Delta, CO. (970) 874-6697. [email protected] e Hydrologist (Retired), Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Delta, CO. f Resource Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison, CO. (970-642-4943). [email protected]. 1 Acknowledgements Our deepest thanks go to Charlie Richmond, Forest Supervisor, for his support and guidance through this project; and to Sherry Hazelhurst, Deputy Forest Supervisor (and her predecessor, Kendall Clark), for valuable oversight and help over all the hurdles we have encountered so far. Carmine Lockwood, Renewable Resources Staff Officer, Lee Ann Loupe, External Communications Staff Officer, and Connie Clementson, Grand Valley District Ranger, members of our Steering Committee, gave much advice and guidance. Bill Piloni, Forest Fleet Manager, was most helpful with ironing out our vehicle situations. Doug Marah helped us get out some tight spots.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN a HANDBOOK for INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14
    THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN A HANDBOOK FOR INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14 hen someone says ‘water problems,’ do you tend to say, ‘Oh, that’s too complicated; I’ll leave that to the experts’? Members of the Gunnison Basin WRoundtable - citizens like you - say you can no longer afford that excuse. Colorado is launching into a multi-generational water planning process; this is a challenge with many technical aspects, but the heart of it is a ‘problem in democracy’: given the primacy of water to all life, will we help shape our own future? Those of us who love our Gunnison River Basin - the river that runs through us all - need to give this our attention. Please read on.... Photo by Luke Reschke 1 -- George Sibley, Handbook Editor People are going to continue to move to Colorado - demographers project between 3 and 5 million new people by 2050, a 60 to 100 percent increase over today’s population. They will all need water, in a state whose water resources are already stressed. So the governor this year has asked for a State Water Plan. Virtually all of the new people will move into existing urban and suburban Projected Growth areas and adjacent new developments - by River Basins and four-fifths of them are expected to <DPSDYampa-White %DVLQ Basin move to the “Front Range” metropolis Southwest Basin now stretching almost unbroken from 6RXWKZHVW %DVLQ South Platte Basin Fort Collins through the Denver region 6RXWK 3ODWWH %DVLQ Rio Grande Basin to Pueblo, along the base of the moun- 5LR *UDQGH %DVLQ tains.
    [Show full text]
  • The Collegiate Range Project July 1986
    THE COLLEGIATE RANGE PROJECT JULY 1986 I. Introduction The Gunnison River Basin has long been considered one of the finest water resources in the State of Colorado. To date, development of this resource has been undertaken by the United States government. The primary purposes of this development have been to regulate streamflow for: 1) hydropower generation for Colorado River Storage Project participants and 2) diversion to the Uncompahgre River Basin for agricultural uses. The City of Aurora has applied for conditional water rights on tributaries to the Gunnison River for a water supply development entitled the "Collegiate Range Project." The plans for this project were initially prepared by Marvin J. Greer, the general partner for Sierra Madre Lode, Ltd. Mr. Greer is a retired engineer formerly with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The City of Aurora has reviewed these plans as well as other Gunnison River water supply reports. 1) "Water and Related Land Resources, Gunnison River Basin" - Colorado; Colorado Water Conservation Board, U. S. Department of Agriculture; 1962, 2) "The Collegiate Ran~~ Project - A Water Supply Development''; Sierra Madre Lode, Ltd.; Undated, 3) "Water Rights Evaluation in the Gunnison River Basin, Collegiate Range Project", The David E. Fleming Company; 1985. The latter report was commissioned by the City of Aurora. The Collegiate Range Project is proposed as a transmountain water diversion project. Essentially, water is to be diverted from the Taylor River and one of its tributaries, Texas Creek, and stored in Pieplant Reservoir. Water would be conveyed via the Taylor Platte aqueduct from Pieplant Reservoir to the South Platte River Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Colorado River and Its Utilization
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY George Otts Smith, Director Water-Supply Paper 617 UPPER COLORADO RIVER AND ITS UTILIZATION BY ROBERT FOLLANSBEE f UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1929 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. - * ' Price 85 cents CONTENTS Preface, by Nathan C. Grover______________________ ____ vn .Synopsis of report.-____________________________________ xi Introduction_________________________________________ 1 Scope of report--------__---__-_____--___--___________f__ 1 Index system____________________________________ _ ______ 2 Acknowledgments.._______-________________________ __-______ 3 Bibliography _ _________ ________________________________ 3 Physical features of basin________________-________________-_____-__ 5 Location and accessibility______--_________-__________-__-_--___ 5 Topography________________________________________________ 6 Plateaus and mountains__________________________________ 6 The main riyer_________________________________________ 7 Tributaries above Gunnison River_._______________-_-__--__- 8 Gunnison River_----_---_----____-_-__--__--____--_-_----_ IS Dolores Eiver____________________._______________________ 17 Forestation__________________ ______._.____________________ 19 Scenic and recreational features_-__-__--_____-__^--_-__________ 20 General features________________________.______--__-_--_ 20 Mountain peaks_________--_.__.________________________ 20 Lakes....__._______________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Streamflow Needs for Whitewater Recreation in the Gunnison River Basin
    Assessing Streamflow Needs for Whitewater Recreation in the Gunnison River basin. Applying Overall Flow-Comparisons and Single-Flow Judgments to Define the Range of Flows that Support Whitewater Recreation Chris Menges Nathan Fey American Whitewater Evan Stafford CK Consulting Abstract Streamflow, or the amount of water in a river, affects the quality, quantity, and timing of river-related recreation, such as whitewater boating. This report describes flows that provide whitewater boating opportunities for various craft- types on targeted river segments in the Gunnison River Basin in western Colorado. American Whitewater conducted the Gunnison Basin Flow Study during the summer of 2013, with the goals of 1) informing the deliberations and Basin Implementation Plan of the Gunnison Basin Roundtable and 2) adding to the dataset supplied to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to inform the Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study. Two approaches were used in this assessment to collect information on the relationship between streamflows and recreation quality for each targeted river segment. An online survey collected information from 331 respondents who evaluated flows for whitewater boating on 17 river and stream segments in the Basin. Respondent data was organized to identify minimum, acceptable and optimal flows for whitewater boating, summarized by Flow- Evaluation curves describing the quality of boating opportunities for each measured stream-flow. Respondents also reported specific flows that provide certain recreation experiences or “niches”, from technical low water to challenging high water trips. This report provides baseline information on streamflows and whitewater recreation in the Gunnison River Basin that can be applied to evaluating how future water management actions or risk management strategies may impact whitewater recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cochetopa Hills Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2014 Cochetopa Hills Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Vegetation Management Forests Gunnison Ranger District Project Environmental Assessment Saguache County, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: John Murphy, District Ranger, Gunnison Ranger District, GMUG NF Contact: Arthur Haines, District Silviculturist Gunnison Ranger District, GMUG NF Phone: 970 642-4423 Email: [email protected] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cochetopa Hills Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 1. PROPOSED ACTION/PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION........................................................1 1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • East River Basin
    Chapter 6 The East River Basin Basin Characteristics The East River is made up of a diverse community of water users including ranchers that irrigate pasture grass, popular tourist towns, an important trout fishery, boating enthusiasts, and a major ski area. It is host to multiple municipal water providers that serve the towns of Mt. Crested Butte, Crested Butte and Crested Butte South as well as a number of smaller providers. Crested Butte Mountain Resort is a major economic driver in the valley and draws water from the East River for snowmaking. Wildlife, watershed views, and ecosystem services are sustained by water flowing in creeks and support vibrant angling and stand-up paddle board businesses. In addition to hosting a range of uses, the East River Basin faces diverse challenges presented by a legacy of mining and impaired streams, a growing population, and competing water uses. Finding collaborative ways to protect these uses while improving watershed health is the goal of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District’s watershed management planning process. The primary objective of this section is to provide a summary of existing water use within the East River Basin, including irrigation, municipal, industrial, instream flow, and recreational water uses. A major task for the WMPC was to review and assess the available information; update and refine the information; identify data gaps; and recommend future data collection efforts. The information collected as part of the data inventory process served as a key component to both identify needs in the East River Basin and to improve modeling tools being used to assess these needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Management Plan
    Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Strategic Management Plan Including Discussion of Water Management Issues Inventory of Water Resources in the District Legal, Institutional and Environmental Setting Revised September 30, 2016 Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District 210 West Spencer, Suite B Gunnison, Colorado 81230 www.ugrwcd.org - [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 MISSION AND VALUES STATEMENTS . 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 5 SECTION 1. GEOGRAPHY, POPULATION, AND ECONOMY.. 10 1.1 GEOGRAPHY . 11 1.2 POPULATION . 13 1.3 ECONOMY . 14 1.3.1 Agriculture . 14 1.3.2 Water Based Recreation . 14 SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. 18 2.1 ORGANIZATION . 19 2.2 COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS . 20 2.3 THE BUDGET PROCESS . 22 2.4 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE UPPER GUNNISON DISTRICT . 23 2.4.1 1975 Taylor Park Reservoir Operation and Storage Exchange Agreement . 23 2.4.2 Taylor Park Reservoir Second Fill Decree . 23 2.4.3 Opposing Transbasin Diversion - Union Park Reservoir Litigation . 23 2.4.4 2000 Aspinall Subordination Agreement . 24 2.4.5 Aspinall Unit Contract Plan for Augmentation . 24 2.4.6 Black Canyon of the Gunnison federal reserved water right settlement . 25 2.4.7 Meridian Lake Reservoir Project . 26 2.4.8 Recreational In-Channel Diversion Water Right. 27 2.4.9 Lake San Cristobal Project . 27 SECTION 3. DISCUSSION OF WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES . 29 3.1 OUT-OF-BASIN DIVERSIONS . 30 3.2 PROTECTION AGAINST DOWNSTREAM SENIOR CALLS . 31 3.3 EXISTING USES SUBJECT TO A DOWNSTREAM SENIOR CALL . 31 3.3.1 Irrigation .
    [Show full text]
  • WIVG03601 DIP.Pdf
    SUMMARY REPORT UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN PHASE 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY Submitted to: Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority 1580 Logan Street, Suite 620 Denver, Colorado 80203 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80203 In association with: WBLA, Inc. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Woodward Clyde Consultants C.U. Center for Economic Analysis HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 300 Telephone 303 East 17th Avenue 303 861-1300 Denver, Colorado 80203-1256 Mr. Uli Kappus, P.E., Executive Director Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority 1580 Logan Street, Suite 620 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Summary Report for the Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Phase 1 Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Kappus: We are pleased to submit this Summary Report as required by our contract dated June 5, 1987. Five interim Task Memoranda have been submitted previously, each reporting in detail on certain aspects of the study. A Final Report which discusses the study in a more detailed manner is submitted under separate cover. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate water resource management plans to enhance the water-based economy of the Study Area in an environmentally sound manner. Both structural and non-structural components have been examined, evaluated and utilized to formulate alternative plans which would meet in-basin needs. A recommended plan has been identified which meets the study objective. Non-structural measures related municipal industrial sector were found to have little potential for saving water in the context of this basin-wide study because the total consumptive use in this sector is less than two percent of the total consumptive use in the entire study area at present.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Characteristics of the Slate and East Rivers, Colorado, During the Winter Recreational Season, December 1996
    Water-Quality Characteristics of the Slate and East Rivers, Colorado, During the Winter Recreational Season, December 1996 By Norman E. Spahr and Jeffrey R. Deacon U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 98–279 Denver, Colorado 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25046, Mail Stop 415 Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Federal Center Denver, CO 80225–0046 Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey • Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time. earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa- • Improve understanding of the primary natural tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- and human factors that affect water-quality ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound conditions. decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and This information will help support the development trends is an important part of this overall mission. and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni- One of the greatest challenges faced by water- toring decisions by other Federal, State, and local resources scientists is acquiring reliable information agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. that will guide the use and protection of the Nation’s The goals of the NAWQA Program are being water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison River---Multiple Users and Changing Demands Colorado Water Workshop 1986
    Eric Kuhn Overview: "Gunnison River---Multiple Users and Changing Demands Colorado Water Workshop 1986 The Gunnison River is formed by the confluence of the East River and Taylor River approximately 20 miles north of the Town of Gunnison. From its headwaters along the Continental Divide to the confluence with the Colorado River at Grand Junction, Colorado, the Gunnison and its tributaries drain over 8,000 square miles of land. Based on total annual discharge, the Gunnison River is Colorado's second largest river. Only in the mainstream of the Colorado River is larger. The Gunnison River is also one of the most developed and regulated rivers in the State of Colorado. The state's largest reservoir, Blue Mesa, is located on the Gunnison River. Blue Mesa Reservoir, along with Morrow Point and Crystal form the Wayne Aspinall unit of the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Storage Project. Together the three dams and reservoirs store nearly 1.1 million acre feet of water and have an installed hydroelectric generating capacity of 208 megawatts. Power generated by the Aspinall Unit and is sold through the Western Area Power Administration to preference customers, primarily municipalities such as the City of Colorado Springs. The Uncompahgre Valley Project was one of the four original reclamation projects authorized by Congress when it passed the Reclamation Act of 1902. The Uncompahgre Project diverts water from the Gunnison River through a six mile tunnel into the Uncompahgre Valley. The Gunnison Tunnel has a capacity of approximately 1,000 cubic feet per second and provides irrigation water for approximately 77,000 acres of agricultural lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court Are Available to the Public and Can Be Accessed Through the Court's Homepage At
    Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court’s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage at www.cobar.org. ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE September 11, 2006 No. 05SA267, Natural Energy Resources Company v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District – Water Law – Issue Preclusion In this opinion, the Supreme Court reviews the summary judgment of the trial court dismissing an application seeking a finding of reasonable diligence in a conditional water rights decree. The applicant, Natural Energy Resources Company (“NECO”), sought to satisfy its ongoing diligence requirement under the “can and will” statute. The water court determined that NECO was precluded from establishing that it “can and will” complete its project with diligence and within a reasonable amount of time because NECO is issue precluded by two prior water court cases. In two prior finally adjudicated cases, Case Nos. 86•CW•266 and 88•CW•178, NECO and the County of Arapahoe, a party in privity with NECO, had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the disputed water rights. These cases concerned NECO’s application for an expansion of water rights in NECO’s conditional decree obtained in 1984. The original decree concerned the use of Taylor Park Reservoir in conjunction with the proposed higher•elevation Union Park Reservoir for the production of hydroelectric power and water storage. The applications in Case Nos. 86•CW•266 and 88•CW•178 sought to expand the capacity of the Union Park Reservoir and obtain numerous other rights and decreed uses for a proposed project known as the Union Park Project.
    [Show full text]