Parties negotiate release of Taylor Park Reservoir water

Nearing an agreement

The Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (Upper Gunnison District) is close to resolving a dispute over the rights to release water from Taylor Park Reservoir.

In 2011, the Upper Gunnison District filed a water right application in order to permanently secure local water management practices. A private landowner below the dam opposed the move, asserting a senior water right. Failure to settle the matter could have resulted in significant changes to local water use, but the parties may be close to an agreement.
Management practices for the water in question go all the way back to 1972, when the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association acquired the rights to the first filling of water in Taylor Park Reservoir for irrigation needs in the Uncompahgre Valley. Over the next three years, the Upper Gunnison District negotiated rights to what is known as a second fill.
“We move the first fill into Blue Mesa and store a second fill in Taylor Park Reservoir,” explained Frank Kugel, general manager for the Upper Gunnison District. The second fill provides what’s known as “call protection” in the world of water management. If the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users call for water to be diverted through the Gunnison Tunnel and to the Uncompahgre Valley, the second fill helps ensure that the Upper Gunnison District can meet the call and still support stream flows for fishing and recreational interests.
Granted in 1975, part of that water right was conditional and has been renewed several times over the years. In 2011, four parties filed an application to make it absolute: the Upper Gunnison District, the United States, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the city of Gunnison. That’s when things got complicated.
Pinto Trust Company, LLC filed an opposition on behalf of Ernest H. Cockrell, who controls entities with a private instream flow right. That decree gives Cockrell the right to a stream flow of 445 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) above Lottis Creek for “stockwater, recreation, wildlife procreation, fish culture and heritage preservation.”
“What it means is that he has a water right senior to the second fill decree,” Kugel explained. “That 445 c.f.s. could be called out any day of the year but [currently] the flows typically don’t hit that except for during runoff in May or June.”
If Cockrell were to place a call on that water, his call could nearly eliminate the second fill. But the decree also states, “nothing herein expressed will in any way alter the historical operation of Taylor Dam.” And since the second fill has been in place for 40 years, that could be interpreted as historical. Rather than let the water court decide whose water right is superior, the parties have negotiated a compromise that would allow water to flow at 445 c.f.s. for a certain number of days during May or June.
“What we’re trying to do in the settlement is come up with operating targets for releases from the reservoir under a variety of hydrologic conditions,” explained John McClow, general counsel for the Upper Gunnison District.
The settlement would also give Pinto a seat at the table when it comes to determining the amount and timing of releases from Taylor Park Reservoir, including a seat in the Taylor Local Users Group, which represents recreation, fishing, property and irrigation interests along the Taylor and Gunnison Rivers.
“What we’re waiting on right now is the final review up the ladder in the federal government—the Justice Department and the Bureau of Reclamation,” McClow said. He emphasized that the settlement is not a done deal, but he believes the parties are close to signing off on the agreement. It will then go to a judge for final approval.