From the Aspen Daily News (Will Grant):
David M. Kennedy, who is also director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford University, used maps, tables, figures and photographs to show the development of the country west of the [100th] meridian, the role of water in the West and the challenges facing the nation in future management of the resource. The future challenges of water management are largely a function of the past development, Kennedy said. And most of that development, which included a lot of manipulation to benefit humans, leaves us a tough hand to play. “When it comes to Mother Nature, you can only push Mother Nature around for so long before she starts pushing back,” he said…
Today’s management of our natural resources is a function of the management regimes we’ve inherited, Kennedy noted. He used Lake Mead as an example. Lake Mead is a product of the country’s scientific development phase and was one of the government’s first, large-scale interstate projects for water. And because of upstream demands on the Colorado River, Lake Mead will never again fill to its capacity, said Kennedy, referring to a recent presentation he and other industry professionals heard on the subject. By 2020, the lake “could be nothing more than a mudhole.”
And one of the factors that has changed the game completely, Kennedy said, is climate change. Meltwater is starting to run off nearly a month earlier, which means more wildfires, and alpine snowpacks are holding less water. “There’s less of the resource available as a result of climate change,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy said that the changing climate will require new ways for existing and future generations to handle the water management regimes inherited from developers of the past century.
Interior ‘Partners is Conservation’
May 26, 2009
Here’s a release from Colorado University:
University of Colorado at Boulder engineers and scientists were among those honored with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s “Partners in Conservation Award” this month for their role in the adoption of innovative, new operational guidelines for managing the Colorado River in drought years.
Accepting the awards for CU-Boulder were Edie Zagona, director of the Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems, or CADSWES, a research center in the department of civil, environmental and architectural engineering; Balaji Rajagopalan, associate professor of civil engineering; and Brad Udall, director of Western Water Assessment, a program of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The “Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead” were adopted at the end of 2007 and hailed as the most significant change in management of the river since the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The Colorado River provides water for more than 30 million people and 2 million acres of irrigated land in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico.
The shortage guidelines are the result of an 18-month Environmental Impact Statement process that considered several alternative shortage policies during the height of a record drought on the river. River stakeholders, including federal, state and local agencies, water districts, Indian nations, tribes and communities, and nonprofit environmental organizations, shared in the Partners in Conservation Award.
“In the midst of the worst drought in more than a century they formed an agreement that promises a future of cooperation in the Colorado River Basin for the next two decades,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who presented the award.
CU was recognized in part for the CADSWES modeling tool, RiverWare, which formed the basis of all technical analysis and provided the projected outcomes of the proposed operational guidelines. “This is exactly the type of application that RiverWare was created for,” Zagona said.
Considering climate change was another hallmark of the shortage agreement and another major contribution to the effort by CU. Climate experts from CU’s CIRES Western Water Assessment played a key role in the development of the climate change appendix.
“We provided the Bureau of Reclamation, for the first time ever, a research road map for incorporating climate change into future planning studies,” said Udall. “This was a much needed fundamental and critical shift for Reclamation and for the users of the river.”
CADSWES affiliate Rajagopalan also contributed to that report, along with Bureau of Reclamation engineer Jim Prairie, who earned his doctoral degree at CU. Prairie and Rajagopalan developed stream flow scenarios that quantified potential impacts from the latest climate models and projections for the Colorado River Basin. These stream flow scenarios, together with the decision-making scenarios constructed using RiverWare, formed the basis of the forward-thinking climate variability report.
“Our university partners came forward with some really innovative ideas, which played a pivotal role in helping us analyze the impacts due to changing climate,” said Terry Fulp, deputy regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Regional Office. “There’s no way we could have done this without a huge group of people — and in particular the people at CU.”
More information is available at www.colorado.edu/insidecu/editions/2009/5-26/story4.html.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Here’s a recap of Monday’s workshop seeking solutions to Colorado’s supply gap, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The state water board is looking at a few big water projects, new ways to share water and conservation as ways to address the impending gap between future municipal water supplies and identified projects to meet the gap. But there are no good numbers on how much water could be conserved, whether lease-fallowing programs will work the way they’re intended or which project to bring Western Slope water to the Front Range could be pursued.
The board has been looking at the gap in the state’s water supply since 2002, and its latest estimates show that water demand will begin to outpace known projects to meet that demand as soon as next year. By 2030, there could be an 18 percent shortfall in water supplies and the number will only get bigger as the state’s population doubles by 2050. The search for an answer brought out a variety of viewpoints from board members, who reflected some of the attitudes about water and growth that were shared at a meeting of Front Range roundtables last week…
The big elephant in the room, however, was the limited reach of the water board. Urban conservation measures saving up to 40 percent of water could be easily obtained without drastically altering how Coloradans take showers, wash clothes and water their lawns, said CWCB drought planning chief Veva Deheza. But she was unable to estimate exactly how much water that would save without full reports from state water users. “We need 100 conservation plans, but we only have a quarter of them,” Deheza said. “Without those plans we can’t run the numbers.”
The board would have little authority for cities to set conservation goals, added Dan McAuliffe, deputy director of the CWCB. “We can’t say you need a conservation plan, much less set a goal,” he said.
The board also is limited in which major project could be used to help fill the gap. Front Range roundtables last week identified three projects last week that would provide 50,000 to 250,000 acre-feet of water each from the Colorado River basin: Green Mountain, Yampa pumpback and Flaming Gorge pipelines. While all would apparently fall within Colorado’s entitlement from the Colorado River Compact, it’s not clear who would provide the impetus to actually build projects. Roundtable members last week accepted those concepts, while rejecting the Big Straw plan to pump back water from Grand Junction. A Blue Mesa pumpback also was discussed by the roundtables, but did not appear to have much traction…
The board also looked at ways to minimize the pain to rural economies if agricultural water sales continue, the default option for Colorado. While CWCB Director Jennifer Gimbel told the roundtables last week there is no silver bullet to avoid the dry-up of ag land, the board and its staff will continue the hunt for proper ammunition. “No strategies rose to the top last week,” said Eric Hecox, who directs in-state water concerns for the CWCB. “A couple fell to the bottom.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
South Platte, Metro, Arkansas Roundtables: Looking for solutions to the Front Range water supply gap
May 16, 2009
Here’s a recap of Wednesday’s combined meeting of the South Platte, Metro and Arkansas roundtables, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“We’re looking at different scenarios, not just one water future for Colorado,” said Eric Hecox, Interbasin Compact Committee coordinator for the Colorado Water Conservation Board…
Comments to staff from Wednesday’s meeting will help shape the final plan, which will be discussed by the CWCB at a workshop Monday in Pueblo. The meeting will be from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Pueblo Convention Center. The CWCB will have its bi-monthly meeting at the Convention Center Tuesday and Wednesday…
Colorado now is looking at urban conservation strategies like turf replacement, rate structures, leak detection, landscape audits and appliance efficiency as a way to reduce per capita use. The CWCB also is looking at new ways of making agricultural water transfers less damaging to rural economies through grants to water lease-fallowing efforts such as the Super Ditch in the Arkansas Valley. The final leg of the program is to identify how much water Colorado could claim from the Colorado River. The state launched a basin-by-basin study on the Western Slope to determine how much water could be taken while still meeting Colorado’s obligation to downstream states under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The state also is working to identify which project or projects should be built if the water is moved to the Front Range. There is no consensus among the state’s nine basin roundtables about which project would best fill the need.
Roaring Fork Watershed: State of the River
May 13, 2009
Here’s a recap of the Colorado River District’s “State of the River” conference Tuesday dealing with the Roaring Fork Watershed, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“Water is our greatest liquid asset,” said Dave Kanzer, an engineer with the Colorado River District, which is hosting meetings of watersheds along the Colorado River. “Our future is not controlled by the oil and gas as we feared last year. . . . Our economic assets are nothing without a reliable supply of water.” Through the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and Twin Lakes Co., the Arkansas River basin brings over nearly 100,000 acre-feet of water each year from the Roaring Fork. While water managers on the eastern side of the Continental Divide fret about the ability of the Boustead Tunnel – which takes water from the Fryingpan River drainage into Turquoise Lake – to bring over trainloads of water every year, the Roaring Fork bemoans the loss of every drop. “The water that goes through the Boustead Tunnel is 100 percent consumptive,” Kanzer said. “That’s one drop we’ll never see again. . . . There is less water for use in the (Roaring Fork) basin.”[...]
The Roaring Fork is feeling pressure from other directions as well, Kanzer said in describing a new report that combines more than 50 studies of water quantity, quality and use in the basin. There are the diversions from the Roaring Fork mainly for use in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Aurora and agriculture. But the Roaring Fork also supplies a large chunk of water for meeting Colorado’s obligations under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, water for endangered fish on a stretch of river closer to Grand Junction and for its own growing needs. Kanzer acknowledged there have been benefits from the Fry-Ark Project as well. The major storage in the Roaring Fork basin, [Ruedi] Reservoir, was a part of the project, and in flood years the water taken off the river reduces flooding for towns like Basalt. But the Western Slope gets concerned when Arkansas River water managers start talking about enlarging Lake Pueblo, the largest reservoir in the Fry-Ark Project, he added.
The residents of Pitkin County were so alarmed, in fact, that they passed a 0.1 percent sales tax last year to protect water, said County Manager John Ely. He said the new fund was popular with voters because of the past success of county land-preservation and trail initiatives that have grown to be one of the largest parts of the county budget. Commissioner Rachel Richards said the county is in the process of appointing a seven-member panel to figure out how to best spend the $700,000-$1 million the tax is expected to raise each year…
“We have to change the mindset we have in Colorado that water left in the river is a waste,” said Ken Neubecker, president of Colorado Trout Unlimited.
Interior Partners in Conservation Awards
May 8, 2009
From the Boulder Daily Camera:
A Boulder conservationist received a Partners in Conservation Award from the U.S. Department of the Interior on Tuesday for helping develop guidelines to deal with Colorado River water shortage.
Michael Cohen, a senior research associate at the Pacific Institute’s Boulder office, helped the Bureau of Reclamation craft rules to deal with potential water disputes. Several other conservation organizations — including the Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sonoran Institute and the Sierra Club — helped the bureau develop “Conservation Before Shortage.”
From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Ted Kowalski):
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today recognized the Colorado Water Conservation Board for the state’s efforts in helping to develop a strategy for dealing with long-term drought in the Colorado River Basin.
Salazar awarded Colorado, along with the six other Colorado Basin states and other partners in the talks, with a “Partners in Conservation Award” for finalizing an agreement known as the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead.
The Colorado River provides water for 30 million people in seven states and two countries. It is often called the most regulated and litigated river in the United States.
The guidelines were developed during a period of severe drought, declining reservoir levels and continued growth in demand for water. The agreement, also known as the Interim Guidelines, has been hailed as the most significant change in river management since the Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922.
“We all recognize the benefits of collaboration over litigation,” said Jennifer Gimbel, Director of the CWCB. “But saying it is one thing and doing it is another – especially when it comes to water. We’re pleased that the entire Colorado River basin has begun to focus their attention on river augmentation and increased water efficiency.”
Randy Seaholm, Chief of the Water Supply Protection Section, accepted the award on behalf of the Ritter administration at a ceremony in Washington D.C.
The Department of the Interior’s Cooperative Conservation Award program recognizes conservation achievements resulting from the cooperation and participation of individual landowners, citizen groups, private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and federal, state, local, and/or tribal governments.
These Guidelines, and the associated Record of Decision (“ROD”), represent the culmination of talks between the seven basin states and the Interior Department on how to manage the lower Colorado River during times of shortage, and how to coordinate the operations between the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado River. The agreement will be in effect until 2026.
“This award demonstrates the benefits of cooperation between the seven basin states, our federal partners, and other interested parties,” Seaholm said. “I am pleased that Secretary Salazar recognizes how important these Guidelines are, and I hope that we are able to continue to work together as we implement these Guidelines, and as we pursue other mutually beneficial projects.”
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Colorado Wyoming Coalition: Frank Jaeger pitches alternative Flaming Gorge Pipeline in Green River
May 8, 2009
The coalition of Colorado and Wyoming water providers hoping to build an alternative to the Million Conservation Resources Group pipeline from Flaming Gorge recently sent Parker Water and Sanitation’s Frank Jaeger up to Wyoming to pitch their ideas to the Green River Advisory Group. Here’s a report from Jack H. Smith writing for the Green River Star. From the article:
At the conclusion of the Green River Basin Advisory meeting Thursday, Frank Jaeger of the Parker, Colo., Water and Sewer District approached both members of the group and general public, with preliminary discussion about a water diversion project. “We are trying to open a door to say we want to talk to you,” Jaeger said. “We want to hear your concerns.” Jaeger said he has looked at Million’s proposal and could not believe or understand what he had proposed.
While Jaeger did say he wanted to open the door to discuss the issue with local residents, he was emphatic that he is “not looking at taking Wyoming’s water.” Instead, he is trying to get Colorado’s allotted water from the Colorado River Compact. He added unlike the Million project, this is being proposed by public entities.
Sweetwater County Commissioner Paula Wonnacott attended the meeting, and discussed the issue at the commission’s meeting Tuesday. Wonnacott said these people came after Aaron Million to make them look “like the good guys.” She said the county has more to worry about than Million, with the consortium of groups from Colorado and counties in eastern Wyoming. “This fight is only beginning and it’s going to be a long fight,” Wonnacott said…
A workshop has been scheduled for county and municipal water users next Tuesday at 6 p.m. The meeting will take place at the Green River City Council chambers. “It’s important for all the water users in the area to come to this workshop,” Wonnacott said. “There are lots of people out there who want our water.”
Million’s pipeline plans have garnered attention from across the pond. Here’s an article from Charles Laurence writing for the The First Post. From the article:
Aaron Million is planning to pipe billions of gallons of river water from wild Wyoming to the suburban sprawl of Colorado, which makes him the man firing the first shot in the water wars expected from global climate change. He does not see it that way. Million believes that he is an environmentalist with a vision for quenching the thirst of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, where developers have covered thousands of acres of dry plains from Denver to Colorado Springs with houses, shopping malls and mega-churches. He thinks that he can do this without damage to the Green River basin in the mountains of Wyoming, a state defined as mostly desert.
Wyoming residents are organizing to oppose Aaron Million’s Regional Water Supply Project calling it the “Wyoming water grab.” Here’s a report from Joan Barron writing for the Casper Star Tribune. Of course Million Conservation Resources Group and the lesser known project the Colorado-Wyoming Coalition intend to move water that Colorado is entitled to under the Colorado River Compact using a clause in the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact that allows one state to move their water through another state. However — as Eric Kuhn (Colorado River District) keeps pointing out — the water may not be there to develop. If Colorado develops all of the water left in the Green River before Wyoming the Cowboy State may never get their water. That’s part of the motivation for another reservoir to store Wyoming’s share. From the article:
Wyoming people are paying plenty of attention to reports of the latest Wyoming water grab…
Southwest Wyoming residents emphatically oppose the project as evidenced by their testimony at a public meeting sponsored by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in Green River more than a week ago. Dan Budd, a Big Piney rancher, member of the Wyoming Water Development Commission and a former legislator, attended that hearing. Never shy about expressing his opinion, Budd said it was the worst conducted public meeting he ever sat through and he has sat through plenty. “They didn’t have speaker systems, they didn’t recognize the people trying to participate and they cut the meeting an hour short,” Budd said last week.
For some time Budd has pushed for construction of another reservoir on the Green River to impound Wyoming’s share of unallocated water under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The amount of the unused Green River water is 300,000 to 400,000 acre feet…
During a meeting of the commission last year, Budd made a motion for the state to file for a permit for a reservoir site at Warren Bridge on the Green River. The filing would give the state a priority date. He said his motion failed by one vote. He said opponents said the state could never get a permit for the reservoir…
That is what happened with the Big Sandstone Reservoir. The Corps of Engineers refused to permit the reservoir because the state could not identify a need and purpose for all the water that would be stored. The reservoir was too big. It was ultimately shrunk and built as the Little Sandstone, or High Savory Reservoir, in the Little Snake River Valley. Budd contends the state should be able to define a use for the Green River water given a decade of drought and healthy population growth in Rock Springs. Moreover, he said, a group of Colorado government entities, headquartered in Evergreen, also is working on a plan to grab Wyoming water. Members of this group already have talked to the state engineer about filing for a permit for a dam, Budd added. With a two-pronged threat, Budd wants protection for Wyoming’s water…
Given that the Corps of Engineers study on the trans-basin diversion Front Range project could take years, the state has time to try to ward off the water grab. “We’re working hard to be sure they don’t,” Purcell said.
Flaming Gorge Pipeline: Denver scoping session
April 21, 2009
I attended the Flaming Gorge Pipeline (Regional Watershed Supply Project) scoping session in Denver tonight. Rena Brand from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers introduced the project to the group. She explained that their involvement stemmed from their regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. Aaron Million and the Million Conservation Resources Group (MCRG) have applied for a permit from the Corps and the scoping sessions are the first pass at getting input to design the environmental impact statement for the project.
Ms. Brand stressed that the Corps was, “neither a proponent or opponent of the project.” They are charged with doing a thorough assessment of the project and that a project of this magnitude required their most stringent review — hence the EIS. She says that they hope to have the draft EIS ready by 2012 with a record of decision in 2014. However that is a very preliminary timeline and much could change, she said.
She listed some of the entities that will be involved, including, the Bureau of Land Management, Reclamation, USFS, EPA, USFWS, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Moffat County (Colorado), Sweetwater County (Wyoming), and the National Park Service. AECOM from Fort Collins won the competition for the RFP for the science and engineering for the EIS which will be funded by MCRG.
Our old friend the Colorado River Compact was discussed by Jim Paulson from AECOM. He detailed the division of Colorado River flows between the upper basin and lower basin (7.5 million acre feet each). He also talked about the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact which divvies up the 7.5 million acre feet to the upper basin states by percentage. The Upper Colorado River Compact also allows a state to move its water from another state if need be.
Aaron Million spoke about the project. There was really nothing new from him for Coyote Gulch readers but he did say, after detailing the findings of Reclamation on available water, that, “If the supplies and surplus [are] not there this project will not be built.” Later in the session he was asked about cost projections. He stated that so far they are looking at $2.2 to $3.0 billion.
Ms. Brand then invited attendees to comment. I was pretty sure that the crowd would be friendly to the project since Million is targeting the Front Range. I was wrong.
Mark Squillace — Professor of Law and Director, Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado — said that it may be too early for an EIS. He asked, “Does the group have water rights?” He made the point that moving water out of Wyoming requires the approval of the Wyoming legislature. (He was corrected later on by a Denver University law professor who said that the approval is required to move water belonging to the state of Wyoming and that Million would be moving Colorado water.)
Professor Suillace also brought up the anti-speculation doctrine under prior appropriation. He cited the High Plains decision by Division 2 Water Court judge Dennis Maes in 2004 which was upheld by the State Supreme Court in 2006. The test a transfer must pass, according to one of my sources, “is to have an ‘end user’ who ‘can and will’ beneficially use the water. Those are the key legal terms. In the High Plains case, the list of end users was so vague and broad that the judge (and justices) were unable to make either of those decisions.”
From the paper, The Anti-Speculation Doctrine in Water Law: Ghost-busting, Trust-busting, or Ensuring Reasonable, Beneficial Use?, written by Sandra Zellmer, University of Nebraska College of Law:
The various anti-speculation provisions are intended to keep the reviled Robber Barons of yesteryear in their place and prevent them from coming back to haunt us as modern-day Water Barons. This talk considers whether restrictions against speculation in water serve a continuing public purpose or, conversely, are an archaic relic of times past. Is there a current need to prevent speculation and monopolistic behavior (trust-busting), or are we merely chasing ghostly apparitions of fictitious Water Barons while discouraging socially beneficial water transfers?
Many scholars of law and economics argue that restraints on water transfers should be removed to allow water marketing to take its place among an array of collaborative, conservation-oriented strategies for water management. Yet because market forces tend to focus only on short planning cycles and fail to prevent the imposition of harmful externalities on non-parties, market transactions have significant potential to compromise the needs of current and future generations of water users and to undermine governmental authority over essential water resources. To the extent that society envisions water marketing as a tool to reallocate water supplies, governments must continue to play a significant role in overseeing water transfers – particularly speculative transactions that fail to put water to reasonable, beneficial uses – to ensure that the interests of affected third parties are protected and that water remains available for the public good.
Million clearly has not identified his customers. Ms. Brand assured Frank Jaeger (Parker Water and Sanitation) later on in the session that the Corps will consider this in the EIS.
Professor Suillace’s third point was the possiblity of litigation by the lower basin states if the upper basin states fail to deliver the required 75 million acre feet of water at Lee Ferry over any 10 year period — as required by the compact. He was reminded later on — again by the DU professor — that the upper basin states have over-delivered every year of the compact.
Bruce Lytle, President of Lytle Water Solutions, LLC, told the Corps that the Flaming Gorge Pipeline is, “Not the right project,” since it is being done, “by a private water speculator.” The Corps needs to identify the, “purpose and need,” for the project and it, “should be based on contractual demand,” he said. He added that, “We don’t know how much water is going where.”
Parker’s Frank Jaeger added, “I have a real concern when it comes to speculation, particularly the costs to end users.” Later on he told me that a, “project for the public good should be controlled by a public entity.”
Afterward I talked briefly with Jim Eddy, one of Million’s partners. Eddy dismissed the idea of collaborating with public entities saying that the project would languish while trying to get different groups to agree. He feels that the only way to get a pipeline built is by a small private group with deep pockets.
We spoke briefly about powering the pipeline. The design right now calls for the firm power to be supplied by natural gas. The corridor they plan to build in has several major natural gas pipelines. He expects to look seriously at wind power and less so at solar. Their engineers are also optimizing the route for the generation of hydroelectric. Eddy feels that in some areas they may generate extra power over the pumping needs.
Make sure that you get your comments to the Corps of Engineers ( https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-tl/eis-info.htm ). Comments at this stage of the project are used to set the scope of the EIS. As we’ve seen with the Northern Integrated Supply Project it’s better for the Corps to know up front what the concerns are. Readers may recall that the Corps is going to release a supplemental EIS for NISP sometime next year after receiving scathing comments from the EPA and others on the original EIS.
Flaming Gorge pipeline: Who are the customers?
April 13, 2009
Aaron Million has lined up many potential customers for the water he hopes to move via the Flaming Gorge Pipeline (Regional Water Supply Project). Skeptics feel that the Corps of Engineers is putting the cart before the horse and that the project is “speculative” which of course is not allowed under Colorado water law. Here’s a report from Ben Neary writing for the Associated Press via Forbes. From the article:
Critics say it’s impossible to evaluate the project without knowing who the end users are. And if Million has reached any firm deals to supply water, he’s not saying…
Million says the pipeline could carry up to 250,000 acre feet of water a year. That’s more than Denver Water supplies annually to the metro Denver area…
“We’ve spent the last three years with one of the best water teams in the U.S. looking for snake bites, or fatal flaws, and we have found none,” Million said, emphasizing he’s not interested in building any project that’s not environmentally sound. Rena Brand, project manager for the Corps of Engineers in Littleton, Colo., said Million’s application for a permit to draw water triggered her agency’s decision to proceed with the detailed environmental study. She said the Corps has retained a consultant to do the work and that Million will cover the cost. Brand said the study could take up to five years. She said it will evolve to include issues such as how delivering the water to particular areas might affect them. “The Corps is not making any preliminary decisions about this project,” Brand said. Brand said it’s unusual for a private party to undertake such a large water project. Her agency used to do such projects itself in years past, but “not so much anymore,” she said.
Million doesn’t propose to pay for the water he plans to move. Rather, he’s relying on Colorado’s rights to the water under the Colorado River compacts – agreements among western states that spell out how to manage the river and its tributaries, including the Green River. Colorado law generally allows anyone to take unappropriated water and put it to use in the state. The river compacts, meanwhile, allow water to be diverted in one state and used in another. Alexandra L. Davis, assistant director for water at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, said that all water in the state belongs to the state. She said people can get a vested right to the water as long as they continue to put it to use. “It would be Mr. Million’s water right that he would then sell the use of that to other end users,” Davis said…
Environmentalists say they see problems with such a massive trans-basin water diversion. They say piping water across the Continental Divide threatens to harm fish and riparian species in the Colorado River system…
Some in Colorado bristle, too, at the prospect of seeing a private entity control such a huge volume of water. Frank Jaeger, district manager with the Parker Water and Sanitation District, said his district, which serves about 45,000 people, was unable to get Million to spell out clearly what his water prices and terms of delivery would be. Jaeger said his district is meeting with entities in Colorado and Wyoming trying to start a similar, competing project. “What we’re looking at is a project of what actual cost of development and delivery (would be), no profit involved,” Jaeger said of the prospect of getting government entities to build a pipeline. “A public project of that magnitude is a much better way of going about it.” Jaeger questioned how the Corps of Engineers can prepare a meaningful environmental impact statement evaluating Million’s project without knowing where the water would go. “I’m very fixated on the issue of speculation,” Jaeger said. “With no end users and no description of how the water will be used, I’ve got a problem with the Corps even dealing with that. Why the hell they’re doing an EIS is even beyond me.”
Million said his company has a “protectable interest” in the pipeline idea, meaning that no one else has a right to build one.He declined to say whether his company, Million Conservation Resource Group, has reached any deals to supply water.
Gov. Freudenthal, meanwhile, said he’s not enthusiastic about the pipeline project. “I’m not a big fan of it, in part because I’ve never been a big fan of trans-basin diversions,” Freudenthal said. “However, they properly filed with the state engineer,” Freudenthal said. “Their argument obviously is that this is Colorado’s water. The compact appears to allow for this, so I guess I’d have to say that at this stage I’ve been skeptically watching it unfold.”
Million pipeline project: Corps of Engineers to hold Wyoming ’scoping’ meetings April 14th and 16th
April 1, 2009
Here’s an update on Aaron Million’s plans to build a pipeline from the Green River in Wyoming (Flaming Gorge) to the Front Range and points south, from Jeff Gearino writing for the Casper Star Tribune. From the article:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials said this week the agency is beginning work on an environmental impact statement that will analyze the impacts of the proposed regional water supply project. Army Corps project manager Rena Brand said the agency has scheduled public “scoping” meetings in Green River on April 14 and Laramie on April 16 to discuss the project…
The pipeline would deliver about 250,000 acre feet of water to points as far south as Pueblo, according to project plans. The pipeline would operate on a perpetual basis through 2030 and beyond. The water would be obtained from the Green River Basin as part of the unused portion of water allocated to the state of Wyoming and Colorado under the Upper Colorado River Compact, according to plans. In Wyoming, about 25,000 acre feet of water would be delivered annually to users in the Platte River Basin. The remaining 225,000 acre feet of water would be delivered annually to the South Platte River and Arkansas River basins in Colorado. The most conservative estimates predict it would take five years or more to permit and build the pipeline once it overcomes significant political and logistical hurdles…
Drawing water from Flaming Gorge — which can hold up to 3.8 million acre feet of water — and the Green River would affect few irrigators and other water users, Million contends…
The potential water users for the proposed project would include agriculture, municipalities and industries in southeastern Wyoming and Colorado’s Front Range, according to an Army Corps notice in the Federal Register. Two water withdrawal facilities would be constructed as part of the project. One would be located on the east side of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the other on the east bank of the Green River, about 200 feet downstream from the boundary of the national wildlife refuge. A water treatment storage reservoir would also be constructed near the Green River intake system, according to plans. The water pipeline system would be about 560 miles long and would feature three water storage/flow regulation reservoirs along the route, including one in Wyoming at Lake Hattie west of Laramie. Officials said 16 natural gas-powered pump stations would also be constructed. Brand said the agency will examine a full range of reasonable alternatives as part of the environmental impact study, including alternatives with different withdrawal points or only one withdrawal point, and alternative storage reservoir locations.
Update: More background from Joy Ufford writing for the Sublette Examiner:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) recently published its notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal by Aaron Million, of the Million Conservation Resource Group (MCRG), to build the proposed “Regional Watershed Supply Project” (RWSP) and pull about 250,000 acre-feet of new water a year to his customers. The planned EIS will “analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposed water-supply project in Wyoming and Colorado,” states the ACE notice…
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation would have to give Million a contract to withdraw water directly from Flaming Gorge and he would also need federal approval to cross public lands with the pipeline. The proposal also includes a water storage treatment reservoir near the Green River intake system, a water pipeline from 72 to 102 inches in diameter and about 560 miles long, a regulating reservoir at the pipeline’s western end, about 16 natural gas-powered pump stations along the pipeline route, temporary and permanent access roads and three water-storage/flow-regulation reservoirs (at Lake Hattie west of Laramie and the proposed Cactus Hill and T-Cross reservoirs in Colorado). Outlet structures at each reservoir would have water treatment facilities, onsite transformers, overhead power lines and water delivery systems to his water users, it says…
Million applied to the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO) for two permits, 15 months ago, which are still under review and will likely bring about public hearings and comment periods, according to State Engineer Pat Tyrrell. One is to divert water from the Green and the other is to use his proposed pipeline for Wyoming water use, Tyrrell said. The water sold to Wyomingites would count against the state’s apportionment, he added, just as the water piped to Colorado customers would count toward that state’s historic allocation. While the SEO permit to withdraw water does not require an environmental analysis or public hearings, the proposal is sensitive enough that the SEO plans to schedule meetings later this summer or fall, he said. “They were told from early on we would probably have hearings because of the size, nature and potential controversy that surrounds (the diversion and pipeline proposed),” he said.
Million has proposed four points for withdrawal to the SEO – three in the Green and one on the banks of Flaming Gorge. “We’re getting a lot of questions,” Tyrrell said. “There are concerns – can it be done without hindering Wyoming’s remainder of (its) portion?” Wyoming’s role is choosing whether or not to grant the two requested permits ‘is “only a smaller part of the much larger approval process,” he said. “We would be one domino in a much larger string.” Even assuming the SEO approved his permits, Tyrrell added, “That’s no green light for (Million).” The concept is “allowable” – but the project’s size is very “unusual,” he said…
ACE meetings in Wyoming will be held in Green River April 14, 6:30 to 9 p.m., at the Green River High School and April 16, 6:30 to 9 p.m. in Laramie at the Laramie High School. The public is invited to provide scoping input and comments through May 19. The notice is available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/20#89F78. Address questions and comments on the proposal and EIS to Ms. Rena Brand, Project Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers, Denver Regulatory Office, 9307 S. Wadsworth Blvd., Littleton, CO 80128-6901; (303) 979-4120; mrcg.eis@usace.army.mil.
The Upper Green River Basin Joint Powers Board, representing Sublette, Lincoln and Sweetwater counties, has invited a coalition of concerned Wyoming and Colorado groups to meet but hasn’t “managed to nail down a date yet,” said board member Randy Bolgiano of Boulder.
The Wyoming Water Development Commission has scheduled an April 30 meeting with the Green River Basin Advisory Group and the coalition, 6 p.m. at the White Mountain Library in Rock Springs, to discuss the Million proposal.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources: Solving Colorado’s future water supply needs
March 26, 2009
Update: I misrepresented Melinda Kassen’s position with regard to Aaron Million’s project and the environmental impacts of his proposed pipeline. I’ve corrected the post below. I received email today (April 6) from the Western Water Project making it clear to me that they do not want to give the impression that Melinda is endorsing the project from an environmental perspective. Quite the contrary.
I caught up with Trout Unlimited’s Western Water Project Director, Melinda Kassen, via telephone last week to discuss the March 16th Interbasin Compact Commitee Meeting and the presentation (pdf) detailing progress on the visioning process for Colorado’s water needs that is being spearheaded by DNR Director Harris Sherman.
During the presentation, Kassen — the only committee member representing the environmental community and recreation — became alarmed by the Department of Natural Resources’ emphasis on transmountain diversions and four pipeline projects as the solution to the Front Range water supply gap.
How did the plan presented mesh with Governor Ritter’s, Colorado Promise, she asked herself? Where is conservation and reuse in the plan? What about the idea of smaller, incremental projects to satisfy future needs?
Historical perspective
On the eastern plains of Colorado cities grew out from irrigation ditch systems. Moving water from agriculture to municipal use has a long tradition.
Coloradans also have a history of looking to the rainy side of Colorado to water its needs for agriculture and to serve an ever-growing population. One of the earliest projects is the Grand Ditch (formerly the Grand River Ditch), up in Rocky Mountain Park that brings water from the Upper Colorado River Basin over to the South Platte Basin via the Poudre River.
More recently transbasin diversions were seen as a way to protect the agricultural economy on the plains by avoiding the dryup of farms when thirsty cities came calling. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is one where project water was primarily aimed at the cities in the Arkansas Basin.
During the 2006 gubernatorial election Governor Ritter hung 2003’s failed Referendum A around Republican Bob Beauprez’s neck — helping the Democrat to carry enough of the west slope, rural areas and water savvy voters — to cruise to an easy victory. Coincidentally Representative John Salazar and his brother, former U.S. Senator (now Secretary of the Interior) Ken Salazar also ran away from the amendment as they rode the blue wave across Colorado.
Referendum A would have set aside a few billion dollars for “unspecified” water projects. In effect the Owens’ administration was saying, “Trust us with the dough, we have Colorado’s best interests in mind.”
The referendum incurred opposition everywhere you turned in Colorado. I was buying a retirement place in Montezuma County at the time and the reaction down there was, “Water grab!”
Many in the environmental community thought that the referendum was a thinly disguised funding source for the “Big Straw,” a pipeline from a new reservoir on the Colorado/Utah border back to Eagle County where water would be shipped over the Great Divide to the Front Range.
Ritter won his election and those that wanted west slope water to stay in the streams, or in the ditches there, breathed a sigh of relief. Big bang water projects seemed relegated to Colorado’s past. It looked like the west slope water would stay there and the Front Range would look to its own water for future growth.
Here’s the pertinent passage from Governor Ritter’s Colordo Promise (pdf), the publication outling his administration’s policy:
WATER. How we use water is one of the most important issues facing Colorado today. We must end Colorado’s divisive water wars by:
- Adopting a responsible mix of conservation, reuse, efficiency, cooperation, farm-to-city water agreements and new water storage.
- Supporting the roundtable discussions now underway through the Colorado Interbasin Compact Committee process.
Readers will note that there is no mention of transbasin diversions to help end, “Colorado’s divisive water wars.”
During the 2005 legislative session the legislature passed H.B. 05-1177, the “Colorado Water for the 21st Century” act. The legislation set up the basin roundtable process to help find solutions to Colorado’s future water needs. It also set up a central committee — the Interbasin Compact Committee — to oversee solutions and govern agreements between basins.
From the start it was hoped that the process would lead to new thinking along with heightened communication between basins, water providers, irrigators, sportsmen, industry and environmentalists. There have been fits and starts. Some of the basin roundtables have been effective with respect to smaller projects incrementally increasing the supply a bit. Studies of groundwater recharge and storage have been funded and are ongoing.
The roundtables were also charged with developing a non-consumptive needs assessment by basin. Last Friday they learned that funding for the studies is being cut.
The roundtables and the IBCC have not come up with sustainable solutions to water the unbridled growth along the Front Range and in the Colorado Springs area. The projections of over 7 million Coloradans over the next couple of decades still looms large. The gap between municipal supplies and projected growth is on everyone’s mind.
A couple of years ago Aaron Million got everyone’s attention across the state with a plan to move water from the Green River in Wyoming (Flaming Gorge) to the Front Range. Shortly after that the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy funded a study that evaluated the potential to move water from the Yampa Valley to the Front Range. The Bureau of Reclamation kept reminding people of the possibility of a “Green Mountain Pumpback” that would move water from Green Mountain Reservoir back to Dillon Reservoir and then to the Front Range.
DNR presentation to the IBCC
In a move that surprised Kassen last Monday, the “Big Straw” showed up again on the planning horizon at the March IBCC meeting in Longmont. It’s now known as the “Colorado River Return Reconnaissance Study Concept” but it’s largely the same plan that was pushed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board under Rod Kuharich’s direction.
According to Kassen the DNR focus now is on building one of the four transmountain diversions mentioned above.
Moving 150,000 to 250,000 acre feet by pipeline out of basin would be, “Armageddon to agriculture in the Arkansas Valley,” she said. The “Lower Arkansas Concept” combined with the “Lower South Platte Concept” would satisfy municipal needs by drying up agriculture, she says.
That’s hardly a new approach.
According to Kassen the portion of the presentation detailing the prospective benefits of water conservation failed to connect with the committee despite the relatively low cost of a conserved acre foot ($5,000 – $10,000) as opposed to a transbasin acre foot ($60,000 – $100,000). According to DNR’s own numbers water savings from conservation could potentially solve the Front Range needs, including future growth, while keeping much of the current ag water in place, she said.
To her chagrin the focus of the DNR staff seemed to be primarily on the four transmountain pipeline projects. The conservation information didn’t seem to resonate with the committee. In fact, she said, the conservation information was dropped the next day when the presentation was given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The presentation went from, “Stunning numbers for conservation to the Big Straw,” she said.
Citing the governor’s statement in the Colorado promise Kassen asked, “Where is conservation, reuse, efficiency and cooperation in the DNR plan? How is a plan that is totally predicated on more transmountain diversions acceptable?”
Impacts
What are some of the potential impacts?
- Snowfall and runoff in the Colorado River Basin and the Southwestern U.S. are expected to decrease as global climate change accelerates in the 21st century. A dryer Nevada, Arizona and California will need their allotments from the Colorado River Compact more than ever and Colorado and the other upper basin states are contractually obligated to deliver a running 10 year average of 75 million acre feet at Lees Ferry in Arizona. Lake Powell and Lake Mead have still not recovered from the recent drought and some experts doubt that the reservoirs will ever fill again.
- Oil shale (the “Next Big Thing” in Colorado for over 100 years now) will require water to develop including massive amounts of water for new power plants. Current estimates from Shell show 3 barrels of water required for each barrel of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Shell, Exxon and other oil companies have water rights in the neighborhood of 7.5 million acre feet, mostly conditional, but some are rights from the 19th century and are therefore senior to many of the existing transbasin diversions and the Colorado River Compact. The industry will start requiring the water in 10-15 years.
- What will happen to headwaters areas if pipelines dump water taken out of the streams after agricultural and municipal runoff are added? Aaron Million’s plan would terminate on the eastern plains of Colorado close to treatment facilities, not at a headwaters location, sparing the headwaters streams.
- Low flows could negatively impact the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
- Capturing more runoff during the spring and summer could impact the cleansing effects of high water on riparian environments.
- The carbon footprint of the pipeline options is huge compared to that of conservation and reuse.
- It would be hard to administer a system to allocate conserved water under Colorado’s system of prior appropriation. I find it hard to envision Denver selling conserved water for example. They do lease water annually. Would they be willing to enter into long-term leases?
- Other Front Range cities also lease water. For example, the Pueblo Board of Water Works and Colorado Spring Utilities annually lease water to others in times of plenty. Those leases are usually predicated on drought status so when water is needed the most the supply might not be there.
- The pipeline options would save some agricultural dry ups helping Colorado’s farm economy and the local governments and businesses that depend on ag.
- The pipeline options would bring more water to the Front Range and the Denver Metro area. It’s not too hard to see that Colorado’s economic engine is primarily based there. That’s where the population is. City and county governments along the Front Range depend on growth to fuel their revenues which provide education, public safety, etc.
There are no inexpensive and easy to implement options. The easy stuff has been done. What is alarming to Kassen is the fact that the DNR seems trapped by 20th century solutions to 21st century problems while ignoring climate science and the ethical issues around development. They also seem to be turning away from taking responsibility for the environment, fisheries and recreation.
Western Resource Advocates released a new report today that does the science, law and economics around oil shale development. Here’s the release from WRA:
Western Resource Advocates (WRA) released its report, “Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in Colorado,” that quantifies the water rights that oil companies have established in western Colorado. The report sheds light on the large volume of water already in the hands of oil shale development interests and warns of the problems that commercial oil shale extraction could cause for Colorado communities, farmers, ranchers, and western rivers.
The “Water on the Rocks” report calls on leaders to carefully consider the full impacts of commercial oil shale development before making decisions. Hundreds of oil shale water rights, totaling almost 2 million acre-feet of stored water and over 11,000cfs of diversions, pepper Colorado’s western river basins and pose challenges to Colorado and other downstream states if these rights are put into use.
“Large scale commercial oil shale development would harm both West Slope and Front Range communities,” said Karin P. Sheldon, WRA’s executive director, “A shift of water to oil shale will dramatically change the landscape in the areas developed. It could mean an end to agriculture and to the historic economic base of these rural communities.”
“Water on the Rocks” is the first report to thoroughly catalogue how much of Colorado’s water is already in the possession of the oil shale industry. The report:
Identifies all major water rights energy companies have targeted for oil shale development in Colorado.
Projects likely water requirements associated with oil shale development based on anticipated technologies.
Analyzes the legal and hydrological issues affecting development of Colorado’s water allocation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact and 1948 Upper Basin Compact.
Explains how the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program affects and limits additional uses of water on the Colorado River.
“Water on the Rocks” reaches the following conclusions:
Commercial oil shale development would transform western Colorado. Oil shale development would transfer water presently used for agriculture to oil shale production. Agricultural lands would be dried-up and thousands of acres would be transformed into industrial landscapes.
Oil shale development in western Colorado would affect Colorado’s Front Range communities. Front Range water providers and the Colorado River Water Conservation District agree that oil shale development may challenge existing water projects and compromise development of future supplies.
Oil shale will accelerate climate change, further stressing water availability.
Huge quantities of greenhouse gas emissions caused by oil shale extraction would pose a serious threat to the climate of an already dry region.Total water demands must be clearly understood before committing to commercial oil shale development. Estimates point out that it will require 1 to 4 barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil from shale.
The sources and quantity of the energy required to extract oil shale must be identified before development is pursued. Initial estimates indicate that it will require 10 new power plants and 5 new coal mines to produce one million barrels of shale oil per day.
“Despite a significant investment, industry remains years away from establishing the economic viability, technical efficiency, and environmental performance of the technologies,” said David Abelson, Western Resource Advocates oil shale policy advisor. “It is vital that policy makers understand the water, economic, and environmental impacts before committing to a commercial development program.”
To read the report and view maps of where these water rights are located, click on www.westernresourceadvocates.com/land/wotrreport/index.php.
More coverage from the Denver Business Journal:
The report — “Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in Colorado” — was issued Wednesday. It says the rights to nearly 2 million acre-feet of stored water in Colorado, plus the right to divert more water from the state’s western rivers, is already owned by oil companies. The report said if those rights are put to use, shifting water from agriculture and other uses to oil shale development, the affects would reach from local communities to Denver and other Front Range cities.
More coverage from the Denver Post (Mark Jaffe):
Oil companies have amassed nearly 7.5 million acre-feet of water rights for oil-shale development — enough water for double the population of Colorado, according to a study by Western Resource Advocates. “Oil companies have cornered the market” in western Colorado,” said Karin Sheldon, executive director of the nonprofit, environmental group. All those “paper” water rights will not be used, but it is difficult to know which ones will be tapped, Sheldon said. The oil-company water rights — some dating to the 1890s — are senior to those of Front Range water utilities and the Vail and Aspen ski resorts.
Projects for both Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District could be affected, the study says.
ExxonMobil and Shell Exploration & Production — two of the large holders of water rights — both said that estimates of water or oil shale should be lower than current projections and that they will work with other water users.
More coverage from LocalNews8.com (Idaho Falls): “Tracy Boyd of Shell Exploration & Production questions the group’s projections. He says the group assumes production will be at levels the industry doesn’t expect until much later.”
Steamboat Springs: Water dedication policy
March 15, 2009
Steamboat Springs is looking at adopting an ordinance that would require developments to have water rights to develop or money to help the city develop water before being annexed. Here’s a report from Brandon Gee writing for the Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:
As currently drafted, the city’s water dedication policy would require developers to bring water rights — or money to help develop the city’s existing water rights, through means such as infrastructure — to the table as a condition of annexation. The policy expresses a strong preference for actual rights before a fee in lieu, and also prefers pre-1922 water rights [Pre-1922 rights are senior to the Colorado River Compact].
At a recent meeting of the Steamboat Springs City Council, resident Mary Brown said the only place to find senior water rights, older than the compact, is on agricultural land. “They’re going to dry up a farm somewhere. That’s just how it works,” Brown said. “Eventually, by requiring the delivery of wet water to the city, you are promoting the drying up of ag land in the county. … I think it will have far-reaching, adverse consequences.” As a result, Brown said, the city would be better off accepting cash to firm up its existing rights. A recently adopted Steamboat Water Supply Master Plan concluded that “the city and the (Mount Werner Water and Sanitation) district have a reliable long-term supply source … capable of meeting projected demands throughout the next 20 years,” but that it should “increase redundancy in the community’s water supply.”[...]
Others, including Council man Steve Ivancie, said they would prefer a stricter policy that brings actual raw water to the table. Ivancie also spoke out against a clause in the draft policy that would give council authority to accept other considerations in lieu of water rights. “This policy should be as airtight as possible,” Ivancie said…
Public Works Director Philo Shelton said the intent of the policy is not to have developers go out and purchase a random assortment of water rights throughout the valley. Rather, Shelton said the city hopes developers seeking annexation will dedicate the water rights tied to their land to the city. “We want to make sure we get that piece of paper with the land,” Shelton said. When a parcel has no active water rights associated with it, Shelton said, the city likely will work out a different arrangement, as it has decided to do with the proposed Steamboat 700 development west of city limits. Instead of water rights, Steamboat 700 will be asked to pay for improvements that will allow the city to put existing water rights to use — such as those in the Elk River and Stagecoach Reservoir. The developers’ payment will be based on a water demand study for the project.
Pitkin County: Advisory board for ‘Healthy Rivers Fund’ on tap?
February 22, 2009
From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith): “Three senior Pitkin County staff members are recommending that county commissioners use the bylaws of the county’s Open Space and Trails Board as a model to create a new advisory board for the Healthy Rivers and Stream Fund. County voters in November passed a 0.1 percent sales tax that is expected to generate $1 million a year for the fund. The county commissioners are now supposed to make decisions — with the advice of a citizen’s board — about how to spend the money.”
More coverage from the Aspen Times (John Colson):
Pitkin County officials disagreed recently on exactly how to handle the county’s new Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund, created by voters last November. They could not agree, in fact, on how many members should be appointed to an advisory board in charge of the fund, or whether those members should all be Pitkin County residents or from nearby communities and counties, as well.
But the Board of County Commissioners did agree with Commissioner Rachel Richards, who wants to get that board appointed and working on its task as soon as possible. The advisory board’s job is to make recommendations to commissioners on how to spend roughly $1 million in annual revenues from a 1 cent sales tax approved by Pitkin County voters in November 2008. The ballot language also authorized the county to borrow up to $12 million against the sales tax revenues, if needed. According to the wording of the ballot question, the board is to spend the money on maintaining and improving water quality and quantity within the Roaring Fork River watershed; to buy, modify, lease or otherwise manage water rights; work to assure minimum streamflows in local waterways; and other actions.
Cindy Houben, the county’s senior long-range planner, along with County Attorney John Ely and Open Space and Trails Director Dale Will, volunteered on Tuesday to provide staff support to the fund and to the advisory board, once it is formed. “We felt like it was pretty important not to spend money on staff this year,” said Houben at Tuesday’s work session with the commissioners, a reference to the ongoing economic recession that has cut into government revenues at all levels. It also was mentioned that county staffers felt they could have the advisory board filled and at work by June…
“I do feel there is a sense of urgency,” Richards said, explaining that a drought could hit the county next summer or the summer after, and the county would be helpless to keep water in rivers as things now stand. Plus, she said, the advisory board members would need time to “get up to speed” in such arcane policy areas as water law, the Colorado River Compact, and other water-related issues, which would involve travel to training seminars, conferences and the like…
But talk of waiting three years before putting the fund to work is not acceptable, she said, pointing out, “We asked for this fund for a reason.” She said there are numerous water-related issues coming to a head around the state that the advisory board should be involved in, and the sooner it is up and running, the better prepared it will be.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
