Colorado Water Congress 52nd Annual Convention: Eric Wilkinson — ‘I guess one word strikes me, storage’

Here’s a recap of the session, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“Averages are not a real tool for development,” [Eric Wilkinson, director of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District] said. “These numbers need to be used for planning purposes and for compact compliance discussions. I guess one word strikes me: storage.”

Wilkinson, whose northern district is trying to get approval for building two new reservoirs and firming yield from current import diversions, explained that storage is the best way for Colorado to balance the unknowns of nature. Water users need to be ready for both wet and dry scenarios, Wilkinson said. “If there’s nothing left (of the compact entitlement), a curtailment would hurt us,” he said. “If there’s water to be developed, we’ll push to get water development.”

If enough water is stored in wet years, it is easier to make it through the droughts, he said. “We need to have our eyes wide open,” Wilkinson added. “Colorado owes it to itself to explore all opportunities to use the Colorado River, but we don’t want to get ourselves into a hole.”[...]

The CWCB this week also agreed to enter into a basinwide study with the other six states in the Colorado River Compact (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming). That study will use the information Colorado has spent the past two years gathering. At the same time, the state will be applying parts of the study to its other water planning efforts from decision support models to floodplain mapping. The study itself will enter another phase that will look at the potential for changing uses or climate conditions, Gimbel said. “We will get more information as we are planning for the future,” Gimbel said. “We also need to look at storage strategically and use it for our advantage.”

More coverage of the availability study from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Colorado Water Conservation Board Tuesday reviewed Phase I of Colorado River Availability study, and learned there are more questions than answers when it comes to things like climate change, future demand and changed uses of water. The report will be released for public review in February. “The Colorado River is one of the most important sources of water supply for the state,” said Jennifer Gimbel, executive director of the CWCB. “Colorado needs solid information in order to make smart decisions about future water development.”

The assessment, funded by $1 million from the state Legislature in 2007, is the most comprehensive to date on Colorado River supplies. It will be used within nearly every other water planning effort in Colorado. “This study rolls into every hallway at the CWCB,” Gimbel said…

All models show the Colorado River basin will be warmer, with more precipitation in winter and less in summer. Growing seasons will be longer, and runoff earlier, meaning a net gain in agricultural water use and more draw-down on reservoirs, said Ben Harding, a CWCB engineering consultant. “One dry year is not going to do us in. We got through 1977 and 2002,” Harding said. “The sequence of years is important.”[...]

The models are drawn from both historical data from 1950-2005 and extrapolations using tree rings to look at conditions back to 1500. Looking ahead, engineers selected five models out of more than 100 available data sets to project what would happen in 2040 and 2070. Some of the models actually show increases in water availability, but all anticipate that increased demand by agriculture — which uses 85 percent of water — would soak up any gain. The 500-year trend surprisingly indicates that the past 50 years were wetter than average, because of unusual clusters of wet years in the 1980s and 1990s. There were also greater extremes in the types of wet and dry years. Models for the future shuffled both types of years to forecast various scenarios. The difference between 2040 and 2070 would not be as great as originally thought, Harding explained…

It is also unclear whether the assessment opens or closes any doors for transmountain water increases, either through existing projects or new proposals. Nearly 500,000 acre-feet annually comes across the Continental Divide to serve needs in the Arkansas and South Platte river basins. Cities are looking for future supplies. At the same time, water is used on the Western Slope to serve the needs of endangered species, and more could be needed for growth and energy development. “It’s a good first step,” said Eric Kuhn, executive director of the Colorado River Conservation District. “It’s pretty clear that there is probably a limit to what we can do. From the river district’s perspective, our approach will be wait and see.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Lower Dolores River Plan Working Group meeting December 14

From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):

The Lower Dolores River Plan Working Group will meet at 5 p.m. Monday, Dec. 14, at the Lewis-Arriola Community Center, 21176 County Road S, to kick-off the recommendation and brainstorming phase. The group will meet again Jan. 19, Feb. 16 and March 15. The intention is to hand recommendations to the Dolores Public Lands Office in April.

More from the article:

Created to examine alternatives to a Wild and Scenic River designation for the Dolores River, the group spent the past year identifying and brainstorming around the plethora of issues involved in river protection. “What we have done the last year is a really intensive education process with the group around the whole area,” said Marsha Porter-Norton, facilitator of the Dolores River Dialogue. “If we are going to ask people to come up with recommendations for the future, we felt it was important that they were really steeped in knowledge.”

The group focused on the five primary reaches of the Dolores River covered by the planning area and then examined the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” within each reach. “Through a grant that we have, we had a person gather every conceivable piece of information related to the ORV in each reach,” Porter-Norton said. “We looked at it from a 20,000 foot level and then from the ground level.” The identified ORVs along the Lower Dolores include archaeology/cultural resources, scenery, geology, hiking in Bull Canyon and Coyote Wash, rafting, roundtail chub, plants, and the canyon treefrog. The Dolores Public Lands Office posed a series of questions to the group relating to each ORV. The group was then divided into small groups that brainstormed tools, strategies and recommendations for each question. Some issues have garnered a good deal of consensus, and others have been harder to address. “Nothing in this process is easy,” Porter-Norton said. “We are taking some of the issues where I think there is a good amount of consensus and starting there. For the next six months we are going to delve into the landscape and water protection issues. That is where the alternative to the Wild and Scenic designation comes in.” The group has been charged with the task of determining if the river and surrounding area should keep the Wild and Scenic designation or if there is an alternative protection mechanism…

The working group comprises 58 members who represent a wide range of stakeholder positions. From public land managers to property owners, water managers to rafters and rafting companies, U.S. Bureau of Land Management officers to oil and gas company representatives, the group has a diverse range of values. Despite that, the group has not allowed differing opinions to stand in the way of progress, Porter-Norton said. “I have to say, speaking very personally, this group is fabulous,” she said. “You have people who have very different views, in some cases, who have been willing and able to engage in learning. They are really able to talk about things and disagree in a very productive way.”

Summit Ridge Water District to consolidate with Montezuma Water District?

From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):

The Summit Ridge Water District board of directors will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 20, to discuss a proposed consolidation with Montezuma Water Company. The possible consolidation comes at a point when the Summit board believes the two organizations have become redundant. “The board feels as though the district has outlived its usefulness,” said board member Mark Tuttle. “We’ve accomplished what was necessary in the beginning.” The water district, created about twenty years ago, currently serves 540 active taps and has roughly 630 members, according to Tuttle. The district’s original purpose was to provide water to the Summit Ridge area, a task larger companies did not find appealing.

More Montezuma County coverage here.

Montezuma County: Montezuma Valley Irrigation vs. Dolores Water Conservancy and Reclamation

From the Cortez Journal (Steve Grazier/Joe Hanel):

Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. filed a lawsuit June 5 in U.S. District Court against the Dolores Water Conservancy District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for allegedly not meeting water requirements agreed to in a 1977 pact via the Dolores Project…

MVI attorney Kelly McCabe said Monday discussions on a possible case settlement have been ongoing between himself and conservancy district attorney Barry Spear, of the Durango firm Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel. “Our settlement conferences with the U.S. magistrate are continuing. We’re still working and expect to be through this month,” said McCabe, who noted that a status conference is set today in Durango’s U.S. District Court…

According to the MVI lawsuit, the irrigation company “has been improperly charged (or billed) and assessed ‘delivery’ of Dolores Project water in the amount of 29,658 acre-feet despite MVI’s direct-flow rights in the Dolores River have produced 100 percent of MVI’s demand. The District (also) unilaterally determined and assessed an 8,000 acre-foot deficit against MVI to commence the 2009 irrigation season.”[...]

MVI is requesting that the federal court declare a judgment that Dolores Project water deliveries to MVI shall not … be charged to the irrigation company until all irrigation requirements are met by the conservancy. In addition, MVI is asking for “other relief” that the court deems appropriate. MVI’s case was assigned to federal court because one of the defendants – the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation – is a federal agency…

MVI was formed in 1920. The water company began receiving irrigation water in 1986 via the Dolores Project, which is managed by the conservancy district and overseen by reclamation, along with other project users.

More Montezuma County coverage here.

Lower Dolores Plan Working Group: Issue fact sheets

Here’s the link to the Dolores River Dialogue’s Lower Dolores Plan Working Group set of issue fact sheets. Here’s a report from the Cortez Journal. From the article:

The goal is to gather information, identify values worthy of protection in the planning area, formulate ideas for protection of the values, and make recommendations to the Dolores Public Lands Office – the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Once the Lower Dolores Management Plan Working Group makes its recommendations, the public lands office will initiate a formal environmental assessment process, conduct public involvement, and issue a decision notice.

More Coyote Gulch Dolores River coverage here.

Precipitation (storage) news: San Juan River seeing increased flows

From The Durango Herald:

[Wednesday, July 8] Declining river flows in the San Juan Basin are leading the Bureau of Reclamation to increase water releases from Navajo Reservoir to 800 cubic feet per second…The increase goes into effect today at 4 a.m…”We’re releasing what’s required for irrigation,” about 610 cubic feet per second, [Vallecito Reservoir Superintendent Hal Pierce] said. Lemon Reservoir was releasing water at 175 cubic feet per second Tuesday.

From the Cortez Journal (Kristen Plank):

McPhee Reservoir is sitting at an active capacity of 217,000 acre-feet, with a maximum capacity of 229,000 acre-feet. The result is an approximate 12,000 acre-feet decrease, or an almost 3-foot drop in elevation, said Mike Preston, general manager of the Dolores Water Conservancy District…

In June, McPhee sat completely full until the 10th. Last year, the reservoir stayed full until July 19. “The reservoir did not stay full as long (this year) because we didn’t have the snowpack that we did in 2008,” Preston said. “But since the water usage was more moderate because of the cool, cloudy weather, we are only about six days ahead of where we were in 2008.”[...]

“The good news is that we filled this year for the second year in a row,” Preston said. “We are in good shape to meet all of our allocations for 2009…

Jackson Gulch Reservoir is also in good shape for the season, said Mancos Water Conservancy District Superintendent Gary Kennedy. The reservoir’s active capacity sits at 10,000 acre-feet and is roughly 200 acre-feet from full now. The reservoir was very close to full for July 4, which Kennedy said is unusual for this time of year.

Dolores River: ‘It’s a complicated river’ — Amber Kelley

From The Durango Telegraph (Missy Votel):

If ever there was an enigma wrapped in a riddle, it would be the Dolores River. Not only does the “River of Sorrows” take an abrupt northward about-face on its 250-mile journey to the Colorado River, but the origins of the name itself (“El Rio de Nuestra Senora de las Dolores,” possibly bestowed by a Spanish explorer in the mid 1700s) are shrouded in mystery. However, more than 250 years after the first white settlers laid eyes on it, the Dolores continues to confound those looking to protect the increasingly precious resource. “It’s a complicated river,” said Amber Kelley, a Cortez native who now lives in Dolores and works as the Dolores River Campaign Coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance. In her role, Kelley helps head up the Dolores River Coalition, a group conservation and recreation organizations that “care about the fate of the Dolores River.” The coalition, in turn, gives input to the Dolores River Dialogue, a broader group made up of stakeholders from farmers to federal agencies. That group formed in 2004 with the goal of balancing ecological conditions of the stretch of river below McPhee Reservoir with water rights, and recreational interests. To make things more complex, that Dolores River Dialogue, or DRD, dovetailed in 2008 to help form the Lower Dolores Management Plan Working Group. Also made up of a broad cross section of interests, the work group is preparing recommendations for an update to the San Juan Public Lands Center’s 1990 Dolores River Management Plan, slated for later this fall. Throw in the Bureau of Reclamation and Dolores Water Conservancy, which oversee operation of McPhee Dam, the Bureau of Land Management, which is responsible for management of much of the river’s surrounding public lands, as well as a Wilderness Study Area, Wild and Scenic River suitability and increasing pressures from the mining and oil and gas industry, and the scenario has more twists and turns than the meandering river itself.

Nevertheless, there is an overriding theme to it all: protection of the Dolores and its myriad uses. It is this common thread that has been guiding the work group’s attempt to reconcile the different uses with preserving the river, or in some cases, bringing it back to life…

The work group has divided the river into eight distinct sections, but the bulk of concern is over the first five, from the dam to the confluence with the San Miguel River. [Mike Preston, manager of the Dolores Water Conservancy] said the four major areas of concern include: the health of the cold-water fishery, including non-native trout; the warm-water fishery, which includes native species such as suckers, chubs and minnows; the riparian zone, which includes eradication of tamarisk and re-establishment of native cottonwoods and willows; as well as the geomorphology, including sediment build up and flow. “The opportunities to do something positive for the river vary from reach to reach,” said Preston. “The original flow from McPhee was designed with the sport fishery in mind, but the objective now has grown much broader.”[...]

the Lower Dolores is also home to the eastwood monkeyflower and the kachina daisy, both found in only a few dozen sites throughout the Four Corners. Aside from the stresses low flows put on the downstream ecology, [Ann Oliver, the South San Juan Mountains Project Director for the Nature Conservancy] sees the biggest threats to the Lower Dolores as invasive species, such as tamarisk and Russian knapweed, and the extractive industry. In addition to past and possible future uranium mining in the area, natural gas drilling could also have impacts. Recently, the Denver-based Bill Barrett Corp. began conducting natural gas exploration in Paradox Valley using Dolores River Project water in the hydraulic frac-ing process.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Jackson Gulch and McPhee reservoirs update

From the Cortez Journal:

Jackson Gulch reservoir live content stood at 7,723 acre-feet with a 9,948 acre-feet maximum capacity and a 7,333 acre-feet average (1971-2000) end-of-month content. At Jackson Gulch, a daily maximum/minimum of 0 cubic-feet-per-second was released into the Mancos River, and 44 acre feet were released for municipal purposes.

McPhee Reservoir live content stood at 329,978 acre-feet, with a 381,051 acre-feet maximum capacity and a 336,999 average (1986-2000) end-of-month content. At McPhee, 3,023 acre-feet were released into the Dolores River, and 8,554 acre-feet were released for transbasin purposes. At McPhee, a daily maximum/minimum of 63/49 cubic-feet-per-second was released into the Dolores River.

Mcphee and Jackson reservoirs status

From the Cortez Journal: “Jackson Gulch reservoir live content stood at 3,532 acre-feet with a 9,948 acre-feet maximum capacity and a 5,008 acre-feet average (1971-2000) end-of-month content. At Jackson Gulch, a daily maximum/minimum of zero cubic-feet-per-second was released into the Mancos River, and 37 acre-feet were released for municipal purposes.

“McPhee Reservoir live content stood at 283,214 acre-feet, with a 381,051 acre-feet maximum capacity and a 305,596 average (1986-2000) end-of-month content. At McPhee, 3,766 acre-feet were released into the Dolores River, and 2,348 acre-feet were released for transbasin purposes. At McPhee, a daily maximum/minimum of 76/48 cubic-feet-per-second was released into the Dolores River.”

McPhee Reservoir: Operations meeting April 15th

From email from Reclamation (Vern Harrell): “The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled a McPhee reservoir Operations meeting in Cortez at 60 South Cactus on April 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM to present a 2009 proposed operating plan for releases to the Lower Dolores River. Reclamation has received comments/suggestions on downstream release options from various stakeholder groups and individuals concerning what they would like to see in downstream releases to the Dolores River this year. An agenda of topics to be discussed will be sent out via email April 8. Please…email [vharrell@uc.usbr.gov] or call Vern Harrell at 970-565-0865 with questions you may have.