Governor Hickenlooper orders work to begin on Colorado Water Plan — draft due December 2014

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Gov. John Hickenlooper’s charge to the Colorado Water Conservation Board to develop a state water plan could have the same sort of impact as the 1969 overhaul of state water law. “It is major, and truly significant,” said Alan Hamel, the Arkansas River basin representative on the CWCB. “There is the need to not only look out for growth, but to deal with climate change and the validity of our water systems.”

Hickenlooper unveiled an executive order last week at the board’s meeting in Grand Junction that directs the CWCB to deliver a draft plan to him no later than Dec. 10, 2014. It will be completed by Dec. 31, 2015. “Throughout our state’s history, other water plans have been created by federal agencies or for the purpose of obtaining federal dollars,” Hickenlooper said in his written order. “We embark on Colorado’s first water plan written by Coloradans, for Coloradans.”

While the order is no surprise — Hickenlooper has talked about having a plan in place by 2016 for months — it clearly defines the CWCB as the lead agency in developing the plan. Hickenlooper also incorporated other state agencies into the planning process, including the Department of Natural Resources, which includes Parks and Wildlife; the Department of Public Health and Environment, which includes the Water Quality Control Commission; the Water Resources and Power Development Authority, which like the CWCB can make water project loans; the Department of Agriculture; and the Colorado Energy Office, which will incorporate the water-energy nexus. The plan also directs the CWCB to include input from the Interbasin Compact Committee and basin roundtables, because they have developed a grassroots approach and a framework for discussing water issues.

However, the plan suggests a more top-down approach to coordinate, streamline and align existing state processes with input from state water groups — much the same way the CWCB used to create the Statewide Water Supply Initiative reports.

It also comes during a shakeup in CWCB leadership. Executive Director Jennifer Gimbel will leave in June and the selection process for her replacement has already begun.

The biggest major change in state water law came in 1969, when the state Legislature revamped the law to combine tributary groundwater and surface rights. Changes since then have been influenced by court decisions more than decisions by the executive branch.

Other sweeping changes came in 1937, when the CWCB was created in response to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, and through sweeping federal programs like the Clean Water Act in 1972.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Storage must be a key part of any statewide water plan, because other goals such as conservation, more efficient supply and water quality cannot occur without it. “There is an underlying understanding that storage is needed and it will be a vital component of a state water plan,” said Alan Hamel, who represents the Arkansas River Basin on the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

The state has been looking at water strategies that include conservation, completing existing and proposed projects and sharing water. Those things can’t happen unless the state has enough places to keep water until it’s needed, Hamel said.

Hamel is just one vote on the board that Gov. John Hickenlooper has charged with developing a state water plan by 2016. But he has been a consistent voice for increasing storage since he led the push for the Preferred Storage Options Plan as president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District in the late 1990s.

He mentioned a new idea for the Arkansas River basin during an interview this week: A summer storage program. In the 1970s, after Pueblo Dam was built as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project the Southeastern district crafted a winter storage program that allows farmers to store flows from Nov. 15 to March 15. The same concept could be used during extremely wet summers to capture and save water for both municipal and agricultural use, Hamel said.

The major difficulty in developing a plan is the state’s prior appropriation system, which allocates water according to its first historic use. Large storage projects like Lake Pueblo provide flood control by capturing excess water, but also decrease the peak flow of rivers, which can hurt junior rights. The key is to develop an accounting system, as the winter storage program did, that would protect junior rights, Hamel explained.

Hamel also pointed out that the CWCB already is working toward other aspects that eventually will be in the plan. One of those efforts is developing water-sharing arrangements, such as the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch, through demonstration projects under HB1248, already signed into law by Hickenlooper.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Colorado water officials are to draft a state water plan by December 2014 under an executive order issued on Wednesday by Gov. John Hickenlooper. The plan calls on the Colorado Water Conservation Board to head the planning process, working with other state agencies, river basin roundtables and other organizations to preserve agriculture in rural Colorado and while accommodating population growth.

The water conservation board met Wednesday in Grand Junction.

“Colorado deserves a plan for its water future use that aligns the state’s many and varied water efforts and streamlines the regulatory processes,” Hickenlooper said in a statement. “We started this effort more than two years ago and are pleased to see another major step forward. We look forward to continuing to tap Colorado’s collaborative and innovative spirit to address our water challenges.”

Ute Water Conservation District General Manager Larry Clever said the response to the governor’s call was guarded. “The devil’s in the details,” Clever said.

According to the Statewide Water Supply Initiative, the gap between water supply and demand could exceed 500,000 acre feet by 2050.

The report is to be complete by 2015.

More CWCB coverage here.

Governor Hickenlooper orders work to begin on Colorado Water Plan — draft due December 2014

Here’s the release from Governor Hickenlooper’s office:

Gov. John Hickenlooper today directed the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to begin work on a draft Colorado Water Plan that will support agriculture in rural Colorado and align state policy to the state’s water values.

“Colorado deserves a plan for its water future use that aligns the state’s many and varied water efforts and streamlines the regulatory processes,” Hickenlooper said. “We started this effort more than two years ago and are pleased to see another major step forward. We look forward to continuing to tap Colorado’s collaborative and innovative spirit to address our water challenges.”

An executive order signed by Hickenlooper directs the CWCB to utilize the work of the state’s grassroots water process, the Basin Roundtables and Interbasin Compact Committee, in developing a draft report by December 2014. A final report should be completed one year later.

The Colorado Water Plan is necessary to address a variety of issues, including:

The gap between water supply and water demand. The Statewide Water Supply Initiative forecasts that this gap could exceed 500,000 acre feet by 2050. Moreover, the largest regional gap is set to occur in the South Platte Basin, the most populous as well as the largest agriculture-producing basin.

Colorado’s drought conditions threaten to hasten the impact of the water supply gap. Indeed, the past two decades have been Colorado’s warmest on record, dating back to the 1890s.

Colorado’s water quantity and quality questions can no longer be thought of separately. Each impacts the other and state water policy should address them conjunctively.

Interstate water concerns are as pressing as ever and require Colorado to be vigilant in protecting its interstate water rights pursuant to its nine interstate compacts and two equitable apportionment decrees.

The Executive Order directs the CWCB to work with its sister agencies within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources as well as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Energy Office, and other relevant state agencies as needed. Each of these agencies is directed to cooperate with the CWCB as needed on the Colorado Water Plan.

“Throughout our state’s history, other water plans have been created by federal agencies or for the purpose of obtaining federal dollars,” the order says. “We embark on Colorado’s first water plan written by Coloradans, for Coloradans. Nevertheless, our past and current data and studies will aid in developing a plan for the future.”

A signed copy of the complete Executive Order ca be found here.

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

Colorado water experts will try to figure out how to manage the state’s most precious resource in an era when all signs points to increasing shortages and the potential for growing conflicts within the state and the region over its allocation.

Under an executive order issued this week by Gov. John Hickenlooper, the Colorado Water Conservation Board will lead the effort to address the growing gap between supply and demand. Especially worrisome is the gap in the South Platte Basin, the state’s most populous and at the same time, the most productive agricultural basin.

From KDVR ( Eli Stokols):

Hickenlooper also issued an executive order directing the Colorado Water Conservation Board to begin work on a draft Colorado Water Plan to address a water gap and streamline regulations across the state…

Environmentalists, who’ve been firing off sharp-tongued releases criticizing Hickenlooper after a series of legislative battles at the Capitol, lavished praise on the administration Wednesday.

“We are pleased to see that Gov. Hickenlooper highlights the need for smart, efficient water conservation as a key element of the State’s first ever water plan,” said Bart Miller, Water Program Director for Western Resource Advocates. “Conservation is faster, cheaper, and less controversial than building costly structural projects.”

“We congratulate Gov. Hickenlooper and our legislative champions for moving Colorado forward on transportation and water today,” said Conservation Colorado’s Pete Maysmith.

From The Denver Business Journal (Cathy Proctor):

A 2010 report from the Statewide Water Supply Initiative forecast that the gap between water supplies and demand in the state would be bigger than 500,000 acre feet by 2050. That’s enough water to supply more than 1 million households for a year.

Among Colorado’s river basins, the South Platte Basin — which supplies half the water used by Denver Water and supports agriculture operations downstream of Denver — had the biggest supply-demand gap, according to the governor’s office…

Craig Mackey —co-director of Protect the Flows, which represents 850 businesses that depend on the Colorado River — said Hickenlooper’s order was timely, given that parts of the state may might face water shortages this summer due to dismal snowpacks during the last two years.

“The governor understands that water drives Colorado’s economy and our quality of life, including 200,000 sustainable jobs in our tourism and recreation economy,” Mackey said.

Arkansas Basin Roundtable recap: State water plan development front and center at Wednesday’s meeting

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado is moving quickly to develop a state water plan by late 2015, culminating more than a decade of work. “I think it’s exciting for Colorado, when you look at all the work that’s been done,” said Alan Hamel, who represents the Arkansas River basin on the Colorado Water Conservation Board. He made his comments during a report to the Arkansas Basin Roundtable Wednesday.

The CWCB is going through changes, with executive director Jennifer Gimbel leaving in June and an ongoing search for a new chief.

Gov. John Hickenlooper has asked the CWCB and the Interbasin Compact Committee to speed up efforts to develop a plan for future water supply that meets the need for more urban growth while preserving water for the environment and agriculture.

“During my reign of terror as state engineer, at least one legislator every year would stand up and say, ‘We have to have a state water plan,’ ” said Jeris Danielson, who represents the basin on the IBCC. “We might actually get something done.”

Both Danielson and Hamel cautioned the roundtable that the state’s prior appropriation system, administered through water courts, needs to be preserved. But it can be tweaked to allow certain types of flexibility to share water for more than one purpose.

One example of that is House Bill 1248, which breezed through both legislative houses this year after it was altered to have a statewide focus. The bill allows rotational fallowing demonstration projects that would allow farmers to lease water to cities with the oversight of the CWCB. Originally, the bill just included the Arkansas River basin, which has received several CWCB grants designed to gauge the impact of water transfers related to the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch.

“We are ahead of the other roundtables in terms of planning,” Hamel said.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here and here.

The CWCB approves dough for three Arkansas Basin Roundtable projects

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Three Arkansas River basin projects gained approval last week from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. A new water line for the Ordway Feedyard, bank stabilization on the Frost Ranch on Fountain Creek and a study of historic flows and diversions were approved.

The Ordway Feedyard received a $275,000 grant and $2.5 million loan for a $3.2 million project to complete a 10.5-mile pipeline. The pipeline would provide fire protection, as well as saving about 800 acre-feet of water, said Alan Hamel, CWCB board member. The new pipeline would replace a gravity-flow pipeline from Lake Henry with a system that pumps the water uphill. The feedlot needs as much water as a city of 5,500 people would require for its 65,000 head of cattle. It’s the third-largest employer in the county and has a $50 million impact annually on the local economy. It was built in 1972, but the owners subsequently sold off most of the water rights to large cities.

The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District received $105,000 for a bank stabilization project on the Frost Ranch on Fountain Creek in El Paso County. The project would demonstrate methods that other landowners along the creek could use to reduce erosion and sedimentation. The total project is about $160,000.

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District received a grant of $300,000 for a study of weather patterns and water diversions, with a goal of better understanding how water is used in wet and dry years. The study will also distinguish between native water and water imported into the basin. “We need an accounting tool that tells us how much water is available through native or imported sources, how much is in storage and how much can be exchanged,” said Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern district.

All three grants were approved by the Arkansas Basin Roundtable and funded through the water supply reserve account, which comes from mineral severance taxes.

More CWCB coverage here.

Interbasin Compact Committee: Draft Nonconsumptive Toolbox Request for Public Comment

From email from the IBCC (Becky Mitchell):

Below is the link to the Draft Nonconsumptive Toolbox.

The IBCC requested that CWCB develop a toolbox to help roundtables incorporate nonconsumptive needs into their Basin Implementation Plans. This is a resource document for the roundtables and other stakeholders, and brings many documents and technical work together in one place.

The draft report is available online here: http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/170187/Electronic.aspx?searchid=ee0c3336-ec13-43aa-8b81-460b87f065af

The report has been reviewed by CWCB staff and the IBCC subcommittee, which includes a diverse set of environmental, municipal, and agricultural interests, and is now available for public comment.

Please provide your comments by close of business Monday, May 20th to IBC@state.co.us.

As directed by the CWCB Board, staff will review the document with the roundtable chairs, and be available upon request to present the draft document to basin roundtables. Once the document is finalized, staff will present it along with the technical platform and framework for the consumptive portion of the basin implementation plans to each of the roundtables.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

The Arkansas Basin Roundtable wants $300,000 to model diversions

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Arkansas Basin Roundtable is backing a $300,000 study to develop a way to sort out complexities of water projects.

The roundtable is applying for grants from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to fund a thorough analysis of water use.

“The reason it’s needed is that everyone does planning for an average year, but everyone has to deal with wet years and dry years,” said Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

The most extreme case in point were the 2011 and 2012 water years. In 2011, the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project brought over record amounts of water, and the next year yielded one of the lowest amounts ever.

“We need an accounting tool that tells us how much water is available through native or imported sources, how much is in storage and how much can be exchanged,” Broderick said. The plan continues the roundtable’s regional planning efforts that try to incorporate multiple uses into projects.

For instance, the timing of how water is moved for irrigation or municipal purposes can improve flows for rafting and fishing, as demonstrated by the Upper Arkansas River flow program started in 1990.

The study would look at data back to 1982 and develop a report about how water was diverted as supplies varied from year to year. That would provide data for a water supply model that could be posted online to assist water users in planning, based on hydrologic conditions.

“Eventually, it serves an educational purpose as well,” Broderick said.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

‘We’re looking for collaboration rather than competition with municipal and industrial water providers’ — John McKowen

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Long-term partnerships to supply cities with storage space and farms with additional water are possible under plans that a water and farming company has set in motion. “Part of our plan is to develop gravel pit reservoirs on the Arkansas River. We’re looking for collaboration rather than competition with municipal and industrial water providers,” Two Rivers Water and Farming CEO John McKowen told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable on Wednesday.

Two Rivers has purchased farms, reservoirs and reservoir sites in Pueblo and Huerfano counties over the past three years. McKowen spoke to the roundtable for the first time this week in preparation for asking the Colorado Water Conservation Board for another loan to develop the gravel pit reservoirs.

Two Rivers used previous CWCB loans to rehabilitate Cucharas and Orlando reservoirs in Huerfano County. Earlier this month, some restrictions were removed on Cucharas Reservoir, allowing up to 10,000 acre-feet to be stored there. While that reservoir is slow to fill — rights are relatively junior and the Cucharas River relatively dry — there could be immediate benefits to reservoirs Two Rivers wants to build on the Excelsior Ditch east of Pueblo.

McKowen is talking to the recovery of yield group — Colorado Springs Utilities, Aurora Water and the Pueblo Board of Water Works — about storage in the Excelsior Ditch reservoirs if they are built. The cities have looked at purchasing sites in the area in the past because it would allow for more immediate recovery of flows that are bypassed under agreements to maintain Arkansas River levels.

While most members were hearing them directly for the first time, McKowen’s plans were met with skepticism from Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “What I’m afraid of is that he’ll dry up agriculture,” Winner said, noting that the cities now store water in other ditch company reservoirs. “I don’t think he should get a state loan without a study of the economic impacts on Crowley and Otero counties.”

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Colorado River Basin: Recent study by the Bureau of Reclamation highlights future supply problems #coriver

Here’s a guest column running in The Denver Post, written by Allen Best, that gives an overview of the current state of the Colorado River. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

Tow icebergs from Alaska? Pilfer from a tributary of the Yellowstone River in Wyoming? Or, even sneak water from the Snake, boring a 6-mile tunnel from a reservoir near Jackson Hole to the Green River? While it’s sure to make Idaho’s spud farmers cranky, it would help Tucson, Los Angeles and that parched paradigm of calculated risk, Las Vegas.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and everybody else with a megaphone has carefully branded these ideas as improbable or worse. Only slightly more credible is the idea of a pipeline from the Mississippi River. It could originate near Memphis, traverse 1,040 miles and, if reaching Castle Rock, rise 6,000 feet in elevation. Pumping would require a steady 800 megawatts of electricity, or a little more than what the Comanche 3 power plant in Pueblo produces.

In theory, this 600,000-acre feet of muddy Mississippi would replace diversions from the Colorado River headwaters between Grand Lake and Aspen. Those diversions range between 450,000 and 600,000 acre-feet annually. That would leave the creeks and rivers to the whims of gravity and geography, at least until arriving at Las Vegas and other places with growing thirst.
Cheap water? Not exactly: It would cost $2,400 per acre-foot for this Memphis-flavored sludge, assuming the idea isn’t grounded by protests from barge and riverboat operators. (Sometimes they, too, say they need more water.)

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

CWCB/IBCC: Updated Roadmap Memo from John Stulp and Jennifer Gimbel

Click here to read the memo sent to IBCC and CWCB members. Here’s an excerpt:

The process of identifying consumptive and nonconsumptive needs and moving forward with the implementation of identified projects and processes has been a significant accomplishment, and roundtables will continue to work with project proponents to support their implementation. The legislative charge of the Water for the 21st Century Act is to also identify projects and methods beyond those already planned by project proponents to meet Colorado’s gaps for municipal, industrial, agricultural, environmental, and recreational water needs.

Through your efforts, this work has begun to take shape. The IBCC and Basin Roundtables have concluded that the status quo will result in the transfer of too much agricultural water, which will negatively impact the state’s agricultural economy and the environment for many of our river basins. We have identified water supply options to meet our water supply future. The Basin Roundtables developed several portfolios that allowed us to understand the trade-offs and evaluate options. Using that work, the IBCC through a scenario planning process has begun to create an Adaptive Management Framework. The first element of this framework is a “No Regrets/Low Regrets Action Plan”. “No regrets/low regrets” actions could be taken in the near-term regardless of longer term future conditions (i.e. any future scenario that may arise).

More CWCB coverage here. More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Flaming Gorge Task Force: ‘I felt we set the groundwork to move forward’ — Reed Dils

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado still needs to look at projects to bring in new water supplies despite a state water board’s decision last month to put the Flaming Gorge pipeline task force on ice. The Arkansas Basin Roundtable, the main proponent of the task force, still supports dialogue with other state roundtables on the subject and getting the statewide Interbasin Compact Committee to tackle the issue head­-on.

“It’s time we start looking at issues,” said Jeris Danielson, who represents the roundtable on the IBCC. The IBCC has adopted a “four­legged stool” that includes new supply along with identified projects, conservation and agricultural transfers.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board in January voted to suspend funding for the task force, saying the committee was duplicating work assigned to the IBCC. The group began its work in 2011 to determine issues surrounding two proposals to build water pipelines from southwestern Wyoming to Colorado’s Front Range.

“All of us thought the task force made good progress and had some good discussions on tough issues,” said Alan Hamel, who represents the Arkansas River basin on the CWCB. “Their thoughts will be folded into other work the CWCB is doing to move forward new­supply discussions.”

“I think the most important thing we did was establish a list of attributes for what constitutes a good project,” said Betty Konarski, a member of the task force.

“I felt we set the groundwork to move forward,” said Reed Dils, a task force member and former CWCB representative. “If we’re ever going to see another large project in the state, it will take the cooperation of all the roundtables.”

Roundtable Chairman Gary Barber, who also sat on the task force, said the group identified an immediate gap in agricultural water needs, and a municipal gap by 2020. It made no recommendation on whether or not to build a Flaming Gorge pipeline.

Danielson and Jay Winner, the other basin representative on the IBCC, vowed to press the IBCC to more action at its meeting in March.

More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.

The CWCB plans to roll Flaming Gorge Pipeline analysis in with other IBCC reviews for transmountain diversions #coriver

Here’s an article from last week that deals with the demise of the Flaming Gorge Task Force. It ran in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel and was written by Gary Harmon.

From The River Blog (Jessie Thomas-Blate):

Last year, American Rivers listed the Green River as #2 on our annual list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers®, due to the potential impact of this pipeline on the river, the recreation economy, and the water supply for the lower Colorado River Basin…

Recently, a coalition of 700 business owners called Protect the Flows commissioned a poll that found 84% of West Slope residents and 52% of metro Denver-area residents oppose building additional water pipelines across the mountains. In fact, 76% of Colorado residents think that the solution lies in using water in smarter and more efficient ways, with less waste…

The Green River is a paddler’s paradise. In May 2012, Steve Markle with O.A.R.S. told us why paddlers love the Green River so much. Then in August, Matt Rice, our Director of Colorado Conservation, told us about his trip fishing the Green, and the big trout, beautiful scenery, and solitude he found there. Finally, Scott Willoughby with the Denver Post gives a description of the river that makes you jealous if you don’t have easy access to this trout oasis (even if you aren’t an avid fisherman!).

It is no wonder so many people care about preserving adequate water flows in the Green River. It not only provides essential water and cash flow for West Slope towns, but also a great adventure for the citizens of Colorado and beyond.

More Flaming Gorge Pipeline coverage here and here.

CWCB halts funding for phase two of Flaming Gorge Task Force

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A decision by the Colorado Water Conservation Board not to fund the second phase of a Flaming Gorge pipeline task force does not affect either project that wants to bring water into the state. The CWCB Tuesday turned down a $100,000 extension of the committee, saying its efforts duplicate the role of the Interbasin Compact Committee. Alan Hamel, of the Arkansas River basin, was the only member of the CWCB who voted in favor of continuing to fund the task force.

“I was surprised,” said Gary Barber, chairman of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, and a member of the task force. “The state still needs to proceed with water planning, but did not approve our approach for moving forward.”

The task force was formed to identify questions that would face any statewide water project, and from the start said it would not endorse or eliminate either of two proposals to build a Flaming Gorge pipeline.

“This decision sends a clear message that the IBCC needs to step up and do something about new water supply,” said Jay Winner, one of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable’s IBCC representatives.

Environmental groups this week tried to depict the decision as a defeat for Aaron Million’s proposal to build a 500­ mile pipeline from the Green River to Colorado’s Front Range. However, Million claimed last week that the neutral decision by the task force was a win for him. He is working on engineering needed to resume federal consideration of the project.

The Colorado-­Wyoming Coalition also is pursuing its version of a Flaming Gorge pipeline, but is still waiting on Bureau of Reclamation studies to determine if it will move forward, said Eric Hecox of the South Metro Water Supply District.

From the Northern Colorado Business Report (Steve Lynn):

The developer of the proposed Flaming Gorge Pipeline denied Wednesday that the state’s decision to end funding for a group looking at the project would set it back…

Tuesday’s decision to halt funding represented a “critical wound” to the project, Boulder-based Western Resource Advocates said in a statement. Environmentalists oppose the project because they contend it would diminish Green River flows…

Jennifer Gimbel, director of the water board, said the environmentalists’ comments were “misleading.”

The decision “doesn’t reflect the board’s position on the pipeline,” she said. “It doesn’t endorse it; it she said. “It doesn’t endorse it; it doesn’t deny it.”[...]

The task force was formed to study issues surrounding the project, not to decide whether the project should move forward. After completing a report on the pipeline, the task force requested $100,000 to study “new supply projects in general” at Tuesday’s water board meeting, Gimbel said.

However, the Interbasin Compact Committee already is studying potential water supply projects, she said…

Aaron Million, principal of Wyco Power and Water Inc., called environmentalists’ characterization of the decision “grossly inaccurate.” The company has proposed building the pipeline to bring water from Wyoming to the Front Range, including Fort Collins.

“One of the reasons I think the environmental community’s been so vocal is that this project has a lot of merit to it,” said Million, who contends the project would add to Poudre River volume.

From The Salt Lake Tribune (Brett Prettyman):

Charlie Card, northeastern Utah coordinator for Trout Unlimited, says the news from Colorado is good, but he has heard similar news before and knows not to let his guard down when it comes to water in the West.

“Million said about a year ago that in two years he would be ready to submit another proposal and there is another group out of Parker, Colorado, that has asked the Bureau of Reclamation specifically to give them the actual number of acre-feet of water that is available,” Card said. “The report from Colorado is nice, but the threat is far from over.”

Numerous recreational and financial impacts from proposed pipelines pumping water out of Flaming Gorge Reservoir, which sits on the Utah/Wyoming border, or the Green River above it have been revealed by Trout Unlimited and other concerned groups.

Among them:

• Wide fluctuations of water levels at Flaming Gorge would create ideal conditions for noxious weeds along the shore, affecting waterfowl, mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, sage grouse and other species. Open shorelines may become inaccessible for recreation.

• Diminished flows on the Green River below the dam will affect species of concern like the northern river otter, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, Lewis’ woodpecker, southern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo.

• A reduction of flows into the reservoir will inhibit recommended flow levels out of the dam. The recommendations were agreed upon by multiple agencies to benefit endangered fish (razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub and bonytail) in the Green River.

• The main sport fish of Flaming Gorge — kokanee salmon, lake trout and smallmouth bass — are already facing a number of challenges in a delicately balanced ecosystem that has been rocked by the recent appearance of illegally introduced burbot. Lower and fluctuating water levels will only add to the challenges.

• Access to the lake via existing boat ramps would likely not be possible if water as proposed in the Million project were removed from the reservoir. That impacts all businesses that rely on the reservoir including those on the shores of Flaming Gorge and including other towns and cities like Dutch John, Manila, Green River, Wyo., and Rock Springs.

Similar facts are presented on the ourdamwater.org/ website of Sportsmen for the Green.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

The state’s most powerful water organization will spend no more money to study ways of piping water from the Western Slope to the Front Range, a move heralded by environmental organizations but one that might not squelch the idea. The Colorado Water Conservation Board turned away a request that it continue to fund a study of how to pursue large water projects, such as a proposed pipeline to the Front Range from Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming.

The board’s decision was greeted as a victory by Protect the Flows, an organization of recreation, agricultural and other interests that depend on the Colorado River. “This decision tells Coloradans that (Gov. John Hickenlooper) and the water board know how much we value our superb recreation opportunities and the huge economy in Colorado generated by outdoor enthusiasts and tourism,” Protect the Flows spokeswoman Molly Mugglestone said.

Water board members noted that such projects would be more appropriately studied by the Interbasin Compact Committee, a 27-member committee established to address statewide water issues.

The proposed Flaming Gorge pipeline has been rejected on several levels and by federal agencies. It was criticized by government agencies, including Mesa County and Grand Junction, which cited unanswered questions about the effects of the project.

The Interbasin Compact Committee “has a new water-supply committee and this seems to belong to them,” said Chris Treese, spokesman for the Colorado River Water Conservation District. “I think that’s an important dialogue to have and it’s one we’ve been involved with all along.”

The water board’s decision amounted to an endorsement of the need for conservation over development, Protect the Flows said.

Abandoning talk of water-development projects is a non-starter, Club 20 Executive Director Bonnie Petersen said. “Given the drought situation,” Petersen said, “at some level it would seem we would have to talk about storage.”

More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.

CWCB: ‘Zombie Pipeline’ Takes Critical Wound in Vote — Jason Bane

From email from Western Resource Advocates (Jason Bane):

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) today voted overwhelmingly to end funding for the ‘Flaming Gorge Task Force,’ which had been considering future large-scale water diversion projects such as the ‘Flaming Gorge Pipeline.’ The decision is in line with public opinion; a recent Colorado water poll found that four-in-five Colorado voters favor focusing on water conservation efforts rather than water diversions.

In response to today’s decision, Drew Beckwith, Water Policy Manager at Western Resource Advocates, issued the following statement:

“The Flaming Gorge Pipeline has been called the ‘zombie pipeline’ from years of lumbering around trying to latch onto anything that might keep it alive. Today’s CWCB vote sends a strong message that it’s time to move on to other water demand solutions. No amount of discussion is going to make the pipeline less expensive or more realistic, and we applaud the CWCB for recognizing the need to move forward.”

The ‘Flaming Gorge Pipeline’ (FGP) is a proposal to pump 81 million gallons of water a year across more than five hundred (500) miles from the Green River in Wyoming to the Front Range of Colorado—all at a projected cost of $9 billion dollars (according to CWCB calculations). Western Resource Advocates has consistently opposed the idea as unreasonable and unnecessary.

More coverage from Bob Berwyn writing for the Summit County Citizens Voice. Here’s an excerpt:

The task force funding drew criticism from conservation groups, who said the money would be better spent studying realistic conservation and reuse options for water. By some state estimates, the pipeline could have cost as much as $9 billion. The CWCB denied a request for $100,000 of state water money for continued study…

We applaud Governor Hickenlooper and the Colorado Water Conservation Board for their decision to turn down spending additional money to examine new water diversions as a solution to meet Colorado’s water challenges, said Protect Our Flows director Molly Mugglestone. “It’s the right decision for what Coloradans want as reflected overwhelmingly in a recent bipartisan poll commissioned by Protect the Flows.

The poll showed that more than 80 percent of Colorado voters would tell state officials to spend their time and resources focusing on conservation efforts, rather than water diversions; a majority of voters across political and geographic lines oppose building additional pipelines; and almost all express strong regard for Colorado rivers and a desire to protect them.

[Aaron Million] has said the pipeline could actually help protect flows in over-used sections of the Colorado, especially in years like this, with abundant moisture in Wyoming, but well below average snowpack in Colorado.

More Flaming Gorge Pipeline coverage here and here.

Flaming Gorge Task Force: ‘I guess neutral is a big win for us’ — Aaron Million

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

More state discussions are needed on how to develop Colorado’s share of Colorado River water, a task force that met for more than a year on the Flaming Gorge water project reported Wednesday. The task force did not recommend either building or denying the Flaming Gorge pipeline idea, and wasn’t expected to. Instead, it worked to create a framework that would bring competing interests to the table to evaluate any project proposing development of a new supply from the Colorado River. Its conclusions will be submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which funded the task force. “I guess neutral is a big win for us,” said Aaron Million, who was one of two sponsors of a Flaming Gorge pipeline who met with the task force last year.

More engineering work is being completed so that the Flaming Gorge project can be resubmitted to a federal agency for environmental evaluation. Million said it would be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which rejected an application last year, saying more information was needed. If FERC does not accept the new proposal, either the Army Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Land Management would be approached.

The task force recommended the CWCB and Interbasin Compact Committee, an umbrella organization that represents the interests of basin roundtables and the state, develop a way to evaluate if a project meets certain criteria. The top priorities are developing Colorado’s share of the water under the 1922 Colorado River Compact and protecting the state from a call on the river that could diminish Colorado’s water supply.

The group recommended forming a committee that would continue to discuss issues relating to water and is asking the CWCB for up to $100,000 for phase 2 of the study. The first phase was funded at $72,000 in September 2011, over the objections of environmental groups who tried to kill any consideration of a Flaming Gorge plan.

More coverage from the Associated Press via the Laramie Boomerang. Here’s an excerpt:

In a report to be presented to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Basin Roundtable Exploration Committee said questions that should be addressed include not only financing and how Colorado can maximize its entitlements to Colorado River water without overdeveloping the river, but also alternatives to new water supply projects.

The committee said state leaders and each of the basin roundtables in Colorado should participate in the conversation, which it called a “key threshold step” needed to move beyond the status quo in developing significant new water supply solutions. The roundtables represent each major river basin in the state, plus the Denver area.

The report, released Wednesday, described an urgent need for action, citing the gap between the demand for water on the populated Front Range and the supply.

“The municipal gap on the Front Range is immediate, the dry-up of agriculture is real and certain, and the environmental and economic concerns are serious and numerous,” the report said.

The report also listed several characteristics of “good” water supply projects. For instance, they should have funding and minimize the need for new infrastructure, and they shouldn’t reduce supplies to existing water users, the report said.

Colorado’s river basin roundtables agreed to form the committee after entrepreneur Aaron Million announced a $3 billion pipeline proposal to carry Flaming Gorge Reservoir water to Colorado, and a separate coalition of water providers said it was exploring its own plan. The committee didn’t set out to endorse any proposal but wanted to answer questions about cost, feasibility, water rights and legalities, along with the environmental, socioeconomics, agricultural and recreational impacts of any Flaming Gorge project, among other issues.

Million has yet to gain permits for his project. He said Thursday his team is doing more engineering work after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last year dismissed his permit application over a lack of specifics.

More coverage from the Wyoming Business Journal (MJ Clark):

The committee is aware of protests by environmentalists and issues raised by their own constituency.

“Rather than focusing on a Flaming Gorge project, the committee is exploring what the attributes would be of any successful new transmountain diversion,” the group wrote. “And foremost to that discussion is dealing with the uncertainties of water availability under the Colorado River Compact.”

Noting that the staff could not reach an agreement of whether or not to endorse the project, the group concluded that, “At this point, we don’t see the benefit of having the Flaming Gorge Committee continue … unless the board directs otherwise, this will be the direction staff takes.”

More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.

Flaming Gorge Task Force’s phase one report is hot off the press

Click here to view the report and appendices A through F. Click here for appendices G through I. Thanks to Heather Bergman for sending them along in email. Here’s an excerpt from the report:

Recommendations

In the course of its work, the Committee has come to more fully understand and appreciate the gravity and risks of the status quo and the need to develop new supply1 solutions that balance the current and future consumptive and nonconsumptive needs of both slopes and all basins. The municipal gap on the Front Range is immediate, the dry-up of agriculture is real and certain, and the environmental and economic concerns are serious and numerous. In the process of becoming informed about and discussing the benefits and costs of a specific new supply project focused around Flaming Gorge, the Committee has identified a key threshold step that must happen in order to move beyond the status quo in developing any significant new supply solution: an immediate and focused conversation with each roundtable and state leaders at the table must begin, aimed at developing an agreement or agreements around how water supply needs around the state can be met. Our conclusion and consensus is that the conversation needs to be transparent and inclusive in order to arrive at consensus agreements that can lead to meaningful statewide-level water supply solutions. The immediate need for this robust, focused, transparent, and balanced conversation is at the heart of each of our recommendations.

The Committee has developed a consensus flow chart that identifies threshold steps and a process framework for moving forward with major new supply allocation from the Colorado River. The flow chart and the process it outlines suggests a pathway to achieving statewide consensus for a new supply project, based on roundtables defining the scope of a project, the IBCC and CWCB providing insight and approval, and project proponents or participants designing a project based on statewide consensus about the criteria of what characteristics and components are needed to be included into the design, implementation, and operation of a water project for that project to be considered a “good” project for Colorado. The flow chart is based on several assumptions:

The goal is to minimize the risk of a Compact call.

An M&I gap exists and needs to be filled. Some of the water needed to fill that gap may come from the Colorado River. That portion of the gap that is not satisfied by identified projects or processes, conservation, or new supply will likely come from the change of agricultural water to municipal and industrial use.

The current legal framework will apply.

All roundtables are affected by a new supply project.

This process would be voluntary. An inability to complete the process (all STOP signs in the complete framework) means that proponents revert to “business-as-usual” for building a new project.

More coverage from KUGR News:

A task force studying issues related to proposals to divert water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming to Colorado says state leaders first need to agree on how Colorado’s water needs can be met. In a report to be presented to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Basin Roundtable Exploration Committee says questions that should be addressed include how Colorado can maximize its entitlements to Colorado River water without overdeveloping the river and who would finance a new water supply project. It also lists characteristics of “good” water supply projects, which it says shouldn’t reduce supplies to existing water users, for one. The report, released Wednesday, says there is an immediate gap between the Front Range demand for water and the supply and mentions “risks of the status quo.”

More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.

Rio Grande Roundtable recap: ‘Our projects are good projects’ — Travis Smith #riogrande

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

This month the local Rio Grande Roundtable, a group representing various water interests in the basin, decided to send five more projects to the state for funding. If the state board approves these requests during the March Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting, Valley water projects will see another approximately $2 million from statewide water funds, plus $195,000 from the basin funds…

“It’s getting more and more competitive,” Gibson said. “This basin’s been extremely fortunate in the past. We’ve got good projects that have been funded. We’ve got good projects that have been completed. We’ve got good projects that are still underway, but we need to think about reality. If you were on the CWCB board would you be willing to give two-thirds of the account remaining in the statewide account to us when we have been able to dip into that pocket the deepest?”

CWCB staffer Greg Johnson said that has not been an issue in the past, and he did not know how much that might enter into the CWCB’s discussions in the future. He said it might depend on how much competition there is for the funding.

Roundtable and CWCB member Travis Smith said the board has criteria and guidelines in place to judge all of the projects coming in from around the state, and those will be crucial in determining the best projects for funding when there is not enough money to fund them all.

“Our projects are good projects so I am anticipating we are going to have success,” he said.”[...]

Re-elected Roundtable Vice-chairman Rio de la Vista suggested the roundtable might need to prioritize its projects in the event not all of them receive funding in March. The roundtable members might need to choose which projects could be put off until the September CWCB meeting. ..

[Greg Johnson] said although the state funding has been cut significantly, “the good news is we do have a little bit more than we thought we did.”

The state account will have a balance in March of $4.5 million, rather than the $3 million that was anticipated, he said.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Snowpack news: Larimer County snowpack and reservoir storage lower than 2012 #codrought

Take a trip down memory lane by clicking on the thumbnail graphics. I’ve posted snowpack maps from around this time of year for 2013, 2012 and 2011.

From the Loveland Reporter-Herald (Pamela Dickman):

Although 2013 has just begun, it already is drier than 2012 at this point, and the amount of water stored in reservoirs is much less than January of last year. Snowpack is at 61 percent of normal in the Upper Colorado and South Platte Basins, which affect Larimer County — lower than it was Jan. 10, 2012, said Brian Werner, spokesman for Northern Water.

But water managers knew there was liquid in the bank in 2012 coming off three consecutive wet years and with area reservoirs at 121 percent of the level considered full. This year, by comparison, Colorado-Big Thompson reservoirs as well as other local storage facilities are 79 percent full — a 42 percent margin.

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

…[Colorado Division of Water Resources Division 3 Engineer Craig Cotten] updated the [Rio Grande Roundtable] members on the status of the snowpack. He said the Rio Grande Basin was about 60 percent of average as of Tuesday.

“We need about 137 percent of average from now on through the rest of the winter season to get us even up to that average level,” he said. “We definitely need some more snow.”

He said the Natural Resources Conservation Services’ stream forecast for this year predicts about 66 percent of average flow on the Rio Grande and 74 percent of average on the Conejos River system, or about the same as 2012. Forecasts for the rest of the streams around the San Luis Valley vary from 36 to 76 percent of average, he added.

“We have still got a few months of winter left, and we can definitely get some good snow still, but it is not looking real good so far.”

From the Leadville Herald Democrat:

The 2013 water year has gotten off to a slow start in the mountains of Colorado. As of Jan. 1, Colorado’s statewide snowpack was 70 percent of average and 91 percent of last year’s readings, according to Phyllis Ann Philipps, state conservationist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

“Conditions could have been much worse if we had not received the moisture we did in December,” Philipps said. The much-needed snowfall in December boosted the snowpack from just 36 percent of average recorded on Dec. 1. The Jan. 1 snowpack is the fourth lowest within the last 32 years, she added.

Mountain precipitation was 112 percent of average for December, but due to exceptionally dry conditions statewide in October and November, total water year-to-date precipitation remains below average. In October and November, Colorado received only 50 and 41 percent of average precipitation respectively.

Statewide year-to-date precipitation was at 68 percent of average as of Jan. 1. Basins in southern Colorado have the greatest deficits. The San Miguel, Dolores, Animas and San Juan basins reported only 59 percent of average year-to-date precipitation on Jan. 1. The Upper Rio Grande and Arkansas basins recorded 62 and 61 percent of average for year-to-date precipitation respectively.

So far this winter season has been dominated by high-pressure weather systems and a jet stream that has not cooperated. Jan. 1 snow surveys confirm that snow accumulation is below average for this time of year across the state. Total accumulation ranges from 82 percent of average in the Yampa and White River basins to 61 percent of average in the Arkansas basin.

Due to last spring’s well-below-average snowpack and subsequent low stream-flow volumes throughout most of the state, reservoir storage is currently well below average throughout Colorado. Statewide reservoir storage at the end of December was just 68 percent of average and 38 percent of capacity.

As far as local reservoirs are concerned, Twin Lakes is at 13 percent of capacity, 24 percent of average and 20 percent of last year. Turquoise Lake is at 33 percent of capacity, 48 percent of average and 44 percent of last year.

From the Chaffee County Times:

Despite recent snowstorms, Arkansas River Basin snowpack measured 61 percent of average, the lowest of any river basin in the state, as of Jan. 1. Data from the National Resources Conservation Service show statewide snowpack at 70 percent of average and 91 percent of 2012 readings.

Colorado is being dragged into Rio Grande River Compact dispute between Texas and New Mexico

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

The suit, filed in U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, alleges New Mexico is not delivering to Texas the water owed that state under the compact, which also includes Colorado. [Colorado Division of Water Resources Division 3 Engineer Craig Cotten] had just learned of the suit Tuesday morning and said he was not exactly sure of the specifics. He said the main disagreement was between New Mexico and Texas, but since Colorado is part of the multi-state 1938 Rio Grande Compact, it was included.

“The State of Texas is requesting no action from the State of Colorado. They are included only because they are a signatory to the compact,” a January 8 release from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) stated.

TCEQ Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein said, “It is unfortunate that we have had to resort to legal action, but negotiations with New Mexico have been unsuccessful, and Texas is not getting the water that it is allocated and legally entitled to.”

Rubinstein alleged New Mexico was trying to circumvent and ignore the compact, and by filing suit against New Mexico, Texas was attempting to rectify alleged harm New Mexico had caused Texas water users…

Texas is alleging that New Mexico has allowed hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water to be illegally diverted from the Rio Grande downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir, the storage facility for the three-state Rio Grande Compact.

“Essentially, New Mexico is delivering water to Texas at Elephant Butte Reservoir and then re-diverting Texas’ water below the reservoir as it is being released to Texas,” TCEQ officials stated.

“The illegal diversion of this water is negatively impacting water flows in the river, taking water that is released for the Rio Grande Project beneficiaries, including the State of Texas … Grave and irreparable injury has occurred and will be suffered in the future by Texas and its citizens unless relief is afforded by the court to prevent New Mexico from using and withholding water which Texas is entitled to, and which New Mexico is obligated to deliver, under the Rio Grande Compact and Rio Grande Project Act.”

Cotten said the engineer advisors for each state are scheduled to meet on the compact in February, and the annual Rio Grande Compact Commission meeting will be held in Alamosa this year on March 21 at Adams State University.

As far as Colorado’s deliveries to downstream states in 2012, the state over-delivered its obligation by about 6,000 acre feet, Cotten explained. The over deliveries were all from the Conejos River system, which sent about 9,000 acre feet more than was required to downstream states. The Rio Grande under-delivered about 3,000 acre feet, so between the two rivers, the state ended up with a credit of about 6,000 acre feet.

Cotten said he hoped Colorado would be able to work with Texas to relinquish that credit water to Texas in exchange for the ability to store water up here. Since Elephant Butte Reservoir has been so low, Colorado has been prohibited from storing water in post-compact reservoirs in Colorado, according to provisions of the Rio Grande Compact.

More Rio Grande River Basin coverage here.

Rio Grande Basin Roundtable: ‘We are the basin that has received the most funding to date’ — Mike Gibson

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

Rio Grande Interbasin Roundtable Chairman Mike Gibson said in the years since the state has funded water projects through basin-specific roundtables and a statewide account, this basin has garnered more than $8 million from the statewide Water Supply Reserve Account. “We are the basin that has received the most funding to date,” he said…

During its December meeting the roundtable unanimously approved a $23,500 request from Judy Lopez to implement “The Value of Water,” an educational campaign to continue the informational work begun this year during the “Water 2012” initiative. “We have had a great year,” Lopez said.

Water 2012 included a variety of activities including weekly articles in the Valley Courier, radio spots, tours, contests and other water informational events. Lopez said the Rio Grande Basin is a model for others and has been termed the “kumbaya” basin because of how well folks got along and worked together to promote water education.

“The Value of Water” is the next step, Lopez explained. One of the goals of this next campaign will be “getting people to understand we have a gap between what we have and the amount of water we need.”[...]

The Valley Courier will continue to publish water educational articles, with about 24 scheduled for 2013, and radio interviews will continue, as well as classes and tours on different topics such as wetlands. Lopez requested $23,500 for salaries and supplies that will be matched for a total of $66,450 for “The Value of Water” campaign. The funding request will go on to the state for consideration for funding from the statewide account.

Roundtable member Travis Smith said he supported this funding application, and he commended Lopez and Water 2012 Coordinator Leah Opitz for getting the water conversation out past the “same 10 guys and gals” to the general public. He said the educational components are often overlooked in water circles and hard to measure, but they are important. One of the measures of success from these initiatives will be raising up new water leaders for the future, he added.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Silverthorne: Next meeting of the Flaming Gorge Task Force December 18 #CORiver

Here’s the agenda.

More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.

‘Conservation is good for you (the Front Range), but maybe not for us [West Slope]‘ — typical Western Slope sentiment?

From the Grand Junction Free Press (Hannah Holm):

Taking water from agriculture through buying water rights and drying up farmland (“buy and dry”) has already economically devastated some eastern plains communities. Most stakeholders agree that further losses of irrigated agriculture should be minimized. Meanwhile, the approximately 500,000 acre fee per year already diverted across the divide from Upper Colorado Basin streams has left many streams in ecological trouble, and the surrounding communities are not happy about the prospect of more depletions. Farther downstream, concerns center around water quality and what could happen if we fail to allow sufficient water to flow to downstream states, as required by the Colorado River Basin Compact.

Conservation is the only approach no one has a problem with — until they are on the hook for actually doing enough of it to make a real difference.

On Monday, Dec. 3, representatives from several basin roundtables met in Silverthorne to hash out how to move forward on the conservation piece, which has long been a point of contention between Front Range and Western Slope interests.

As one Gunnison Basin representative put it, typical Western Slope sentiment has been: “Conservation is good for you (the Front Range), but maybe not for us.” This isn’t as cheap as it sounds, since there are legitimate issues related to the large cost relative to small benefit when you try to get small water providers to implement the kinds of conservation programs big, urban water providers do.

However, Front Range water providers pointed out that they’ve already poured millions of dollars into conservation strategies, which have in fact saved a lot of water, but they simply can’t achieve enough conservation through their own efforts alone to take significant pressure off of agriculture and Western Slope water as sources for additional future supplies.

After much inconclusive discussion about exactly how ambitious and wide-ranging conservation targets should be and insightful comments about the counter-incentives to conservation in current water law, one strong point of consensus emerged: Everyone, on both sides of the divide, needs to do more to conserve water.

And we’ll likely need some statewide legislation to conserve enough (even though it’s still not quite clear what that is). Whether that’s legislation to require low-flow appliances or something related to land-use that would limit how much water new development would use was not decided, but the consensus was nonetheless significant. The desire to keep water on the Western Slope and on farms was, at least among this group, beginning to win out over the desire to oppose any statewide encroachment on local control. That’s a big step. Stay tuned to see how big it will really be.

More conservation coverage here.

The Flaming Gorge Task Force October meeting summary is hot off the press

Click here to read a copy.

More Flaming Gorge Task force coverage here.

Produced water from coalbed methane wells could be an adjunct to supplies according to oil company data

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Hundreds of coal­bed methane wells in Las Animas County could produce water that could be used for other purposes in the Arkansas River basin, a study shows. A two­year waterquality monitoring program is showing the “produced water” — water that must be removed from coal seams to extract natural gas — is within limits for harmful contaminants like dissolved solids, conductivity, chloride, sodium, boron and iron, Julie Vlier, of Tetra Tech told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable Wednesday.

“Based on the collection data of the last two years, the quality is quite good,” Vlier said. “Concentrations in the Raton
Basin are lower.” The water ­quality question is important to companies like Pioneer Natural Resources and XTO Energy, which otherwise would have to spend more to inject the water back into the ground. The companies funded the study, which began in 2010. Pioneer alone has about 2,300 gas wells in the Raton Basin, said Jerry Jacob, environmental advisor for the company.

If the water can continue to flow freely into tributaries leading into the Purgatoire River west of Trinidad, it could increase the yield of existing water rights or even improve Colorado’s position in the Arkansas River Compact. Vlier also said the water could help in drought planning or fire mitigation.

The energy companies have state permits that would allow the release of up to 14,000 acre­feet — or 4.5 billion gallons — of water annually. Not all of it would likely reach the Purgatoire River, but it could be used to enhance existing water supplies.

Not everyone on the roundtable agreed with the rosy assessment for produced water.

“They’re taking water out of the same formation as Petroglyph,” said Al Tucker, a member of the Majors Ranch Environmental Committee, who represents Huerfano County on the roundtable. Landowners in Huerfano County say their wells were adversely affected during Petroglyph’s operations, which ended in 2011. In addition to contamination of groundwater, the company may have taken water out of priority, Tucker said.

“There are always bad actors,” Vlier told him.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

‘The IBCC and the nine Basin Roundtables have embarked on a scenario planning and adaptive management process’ — John Stulp

The IBCC report to state legislators is hot off the press. You can download a copy from the Colorado Water Conservation Board website. Here’s Director Stulp’s introduction:

I am happy to report that 2012 has been a busy and productive year for the Interbasin Compact Process. In last year’s report, we highlighted the completion of SWSI 2010 and nine basin reports. Over the course of the last year, the IBCC and the nine Basin Roundtables have embarked on a scenario planning and adaptive management process.There is general agreement that to meet the State’s future municipal and industrial demands while protecting our agricultural, environmental and recreational values, there are no easy solutions and we need to pursue all types of projects and methods to meet these needs. Four major sources of water supply have been identified as solutions for meeting Colorado’s future water demands:

 Municipal and Industrial Conservation
 Agricultural Transfers
 New Supply Development
 Implementation of Water Providers’ Projects (IPPs)

To ensure grassroots input in developing statewide solutions, each roundtable was asked to develop one or more statewide portfolios (different combinations of strategies to address future M&I demands) using the portfolio and tradeoff tool. With nearly 40 portfolios developed by the Basin Roundtables, the IBCC recognizes that we must plan for a variety of possible futures and is now considering how the various portfolios perform under 5 different scenarios. Through the process with the Roundtables and the IBCC, I have been extremely impressed with the substantive conversations that have occurred within and amongst members of the Roundtables, IBCC and others. In March, the Basin Roundtable Summit was a tremendous success where over 300 participants shared ideas and perspectives on the process. Many Roundtables are currently having meaningful conversations with other roundtables on the topic of municipal water conservation and how this important “leg of the stool” can be used to help meet Colorado’s water supply Gap.

In the near future, we will begin working closely with the Basin Roundtables to begin the development of basin plans. This effort will continue to refine each basin’s consumptive and nonconsumptive needs, available water supplies, and develop in-basin projects and methods to meet their water supply gaps. Staff is currently working with the Basin Roundtables to encourage strategic implementation of projects through the use of funding sources such as the CWCB loan program, the WSRA program, and several CWCB grant programs for nonconsumptive projects.

The CWCB is on a 6-year planning cycle for assessing Colorado’s long-term consumptive and nonconsumptive water needs with a scheduled update to SWSI in 2016. In addition, the Governor asked that a State Water Plan be developed based on scenario/portfolio work, SWSI, and the work associated with both short-term and long-term projects and methods. This effort will be a partnership between the CWCB, the IBCC, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Basin Roundtables, and other stakeholders who come together as a state to collaboratively address Colorado’s water supply challenges. Key components of SWSI 2016 and the State Water Plan will include the following:

 Adoption and implementation of the SWSI 2010 recommendations work plan.
 Evaluation of the SWSI 2016 approach and methodology —including the methodology for future gap calculations —with the involvement of the CWCB, IBCC, and the Basin Roundtables
 Closing the existing consumptive and nonconsumptive water supply gaps through the implementation of both short-term and long-term projects and methods identified by the Basin Roundtables.

Another key component of SWSI 2016 and the State Water Plan will be a focus on how we can collaboratively address implementation elements that will be needed to address our future water supply needs and challenges. Using an adaptive management plan approach will allow for a flexible implementation plan that addresses future uncertainties. The scenario planning effort being led by the IBCC will be utilized to develop the adaptive management plan. The drought impacts we have seen across Colorado this year sends a strong message of how important strategic water planning is to protect our economy and citizens. This report summarizes the work and countless hours invested by staff and the citizens throughout the state that serve on the IBCC and Basin Roundtables.

The CWCB has also released their Water Supply Reserve Account Annual Report. From the report:

Water Supply Reserve Account projects have been approved across the entire state [click on the thumbnail graphic for the map]. The WSRA Criteria and Guidelines split the Account into Basin and Statewide Funds. Each Basin Account has received $1,662,829 to date.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

‘I think they [developers] should guarantee 200 years worth of water’ — Paul Ransford

From The Aspen Times (Paul Anderson):

The state is already challenged to provide enough water for current residents and also provide for new growth and development in Front Range cities. Urban planners are now beginning to look long term at water consumption by requiring developers to ensure water supplies a century or more into the future.

“I think they should guarantee 200 years worth of water,” says [Ken Ransford, a water expert with the Colorado Basin Roundtable], who believes that the availability of water is a critical issue if Colorado is to have a sustainable future. Ransford is looking that far ahead because of sobering tree ring studies that forecast a dry future.

The New York Times published a bold headline on August 12: “Hundred-Year Forecast: Drought.” The article describes how tree ring evidence in the American West reveals fluctuating patterns of rain and snowfall.

Since about 1980 the West has seen high moisture levels. According to tree rings, this is a spike that hasn’t been seen since the age of Christ 2000 years ago. The West has been enjoying a very wet 30 years, at least compared with historic droughts, but all that is sure to change if the tree rings speak the truth.

“How will we adapt to a rise in population and a drop of water levels?” asks Ransford. Not only have Westerners become habituated to having plenty of water, we have not looked very seriously at the eventuality of considerable shortfalls.

One solution is to dewater farms and ranches in favor of other, higher paying water users, like subdivisions in urban growth areas where developers are better able to afford high water prices than farmers and ranchers.

The implications are dire if water becomes extremely expensive and agriculture is unable to compete with other water customers. Food production will become more distant and more likely done by agribusiness.

Cool, clear water will become one of our most precious commodities, as it certainly has for some Missouri Heights homeowners. This most essential element of life will be channeled more and more into large population areas, dewatering our rivers and streams on the Western Slope.

Ransford advocates for water efficiency rather than dewatering traditional agriculture and riparian ecosystems, but political support and vision for that option is lacking. It will be up to the public, he says, to come up to speed on water issues and support the least disruptive solutions to reduced supplies in the future.

Perhaps we water users should all start singing “Cool, Clear Water” in a plaintive Western chorus.

More infrastructure coverage here.