South Platte Roundtable: Ag transfers not enough to meet future demand

Folks on the South Platte Roundtable are trying to get the word out that Colorado needs a major water project to meet the needs of projected growth. They’re also hoping to convince the rest of the state that it is a statewide problem and that Colorado’s economic engine is primarily in the South Platte Basin and the area needs water to continue to generate that prosperity. Here’s a report from Bill Jackson writing for The Greeley Tribune. From the article:

That was the consensus [ag transfers falling short] Thursday when the South Platte Roundtable of the Colorado Water Conservation Board unveiled the findings of its study, Water for the 21st Century. The group is one of eight in the state developed by the Colorado Legislature following the drought years of the early part of the century.

The South Platte group, which has 50 members from Park County north to Larimer County and east to the Nebraska and Kansas borders, has met monthly for more than four years. The group believes that by 2050, the medium demand for Weld, Larimer and Boulder counties alone will require an additional 200,000 acre-feet of water just to meet municipal and industrial needs. An acre-foot of water is enough to supply two families with a year’s supply of water. “We will need another Colorado-Big Thompson Project or most of another Poudre River to meet those needs,” Harold Evans told a group of about 150 people at the meeting at The Ranch in Loveland. Evans, chairman of the Greeley Water and Sewer Board, is vice chairman of the South Platte Roundtable…

Gary Wockner of Fort Collins, with the Save The Poudre Coalition, said the study has serious, “and perhaps fatal, flaws and appears to be rooted in the river-destruction policies of the 19th century rather than the diverse Colorado interests of the 21st century.”

Evans said the roundtables have been asked to develop needs assessments for the future, not control growth. He said that Colorado water law will prevail to the use of groundwater. It looked at demands as of 2030 and on out to 2050.

More IBCC — Basin roundtable coverage here and here.

South Platte Basin Roundtable meeting December 17

The next meeting of the roundtable is December 17 in Loveland. Here’s the agenda (pdf) via Natalie Stevens at the City of Greeley Water Department.

More IBCC — roundtables coverage here.

Interbasin Compact Committee meeting December 2

Here’s the release from the Department of Natural Resources (Theo Stein):

Water planners and stakeholders will convene to discuss ways to mix and match multiple strategies for meeting Colorado’s future water supply needs at the 25th meeting of the Interbasin Compact Committee, to be held this Wednesday in Denver.

The focus of the meeting will be the introduction of an analytical tool to help the nine river basin roundtables identify the right mix of conservation, new supply development, agricultural transfers, and other strategies to help them meet their future water needs. The Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) is a 27-member committee established to facilitate dialogue between basins and to address statewide water issues.

The IBCC is organized around nine basin roundtables covering the South Platte, the Denver- Metro area, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, the Gunnison, the Colorado, the Yampa-White, the Southwest and the North Platte. These roundtables are the primary forums for on-going discussions related to needs within each basin and the basins’ interactions with each other.

Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Time: 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Location: Sheraton Denver West Hotel 360 Union Blvd. Lakewood, CO
Room: City Lights

All meetings are open and the public is encouraged to attend.

More IBCC — Basin Roundtable coverage here.

Arkansas Basin Roundtable survey recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Sharing water, municipal conservation and tamarisk removal were listed as the best ways to improve water supply in a recent survey of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable. Also ranking high were rotational fallowing programs, like the type envisioned by the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch, and certain water projects, like the Arkansas Valley Conduit, that improve drinking water supplies for communities in the valley. The survey has been the topic of discussion for the roundtable for months, largely at the urging of President Gary Barber, who has been coaxing the group to finalize a needs assessment report to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Both the report and survey were finalized at the November roundtable meeting.

The roundtable scored regional and statewide projects as well as methods along loose criteria that asked if they were viable, equitable and bearable, with a rating system that graded them 1-5, with 5 as the highest score. Then, the answers of roundtable members, who come from all parts of the Arkansas River basin, were averaged to provide a priority ranking for projects that are planned, already under way or have been completed during the first four years of the roundtable…

Projects to import more water from the Western Slope ranked surprisingly low on the list of viable, equitable and bearable options. More than a dozen strictly in-basin projects scored higher. The top three were the Green Mountain Pumpback plan, which primarily aids Denver, a Blue Mesa pumpback and the Flaming Gorge import plan. Ranking dead last on the list was the continued buy-and-dry of agricultural water rights, which was ironic considering the largest water deal in the Valley this year was the Pueblo Board of Water Works purchase of 27 percent of the Bessemer Ditch. The Pueblo water board, while buying the shares, offered farmers the option of using the water for the next 20 years, an offer nearly all of those who sold their water rights accepted.

More IBCC – Basin Roundtables coverage here.

‘Water for the 21st Century Act’ update December 17

From email from the Interbasin Compact Committee (Jim Yahn):

You are invited to a Progress Update on the “Water for the 21st Century Act” on Thursday, December 17th. We are hoping that you will join with other Northern Colorado leaders in attending this important event concerning our future water supply needs. This Progress Update event will be held December 17, 2009 in McKee 4-H, Youth & Community Buildingat the Larimer County Fairgrounds (The Ranch) in Loveland, Colorado. The event will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Please pass this invitation along to your Council Members, City or Town Manager, Water Board Members, key staff members and any others involved in decisions about your water future.

Please RSVP to Lory Hildred at the City of Greeley Water and Sewer Department. Her phone number is 970-350-9812. Her e-mail address is Lory.Hildred@Greeleygov.com. Your reply is requested by December 1, 2009.

More IBCC coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: Where is the tipping point for farm communities as farms are dried up?

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Wednesday voted to help find the answer by folding the task into its existing research on the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch…

The Colorado Water Conservation Board already is funding research by the Lower Ark district in connection with the Super Ditch, a land-fallowing, water-leasing program that is seen as a possible answer to traditional buy-and-dry. The idea of the tipping point came out of a recent meeting of the Interbasin Compact Committee, looking at ways to share the state’s water in the future.

Implement dealers, farm supply stores and retail stores suffer as water leaves farming communities, but no one has determined a threshold. The IBCC would like to plug that sort of information into its model that looks at balancing various water supply strategies. “No one has done this before,” Nichols said. “In the past, you got models that told you nothing.”

More Colorado Water coverage here.

S. 787: Clean Water Restoration Act

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“What we’ve offered is a compromise position on legislation governing the jurisdictional waters of the United States. The question is: What type of projects need a 404 permit?” Aurora Water Director Mark Pifher told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable on Wednesday. Pifher has worked for the Colorado Water Congress and the Western Urban Water Coalition on proposed legislation by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., which attempts to restore Clean Water Act guidelines to policies that were in place prior to a pair of United States Supreme Court decisions. The controversy centers on the definition of “navigable waters” and which federal laws need to be considered in issuing permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The Supreme Court cases are Rapanos v. the United States, decided in 2006, which involved filling in wetlands near ditches in Wisconsin; and the 2001 decision in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which centered on the city’s plans to create landfills on old gravel pits the government deemed wetlands. The effect of both decisions was to muddy the distinction of whether water projects in areas marginally connected to a watershed required a 404 permit. “After the decisions, Congress said, ‘We’re going to fix it,’ ” Pifher said.

The first attempt at fixing it caused an uproar because of a lengthy series of findings that some felt expanded the Clean Water Act into land use authority, international treaties and other areas of federal jurisdiction. Others objected to the removal of “navigable waters” from the language of the law, saying it broadened the federal authority…

“The Western Urban Water Coalition drafted a compromise that leaves in navigable waters, but defines what they are,” Pifher said. It also included exemptions for both municipal and agricultural systems in the West, and protects administration of water rights according to state laws.

More S. 787 coverage here.

Rio Grande roundtable meeting recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

The basin’s projected water demand is expected to rise from 19,900 acre-feet in 2008 to between 28,450 and 34,000 by 2050…

The [draft state report on future statewide water needs] calculates that population would grow in the basin from 49,000 now to 88,000 in 2050, based on formulas used by the Colorado State Demography Office. The draft said the Rio Grande basin may see increased demand from industry for water in the future because of oil and gas and solar energy development, although it did not quantify the demand as it did for other industries in other parts of the state. Mike Gibson, the roundtable’s chairman, said the demands of solar power on the valley’s water supply would be minimal compared with agriculture. He cited a proposal from Tessera Solar, which is one of a number under review by Xcel Energy, that would consume 10 acre-feet per year to run a 200 megawatt concentrated solar plant near Moffat. He noted that a 120-acre field of potatoes would consume 164 acre-feet annually while a similarly sized field of alfalfa that sees two cuttings would consume 310 acre-feet in a year.

More Rio Grande Basin coverage here.

Arkansas Basin Roundtable recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The CWCB plans to complete a feasibility study – actually an outline of new studies Arkansas Valley water users think they need – by the end of next year. Working with the engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell, the CWCB will inventory existing studies and interview various water users to find gaps in the data. The process was explained at Wednesday’s meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable. Decision support systems provide a complete picture of water resources and stresses put on them by projects and activities. Such studies were completed for the Colorado River and Rio Grande basins in the mid-1990s and have played a role in developing fish recovery programs, reservoir level maintenance strategies and groundwater use rules. The Colorado River Basin study is playing a part in current evaluations of how much water remains to be developed in Colorado…

The South Platte River basin study began in 2001, and is about two-thirds complete, Moore said. It has not solved problems of meeting future water demands and could not avert a crisis in farm wells that were shut off last year because of over appropriation. “The purpose is to provide better tools for the state and water users to make better decisions,” Moore said…

The H-I model is an assumption of the consumptive use of water by agriculture on the main stem of the Arkansas River east of Pueblo Dam based on theory rather than actual measurements. It affects groundwater rights administration in the Arkansas Valley and is woven into the new surface rules as well.

While the state is spending millions to refine the model, any changes would have to be negotiated with Kansas and would be subject to a dispute resolution process under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case.

More IBCC and basin roundtable coverage here.

Interbasin Compact Committee: Is there enough water available to serve a doubling of Colorado’s population?

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The biggest problem with water development appears to be staying out of each other’s way. In the past, the state’s system of water rights – a carefully ordered and enforced hierarchy based on historical priority of use – has done little to encourage sharing water rights.

For farmers, the system has planted a “use it or lose it” attitude that works on an emotional level. Irrigators jealously guard their share of the river and have always made it their business to know what the neighbors are up to.

For cities, the system has created a type of hoarding – checked by concepts like “reasonable” or “foreseeable” – in anticipation of the day when existing water resources reach their limit. For some cities, like Pueblo, this has rarely happened. Others, like Colorado Springs, have faced and overcome water shortage crises many times.

Whether it’s buying shares in the Bessemer Ditch (Pueblo) or building the Southern Delivery System (Colorado Springs), cities are always looking for a way to reach the next increment of growth.

“Advanced water strategies are not always 100-percent successful,” said Eric Wilkinson, a Colorado Water Conservation Board member who also heads the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “Oftentimes, to implement a water project, it is difficult to get through the gauntlet of regulatory agencies.”

Federal, state and even county requirements can reduce the yield of a project, or even kill it.

Additionally, some projects – Denver Water’s undeveloped West Slope rights or oil shale development – have water rights that have not been fully used and which could curtail the plans of others, Wilkinson said…

And speaking of the environment, a statewide plan is only effective when each piece of river it touches can be accounted for, said Melinda Kassen of Trout Unlimited. Kassen said the nine basin roundtables that feed into the IBCC have yet to complete the analysis of nonconsumptive water needs throughout the state. Even then, each project will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, since recreation interests – rafting vs. fishing, for example – are often at cross-purposes. Some reaches are fine, some need protection and some need restoration, Kassen said. “We need to make sure we use the money available for environmental protection to protect those areas we know will have problems,” Kassen said…

It has become increasingly difficult to build new storage in the state, as witnessed by the the Northern Integrated Supply Project, a controversial plan to build two new reservoirs. While the Glade Reservoir north of Fort Collins would provide up to 170,000 acre-feet of storage, some have questioned its projected impact on stream flows. Municipal conservation is an unreliable building block for future growth, and it’s difficult to measure. The state alternately has looked at using 2000 and 2008 as base years – bracketing a drought that changed how communities approach restrictions. The differences in communities make it hard to account for statewide conservation goals, since one community could be largely residential and another could have an industry that requires large amounts of water. Agricultural conservation could be a false savings, if increased consumptive use reduces return flows to other users.

More IBCC coverage here and here.

Interbasin Compact Committee meeting recap

Here’s a recap of Monday’s IBCC meeting in Steamboat, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

By rolling out a new process to evaluate future water strategies this week, [DNR Director Harris] Sherman helped smooth some rough waters that were roiling among the nine basin roundtables amid growing impatience on the part of the Front Range and reluctance to move by Western Slope interests. The new plan would employ a portfolio of strategies to meet needs and minimize the dry-up of agricultural land. Most who attended Monday’s IBCC meeting agreed it was the most productive meeting to date. While little was decided, the new process opened the door for discussions about how to rate various mixes of identified projects, new projects, conservation and agriculture dry-up.

The plan follows months of concerns by roundtables that led to a flurry of resolutions from the Arkansas, South Platte and Metro roundtables to open up all West Slope options – including the Gunnison River basin and potential dry-up of Western Colorado agriculture. In response, the Yampa-White roundtable asked the IBCC to put on the brakes until state studies of water availability in the Colorado River basin were complete. All of the resolutions were put on hold after Sherman pointed out the IBCC has no real authority other than to make recommendations to other state agencies. Still, he asked the roundtables to explain their positions…

John McClow, a member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board from the Gunnison basin, said there are still concerns about drying up Western Slope agriculture to feed Front Range growth, but said there is no reason not to study ideas such as the Blue Mesa pumpback plan. “If anything about supply is studied, however, we need to understand demand as well,” McClow said…

Jeff Devere, who represents the Yampa-White Roundtable on the IBCC, said the basin “feels like it has a bull’s-eye on it” with the potential of Shell Oil development, the Yampa pumpback plan and Aaron Million’s Flaming Gorge proposal that would claim Green River water. “I think the concern of the Yampa-White was that the process was getting ahead of itself,” Devere said.

More IBCC coverage here and here.

Interbasin Compact Committee meeting recap

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

The Interbasin Compact Committee, working with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, has begun crunching numbers in looking at how the quest to satisfy future water demands will affect current uses.

The group also vented on issues of growth and water at its meeting Monday. “Rather than plan for one future, we are trying to look at multiple futures,” said IBCC staffer Eric Hecox, as he explained a computer tool that anticipates a mix of existing projects, new supplies, conservation and agricultural transfers…

The IBCC looked at several alternative portfolios – the mix of strategies needed to meet a variety of growth scenarios – in an attempt to hit a moving target. Most of the alternatives include new water from the Western Slope, dry-up of farmland in all parts of the state and conservation or reuse of urban water supplies. The model itself can change over time as basin roundtables sharpen their estimates of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs…

At its last meeting, the Arkansas basin group put the final brush strokes on a plan it will submit to the state to look at strategies to meet future water needs. The IBCC will collect similar information from the state’s other eight basin roundtables to fill in the blanks for a statewide picture…

Melinda Kassen of Trout Unlimited said the overall goal of meeting water needs is not as important to the environment as when and where the water is used. “It’s about ecosystems,” she said. “What do we have to do to protect the important ecosystems of the state?”

Mike Gibson, of the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, said the potential dry-up of 10 percent or more of the state’s agricultural land foreseen in almost every scenario of the model is not uniform. Most of the land to be dried up is in either the Arkansas or South Platte river basins, and some communities could see complete dry-up, having a much more devastating impact on the local economy, he said. “Ag producers want to be able to sell their water, but they’re not always real happy when their neighbor sells his,” Gibson said.

Even conservation and reuse strategies have to be applied carefully, said Mark Pifher, director of Aurora Water. If cities conserve water, as Aurora has with outside water restrictions in place long after the drought, they cannot depend on it to increase future supplies, Pifher said. And reusing water, as Aurora is doing in the Prairie Waters Project, is at cross-purposes with conservation. “The more water we conserve every day, the less I have to recapture,” he said. Eventually, cities will have to raise rates or take other unpopular measures if they continue to grow, he said. “The point will be reached where you have to remove lawns and where you have to use less water on public landscapes,” Pifher said. “Who makes the call?”[...]

[Jeris] Danielson said if cities cannot bring growth under control themselves, the state at least should look at implementing zoning density requirements, to ensure more efficient use of water. [Harris] Sherman said that question would be addressed later this month at a three-day seminar in Denver hosted by the CWCB.

More IBCC coverage here.

Rio Grande Basin roundtable CFWE survey results

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

Through a survey conducted by The Colorado Foundation for Water Education, whose primary role is education, the roundtable members revealed the areas they believed the group has been successful, areas they believe they require more information and areas of future emphasis.

Of those responding to the foundation’s survey, Rio Grande Roundtable members said they believed their top priorities as a water group should be: to promote sustainable water use; promote statewide vision and solutions; identify projects and processes to meet future consumptive and non-consumptive needs; educate; influence water policy; and protect the basin’s water.

The priorities statewide ran a little differently with identifying projects and processes to meet future needs as the number one priority and influencing water policy as the last priority. Education came in fourth statewide as a priority. Second was promoting statewide vision and solutions and third was promoting sustainable water use.

Kristin Maharg from The Colorado Foundation for Water Education met with the Rio Grande Roundtable on Tuesday to discuss the survey results. She said the Rio Grande Basin identified its top water issues in 2007 as: Rio Grande Compact (effects of prolonged drought and achieving sustainability); agricultural water needs (ag groundwater use currently at unsustainable levels); economic impacts of reduced groundwater irrigation (minimizing those impacts); residential growth (in some areas of Valley such as South Fork the growth was creating a need for augmentation of water supplies); and municipal/industrial/ag water needs. Of those priorities, Rio Grande Roundtable members and participants ranked the issues they personally felt they required more information about in 2009. The top water education need was the economic impacts of reduced groundwater irrigation with the associated agricultural water needs coming in second. Respondents also ranked those two issues as the top priorities for water education for the roundtable as a whole with the Rio Grande Compact coming in next…

Three Valley projects will be going before the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) next week including one for Willow Creek, one for a local Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and one for the Trinchera watershed. Smith said the IBCC has $5 million in requests for $2.4-2.8 million in available funding so the competition will be stiff.

More Rio Grande Basin coverage here and here.

Colorado Water Congress’ annual summer meeting

Here’s a recap of yesterday’s goings on at the annual conference, from Joe Hanel writing for The Durango Herald:

During a question-and-answer period, one audience member asked how [State Senator Josh] Penry’s support for building dams squared with his backing last year of Amendment 52, which would have capped the money in Colorado’s water savings accounts and redirected extra money to highways. Penry responded that the state doesn’t spend the money it has effectively. “We study too much. We analyze too much,” he said.

Harris Sherman, head of the state Department of Natural Resources, disputed Penry’s charge that Colorado does too many studies at the expense of physical projects. In 2007, the state made $146 million in project loans, $87 million in 2008 and $45 million this year. “To imply that the state has not funded water projects in recent years is simply inaccurate,” Sherman said. In any case, the Legislature drained $107 million from those accounts the last two years to help cover the state budget gap…

Rod Kuharich is director of the South Metro Water Supply Authority, which serves fast-growing suburbs that have an unreliable water supply. Kuharich sits on the IBCC, but he called it “dysfunctional” and said it spends too much time on studies. Kuharich complained that IBCC members have become even more entrenched in their regional perspectives. He wants the Gunnison basin to entertain the idea of a pipeline from Blue Mesa Reservoir to the Front Range.

But IBCC member Peter Nichols said it’s not surprising no agreement is in sight, four years after the IBCC began its work. The engineering of a big water project is much easier than the politics, he said. “Give this time to work,” Nichols said. “It took us 150 years to get here. If it takes us 15 years to get out of here, I don’t think that’s absurd.”

More IBCC coverage here.

More coverage of the conference, from The Cortez Journal (Joe Hanel):

State lawmakers have turned to savings accounts for dams, canals and pipelines in order to cope with a budget crisis that’s entering its third year. In the past two years, the Legislature has taken $107 million out of the water accounts, said Harris Sherman, director of the Department of Natural Resources. “These are funds that have been built up over decades,” Sherman said…

“There are staggering costs involved in meeting our future water needs – tens of billions of dollars,” he said.

But the water project funds won’t be paid back this year, and they’ll probably be raided again, said Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee. At the same time, cuts continue to threaten the State Engineer’s Office, which administers water rights. The office lost six jobs in Gov. Bill Ritter’s budget cuts this week. “I’m getting tired of this. Every year this happens, and we have got to find a way to solve this,” Curry said. This week’s cuts hit health care and human services especially hard. But in the long term, colleges are at risk. So Curry recommended that the water community reach out to advocates for higher education to find a solution to the perpetual budget crisis.

“We can’t have just water meetings anymore,” she said.

Colorado’s water future dependent on new transmountain diversions?

The Colorado Department of Natural Resources is looking at four pipeline concepts and two agricultural fallowing and dry up concepts as possible solutions to watering the unbridled growth along the Front Range. Here’s a report, from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post, about the pipeline plans from Flaming Gorge and the Green River proposed by the Colorado-Wyoming Coalition and the Million Resource Group. From the article:

Colorado municipal water suppliers are in discussions with their Wyoming counterparts exploring the feasibility. Separately, a private entrepreneur’s proposal to build a pipeline is under federal review. Colorado government officials — who have met with both contingents and are talking with Wyoming officials — recently included the “Flaming Gorge concept” among four options for diverting Western Slope water to the Front Range…

Huge hurdles remain, including financing and Colorado’s and Wyoming’s obligations to downriver states under an interstate compact. Conservationists object to the potential environmental impact of withdrawing the water…

The pipeline concept originated with entrepreneur Aaron Million and his Million Conservation Resource Group. In 2008, the group applied for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which regulates construction in waterways and wetlands. An environmental review has begun, and engineers are sifting through a deluge of public comments, said Rena Brand, regulatory specialist for the agency. “The majority of letters are against it” and “push for the idea of conserving more along the Front Range,” Brand said. Federal wildlife officials are among those questioning possible impacts on endangered species and migratory birds…

Million must provide a list of likely customers by January to establish a need for the pipeline, Brand said. Last week, Million said that “ongoing negotiations with 20-plus” potential customers in Wyoming and Colorado “are going well.” He declined to name them. The project could be done in five years, he said. He wasn’t invited to the municipal suppliers’ discussions at a country club, a slight he calls unfortunate. “The lack of collaboration is problematic. It was the private sector that developed the water in the West” before federal agencies got involved, he said. “This is a return to the historical development of water resources, using the efficiency of the private sector to get things accomplished.”

Meanwhile, the municipal suppliers’ group was to continue discussions in Wyoming this week. They are close to formalizing a coalition, Jaeger said. He declined to name participants.

Colorado’s top natural resources officials say they’ve talked with Million and Jaeger. The state’s emerging strategies for meeting projected demand — which include conservation, the re-use of water and rethinking low-density versus high-density growth — assume that importing some water between river basins will be necessary, said Harris Sherman, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “Whether it is a public or a private project, it must incorporate public benefits,” Sherman said. “Sometimes it’s easier to incorporate public benefits with a public project, because the sponsoring entity is the public, and it will be focussed on public benefits. But it’s not impossible for a private project to incorporate a wide variety of public benefits. “

More Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here and here. Colorado-Wyoming Coalition coverage here.

Arkansas Basin Roundtable meeting recap

Here’s a recap of yesterday’s meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

President Gary Barber wants to evaluate the potential effectiveness of plans, projects and methods considered by the roundtable so far. Projects like the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Southern Delivery System and the stalled Preferred Storage Option Plan would be rated along with smaller projects like municipal water projects in Westcliffe and Las Animas, grander plans like the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force and defensive measures like zebra mussel control. Methods such as rotational agricultural fallowing, underground water storage and voluntary flow agreements also would be evaluated without specific reference to any ongoing proposals, Barber said. He suggested looking at how viable, bearable and equitable those plans are…

Some members have either forgotten the details of some of the proposals over four years on the roundtable. Others joined after the actions were approved. Barber backed up and agreed to provide descriptions of the projects and give members more time to evaluate them.

Others wanted to add other projects to the list, including some that may not happen for years, such as Pueblo’s proposal to enlarge Clear Creek Reservoir, suggested by Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo Board of Water Works. Tom Brubaker asked that agricultural dry-up, the likely outcome of no action, be added for evaluation…

Barber wants the evaluation to complete a report on the progress of the roundtable he plans to submit to the Interbasin Compact Committee later this year.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Members of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable are perturbed that state agencies are not responding to requests from the Front Range to include the Gunnison River basin in its studies of future water supplies. They also have asked the state to look at the potential water that could be gained from drying up Western Slope agriculture, rather than solely looking at taking water from farms in the Arkansas and South Platte basins…

[Jeris] Danielson said he was frustrated that the roundtables, which were formed in 2005 to develop ways to look at corroboration in water projects between basins, have been slow to get to that point. He also said the IBCC is weighted toward Western Slope interests. Danielson brought up the issue at the July meeting in Crested Butte and received immediate rebuke from several Western Slope members of the IBCC. At its meeting last month, the IBCC declined to discuss a July 13 letter from Arkansas Basin Roundtable President Gary Barber – approved by the Arkansas roundtable in June – that asked for a study of Gunnison River basin exports and consideration of Western Slope dry-up. “The letter was suppressed at the state level,” said Wayne Vanderschuere, a Colorado Springs Utilities executive who was appointed to the board by former Gov. Bill Owens…

The Colorado Water Conservation Board already is looking at other proposals to bring water from the Western Slope to the Front Range, including proposals from the Yampa River, Colorado River return and Flaming Gorge reservoir in Wyoming that would bring water from further reaches than the Gunnison concept. Despite four years of IBCC meetings, any of the concepts would likely face a heated political battle. “They’re still saying ‘not one drop,’” said Reed Dils, who represents the Arkansas basin on the CWCB. “I still see a strong split between the East and West Slope.”

More IBCC and roundtable coverage here and here.

South Platte Roundtable vacancy recruitment

From email from the IBCC:

The South Platte Roundtable needs to fill a vacant At-Large seat, they will be appointing the replacement at their September meeting therefore resumes must be submitted no later than August 31, 2009.

Anyone who is interested can send their resume either via email or regular mail to:

Viola Bralish

1580 Logan St, Suite 200

Denver, CO. 80203

More South Platte Basin coverage here.

IBCC reports about population growth and water needs

Last week the IBCC reported about Colorado’s population growth and water needs and several projects that may or may not help, if they ever get built. Here’s a report from Joe Hanel writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:

Reports from the Interbasin Compact Committee predict a doubling of the statewide population, with most of the growth happening on the Front Range. But the population of Southwest Colorado will grow at least that fast, to between 202,000 to 260,000, up from about 100,000 today. All those new Coloradans will need water, and the reports predict a shortfall for cities and industry of 320,000 to 1.4 million acre-feet by 2050…

But Western Slope water experts aren’t in a hurry to talk about sending mountain water to the Front Range. One of the IBCC’s reports released last week considers six major projects to import more water to Front Range cities. Two siphon water from Front Range farming areas, while the other four would be pumpbacks from the Western Slope. They include a 400-mile pipeline from Wyoming’s Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the much-maligned “Big Straw” from the Colorado River on the border with Utah.

Eric Kuhn, director of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, called the potential big projects “a recipe for disaster.” But he thinks they face large obstacles before they are built. “Bigger projects are bigger targets. They’re billions and billions of dollars. I think everybody assumes somebody else is going to pay,” Kuhn said…

Indeed, the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District has floated a plan to pump Yampa River water to the north Front Range, but it couldn’t build the pipeline without help from the state government, said Northern spokesman Brian Werner. Right now, cities in Northern’s service area get their new water from buying out the water rights of farmers, which can devastate rural economies. “The bottom line is more people are going to be living in urban areas. And if we don’t provide some options, the next option is to buy and dry,” Werner said.

Kuhn thinks the Front Range hasn’t been serious enough about conservation. Southern California has doubled its population without any new water, Kuhn said…

IBCC members are also waiting for the first part of a study on how much water Colorado can legally claim from the Colorado River Basin. The results should be in by December or January, said Eric Hecox, who coordinates the IBCC for the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

More IBCC coverage here.

Interbasin Compact Committee meeting recap

Here’s a recap of Monday’s meeting of the Interbasin Compact Committee, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

[Harris] Sherman and the staff of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, a part of his division in state government, presented daunting numbers to the Interbasin Compact Committee, which formed after the Statewide Water Supply Initiative identified a gap in municipal water supplies.

The first SWSI report in 2004 looked at needs to the year 2030 after shortfalls plagued the state in the 2002 drought. Five years later, the state is looking to the year 2050, with new draft reports giving updated numbers, and it’s not a pretty picture. The state demographer projects the population will double by 2050 to nearly 10 million people. Municipal needs – total diversion of water – will increase at least 830,000 acre-feet by that time, up from about 1.2 million acre-feet today. If projects don’t go as planned, the state’s climate changes or water is used for oil shale development, the additional water needed would be 1.7 million acre-feet.

The cities aren’t the largest users of water, as farms typically divert 85 percent of the water the state uses each year. In addition, the state’s recreation economy depends on flows being available in streams. Agriculture has been the easiest source of new water as cities have grown, and one purpose of SWSI was to slow down that trend…

While the IBCC has been meeting for years on the issues, little has been resolved, and Sherman framed Monday’s meeting as just the first step in addressing the needs.

The panel also heard a presentation on the study of a nonconsumptive needs – the water left in streams or added to benefit fish, wildlife and recreation – and learned that not all of the state’s nine basin roundtables are treating the information in the same way. “I’m a little distressed there’s no quantification of needs in some basins,” said Melinda Kassen of Trout Unlimited, representing environmental interests. “Are you suggesting it won’t be done in every basin?”

CWCB staffers explained the municipal needs were only the first to be addressed and the other needs will be considered as well, as required by the statute that formed the IBCC. Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, said the CWCB report appeared to be heavily weighted toward traditional water projects that remove water from one area to use in another. She asked if the same amount of study would be devoted to land-use and conservation issues…

Jeris Danielson, representing the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, asked whether the state was looking at how ag rights on the Western Slope, which would yield cleaner water, stack up against ag rights in the South Platte and Arkansas river basins. He said the additional cost for treatment of water from the Front Range basins should be factored against the cost of building pipelines to move Western Slope water. That caused just about everybody from the Western Slope to bristle. “We have agricultural impacts as well,” Curry responded. “This is just a huge pressure on Western Slope agriculture.

Here’s an email announcement from the IBCC:

Water and Land Use Planning for a Sustainable Future: Scaling and Integrating

Western States Water Council
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Western Governors’ Association

Red Lion Denver Central Hotel
Denver, Colorado
September 28-30, 2009

Integrating water and land use planning at different scales is increasingly important as we strive to meet challenges related to growth, change and sustainability in the arid West. Land use impacts water demands and water availability limits land use options. Sound planning requires taking both into consideration. We can’t define and achieve sustainability without understanding the limits of our land and water resources, and the present and future demands on those resources.

As the Chinese aphorisms say, “Together we get smart. Together we work. Together we progress.” The purpose of this symposium is to bring together diverse participants from special districts, cities and counties, state and federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations, including policy and decision-makers, planners, developers, and regulators to look at water and land use patterns, share experiences and concerns, identify problems and potential solutions, discuss obstacles and opportunities, and develop recommendations to better integrate and scale water and land use planning for a sustainable future.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.