2013 Colorado legislation: Governor Hickenlooper signs HB13-1044 (Authorize Graywater Use) #COleg

From email from Governor Hickenlooper’s office:

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed 12 bills into law today and yesterday…

HB13-1044, Authorize Graywater Use, Fischer/Schwartz, Concerning the authorization of the use of graywater.

More HB13-1044 coverage here. More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

2013 Colorado legislation: Graywater bill may make it to Governor Hickenlooper’s desk this session

From the Northern Colorado Business Report (Dallas Heltzell):

Co-sponsored by Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, it now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Lawmakers there will consider a $110,000 appropriation to fund development of gray-water standards by the state Department of Public Health and Environment…

The bill directs the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission to develop minimum statewide standards for gray-water systems and lets cities and towns decide whether to approve them.

Fischer talked with the Business Report about why the bill is needed — and why it failed last year.

Q: What first made you aware that this was an issue in Colorado? Why did you decide to introduce this bill now?

Answer: Dr. Larry Roesner at Colorado State University’s Urban Water Center first contacted me about the need for legislation to authorize use of gray water in late autumn 2010. I was somewhat familiar with gray water systems and their potential to significantly reduce municipal and industrial water consumption. However, I was unaware that Colorado was the only arid western state whose statutes did not recognize or explicitly authorize the installation and operation of gray-water systems. Roesner and his colleague Sybil Sharvelle and I worked to draft legislation and meet with a broad stakeholder group to develop support for legislation. I introduced our bill in December 2011 for consideration during the 2012 legislative session. Regrettably, HB 1003 fell victim to political considerations early in the session. I committed to continuing to work on the bill and reintroduce it in 2013. HB 1044 is the result of literally 2 1/2 years of work on the part of Roesner, Sharvelle and me.

Q: If gray water is safe and beneficial to use, why are gray-water systems illegal in Colorado?

A: Gray water derived from a properly designed and functioning system is safe for indoor use to flush toilets and for outdoor drip irrigation systems. However, current Colorado statutes do not recognize or explicitly authorize its use. The Legislature has likewise never directed the applicable regulatory agency, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), to promulgate rules or to set minimum statewide standards for its use. The absence of authorizing legislation, CDPHE rules and statewide standards has created regulatory uncertainty. This uncertainty prevents people from choosing to install gray-water systems because of the risk that their systems could be ruled illegal. When adopted, HB 1044 will direct CDPHE to promulgate rules and standards that will resolve the current regulatory uncertainty.

Q: What do Northern Colorado and the state have to gain by passing your bill, both environmentally and economically?

A: Gray water systems are capable of conserving 25 percent to 30 percent of the indoor water consumed in a typical residence. The water savings from new residential developments using gray water could be substantial and could be a cost-effective tool for helping to meet Colorado’s water needs for the 21st century. In addition, municipal water and wastewater service providers will realize energy and treatment cost savings in the operation of drinking water and wastewater treatment plants.

Q: This is the second time you’ve introduced a bill of this nature. Why did the first one get shot down, and what is different about this bill?

A: Bills dealing with water issues almost always are assigned to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. However, last year’s gray-water bill was assigned by then-Speaker Frank McNulty to the House State Affairs Committee for its first hearing. Regrettably, the speaker’s choice of the State Affairs Committee to hear the 2012 bill indicated that he was not going to let it advance for purely political reasons. This year, the political environment for water conservations bills such as HB-1044 is greatly improved, and Roesner and I have had an additional year to continue working with stakeholders to build support for the bill.

Q: If passed, what are the next steps to implementing gray-water systems? Do you foresee any other major hurdles?

A: Upon passage of HB 1044, the CDPHE will be required to promulgate rules and minimum statewide standards for installation of systems and use of gray water. The State Plumbing Board also needs to adopt a version of the International Plumbing Code that recognizes gray-water systems and provides guidance for installers. Finally, local governments will have the choice of authorizing the use of gray water within their jurisdictional boundaries. Local jurisdictions will have to adopt ordinances or resolutions authoring the use of gray water in consultation with local health departments and water and wastewater service providers. After passage of the bill, I hope that education, outreach and public acceptance will grow with time such that gray-water systems become a routine part of new residential development and that the potential for water conservation is realized.

More graywater reclamation coverage here and here.

NSAA v. USFS: ‘In the West, state water law and the rights it protects are sacred to westerners’ — Scott Tipton

Here’s the release from US Representative Scott Tipton’s office:

Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-3) spearheaded a hearing in the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, [April 25, 2013], to draw attention to recent federal attempts to circumvent long-established state water law in the Western United States in order to hijack privately held water rights. With Colorado jobs and the economic health of rural communities at stake, Tipton has led the charge in Congress to protect privately held water rights in Colorado and other Western states.

Read Tipton’s opening statement.

In her testimony, Geraldine Link of the National Ski Areas Association, laid out what is at stake for Colorado’s economy should the federal government succeed in taking away privately held water rights that ski areas, communities and other businesses rely on for their livelihoods.

“Collectively, ski areas have invested hundreds of millions of dollars on water rights to support and enhance their operations…Water is crucial to future growth of ski areas and that future growth directly impacts the rural economies associated with ski areas. Ski areas are major employers in rural economies, employing 160,000 people, and help drive job creation in rural and mountain economies,” Link said. “US Forest Service (USFS) water clauses that demand transfer of ownership of ski area water rights to the United States substantially impair the value of these ski area assets…These types of water clauses provide a disincentive for ski areas to acquire more water rights in the future… If ski areas stop investing in water rights for the future, the outlook for the rural economies dependent on them would be bleak.”

Read Link’s full testimony.

The USFS is moving forward to implement a permit condition to require the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government, without any compensation, as a permit condition on National Forest System lands. Last year, the National Ski Areas Association filed suit against the Forest Service to block implementation of the permit directive. In December 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado vacated the 2012 USFS directive, and ordered the agency to pay $125,000 to cover the Ski Area Association’s legal fees.

In January 2013, the USFS announced that it intended to initiate a public comment process as it once again ramps up efforts to implement a directive that would require the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government as a permit condition on National Forest System lands. The USFS justifies this policy as necessary in order to ensure that these water rights are not improperly sold off and used for other purposes, and to ensure that water is available for snow making and grazing.

Tipton asked Link if there has been a case of these water rights being sold or used improperly by the ski industry.

Link replied that this is a “made up issue,” and that there has been no such case. As such, she said that it’s believed that the USFS intends to use the water for other purposes, including endangered species protection, rather than for continued snowmaking and grazing as the agency has stated.

“The Agency’s most recent explanation for its policy which is, ‘saving the ski areas and the ski communities,’ is really just a cover for a longstanding objective of getting more water for the woods, for these other purposes,” Link said. “If the Agency were truly aiming to keep the water with the ski areas, why under its 2012 policy for example, which was struck down in federal court, was the Forest Service not willing to guarantee that the water would actually stay with the ski areas?”

VIDEO: Watch Tipton question the witnesses.

The implications of the USFS water grab extend past the ski area association and into the heart of rural America where farmers and ranchers rely on privately held and developed water rights to secure loans, as well as irrigate crops and livestock.

“This policy isn’t limited to ski areas. The Forest Service has also been implementing a similar requirement for grazing permits in several western states,” Tipton said. “Many of the ranchers I represent can’t afford drawn-out and costly legal battles with the Forest Service to protect what is rightfully theirs under state law.”

In addition to seeking the relinquishment of water rights through ski area permits, the USFS has begun implementing back door ways to control private water rights.

In his written testimony, Gary Derck, CEO of Durango Mountain Resort, told the committee that although the resort has been a good steward of the environment and its water rights, the Forest Service has repeatedly denied access to develop those water rights, jeopardizing those privately held rights under state law.

“A few years ago, the policies of the USFS took a distinct and concerning change of course. Local USFS officials began telling us that they were no longer in charge of making decisions relative to water rights and water access … and that direction/decisions on these matters was now coming from ‘higher up in the Forest Service,’” wrote Derck. “Apart from the obvious “taking” issue of our private water rights, we are concerned that it appears that our local USFS representatives have been directed to “stand down” and stop working collaboratively with us to help us with what we need to continue to make snow, operate/improve our business, maintain/grow our employment, and provide the recreational activities and services we currently provide for the Four Corners region and the town of Durango.”

Read Derck’s full testimony.

In response to Derck’s testimony, Tipton told the Committee, “This is nefarious and coercive, and it has to stop.”

To add to the list of federal threats to state water law, the Department of Interior recently issued Secretarial Order 3321 establishing the National Blueways System. This is a “source to mouth, watershed-wide” federal program about which little is known, and which has raised the fears of many local water conservation districts who are already doing an outstanding job of managing precious water supplies.

In February, Tipton joined 22 of his colleagues in urging Secretary Salazar to withdraw the Blueways Order, writing, “Water is the lifeblood of our communities, and it should be managed for the benefit of the community in a transparent fashion…Any designation by a federal agency that directly or indirectly attempts to manage the non-navigable headwaters of many of our nation’s rivers would be a usurpation of state authority.”

The Administration tuned-out this request and included funding in its FY2014 budget to expand the Blueways Program.

Russell Boardman, Supervisor of the Shoshone Conservation District in Frannie, Wyoming testified on the Blueways Program during the hearing.

“I would ask how a designation that requires no public notice, no comment opportunity and was created without coordination or consultation with affected landowners, local governments or states, could result in increased coordination…our district and all others in Wyoming are already coordinating with private, state and local entities and we are already promoting best practices and we are already sharing information and resources,” Boardman said. “We fail to see how a Blueways designation will enhance this. In fact, we are concerned in Wyoming that this designation will hamper these efforts by creating fear, confusion and controversy. Real conservation occurs at the grassroots level. If there is a commitment to grassroots conservation then local efforts like the ones implemented by our conservation district should be supported, rather than trumped by a Secretarial edict.”

Read Boardman’s full testimony.

“The bottom line is this: we continue to see a trend of federal intrusion into state water law which protects all of the uses we hold dear, from recreation to irrigation, domestic use and environmental protection. To undermine this system is to create risk and uncertainty for all Western water users,” Tipton said. “This isn’t a political battle, it’s a regional one. Water is the lifeblood of the West.”

From the Cortez Journal (Stephanie Dazio/Joe Hanel):

The hearing, entitled “Federal Impediments to Water Rights, Job Creation and Recreation: A Local Perspective,” did not include any witnesses from the U.S. Forest Service…

In Colorado, state law says water rights are a property right. Owners can use or sell the rights as they please, provided a water court approves of the water’s uses, the Herald previously reported.

Tipton, R-Cortez, grilled Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a March hearing about the topic, saying the struck-down directive was an attempt to circumvent state law. “The focus here is making sure that we use our forests … in the most appropriate way,” Vilsack said then. “We need to balance that with the interests of those who need the water for economic purposes,” he added, citing the ski industry.

State legislators rebelled against the practice this year and passed a resolution condemning the Forest Service for its policy.

But the Forest Service managed to scuttle a much more substantive bill, which would have changed Colorado water law to prohibit the federal government from demanding water rights in return for issuing land-use permits.

Undersecretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman, who oversees the Forest Service, personally called several state lawmakers and asked them to kill the bill. It has been sitting idle on the House calendar for two weeks, and its sponsor, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said he expects it to die when the yearly session ends in two weeks.

Sonnenberg has argued that the Forest Service policy takes direct aim at Colorado’s long-standing principle that water rights allow the owner to use or sell the water for any purpose anywhere in the state, as long as a court approves.

More NSAA coverage here.

2013 Colorado legislation: ‘Water law doctrine in Colorado was developed in a much simpler time’ — Jim Lochhead

From TheDenverChannel.com (Ryan Budnick):

Slowly, the state legislature has been making minor changes in water accords and laws to reflect the current needs of the state. Senate Bill 41, which was signed into law earlier in April, is an example of those minor changes that can have major ramifications.

“Water law doctrine in Colorado was developed in a much simpler time,” said Denver Water CEO Jim Lochhead. “So this law is a very small step toward simplifying what has become an overly-complex and burdensome water law system.”

As the bill’s sponsor, State Sen. Mary Hodge sees it, it was correcting an oversight. The new law designates that storing water for fighting wildfires and for drought are beneficial uses. How it is currently set up, water can not be stored unless it is for one of three purposes: irrigation, residential use and mining.

“People are concerned when you start storing water that you’re either hoarding water or you’re using it as a speculative purpose,” Hodge said.

Meaning that the resource could be monopolized and cause price gouging. That was how the state’s anti-speculation doctrine was created, said water attorney Joe Dischinger.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

2013 Colorado legislation: HB13-1248 (Irrigation Water Leasing Municipal Pilot Projects) is backed by the CWCB

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Colorado Water Conservation Board wants to develop strategies that would allow temporary transfers of water from farms to cities that allow farmers to maintain ownership of water rights, staffer Todd Doherty told the Arkansas River Basin Water Forum this week.

“Programs are being set up to reduce the costs of transactions to lease water,” he said. Much of that cost is legal fees by taking cases to water court, but some want to determine how to avoid injury to water rights without going to court.

The CWCB is backing legislation, [HB13-1248], to set up 10 pilot programs in Colorado to explore alternative transfer options under the supervision of the CWCB. The bill passed the House and is now moving in the Senate. The bill allows water to be leased by farmers to cities three years in 10 through rotational fallowing through programs such as the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch. The goal of the programs, along with other efforts already undertaken by the CWCB, is to streamline engineering questions to make sure engineering is correct while other water rights are not injured, Doherty said.

Among the current efforts is a cooperative project among the CWCB, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and farmers Wes and Brenda Herman on the High Line Canal. The idea is to use a conservation easement to ensure water stays in farming, but allows temporary leases to cities.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

USFS to hold a series of public meetings after NSAA lawsuit victory last December

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The U.S. Forest Service is turning to focus groups to help it deal with a water-rights directive that landed the agency a slapdown in federal court. Forest Service officials are to conduct focus-group discussions Tuesday about the clause, which they hope to publish in August and then begin the process of collecting public comment in preparation for adoption by February.

The process being undertaken is “bizarre beyond belief,” said Glenn Porzak, a Colorado water lawyer who represents the National Ski Area Association, which took the Forest Service to court last year to stop enforcement of the directive. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

It’s not a new approach, Forest Service spokeswoman Tiffany Holloway said. “Listening group sessions are just one of the ways that we engage the public in our decision-making,” she said.

The Forest Service was rebuffed by federal court in Denver when it demanded that the new ownership of Powderhorn Mountain Resort turn over new water rights in order to obtain a lease to operate the ski area in the Grand Mesa National Forest.

Powderhorn was the first resort in the nation to be subject to the directive. The court later found that the Forest Service had fallen short of public-involvement requirements in implementing the directive. Ski resorts, environmental organizations, community organizations and representatives of natural-resource industries are invited, each to their own listening session, the Forest Service said.

Ski areas are to be represented at a meeting Tuesday in Denver. Other meetings are scheduled in Salt Lake City; Lake Tahoe, Nev.; and Washington, D.C. “The sessions will focus primarily on the principal rationale underlying the ski area water rights clause: ensuring that sufficient water remains available to support ski areas and dependent communities,” Leslie A. Weldon, deputy chief of the National Forest system, wrote to participants. Officials have said the policy is needed to prevent ski areas from selling water rights to other users should they have more value than for snowmaking.

Since the policy was invoked with Powderhorn, municipal water providers, grazers and other industries and organizations that use federal lands have been told they could be subject to the same requirements. “We’re disappointed we haven’t been invited to participate” in the listening session, said Mark Hermundstad, the Grand Junction water attorney who represents the Ute Water Conservancy District. Ute Water filed an amicus brief in the Powderhorn case that “raised serious issues about how the Forest Service rules could be applied,” but won’t be allowed to direct them to the Forest Service listening process, Hermundstad said.

The Forest Service has “kind of awakened a sleeping dog” by extending the policy beyond ski areas, Porzak said. Municipalities and other users “are now focused on this issue,” he said. While the sessions are open to the public, “The intent is to have people of like interests/expertise to be able to have conversations with people of similar interests,” Holloway said. “We will not turn people away from any meeting but will ask that they allow the invitees to have a free conversation.”

U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., whose 3rd Congressional District includes several ski areas, grazers, municipal water suppliers and others, said he was disappointed the Forest Service was conducting meetings far from where the effects of the policy will be most heavily felt. “When are they going to talk to the people who stand to be affected by this effort to trample all over state water law?” Tipton said via a spokesman.

More NSAA coverage here.

Denver: USFS to hold a series of public meetings after NSAA lawsuit victory last December

Forest Service holds public meetings on ski area water rights wp.me/pJ91e-dYO

— Bob Berwyn (@bberwyn) April 14, 2013

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

Now, the agency will hold a series of public meetings, starting April 16 in Denver, to take input from the public and key stakeholders. Additional meetings are set for Salt Lake City on April 17, and Lake Tahoe, Calif., on April 18.

Forest Service leaders and technical experts from Washington, D.C., as well as from local and regional offices will be on-hand to take public comments and provide additional information on the water rights issue.

At issue is very specific language in ski area and other special-use permits that establishes the ownership and future uses of water that flows off public lands. The key for the Forest Service is to ensure that the water rights from water that comes from national forest system lands continue to stay with the permitted special use.

The ski industry and the agency have been at odds over the water rights directive for several years but say they are committed to a collaborative approach based on a long history of partnership. “Some resorts have water rights in their name, some are held in the name of the U.S. Going forward, we need a more cogent way of addressing this,” Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Daniel Jiron said in a January interview with Summit Voice.

“Our long-term policy objective is to make sure that ski areas and communities can depend on that water … The Forest Service must provide the resources to do that,” Jiron said. “We support the ski industry … I believe it’s an important part of our mission. We know that the current group of ski resort owners and operators are committed to their resorts and Colorado, but we have to plan ahead decades to protect public resources,” Jiron said.

More NSAA coverage here.

‘The reach of Colorado water goes all the way to the Mississippi’ — Justice Greg Hobbs

From the Cañon City Daily Record (Rachel Alexander):

The Fremont-Custer Bar Association on Friday welcomed Justice Gregory Hobbs, who spoke to a group of about 20 about water law and the history of water in Colorado.

The meeting, at DiRito’s, was part of the association’s effort to provide educational activities for its member attorneys. Friday’s event was open to the public and included several city council members and city employees…

Hobbs is vice president of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education, which is a non-advocacy and non-political organization created by the General Assembly to provide information about water to Colorado citizens.

“The reach of Colorado water goes all the way to the Mississippi,” Hobbs said.

Hobbs discussed the nine interstate compacts Colorado has regarding the four major rivers with headwaters in the state, including the Arkansas River. The compacts control how much water Colorado citizens may use and how much must be allowed to leave the state in its rivers. The compacts result in Colorado being able to only consume 1/3 of the state’s snow melt water.

The concept of water rights for irrigation, Hobbs said, arose out of the necessity to irrigate lands a distance from the river for agricultural purposes. In the 1866 Mining Act, Congress severed water from land in the public domain, which made up most of the territory at the time…

The doctrine of water right favors settled uses, he said, meaning those with old rights take preference over newer uses. “The public always owns the water resource,” Hobbs said.

More Colorado Foundation for Water Education coverage here and here.

‘As long as there is water in the river, Florence would have water’ — Craig Lis

From the Cañon City Daily Record (Charlotte Burrous):

“We’ve got enormous issues,” said City Manager Mike Patterson. “We also have a lot issues that we’ll always have, capital and improving our system. Storage is another huge issue. The city’s water right is very substantial. We could put a call on just about anybody on the river. As long as there is water in the river, Florence would have water.”

During the meeting, Lis responded to criticisms made about annexation.

“He really addressed the city’s growth potential and assured everybody, we are actually in very good shape in terms of Florence’s water rights,” Patterson said. “(Lis also) addressed the shortages that are occurring already.”

Rockvale is already on water restrictions, but Patterson said he did not know what those were.

“It would take a significantly worse situation from where we’re at now (to affect Florence),” he said. “There would have to be no water in the river for Florence to be in that situation because Florence does have a very significant water right and a very senior water right (1861).”[...]

“(The meeting) was filled with caution, but it was really very optimistic about the city’s future,” Patterson said. “There were some strong cautions there. One of the things Florence has to be aware of is every year, there are potential amendments (that could go) to the people and there are some things that could go through the legislature. Although

Florence has done a great job in protecting its water and its senior water rights, there are things that are out of our control that could dramatically impact our water future. There’s an element of ‘use it or lose it’ so we have to be very careful with our water.”

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here and here.

Colorado River Basin: Denver Water, et. al., are operating under the Shoshone Outage Protocol

Here’s the release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney/Travis Thompson):

Two back-to-back, drought-plagued winters in Western Colorado have triggered an agreement to “relax” a senior water rights call on the Colorado River at the Shoshone Hydro Plant to allow water providers to store more water this spring, a move that benefits Denver Water and the West Slope.

The Shoshone Hydro Plant is owned by Xcel Energy and is located in Glenwood Canyon. Its senior 1902 water right of 1,250 cubic feet a second (cfs), when called, is administered by the Colorado Division of Water Resources against junior water storage rights upstream that include Denver Water’s Dillon and Williams Fork Reservoirs, the Colorado River District’s Wolford Mountain Reservoir and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Green Mountain Reservoir.

The agreement “relaxes” the call to 704 cfs when river flows are low, or takes a Shoshone call totally off the river when flows are rising, which is the current situation. This practice gives the upstream juniors water rights holders the ability to store water once the spring runoff begins in earnest. Currently, the Colorado River is flowing through Glenwood Canyon at about 825 cfs. (The long-term historical average for this date is about 1,150 cfs.)

Two tripping points activate the agreement: when Denver Water forecasts its July 1 reservoir storage to be 80 percent of full or less, and when the Colorado River Basin Forecast Center predicts spring runoff flows at Kremmling in Grand County will be less than or equal to 85 percent of average. Currently, the reservoir forecast is 74 percent full on July 1 and the Kremmling forecast is 60 percent of average.

Denver Water has already enacted its Stage 2 Drought Restrictions to limit outdoor water use and enact other conservation measures.

The winter of 2012 was the fourth worst on record in the Colorado River Basin and 2013 has been tracking just as poorly. The only improvement between the two winters occurred in March 2013 as storms continued to build snowpack. By this time in 2012, runoff was already under way.
The relaxation period is between March 14 and May 20, in deference to boating season on the river and irrigation needs in the basin.

As for the water that Denver Water gains by the relaxation, 15 percent of the net gain is saved for Xcel Energy power plant uses in the Denver Metro Area and 10 percent is delivered to West Slope entities yet to be determined by agreement between Denver Water and the Colorado River District.

“This is a statewide drought, and we all need to work together to manage water resources for the health and safety of our residents, our economic vitality and the environment,” said Jim Lochhead, CEO/manager of Denver Water. “The Colorado River Cooperative Agreement and the Shoshone Outage Protocol are great examples of the partnership between Denver Water and the West Slope to do just that. Last year, even though the CRCA was not yet in effect, Denver Water released water to the river even though the Shoshone Power Plant was not operating and the call was not on. This year, under the Denver Water-Xcel Energy agreement, the Shoshone call will be relaxed.”

“Relaxing the Shoshone water right in this limited way benefits the West Slope as well,” said Colorado River District General Manager Eric Kuhn. “It might make the difference between having a full supply at Green Mountain Reservoir and not having a full supply. In a year like this every extra drop of water we can store now will help us later.”

‘In a year like this every extra drop of water we can store now will help us later’ — Eric Kuhn #codrought #coriver

Here’s the release from the Colorado River District (Jim Pokrandt):

Two back-to-back, drought-plagued winters in Western Colorado have triggered an agreement to “relax” a senior water rights call on the Colorado River at the Shoshone Hydro Plant to allow water providers to store more water this spring, a move that benefits Denver Water and the West Slope.

The Shoshone Hydro Plant is owned by Xcel Energy and is located in Glenwood Canyon. Its senior 1902 water right of 1,250 cubic feet a second (cfs), when called, is administered by the Colorado Division of Water Resources against junior water storage rights upstream that include Denver Water’s Dillon and Williams Fork Reservoirs, the Colorado River District’s Wolford Mountain Reservoir and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Green Mountain Reservoir.

The agreement “relaxes” the call to 704 cfs when river flows are low, or takes a Shoshone call totally off the river when flows are rising, which is the current situation. This practice gives the upstream juniors water rights holders the ability to store water once the spring runoff begins in earnest. Currently, the Colorado River is flowing through Glenwood Canyon at about 825 cfs. (The long-term historical average for this date is about 1,150 cfs).

Two tripping points activate the agreement: when Denver Water forecasts its July 1 reservoir storage to be 80 percent of full or less, and when the Colorado River Basin Forecast Center predicts spring runoff flows at Kremmling in Grand County will be less than or equal to 85 percent of average. Currently, the reservoir forecast is 74 percent full on July 1 and the Kremmling forecast is 60 percent of average.

Denver Water has already enacted its Stage 2 Drought Restrictions to limit outdoor water use and enact other conservation measures.

The winter of 2012 was the fourth worst on record in the Colorado River Basin and 2013 has been tracking just as poorly. The only improvement between the two winters occurred in March 2013 as storms continued to build snowpack. By this time in 2012, runoff was already under way.

The relaxation period is between March 14 and May 20, in deference to boating season on the river and irrigation needs in the basin.

As for the water that Denver Water gains by the relaxation, 15 percent of the net gain is saved for Xcel Energy power plant uses in the Denver Metro Area and 10 percent is delivered to West Slope entities yet to be determined by agreement between Denver Water and the Colorado River District.

“This is a statewide drought, and we all need to work together to manage water resources for the health and safety of our residents, our economic vitality and the environment,” said Jim Lochhead, CEO/manager of Denver Water. “The Colorado River Cooperative Agreement and the Shoshone Outage Protocol are great examples of the partnership between Denver Water and the West Slope to do just that. Last year, even though the CRCA was not yet in effect, Denver Water released water to the river even though the Shoshone Power Plant was not operating and the call was not on. This year, under the Denver Water-Xcel Energy agreement, the Shoshone call will be relaxed.”

“Relaxing the Shoshone water right in this limited way benefits the West Slope as well,” said Colorado River District General Manager Eric Kuhn. “It might make the difference between having a full supply at Green Mountain Reservoir and not having a full supply. In a year like this every extra drop of water we can store now will help us later.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

2013 Colorado legislation: SB13-074 is on its way to Governor Hickenlooper’s desk #coleg

From The Holyoke Enterprise (Marianne Goodland):

The bill to clarify ambiguous water decrees prior to 1937 is on its way to the governor’s desk. Senate Bill 13-074 passed the House on a 55-8 vote on March 10. Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling) carried the bill on behalf of last fall’s Interim Water Resources Review Committee. The House agriculture committee approved it on March 4. The committee amended it to clarify some of the language regarding enforcement of old water decrees.

SB 74 is in response to several recent Colorado Supreme Court cases that could impact senior irrigation water rights, according to Sonnenberg. Those cases resulted in dramatic reductions in the irrigated acres on the South Platte River, acres that had been irrigated for close to 100 years. Farm families have relied on these diversions for generations, Sonnenberg told the House, and the court decisions destabilized those water rights.

SB 74 notes that some decrees do not include acreage limitations, and water courts have looked at historic consumptive use to determine the lawful historical consumptive use, based on the original appropriator’s intent. SB 74 says that if a decree entered prior to Jan. 1, 1937, establishes an irrigation water right and doesn’t limit the number of irrigated acres, the lawful maximum amount would equal the maximum number of acres irrigated for the first 50 years after the original decree was entered.

Opponents, including attorney Steve Simms, who represented the Colorado Water Congress, testified that the bill sends a “bad message: if you cheat and get away with it, we’ll legitimize it as long as you can hide it long enough.”

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

‘To rewrite or amend the Law of the River was a place we were not willing to go at this time’ — Ted Kowalski #coriver

Back in 2008 a weary John McCain forgot he was in the Denver airport talking to a journalist from The Pueblo Chieftain instead of in Phoenix talking to local media there when he said that the Colorado River Compact should be renegotiated. Here’s a piece I wrote about the incident for the Colorado Independent. John McCain didn’t win Colorado that year.

Renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact (The Law of the River) is rearing its ugly head again. Here’s an article from the Water Law & Policy Monitor (Tripp Baltz) via Bloomberg that looks at the implications from the Colorado River Basin Water Supply & Demand Study released on December 12, 2012 which did not take up the legal issues in the basin. Here’s an excerpt:

…the study, known formally as The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, did not assess one set of ideas: proposals calling for legal and policy changes, many of which concerned the Law of the River, a collection of compacts, treaties, statutes, and court rulings that governs how water in the basin has been allocated for more than 90 years.

From the beginning of the study–completed in December 2012 and funded by the Bureau of Reclamation and the basin states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming–the participants agreed it would be taking on too much to give serious consideration to changing the Law of the River.

“To rewrite or amend the Law of the River was a place we were not willing to go at this time and in the context of the study,” said Ted Kowalski, chief of the interstate, federal, and water information section for the Colorado Water Conservation Board, part of the state’s Department of Natural Resources. Kowalski was a member of the options and strategies sub-team that helped write the study.

Carly Jerla, operations research analyst for the Bureau of Reclamation in Boulder, and the bureau’s manager for the study, told BNA that officials believed it would not be productive “to start taking apart the Law of the River just for the sake of taking it apart.”

“We were all in agreement from the get-go that we were going to reflect on and consider the policy options, but that they were not going to go through a rigorous assessment,” Jerla said. “We all knew that if we started going down that road, we would get sidelined and never get the report done.”[...]

When asked if members of the sub-team were reluctant to analyze legal and policy ideas because they respect the Law of the River, fear changing it, or view changing it as too difficult, sub-team member Don Gross told BNA, “All of the above.”

“I don’t think the states want to go there,” added Gross, a civil engineer with the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

Opening up the Law of the River would have risked altering its core purpose–setting the water allocations to which each state is entitled. States worry that doing so could result in changes to their current shares.

That fear is more pervasive in the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, which do not use up their full apportionment over a 10-year average, relative to those in the lower basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, which have used up their allotments as defined under various compacts, agreements, and court orders dating back to 1922…

It is likely all three lower basin states would see advantages to changing allocations as defined under the Law of the River, with Nevada “perhaps having the most to gain by some kind of reallocation scheme,” Kowalski acknowledged…

The legal implications of the report were indeed sensitive, Kenney said. In addition to declining to assess the legal and policy options, the study included a page-long disclaimer stating that nothing in the study report is intended for use against any of the main basin partners to “evidence legal interpretations of the law of the river.”

Even the negotiations over the disclaimer became prickly, he said. In June 2011 the Bureau and the seven states released an interim report on the study, coming right up against the release deadline because of last minute debate over the disclaimer’s wording, Kenney said.

It is the job of the Law of the River, a complex body of laws, court cases, and regulations, to determine how Colorado River water meets the needs of the various agricultural, industrial, and municipal users. The Law of the River also controls how dams and reservoirs are operated in the basin.

Over the history of the Law of the River, water managers have described it in contradictory terms, at times endowing it with a near-reverent, written-in-stone quality, while at other times touting its flexibility and evolving nature…

Ignoring the legal issues could ultimately put the upper basin states at the biggest risk, Kenney said.

“If you avoid having this conversation and you wait until the system crashes, that’s when the lower basin states will use their political muscle to go to Congress, and Congress will impose a solution to their liking,” he said.

“My money’s more in California than on Wyoming,” he added.

Supply and demand solutions must be accompanied by legal solutions, he said. “Even if you start bringing in icebergs and building pipelines, the legal issues are still there,” he said. “You put new water in the system, and you still have to decide: Whose water is it?”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Colorado water law: ‘The complication is that we don’t explain it’ — Justice Gregory Hobbs

Here’s an in-depth look at Justice Hobbs’ presentation at last week’s forum hosted by Colorado Livestock Association at Morgan Community College, from Dan Barker writing for the Fort Morgan Times. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

People often talk about how complicated water law is in Colorado, but it is not really that complex. “The complication is that we don’t explain it,” Hobbs said.

There are people concerned about pressures on the water in Colorado who do not understand why it is used the way it is in the state, he said. He often hears that the trouble in Colorado is all those producers growing hay. They think farmers waste water because they see photos of flood irrigation, Hobbs said. They do not understand the whole process of how water works and how it is used, he said. They see flood irrigation and do not realize that much of that water goes back into the rivers, so it is not wasted, Hobbs noted…

The first territorial water law formed in [1861] did not mention anything but agriculture, since mining did not really consume much water, he said. This law provided a right to move water to where it was needed, and created a right of way to allow for ditches to take the water to farms as long as those using it paid for the right of way, Hobbs said. People need to be careful when they talk about private property rights. For instance, a landowner cannot block a person from operating an irrigation ditch. In Colorado, people do not earn the right to water simply because they use it or divert it somewhere. It must be put to beneficial uses, he said.

More water law coverage here and here.

‘It is extremely difficult to…implement a long-term strategy for short-term transfers of water’ — Don Frick

From the Fischer, Brown, Bartlett & Gunn – the Northern Colorado Law Center blog (Don Frick):

I’ve been seeing a lot of renewed interest in developing strategies for temporary water transfers, strategies, from what I have seen, that I do not expect to be particularly successful. The ideas that I have seen are not particularly new or novel – indeed, there has been no substantive change in the law which would allow temporary transfers where it did not before. At the end of the day, under existing law, and the current water court environment, it is extremely difficult to successfully implement a long-term strategy for short-term transfers of water in Colorado.

More water law 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.

2013 Colorado legislation: Acequia bill passes house, more inclusive than 2009 bill

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

A bill that passed through the state House of Representatives in Denver this week would help preserve the communal irrigation ditches dug by Hispanic settlers when they came to parts of Southern Colorado.

The bill is the second measure from state Rep. Ed Vigil, D-Fort Garland, to address the ditches, called acequias in Spanish, but this version loosens landuse requirements for participation from the one he carried in 2009. “It’s inclusive now,” Vigil said.

The measure, which applied to pre-statehood ditches built in Conejos, Costilla, Huerfano and Las Animas counties, required that at least two-thirds of the land they irrigated remain in the long-lot style that would have existed at the time of settlement. But Vigil heard from irrigators that the requirement was too strict. While long lots, or varas as they’re known in Spanish, can still be seen in Costilla County, they’re far less common in the other counties. “That’s just not the case here in Conejos County anymore,” rancher Lawrence Gallegos said. “Today they’ve been consolidated.”

He waters pastures off of two different acequias that were built in 1855 and 1856 and draw from the San Antonio River. Gallegos, who testified in favor of the bill before the House Agricultural Committee, said he thinks his fellow members on the two ditches might be interested in taking up some of the provisions from the bill. He pointed specifically to a clause that allowed the ditch the right of first refusal regarding the sale, lease or exchange of water.

The law also incorporates elements that were historically common to acequias but did not become a part of Colorado law, such as each member of a ditch having an equal vote. The measure would also allow for ditch policy that required members to provide labor for maintenance. Vigil did not know when it would be taken up in the Senate.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

HB13-1130 is on its way to the state senate #coleg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A bill that would allow state engineer approval of water transfers without a court decree for up to 30 years is headed to the state Senate. The state House this week approved the legislation, HB1130. Sen. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, is listed as the Senate sponsor.

The bill would allow extended operation of interruptible supply agreements. Current law allows for water leases from farms to cities for three years out of 10 on the approval of the state engineer. The agreements cannot be renewed, and would require a water court decree to continue the arrangement beyond the initial 10-year period. The new law would allow the leases to be approved by the state engineer for two additional 10-year periods. Aurora, which is seeking water leases this year to replenish its water storage supply, is pushing the legislation. In 2004-05, Aurora leased water from theRocky Ford High Line Canal, selling part of the lease to Colorado Springs in the second year. Aurora City Council has approved up to $5 million for leases this year.

While Aurora has talked to the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch, they have so far been unable to come to terms. Farmers say Aurora’s offer of $500 per acre-foot is too low because crop prices have improved since a 2010 memorandum of understanding was signed.

Opponents of the legislation say 30 years is too-long a period to lease water without a water court action. Water court provides a forum to determine how an action injures other water rights, which cannot be allowed under the state Constitution. The new law would allow appeals to water court only after agreements were negotiated.

A state-administered substitute water supply plan for a proposed pilot program last year to lease a much smaller amount of water from the Super Ditch to El Paso County cities drew unprecedentedopposition. Several water interests challenged the state engineer’s authority to approve moving water under existing state law without a filing in water court.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Pitkin County gets another 60 days to settle objectors to their Roaring Fork RICD application

From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), two major upstream diverters and three billionaires with property near Aspen have active statements of opposition on file against the county’s proposal.

On Feb. 1, Judge James B. Boyd of Division 5 water court in Glenwood Springs gave the parties in the case another 60 days to settle.

The county is seeking the right to run between 240 and 1,350 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water over two rock and concrete structures it plans to build in the river, at a cost of about $1 million, which includes a stairway to access the feature. The new water right would be what’s known as a “recreational in-channel diversion,” or RICD, which is a program that allows governments to obtain a water right for recreational purposes. It can have the added benefit of keeping more water in a river.

The structures would form two waves for kayakers and other boaters in the Fork, just across Two Rivers Road from the entrance to the Elk Run neighborhood.

The county so far has come to terms with three of the 14 parties that originally filed statements of opposition in the case — the city of Aspen, the Basalt Water Conservancy District and the Starwood Metropolitan District.

Of the remaining 11 entities, at least three are controlled by billionaires who own property upstream of the proposed “Pitkin County River Park.”

Bill Koch (via Elk Mountain Lodge LLC) and Penny Pritzker (via PT Ranch Barn LLC) each own property along Castle Creek, and Ed Bass (via Mountain Valley Cabin LLC) owns property on the banks of the upper Roaring Fork.

Another opposing entity is GRE II LLC, which is controlled by David Gerstenhaber of Argonaut Capital Management, a New York hedge fund. GRE II owns 37 acres of land, with water rights, on Star Mesa above McLain Flats Road.

Statements of opposition in water court are typically formulaic and it is not easy to discern a party’s true intent in filing them. Some parties file statements simply to monitor changes in a case…

The latest draft proposal from the county has the water right stepping up and then back down across a 142-day runoff season.

Beginning on April 15, the water right would run for 33 days at 240 cfs, another 24 days at 380 cfs, and then for 15 days at 1,530 cfs, ending June 25.

Then the flows step down from the peak — with 56 days flowing at 380 cfs and another 14 days at 240 cfs, ending Labor Day.

More Roaring Fork Watershed coverage here.

SB13-075: Promote Water Conservation Of Designated Ground Water

Click here to read the bill SB13-075: Promote Water Conservation Of Designated Ground Water (Brophy/Sonneberg):

Here’s a report from Tony Rayl writing for The Yuma Pioneer. Here’s an excerpt:

On Wednesday, February 13th, Senate Bill 75 passed the Colorado Senate. The bill, which was sponsored by Senator Greg Brophy (R-Wray), would prevent any government organization from changing the amount of water a permit holder can draw from an aquifer based on conservation measures. This practice, Senator Brophy argues, encourages overconsumption.

“Something happened in the water permitting process that created an incentive to use the maximum amount of water that you possibly can on your farm,” Brophy stated. “What this bill is trying to do is remove the incentive to waste water and instead incentivize conservation.” To keep groundwater aquifers from being depleted, the state regulates how much water a permit holder can draw from an aquifer. The amount an individual is allowed to draw is based on how much water they have needed to water their crops in the past.

“When users try to conserve water, the state sees their water usage drop and sometimes lessens the amount of water they can use from then on,” argued Senator Brophy. “This encourages irrigators to waste water to avoid having their allowable water consumption amount permanently reduced.”

The bill would protect permitted consumptive use — in designated groundwater basins — as the floor for a permit in perpetuity and would prevent the reduction of pumping rates or annual volumetrics based on consumptive use after implementation of conservation measures.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

HB13-1130: ‘Bill would hurt rural Colorado’ — State Rep. Clarice Navarro #codrought

Here’s a column from State Representative Clarice Navarro urging the legislature to reject expanded authority for the State Engineer, under HB13-1130: Reapprove Interruptible Water Supply Agreements. From the column:

Colorado Water Law is a unique, complex series of statutes, court cases and decreed water rights. This framework of laws is designed to protect people who do not live next to the river, but have a real need to use the water that flows from snowmelt in the spring and summer months.

Some of my colleagues in the state Legislature are seeking to change this system in favor of benefiting large cities such as Aurora and Denver at the expense of rural Colorado.

House Bill 1130 seeks to extend the operation of interruptible water supply agreements in Colorado. Because of the arid nature of our state, the Legislature entrusts the Colorado water courts to oversee the decreed water rights in order to ensure that people with junior water rights are treated equitably with those who have senior water rights.

This bill gives the Colorado water engineer the ability to grant interruptible supply agreements in three-year increments outside of court oversight for up to 30 years. Only after the state engineer has made a determination can someone appeal to water court. This simply entrusts the state engineer with more authority, and it will lead to rural Coloradans losing the water to large, metropolitan areas of the state.

Southern Colorado cannot stand for this. There are better ways for the Legislature to allow, in times of drought, the ability to divert water out of priority. The current network of laws, in my opinion, adequately addresses all surface water rights. I hope that my fellow legislators are able to work together and defeat HB 1130. This is bad legislation for Southern Colorado.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

A Brief History of the South Platte River Basin

Here’s a great use of social media to get the word out about HB12-1278. The YouTube video — produced and directed by Colorado Water Institute, animated by Noah Besser — follows the history of the appropriation and administration of the South Platte River downstream of the mountains.

Good luck implenting HB12-1278 Reagan and team.

Thanks to Coyote Gulch reader Greg from Nebraska for the link.

More South Platte River Basin coverage here and here.

‘Ski areas’ water rights should be protected from federal infringement’ — Mike McLachlan (HD 59) #coleg

From The Durango Herald (Mike McLachlan HD 59):

On Monday, I attended the Colorado Water Congress and met with former Sen. Bruce Whitehead. Later in committee, we had a full discussion about the relationship between U.S. Forest Service attempts to link the ski area permit system to what some people consider an infringement on ski area water rights. One side of the debate wants to make this a full-fledged assault on all levels of the U.S. government. As a legislator who has a significant number of ski areas in his district, I listened earnestly to all the testimony and do understand that the ski areas’ water rights should be protected from federal infringement. Because the bill as currently drafted is so broad and so sweeping, I cannot support it in its current form, but if it is narrowed to the U.S. Forest Service and our Colorado ski area water rights, I will support House Bill 1013…

On Thursday I also was privileged to attend and participate in a legislative panel at the Colorado Water Congress. As I told its membership, I continue to remain committed to bipartisanship and good government. I fully understand the responsibilities of a Western Slope legislator regarding the protection of our water rights, rivers and streams. It was good to see Sen. Ellen Roberts, Sen. Gail Schwartz, John Porter, Steve Fearn, Barry Spear, Steve Harris, Bob Wolfe, Billy Nesbitt, Frank Kugel and John McClow. I will continue my dialogue with the Colorado Water Congress to ensure that the water rights of the 59th District are fully protected.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

House Joint Resolution 13-1044 clears House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee

From the Sterling Journal-Advocate (Marianne Goodland):

The committee unanimously approved House Joint Resolution 13-1004, which encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service to withdraw a 2012 directive that requires ski areas to turn over their water rights, without compensation, for federal lands leased from the Forest Service.

HJR 1004 points out that federal law requires federal agencies to abide by the water laws of the states in which federal lands are located. However, according to resolution sponsor Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling), the Forest Service drafted the 2012 directive in violation of that law, known as the McCarran Act.

The National Ski Areas Association filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service over the directive, and a Denver District Court judge recently ruled in favor of the NSAA, but only on procedural grounds and not on the substance of the directive. According to testimony in Monday’s hearing, the judge told the Forest Service that “they didn’t do it right” when they issued the directive without public input, a violation of federal administrative procedures.

Meanwhile, here’s the USFS release about the public meetings this spring (Chris Strebig):

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service announced today a public process to develop a directive regarding water rights on National Forest System lands that have ski areas and other permitted uses. The Forest Service plans to begin the public process this spring.

“Establishing an inclusive process on this important issue will help meet long-term goals,” said Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Daniel Jirón. “Maintaining the water with the land will ensure a vibrant ski industry, and resilient and healthy national forests and mountain communities into the future.”

Regional Forester Jirón testified today before the Colorado General Assembly House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee at the Colorado State Capitol in Denver. The Committee scheduled the hearing to address water rights and ski areas brought up through Colorado House Bill 13-1013 and Colorado House Joint Resolution 13-1004.

On December 19, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in National Ski Areas Association, Inc. v. United States Forest Service ruled to vacate the 2012 Forest Service directive on ski area water rights. The Court declined to rule on the substance of the Forest Service directive, but indicated the Agency should proceed with public notice and comment for this type of directive.

The Forest Service Directive System consists of manuals and handbooks that codify policy and provide administrative direction for Forest Service employees to manage National Forest System lands.

“Together, we can find solutions that support a strong ski industry, keep the water with the land to sustain local communities, and ensure the long-term viability of this unsurpassed winter recreational experience,” said Jirón. “We think it is a good idea to engage the public and communities to map out next steps on this issue.”

The National Forest System lands comprise 192 million acres of forest and grasslands in 43 states. The Forest Service estimates that downhill skiers and snowboarders at 22 ski areas on national forests in Colorado contribute approximately $1.5 billion annually to Colorado’s economy.

More 2013 Colorado legislation 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.