A N N U A L R E P O R T

Transcription

1 Protecting Western Colorado Water Since 1937 Storage Legislative Actions New River Demands River Protections Agriculture Recreation A N N U A L R E P O R T

2 Our mission: To lead in the protection, conservation, use and development of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin for the welfare of the District, and to safeguard for Colorado all waters of the Colorado River to which the state is entitled. South Platte River Cover: An aerial photograph of the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon shows the juncture of the Shoshone Hydro Plant Dam, the Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate 70. Arkansas River The Colorado River District protects Western Colorado water on behalf of the 500,000 people in northwest and west-central Colorado, on the western side of the Continental Divide. The Colorado River District was founded in 1937 to be a watchdog of Colorado River diversions across the Rocky Mountains to the east. This watchdog role continues with an urgency surpassing the days of our founding. Population growth, drought and climate change promise many more ideas in the future to move water. The Colorado River District also watches to the west, to Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and to 2 how six other states and the Republic of Mexico compete to use Colorado River water. Decisions concerning the Colorado River by others affect our state. The Colorado River District holds and develops water rights for the benefit of Western Colorado. We own and operate Wolford Mountain Reservoir in Grand County. In 2006, we completed the expansion of Elkhead Reservoir in northwest Colorado. Additionally, the Colorado River District controls water in various other reservoirs to support people, industry and recreation on the West Slope. We are a special government district governed by a Board of Directors, made up of one director from each of our 15 counties. Property owners within the District pay a small tax to support our mission. Our District includes all the lands of Moffat, Rio Blanco, Mesa, Delta, Ouray, Garfield, Gunnison, Pitkin, Summit, Eagle, Grand and Routt Counties, as well as portions of Hinsdale, Montrose and Saguache Counties. The Colorado River District offices are based in Glenwood Springs. Our address is P.O. Box 1120, 201 Centennial St., Glenwood Springs, CO Our phone is (970) Our website offers much more information about us, our work and current water issues. Please visit: Rio Grande River The water we ski and fish is the same water we put to work in our homes. Mountains, snowpack and streams give Colorado its worldwide identity. It is key that we balance our water values so that all needs can be met.

3 In 1937, the Colorado General Assembly created the Colorado River Water Conservation District. That same year, the legislature created the Colorado Water Conservation Board and passed the Colorado Water Conservancy Act, under which many water conservancy districts have been created throughout the state. In 2012, the Colorado River District will celebrate its diamond jubilee 75 years of protecting western Colorado water. Since its creation, the Colorado River District has actively and consistently worked to protect the flows of the Colorado River and its tributaries, and has aided and assisted the development of water for the benefit of the District s West Slope constituents. We have confronted Front Range transmountain water projects where necessary and cooperated with Front Range water interests where prudent. We built Wolford Mountain Reservoir on Muddy Creek, upstream from Kremmling, and expanded Elkhead Reservoir on Elkhead Creek near Craig. We filed numerous water rights for possible West Slope projects and opposed water claims of Front Range interests seeking to move more Colorado River water eastward across the Continental Divide. It is with cautious optimism that we report that in 2010, after more than four years of intense mediated negotiations, the Colorado River District and other West Slope water partners reached an agreement in principle with Denver Water. This accord will hopefully put to rest many of the most contentious legal issues over which we have fought for decades and lead to improved cooperation with the Denver metropolitan area s water interests. Much work, however, remains to be done before an anticipated 2011 announcement of the final agreement. The agreement has many parts, but two sections are especially critical. First, Denver Water will not seek to divert additional water from the West Slope to the Front Range in excess of its existing water rights and water infrastructure, without the consent of the Colorado River District and the affected West Slope counties. Given the long and controversial history of battles over actual and proposed transmountain diversions by Denver Water, this limitation is a huge achievement. The Colorado River District has long contended that Front Range interests should use and re-use and re-use again to extinction the water transported from the West Slope over the Continental Divide to minimize the need to look on our side of the mountains for new transmountain projects. As part of the new agreement, Denver Water will commit to agreed benchmarks on the re-use of the West Slope water that is already being diverted to the Denver metropolitan area from the Blue and Fraser Rivers. Congratulations go to our dedicated staff and Board members, particularly General Manager Eric Kuhn, General Counsel Peter Fleming, lead Board negotiator Bill Trampe and preceding President Andy Mueller, for their successful negotiations. Discussions continue on how to best implement the provisions of the agreement. And we still have other Front Range water interests to deal with to uphold our mission. The Colorado River District is also charged with monitoring and influencing interstate issues along the Colorado River. We are acutely aware that the river system as a whole has been fully consumed for more than 40 years. For all practical purposes, the Colorado River ends at the Morales Dam just inside Mexico, almost within sight of Yuma, Arizona. I have stood on that dam looking downstream, and the flow of water below it is a mere trickle. That means that over time the pressure of development in the three Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada, and the potential for changes to both timing and amount of annual runoff from the Upper Basin states due to climate change will increase pressure on Lake Powell and the remaining water available for development under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Colorado continues to grow, and it is estimated that by 2050 the population will have increased from 5 million residents today to 10 million, with most of that growth continuing to occur on the East Slope. We believe that there may be little additional Colorado River water that can be developed in-state with a firm yield, so we are embarking on a new era of risk-based water development. This much remains as true today as it was in 1937: The Colorado River District s mission is to protect, conserve, use and develop the waters of the Colorado River and its principal tributaries for the growth and development of the entire district and the health and general welfare of its constituents. We pledge our continued support of that mission. Thomas R. Sharp 2011 Colorado River District Board President Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report 3

4 The Denver Water-West Slope 4 Colorado River water at the Shoshone Hydro Plant Dam is diverted to provide energy. The Shoshone water right is non-consumptive and very senior on the river, both aspects that control river administration.

5 Colorado Basin Proposal Shoshone at center of negotiation with Denver Water Cooperation. Jim Lochhead spoke about the prospective agreement at the District s 2010 Annual Water Seminar held September 16 in Grand from the headwaters through Glenwood Canyon acts as a de facto minimum streamflow with many side benefits for Collaboration. Junction. water quality, the environment, irrigation Negotiation. The roadmap details how coalition members would agree to Denver Water s inten- When the nearly century-old plant is not and recreation on the West Slope. These are the pathways to Colorado River water development that best protect West tion to expand its Moffat Tunnel transbasin operating because of maintenance issues, Slope values while trying to solve currentday water-supply challenges. diversion project in Grand County in exchange for Denver Water s help with non- once the snowmelt season winds down. The flows in the river can be greatly reduced In that mode, Denver Water and a Colorado River Coalition of water users and loconsumptive and consumptive river issues agreement includes a protocol for reservoir on the West Slope. operators, Denver Water and the Colorado cal governments agreed in principle in 2010 The proposal also addresses deep West River District among them, to maintain releases and mimic flows as if the plant was on a historic roadmap to settle long-time Slope concerns for certainty that the Shoshone Hydro Plant s water right continues running. water disputes and water-supply issues over transmountain diversions. Colorado River to operate on a consistent basis. The Shoshone water right is non-consumptive and ervoir levels during the important summer The agreement also addresses Dillon Res- District General Manager Eric Kuhn and Denver Water Chief Executive Officer very senior on the river. The water it pulls recreation season in Summit County. Other provisions call for Denver Water to meet certain conservation and re-use goals for its water supply. The roadmap was hailed a hallmark in the turbulent history of water in the west. I m looking to this agreement to forge an entirely new paradigm in the relationship between Denver Water and the West Slope, as to how we sit down, how we negotiate and how we work together on solving the common problems that we will face in the future, Lochhead told the seminar audience. This will be one of the most comprehensive agreements that s ever been negotiated in the state of Colorado. The agreement was expected to be formally announced in When that occurs, check for details. Penstocks deliver upstream Colorado River water to the Shoshone Hydro Plant where it is returned to the river for other uses. Colorado River water drives the Shoshone turbines via a non-consumptive water right established in the early 1900s. That water continues downstream and provides recreational, economic and agricultural stability in Western Colorado. 5

6 Colorado Irrigated lands not only produce food and livestock in Colorado, they also produce return flows back to the river that over time increase selenium loading in rivers and streams. In 2010, the Colorado River District worked to secure funding that will help reduce selenium loading of waterways in the Gunnison Basin. 8 6

7 River District Activities Colorado River District helps secure new funding for environmental projects Colorado River District General Manager Eric Kuhn played a leading role in developing a new funding source to deal with environmental, performance and conservation challenges involving the dams and reservoirs that are part of the federal Colorado River Storage Project Act of In 2010, an agreement was reached that will provide $161 million for such projects through 2025, with Colorado due to receive di- of Reclamation and the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. CREDA is a trade association of power distributors whose members include Colorado s Tri- State Generation and Transmission Cooperative and the Yampa Valley Electric Association Inc. The hydropower in question is generated by Bureau of Reclamation projects that include the Glen Canyon Dam, the Aspinall Unit Dams, the Flaming Gorge Dam and Navajo Dam. water result in increased flows, with many ancillary benefits for water quality, municipal water treatment, fish and recreation. Every summer, reservoir operators, including the Colorado River District, water users, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested parties, talk weekly in a conference call about river levels, flow requirements and flow targets for endangered fish in the river s 15-Mile Reach in the Grand Valley. rect benefits. A good use for the funds would be actions to reduce selenium loading of waterways in the Gunnison Basin, as Kuhn has pointed out. Selenium challenges were highlighted in a recent Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with a plan to re-operate the Aspinall Unit reservoirs to benefit endangered fish in the Gunnison River. An exact spending plan is yet to be determined. The funds derive from modifications to a surcharge paid by power distributors for the electricity they buy from federal hydro power sites across the Upper Basin of the Colorado River. Kuhn, appointed as the State of Colorado s negotiator by the head of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, helped form an agreement that lowers the surcharge, with half of the savings accruing as cash to the Bureau of Reclamation to use for environmental and performance improvements and conservation initiatives. Parties to the deal are the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), the Western Area Power Administration, the Bureau 2010 Water Year: It was a surprise By all accounts, 2010 measured out as a below-average water year in terms of snowpack. But the runoff belied that fact, as rivers and streams raged at levels the snowpack would not ordinarily predict in Western Colorado. In a rare occurrence, water reached the spillway of Ruedi Reservoir, which like many reservoirs, is operated to avoid spilling. Several factors conspired to create the surprise. Snowpack levels above the measuring stations were apparently higher than usual. Also, dust-storm deposits, which darken snow and cause it to melt faster, and warm temperatures hastened the runoff. While the result was a big, fast runoff, the downside was that little snowpack remained later in the summer to provide consistent base flows. By late summer, the Colorado River saw low flows and administration, despite the fact the Shoshone Hydro Plant in Glenwood Canyon was down for maintenance and not calling its senior water right. As the linchpin for water rights administration on the river, Shoshone s calls for Shoshone Hydro Plant triggers cooperation on the river Rafters, endangered fish and municipalities benefitted from an agreement among reservoir owners and water users to maintain flows in the Colorado River during the summer of 2010 when the Shoshone Hydro Plant was not calling for its senior water right. In addition to producing green power for owner Xcel Energy, the Shoshone plant s nonconsumptive water right creates an unofficial minimum stream flow in the Colorado River. The rafting industry, individual recreationists, endangered fish and agricultural producers in the Grand Valley depend on the benefits of the Shoshone call. The water also helps communities that draw drinking water from the river. From time to time, the Shoshone plant must reduce diversions for necessary maintenance and cannot place its call for water. To maintain streamflows, however, water leaders have worked out an agreement that makes Shoshone issues invisible to the public and keeps water in the river. To compensate, reservoir owners, includ- Hydro power producers such as Flaming Gorge (shown here), Navajo Dam, Aspinall Unit Dams and Glen Canyon will see savings for electrical distributors on the rates they are charged while increasing funds for environmental and conservation initiatives. This win-win arrangement is just one of the successful agreements the District staff helped negotiate in Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report

8 8 District Boaters, endangered fish and municipalities benefitted from an agreement among reservoir owners and water users to maintain minimum flows in the Colorado River during the summer of 2010 when the Shoshone Hydro Plant was not calling for its senior water right. Activities continued... ing the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Water vice (USFWS). The PBO was required for the Bureau of Reclamation s Draft Environmental Impact and the Colorado River District, operated to maintain a target flow of 1,250 cubic feet per Statement aimed at re-operating the Aspinall Unit second at the Dotsero gage just upstream from reservoirs for the benefit of endangered fish. the plant. The Colorado Division of Water Resources Division 5 office in Glenwood Springs velopment of a Selenium Management Program This consultation resulted in the required de- coordinated the plan. (SMP) to address solutions. In 2010, the Colorado The target flow is maintained through normal River District signed a Memorandum of Understanding with other SMP partners and committed reservoir operations, which include power plant releases and water held in storage to help protect endangered fish habitat in the Grand Valley. To help fulfill our mission of protecting, con- $40,000 to help organize the program. Some of the water would otherwise be released serving and developing the water resources of the in the winter to make room for the next year s Colorado River Basin, it is essential that we work snow melt. Additional support for the program proactively to address selenium loading, said General Manager Eric Kuhn. It [selenium] represents a in 2010 came from the Grand County Commissioners, who had paid Northern Water to store potential threat not only to local agricultural water water in Granby Reservoir for release during the users, but also to all water users in the basin and late summer. the heritage, quality of life and economic stimulus provided by the agricultural producers of the Lower Board supports selenium plan Gunnison Basin. Selenium, a naturally occurring trace element prevalent in Western Colorado soils, promises to remain a Colorado River District priority in coming years. It is particularly common in the Uncompahgre Valley, which spans three counties (Ouray, Montrose and Delta) in the Lower Gunnison River Basin. When selenium is transported to waterways in high concentrations, it can cause water-quality problems for sensitive fish and wildlife. Selenium has drawn the attention of water managers because of its potential impacts to endangered The PBO states, The ongoing operation of irrigation projects and other water uses in the basin fish in the Lower Gunnison Basin and the requirements of a Programmatic Biological Opinion will continue to contribute selenium to the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers at levels that adversely (PBO) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report affect the endangered fish and their designated critical habitat. The State of Colorado also is a leader in selenium challenges through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). The CWCB recognized the importance of the selenium issue and, as such, has obtained $500,000 from the Species Conservation Trust Fund to investigate new technologies related to canal lining in the Uncompahgre Valley, said Jennifer Gimbel, CWCB director. Other signatories of the Memorandum of Understanding included the Bureau of Reclamation, the USFWS, the U.S. Geological Survey, the BLM, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the CWCB, the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association. Water for endangered fish The Colorado River District plays a leading role in helping water users on the Colorado River mainstem secure a permanent supply of habitat-supporting reservoir releases to boost endangered fish recovery in the 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River in the Grand Valley. The commitment is for West Slope water users to supply 5,412.5 acre feet and for Front Range users to supply the same, for a total of 10,825 acre feet. The water is released in late summer and early fall, when flows in the 15-Mile Reach would otherwise fall below the USFWS targets set as part of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

9 The Colorado River near Kremmling. 9

10 District Activities continued... A series of powerful dust storms during the spring of 2010 covered Colorado s high country, hastening runoff and reducing water flows in many Colorado Basin rivers by midsummer. Close monitoring by the Colorado River District, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a coordinated effort with storage operators maintained flow requirements and protected a critical stretch of the river in the Grand Valley during the summer of Here the severity of the dust on snow is evident on Snowmass Mountain. 10

11 The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting an en- would maintain BLM-identified values while ad- vironmental analysis of a plan that would draw half of the water from Ruedi Reservoir and the other half from Granby Reservoir. Success of the recovery program is important to the Colorado River District and all water users because it provides tools to recover the fish while allowing water users the flexibility to develop water as needs arise, within limits, not requiring individual project mitigation for water depletions. dressing other values prioritized by the stakeholders, including continued water use by entities on both sides of the Continental Divide. As the year closed, stakeholders were convinced they were close to a final, detailed recommendation that would be formally submitted to the BLM in A similar stakeholder effort, which convened in 2009 and concluded in 2010, took place for the BLM s Grand Junction field office. It encompassed Wild and Scenic Rivers: Working to preserve values The Colorado River District invested considerable time and resources in 2010 in working with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on its evaluation of rivers and streams under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The River District initiated and provided leadership in separate evaluation efforts by stakeholder groups in the Upper Colorado, Lower Colorado and Gunnison Basins. The Upper Colorado River effort had been ongoing for three years, and in 2009 stakeholders reached a consensus on guidelines to protect outstanding resource values that was then forwarded to the BLM. The group s recommendation included a request that the BLM stream segments ranging from the mainstem of the Colorado to streams in the Gunnison and Dolores River Basins. Stakeholders agreed on detailed management recommendations that protect BLMidentified values as well as the diverse values identified by the stakeholders. In one circumstance, stakeholders were able to correct misinformation that had been included in the original Wild and Scenic Eligibility Report. None of the stream segments were recommended for a suitability finding by the stakeholder group. Also in 2010, the BLM s Uncompahgre field office, located in Montrose, requested that the River District convene a stakeholder group in the Gunnison Basin to make similar recommendations, as delay making a determination on the mainstem of part of that field office s Wild and Scenic evaluation. the Colorado for Wild and Scenic designation, in- This effort was subdivided between the western half stead relying on the consensus recommendations of the territory (Gunnison Basin) and the recently to accommodate and address the many uses and created Dominguez-Escalante National Conserva- interests in the Upper Colorado River. tion Area (NCA). The NCA s organic legislation re- In 2010, the stakeholders worked to develop detailed resource guides and river operations that quired a separate resource management plan. Final recommendations were expected in Anglers test their skills on the Roaring Fork River. 11 Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report

12 District Activities continued... Interbasin Compact Committee releases report to governor in Colorado draws a target on the Colorado River. It remains the one river basin not ad- Since Denver Water built Dillon Reservoir in the 1960s, where the town once stood, Old The Colorado Water for the 21st Century ministered through an interstate compact or Dillon saw its uses constrained. Plans are un- Act created the Interbasin Compact Commit- agreement. Most water users, including the derway to revitalize it. To prevent agriculture from becoming the default water source for Colorado s growing population in the future, the Interbasin Compact Committee report calls for a portfolio of water-supply strategies that includes municipal conservation, new supply development, the success of water projects on the drawing board and agricultural transfers. The planning seeks to protect the environmental and recreational values of water in the rivers while meeting agricultural and municipal needs through tee (IBCC) and nine Basin Roundtables to elevate the conversation about how Colorado will meet increasing water demands created by population growth. Colorado River District General Manager Eric Kuhn, Deputy General Manager Dan Birch and Board Member Bill Trampe served on the IBCC in In 2010, then-governor Bill Ritter asked for a report from the IBCC on its key findings to date. Released in December, the Colorado River District, seek to avoid the day when the river comes under interstate administration, and water-use curtailments are mandated to satisfy downstream demands. The question remains, how much water can be developed in the river and at what risk of triggering administration? The Colorado Water Conservation Board continued to evaluate that question in 2010 through Phase I of the Colorado River Water Availability Study. Much of the year was taken up by the Over the last six years the Colorado River District and Senior Water Resources Engineer Ray Tenney helped the Old Dillon Reservoir Water Authority (ODRWA), consisting of Summit County and the towns of Dillon and Silverthorne, develop the Old Dillon Reservoir Enlargement Project. In 2010, all the necessary permits were secured, and in October ODRWA signed a construction contract with Fiore and Sons for $3.6 million. report a draft still to be reviewed by the review of comments that Phase I generated. The year 2011 will see the 62-acre-foot Roundtables said the status quo of water Climate models in Phase I estimated that be- reservoir enlarged to 288 acre feet. The proj- development combined with population tween zero and 800,000 acre feet were avail- ect includes a new state-of-the-art screen di- growth would dry up between 500,000 and able to develop. Phase II was to be developed version in Salt Lick Gulch, a new outlet to 700,000 acres of irrigated agriculture by 2050 in 2011 to narrow those estimates. Denver s Dillon Reservoir to the south and unless other measures were taken. The state s Meanwhile, the concept of focusing on rebuilding and raising the existing dams population is slated to increase to 10 million risk rather than a single number was ad- that form the reservoir on the ridge above by vanced by Colorado River District General Interstate 70 near Lake Hill. Increasing the To prevent agriculture from becoming Manager Eric Kuhn. Under this concept, a amount of water that can be supplied above the default water source, the report calls for new water project would be curtailed in ad- Dillon Dam will improve the county s ability a portfolio of water-supply strategies that in- vance of any formal compact administration, to provide for development in unincorpo- cludes municipal conservation, new supply triggered by already-agreed-upon measure- rated areas; give Dillon an alternate source development, the success of water projects ments of river flow. of water supply to Straight Creek, which is on the drawing board and agricultural trans- Separately, the Colorado River District vulnerable to water-quality problems from fers. The planning seeks to protect the en- supported a Bureau of Reclamation Colora- I-70 runoff; and provide flexibility for Silver- vironmental and recreational values of water do River Basin Study of water-supply issues. thorne, which can use Old Dillon Reservoir in the rivers while meeting agricultural and A draft is expected late in to store water for critical water years or to municipal needs. enhance flows in the Blue River. 12 Water development on the Colorado River Planning for new water development to meet growing statewide population needs Old Dillon Reservoir enlargement advances Old Dillon Reservoir in Summit County once was the main source of water supply for the Town of Dillon in the Blue River Valley. Construction was expected to be completed in November Wetland mitigation areas will be planted in 2012, and the reservoir should be filled and open for recreation that same year. Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report

13 The Old Dillon Reservoir Enlargement will create an alternate source of water supply to Straight Creek, which is vulnerable to water-quality problems from I-70 runoff, and provide flexibility for Silverthorne, which can use Old Dillon Reservoir to store water for critical water years or to enhance flows in the Blue River. Dillon Reservoir reflects the water-rich snowfields of the Tenmile Range. 13

14 Federal Legislative Highlights 14 The Colorado River District supported the SECURE Water Act, which, among other things, provided funds to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to conduct in-depth studies in cooperation with local water interests. The Colorado River Basin is one of three watersheds to receive funds principally for planning and analysis. Horseshoe Bend below Glen Canyon Dam. The Colorado River District monitors federal legislative and regulatory activities and communicates regularly with Colorado s Congressional delegation and other key legislative and administration leaders in Washington, D.C. Legislation introduced in 2010 for the Colorado River District by Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) concerning water for endangered fish recovery did not pass in the 111th Congress; however, it had the desired effect. Arising from a Senate hearing on the bill, the Bureau of Reclamation proposed an acceptable contract for 5,412.5 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir water. This water represents one half of a 10,825-acre-foot annual obligation of Colorado River water users to assist in the recovery of the four species of fish listed as endangered. Like the Colorado legislature, Congress spent a disproportionate amount of time on its budget. However, unlike Colorado, Congress failed to adopt budgets for any of its 12 departments. A series of continuing resolutions kept the federal government running. A fourth year of efforts to expand federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act foundered again in Both House and Senate bills failed to even reach their respective floors for action. The Colorado River District worked principally through the National Water Resources Association and the Western Coalition of Arid States to express its concerns with the expanded reach Colorado River District of federal authorities represented by both bills. Of significant concern and potentially long-term consequence was the failure of Congress to extend the funding authorization for the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River recovery programs for endangered fish. Then-Congressman John Salazar (D-Colorado) sponsored H.R to extend annual operations authorization for the two programs through The bill passed the House in April 2010 but ran into PAYGO issues regarding impacts to the federal budget. The Colorado River District was also active in several wilderness bills. Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) introduced H.R to add 34 new areas of expanded wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Many of these areas are lower-lying canyons and lower-elevation desert terrain that present more challenging water rights implications. Congressman Salazar also introduced the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Bill to add 61,682 acres of public land on portions of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest and the San Juan National Forest. The congressman s bill had broad support from local governments, businesses and water communities. Congressman Jared Polis (D-Colorado) introduced legislation to add Hidden Gems wilderness areas in Summit and Eagle Counties. None of the wilderness legislation progressed to the House floor Annual Report

15 Lake Powell water levels remained significantly below those of 12 years ago. Increased demand as a result of population growth, agricultural needs and drought are causing both Powell and Lake Mead to diminish to unprecedented levels. A coordinated effort among all the states involved aims to avoid critical shortages and compact administration in the future. 15

16 Colorado Water-efficient products and new homes, such as those labeled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency s Water Sense program, can help consumers reduce water use by 20 percent or more. In fact, if half the households in Colorado installed Water Sense-labeled faucets or faucet aerators, the state could save 500 million gallons of water annually enough to supply nearly 4,000 Colorado households with water for a year. 16 Legislative Highlights The Colorado River District monitors the Colorado General Assembly as part of its mission to protect Western Colorado water. The 2010 legislative session, like the one before it, was dominated by state budget cuts, but other issues (e.g., regulation of medical marijuana and teacher tenure) also generated their share of controversy. A few water bills emerged that were of interest to the Colorado River District and West Slope water users. The General Assembly balanced the Fiscal Year budget through a combination of appropriations reductions, cash fund transfers and revenue enhancements; below are a few examples in each category. Appropriations reductions: For the first time since the passage of Amendment 23 in 2000, the General Assembly reduced General Fund appropriations for K-12 education. First, legislators eliminated a scheduled $110 million transfer and reduced funding by an additional $260 million. In addition to K-12 education, a number of other state agencies realized reductions in state General Fund support, including the Governor s Office (-18.73%), Agriculture (-18.16%) and Local Affairs (-3.47%). Transfers of Cash Funds into the General Fund: Examples of such transfers include $11 million from the Base Account of the Severance Tax Fund, $10 million from the Local Government Severance Tax Fund and $10.4 million from the Capital Construction Fund. All represent adverse impacts to future water development. Revenue enhancements: The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on a protest of Senate Bill , holding that elimination of exemptions is not a tax increase under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). As a result, the legislature adopted a number of tax-policy changes designed to increase General Fund revenues. The primary changes generated more than $100 million in revenue. These changes also generated substantial Colorado River District debate as they moved through the legislative process. Implications for future budgets: The budget challenges facing Colorado are multi-year in nature. The transfer of Cash Funds to supplant General Fund money and one-time reductions in spending will be seen again and again. However, the final receipt of federal stimulus funds in 2011 will necessitate additional budget reductions in Fiscal Year to offset these funds, which will no longer be available. In fact, the Colorado Legislative Council at one time estimated a total budget shortfall of $1.3 billion. More bad news: Revenue forecasts require additional cuts to the current year s budget just to end the state s fiscal year (on June 30) with the constitutionally required balanced budget. With the Legislature out of session in 2010, Governor Ritter made the initial cuts. However, additional downward adjustments were expected from newly elected Governor Hickenlooper and the 2011 General Assembly as new revenue forecasts arrived. Water issues: While the 2010 session will not be remembered for its water legislation, several important bills passed and failed. The Orchard Mesa Improvement Project in Mesa County will receive $1.5 million from the Species Conservation Trust Fund. Senate Bill addressed the water produced by oil and gas wells and allowed operators to use that water on site. Several water-conservation bills passed after extensive deliberation and negotiations that resulted in amendments supported by the West Slope. The District was also able to preserve the legislature s Water Resources Review Committee, which would have been eliminated under the first legislative approach to de-fund interim committees for Legislative attempts to interfere with private and public contracts were thwarted again this year. Also defeated was a proposal to exempt certain schools from Colorado water law Annual Report

17 The Elk Mountains and Holy Cross Wilderness collect winter snows and are important components of the Colorado River Basin watershed. The snowpack above 9,000 feet in elevation is the greatest source of water storage in the basin. Ever since Denver Water introduced Xeriscaping during the 1981 drought, the state has often been ahead of the curve in addressing water-supply issues. For example, many Colorado cities now charge for water usage based on the water s true cost or through a tiered system, with heavy users paying more per gallon after they exceed certain thresholds. These measures help promote the slogan, Use only what you need. 17

18 Grant Program The Colorado River District Grant Program was reformatted in 2010 to combine small and large waterrelated projects in an expanded annual funding cycle. At the same time, the Board of Directors increased the pool of funding to $250,000. The program received a record amount of financial requests: more than $1.34 million from 39 qualified applicants for a wide range of projects that totaled between $2,000 and $1.9 million each. Burry Ranch North Field Irrigation System of Garfield County $12,000 toward the installation of a high-pressure underground pipeline pump to replace flood irrigation. The project improved irrigation coverage and water efficiency. The ranch s water rights in the Glenwood Ditch predate the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Fire Mountain Canal & Reservoir Company of Delta County $11,479 toward the installation of automated gates and computer monitoring systems for remotely releasing water at Paonia Reservoir Dam. 18 The Grant Program enhances supply and efficiency through conservation improvements at the grassroots level. As in past years, the grant proposals represented a diverse mix of water-supply development, protection, improvement and related projects and studies. Projects must be located within the physical boundaries of the Colorado River District s 15-county jurisdiction and should generally address one or more of the following: Development of a new water supply Improvement of an existing water-supply system Measures to improve instream water quality Measures that promote water-use efficiency Sediment-reduction measures Implementation of watershed-management actions Tamarisk-control measures Recipients in 2010 included: Larry Antonelli Irrigation Pipeline of Garfield County $4,344 toward sleeving a rusted and leaking corrugated metal pipe. This repair conserves irrigation water, reduces erosion and sediment and lessens salts leaching into the Colorado River. Morrisania Water Supply Company of Garfield County $9,000 toward replacement of damaged steel water boxes, resulting in a water savings of approximately 10 percent. The water company was established in 1911 and serves 65 families. Pump Canal Group of Garfield County $2,184 for improvement of their water-supply system for more reliable, efficient and cost-effective irrigation resulting in later season watering, which is beneficial to spring hay production. Colorado River District Town of Rangely of Rio Blanco County $90,000 toward the correction of deficiencies in the intake structure for drinking water for the Town of Rangely. Pumping facilities, mechanical and electrical equipment were updated. Painted Sky Resource Conservation and Development Council of Delta County $48,875 for design and implementation of a fish passage dam modification, eliminating the last major fish blockage in the Lower Gunnison River. The project reconnects fragmented river habitat and is expected to result in increased upstream populations of target fish species and to protect pre-1922 Colorado River Compact water rights. Town of Silt in Garfield County $15,000 toward land and water rights acquisition that includes pre-1922 Colorado River Compact water rights. Assists in securing the Town of Silt s water supply. Miller Creek Ditch of Rio Blanco County $6,400 toward the high-density polyethylene lining of 1,200 feet of the Miller Creek Ditch. The repair corrected the concrete lining, which had failed and caused excessive seepage, safety and capacity concerns. Grand Mesa Water Conservancy District of Delta County $36,125 toward rehabilitation of Peak Reservoir, which has been breached and abandoned since the 1950s. Peak Reservoir makes water available for drought protection and agricultural and domestic needs Annual Report

19 Colorado is a headwaters state, and its natural snowpack and runoff supplies water for more than 30 million users in seven Western states and Mexico. 19

20 Public Education Initiatives Students demonstrate their understanding of these Students hike a section of the Continental Divide to learn about watersheds, transmountain diversions and the value of water in Colorado and the arid West. What is the extinction of a condor to a child who has never seen a wren? scientist and writer Robert Michael Pyle once wrote. One could also say, What is the Colorado River running dry to one whose only exposure to water is a faucet? This idea was a catalyst for initiating a partnership with the Keystone Science School in Summit County, in an effort to create an outdoor learning experience in which students gathered to learn about water challenges in the West. Public education is one way that the Colorado River District works to protect Western Colorado water. In 2010, the Colorado River District provided scholarships and educational resources for its third water camp. The program is named H2O Outdoors and is a threeday, two-night water camp available for students from around the state. At the Keystone Science School, students gain an appreciation for water as a limited resource through understanding and experiencing the source firsthand. The camp begins at noon on Day 1 with a trip to the Continental Divide on Loveland Pass. From this vantage point, students can begin to understand what a watershed is. They can see the undeniable relationship between snowfall and stream flow. From this place, their senses awaken and their minds are ready to learn about the complexity of water in the West. Some of the primary learning goals for the camp are for students to: * learning goals in a mock Town Hall meeting on the last day. They take on different stakeholder roles, such as a West Slope agricultural representative or an executive at Denver Water. Using stakeholder beliefs to discuss water issues, students generate solutions to the challenges we all face. Their debates mirror what actually happens in water-supply negotiations. Watching the Town Hall meeting is a powerful indicator of how much students have learned and gives insight into how their behavior might change due to their newfound awareness. This awareness was heightened in September 2010 for the 36 students from around the state who gathered at H2O Outdoors. Several students commented that they never knew transmountain diversions existed, that they would start thinking about how they use water, and that they would share what they learned with their schools and families. As one teacher observed, The students got so much out of the three days. Not only was it a perfect introduction to our River Watch program, it was organized and informative. This past fall, the Colorado River District provided scholarships to 26 students from the West Slope, making the out-of-pocket cost to students just $ Colorado River District board member James Newberry leads a group of students in a discussion about water in Colorado and the future challenge of managing the many competing demands for it. Gain an appreciation for water as a limited resource. Understand the inter-relationship between weather and water supply. Understand the consequences of natural resource exploration, development and consumption. Know the purpose of reservoirs and transmountain diversions. Know the major threats to water in the West: population growth, drought, energy exploration, development and climate change. Be introduced to the connection between water quality and water quantity, understanding the cause-effect relationships within water systems through water testing. Because of the camp s past success, Aurora Water expressed interest in becoming involved. It provided scholarships for 10 East Slope students. Currently, Denver Water is partnering with the Colorado River District, Aurora Water and the Keystone Science School to plan and provide the fourth H2O Outdoors program. Students and teachers can look forward to another opportunity to experience water education in April For more information, call the Colorado River District (970) , visit org or edinfo@crwcd.org. Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report

21 The Continental Divide creates a perfect learning environment for understanding where water flows naturally in Colorado and in the western United States, and why water is diverted to the arid East Slope of Colorado. 21

22 Public Education Initiatives Public Information Website with comprehensive information and links to everything about water in western Colorado. Online Video Series is used in school classrooms and community forums to familiarize the public with water in the west. Community Outreach Meetings Gunnison State of the Rivers Meeting Monday, May 3, p.m. Holiday Inn Express Montrose Immediately following the Gunnison Basin Roundtable Meeting Learn about the water year in the Gunnison Basin, an economic report from the Front Range Water Council that addresses the importance of water and hear from Colorado River District Board of Directors President Andy Mueller of Ridgway about important water supply challenges facing the region. Presenters include Gunnison Basin State Engineer Bob Hurford, Dan Crabtree of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Gunnison Basin Roundtable. Sponsored by.. Protecting Western Colorado Water Since 1937 and the Gunnison Basin Roundtable For more information, call Jim Pokrandt at x 236 or edinfo@crwcd.org 22

23 Public Information Campaign And Mobile Web Site Promotes water knowledge and conservation to all users in Colorado. Colorado s fast-growing population continues to strain the drought-prone state s freshwater resources. Colorado s population growth is expected to maintain its rapid pace, increasing from nearly 4.4 million people in 2000 to 6 million by 2025 and 10 million by Consequently, statewide municipal and industrial water use is predicted to increase dramatically from 1998 to In the Front Range, where the majority of the population resides, ground water is being tapped at a rate that will likely exhaust supplies. Front Range communities could face a significant water-supply deficit by 2030, and shortages could be even more drastic, depending on the effectiveness of municipal conservation efforts across the state. Source Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report 23

24 General Fund Report The Colorado River District conducts business through two budgets: one for General Operations and one for the Enterprise Fund. The General Budget is funded primarily by a property tax collected in the District s 15 counties. The tax is currently mills with a temporary rebate of mills. General Fund Revenue 2010 General Fund Expenditures 5% 4% 32% 44% 15% Revenue Collected Property Tax Other Revenue Total Revenue 2005 $2,563,320 $499,342 $3,062, $2,702,667 $854,019 $3,556, $2,881,912 $981,914 $3,863, $3,201,868 $1,094,189 $4,296, $3,723,349 $3,977,666 $862,742 $995,349 $4,586,091 $4,973,015 Expenditures Operations Legal Engineering Project Assistance Capital Total Expenditures % 22% 29% 5% 5% 100% % 14% 30% 7% 4% 100% % 17% 34% 5% 4% 100% % 20% 27% 5% 5% 100% % 12% 20% 2% 31% 100% % 15% 32% 5% 4% 100% 2010 Gross Taxes Remitted by County Delta Eagle Garfield Grand Gunnison Hinsdale Mesa Moffat Montrose Ouray Pitkin Rio Blanco Routt Saguache Summit TOTAL 2010 $55,479 $595,231 $859,988 $160,306 $140,442 $9,001 $395,015 $84,305 $93,051 $34,775 $606,346 $191,897 $237,853 $460 $319,565 $3,783,723 2% 16% 23% 4% 4% <1% 10% 2% 3% 1% 16% 5% 6% <1% 9% 2000 $42,385 $451,109 $161,390 $98,251 $85,727 $7,829 $213,565 $90,996 $61,950 $26,726 $382,169 $62,455 $139,050 $599 $251,985 $2,076,186 2% 22% 8% 5% 4% <1% 10% 4% 3% 1% 19% 3% 7% <1% 12% Ten Year Change $13,094 $144,123 $698,599 $62,056 $54,716 $1,172 $181,450 $(6,690) $31,101 $8,050 $224,178 $129,442 $98,804 $(139) $67,581 $1,707,537 Note: Percentages are rounded and do not add up to exactly % 5% 6% <1% 8% <1% 4% 16% 4% 23% Wolford Mountain Reservoir and Recreation Area. 24 Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report

25 Enterprise Fund Report The District s Enterprise Fund is employed to build and operate reservoirs and to conduct water leasing and marketing programs. Enterprise Fund income is derived from water leasing and marketing activities Enterprise Revenue Other Revenue 2010 Enterprise Expenditures Interest Income Sale of Water 22% 15% 4% 1% 7% 8% Revenue Sale of Water Interest Income Other Income Total Revenues $3,737,643 $657,307 $5,551,049 $9,945, $3,782,440 $1,404,929 $7,294,864 $12,482, $3,825,631 $1,405,166 $642,484 $5,873, $3,719,347 $704,606 $436,270 $4,860, $2,298,026 $264,919 $662,370 $3,225, $2,313,222 $113,182 $345,391 $2,771,796 23% 20% Expenditures Operations 5% 4% 12% 11 Legal 1% 1% 3% 3% Engineering 3% 2% 7% 4% Wolford Operations/Capital/Loan Repayment 5% 6% 25% 33% Projects and Studies 1% 1% 7% 18% Elkhead Reservoir Enlargement 81% 82% 25% 18% Capital 0% 1% 7% 1% Amortization/Depreciation 4% 3% 14% 12% 17% 4% 6% 23% 15% 8% 3% 24% 15% 4% 7% 20% 23% 8% 1% 22% Total Expenditures 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Upper Basin watershed in August. 25

26 2010 Board of Directors Thomas R. Tom Sharp 2011 President 2010 Vice President Routt County James L. Newberry 2011 Vice President Grand County William S. Bill Trampe Gunnison County Stephen M. Mathis Montrose County Forrest Nelson Rio Blanco County Warner Dewey Hinsdale County Rebie Hazard Saguache County John Ely Pitkin County Andrew A. Mueller 2010 President Ouray County Jon Stavney Eagle County Tom Gray Moffat County Dick Proctor Mesa County Gary Martinez Summit County Tom Alvey Delta County David Merritt Garfield County The Colorado River District is governed by a 15-member Board of Directors. Each member is appointed to a three-year term by the respective county commissioners in each of the District s 15 counties. Each year, a third of the Board seats are up for appointment. All policies, resolutions, budgets and major actions of the Colorado River District must be approved by the Board. The Board meets in regular session quarterly, in the months of January, April, July and October. Special meetings are called as needed. To stay up to date on Board meetings,visit the district s website at 26

27 The Green and Yampa Rivers converge at Steamboat Rock in northwest Colorado. A delicate balance exists between lower basin demands, Front Range demands and current river health. Can we maintain that balance with additional future demands on water? 27 Colorado River District 2010 Annual Report

28 Dan Birch Deputy General Manager John Currier Chief Engineer Kem Davidson Dam Caretaker Laurie DePaolo Executive Assistant Michael Eytel Water Resources Specialist Peter Fleming General Counsel Gail Guentzel Business Support Specialist/Legal Assistant Audrey Hughes Human Resources Specialist/Property Manager Denise Hussain Records Specialist Mary Kalmes Senior Accountant/Administrative Chief Dave Kanzer Senior Water Resources Engineer Eric Kuhn Secretary/General Manager Don Meyer Senior Water Resources Engineer Martha Moore Public Affairs Specialist Lorra Nichols Paralegal Jim Pokrandt Communications & Education Specialist David Smith Engineer Tech Meredith Spyker Administrative Assistant Connie Stevens Accountant Rob Streit Senior Accountant Ray Tenney Senior Water Resources Engineer Chris Treese External Affairs Manager Jason Turner Associate Counsel Keri Wagstrom Administrative Assistant The high mountain watershed of Colorado provide water for millions of seven western states and Mexico. Design: Ajax Design & Communications Photos: Pete McBride, Mark Lance & Art Burrows 2010 Annual Report