Colorado Water Plan discussions focus on new Colorado River projects

Transcription

1 Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 1 October 2013 Colorado Water Plan discussions focus on new Colorado River projects A potential New Supply project from the Colorado River continues to be a big issue as the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) and the Basin Roundtables discuss the makeup of Colorado s Water Plan. By Gov. John Hickenlooper s executive order, Colorado s Water Plan is to be delivered in draft by the end of 2015, thus culminating what will be eight plus years of discussions by the IBCC and Roundtables on how to close a water supply gap created through the projected doubling of Colorado s population by At the October meeting of the Colorado River District Board of Directors, General Manger Eric Kuhn, an IBCC member as a governor s appointee, reported that in the last several years, new supply as a concept has evolved into a New Supply project from the Colorado River Basin and in the view of some on the Front Range, a large new transmountain diversion from the Colorado River system. The IBCC employs the metaphor of a four legged stool to describe the tools to meet the water supply gap. New Supply is one leg. The others are moving water from agricultural use to urban use; completion of water supply projects already on the drawing board; and municipal conservation and reuse. According to Kuhn, going to the Colorado River for a big project will likely result in the reallocation of water now being used on the West Slope in agriculture to the Front Range urban corridor. The bigger the project, the bigger the trouble and the bigger the reallocation if we get into trouble, Kuhn said. Trouble would result from Colorado exceeding its legal ability to deplete the Colorado River under the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado River Compact of In Kuhn s report to the Board, he said: For the last couple of years, we ve had an ongoing debate within the IBCC and the IBCC s New Supply Committee over the approach to take. I ve suggested an incremental approach where we would move forward on projects on the drawing board or in permitting small, cooperative projects but put off any debate about big new projects until down the road sometime when we ll have a better understanding of water availability and the negotiations among the seven basin states may lead to different ways of managing future Colorado River shortages. We should move forward with projects that we can agree on today and table the issue of a big transmountain diversion but not in a way that makes it more difficult or promotes it. In fact we should leave that issue neutral while we develop more information and develop supply from Identified Projects and Processes (IPPs), Kuhn said during Board discussion. IPPs are projects on the drawing board in the vernacular of the water plan. Kuhn said that water planners on the Front Range are split with some wanting a big transmountain diversion as soon as possible and others who recognize problems, which include Front Range water users who would be affected by a compact curtailment. Kuhn noted that the water supply gap on the Front Range is not well defined as to where the needs exactly are. There is the issue of treating the Front Range like one big block. It s not, he said. Areas of concern are north of Colorado Springs and the northern and southern Denver suburbs, he said, noting, Hopefully that discussion will be moving to more specifics. Kuhn s written report and supporting documents can be found at uploads/2013_4q_ibcc_roundtable_update.pdf.

2 Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 2 October 2013 Principles aimed at unifying West Slope Roundtable positions on New Supply The Colorado River District is developing a set of principles directed at how to plan a new transmountain diversion (TMD) that would benefit the Front Range with the goal of developing a united stance among both the Front Range and the four Western Colorado Roundtables. Deputy General Manager Dan Birch presented the draft language to the Colorado River District Board of Directors at its October meeting. Public comments can be forwarded to edinfo@crwcd.org. The draft is as follows: West Slope Basin Roundtable Position Statement New Supply Projects Preamble: The Statewide Water Supply Investigation (2007 SWSI), the Interbasin Compact Committee and the various Basin Roundtables chartered under HB 1177, have focused a large amount of attention on the so called Gap between available water supplies and projected future water needs. The IBCC and others have identified four legs of the stool that will address the Gap: Identified projects and processes (IPPs), existing water supply efforts in various stages of planning and implementation such as Denver s Moffat System Expansion and Northern Water s Windy Gap Firming Project; Water conservation and reuse; Ag to urban water transfers; and New Supply projects. New Supply means a new TMD from the Colorado River Basin, the primary purpose of which is a supply for the Front Range. The following guidelines should be incorporated into the West Slope Roundtables Basin Implementation Plans and Colorado s Water Plan (CWP). Position Statement: 1) The West Slope has negotiated agreements that have greatly facilitated development of Denver s Moffat Expansion Project and Northern Water s Windy Gap Firming Project, which are two IPPs under the state water plan discussion. The 1998 Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a similar negotiated agreement. These negotiations were successful because the agreements represented an overall net benefit to the West Slope. Any future projects must similarly represent a net benefit to the basin of origin. The Colorado River District intends to negotiate in good faith on potential future cooperative projects, with Denver Water, as contemplated by the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) and with Colorado Springs and Aurora as contemplated by the Eagle River MOU. 2) The West Slope Roundtables recognize and value the importance of Colorado s agricultural economy on a statewide basis. East Slope and West Slope agriculture is vital to both region s economies and cultures and both are equally worthy of preservation. 3)Beyond the possible CRCA and Eagle River MOU cooperative projects mentioned above, the West Slope Basin Roundtables believe it is premature for Colorado s Water Plan to identify, include, or otherwise plan for a large, new TMD from the West Slope to supply the Front Range. The reasons for this include: a) Other efforts to address the Gap water conservation, reuse, reduction of demands through higher density development, maximization of Front Range native water supplies and completion of other IPPs should be pursued first. b) Recent studies of large pumpback projects (e.g., Flaming Gorge and Yampa pumpbacks) suggest such projects are financially infeasible, politically divisive and have immense permitting hurdles. c) With respect to the Colorado River Compact, Colorado has not adequately determined the risk of overdevelopment nor determined ways to mitigate the risk of overdevelopment. The initial data suggest that a significant risk is posed to existing post compact water rights (used on both the West Slope and Front Range) by the development of a new large scale TMD. Regardless, much more time, work and public outreach is necessary to address the hydrologic and legal uncertainties related to these issues. d) The Gap needs additional study. The data upon which the Gap was determined is stale. Ways to reduce the Gap, such as those identified above in 3.a., need to be prioritized and fully explored. Continued on page 3

3 Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 3 October 2013 State Affairs reported to Board By Colorado law, the West Slope must fill at least two of the nine seats on the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. The two current West Slope appointees to the Commission are up for appointment in early Neither of the current commissioners is expected to be reappointed. The Colorado River District has been recruiting qualified candidates. The River District Board unanimously endorsed two West Slope applicants for 2014 appointment: Lurline Curran and Dave Merritt. Lurline Curran is the Grand County Administrator and a veteran of countless water negotiations. Possibly the only other person with more seniority in the water wars is Dave Merritt, former Colorado River District Chief Engineer and current Garfield County Director on the River District Board. River District Board members endorsed both candidates as knowledgeable, thoughtful and balanced advocates for reasonable and responsible water quality controls for Colorado s waters. The Colorado River District, among others, was given authority by the state legislature to approve agricultural water conservation plans pursuant to Senate Bill This bill directs the water court to disregard any decrease in water use that results from an approved water conservation program in a change of water right case. This protects the historical consumptive use calculation from diminution due to conservation savings should the water right owner ever seek a change of the water right. The Board approved an application form and instruction sheet for applicants and delegated approval authority to staff for these plans. The application form and instructions are on the District s website at The Board also provided staff with direction on several legislative concepts the legislature s Interim Water Committee has under consideration. One proposal is to create a FLEX water market that would be an alternative to buy and dry of irrigated agricultural lands. Under this concept, irrigation rights could voluntarily be placed in a FLEX market for temporary transfer to unspecified end users, presumably municipalities. The water right s historical consumptive use would have to already be quantified; the owner of the right would retain ownership and receive compensation for placing the water into the FLEX market. Chris Treese, External Affairs Manager, explained this concept as new but creative and has a long road ahead of it with ample time for further review before it becomes law. Directors encouraged active participation in the legislative process. The Board also debated the merits of extending the current six year diligence period for conditional water rights to 10 years. The potential for cost savings was immediately attractive, but several directors noted a possible downside of opening the diligence statute could be the amendment of a shorter timeline or a maximum number of diligence filings for conditional rights. Final direction was to not encourage any change and to approach any proposed change with extreme caution. Principles aimed at New Supply stance by Roundtables Continued from page 2 4) The West Slope Roundtables do not support a state water project or any attempted judicial or legislative placeholder water right for a future TMD. A state water right filing threatens the West Slope s ability to secure supplies for its future consumptive and non consumptive needs. And a state water project poses a threat to local land use permitting authority. 5) The Colorado Water Plan must recognize the present and future demands on Colorado River supplies for West Slope uses, both consumptive and non consumptive. The West Slope needs to develop confidence it will be able to develop its native water supplies for its own long term water needs. Any placeholder right or other speculative arrangement presents a significant threat to this principle.

4 Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 4 October 2013 Final signatures inked to ratify historic agreement Max Schmidt, center, Manager of the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (OMID), attended the October meeting of the Colorado River District Board of Directors to thank the District for its assistance in development of the soon to begin OMID efficiency project. The River District contributed $1.5 million to a project that will add check dams and water storage to the OMID canal system. The improvements are expected to save 17,000 acre feet of water annually, to the benefit of endangered fish and storage in Green Mountain Reservoir. Flanking Schmidt are Board President James Newberry and Deputy General Manager Dan Birch, who spearheaded the District s participation in the project. Board passes 2014 budgets General Fund and Enterprise Fund budgets for 2014 were approved by the Colorado River District Board of Directors and Enterprise Board of Directors at their October meeting. Anticipated General Fund revenues for 2014 are $4.4 million, a figure that represents a 9 percent decline in property taxes because of falling valuations in the District s 15 county region of Western Colorado. Expenditures are expected to be $4.4 million. A property tax levy of mills will be assessed in The owner of a house worth $300,000 would pay about $5.80 in 2014 to support Colorado River District actions to protect Western Colorado water. The District also operates an Enterprise Fund by which it markets water from a variety of sources and maintains Wolford Mountain and Elkhead reservoirs. The 2014 Enterprise budget anticipates $4.5 million in revenues and $4.2 million in expenses. The Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) is now fully executed with final approval coming from irrigators and water suppliers in the Grand Valley, General Counsel Peter Fleming reported to the Colorado River District Board of Directors. The CRCA creates a long term partnership between Denver Water and 42 entities on the West Slope. The agreement is a framework for numerous actions by the parties to benefit water supply, water quality, recreation and the environment on both sides of the Continental Divide. It is the direct result of Denver Water s desire to expand its Moffat Tunnel transmountain water supply from the Fraser River in Grand County and to enlarge Gross Reservoir in Boulder County. While that project is still being permitted, the CRCA represents an enhancement of beneficial actions beyond mitigation yet to be spelled out in the record of decision. Negotiations on the CRCA concluded in early 2011 and the engaged parties began their approvals. The Grand Valley entities, however, waited until they were satisfied that federal and state reviews of Green Mountain Reservoir and Shoshone Hydro Plant aspects in the agreement were finished and the agreement could be implemented as envisioned. The CRCA also means the West Slope will not oppose permitting of the Moffat Project. Detailed information about the CRCA can be found at

5 Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 5 October 2013 Board gives nod to Tipton bill on ski areas The Colorado River District Board of Directors devoted all their time on the federal affairs agenda item discussing and providing direction on Congressman Tipton s Water Rights Protection Act that was recently introduced in Congress. This bill, H.R.3189, would prohibit federal agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture from issuing any permit with conditions that transfer, relinquish or impair any water right to the United States. While H.R.3189 is motivated by recent Forest Service directives requiring ski areas to relinquish their water rights in order to receive a U.S. Forest Service permit, the bill as introduced applies to all water related permits any agency within Interior or Agriculture may issue. Directors appreciated that the congressman is protecting the property interests of western water rights, but they were also concerned this bill has unintended, adverse consequences. For example, had H.R.3189 been law in the 1960s, the bypass flow conditions on the individual tributary diversions of the Fryingpan Arkansas Project would have been impermissible. The River District and the West Slope broadly supported those conditions, and both the environment and West Slope water users are the direct beneficiaries of those limiting permit requirements. Of perhaps even greater concern, H.R.3189 would not allow waterrelated conditions that are included in an existing permit to be continued in any renewal, amendment or extension of that same permit after passage of this bill. Directors resolved to support the legislation with amendments that maintain agency authority to condition water projects with requirements that reasonably protect both the natural environment and downstream water users. Directors took comfort from and expressed appreciation for Congressman Tipton s commitment to create a clear legislative record that he does not intend to reverse existing permit conditions nor impair the ability of agencies to impose permit conditions that protect western Colorado water users. The Board further directed staff to request a savings clause that would clearly outline in statute this same assurance. Grants Program application window opens December 1, 2013 As of December 1, 2013, the Colorado River District is accepting grant applications for projects that protect, enhance or develop water resources within its 15 county region. This is for the 2014 Colorado River District Water Resources Grant Program. Projects eligible for the grant program must achieve one or more of the following objectives: develop a new water supply; improve an existing system; improve instream water quality; increase water use efficiency; reduce sediment loading; implement a watershed management action; control invasive riparian vegetation; or protect pre Colorado River Compact water rights. Previous successful grant funded projects have included the construction of new water storage, the enlargement of existing water storage or diversion facilities, rehabilitation of nonfunctioning and restricted water storage/ delivery/diversion structures, implementation of water efficiency improvements and watershed enhancements. Successful grantees can receive up to a maximum of $150,000 (or approximately 25 percent of the total project cost; in the case of smaller projects, this percentage may be slightly higher) for their project. The total amount available for the 2014 competitive grant program is $250,000. The application deadline is Jan. 31, To access the Water Resources Grant Program application, instructions, guidelines, policies, and other details please visit

6 Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 6 October 2013 Windy Gap Firming Project agreement advances The Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP) intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is in final form but has not been totally wrapped up because two important pre conditions have not been completed, General Counsel Peter Fleming reported to the Colorado River District Board of Directors at its October meeting. Like the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement between Denver Water and the West Slope, the Windy Gap Firming Project IGA is a package of mitigation enhancements that would be part of the Windy Gap Firming Project once it is permitted for the Municipal Subdistrict of Northern Water by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The pre conditions for the River District s execution of the agreement are that the United States (1) makes a satisfactory finding that the WGFP can be operated consistent with Senate Document 80 meaning no impact to the United States obligations to the beneficiaries, including West Slope beneficiaries, of the Colorado Big Thompson (C BT) Project, and (2) adopts an enforceable provision recognizing that if the River District does not challenge the WGFP permitting decision, that it does not waive any legal rights regarding federal decisions involving the same or similar legal issues. Fleming anticipated that that these conditions will be satisfied in the context of Reclamation s final record of decision on the WGFP, which is expected in the first part of In the meantime, Fleming said the River District has worked extensively with Grand County on matters related to the WGFP and the operation of the C BT Project including the Grand Lake Water Clarity Agreement and the upcoming initiation of the WGFP Carriage Contract negotiations. With respect to the Grand Lake clarity issues, Fleming reported there have been several meetings with Reclamation and Northern to help ensure that a workable solution can be reached to meet the Grand Lake water quality standard. An important goal in that regard has been to avoid a stalemate over a massively expensive fix that could require a separate congressional authorization and appropriation. With regard to the WGFP carriage contract negotiations, the River District has assisted Grand County in efforts to secure the best possible negotiating position in Reclamation s negotiation process. Fleming said the River District believes Grand County s specifically identified role in Senate Document 80 entitles the county (and its advisers) to a more involved position in the negotiations than Reclamation s standard sit and observe role for members of the public in its contract negotiation process. Another goal is to ensure that the Windy Gap water that Grand County is entitled to use pursuant to the IGA can be stored in Granby Reservoir for no charge or at a very affordable rate. Colorado River District Mission Statement: Meredith Spyker, center, was commended by the Colorado River District Board of Directors for her five-year anniversary of working with the district. She is flanked by Administrative Chief Audrey Turner and Board of Directors President James Newberry. 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 it is entitled.