Northern Colorado secession proposed plans mucked up by water rights

stateofnorthcoloradojune2013.jpg

I’ve been avoiding a post about the proposed secession of several northeastern Colorado counties and the creation of a new state of North Colorado. The effort would be a giant waste of taxpayer dollars in response to the childish reaction from the Weld County Commissioners to the recent legislative session. Upon hearing the news my first reaction was that the new state — whose primary industries are agriculture and oil and gas — would not get any water in the deal. Who would write the compact, which state’s engineer would administer the South Platte River, would Colorado deliver any water at the Weld County border past what is required for the South Platte River Compact?

The idea has attracted attention despite being unworkable. Here’s a report from Eric Brown writing for The Greeley Tribune:

Weld County commissioners want to create a new state to allow northeast Colorado’s robust agriculture and oil and gas industries to thrive under regulations of their own design — rules different than those created through the influence of the state’s urban lawmakers. But they also say serious discussions have yet to take place as to how Colorado and the nation’s 51st state —­ the proposed North Colorado, made up of Colorado’s six northeast counties — would share water, the resource needed most by farmers, ranchers and petroleum companies, and virtually everyone. “It’s early in the process, and we’re not to a point yet where we’re discussing those issues, but it could be an interesting dilemma,” said Doug Rademacher, a member of the Board of Weld County Commissioners, which announced this month its desire to join the other northeastern Colorado counties in forming a new state.

Commissioners have said a collective mass of issues have cumulated during the past several years that isolate rural Colorado from the rest of the state and put those counties at a disadvantage. They’ve specifically made reference to state regulations affecting agriculture and oil and gas.

Those two industries, though, depend heavily on water, and water users in the six potentially seceding counties use the resource under a water court system in Colorado — a state they would no longer be a part of, if North Colorado came to fruition. “A water right is the livelihood of many, many people in northeast Colorado … and if you put the security of that right at risk at all — as starting a brand new state might do — that could be enough to convince people they don’t want to go forward with this (new state),” said James Witwer, a water attorney in Denver, who represents various municipalities and agricultural water users in northeast Colorado. “It would be problematic and risky.”

Eight major U.S. rivers flow from Colorado’s mountains and into surrounding states and, because of that, Colorado has agreements in place with its neighbors — compacts that require certain amounts of water to flow across state lines. Such an agreement would have to be made between Colorado and North Colorado. Although it would be the 42nd-largest state in the U.S., North Colorado’s water demands could likely be substantial for its size.

In oil and gas production, every completed horizontal well requires about 2.8 million gallons of water, and every vertical well uses about 400,000 gallons, according to numbers from the Colorado Energy Water Consortium at Colorado State University. More than 75 percent of Colorado’s oil and gas activity takes place in Weld County.

Agriculture uses about 85 percent of Colorado’s water, and four of the top five ag-producing counties in the state, in terms of dollar value, are among those interested in creating North Colorado. Weld County alone accounts for 25 percent of the state’s ag industry. “To say that it would be a ‘big task’ would be an understatement,” Witwer said of creating a water compact that both Colorado and North Colorado could agree on, adding that the legalities of doing so would likely take several years to sort out.

While agriculture uses the majority of the state’s water, farmers and ranchers don’t own all of the water they use.

For years, when there was limited money to be made in ag, growing cities along the northern Front Range bought water rights from farming and ranching families that were getting out of the business. In 1957, when the Colorado-Big Thompson Project first went into operation, 85 percent of the water in the project was owned by agricultural users, according to numbers from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in Berthoud, which oversees operations of the C-BT Project. But today, only 34 percent of the water in the C-BT — the largest water-supply project in northern Colorado — is owned by agricultural users.

Now a lot of producers, while owning some of their water, depend on renting water from cities, some of which — like Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont — wouldn’t be included in the new state. Transferring rental water across state lines from Colorado to North Colorado could make things more complicated for farmers than they are now, experts say.

Water is only going to become more precious to northeast Coloradans in the future, and water issues are only expected to become more complex. According to the 2010 Statewide Water Initiative Study, the South Platte River basin in northeast Colorado could lose as much as 190,000 acres of irrigated farmland by 2050 due to water shortages.

Weld County commissioners say Morgan, Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Washington, Yuma and Kit Carson counties have all expressed interest in the idea of forming their own state.

They said the entire Weld County board is in agreement about the initiative, which they said has been suggested by numerous Weld County residents.

Commissioners said they plan to hold several public meetings to gather input from the community on whether creating the new state is a good idea before crafting a ballot initiative by Aug. 1. Under guidelines in the U.S. Constitution, North Colorado would have to get the consent of the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. Congress to move forward with forming its own state. But many, including John Stulp, Gov. John Hickenlooper’s adviser on water, say they hope talks of North Colorado don’t go forward much more, since creating the new state would require getting over a number of “very complex” hurdles — including the water issues. “When it comes to water, nothing is simple,” Stulp said. “This certainly wouldn’t be simple. Rather than going this route, we’d like to see everyone work together to sort out what’s needed.”

Meanwhile the editorial board of The Greeley Tribune doesn’t think the idea of secession holds water. Here’s their editorial extolling the virtues of cooperation:

Since the Weld County commissioners first publicly proposed the idea of joining with several other northeastern counties to secede from Colorado and form the nation’s 51st state, there have been plenty of unanswered questions about how the effort would work.

That’s to be expected. The project still is little more than a proposal at this point. The commissioners contend a host of disagreements with a Denver-centric Legislature and governor’s office led them to propose the split. They say the “collective mass” of issues has accumulated during the past several years and have isolated rural Colorado from the rest of the state, and put those counties at a disadvantage. Weld’s main economic drivers — agriculture and energy — are under attack from the Legislature and governor’s office, even though they fill Colorado coffers, Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway said when commissioners proposed the new state earlier this month.

Still, they acknowledge they haven’t yet delved into the details.

One such detail is water, much of which would have to come from sources that reside outside the potential boundaries of the new state.

“A water right is the livelihood of many, many people in northeast Colorado … and if you put the security of that right at risk at all, as starting a brand new state might do, that could be enough to convince people they don’t want to go forward with this (new state),” said James Witwer, a water attorney in Denver, who represents various municipalities and agricultural water users in northeast Colorado. “It would be problematic and risky.”

Although North Colorado would be the 42nd-largest state in the United States, its water demands would be substantial.

In oil and gas production, every completed horizontal well requires about 2.8 million gallons of water, and every vertical well uses about 400,000 gallons, according to numbers from the Colorado Energy Water Consortium at Colorado State University. More than 75 percent of Colorado’s oil and gas activity takes place in Weld County.

Agriculture uses about 85 percent of Colorado’s water, and four of the top five ag-producing counties in the state — in terms of dollar value — are inside the potential boundaries of North Colorado. Weld alone accounts for 25 percent of the state’s ag industry.

However, much of the water on which this industry depends comes from parts of Colorado that would remain outside the new state. In fact, many farmers lease water from some of Colorado’s urban areas, such as Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont.

To provide water for North Colorado’s farmers, ranchers and oil and gas drillers, the new state would need to agree on a water compact with its southern neighbor, a task that would at best take years to accomplish.

“To say that it would be a ‘big task’ would be an understatement,” Witwer said.

Of course, these questions about water rights aren’t likely to ever really demand answers. Because neither the Colorado Legislature nor the U.S. Congress — both of which would have to approve North Colorado — have little to gain by allowing a 51st state, the prospects that the commissioners’ venture will become a reality are slim at best. Still, it’s worth examining the water problems the hypothetical state would face, because doing so can teach us valuable lessons. The story of water in North Colorado shows clearly just how easily unintended consequences can unravel even the best plans. But more importantly, the story illustrates how intertwined we all are in this state.

Geography has left us with no choice. Whether we’re negotiating a complex and uncertain intrastate water compact or simply working together in Colorado to resolve our differences, rural residents and urban residents must work together.

Clearly, Colorado is stronger united than divided.

More North Colorado Secession coverage here.

Colorado Springs briefs the Lower Ark about their stormwater program in 2013

fountaincreekmonsoonjuly2012.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs is moving on multiple fronts to address how Fountain Creek will be protected from damaging floods and how water quality will be improved. Some feel more could have been done all along, however.

Mark Pifher, an executive with Colorado Springs Utilities, updated the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District last week on the efforts to address stormwater needs. A regional stormwater task force will finish its second phase this fall. The group determined there are $900 million in stormwater needs in El Paso County, with $680 million of that in Colorado Springs. The next phase will determine how much funding is available and what strategies are needed to secure funds for the remainder. “We have been busy in the last few months, looking at Waldo Canyon and now the Black Forest Fire,” Pifher said. “We will be looking at a longterm solution in Phase 2.”

The task force is looking at different structures for funding, including property tax assessments and a regional authority of a fifth utility — on top of gas, electric, water and wastewater — to fund stormwater projects.

There are other efforts:

Colorado Springs Mayor Steve Bach also has hired a consultant to review and prioritize stormwater needs.

El Paso County has adopted its own 1041 regulations that address stormwater control in new development.

Colorado Springs is nearing completion of a drainage criteria manual that regulates new construction.

“Whatever happens, there will be a need for an election, even if there is a fee,” Pifher said.

The Lower Ark District has been critical of Colorado Springs for eliminating its stormwater enterprise in 2009. The enterprise would have provided a steady stream of funding toward stormwater projects that would protect Fountain Creek. “I applaud your efforts, but it’s two or three years too long,” said Reeves Brown, a Pueblo County board member.

More stormwater coverage here and here.

Aspinall Unit operations update: 700 cfs in the Black Canyon

crystaldamspill052009.jpg

Even with the recent increase in releases from the Aspinall Unit, the forecast for flows on the lower Gunnison River continues to decline. Without additional water, flows at the Whitewater gage are again expected to approach the 900 cfs baseflow target by this weekend.

In order to meet the environmental commitments set forth in the Aspinall ROD, releases from Crystal Dam shall be increased again, starting at 8:00 am on Wednesday, June 26, by 100 cfs (from 1,600 cfs to 1,700 cfs). This will increase flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon to around 700 cfs. At this level, flows in the canyon will be above the Black Canyon Water Right peak flow target of 685 cfs. Flows through the canyon are expected to remain at this level for the foreseeable future.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.