Saying the state will fare best if it stands together when it comes to protecting Colorado River water rights, Western Slope legislators are hailing a bill that creates a drought task force.
“It’s to get Colorado to come to the table and start talking about what we can do, rather than somebody on the eastern side of the state, or the governor, talking,” Rep. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose, who was House sponsor of Senate Bill 295, with Rep. Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, House speaker. “We’re trying to get people from the Western Slope, particularly since the Western Slope is going to have to deal with it.”
Senate Bill 295 passed 63-2, with Sens. Perry Will, R-Newcastle, and Dylan Robert, D-Eagle, carrying it in the Senate. The bill creates a Colorado River Drought Task Force, with subcommittees, to guide the development of water legislation. It is to include the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute tribes, regional water conservation districts, local government, farmers, ranchers, environmental nonprofits and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Members are charged with developing steps and tools the legislature can use to address drought in the Colorado River Basin and commitments under the Colorado River Compact through conservation of the river and its tributaries, such as the Gunnison River and the Uncompahgre. If the bill creating the task force is signed into law, its members have a short window to act: between July and Dec. 15, they are to furnish their recommendations and a summary of their work to the legislative water resources and agricultural review committee…
The bill says recommendations need to be for programs that can be reasonably implemented in a way that does not harm economic or environmental concerns in any sub-basin or region in the state. The recommendations must also fall in line with the 2019 Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan. The recommendations must further ensure any program related to acquiring water rights is voluntary, temporary and compensated, while also looking at revenue sources for the acquisition of program water. [Perry] Will and [Marc] Catlin worry about entities that are purchasing farm land, as well as buying or leasing water, especially if they are not providing adequate compensation…
“The Uncompahgre (River), we’ve got the oldest, biggest water right on the Western Slope of Colorado. Certainly, there are people looking at us,” Catlin said. He said speculators need to understand that when they buy water, they are affecting the entire ag community, not just individual farmers — and that reality needs to be part of the conversation.
WAM bought this 57-acre parcel as part of a $6 million deal in January 2020, leading some to suspect the company was engaging in investment water speculation. WAM’s activity in the Grand Valley helped prompt state legislators to propose a bill aimed at curbing speculation.
CREDIT: BETHANY BLITZ/ASPEN JOURNALISM
We headed up to the west entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park over Berthoud Pass on Day 1 and drove into the park up the Kawuneeche Valley as far as we could for the official start to our jaunt along the Colorado River. It was cloudy (and smoky?) and rained off an on. Cold and wet is pretty much my favorite weather so things were near perfect.
It was great to see the river bank to bank on the way to Kremmling. It was roiling in Byers Canyon and there is a lot of the snowpack left at higher elevations to feed the runoff in the weeks ahead.
First road charge for Coyote Gulch’s Leaf in Kremmling May 19, 2023. Note the Colorado Energy Office’s logo below the connectors on the unused charger.
After driving my 2017 Leaf for six years the range of the new Leaf, greater than 200 miles, helps immensely with range anxiety. The first road charge for the new Leaf was in Granby on the way to Rocky Mountain National Park although we could have easily waited until after the excursion in the park. I always charged the old Leaf in Granby on the way to Steamboat Springs and old habits die hard. Also, the chargers at the Kum & Go have CHAdeMO connectors which the Leaf requires for fast charging. All of the ChargePoint chargers I’ve used in western Colorado have those connectors. The free chargers provided by the Town of Kremmling were working when I tested them.
The charging infrastructure along US 40 has improved greatly since my first EV adventure to Steamboat Springs in 2017 so you can concentrate on the scenery. Much of this is due to the Colorado Energy Office’s efforts.
Moose heading down to the wetlands and the Colorado River in Rocky Mountain National Park May 19, 2023.
Click the link to read the article on the Newsweek website (Robyn White). Here’s an excerpt:
Some of the U.S’. most famous lakes could disappear as climate change worsens.
The Great Salt Lake in Utah could disappear in 10 years if nothing is done, an expert told Newsweek.
Lake Mead could reach “dead pool” in just a few years, which would plunge the Southwest into a severe water crisis.
Lake Powell hit its lowest levels ever this year.
Climate change is causing extremely long periods of drought, particularly in the western U.S—a region that has suffered extreme drought for over two decades. Rising water temperatures caused by climate change are enhancing evaporation, which in turn dries out the soil…
PHOTO CREDIT: McKenzie Skiles via USGS LandSat
The Great Salt Lake has been shrinking as more people use water upstream.
The Great Salt Lake
Utah’s Great Salt Lake— the largest saltwater lake in the Western Hemisphere—has reached historic lows in recent months. The lake has now lost 73 percent of its water. Ben Abbott, plant and wildlife sciences professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, told Newsweek that it could be gone within just ten years.
“Irrigated agriculture has diverted too much of the river flow that Great Salt Lake depends on. If we don’t increase the amount of water getting to the lake, it could be gone within a decade,” Abbott said. “Even those who live far from Utah will be affected if we lose the lake. Industry and agriculture across the country and beyond depend on magnesium and fertilizer from Great Salt Lake, and it is the most important inland wetland in the western US.”
Ringside seats to the decline of Lake Mead. Credit: InkStain
Lake Mead
Lake Mead, the largest man made reservoir in the U.S., lies on the border between Nevada and Arizona, and is formed by the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River. It is a popular recreational spot, but is now most famous for its rapidly declining water levels. Being located in an area seeing severe drought and water shortages, Lake Mead’s water—which provides for 25 million people—is being used too quickly, with no means to replenish itself. In summer last year, the lake reached its lowest level yet recorded at around 1,040 feet. This was the lowest it had been since it was constructed in the 1930s. As of May 10, the lake’s water levels stood at 1,051.07 feet. The slight rise was due to wet weather that descended on the U.S. throughout winter, but again, it provides only a short-term solution. The reservoir is inching closer to “dead pool” level, around 895 feet, which would have dire consequences for the surrounding areas—it would plunge the Southwest into a major water crisis. And experts predict that this could happen in just a few years…
“Ultimately, the only way to save the Colorado River and other major waterways in the West is to use less water. This means prioritizing system stability over maximizing all water deliveries. Our current rules, policies, and funding are not currently sufficient to protect the West for the medium or long-term,” [Karyn] Stockdale said…
Lake Powell has been about a quarter-full. The snowpack looks strong now, but it’s anybody’s guess whether there will be enough runoff come April and May to substantially augment the reservoir. May 2022 photo/Allen Best
Lake Powell
Lake Powell is another Colorado River reservoir that faces the very real threat of drying up in the near future…In February this year, Lake Powell’s water levels reached a historic low of 3,521.77 feet. The water levels has since risen to 3,532.90 feet as of May 9, but this is still dangerously low…
While the Great Salt Lake, Lake Mead and Lake Powell are of the most concern as climate change worsens, there are many others in the U.S. that face a dire future if nothing is done.
Black Canyon July 2020. Photo credit: Cari Bischoff
From email from Reclamation (Erik Knight):
The May 15th forecast for the April – July unregulated inflow volume to Blue Mesa Reservoir is 830,000 acre-feet. This is 131% of the 30 year average. Blue Mesa Reservoir current content is 468,000 acre-feet which is 57% of full. Current elevation is 7475.3 ft. Maximum content at Blue Mesa Reservoir is 828,000 acre-feet at an elevation of 7519.4 ft.
Based on the May forecasts, the Black Canyon Water Right and Aspinall Unit ROD peak flow targets are listed below:
Black Canyon Water Right
The peak flow target is equal to 6,400 cfs for a duration of 24 hours.
The shoulder flow target is 810 cfs, for the period between May 1 and July 25.
Aspinall Unit Operations ROD
The year type is currently classified as Average Wet.
The peak flow target will be 14,300 cfs and the duration target at this flow will be 2 days.
The half bankfull target will be 8,070 cfs and the duration target at this flow will be 20 days.
The ramp up for the spring peak operation has been paused as flows on the Gunnison River at Whitewater are already above the spring peak target flow. Flows on the Gunnison River at Delta are close to the flow level that could impact the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant. Currently Crystal Reservoir is spilling with a total release of 5,300 cfs. Flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon are 4,600 cfs.
With the projected increase in flows on the North Fork of the Gunnison River, releases at Morrow Pt Dam (which is now controlling the spill at Crystal Dam), will be reduced by a total of 1,400 cfs by tomorrow, May 19th. This should bring flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon down to around 3,200 cfs. This release rate will be maintained through the weekend and may possibly continue well into next week.
This adjustment to the release plan is based on the latest forecast for river flows in the Gunnison Basin. Adjustments in Aspinall Unit release rates may be made in either direction to achieve downstream target flows or if water gets too high at points along the Gunnison River through Delta.
Click the link to read the article on the Sky-Hi News website (Kyle McCabe). Here’s an excerpt:
Smith Creek Crossing and Sun Outdoors residents started making public comments at Granby Board of Trustees meetings in April expressing concerns about their water rates increasing from $10 per thousand gallons to $50 per thousand gallons. At the second meeting with public comments dominated by residents of the Sun Outdoors’ properties, the trustees decided to hold a workshop session during their May 9 meeting to discuss the West Service Area water system, which serves Sun Outdoors and its residents.
Town Manager Ted Cherry included a memo in the board’s meeting packet that outlines the history of the West Service Area and its water rates. When Sun bought its property from the town in 2018, it agreed to make necessary improvements, including to the water system, Cherry said…Cherry’s memo states the agreement also requires Sun to cover all the costs involved with operating the West Service Area system…In February 2021, SGM, the town’s engineers, completed a draft rate study for the West Service Area. It used estimates for water usage and total cost of operation provided by Sun, according to Cherry. Those figures came in at 69,562,125 gallons and $527,900 for 2023, respectively. SGM used the number to estimate that 2023 potable water rates in the West Service Area would be $7.59 per thousand gallons. When Sun later applied for initial acceptance of its water system improvements, it prompted a final rate study, which SGM completed in August 2022. Cherry wrote in his memo that the study used updated figures for water usage and total cost of operation based on data collected by the town.
I’m heading up to the Colorado River headwaters with Mrs. Gulch this morning for the start of a few days of touring next to the river. Posting may be intermittent if I’m too awestruck to doomscroll on the Web. There’s also a chance we may find ourselves driving some of the tribs.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
After nearly a year wrestling over the fate of their water supply, California, Arizona and Nevada — the three key states in the Colorado River’s current crisis — have coalesced around a plan to voluntarily conserve a major portion of their river water in exchange for more than $1 billion in federal funds, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The consensus emerging among these states and the Biden administration aims to conserveabout 13 percent of their allocation of river water over the next three years and protect the nation’s largest reservoirs…But thorny issues remain that could complicate a deal. The parties are trying to work through them before a key deadline at the end of the month, according to several current and former state and federal officials familiar with the situation…
State officials have suggested they could make a deal on their own and are resisting a May 30 deadline to comment on the alternatives the federal government has laid out in that process, according to people familiar with the talks. The review process is intended to define Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s authority to make emergency cuts in states’ water use, even if those cuts contradict existing water rights. These developments represent a new phase in the long-runningtalks about the future of the river. For much of the past year, negotiations have pitted California against Arizona, as they are the states that suck the most from Lake Mead and will have to bear the greatest burden of the historic cuts that the Biden administration has been calling for to protect the river. But these states now appear more united than ever and are closing their differences with the federal government, even as significant issues remain unresolved…
Some water authorities in the West want to ensure that any deal that emerges would entail binding commitments among the Lower Basin states, which draw from Lake Mead and consume more of the river each year than the states of the Upper Basin: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
“We want to support the Lower Basin if they have significant additional reductions, verifiable, binding and enforceable,” said Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s commissioner for the negotiations. “Are we going to make a choice to do better? If we don’t want the secretary to manage us, can we show we can manage ourselves?”
[…]
But the bleak reservoir levels outlined in that review date back to September and the weather has improved markedly since then. Abundant snow cloaked the Rocky Mountains over the winter and atmospheric rivers doused California’s drought. Water levels in the big reservoirs have started to rise. Colorado River experts have grown increasingly confident that the most draconian cuts in fact wouldn’t be needed, at least this year. And the $4 billion in federal funding from the Inflation Reduction Act pledged to this problem meant that those that voluntarily gave up their rights to water would be well-compensated for it. Those conditions helped the Lower Basin negotiators come up with a plan to volunteer about 3 million acre-feet of cuts total until 2026, when a major renegotiation of the rules of the river is scheduled to begin. This scale of cuts is smaller than some of the most dire scenarios outlined in the environmental review if reservoirs had continued to plummet.
Map credit: AGU
Click the link to read “Western states and feds are closing in on a landmark deal to prevent Lake Mead from plummeting further” on the CNN webslite (Ella Nilsen). Here’s an excerpt:
Top water negotiators from California, Arizona and Nevada have discussed leaving 3 million acre-feet of water in Lake Mead over the next four years, the sources said – while cautioning negotiations with the US Interior Department were fluid and could change. The tentative amount would be around 10% of the states’ normal water allocation and would be in addition to previously agreed-to cuts that were negotiated in 2019 and 2007. The federal funding being offered for water cuts was part of $4 billion in drought relief funding passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. States and the US government are trying to clinch a framework agreement ahead of May 30, the end of the comment period for a dramatic environmental analysis released by federal officials last month. That analysis could force the three states to cut nearly 2.1 million additional acre-feet of their Colorado River usage in 2024 alone. At the time, top federal officials said publicly they hoped their proposal would spur discussion among states who have spent the past year sparring over cuts. Even though the states have struck an agreement among themselves, finalizing the details with the federal government could prove tricky. Outstanding issues include a proposal that some of the water cuts go uncompensated by the feds, and whether the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming will go along with the agreement…
Western water officials say a key goal this year is to build water elevation at Lake Mead. Some of that will be refilled naturally from the good winter runoff, but state officials said more should come from farmers, cities and tribes reducing their water use in exchange for federal dollars.
“What I’m hoping happens is people who were considering putting their water into the (federal water cut) program still do,” Arizona’s top water official Tom Buschatzke told CNN in April. “It’s a bit easier to do the conservation when you can be compensated and when it’s really wet, versus when it’s really dry and you’re looking at forced cuts – a lot more uncertainty about how far down Lake Mead could go and how big those cuts might get.”
[…]
Before this month’s breakthrough, California, Arizona and Nevada struck an agreement among themselves, which was unveiled to Deputy Interior Sec. Tommy Beaudreau and Touton at an April 21 meeting in Nevada, one source told CNN. But some new tensions between the states and feds have cropped up over the analysis produced by the Interior Department last month. States were hoping their plan for voluntary, compensated cuts could essentially happen in the place of federal action on the river, an idea federal officials pushed back on, according to one source familiar with the meeting. And there has also been haggling over what level Lake Mead would have to drop to in order for the federal government to be able to step in and make additional unilateral cuts.
Updated Colorado River 4-Panel plot thru Water Year 2022 showing reservoirs, flows, temperatures and precipitation. All trends are in the wrong direction. Since original 2017 plot, conditions have deteriorated significantly. Brad Udall via Twitter: https://twitter.com/bradudall/status/1593316262041436160
Throughout the Colorado River Basin, it’s been a wet winter. There is great snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, where the Colorado River and many of its tributaries begin. And in Arizona, the Salt and Verde Rivers benefited from the above average winter precipitation. This spring, Phoenix Valley residents received a beautiful reminder that there is a river running through the heart of the region—the Salt River, or Rio Salado.
The river, which is typically dry due to damming and water demands in the Valley, has been flowing through the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the cities of Mesa, Tempe, and Phoenix since late March. The Nina Mason Pulliam Rio Salado Audubon Center sits on the south bank of the river, just two miles south of downtown Phoenix.
Spring flooding used to be a regular occurrence before dams were built in the 1900s on the Verde and Salt Rivers. Indigenous communities have thrived in the region for millennia thanks to these rivers. Spring floods benefit the ecosystem by hydrating the soil, germinating riverside plant seeds, replenishing groundwater, and attracting birds like Great Egrets and Green Herons.
Here are some questions asked and answered about the Salt River/Rio Salado:
Why is the Salt River flowing now?
The Salt River Project (SRP) manages the Salt and Verde reservoir systems that bring water into the Phoenix region. This winter created an impressive snowpack that resulted in a special occurrence—the SRP reservoirs filled up to near-capacity. In early March, to prepare for spring’s rising temperatures and increasing snowmelt, SRP began releasing water—from the Verde River through Bartlett Dam and on the Salt River through Roosevelt Dam—to create additional storage capacity within the reservoirs to safely capture the upcoming snowmelt and river runoff.
How much water has flowed down the river so far?
According to SRP, more than 700,000 acre-feet of water from the Salt and Verde Rivers has been released from their reservoirs downstream. This has meant there is enough water to flow to the Gila River, and the Gila River has rejoined with the Colorado River near Yuma. One acre-foot of water can provide for approximately 3.5 Arizona households per year.
Will the Salt River flow like this every time we have a wet winter?
It depends. When there is more water than the reservoir systems can hold, SRP has to release water into the riverbed (yay!). SRP is also planning infrastructure projects to raise the height of Bartlett Dam to increase the water storage capacity in Barlett Reservoir. This will capture and store more water on the Verde River, for delivery to water users. This could also mean less water released downstream into the Salt River, depending on rain and snowfall amounts.
Will this wet winter bring us out of drought?
While this winter provided relief to our short-term drought conditions in Arizona and throughout much of the Colorado River Basin, it would take many years of greater-than-average snow and rainfall to recover from the record-breaking megadrought we are experiencing. To stabilize Lake Mead and Lake Powell, we need to use less water.
What can we do to support birds, people, habitat, and rivers?
We can turn towards our waterways—by reinvesting and revitalizing key stretches of rivers with habitat restoration projects to bring back the trees and plants that once thrived, creating not only habitat, but green spaces, bike paths, and community amenities as well.
We can also manage groundwater throughout all of Arizona. Right now, in more than 80% of the state (outside of the “Active Management Areas”), a landowner can drill a well and pump unlimited amounts of groundwater, even if it causes declines in or dries up neighboring wells; even if it leads to the depletion of a nearby community’s water supplies; and even if the pumping depletes the water flowing in connected rivers.
Where can I enjoy the Salt River near downtown Phoenix?
You can visit the Rio Salado Audubon Center at no cost. Located along the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Area, you can use the accessible trails. Come experience native plants and wildflowers, wildlife like racoons and beavers, and of course, birds—more than 200 species of birds have been sighted along the area. Blue-gray Gnatcatchers and Abert’s Towhees are frequent visitors to the Rio Salado Audubon Center.
We are grateful for years like this one when we see the Salt River come back to life. And while we don’t expect years like this all that often, it reminds us of the importance of rivers, lakes, and steams—for people and birds.
Watch the recent local news coverage of the flowing Salt River / Rio Salado near the Nina Mason Pulliam Rio Salado Audubon Center:
It’s avalanche season! It’s flood season! It’s fire season! And it’s happening all at the same time in a relatively small geographical area. I mean, so far there aren’t fires setting off avalanches, or avalanches dousing fires, at least not that I’ve heard of, but still.
Big Water: We filled you in on some of the flooding and its consequences last week. Parachute, Colorado, was partially inundated at around the same time. The Yampa River in northwestern Colorado cranked up to nearly 20,000 cubic feet per second, which isn’t a record or anything but is still impressive. The San Juan River near Bluff got up to 5,800 cfs and is likely to go significantly higher in the second half of the month, as Navajo Dam operators start releasing 5,000 cfs — yeehaw! — beginning May 15. That will combine with high-elevation snowmelt to make for some fast and fun rafting, I reckon. Inflows into Lake Powell (from the San Juan, Colorado, Dirty Devil, and Escalante Rivers) have totaled more than 56,000 cfs at one time during the last couple of weeks, causing the reservoir’s surface level to shoot up about 12 feet since it’s mid-April low-point. And flows in the Virgin River in southwestern Utah are hovering above 1,000 cfs, making it likely that the popular Narrows area in Zion National Park may not be open for a while.
There’s more water on its way. While the snow has completely melted from most low- and mid-elevation areas, the mountains still hold a substantial amount of frozen water. In fact, it’s enough to form harmful or deadly …
… Avalanches: Twenty-five people have been killed by sliding snow in the U.S. so far this season, with 12 of the fatalities coming in March, April, and May. Eleven of the fatalities were in Colorado, making this season among the state’s deadliest since 1951. While the big snow may have contributed to the high numbers, it should be noted that the deadliest avalanche year was 2020-21, when the snowpack was generally pathetic. The number of fatalities in any given year are more likely a function of the number of people in the backcountry combined with the snowpack’s stability, no matter how much of it there is.
Source: Colorado Avalanche Information Center
One of the more dramatic accounts of an avalanche doesn’t end with a fatality, thankfully, although it sounds like it was darned close. It occurred on King Solomon Mountain near Silverton, Colorado, earlier this month, when a group was getting in some spring skiing. First one skier set off a slide, escaping relatively unscathed. Then another did the same, with graver consequences. Connor Ryan, the first skier, described the harrowing events in an Instagram post:
“I was caught & carried a few hundred feet and left in an exposed place with tremendous overhead hazard and additional avalanche risk. My friend Ryan (@rymcc199) was caught and carried over 1600 feet and suffered a severe compound fracture of his femur, which separated his leg almost entirely at the knee.”
Ouch. Thanks to the efforts of Connor and their companions along with the Silverton search and rescue folks, all ended as well as one could hope, given the circumstances. Read about it in Connor’s Instagram post by clicking below. Be sure to watch his videos, too — if you want to be eternally terrified of skiing, that is:
But hanging out up high in the snow probably will keep you safe from … Fires: Yes, it seems that even with the big winter snows and the wet spring and all the water in the rivers the landscape in some places remains flammable. The Las Tusas Fire in San Miguel County, New Mexico, reportedly was sparked around mid-day on May 10 and reported that afternoon. By that evening it had blown up to 1,000 acres and burned several structures with zero containment. The fire is near the burn scar of last year’s massive Hermit Peak-Calf Canyon blaze.
Random Real Estate Room
Last week I wrote about Bluff, Utah, getting gentrified. What I failed to mention is the effort to mitigate some of that gentrification. So let’s re-up this one, since these folks still need to raise more funds for this important purchase:
The Wildlands Conservancy has launched an effort to acquire a 320-acre private parcel at the lower end of Cottonwood Wash near Bluff, Utah, and at the far southeastern edge of Bears Ears National Monument. Why bother with 320 acres when you’ve got a 1.3 acre national monument right next to it? Because if it remains in private hands, the parcel — through which Lower Cottonwood Wash is accessed — could be developed, disturbing cultural sites in that stretch of canyon, and/or closed off to passers-through, potentially putting an important chunk of public land off-limits to the public. The effort needs a lot of cash to buy this valuable parcel. To learn more about the project and to donate, check out the Cottonwood Wash Acquisition site.
Tidbits
Remember the Land Deskdispatch about Rico and the land-sale there? If so, you might also remember the mention of Atlantic Richfield, the mining company doing reclamation there, suing the corporate descendants of other mining companies to get them to foot a bit of the hefty ($63 million or more) cleanup tab. The court finally handed down a decision and it’s not so good for Atlantic Richfield: Quite simply, they waited too long to sue, so the only relief they’ll get is reimbursement of a $400,000 payment to the EPA. I gotta say, that kind of sucks. I mean, it’s true that Atlantic Richfield knowingly took on liability for the site when it purchased it back in the 1970s. But they never actually mined it; most of the mess was made by their predecessors. So shouldn’t the predecessors have to help out a bit? Probably so. But I guess the law doesn’t agree.
Last October, at the same time that President Biden designated Camp Hale National Monument, he also announced a proposal to ban new oil and gas development or mining on 220,704 acres along Western Colorado’s Thompson Divide. Biden’s proclamation was all that was needed for the national monument to become official, thanks to the Antiquities Act. But the Thompson Divide mineral withdrawal requires a more lengthy process, which got under way earlier this month. The Forest Service will be accepting public comments until June 16.
Enchant Energy just won’t give up on its quest to keep Four Corners area coal plants cranking out juice and polluting indefinitely. Enchant is the startup that emerged in 2019 for the sole purpose of taking over the San Juan Generating Station in northwest New Mexico and spending $1.6 billion to install carbon capture and keep operating the plant for years into the future. That effort fell through and the San Juan plant stopped mucking up the air last September. So now Enchant has just shifted its plans about a dozen miles to the south, to the Four Corners coal plant on the Navajo Nation. The U.S. Energy Department has selected the Navajo Transitional Energy Company — which owns a small percentage of the power plant — “to begin award negotiations” to vie for federal subsidies for its carbon capture proposal. This project would have all of the same drawbacks as the San Juan proposal. So …
Foto Friday
Satellite photos, that is, along with some snowpack charts that show:
How much more snow there still is in the high country to feed runoff;
How much more show there is now than there was one or two years ago;
What a snowpack chart looks like on the ground, if you will.
Let’s start with the summit of Wolf Creek Pass and surrounding areas. Here’s the snowpack chart. You can see that they in late-March/early-April the snowpack was reaching the highest levels on record. But it started to melt off very quickly — possibly in part due to dust on the snow — and it looks like a few warm days could bring it down to median levels or even below. Still, significantly more snow remains than at this same time in 2022, boding well for the San Juan River and the Rio Grande.
In early May 2022 snow remained only at the highest elevations. And even then it was all covered with a thick layer of dust, decreasing albedo and speeding up snowmelt and evaporation. Source: Sentinel Hub
This year there’s still snow almost everywhere but on the valley floors and south facing slopes. And while there’s also dust on the snow, possibly contributing to the relatively rapid melt off, it’s still not nearly as bad as in 2022.
Now we fly our satellite to the west, and zoom in on the La Plata Mountains and the surrounding lowlands. This time the comparison is between this year and 2021, which was especially dismal in the La Platas, snow-wise, leading to one of the driest summers for farmers in recent memory. It’s probably safe to say the ditches won’t run dry this year. While snow levels didn’t get into record-breaking territory, they were substantial (poking into the 90th percentile), and the snowmelt seems to be a bit slower than usual, thanks to cooling and a bit of new snow in the last couple of days.
In 2021, melt-off was almost complete by May 11.
This year there’s even still snow on lower-elevation north-facing slopes. And there was enough moisture to allow officials to conduct a controlled burn on Animas Mountain just outside Durango.
The Land Desk is a reader supported publication. You know what that means, right? Upgrade or sign up for a paid subscription now and get access to all of the archives, unlock premium content and feel darned good about yourself.
Your donation today directly supports The Wildlands Conservancy’s acquisition and stewardship of a 320-acre private property at the mouth of Cottonwood Wash. Its location at the southern boundary of Bears Ears National Monument controls access to tens of thousands of acres and dozens of miles of Cottonwood Wash and its tributaries. This important inholding is a crucial piece of the puzzle for protecting the larger landscape.
If the property is not acquired for conservation, it could be developed for private use, locking tribal members, researchers, scientists, and the public out of a critical portion of Bears Ears National Monument. Such a disastrous loss of access would prevent cultural site stewardship and ceremony, archaeological research, outdoor education, ecological restoration, spiritual refreshment, and world-class recreation.
Successful acquisition of Cottonwood Wash will result in the conveyance to each of the five Tribes in the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition a conservation and cultural use easement, ensuring that the property is never developed and that the Tribes will have access to the property’s unique cultural resources in perpetuity.
Together, we can protect this beautiful section of Cottonwood Wash, leveraging a small conservation acquisition into greater protections for and access to the third largest national monument in the lower 48 states.
One hundred percent of your donation supports the acquisition and stewardship of Cottonwood Wash.
Click the link to read the article on the Pagosa Springs Website (Monica Nigon). Here’s an excerpt:
As of 2 a.m. on May 10, the San Juan River at Pagosa Springs was flowing at 238 percent of normal at 2,940 cubic feet per second (cfs), measured at 9 feet at the gage, according to the San Juan River Basin SNOTEL site, which measures snowpack and river flows and is operated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
A graph from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) clocks the snow water equivalent (SWE) on Wolf Creek Pass at 135.5 percent of normal as of May 10.
The inflow of water into [Navajo Lake] was 5,791 cfs, as opposed to May 9, 2022, when the inflow was 2,575 cfs…Furthermore, the Navajo River near Chromo sits much higher than average, running at 239 percent of normal as of May 10.
“The reservoirs are full,” said District Manager Justin Ramsey of the Pagosa AreaWater and Sanitation District (PAWSD), “and there’s still a lot of snow up there. I think it will probably be a good year.”
Houseboats on Lake Powell on Dec. 13, 2021, near Wahweap Marina, where the quarter-mile-long boat ramp is unusable due to low water levels. The Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner has said 2 to 4 million more acre-feet of conservation is needed to protect the system, leaving water managers wondering what authority the feds have over upper basin water projects. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Public Radio website (Michael Elizabeth Sakas and Rachel Estabrook). Here’s an excerpt:
Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
How long is the Colorado River and where does it start?
The river is 1,450 miles long and originates near Grand Lake, Colorado, in Rocky Mountain National Park…
Map credit: AGU
How many people depend on the Colorado River?
The Colorado River system supplies tens of millions of people across the West with water to drink, shower, and work, and it irrigates around 5 million acres of farmland…
Updated Colorado River 4-Panel plot thru Water Year 2022 showing reservoirs, flows, temperatures and precipitation. All trends are in the wrong direction. Since original 2017 plot, conditions have deteriorated significantly. Brad Udall via Twitter: https://twitter.com/bradudall/status/1593316262041436160
A wet and snowy weather pattern for much of the West brought at least a brief reprieve this winter. In the upper river basin, snowpack peaked at more than 150 percent of normal. While that was not as dramatic as what accumulated in California’s Sierra Nevada after a winter of repeated storms, snowfall set records in some parts of southwestern Colorado. The snow was slow to melt in early spring, with colder-than-normal temperatures and periods of mountain snow extending into late April. But early May warmth has triggered a surge of snowmelt. Temperatures rose into the 70s for several days early in the month in the mountains of western Colorado and eastern Utah…
After Lake Powell’s surface dropped to about 3,520 feet above sea level in mid-April, it has been largely rising. That accelerated to an increase of more than a foot per day over the past week, according to data from the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which owns and operates Glen Canyon Dam. The lake’s height reached about 3,533 feet above sea level on Tuesday. And the lake is forecast to rise 70 to 71 feet, in all, by the fall. That allowed the bureau in late April to release torrents of water from Lake Powell downstream as part of an experiment exploring potential rehabilitation of river wildlife and ecosystems along the Grand Canyon…
The water flows into Lake Powell are substantial, but in context, are not reason for celebration, Leeflang said. The forecasted 70-foot rise translates to the lake’s stores of water increasing from about 20 percent of its capacity to 30 percent, he said. [ed. Luke Runyon says that this
The May 1st forecast for the April – July unregulated inflow volume to Blue Mesa Reservoir is 830,000 acre-feet. This is 131% of the 30 year average. Snowpack in the Upper Gunnison Basin peaked at 138% of average. Blue Mesa Reservoir current content is 434,000 acre-feet which is 52% of full. Current elevation is 7470.4 ft. Maximum content at Blue Mesa Reservoir is 828,00 acre-feet at an elevation of 7519.4 ft.
Based on the May forecasts, the Black Canyon Water Right and Aspinall Unit ROD peak flow targets are listed below:
Black Canyon Water Right
The peak flow target is equal to 6,400 cfs for a duration of 24 hours.
The shoulder flow target is 810 cfs, for the period between May 1 and July 25.
Aspinall Unit Operations ROD
The year type is currently classified as Average Wet.
The peak flow target is currently 14,300 cfs and the duration target at this flow is currently 2 days.
The half bankfull target is currently 8,070 cfs and the duration target at this flow is currently 20 days.
Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations ROD, releases from the Aspinall Unit will be made in an attempt to match the peak flow of the North Fork of the Gunnison River to maximize the potential of meeting the desired peak at the Whitewater gage, while simultaneously meeting the Black Canyon Water Right peak flow amount. The latest forecast for flows on the North Fork of the Gunnison River shows a high peak flow occurring near the middle of next week. Flows in the tributaries downstream of the North Fork confluence are also very high, which will help with meeting the flow targets on the lower Gunnison River at the Whitewater gage.
Therefore ramp up for the spring peak operation will begin on Friday, May 12th, with the intent of timing releases with this potential higher flow period on the North Fork of the Gunnison River. Releases from Crystal Dam will be ramped up according to the guidelines specified in the EIS, with 2 release changes per day, until Crystal begins to spill. The release schedule for Crystal Dam is:
The current projection for spring peak operations shows flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon peaking at 6400 cfs in order to achieve the desired peak flow and duration at Whitewater. Actual flows will be dependent on the downstream contribution of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and other tributaries. Higher tributary flows will lead to lower releases from the Aspinall Unit and vice versa.
Graph showing increased flow this year on the Colorado River at Lees Ferry gauge. Credit: John Fleck: Utton Center University of New Mexico
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (John Fleck):
The Bureau of Reclamation is currently blasting water out the bottom of Glen Canyon Dam as Lake Powell rises with this year’s big snowmelt.
(The big spike is an experimental flow pulse.)
Lake Mead, as a result, is rising for the first time in a while, with the wrecked speedboats disappearing – and with it, the apparent sense of urgency about cutting our water use.
Downstream the big ag districts and municipalities are taking advantage of the wet year to put off decisions about how, in the long term, to bring water use into balance with available supply.
THE LOWER BASIN STRUCTURAL DEFICIT, CIRCA 2023
The classic Reclamation “structural deficit” slide put the gap between available water and use when the Upper Basin meets its legal delivery requirement, and folks in the Lower Basin take their full allotment, at 1.2 million acre feet per year.
Under the latest official Reclamation forecast, the Lower Basin states are reducing their use by 756,000 acre feet below their nominal 7.5 million acre foot allotments. Yay for using less water! But it still falls short of the 1.2 million acre feet needed to close the structural deficit, and is far less than the amount that might be needed to refill a bit, to provide a safety cushion against a run of bad years. The only reason Lake Mead is projected to rise this year is thanks to a big snowpack and a bunch of resulting bonus water from the Upper Basin.
Here are the numbers, with officially forecast 2023 use in millions of acre feet as of May 10, 2023
2023
pct
California
4.196
95.4%
Arizona
2.334
83.4%
Nevada
0.214
71.3%
In other words, the pattern of Lower Basin water users putting off hard decisions about reducing their use, depending instead on Upper Basin bonus water, continues. (See “Hookers and Blow on the Lower Colorado River” – this has been going on a while.)
It is possible that Lower Basin use is gonna drop more this year than the official forecast suggests, that the current talking now underway will yield more water use reductions. I keep hearing that. I keep not seeing it in the official numbers.
UPPER BASIN WATER USE REDUCTION EFFORTS
According to the Denver Post’s Conrad Swanson, quoting the Upper Basin’s Chuck Cullom, the Upper Basin’s system conservation program hasn’t come up with much water either
PLEASE TELL US YOUR PLAN
That’s it. That’s my ask of the Colorado River Basin leadership community.
This image was taken during the peak outflow from the Gold King Mine spill at 10:57 a.m. Aug. 5, 2015. The waste-rock dump can be seen eroding on the right. Federal investigators placed blame for the blowout squarely on engineering errors made by the Environmental Protection Agency’s-contracted company in a 132-page report released Thursday [October 22, 2015]
May 11, 2023 (DENVER) — The Colorado Natural Resources Trustees today approved a $5 million settlement with the federal government to resolve natural resource damages claims at the Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund Site, including damages from the 2015 Gold King Mine blowout.
The United States’ alleged liability stems from two different sources. The U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management manage federal lands within the Bonita Peak Mining District where mining activity historically occurred. Federal law imposes liability for natural resources injuries on owners of sites where they occur. In addition, the trustees alleged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was partly liable for the Gold King Mine release.
The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety began reclamation efforts at the Gold King Mine in 2008. Beginning in 2014, EPA initiated Superfund response activities focused on assessing a blockage in an adit at the Gold King Mine. On August 5, 2015, while EPA contractors were scraping away material from above the blockage, acidic pressurized water began leaking from the mine. The flow quickly increased in volume and released three million gallons of acid mine-impacted water that had been impounded behind the blockage. The contamination then released into downstream waters including the Animas and San Juan Rivers. EPA immediately conducted an emergency response to address the discharging Gold King mine with an interim water treatment plant.
The EPA listed the Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund Site encompassing several dozen abandoned mines on the National Priorities List in September of 2016 and is currently taking response actions to assess and respond to releases of hazardous substances into surface water from historic mining activities within the site. To date, the EPA has spent over $75 million on response efforts at the site.
The $5 million settlement with the federal government announced today will enable the trustees to fund projects to restore damaged natural resources from the spill and other releases of hazardous substances within the Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund Site. The trustees will consult with regional stakeholders—including local governments, not-for-profit groups, and community members—to solicit proposals, and allocate the money for environmental restoration projects.
“The damage to Southwestern Colorado natural resources remains a matter of great concern. In this action, we are securing valuable funds to address these damages and invest in the restoration of natural resources in this part of our state,” stated Attorney General Phil Weiser, chair of the Colorado Natural Resources Trustees. “We have vigilantly pursued claims for natural resource damages and will work hard to invest the funds we have recovered to best serve the affected communities.”
“Inactive and abandoned mines that operated before Colorado had mining laws continue to have unfortunate and ongoing impacts to Colorado’s waters and landscape. The issues surrounding Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund site remain challenging and I appreciate the cooperation among the trustees and the federal government in settling our State’s natural resource damage claims,” said Dan Gibbs, a trustee and the executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “The Department of Natural Resources and our Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety will continue to work with our federal partners and other entities to reduce the impacts of legacy mining in our state.”
“Preserving our natural resources so we can protect the environmental and public health of Colorado communities is a top priority for our department,” said Jill Hunsaker Ryan, a trustee and the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. “These funds will support the restoration of natural resources impacted by these damages, help Southwestern Colorado recover, and help us build a healthier state for all. We will continue to take necessary action to protect Colorado’s rivers, lakes, and groundwater from harmful pollutants.”
Colorado’s Natural Resources Trustees have recovered natural resources damages for the site several times in the past.
In December of 2021, the trustees approved a $1.6 million settlement agreement with Sunnyside Gold Corporation (SGC) to resolve claims that the company caused or contributed to releases of acidic, metals-laden mine wastewater into the Upper Animas River watershed. SGC operated the Sunnyside Mine from 1986 until 1991.
The trustees received approximately $230,000 in natural resource damages from a 2011 claim against the Standard Metals company regarding its operations at the mining district.
The State settled with the Blue Tee Corporation in 2018 for $468,000, which can go toward the Superfund cleanup within the mining district or to restoring injured natural resources.
These damages will likely be pooled with the recent settlement money as the trustees solicit proposals for projects from local stakeholders.
The May 1st forecast for the April – July unregulated inflow volume to Blue Mesa Reservoir is 830,000 acre-feet. This is 131% of the 30 year average. Snowpack in the Upper Gunnison Basin peaked at 138% of average. Blue Mesa Reservoir current content is 434,000 acre-feet which is 52% of full. Current elevation is 7470.4 ft. Maximum content at Blue Mesa Reservoir is 828,00 acre-feet at an elevation of 7519.4 ft.
Based on the May forecasts, the Black Canyon Water Right and Aspinall Unit ROD peak flow targets are listed below:
Black Canyon Water Right
The peak flow target is equal to 6,400 cfs for a duration of 24 hours.
The shoulder flow target is 810 cfs, for the period between May 1 and July 25.
Aspinall Unit Operations ROD
The year type is currently classified as Average Wet.
The peak flow target is currently 14,300 cfs and the duration target at this flow is currently 2 days.
The half bankfull target is currently 8,070 cfs and the duration target at this flow is currently 20 days.
Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations ROD, releases from the Aspinall Unit will be made in an attempt to match the peak flow of the North Fork of the Gunnison River to maximize the potential of meeting the desired peak at the Whitewater gage, while simultaneously meeting the Black Canyon Water Right peak flow amount. The latest forecast for flows on the North Fork of the Gunnison River shows a high peak flow occurring near the middle of next week. Flows in the tributaries downstream of the North Fork confluence are also very high, which will help with meeting the flow targets on the lower Gunnison River at the Whitewater gage.
Therefore ramp up for the spring peak operation will begin on Friday, May 12th, with the intent of timing releases with this potential higher flow period on the North Fork of the Gunnison River. Releases from Crystal Dam will be ramped up according to the guidelines specified in the EIS, with 2 release changes per day, until Crystal begins to spill. The release schedule for Crystal Dam is:
Crystal Dam will be at full powerplant and bypass release on May 15th. Crystal Reservoir will begin spilling by May 16th and the peak release from Crystal Dam should be reached on May 18th. The flows in the Gunnison River after that date will be dependent on the timing of the spill and the level of tributary flow contribution. Estimates of those numbers will be determined in the upcoming days.
The current projection for spring peak operations shows flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon peaking at 6400 cfs in order to achieve the desired peak flow and duration at Whitewater. Actual flows will be dependent on the downstream contribution of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and other tributaries. Higher tributary flows will lead to lower releases from the Aspinall Unit and vice versa.
The San Juan River, below Navajo Reservoir. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
From email from Reclamation (Susan Novak Behery):
May 10th, 2023
In order to begin moving sediment in advance of the spring peak release, and to slow the reservoir rise, the Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled in the release from Navajo Dam from 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1200 cfs for the evening of Friday, May 12th , and from 1200 cfs to 2000 cfs on Monday, May 15th, where it will remain for much of the week. The release changes will occur as per the following schedule:5/12 (Friday)
10:00 PM: Increase from 500 to 700 cfs
5/13 (Saturday)
12:00 AM: Increase from 700 to 900 cfs
2:00 AM: Increase from 900 to 1100 cfs
4:00 AM: Increase from 1100 to 1200 cfs
5/15 (Monday)
8:00 AM: 1200 to 1400 cfs
10:00 AM: 1400 to 1600 cfs
12:00 PM: 1600 to 1800 cfs
2:00 PM: 1800 to 2000 cfs
This increase is being made in advance of the ramp up to the spring peak release, which is still scheduled to begin at the end of next week. PLEASE STAY TUNED FOR UPDATES AS THIS OPERATION IS DEPENDANT ON ON-THE-GROUND CONDITIONS AND WEATHER.If you have any questions, please contact Susan Behery (sbehery@usbr.gov or 970-385-6560), or visit Reclamation’s Navajo Dam website at https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/nvd.html
Click the link to read the article on the NOAA website (Theo Stein):
In the thrall of a 22-year megadrought, the record snowpack that built up in southwestern Colorado was a welcome break in a string of dry winters.
Topographic image of the Crested Butte–Gunnison region, showing the location of SPLASH surface instrumentation (colored icons) and potential NOAA snow survey flight tracks (purple). Together, the SPLASH network and airborne snow survey measurements provide a unique set of observations that can inform seasonal water supply and flood risk outlook. Credit: NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory
For a pair of NOAA scientists, part of a team conducting an intensive two-year study of how precipitation forms in the East River watershed near Crested Butte, the softening spring snows provided just a little extra challenge for a scheduled ski and snowshoe trek into the rugged mountain valley in late April.
“Ski conditions were not great,” said Janet Intrieri, a research scientist with NOAA’s Physical Sciences Laboratory. “In the morning it was super crusty, in the afternoon it was super mashed-potato-y. But we got what we needed.”
When scientists from PSL and CIRES installed a comprehensive, state-of-the-art observing network in the East River watershed in the fall of 2021 to study how precipitation forms in the complex, high-altitude terrain, they couldn’t have imagined a year like this. As storm after storm plastered the mountains with snow this winter, the network of radars, instrumented towers, and meteorological sensors measured temperatures, precipitation amounts, soil moisture and snowpack properties. Complementing this array were two stations installed nearby by Global Monitoring Laboratory field engineers and researchers consisting of sophisticated radiometers, ceilometers, a total sky imager, a cloud optical depth sensor, and other meteorological instruments.
NOAA scientist Janet Intrieri pauses halfway through digging a snow pit where she and Chris Cox collected samples for analysis of dust in the snowpack. Dust on snow speeds melting. Credit: Chris Cox, NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory
The mountains of data collected by the study, dubbed SPLASH, will be analyzed alongside data collected by an adjacent field campaign directed by the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. The findings help improve several important NOAA models, including the Unified Forecast System, Rapid Refresh Forecast System, and National Water Model. The ultimate goal of this project will be more accurate weather and river flow forecasts in watersheds critical to the southwestern U.S. water supply.
“We’re simultaneously studying all of the aspects of the lower atmosphere and hydrometeorology that we can,” Intrieri said. “That’s kind of what the special sauce is.”
On the to-do-list that day for Intrieri and fellow PSL scientist Chris Cox was collecting bags of snow at regular intervals from the side of an eight-foot deep pit they dug. One of the layers was marked by a thin line of fine dust blown in from the red desert soils to the southwest. In spring, dust-on-snow events hasten the melt, the dynamics of which are important for water managers who rely on mountain snowpack to fill the reservoirs to understand. The snow was bagged for researchers at Purdue University to analyze.
Bagged snow samples collected at a SPLASH study site in the East River watershed near Crested Butte were taken to the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory for analysis. Credit: Christopher Cox, NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory
Cox said one of the main goals for this particular research station is to learn about how sunlight, temperature and the presence of dust particles influence whether snow turns to meltwater or evaporates directly into the atmosphere. Sometimes, there’s a big gap between how much water is in the snowpack and how much water ends up in reservoirs and streams.
“Improving our understanding of these physical processes will help us give water managers more accurate forecasts of how much runoff they can expect from Colorado’s snowpack each spring,” he said.
This winter’s abundance was a marked change from 2021-2022, which started off dry, peaked with a monstrous New Year’s storm known locally as the “Santa Slammer,” then quieted down through spring, resulting in an average year.
“Capturing the extremes is always great,” said Gijs deBoer, a CIRES scientist working at PSL. “That’s where a lot of action is when it comes to water supply issues.”
OAA scientist Chris Cox checks an Atmospheric Surface Flux Station, designed and built by PSL and CIRES to collect data that measures all aspects of the exchange of energy between land and atmosphere. By analyzing these measurements, researchers can gain insight into both local and regional weather and climate systems. This unit is sitting on top of two stacked picnic tables buried under the snow. Credit: Janet Intrieri, NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory
Since 2000, waves of drought have depleted the flow of the Colorado River, relied upon by six states and 40 million people from Denver to Los Angeles, by as much as 20 percent, causing water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell to fall to critically low levels. Climate change is projected to further reduce flows by another 10 to 50 percent in the next few decades.
The long-term drought has forced the six basin states to wrestle with the realization that there’s simply not enough water in the Colorado River system to satisfy all uses, which adds a sharp urgency to efforts to improve precipitation estimation and runoff forecasts.
For now, meltwaters are rushing off the surrounding West Elk mountains into the East River Valley, replenishing – for this year at least – soils and streams, and promising scientists a bounty of data to examine.
“It’s stunningly beautiful back there, and we picked a great weather window,” Intrieri said. “Great conditions, we got what we needed: thumbs up all around.”
For more information, contact Theo Stein, NOAA Communications, at theo.stein@noaa.gov.
Colorado lawmakers approved seven major new water bills this year, including one that approves millions in more funding for the Colorado Water Plan, another that makes restoring streams easier, and a third that creates a high-profile Colorado River task force.
The 2023 General Assembly, which adjourned May 8, also approved four others that address water wise landscaping, water use in oil fields, “don’t flush” labels for the disposable wipes that plague water systems, and one giving more muscle to an interim legislative committee whose job is to evaluate water problems and propose laws to fix them.
Two of the bills, the labeling requirement, as well as the legislative committee changes, have been signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis. The five remaining bills await his signature.
Funding Water Projects
Each year the Colorado General Assembly considers the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) “projects bill,” which this year—Senate Bill 177—appropriates $95 million from three sources: CWCB’s construction fund, severance taxes on oil and gas production, and sports betting revenue. No general fund tax dollars are used. An important part of the funding goes to support grants for projects that help implement the state water plan.
A major difference in this year’s bill is the amount of money coming from sports betting. Last year’s bill appropriated $8.2 million from that source, the first time since the passage of Proposition DD in 2019, which legalized sports betting and authorized the state to collect up to $29 million in taxes on gambling proceeds, with over 90% of that going for water. SB 177 triples that amount, appropriating $25.2 million to fund projects that help implement the state water plan. Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Avon, a bill sponsor, noted that sports betting revenue provides critical funding “that never existed before for water.” As he pointed out, “that number keeps growing every year which is positive for our water future.”
Construction of Beaver Dam analogue Photo courtesy of the Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project.
Stream Restoration
Senate Bill 270 allows minor stream restoration activities to proceed without having to secure a water right. Its intent is to promote the benefits natural stream systems provide—clean water, forest and watershed health, riparian and aquatic habitat protection—by mitigating damages caused by mining, erosion, flooding and wildfires. Minor stream restoration activities include stabilizing stream banks and beds, installing porous structures that slow down water flow and temporarily increase surface water area, and rechanneling streams to recover from wildfire and flood impacts.
At the bill’s initial hearing in the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Roberts, committee chair and a bill cosponsor, emphasized that stream restoration activities “help promote recovery from natural disasters like fires and floods.” He also noted the bill could “help access federal dollars that are available in sort of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity right now that could be used for these very valuable projects.”
Another bill cosponsor, Sen. Cleave Simpson, R-Alamosa, a water right holder and water conservation district manager, recognized “the value and importance of healthy rivers and streams and what it means to all water users.”
As introduced, SB 270 would have created a “rebuttable presumption” that a stream restoration project does not cause material injury to a vested water right. It was amended in committee after testimony by several witnesses who expressed concern over the bill’s potential impacts on water rights—loss of water due to evaporation and infiltration into soils, and delayed timing of delivery downstream. They all expressed support for the concept of stream restoration and with the amendments adopted, pledged to work together in the future to strike a balance between stream restoration benefits and protecting water rights.
Updated Colorado River 4-Panel plot thru Water Year 2022 showing reservoirs, flows, temperatures and precipitation. All trends are in the wrong direction. Since original 2017 plot, conditions have deteriorated significantly. Brad Udall via Twitter: https://twitter.com/bradudall/status/1593316262041436160
Colorado River Drought Task Force
Faced with two decades of drought in the Colorado River Basin, Senate Bill 295 creates a task force to make legislative recommendations that will help water users most directly affected by drought and aid the state in meeting its commitments under the Colorado River Compact. The task force’s focus is on reducing water demand and on ensuring that any effort to achieve that goal by fallowing irrigated farmland must be done on a voluntary, temporary and compensated basis.
The task force is made up of 17 voting members representing agricultural, municipal, industrial, conservation, environmental and tribal stakeholders from across the state, with the state engineer serving in an advisory capacity. It includes a sub-task force to study and make recommendations on tribal matters comprised of five members, including representatives from the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The task force and sub-task force must report any recommendations, which are to be made by majority vote, to the General Assembly’s Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee by Dec. 15, 2023.
Testimony in the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee raised concern with the bill’s timing. Several Front Range municipal water providers said the state’s primary focus should be on supporting federal efforts to force lower basin states—primarily California and Arizona—to reduce their river use since they have consistently exceeded their compact allocations while the Upper Basin states have never fully utilized theirs. Sen. Roberts, the bill’s sponsor, acknowledged that but emphasized “There is drought happening in Colorado right now … The purpose of the task force isn’t just to consider interstate obligations, it’s also to make recommendations surrounding drought mitigation and drought security.”
Others worried that the bill might split the state’s West Slope and East Slope water users, but lawmakers pledged the task force would seek cooperative solutions. “This bill is going to codify a collaborative path forward on some difficult issues facing the Western Slope and the entire state,” said Rep. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose.
This home is part of the City of Aurora’s water-wise landscape rebate program. Aurora City Council last month passed an ordinance that prohibits turf for aesthetic purposes in all new development and redevelopment, and front yards. Photo credit: The City of Aurora
Water-Wise Landscaping
Senate Bill 178 is designed to reduce barriers to residents in homeowner association (HOA)-governed communities (roughly half the state’s population) who want to plant landscapes that use less water than bluegrass lawns. To encourage HOAs and owners of single-family detached homes to work together in planting landscapes that conserve water, improve biodiversity, and expand the amount of food grown in private gardens, SB 178 requires HOAs to adopt three pre-planned water-wise landscape designs that homeowners can install if they want to replace non-native turf. It doesn’t preclude other designs with HOA approval. Although the bill removes some aesthetic discretion, HOAs retain the authority to reject designs for safety, fire or drainage concerns.
Water Conservation in Oil and Gas Operations
House Bill 1242 seeks to reduce freshwater use in oil and gas operations and increase recycling and reuse of produced water, which is water in or injected into the ground and coproduced with oil or natural gas extraction. It is often disposed off-site but can be recycled and reused if properly treated.
The bill requires oil and gas well operators to report periodically to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission on the volume of freshwater and recycled or reused produced water used, produced water removed for disposal, and produced water recycled or reused in another well and removed for recycling or reuse at a different location. The commission will use this data in adopting rules by July 1, 2024 to require a statewide reduction in freshwater use and a corresponding increase in recycled or reused produced water in oil and gas operations.
The bill also creates the Colorado Produced Water Consortium in the Department of Natural Resources to make recommendations to the General Assembly and state agencies by Nov. 1, 2024 on legislation or rules necessary to remove barriers to recycling and reuse of produced water. The consortium consists of 28 members that will work with state and federal agencies, research institutions, colleges and universities, non-government organizations, local governments, industries, environmental justice organizations and members of disproportionately impacted communities in conducting its work and making recommendations.
Disposable Wipes and Water Quality
Aimed at reducing sewer backups and water pollution in Colorado, Senate Bill 150 requires a manufacturer of disposable wipes sold or offered for sale in the state, and a wholesaler, supplier or retailor responsible for labeling or packaging those products to label them “Do Not Flush.” Disposable wipes include baby, cleaning and hand sanitizing wipes made of materials that do not break down like toilet paper when flushed. They end up clogging pipes and releasing plastics into waterways, costing water utilities a lot of money to fix.
Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee
Senate Bill 10 turns the interim Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee into a year-round committee. The committee will meet at the call of the chair, conduct hearings and vet issues as they come up instead of having to wait until after each session adjourns. It will not duplicate the functions of existing standing committees, but will continue to recommend bills to the Legislative Council, which will refer them to relevant committees for action.
Larry Morandi was formerly director of State Policy Research with the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver, and is a frequent contributor to Fresh Water News. He can be reached at larrymorandi@comcast.net.
As of May 1, snow-water equivalent (SWE) values remain above to much-above normal for the majority of the region, especially in Utah. April precipitation and temperatures were below to much-below normal for the region. Streamflow volume forecasts are above to much-above average for the Upper Colorado River and Great Basins, and the inflow forecast for Lake Powell is 172% of average, continuing to provide much-needed water after record-low water levels. Regional drought conditions significantly improved during April and now drought covers only 32% of the region, driven by wetter conditions in Utah. Neutral ENSO conditions are expected to persist throughout the spring, and there is an increased probability of above average temperatures for parts of Utah and Wyoming during May, and parts of Utah and Colorado from May-July.
April precipitation was below normal for much of the region. Less than 50% of normal April precipitation occurred in northern Wyoming, particularly in Big Horn County, eastern Utah, particularly in Carbon and Emery Counties, and northeastern Colorado. Record-dry conditions occurred in east-central Utah, mostly in Carbon County. Areas of above normal precipitation occurred in southwestern to central Wyoming from the Upper Green River to western North Platte Basins, and southeastern Colorado along the Arkansas River Basin. An area of much-above normal precipitation occurred in Lincoln and Uinta Counties in southwestern Wyoming.
Regional temperatures during April were below normal. Large portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming experienced much-below normal temperatures, particularly in Wyoming where temperatures were 6 to 10 degrees below normal. Record-cold temperatures for April occurred in the Upper Green River region of southwestern Wyoming and northernmost Utah, mostly in Rich County.
Regional snowpack is near to much-above normal for the entire region except for the Arkansas River Basin where May 1 SWE is slightly below normal at 81%. Much-above normal SWE exists for much of the region, including northeastern Wyoming, southwestern Colorado, and all of Utah, with a staggering 1,256% of normal SWE for the Six Creeks Basin on the Wasatch Front and 953% of normal SWE for the Southeastern Utah Basin. Extremely high percent normal SWE is driven by continued deep snowpack at low elevation sites. For example, the Louis Meadows SNOTEL site (6,700 feet) in the Six Creeks Basin is at 9,933% of normal because May 1 median SWE is 0.3” and current SWE is 29.8”. Statewide percent median SWE was 139% for Colorado, 249% for Utah, and 140% for Wyoming. As of May 1, snowpack is generally near normal east of the Continental Divide in Colorado and in northern Wyoming, and above normal on the West Slope of Colorado and in southern Wyoming.
Seasonal streamflow volume forecasts are above average to much-above average for most regional river basins. Streamflow forecasts are highest for the Great Basin where forecasted volumes are 132-451% of average. Below normal (60-90%) seasonal streamflow volumes are forecasted for the South Platte and Arkansas Basins, and near-normal (90-110%) volumes are forecasted for the Big Horn, Powder, Snake, Upper Colorado (mainstem), and Yellowstone River Basins. Above normal seasonal streamflow (110-130%) is forecasted for the Rio Grande and Upper Green River Basins, and much-above normal streamflow (>130%) is forecasted for the remaining regional river basins, with streamflow forecasts reaching above 300% for sites in the Provo/Utah Lake, Sevier, Six Creeks, Virgin, and Weber River Basins. Seasonal streamflow forecasts for most large Upper Colorado River Basin reservoirs are much-above normal, leaving only Fontenelle with an above normal forecast of 113% and Green Mountain with a below normal forecast of 84%. The inflow forecast for Lake Powell is 172% of normal.
Regional drought conditions were mixed, with improvement throughout most of Utah and degradation throughout the Front Range and south-central portion of Colorado. At the end of April, drought covered 32% of the Intermountain West, down from 45% at the end of March. Drought conditions significantly improved in Utah; drought covered 65% of the state at the end of March, decreasing to 19% at the end of April. Drought conditions slightly improved in Wyoming, from 37% to 30% coverage by the end of April. Drought conditions worsened in Colorado, increasing in coverage from 36% to 44% by the end of April. Pockets of extreme (D3) drought remain in southeastern Wyoming and Colorado and developed in south-central Colorado. Exceptional (D4) drought continues in southeastern Colorado’s Baca County.
West Drought Monitor map May 2, 2023.
Neutral ENSO conditions continued in April and are expected throughout the spring. In some regions of the Pacific Ocean, sea surface temperatures warmed to above average, indicating a shift towards El Niño in the coming months. There is a 62% chance of El Niño developing during May-July, and a greater than 80% chance of El Niño by the fall. There is an increased probability of above normal temperatures during May in western Wyoming and northern Utah. The May-July NOAA seasonal forecasts predict an increased probability of above normal temperatures in southeastern Utah and southern Colorado.
Significant April weather event. Little Cottonwood Canyon (LCC) experienced a historic avalanche cycle in early April caused by historically deep snowpack (903” of snowfall at Alta), intense snowfall, and rapid warming. From 4/3 – 4/5, upper LCC received 63” of snow with 4.5” of SWE. Temperatures were very cold during the storm, including a record minimum temperature at the Alta Guard site of 1F on 4/6. By 4/10, the maximum temperature warmed to 56F, a daily record. A daily record temperature of 56F was also set on 4/11 and concluded a full three days without below freezing temperatures, which increases the risk for wet slab avalanches.
High snowfall and warm temperatures caused very dangerous avalanche conditions, resulting in the closure of LCC Road from 4/2 – 4/13 with a brief opening on the morning of 4/7 to allow people to leave the canyon. The length of this canyon closure is unprecedented. Two distinct avalanche cycles occurred during the 12-day canyon closure. The first avalanche cycle occurred during and immediately after the storm. The second avalanche cycle was a wet avalanche cycle that began around 4/9 and was caused by rapidly warming temperatures and the lack of below freezing conditions at night. Many dozens of avalanches occurred naturally or as a result of avalanche mitigation efforts in avalanche paths that impact the road or infrastructure in LCC. Avalanches buried the road in 15-20 locations up to 30 feet deep and several hundred yards wide. Some paths hit the road multiple times. Many avalanche paths that ran have a historical avalanche frequency of more than 50 years and these paths enlarged their run-out zones, mowing down mature aspen, fir, and oak trees. One path, Coalpit #4, ran so large that the avalanche crossed Little Cottonwood Creek and traveled upslope to hit the road. Another slide occurred on 4/6 where a slide path across the road from Snowbird slid naturally and buried the edge of the beginner ski slope while the ski area was open. Snowbird immediately closed the resort and performed a probe line search of the area to ensure no one was buried. Fortunately, no one was injured in the incident.
The outflow at the bottom of Navajo Dam in New Mexico. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
From email from Reclamation (Susan Novak Behery):
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
NAVAJO UNIT FORECAST FOR
SPRING OPERATIONS
May 9, 2023
High snowpack in the San Juan River Basin this year has led to an above-average inflow forecast into the Navajo Reservoir. The latest most probable inflow forecast from the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center has increased to 160% of average inflows due to snowmelt runoff from April through July.
The forecast now allows for a spring peak release as recommended by the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP). The release will ramp up slowly, peaking at 5,000 cfs for 21 days before ramping back down. The currently planned schedule is below. As this operation is entirely dependent on weather, inflows, and on-the-ground conditions, please stay tuned for updates and changes.
The current schedule for planned changes is below. A notice will be sent out prior to each release change.
Date
Day
End of Day Release (cfs)
Notes
5/9/2023
Tue
500
5/13/2023
Sat
800
5/15/2023
Mon
1200
5/18/2023
Thu
2000
Begin ramp up
5/19/2023
Fri
3000
5/22/2023
Mon
4000
5/23/2023
Tue
4600
5/24/2023
Wed
4800
5/25/2023
Thu
5000
Hold at 5,000 cfs for 21 days
6/14/2023
Wed
4800
Begin ramp down
6/15/2023
Thu
4500
6/16/2023
Fri
4000
6/17/2023
Sat
3000
6/18/2023
Sun
2800
6/19/2023
Mon
2500
6/20/2023
Tue
2000
6/21/2023
Wed
1500
6/22/2023
Thu
1200
6/23/2023
Fri
1000
6/24/2023
Sat
800
6/25/2023
Sun
500
This operation is subject to changes in river flows and weather conditions and will be coordinated daily with local, state, and federal agencies to ensure objectives are met in a safe manner.
Areas in the immediate vicinity of the river channel may be unstable and dangerous. Please use extra caution near the river channel and protect or remove any valuable property in these areas.
For more information, please see the following resources below:
Bureau of Reclamation:
Susan Behery, Hydrologic Engineer, Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office: sbehery@usbr.gov or 970-385-6560
Waters from a creek in Parachute continue to rise and threaten nearby residences, a town official said.
Town Manager Travis Elliott said Thursday [May 4, 2023] morning that the flow of Parachute Creek is currently at its highest it has been in nearly 50 years. The creek runs from the high country north of town into the Colorado River.
During a high runoff season in 1976, the creek reached a depth of 9.47 feet. As of 11 a.m. Thursday, a monitor showed the creek had reached a depth of 9.42 feet deep. The creek also reached a flow of 1,120 cubic feet per second, as of 3 p.m. Thursday.
Sandbags surround a residence in Parachute during May 2023 as flooding continues to threat buildings. Town of Parachute/Courtesy
The rising water level has caused flooding in multiple spots throughout town, which is threatening up to 16 buildings and residences. This includes neighborhoods along Cardinal Way, near Grand Valley High School, Cottonwood Park and Russey Avenue on the north side of Interstate 70.
“In some places it looks like the swamplands of Louisiana,” Elliott said. “But, overall, I think we are in good shape thanks to the generosity and resiliency of our community members.”
There have so far been no indications of evacuations. Community members have spent this past week setting up sandbags and barriers in the hopes of keeping the rising water levels at bay.
“We’ve gone through about 1,000 sandbags,” Elliott said.
Structures being directly threatened by water include sheds, shops and various outbuildings, as well as homes. One residential basement is already flooded in three feet of water, Elliott said.
The city is also concerned the rising waters could reach the bottom of local bridges while the city is monitoring its sewer lift station at the wastewater treatment plant.
One Cardinal Way resident, Brandon Renck, said his backyard is currently being threatened by water.
“That’s definitely swirling around our house,” he said. “Some of the neighbors down the street have it worse than us. It’s definitely scary.”
Renck said his backyard is adjacent to Parachute Creek and the water damaged his landscaping. He also said he had a “really nice fence that got swept away.”
“We have a row of sandbags on our property,” he said. “If it gets high onto our grass, it would get to our back door.
We have friends we can stay with. Other than that, there’s not a whole lot that we can do.”
Mayor Tom Rugaard said, instead of going to practice, he brought members of his wrestling team to help put up sandbags. The Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Grace Bible Church, other high school kids and various residents have helped with mitigation efforts. The Garfield County Sheriff’s Office, its emergency manager, and the city of Rifle have made it clear they’re on standby, ready to help when necessary, the town said.
On Tuesday, the town had at least 40 volunteers helping fill sandbags, some as young as six as well as senior citizens.
“It’s been really cool, and I’m really proud of the people in our area who have come out of the woodwork to help the people in need,” Rugaard said.
“It’s really nice to be a part of a community that jumps in and helps others out.”
While the help has been nice, Rugaard did express some frustrations over the lack of data keeping for creeks and other elements.
Drone footage of flooding in Parachute in May 2023. Town of Parachute/Courtesy
“We have all these agencies that watch the Colorado River for us, but as far as tributaries? There’s not a lot of information out there,” he said. “There’s tools out there, but it would be nice to know how much snowpack is left and how that’s going to affect us yet.”
Elliott said there’s cooler weather in the forecast, which can hopefully help bring down the rising levels of Parachute Creek.
“We know there’s a lot more coming,” he said. “It’s all a matter of how fast it melts.”
Here’s a drone video of the flooding:
Garfield County is providing sandbags to residents in unincorporated areas who may be at risk of flooding as the local snowpack melts and rivers and streams rise. Up to 20 filled sandbags may be available on site at Garfield County Road and Bridge locations or residents can pick up 50 empty sandbags that they can fill off site.
The bags area available from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Rifle Road and Bridge campus, 0298 County Road 333A, and by appointment only from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Glenwood Springs facility, 7300 Highway 82. Residents of unincorporated western Garfield County can also pick up unfilled sandbags at the De Beque Fire Protection District station, 4580 U.S. Highway 6. Those bags can be filled at the Cowboy Chapel at the corner of county roads 204 and 211, just north of De Beque.
Residents living within cities or towns should contact those municipalities directly for assistance with issues related to potential flooding. Contact Garfield County Road and Bridge at (970) 625-8601 for more information or to schedule an appointment to pick up sandbags at the Glenwood Springs location.
Visit garfield-county.com for local updates on flood conditions and possible impacts and sign up for Garfield County Emergency Communications Authority (GarCo911) alerts at garco911.com/.
Glen Canyon Dam just upstream from Lee’s Ferry where the Upper Basin ends and the Lower Basin begins. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, which make up the Colorado River’s upper basin, launched the System Conservation Pilot Program late last year, offering money to farmers and others willing to forgo their water use this year. So far the program has struggled, with few people applying. The granted applications amount to less than 2% of the smallest amount of water federal officials hope to save throughout the entire Colorado River Basin. Photo credit: Simon Morris
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Conrad Swanson). Here’s an excerpt:
One way to save massive amounts of water from the drying Colorado River — state and federal officials had hoped — was to effectively buy water this year from farmers and ranchers with a $125 million conservation program. But very few are taking the offer. Or those willing to sell were turned away.
“It’s a comical mess,” Shaun Chapoose, chairman of northeast Utah’s Ute Indian Tribe, said. “They ain’t fixing nothing.”
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, which make up the river’s upper basin, launched the System Conservation Pilot Program late last year, offering money to farmers and others willing to forgo their water use this year, restarting a water-saving initiative that ran just a few years ago. This time around, though, the program is slated to spend twice as much to save a fifth less water, Colorado River officials say. Between the four states, 88 applications came in offering to save some water, Chuck Cullom, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission, said. The commission approved more than 80% of them…
If each of the program’s approved applications works out as expected the upper-basin can expect to save about 39,000 acre-feet at a cost of about $16 million, Cullom said. That’s less than 2% of the smallest amount of water federal officials hope to save. Cullom said the program came together quickly because of dire conditions on the river. That timing made it difficult for farmers to participate. And he said potential participants weren’t clear on how best to apply or what kind of money they could expect in return for their water…
The concept is fairly simple. A farmer, rancher or even a city holds the rights to a certain amount of water that they’re allowed to draw from the Colorado River (or its tributaries) in a given year. The System Conservation Pilot Program had $125 million to dole out, offering them to use less. A farmer growing corn will use a certain amount of water in a typical year. But if they’re willing to grow barley instead, which might use two-thirds as much water, the state could pay them for the difference they’ve saved. Or they could offer not to grow anything, saving more water and theoretically earning even more money from the program. Expand that offer throughout each of the four upper-basin states and the hope is that enough people sign up to conserve a substantial amount of water. The more water left in the Colorado River, the higher the levels stay at lakes Powell and Mead, the more water that’s available to generate hydroelectricity, irrigate crops in Arizona and California and flow into major cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Yes, that diagram again. I was chastised by readers last week for using it – partly for the ‘Antique’ in the diagram’s title, but also for not adequately explaining what the diagram shows. I apologize for the latter. These posts tend to run long and demand a lot more of readers than the 15-second attention span for which Americans are derided. But just to keep them down to a couple thousand words or so, I find myself having to go through some things too quickly in order to get to whatever point I was aiming for. Brevity unfortunately is not the soul of my wit.
But having a sense of the structure and infrastructure of our big dams is critical to understanding what is going on along the Colorado River these days, where it is easy to confuse the river itself (which is experiencing chronic low flows but is not ‘drying up’) with the ‘river management system’ (which really could dry up critical stretches of the river under the current management regime). The ‘river management system’ is the integrated set of physical structures along the river for storing the river’s water and distributing it to users – and the operating systems whereby those structures are managed.
The ‘Supplemental Environmental Impact Study’ the Bureau of Reclamation is doing now is basically an analysis of its own operating systems for the big structures on the Colorado River, and how those systems might be radically changed with an equitable distribution of impacts on humans – systems that could have been changed gradually over the past several decades, the past century even, to reflect undeniable evolving realities, both natural and cultural, but now must be done with radical surgery – the call for an almost-immediate reduction in Lower Basin uses of two million acre-feet.
This might be what life in the Anthropocene will mostly be on many fronts: learning how to live well enough with the world we have imposed on the world we found here. A recreated world where some cultural works were done naively and maybe profligately, under assumptions now needing correction – which one might hope we will learn to begin sooner rather than later – or too late, period.
Graphic via Holly McClelland/High Country News.
So it is fitting to look critically at what we’ve done along the ‘First River of the Anthropocene’ – trying not to fall into hypocritical analysis, gnawing on the hands that feed us. And on that spectrum of critical analysis, I do need to explain, if not defend, using a diagram that calls the ‘plumbing’ of a major element in the management system we’ve imposed on the Colorado River ‘antique.’
I will say first that I do not necessarily think of ‘antique’ as a derogatory term (although that was probably intended by the creators of this diagram). If an automobile is fifty years old and still running, it qualifies for an ‘antique’ license plate; that’s cool, an achievement for those who kept the car functional. I think of the word as more descriptive than judgmental: an antique is an artifact whose time is past but which reflects that time, something old but with an element of class, something that summons memories of a previous time, a time we want to remember but not necessarily carry forward.
So, being more than 50 years old at this point – is Glen Canyon Dam an antique? We can start with an examination of its ‘plumbing,’ which says something about its life and times. (My doctor uses colonoscopies for a similar analysis.)
1983 – Color photo of Glen Canyon Dam spillway failure from cavitation, via OnTheColorado.com
One piece of plumbing not shown on the diagram is the dam’s spillways – two huge ‘drains’ up at the 3,700-foot elevation, near the dam’s 3,715-foot crest (for context, 583 feet above the original streambed). The purpose of the spillways is to keep the reservoir from filling to the point where it would go over the crest. Glen Canyon’s spillways have only been used once, in 1983, when a very wet May and hot June caught the dam managers unaware, with the reservoir already too full to perform its flood-control function. The spillways proved to be not up to the task of getting the flood waters past the dam; the water pouring down them caused a cavitation problem – a million tiny ‘air-hammers’ beating on the concrete with enough cumulative force to break it up. The managers knew there was a problem when large chunks of concrete, then sandstone, started washing out the bottom of the spillway outlets. That threatened the integrity of the dam itself; it was necessary to close off the spillways, lining the top of them with sheets of plywood four feet high and praying that the water would stop rising before it topped the plywood. It did stop in time, and the dam was saved. The spillways were rebuilt, hopefully resolving the cavitation problem, and have not been used since – and at this point, given the projections about climate change, it is hard to imagine the reservoir ever being that full again. The spillways alone might qualify as ‘antiques,’ built for a river that needed them (once) but may no longer exist. (Oh great river gods, please make me eat my words!)
During the 1983 Colorado River flood, described by some as an example of a “black swan” event, sheets of plywood (visible just above the steel barrier) were installed to prevent Glen Canyon Dam from overflowing. Source: Bureau of Reclamation
For the dam managers, however, to ‘spill’ water at all is a mark of bad management; their ideal is for every gallon of water contained by the dam to be released through openings 210 feet below the spillways, at hydropower generation level, the 3,490-foot elevation (see diagram). Those openings into the dam drop the water through pentstocks a couple hundred vertical feet to turbines in generators the size of small houses; on its way to its designated use downstream, the water generates electricity. The higher the reservoir level, the more pressure the water’s weight exerts in pushing the water through the turbines; with the reservoir at high levels, the Glen Canyon generators can produce annually up to five billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. In 2022, however, with the reservoir level only around 35 feet above the pentstock inlets, it only produced 2.6 kilowatt-hours. (Bureau figures)
The Bureau’s semi-panicky call in 2022 for massive reductions in use basin-wide was based on projections forward of another couple water years like the 2020-22 period; under the current river management regime, the level of the reservoir would have dropped below the level of the pentstock intakes in a couple years, and year-round power generation would have been impossible.
The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo.
Even if that were to happen, however, it would still be possible to move water downstream from Powell Reservoir, through river outlet works with intakes 120 feet lower down in the dam, at the 3,370-foot elevation. The river outlets there are four big pipes, each eight feet in diameter, with a total flow capacity of 15,000 cubic feet per second – when there’s a lot of water in the reservoir to push water through them. If the water pressure stayed at that level, and all four tubes worked 24/7/365, it would be possible to move around 10 million acre-feet (maf) through the dam annually and down to Mead Reservoir, roughly the amount the Bureau has been releasing from Mead for Lower Basin and Mexican use – plus the system losses for which no one has wanted to claim responsibility.
That 10 maf leaving the system at the lower end obviously becomes problematic if only 6-8 maf are flowing into the system at the upper end, as has been the recent situation. For one thing, the Bureau is not sure the outlet works can stand that kind of constant use; they are getting old, and may not have been built for constant use anyway. So if the Bureau were able to keep only three tubes running all the time, with one in maintenance mode, the amount of water that could be moved at full pressure would drop to just about the Upper Basin’s Colorado River Compact commitment – 7.5 maf plus the Upper Basin’s share of the Mexican obligation (750,000 af).
But as the water level in the reservoir dropped closer to the outlet works intakes – 6-7 maf inflow minus 8 maf outflow equals a storage decrease of 1-2 maf/year – the water pressure through the tubes would also drop, and below the 3,430-foot elevation, it would no longer be possible to push the full Upper Basin commitment to the Lower Basin and Mexico through the tubes.
Map credit: AGU
Worst case – if the reservoir level dropped below the 3,370-foot elevation, it would no longer be possible to move any water at all past the dam, even though there would still be just under two million acre-feet left in storage – the ‘dead pool.’ At that point, the Lower Basin states would either have to do something completely nonconstructive like sue somebody (Upper Basin states? Interior Department? The Bureau?), or argue about which states should pay how much to Upper Basin water users to let their water (not federally controlled) flow to Powell to try to raise the level back above the 3,370-foot elevation. And most of the Upper Basin water rights junior to the Compact are not a bunch of rugged individualist farmers and ranchers; they are the big transmountain diverters – Colorado’s Front Range cities, the Santa Fe-Albuquerque corridor, the Salt Lake basin, who are already ‘lawyered up.’
The ramshackle ‘Law of the River,’ grounded in appropriation law and followed to the letter of the laws, would have nothing to offer to relieve that situation; it is easier to imagine Paolo Bacigalupi’s ‘Water Knife’ war commencing.
That is an overview of Glen Canyon Dam’s plumbing – pretty standard for a big 20th century dam, designed to operate optimally when the reservoir is more than two-thirds full and able to maintain a full power head in releasing water through the turbines for – oh yeah, not primarily power generation, but the dam’s main job of providing dependable water for agricultural and domestic users downstream. A specific warning in the Colorado River Compact (IV(b)).
Now to the question: is Glen Canyon Dam an ‘antique’? I think, at this point, given the prognostications for the future of the regional water supply, we could truly say that the dam was built for a different era, a different river – some of which river may have existed only in the minds of the dam builders. The ‘Hassayampa romance,’ carried along, like Deacon Holmes’ wonderful one-hoss shay, ‘for a century to the day’ – the day the Bureau finally abandoned its paper surplus calculations and called a shortage.
In addition to working on new river operation protocols, the Bureau now has a team working on ways to possibly modify the dam, undoubtedly at considerable cost, maybe enlarging the outlet works, maybe generating some flow of electricity through openings lower in the dam, and maybe constructing tunnels to bypass the dam entirely, leaving Mead Reservoir as the river’s major storage.
The latter concept could relieve a problem that the dam has created for ‘today’s river’ through the Grand Canyon: the beaches and sandbars that are essential as night stops for the billion-dollar Grand Canyon recreational boating industry are eroding away, with no replacement sand and silt getting past the dam. This is being dealt with now by occasional staged ‘floods’ like the one just recently: pouring 200,000-plus acre feet of water over 2-3 days down through the Grand Canyon to stir up sediment that has slumped from the beaches down into the riverbed, in hopes that it will be redeposited on a beach downstream. Ultimately this mostly just escalates the passage downstream of all the beach material with only irregular and inadequate deposits of new material from side streams. That this ultimate losing effort was done in April 2023, with Powell Reservoir under 30 percent full, but anticipating a runoff that might get it all the way up to half-full or only half-empty, depending on your psychological inclination…. There’s an underlying desperation there that is not goimng to let us look back on this period with any pleasant sense of nostalgia. But we might look back on antiquities like Glen Canyon Dam as a reminder of the consequences of operating on assumptions and standards not fully grounded in demonstrable reality.
A problem with this analysis, however, is that for better or worse, it evaluates Glen Canyon Dam out of context. To really understand why we have Glen Canyon Dam at all, it is necessary to see our river’s physical structures in the larger context of the less visible political and legal infrastructure that led us to pile five million yards of concrete (with internal plumbing) in the river’s path in that particular place. That is another great story in the evolution of this mixed bag we call America. Up next in a couple weeks; stay tuned.
Delph Carpenter’s original map showing a reservoir at Glen Canyon and one at Black Canyon via Greg Hobbs
A photo captured on May 3, 2023 shows the Dolores River flowing underneath a CDOT bridge structure located on Colorado Highway 141 at mile point 88.5. River flow rates are nearing 10-year flood event levels. (Courtesy photo/CDOT)
The Colorado Department of Transportation is strongly considering closing Colorado 141 between Naturita and Gateway Friday evening, May 5, due to water levels on the Dolores River and extra caution over the structural integrity of the bridge at Roc Creek.
If the river reaches expected levels, CDOT plans to close the highway at 5 p.m. Friday, with the highway remaining closed until the flood danger has subsided. According to a CDOT news release, the closure is dependent on various factors, including snowmelt and reservoir releases. As flow amounts fluctuate, the bridge over Roc Creek may require additional closures
“River flows in the area have not been observed at these levels in 18 years. With the flood event expected to peak this Friday, we are taking proactive and cautionary measures at this particular bridge. Engineers and maintenance personnel will be assessing the structural integrity throughout this high-flow event,” Regional Transportation Director Julie Constan said in the news release.
For safety, CDOT has determined that the bridge structure at Roc Creek should be closed to traffic while peak water flows are occurring. The structure is located approximately 27.5 miles north of Naturita at mile point 88.5. The northbound closure point is located north of Naturita and the County Road CC junction at mile point 64. The southbound closure point is just south of Gateway, at mile point 110.
CDOT hydraulics engineers are closely watching forecasts, as well as tracking the anticipated releases from McPhee Reservoir in Montezuma County, CDOT spokeswoman Lisa Schwantes said.
“It’s going to be a combination of those things that really have an effect on how high the water flow is,” she said. With respect to whether CDOT in fact closes 141: “We’re leaning toward the side of caution.”
The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued a flood advisory for the Dolores River due to the increased release of water from McPhee Reservoir. The flood advisory also includes the Dolores and San Miguel Rivers due to heavy runoff from snowmelt. The flood advisory is in place until further notice and covers Montrose County, as well as the counties of Montezuma, Dolores and San Miguel.
CDOT is less concerned that water will overflow the top of the bridge — projections have the river hitting about 2 to 4 feet below. Rather, the concern is how the bridge structure might respond to a high flow at a rate not seen in close to 20 years, Schwantes said. There is some concern about the bridge piers, as well as large debris that could wash down and lodge beneath it.
“We’re confident of the integrity of the bridge, but we don’t want anyone driving over it when those high peak flows are occurring,” she said.
The northbound closure point is located north of Naturita and the County Road CC junction at mile point 64. The southbound closure point is just south of Gateway, at mile point 110.
Mcphee dam
The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued a flood advisory for the Dolores River due to the increased release of water from McPhee Reservoir. The flood advisory also includes the Dolores and San Miguel Rivers due to heavy runoff from snowmelt. The flood advisory is in place until further notice and covers Montrose County, as well as the counties of Montezuma, Dolores and San Miguel.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Conrad Swanson). Here’s an excerpt:
Colorado’s legislative leadership promised this year that the state’s water problems would be the “centerpiece” of conservation efforts but their keystone proposal focused on the Colorado River and widespread drought plaguing the West is to study the issue further. At such a late stage in the drying American West, water experts tell The Denver Post that creating another study group amounts to procrastination while time is running out. And, they say, it’s unlikely that evaluating the drought – exacerbated and made permanent by climate change – yet again will yield any new ideas.
Lawmakers introduced the bipartisan bill, SB23-295, late in their session. It is on its way to clearing the Senate and heading to the House of Representatives. Behind the measure are Western Slope Sens. Dylan Roberts, an Avon Democrat, and Perry Will, a New Castle Republican, Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie, and Marc Catlin, a Montrose Republican. The bill would create a 16-member task force, plus an advisory member, consisting of a cross-section of water users including representatives of the Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado Agriculture Commission, members of the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute tribes, water commissions and environmental organizations.
On a day in late May [2022] when wildfire smoke obscured the throat of an ancient volcano called Shiprock in the distance, I visited the Ute Mountain Ute farming and ranching operation in the southwestern corner of Colorado. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Officials in Colorado could be doing far more, though, than convening another task force, Dan Beard, a former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation commissioner, said. He lambasted the proposal.
“It isn’t a flop, it’s a belly flop,” Beard said.
Once formed, the task force would begin meeting by July and by December recommend ways Colorado could counter drought in the Colorado River Basin and related inter-state commitments. The group would have broad leeway for the types of recommendations it could offer…While Colorado isn’t the biggest water user in the Colorado River Basin, it could still contribute meaningful water savings, [Dan] Beard said. For example, lawmakers could work to curb the amount of water piped out of the basin, Beard said. Major urban centers along the Front Range (like Denver) draw water from the river and move it across the Continental Divide to their taps. Farmers and Ranchers east of the divide also rely on Colorado River water. Trans-basin water transfers like those are problematic because all the water taken out of the basin is lost to the Colorado River forever. On the contrary, water used within the basin to irrigate crops will ultimately flow back into the river if it’s not absorbed by the plants.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
Routt County Emergency Management is warning residents to expect flooding Thursday, May 4, into Friday, May 5, with the Yampa River anticipated to reach its highest level yet this season. Emergency Operations Manager David “Mo” DeMorat told Routt County commissioners on Monday, May 1, that the river had hit 6,500 cubic feet per second, and warm temperatures are expected to continue through the week, which could cause the river to reach 7,000 cfs by Friday. DeMorat said this amount of water for the Yampa River is considered “action level” flooding by the National Weather Service. Action levels generally require municipalities to keep a closer eye on flooding and have potential mitigation plans and flood warnings in place…
To gauge what flooding will look like, the county uses snow-water equivalent gauges that provide estimates for the amount of snowmelt that could occur three to four weeks out. This looks at the amount of snow on the ground, but cannot predict at what rate it will melt. Because of this, no exact estimates can be given, as it is ultimately the weather and the freeze-and-thaw cycle that will determine at what rate the snow melts.
DeMorat explained to commissioners that these gauges show areas north of Steamboat and the Stagecoach Reservoir currently have the highest potential for flooding. Three snow-water equivalent gauges stationed north of Steamboat have helped emergency management identify these regions as problem areas for flooding due to the snowpack that could melt. All three are north of Steamboat with one near Dry Lake, one near Lost Dog Creek and another slightly farther northwest. DeMorat noted these locations range from 165-185% of the average snowpack. He told commissioners that Stagecoach Reservoir is another area of concern with 140% of its average snowpack.
Alongside the problem areas DeMorat named, the National Weather Service issued a flood warning for Elkhead Creek, particularly where the creek meets the Yampa River. This flood warning began on Monday and will end Friday unless communicated otherwise by the National Weather Service.
Debris and mud covers roads, trails, train tracks in Glenwood Springs https://t.co/ClIkWC56DB
— Summit Daily News (@SummitDailyNews) May 2, 2023
Click the link to read the article on The Summit Daily website (Cassandra Ballard). Here’s an excerpt:
After a quick weather jump from cold to warm over the past week, there have now been multiple areas of mud and debris flow throughout Glenwood Springs and the surrounding area due to the rapidly melting snow on Red Mountain and elsewhere. On Tuesday morning, a major debris flow blocked access to the wastewater treatment facility in West Glenwood, along with covering the Union Pacific Railroad train tracks in West Glenwood, causing a freight train to get stuck…
On Monday, local trails on Red Mountain and at Wulsohn Mountain Park, and on the higher trails of the South Canyon trail system were closed from mud flows, and the city was urging people to stay off the closed trails…
In addition, Garfield County emergency management officials reported late Monday that County Road 127 (3 Mile Road) was covered with water and mud and a private bridge was washed out at the half mile mark due to flooding on Three Mile Creek. Several residences were also being impacted. And, the Colorado Department of Transportation was reporting mudflow activity in Glenwood Canyon near Interstate 70.
Hi all, and thank you for joining Audubon Rockies and conservation photographer Dave Showalter for his multimedia journey through the living Colorado River! In his new book, Living River: The Promise of the Mighty Colorado, Dave shares the beauty of the watershed and a story of resiliency and resolution to continue the work for healthy watersheds. You can watch last week’s virtual book launch event recording here.
The Colorado River existing management guidelines are set to expire in 2026. The states that draw water from it are about to undertake a new round of negotiations over the river’s future. The use of the river will be renegotiated amid climate change, reduced snowpack, and water shortages, presenting an opportunity to ensure universal access to clean water for more than 30 federally-recognized Native tribes and make the allocation of the Colorado equitable as well as sustainable.
This May is a critical time to be a voice for the river, as the United States Bureau of Reclamation seeks public comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the 2007 Interim Guidelines. This SEIS evaluates different scenarios to better balance water supply in the Colorado River watershed, which will impact ecosystem health in the Grand Canyon and other areas.
The stories, art, and lifeways that deepen our relationships to water are what build the collective voice for healthy rivers that benefit wildlife and people. The Mighty Colorado changes everything it touches, including us. Here are a few ways you can join the Living River conversation:
*Audubon members, as a special thank you, get a 20% discount by using the code “LIVINGRIVERLOVE” at checkout from Mountaineers Books.
Attend another book launch event or encourage a friend to attend one. The Living River book tour is traveling the West and has both in-person and virtual events.
Take action by May 30 and urge the Bureau of Reclamation to recognize the important links between human health, stable communities, and the environment and also implement measures that better balance water supply and protect the Grand Canyon ecosystem.
Presently, there is less water in the Colorado River system than at any time in recorded history, threatening the vitality of its ecosystem. But wherever there is water, there is abundant, dynamic life. As Dave Showalter says: “The river is not dying. She flows with the same pure purpose as before we arrived.”
There’s no giving up on the Colorado for riverkeepers engaged in riparian restoration. The hard work ahead requires widespread engagement in our future, which begins with all of us asking: Where does our water come from, and who does it connect us to?
All my best and hope to see you downstream,
Abby
Updated Colorado River 4-Panel plot thru Water Year 2022 showing reservoirs, flows, temperatures and precipitation. All trends are in the wrong direction. Since original 2017 plot, conditions have deteriorated significantly. Brad Udall via Twitter: https://twitter.com/bradudall/status/1593316262041436160
Streamflows in the Roaring Fork basin are down from last week.
Aspen Journalism is now compiling real time streamflow data. At Stillwater, located upstream of Aspen, the Fork ran at 39.7 cfs on April 24 at 1:30 pm. In terms of trends, the Fork ran at 40.1 cfs or 65.7% of average on April 23 after reaching 65.6 cfs on April 19. That’s down from 55.2 cfs and 117.4% of average, on April 16.
You can find all the featured stations from the dashboard with their real-time streamflow on this webpage.
Credit: Laurine Lassalle/Aspen Journalism
The USGS sensor on the Roaring Fork river below Maroon Creek recorded the Fork running at 138 cfs on April 23, or 98.6% of average. That’s down from 164 cfs on April 16.
At Emma, below the confluence with the dam-controlled Fryingpan, the April 23 streamflow of 364 cfs represented about 78.3% of average. That’s down from 412 cfs, and 101.7% of average, on April 16.
The transbasin diversion that sends Roaring Fork basin headwaters to Front Range cities was flowing at 13.7 cfs on April 23, up from 5.9 cfs on April 16.
Meanwhile, the Crystal River above Avalanche Creek, which is not impacted by dams or transbasin diversions, flowed at 195 cfs, or 70.1% of average, on April 23. Last week, the river ran at 244 cfs, or 123.9% of average.
How many people does it take to get the Colorado-Big Thompson Project ready for the peak delivery season? For the Northern Water Operations Division, the answer is … just about everyone.
Crews have been working throughout the winter to maintain the 80-year-old infrastructure and make the necessary repairs. Sometimes just decades of freeze-thaw action will create the need for repairs and replacements.
Why work so hard in the winter? Because water users expect consistent and reliable deliveries throughout the spring, summer and fall, meaning there isn’t room on the schedule to make repairs during warm, long days.
Map of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project via Northern Water
CONTEXT: I’ve long been intrigued by Rico, a former mining town of about 300 people in the western San Juan Mountains in southwestern Colorado. On paper, Rico looks a lot like Silverton: It was platted in the 1870s on Ute land as a mining hub and flourished during its early years; it sits at about 9,000 feet in elevation, surrounded by high mountains; and it was serviced by a railroad built by Otto Mears.
Yet Rico, just 20 miles as the crow flies from Silverton, ultimately followed a far different trajectory. The 1893 Silver Panic hit both towns hard initially, but Silverton ultimately recovered and its mining industry continued to support a fairly healthy population until the early 1990s. Rico, not so much — the population in 1890 was about 4,000; by 1900 it had shrunk to 811 and continued to ebb, bottoming out at just 75 in 1980.
Prior to mining, snowmelt and rain seep into natural cracks and fractures, eventually emerging as a freshwater spring (usually). Graphic credit: Jonathan Thompson
Mining in Rico didn’t collapse after the Silver Panic by any means. Throughout the decades, big and little firms gouged and tunneled, drilled and blasted, stoped and mucked, milled and smelted in the Rico Mountains. Sulfide-bearing iron pyrite — the active ingredient in acid mine drainage — is abundant here. So much so that in the 1950s the Rico-Argentine Mining Company and Vanadium Corporation of America began mining pyrite to produce sulphuric acid at a plant at the St. Louis Tunnel. The acid was used mainly for uranium processing at mills in surrounding lowlands. In 1980 Anaconda, a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield, bought the Rico Argentine Mine site and surrounding lands with an eye toward molybdenum mining, but never actually pulled any ore out of the ground.
All of the mining activity permanently scarred the land, sullied the waters of the Dolores River, which passes through town, and contaminated town soils with lead. But it was never enough to revive the town’s early glory or population. Rico lost the Dolores County seat to the powerful Dove Creek pinto bean and Grange lobby in the 1940s, and the Rio Grande Southern railroad abandoned the community shortly thereafter.
Silverton, meanwhile, held onto its branch of the Denver & Rio Grande Western railroad, helping that town to become the backdrop of many a mid-century western film and a major tourist attraction. And the relatively prosperous mining industry there had left behind infrastructure to support the new economy. Despite its scenic location, mining history, and proximity to public lands, Rico never developed a strong tourist economy — perhaps by design. In 1990 Silverton’s population was about 800; Rico’s was roughly one-eighth of that. But what Rico lacked in economic development it made up for with a rough and rustic sort of charm.
Over the years, various entities have hatched economic development schemes. In the 1980s, the Rico Development Corporation bought most of the Anoconda/Atlantic Richfield land and other property, compiling 1,800 acres of patented mining claims and hundreds of in-town lots (and in so doing took on responsibility for water treatment at the old Rico-Argentine mine site, which didn’t end so well). Real estate developer Rico Renaissance acquired the land in the mid-1990s and worked with Rico officials to come up with a grand plan to revive, spiff-up, and build out the infrastructure needed to substantially grow the old mining town. Meanwhile, economic exiles from Telluride — 26 miles and one mountain pass away — began moving in and opening a few businesses, including a live music venue that attracted folks from around the region.
Rico Renaissance’s plans fell apart in 2007 for various reasons, and they tried to sell the land to Bolero Mining, which wanted to build a molybdenum mine nearby, to the dismay of some and delight of other locals. The effort failed, in part because the global financial crisis diminished demand for minerals, in part because opening a new mine in this day and age ain’t easy. As if to drive home the point, in 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency ordered Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) to clean up the Rico-Argentine Mine site just north of town; it had been oozing high concentrations of zinc and other heavy metals into the Dolores River since the mid-1990s. The company has spent at least $63 million on the effort so far, even though it never made any money off of the property.
What was left of Rico Renaissance became Disposition Properties, which continued to toy with developing the properties, but never progressed very far. Meanwhile Rico’s population has continued to grow, albeit slowly, and real estate prices have climbed. There are no homes in Rico listed for sale on Zillow, just a couple of lots priced around $200,000. But a 12-bedroom log-cabin monstrosity a handful of miles downriver from town is priced at $2.95 million. Still, the place isn’t what I’d call gentrified in any pervasive way; it retains its small-town funkiness. I passed through there last Fourth of July and was delighted to see the aftermath of a down-home parade and just dozens of folks milling about the sidewalks eating burgers (as opposed to the thousands that mob Silverton on the Fourth).
Map via The Land Desk.
Last April, Disposition finally threw in the towel and put 181 parcels covering 1,146 acres on the market for $10 million. Telluride Properties, the listing agent, marketed the property — and its potential — aggressively. It touted its geothermal properties (hot springs resort), the space for 300 new homes, potential for a land swap with the Forest Service, a parcel for a riverside lodge, and so on. It even suggested the possibility of building a chairlift, perhaps to access a Silverton Mountain-esque backcountry ski area. It did not mention the Superfund site or lead contamination; lack of infrastructure; floodplains and other geologic hazards; or Rico’s 2004 master plan objective of avoiding a “predominant resort character.”
Many locals were not amused. A resort and hundreds of new homes would certainly bring jobs and money to the area, but it would also completely overwhelm the existing community and smother its scrappy spirit. Rico townsfolk only needed to look around the region to see that amenity-economy-based prosperity has its downsides, ranging from housing crises to the widening abyss between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else.
Rico still may get gentrified, but the threat of it becoming a glitzy destination resort appears to have subsided. On April 5, the Dolores County clerk recorded a real property transfer and a special warranty deed conveying dozens of Disposition Properties’ parcels to Atlantic Richfield. While the property transfer document remains under wraps — it’s labeled a “sensitive document” — the warranty deed includes a list of what appears to be all of Disposition’s remaining properties. The transfer fee is listed as $778.94, indicating that the sale price was about $7.79 million.
We weren’t able to get in touch with anyone at Atlantic Richfield — now the valley’s largest landowner — about the purchase or their intentions. We can rest assured, however, that they aren’t going to be building a Rico Mountain mega-resort. Rico Town Manager Chauncey McCarthy said the mining company likely will hold onto contaminated and mining-impacted claims in order to remediate and reclaim them (which is probably why they bought the property in the first place). They may sell off other parcels and have expressed an interest in working with the town to make use of the in-town properties. The Montezuma Land Conservancy reportedly wanted to buy the property and put conservation easements on some parcels while possibly building affordable housing on others. Those kinds of scenarios seem far more likely now.
Rico, undoubtedly, will continue to grow. But what that growth looks like and how fast it will occur seems now to be far more within the control of the community and its residents.
CONTEXT: The Nevada firm and its many associated companies (Blackstone, Anson, etc) has been staking claims like crazy in the region, as reported by the Land Desk over the last six months or so, and has big plans to extract and mechanically process lithium. Last September, the Moab BLM office approved A1’s proposal to drill two exploratory wells (actually, to reopen abandoned oil and gas wells for exploratory purposes) near the road to Dead Horse Point State Park and Canyonlands National Park’s Island in the Sky unit. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance appealed the decision.
The Utah BLM’s acting state director Anita Bilbao decided to set aside the permit. Bilboa ordered the Moab Field Office to re-open its analysis to “address SUWA’s concerns regarding a reasonable range of alternatives and to complete additional analysis regarding the cumulative impacts to water quantity.”
A1/Anson also has the Green River Project in the works north of the aforementioned wells. In March, the company announced it had filed a notice of intent with the BLM to drill three exploratory wells there.
Prior to 1921 this section of the Colorado River at Dead Horse Point near Moab, Utah was known as the Grand River. Mike Nielsen – Dead Horse Point State Park
Strong winter snowpack has water managers optimistic
A parade of snowstorms through the American West this winter has water managers across the region cautiously optimistic about the near-term water supply.
According to data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Upper Colorado River watershed is at about 113 percent of its annual average for precipitation. Further downstream in the Colorado River Basin, other tributaries such as the Gunnison River and San Juan River are showing even larger snowpack totals compared to historic averages. For communities throughout the basin, that is great news.
The above-average snowpack in the Upper Colorado River Basin means there is a strong chance that the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project reservoirs will fill this summer, too. That’s good news for residents of Northern Colorado who depend on the supplemental water supply that it delivers, but it’s not as good for Windy Gap Project participants. They have an agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that allows them to use available capacity in Lake Granby to store Windy Gap water for future delivery, but if Lake Granby is full of C-BT Project water, no storage capacity is available for Windy Gap water.
With the construction of Chimney Hollow Reservoir, Windy Gap Firming Project participants will have the opportunity to capture and store water for multiple-year deliveries with greater frequency and flexibility in years when Lake Granby would otherwise be full of C-BT Project water. The construction of reservoirs helps moderate the ups and downs of annual precipitation and has enabled Colorado’s population and food production systems to grow and prosper for more than a century.
Map of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project via Northern Water
Glen Canyon Dam released higher flows over the past three days, with a peak discharge of over 40k cfs. This experiment aims to rebuild beaches, disrupt invasive fish breeding, and increase invertebrate abundance and diversity.
Updated Colorado River 4-Panel plot thru Water Year 2022 showing reservoirs, flows, temperatures and precipitation. All trends are in the wrong direction. Since original 2017 plot, conditions have deteriorated significantly. Brad Udall via Twitter: https://twitter.com/bradudall/status/1593316262041436160
On April 11, the Bureau of Reclamation released a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The SEIS is a mechanism to adjust the current operating guidelines for Glen Canyon (Lake Powell) and Hoover Dams (Lake Mead), providing tools for Reclamation to adapt to potentially dry years in the next few water years. Several news outlets, including The Colorado Sun, Politico, Colorado Politics, and AP News, covered the release with commentary from CWCB experts. CWCB Director and Colorado Commissioner Becky Mitchell is seeking public input to inform Colorado’s response to the SEIS. Share your feedback.
High snowpack in the San Juan River Basin this year has led to an above-average inflow forecast into the reservoir. The latest most probable inflow forecast from the Colorado River Basin Forecast Center is for 150% of average inflows from snowmelt runoff.
While most of the releases will be made to recover reservoir storage, Reclamation is planning to conduct a channel maintenance release from Navajo Dam. The release will ramp up slowly, peaking at 5,000 cfs for at least 11 days before ramping back down. This operation is expected to begin the last week of May and last through the third week of June. The exact schedule dates are to be determined as they will be timed to coincide with the peak on the Animas River. A notice with the final start date will be sent out approximately one week prior to beginning this release. Please stay tuned for updates…
For more information, please see the following resources below:
Bureau of Reclamation:
Susan Behery, Hydrologic Engineer, Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office: sbehery@usbr.gov or 970-385-6560
Earlier this month, Colorado Senator Dylan Roberts, House Speaker Julie McCluskie, Senator Perry Will, and Representative Marc Catlin introduced bipartisan legislation — “Senate Bill 23-295, Colorado River Drought Task Force” — to create a task force to make legislative recommendations to address the historic drought conditions on the Colorado River. The task force will be responsible for generating legislative recommendations that:
Proactively address climate-driven drought impacts on the Colorado River and its tributaries;
Avoid disproportionate economic/environmental impacts to any region of the state, ensuring acquisition of agricultural water rights is voluntary, temporary, and compensated;
Provide for collaboration among the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Southwestern Water Conservation District, and the State of Colorado in the design and implementation of drought security programs;
Explore ways new programs can benefit the environment and recreation;
Evaluate sources of revenue for the acquisition of program water; and
Establishes the Tribal Sub-Task Force to ensure there is appropriate space and time for their unique consideration.
A three-decade long drought threatens the Colorado River. Just last week, and previous years before, our allies at American Rivers listed it number one on their top endangered rivers in the United States. Colorado’s water security is decreasing as a result. These diminishing supplies are threatening our drinking water, agriculture, and environmental and recreational opportunities.
More flexible tools, that could be recommended by the task force established in SB23-295, can help Colorado communities respond to threats and impacts of drought exasperated by a warming climate and over allocation. Without clear action in the immediate future, these problems will only get worse.
Reach out to your legislator today to let them know you support action to make Colorado more resilient in the face of drought and climate change.
View of Denver and Rio Grande (Silverton Branch) Railroad tracks and the Animas River in San Juan County, Colorado; shows the Needle Mountains. Summer, 1911. Denver Public Library Special Collections
Density concerns, soundscapes and dark skies, wildlife impacts, preservation of the Animas River Corridor, and water and sanitation demands are only half of the issues Animas Valley residents face if a proposed luxury RV park is approved by La Plata County. Residents of the Animas Valley have also questioned the legality of the proposed RV park in terms of zoning. A preliminary sketch plan of the development targeting 876 Trimble Lane (County Road 252) was approved by the La Plata County Planning Commission in January and is now moving through a minor land-use permit process. Arizona-based developer Scott Roberts wants to build a 306-stall luxury RV park, which includes 49 tiny homes the proposal calls “adventure cabins.” But some residents fear the scope of the potential development would impede on the rural lifestyle they enjoy.
The Animas Valley Action Coalition, a community group organized to protect the Animas Valley from developments that pose major impacts to the area, hosted a meeting Saturday at the Durango Public Library to discuss impacts and continue the conversation about Roberts’ RV park. About 58 residents and friends of the Animas Valley gathered to hear two presentations about the history of the valley and an opportunity to protect the Animas River Corridor. Tom Penn said AVAC community members have different expectations of the RV park proposal. Some people don’t want an RV park to be built at all and others would prefer a smaller development.
Spring runoff is just beginning in the Crystal River Valley (April 2023). A group of nearly 140 people gathered in Marble Thursday to voice their values and concerns as part of a stakeholder process aimed at exploring protections for the river. Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):
Keeping the Crystal River free-flowing with no dams and preserving its scenic qualities, ecosystems and water rights for agriculture were values that nearly all the attendees of a Thursday community summit at the Marble Firehouse agreed on. How best to achieve those goals is another matter.
The summit was organized by the Wild & Scenic Feasibility Collaborative, which is made up of representatives from the town of Marble, Gunnison County, Pitkin County, the Colorado River Water Conservation District and American Whitewater, and was facilitated by staffers from Wellstone Collaborative Strategies and P2 Solutions. The meeting drew nearly 140 people — more than double the number expected — and sent organizers scrambling for more chairs.
The summit kicked off a much-anticipated public stakeholder process aimed at evaluating community interest in pursuing protections for the Crystal River, which flows through the towns of Marble and Redstone, as well as Gunnison and Pitkin counties. In small groups, attendees outlined their most important values, long-term aspirations, biggest concerns and criteria for evaluating management options.
A faction of residents and conservationists, including Pitkin County, is pushing for a federal Wild & Scenic designation, which it says would carry the strongest protections for preserving the river in its current state. Pitkin County, through its Healthy Rivers program, has funded a grassroots campaign by Carbondale-based conservation group Wilderness Workshop to drum up support for Wild & Scenic, and has secured a resolution of support for Wild & Scenic from Carbondale Town Council.
But some say that approach is jumping the gun and that the stakeholder process should include other options for protection without the federal government’s oversight.
Representatives from Pitkin County spoke about threats to the Crystal and the need for Wild & Scenic at a Gunnison Board of County Commissioners work session Tuesday.
“One of the concerns we are having is that the only foregone conclusion is that Wild & Scenic is the only tool,” Gunnison County Commissioner Jonathan Houck told them. “It’s going to be tough if people feel like the foregone conclusion is Wild & Scenic.”
Although there may not be imminent, specific threats of dams or diversions on the Crystal, Wild & Scenic proponents say that doesn’t mean there won’t be threats at some point. A hotter, drier future under climate change could push Front Range cities or downstream water users to look to one of the last rivers without a dam or transmountain diversion — a rarity in western Colorado — as a means to quench their thirst.
“Today, there is nobody trying to take water out of the Crystal River basin,” Pitkin County Commissioner Francie Jacober told Gunnison County commissioners at Tuesday’s meeting. “But I don’t have faith the Crystal River or the Roaring Fork or the Gunnison won’t be targeted. I want to do everything we can to protect the Crystal River before the threat is at our doorstep.”
One of the biggest threats of a dam on the Crystal was removed a decade ago when, after a legal battle with Pitkin County, the River District and Rifle-based West Divide Water Conservancy District relinquished water rights tied to a potential reservoir at Placita, just below McClure Pass. In 2012, the River District walked away from rights tied to a second reservoir, Osgood, that would have inundated the town of Redstone.
Pitkin County Healthy Rivers administrator Lisa Tasker, left, and Matt Annabel of Back 40 Stories, write down their most important values about the Crystal River at a community summit in Marble on Thursday. The summit was the kickoff event in a stakeholder process aimed at exploring protections for the river. Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Designation details
The U.S. Forest Service determined in the 1980s that 39 miles of the Crystal River was eligible for designation under the Wild & Scenic River Act, which seeks to preserve rivers with outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural values in a free-flowing condition.
According to the National Wild & Scenic Rivers System Guide for Riverfront Property Owners, one of most important provisions of the act protects rivers “from the harmful effects of project proposals within the river’s bed or banks” and projects that need a federal permit or loan are subject to review under the act.
Any designation would take place upstream of the big agricultural diversions on the lower portion of the river.
There are three categories under a designation: wild, which are sections that are inaccessible except by trail, with shorelines that are primitive; scenic, with shorelines that are largely undeveloped but are accessible by roads in some places; and recreational, which are readily accessible by road or railroad and have development along the shoreline.
The initial Forest Service proposal for the Crystal included all three designations: wild in the upper reaches of the river’s wilderness headwaters; scenic in the middle stretches; and recreational from the town of Marble to the Sweet Jessup canal headgate. Each river with a Wild & Scenic designation has unique legislation written for it that can be customized to address local stakeholders’ values and concerns.
A first attempt at a Wild & Scenic designation around 2012 couldn’t get buy-in from Marble residents or Gunnison County. Suspicions of the federal government still run high for some residents, even as they say they want to see the Crystal protected.
Larry Darien, who owns a ranch on County Road 3, which borders the river, has long been an opponent of Wild & Scenic. But he said he would be in favor of alternate protections. He does not want to see the river dammed or its waters transferred out of the basin and said the summit was a good start at working toward solutions.
“It seems to me like there’s a consensus on what we want and there’s more than one way to get there,” Darien said. “There are other options [besides Wild & Scenic]. I’m not in favor of the federal government helping me with my property.”
Facilitators will bring people together again in September to evaluate what those alternative management options might be. In the meantime, they plan to form a steering committee — on which Darien plans to serve as a representative of private-property owners — to collect input and lead the process.
In addition to county officials and residents, the summit drew people from a wide range of water interests, including influential Boulder water attorney Glenn Porzak; managers from Crystal River Ranch, which has the largest agricultural diversion on the river; representatives of U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, and U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Republican; local business owners; a representative from Colorado Stone Quarries, which operates the Pride of America Mine above Marble; environmentalists; and anglers and kayakers.
Pitkin County Commissioner Kelly McNicholas Kury was pleased with the high turnout.
“[Wild & Scenic] is what we feel like our constituents have wanted for a long time, but we know that we don’t own the solution by ourselves,” she said. “That’s why we have been willing participants in this process to evaluate what’s going to work best for the community. … There feels like a shared love for the river in this room tonight, and I think that is the most important thing to inspire the good conversations ahead.”
Editor’s note: Aspen Journalism is supported in part by a grant from the Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund.
The outflow of the Bousted Tunnel just above Turquoise Reservoir near Leadville. The tunnel moves water from tributaries of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan rivers under the Continental Divide for use by Front Range cities, and Pitkin County officials have concerns that more water will someday be sent through it.
Major water infrastructure project funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to provide clean, reliable drinking water to 50,000 Coloradans once completed
PUEBLO, Colo. – The Bureau of Reclamation today broke ground on the Boone Reach trunk line of the Arkansas Valley Conduit (AVC), a major infrastructure project under President Biden’s Investing in America agenda that will bring clean, reliable drinking water to 39 communities in southeastern Colorado.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Gary Gold and Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton joined local and Federal leaders at the groundbreaking ceremony where they highlighted the $60 million investment provided through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the project. When completed, the project’s 230 miles of pipeline will deliver as much as 7,500 acre-feet of water annually from Pueblo to Lamar, where water providers in Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Otero, Prowers and Pueblo counties will serve a projected future population of 50,000.
“The results of the historic investment from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are evident here today as we see this project moving forward,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Gary Gold. “This project will bring a long-term, clean water supply to so many communities in southeastern Colorado.”
“Through the President’s Investing in America agenda, Reclamation is now well positioned to help advance these important water projects that have been paused for decades,” said Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton. “Our investment in this project, dedicated by President Kennedy more than 60 years ago, will provide the path forward for safe drinking water to so many residents of this area.”
“This long-awaited project is a vital step forward for the Arkansas Valley and shows what can be accomplished through a strong coalition of federal, state, and local partnerships,” said Jeff Rieker, Eastern Colorado Area Manager.
“Generations of people of the Lower Arkansas Valley have waited for the AVC for more than 60 years, and now with construction starting, we are seeing the realization of that dream,” said Bill Long, President of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “This is the culmination of years of determination on the part of Reclamation, the District and the AVC participants to get this job done.”
“This is a truly monumental achievement and marks the culmination of decades of hard work, dedication, and collaboration by those who have devoted their lives to the business of water,” said Seth Clayton, executive director of Pueblo Water. “Pueblo Water is proud to be an integral participant in this important time in history.”
The Arkansas Valley Conduit was part of the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act, and its construction represents the completion of the project. Once complete the project will replace current groundwater sources contaminated with radionuclides and help communities comply with Environmental Protection Act drinking water regulations. The connection point for AVC is at the east end of Pueblo Water’s system, at 36th Lane and U.S. Highway 50, and follows the Arkansas River corridor from Pueblo to Lamar, with spurs to Eads and Crowley County. Reclamation is building the trunk line, while the Southeastern District will build the spur and delivery lines. Estimated total cost is about $600 million.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $8.3 billion for Bureau of Reclamation water infrastructure projects over five years to advance drought resilience and expand access to clean water for families, farmers, and wildlife. The investment will repair aging water delivery systems, secure dams, and complete rural water projects, and protect aquatic ecosystems. The funding for this project is part of the $1.05 billion in Water Storage, Groundwater Storage and Conveyance Projects provided by the Law.
Michael Bennet, Colorado Senator; Bill Long, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Camille Calimlim Touton, Reclamation Commissioner; Rebecca Mitchell, Director Colorado Water Conservation Board stand with pipe for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit. Photo credit: Reclamation
Click the link to read “Arkansas Valley Conduit project breaks ground” on The Pueblo Chieftain website (JamesBartolo/USA Today). Here’s an excerpt:
Advocates of the Arkansas Valley Conduit celebrated the groundbreaking of the conduit’s Boone Reach 1 trunk line, which will connect Pueblo’s water system to Boone, on Friday, April 28, at Martin Marietta Rich Sand & Gravel east of Pueblo. The trunk line is the first 6-mile piece of the conduit’s planned 230mile project stretching from Pueblo to Lamar and Eads. Once completed, the conduit will send up to 7,500 acrefeet of Pueblo Reservoir water to about 50,000 southeastern Colorado residents. WCA Construction LLC., a Towaoc, Colorado-based company owned by the Ute Tribe, was awarded a $42.9 million contract from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in September 2022 to complete construction of the Boone Reach 1 trunk line.
Communities benefitting from the conduit include communities in eastern Pueblo, Crowley, Otero, Bent, Kiowa and Prowers counties. Drinking water in many of these communities currently contains contaminants like radionuclides and selenium, according to Bill Long, board president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District…
Estimates for the total cost of the project are between $600 and $700 million, Long said. Project leaders hope to receive upward of $500 million more from the federal government. After receiving $60 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Package, the Arkansas Valley Conduit continues to be a competitive project in the fight for future federal funding, according to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camile Touton.
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
California and Arizona are currently fighting each other over water from the Colorado River. But this isn’t new — it’s actually been going on for over 100 years. At one point, the states literally went to war about it. The problem comes down to some really bad math from 1922.
To some extent, the crisis can be blamed on climate change. The West is in the middle of a once-in-a-millennium drought. As temperatures rise, the snow pack that feeds the river has gotten much thinner, and the river’s main reservoirs have all but dried up.
But that’s only part of the story: The United States has also been overusing the Colorado for more than a century thanks to a byzantine set of flawed laws and lawsuits known as the “Law of the River.” This legal tangle not only has been over-allocating the river, it also has been driving conflict in the region, especially between the two biggest users, California and Arizona, which are both trying to secure as much water as they can. And now, as a massive drought grips the region, the law of the river has reached a breaking point.
The Colorado River begins in the Rocky Mountains and winds its way southwest, twisting through the Grand Canyon and entering the Pacific at Baja California. In the late 19th century, as white settlers arrived in the West, they started diverting water from the mighty river to irrigate their crops, funneling it through dirt canals. For a little while, this worked really well. The canals made an industrial farming mecca out of desert that early colonial settlers viewed as “worthless.”
Even back then, the biggest water users were Arizona and California, which took so much water that they started to drain the river farther upstream, literally drying it out. According to American legal precedent, whoever uses a body of water first usually has the strongest rights to it. But other states soon cried foul: California was growing much faster than they were, and they believed it wasn’t fair that the Golden State should suck up all the water before they got a chance to develop.
September 21, 1923, 9:00 a.m. — Colorado River at Lees Ferry. From right bank on line with Klohr’s house and gage house. Old “Dugway” or inclined gage shows to left of gage house. Gage height 11.05′, discharge 27,000 cfs. Lens 16, time =1/25, camera supported. Photo by G.C. Stevens of the USGS.
Source: 1921-1937 Surface Water Records File, Colorado R. @ Lees Ferry, Laguna Niguel Federal Records Center, Accession No. 57-78-0006, Box 2 of 2 , Location No. MB053635.
In 1922, the states came to a solution — kind of. At the suggestion of a newly appointed cabinet secretary named Herbert Hoover, the states agreed to split the river into two sections, drawing an arbitrary line halfway along its length at a spot called Lee Ferry. The states on the “upper” part of the river — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico — agreed to send the states on the “lower” end of the river — Arizona, California, and Nevada — what they thought was half the river’s overall flow, 7.5 million acre-feet of water each year. (An acre-foot is enough to cover an acre of land in a foot of water, about enough to supply two homes for a year.)
This agreement was supposed to prevent any one state from drying up the river before the other states could use it. The Upper Basin states got half and the Lower Basin states got half. Simple.
But there were some serious flaws to this plan.
First, the Law of the River overestimated how much water flowed through the river in the first place. The states’ numbers were based on primitive data from stream gauges placed at arbitrary points on the waterway, and they took samples during an unusually wet decade, leading to a very optimistic estimate of the river’s size. The river would only average about 14 million acre-feet annually, but the agreement handed out 15 million to the seven states.
While the states weren’t able to immediately use all this water, it set in motion the underlying problem today: The states have the legal right to use more water than actually exists in the river.
And you’ll notice that the Colorado River doesn’t end in the U.S. — It ends in Mexico. Initially, the Law of the River just straight-up ignored that fact. Decades later, Mexico was squeezed into the agreement and promised 1.5 million acre-feet, further straining the already over-allocated river.
On top of all of this, Indigenous tribes that had depended on the river for centuries were now forced to compete with states for their share of water, leading to these drawn-out lawsuits that took decades to resolve.
But in the short-term, Arizona and California struck it rich — they were promised the largest share of Colorado River water and should have been primed for growth. For Arizona, though, there was a catch: The state couldn’t put their water to use.
The state’s biggest population centers in Phoenix and Tucson were hundreds of miles away from the river itself, and it would take a 300-mile canal to bring the water across the desert — something the state couldn’t afford to build on its own. Larger and wealthier California was able to build all the canals and pumps it needed to divert river water to farms and cities. This allowed it to gulp up both its share and the extra Lower Basin water that Arizona couldn’t access. California’s powerful congressional delegation lobbied to stop Congress from approving Arizona’s canal project, as the state wanted to keep the Colorado River to itself.
Arizona was furious. And so, in 1934, Arizona and California went to war — literally. Arizona tried to block California from building new dams to take more water from the river, using “military” force when necessary.
Arizona sent troops from its National Guard to stop California from building the Parker Dam. It delayed construction, but not for very long because their boat got tangled up in some electrical wire and had to be rescued.
For the next 30 years, Arizona and California fought about whether Arizona should be able to build that canal. They also sued each other before the Supreme Court no fewer than 10 times, including one 1963 case that set the record for the longest oral arguments in the history of the modern court, taking 16 hours over four days and involving 106 witnesses.
That 1963 case also made some pretty big assumptions: Even though the states now knew that the initial estimates were too high, the court-appointed expert said he was “morally certain that neither in my lifetime, nor in your lifetime, nor the lifetime of your children and great-grandchildren will there be an inadequate supply of water” from the river for California’s cities.
A few years after that court case, in 1968, Arizona finally struck a fateful bargain to ensure it could claim its share of the river. California gave up its anti-canal campaign andthe federal government agreed to pay for the construction of the 300-mile project that would bring Colorado River water across the desert to Phoenix. This move helped save Arizona’s cotton-farming industry and enabled Phoenix to eventually grow into the fifth-largest city in the country. It seemed like a success — Arizona was flourishing!
But in exchange for the canal, the state made a fateful concession: If the reservoirs at Lake Powell and Lake Mead were to run low, Arizona, and not California, would be the first state to make cuts. It was a decision the state’s leaders would come to regret.
US Drought Monitor June 25, 2002.
In the early 2000s, as a massive drought gripped the Southwest, water levels in the river’s two key reservoirs dropped. Now that both Arizona and California were fully using their shares of the river, combined with the other states’ usage, there suddenly wasn’t enough melting snow to fill the reservoirs back up. A shrinking Colorado River couldn’t keep up with a century of rising demand.
Today, more than 20 years into the drought, Arizona has had to bear the biggest burden. Thanks to its earlier compromise decades earlier, the state had “junior water rights,” meaning it took the first cuts as part of the drought plan. In 2021, those cuts officially went into effect, drying out cotton and alfalfa fields across the central part of the state until much of the landscape turned brown. Still, those cuts haven’t been enough.
This century, the river is only averaging around 12.4 million acre-feet. The Upper Basin states technically have the rights to 7.5 million acre-feet, but they only use about half of that. In the Lower Basin, meanwhile, Arizona and California are gobbling up around three and four million acre-feet respectively. In total, this overdraft has caused reservoir levels to fall. It’s going to take a lot more than a few rainy seasons to fix this problem.
So, for the first time since the Law of the River was written, the federal government has had to step in, ordering the states to reduce total water usage on the river, this time by nearly a third. That’s a jaw-dropping demand!
These new cuts will extend to Arizona, California, and beyond, drying up thousands more acres of farmland, not to mention cities around Phoenix and Los Angeles that rely on the Colorado River. These new restrictions will also put increased pressure on the many tribes that have used the Colorado River for centuries: Tribes that have water rights will be pressured to sell or lease them to other water users, and tribes without recognized water rights will face increased opposition as they try to secure their share.
And Arizona and California are still fighting over who should bear the biggest burden of these new cuts. California has insisted that the Law of the River requires Arizona to shoulder the pain, and from a legal standpoint they may be right. But Arizona says further cuts would be disastrous for the state’s economy, and the other five river states are taking its side.
Either way, the painful cuts have to come from somewhere, because the Law of the River was built on math that doesn’t add up.
The Uinta Basin Railway project would build around 80 miles of train tracks connecting oil production to America’s rail network. That would allow producers to ship crude oil on trains through Colorado to refineries elsewhere in the country. The U.S. Surface Transportation Board and the United States Department of Agriculture have given the project the go-ahead, prompting a letter from U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse criticizing the federal review of the project.
“First, it focused solely on the Project’s risks in Utah with no evaluation of its potential harm to Colorado, including the risk of a derailment and oil spill in the headwaters of the River”, the March 28 letter read. “Second, this review also failed to include any analysis of the Project’s effect on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. We urge you to conduct a supplemental review to fully account for these potential harms.”
[…]
While opponents of the project note the catastrophic consequences of a major spill into the Colorado River, those working to get the rail built say the likelihood of contamination is overstated. That’s because the crude oil is high in paraffin wax content, which means it turns to a solid below about 110 degrees Fahrenheit, according to Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition in Utah that’s advocating for the rail.
“The only times that the crude is a liquid is when it is heated and loaded into the railcars and when it is reheated back above the 110 degrees pour point, so it can be unloaded and processed,” Heaton said in an email. “In short, Uinta Basin waxy crude is transported as a solid, not a flammable or hazardous liquid. It does not present an environmental concern if there were a derailment.”
Luis Zerpa, associate professor at the Colorado School of Mines Petroleum Engineering Department, says those waxy properties have historically been seen as a barrier to shipping that type of oil.
“So that’s the problem with the waxy oils is they have a lot of these paraffinic molecules or components … that create the petroleum jelly or the candles, that when the temperature decreases it will solidify,” Zerpa said, adding that those properties make it very difficult to move the oil via a pipeline.
However, what makes the crude oil difficult to ship, should make it easy to clean up — at least in the event of a spill. Heaton says the studies done on the rail estimate less than one derailment a year and, if there was an accident, clean-up would be like “picking up a bunch of candles.”
“This is the safest and most ecological way to transport material. And the material, the waxy crude that we have in the basin, is a much sought after and superior product in ways when it comes to environmental concerns and those types of things. I guess you could characterize it as a little bit perplexing from time to time that there’s so much opposition to this,” Heaton said in a phone call with CPR News.
In the first official scorecard of Yampa River system health, the middle section of the Yampa earned an overall score of B. That B means the middle Yampa River from Pump Station boat launch east of Hayden to South Beach about 2 miles south of Craig is a “highly functional river where some stressors are present but in general it remains largely resilient to disturbances and may rely on limited management,” said Jenny Frithsen, environmental program manager with Friends of the Yampa, which is managing the scorecard project. Within the overall score of B as part of the Yampa River Scorecard Project, the middle Yampa earns an A for dissolved oxygen, PH levels and metals in the water, “the only ecological indicators that got an A,” Frithsen reported.
The first results of the long-term scorecard project will be released fully in early May with information available at YampaScorecard.org. Data collection started in the middle Yampa in summer 2022, and the overall project will include five river sections.
During summer 2023, data collection will focus on the stretch starting from Chuck Lewis State Wildlife Area to the Pump Station boat launch.
The river scorecard is derived via approximately 45 different indicators in and around the Yampa River that fall under three main areas: ecological health and function, river uses and management, and people and community benefits.
“By seeing what areas are a C, D or F, we can now focus on action and how to improve these numbers,” said Lindsey Marlow, executive director for Friends of the Yampa. “We now have a template to start conversations with people in this basin about the health of the river and its ecosystem services.”
Marlow said another key finding that stands out is riverscape connectivity, or a measurement of the ease in which a river can move around such as a connected flood plain and river channel.
“There are areas that score so well at 95% and others that need help at 65%, and now we get to embark on the exciting task of figuring out how to improve floodplain connectivity,” Marlow said.
Under a plan approved in 2012, the bureau had been conducting high-flow experiments almost annually until 2018. Since then, a string of dry years and excessive water use have depressed levels of Lake Powell, which today is only 23% full, sitting at 3,525 feet above sea level. That is about to change drastically in the coming weeks as the upper Colorado basin’s snowpacks, which are 157% of normal, melt and flow into Powell and upstream reservoirs. The lake level is projected to climb by more than 50 feet this year, according to Bart Leeflang, the CRAU’s hydrologist…What happened in those months was a big snowpack getting bigger, holding twice as much water in some places as normal for this time of year, coming after back-to-back years of skimpy snow accumulations. According to Bureau projections, the lake level is expected to peak in July at 3,591 feet, 71 feet above its historic low recorded April 13…
At 3,576 feet, Powell would still remain 124 feet below full pool, holding just 39% of its capacity. This year’s bounty doesn’t put an end to the crisis on the Colorado River, which supplies 40 million Westerners and irrigates 5 million acres, but it buys Utah and the six other basin states time to find a lasting solution to the river’s chronic deficits. It may even rescue boating this summer at Lake Powell, among Utah’s top recreation draws, where most of the ramps are high and dry and marinas are unusable…This year, the Bureau plans to increase releases from Glen Canyon Dam to 9.5 acre-feet to bring up the level of Powell’s downstream big sister, Lake Mead. That’s the maximum amount released under the dam’s operating guidelines and 2 million more than what is typically released in a year. The big spike in Lake Powell’s projected “regulated” inflows, expected to total 13.2 million acre-feet, has enabled federal river managers to resume the high-flow experiments.
As you no doubt already know, if you follow Colorado River news, the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Interior have issued a ‘Near-term Colorado River Operations: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement’ (SEIS) analyzing two alternatives for making massive cuts in the consumptive use of the Colorado River’s waters, beginning in 2024. The SEIS analyzes strategies for cutting use by two million-acre feet (maf) next year, with cuts up to four maf in following years if the water supply in storage continues to decline – roughly a third of the total volume of the river as it has run since the turn of the century.
Table of Cuts2025-26 cuts
The alternatives discussed in the SEIS will look familiar to those who have followed the river news for the past couple months; they are similar to the plans for large reductions created by the seven River Basin states: one plan by six of the states, the other by the seventh, California. One of the Bureau’s ‘action alternatives’ divides the big cuts equitably among the three states based on the size of their allotments, like the six states’ plan; the other adheres mostly to priority of water rights in dishing out the cuts, like the California plan.
If there is anything to be learned for the future from the past, it should be noted now that this sudden dramatic need for really major cuts in consumptive use in the lower part of the river basin is the consequence of problems that could have been dealt with gradually – intelligently, one might say, far-sightedly – over at least the past 30 years, if not the whole last century since the discovery that the Colorado River Compact was based on false numbers.
But through the 1940s and 50s, there was a lovely sense of abundant water in the Lower Basin. The four states of the Upper Basin were considerably slower in developing than the three in the Lower Basin, so a lot of the river was still flowing freely to the desert states below the canyons and eventually being ‘wasted’ to the ocean, then regarded as a sad end for freshwater.
Even before Hoover Dam was completed, the Californians, with Bureau permission, decided to borrow some of that water to grow on – with really no firm plan about what to do when the Upper Basin developed its water. They did not really know how much (or how little) water the river really carried, and the spirit of the times decreed that the engineers would figure something out to solve the problems of the future. California’s 1931 ‘Seven Parties Agreement’ divvied up more than 900,000 af of borrowed water – and built their permanent systems large enough to carry that along with their legal allotment.
The structural deficit refers to the consumption by Lower Basin states of more water than enters Lake Mead each year. The deficit, which includes losses from evaporation, is estimated at 1.2 million acre-feet a year. (Image: Central Arizona Project circa 2019)
The Lower Basin states were also, kind of semiconsciously, depending on that ‘surplus’ water to cover all of the substantial ‘system losses’ in the Lower Basin – evaporation and conveyance losses – and also the Lower Basin’s 750,000 af share of the commitment to Mexico: all told, at least 2 maf of water for which the Lower Basin states were accountable, but none of which was deducted from their allotments as set by the Boulder Canyon Project Act. They developed their 7.5 maf Compact allotment to the max, and this ambiguous but very real 2 maf became known as ‘a structural deficit,’ as though it were just inherent in the structure of the system and nothing could be done about it, not unlike an Act of God.
But the Upper Basin states eventually got up to around 4 maf of consumptive use (including Upper Basina system losses) late in the century, with big out-of-basin projects like the Colorado-Big Thompson, San Juan-Chama, Dillion Reservoir, Homestake, and Arizona’s big Central Arizona Project came on line in 1993 – and everyone knew by then how little water the river actually carried, with no big river augmentation projects on the horizon…. Common sense would seem to dictate that, at least by the 1990s, the Californians would have begun a schedule for weaning themselves from the borrowed water, and all three Lower Basin states would have begun figuring out how to deal with the ‘structural deficit.’ But that kind of sense was of course completely contrary to the naive energies of the Early Anthropocene that still prevailed in the Basin, and the Lower Basin states – graciously enabled by the Bureau – continued using consumptively somewhere around 800,000 af of borrowed Upper Basin water in addition to their full 7.5 maf Compact allotments, and ignoring any responsibility for the 2 maf structural deficit.
During the 1983 Colorado River flood, described by some as an example of a “black swan” event, sheets of plywood (visible just above the steel barrier) were installed to prevent Glen Canyon Dam from overflowing. Source: Bureau of Reclamation
The water, by then, was no longer flowing freely through the canyons to the Lower Basin, but was being released by the Bureau from Powell Reservoir, requiring some complex definitions of ‘surplus’ – possibly trying to disguise its decline – and some big water years in the 1980s and 90s allowed them to continue to cover the profligate release of more than 10 maf to cover Lower Basin’s legal allotments, plus borrowings, plus ignored system losses.
Updated Colorado River 4-Panel plot thru Water Year 2022 showing reservoirs, flows, temperatures and precipitation. All trends are in the wrong direction. Since original 2017 plot, conditions have deteriorated significantly. Brad Udall via Twitter: https://twitter.com/bradudall/status/1593316262041436160
But the climate and the river turned against them with the turn of the century. For the five water years 2000-2004, inflows into Powell Reservoir averaged a measly 6 maf, less than two-thirds the 20th-century average inflows. Meanwhile, however, the Bureau continued to release more than 8 maf annually from Powell to Mead, and then the usual Compact allocation plus borrowings from Mead to the desert states with no accounting for the system losses: basically, 6 maf in, and 10+ maf out of the system. Predictably enough, storage took a dive in both reservoirs, and everyone realized that something different needed to be done soon.
The first thing done was in 2003; Interior Secretary Gale Norton, mustered the gumption to tell California that it was time to stop borrowing no-longer-existing surplus water. To the surprise of all the Caliphobics, California complied, and began to work its way back to its 4.4 maf allotment. But nothing was said then about the ‘structural deficit,’ so between their full consumptive use of their 7.5 maf Compact allotment, and the 2 maf of system losses and Mexican obligations for which they continued to decline responsibility, the Lower Basin states were still consuming between nine and ten million acre-feet annually; storage was still declining and something really different still needed to be done.
For two years representatives from the seven states and other stakeholders met with the Bureau, to address that need, and the result was a 2007 agreement called ‘Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.’ This was essentially an attempt to try out some ideas for more carefully coordinating the use of the two big reservoirs while encouraging Lower Basin users to cut their use and leave some of their water in Mead (‘Intentionally Created Surpluses), making it possible to draw less from Powell. The ‘interim’ for these temporary guidelines was the 20 years to 2026, at which time, according to plan or hope, the Bureau and the seven states would have developed a new longterm management regime that actually incorporated the realities of a desert river.
The Interim Guidelines rely on a ‘balancing’ of the water in the two reservoirs, to keep both reservoir levels high enough so the generation of electric power can continue – an elevation of 3,490 feet (above sea level) for Powell Reservoir and 1,000 feet for Mead Reservoir. And if that proved to be impossible in an extended period of aridification, then the last-ditch effort would be to keep levels above each reservoir’s outlet works – an elevation of 3,370 feet in Powell and 895 feet in Mead. If the reservoirs fell below those outlet levels for either dam, then it would be impossible to convey any water at all beyond the dam. Dead pool.
A complex table of ‘Lake Powell Operational Tiers’ is the heart of the Interim Guidelines, defining the various levels at which releases from Powell should increase or decrease depending on both the level in Powell and how the level in Mead was increasing or (generally) decreasing. And if levels continued to decline (which they have), the grinding gut of the Interim Guidelines is a set of ‘shortage conditions’ – levels at which delivery cuts will be imposed on the Lower Basin states. In 2022, the Bureau finally acknowledged the reality of the situation and declared the first level of cuts, on Arizona and Nevada.
Hoover Dam’s intake towers protrude from the surface of Lake Mead near Las Vegas, where water levels have dropped to record lows amid a 22-year drought. (Source: Bureau of Reclamation)
Why not California too? More history: Back in 1968, when Arizona was lobbying desperately for approval of the legislation that would finally enable the CAP, California had said that it would only support the project if Arizona would accept a junior status for the CAP to all of California’s Colorado River water rights. For Arizona, even in the late 1960s, that seemed like a gamble worth taking; who could imagine water shortages that might shut down Hoover Dam and the vast array of urban-industrial development it watered? So the Arizonans agreed to California’s condition – and half a century later the unimaginable happened.
But California did not entirely employ the Shylock gambit; they reluctantly agreed in a neighborly way to accept some Interim Guideline cuts before Central Arizona was completely dried up; their cuts begin at about the fourth level of escalating cuts for Arizona and Nevada.
Everywhere in the Colorado River region today, it is entirely too easy to get lost in the numbers, all those abstract thousands and millions of acre-feet. Suffice it to say for now that under the Interim Guidelines, by the time the balanced levels of Powell and Mead Reservoirs dropped to within 30-40 feet of the power generation cutoff levels, central Arizona would be giving up 720,000 af, Nevada 30,000 af, and California 350,000 af, for a total of 1.1 maf. Substantial pain – but only about half of the 2 maf structural deficit, the number to keep in mind for this unfolding melodrama. Because there is simply no way, short of constant climate miracles, to avoid an eventual dead-pool situation if the Lower Basin continues ignoring the structural deficit, with inflows to Powell way below the outflows plus system losses from the Lower Basin storage and distribution systems.
What about the Upper Basin states? They get a bye on this round. For one thing, the federal government does not control their water supply, nature does; and they are also way under their 7.5 maf Compact allotment. Also since the beginning of the drought period, the Bureau had already let more than 10 maf of ‘their’ water flow down to Mead above and beyond the Compact requirement. They also have no ‘structural deficit’; their usage includes their system losses – although the half-million acre-feet, plus or minus, evaporated out of Powell should probably be included in the unaccounted-for reservoir system losses since it occurs after the measured inflow. But people in the Upper Basin know their opportunity to participate in the reductions will come.
Even as the first level of shortages was being executed on Arizona and Nevada in 2022 (with the second level promised for this year), Powell was in its third consecutive year of inflows of 6 maf or less with outflows and system losses from Mead still in excess of 9 maf, and the Bureau realized that even the Interim Guidelines reductions might not get them all the way to 2026. Facing that, the Bureau and Interior Secretary issued a somewhat desperate announcement that it would be necessary to quickly implement much heavier cuts – at least two and maybe four million acre-feet. The Bureau Director and Interior Secretary asked the seven states to come up with a plan for how that might happen – and said that if the states did not come up with a plan, they would impose one of their own.
Graphic credit: Colorado Water Wise
They actually said this twice, midsummer in 2022, and midwinter in 2023; the first time I think the states were too stunned to respond, and no plans emerged from either the states or the Bureau. But now, after the second call, there are four alternatives on the table, two from the states and two from the Bureau. Two of these alternatives argue for using the foundational ‘Law of the River,’ the appropriation doctrine, to distribute the necessary cuts; a big faction (mostly those with senior water rights) believes appropriations law can and should resolve every issue involving water in the arid West.
The other two alternatives seem to see the 2 maf structural deficit as a foundational mistake that needs to be corrected outside or below the rules governing the use of the river’s water; the structural deficit is water that isn’t there to use, and therefore shouldn’t be dealt with through the laws for the use of water. It thus makes the most sense to share those ‘structural’ losses out proportionally among the three states rather than trying to apply the use-allocation law to them.
It is clear enough that the resolution will have to involve a middle ground, similar to that arrived at in the Interim Guidelines, when California’s priority was acknowledged but the state conceded to take some cuts before completely drying up the CAP. The Bureau’s second alternative comes closest to seeking that middle ground. If it were implemented, that accommodation to seniority would be carried forward with reduced assessments to California despite their use of more than half the Lower Basin’s water. In getting to the 2.083 maf goal, Arizona would take the hardest hit (1.087 maf), more than a third of their 2.8 maf allotment; and California would lose 927,000 af, only a fifth of their 4.4 maf allotment. Nevada would lose 69,000 af, about a fourth of their 300,000 af allotment.
Ultimately something along those lines has to sound better to California than going to court on principle for the usual decade, and driving the river into a dead-pool status under which they would get no water at all much of the year. Laws that can’t bend or open up to fit changing situations eventually break under the stress.
And then – well, the 20-year interim period for the water mavens to figure out what to do for the next century has shrunk to three years. And the last I heard, they are still trying to figure out who does and doesn’t get to sit at the table to figure it out the future.
