Young farmers in the Roaring Fork Valley

Spring at Mt Sopris Colorado. The Roaring Fork River is in the foreground and located just outside Carbondale CO.

From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

[The] biggest challenge [for Christian La Bar and Harper Kaufman] was rationing water. They have limited rights to a historic ditch that serves the property. They had to quit watering their potato and beet crops late this summer and hope for rain. It didn’t fall so their yield was probably stunted a bit, La Bar said.

La Bar and Kaufman achieved their goal of turning a profit in just their second year working 0.83 of an acre on the land owned by Mike and Allison Spayd…

The Saturday Market in Aspen has been a godsend for their Two Roots Farm. They have built a loyal following by offering greens and veggies different from what established farmers from the North Fork Valley in Paonia delivered. Aspen-area shoppers responded.

They also sell direct to restaurants and provide produce for Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) allotments, where customers pay in advance and receive bounty on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.

“People are excited to see new farmers, young farmers close to home,” La Bar said.

There’s been a mini-explosion of young entrepreneurs getting into agriculture in the Roaring Fork Valley. A documentary on their trials and travails, “How We Grow,” is being made by valley residents Tomas Zuccareno and Haley Thompson.

La Bar and Kaufman, both 26, worked as the agriculture managers at Aspen Center for Environmental Studies’ Rock Bottom Ranch, learning from ranch manager Jason Smith before heading out on their own.

Other aspiring farmers have taken advantage of the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails program’s interest in promoting sustainable agriculture and food self-sufficiency.

Cooper Means, 25, pitched a winning proposal for agricultural use of 10 acres of the 40-acre Lazy Glen Open Space parcel, acquired in 2015. Means’ Shining Mountains Farm LLC received a 10-year lease that started this year. He doesn’t have to pay for use of the land, but pays $600 per month for a small apartment attached to a barn on the site…

Means is focused on protein production — raising chickens and lambs on pastures. He’s also using two rooms in the barn to grow mushrooms. The demand for the mushrooms has exceeded his ability to supply them.

He said he knew he wanted to be a farmer since he was a 9-year-old student at Aspen Community School and did a mentorship at Sustainable Settings, an educational farm and ranch outside of Carbondale.

Snowmass: Construction starts today on new wastewater treatment plant

Wastewater Treatment Process

From The Aspen Daily News (Madeleine Osberger):

Construction on the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District’s new $24 million wastewater treatment building begins today, after a re-bid brought the project cost more in line with what voters approved in May 2016 to spend, according to district manager Kit Hamby.

The district signed a contract Aug. 1 with RN Civil Construction of Centennial for a new 44,000-square-foot plant that can meet heightened state requirements for removal of nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia from local streams and rivers. All 44 water treatment districts in Colorado must comply with the new regulations, although Snowmass happened to fall within the first round with a 2020 deadline…

The majority of the cost — now budgeted at roughly $24 million — will be covered by the bond sales, which brought in $23.3 million. The remainder could be taken from a $7 million to $7.5 million capital project reserve fund earned in part from Base Village tap fees.

Aspen officials hesitant to respond to court-raised issues about potential dams

The site of the potential Maroon Creek Reservoir, just below the confluence of East and West Maroon creeks.

A water court referee has advised the city of Aspen it must provide “substantive” responses to issues raised by the division engineer and the court before she issues a ruling in two water court cases tied to the potential Maroon and Castle creek dams and reservoirs.

The issues raised include whether the city can get a permit for the dams, if it can build the dams in reasonable time, if it has a specific plan to build them, and if it needs the water.

The referee, Susan Ryan, wants the city’s responses to those outstanding questions, even if the city reaches a settlement agreement with the 10 parties currently opposing the city’s applications.

“Regarding the response to the summary of consultation, I think it would be useful to see a substantive response prior to the next status conference in this case,” Ryan said at the start of an Aug. 10 status conference on the two cases.

But Cindy Covell, the water attorney for the city, said the city does not want to make its case to the court at this stage of the proceedings.

“Obviously the reason this case is so highly opposed, among other reasons, is that there is a lot of people who think we can’t meet the burden of proof, and that would be the subject of the trial,” Covell said in response to Ryan. “And to the extent that we are putting our case out there ahead of time, it just may make it that much harder to reach a settlement from Aspen’s standpoint, because we know it is a difficult case.”

On July 19 the city issued a statement saying it was seeking “a way to transfer decreed storage rights to locations other than the decreed locations on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek.”

Maroon Creek Reservoir would hold 4,567 acre-feet of water on 85 acres of land, all owned by the USFS. It also would encroach on portions of the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness. Castle Creek Reservoir, as currently decreed, would hold 9,062 acre-feet on 120 acres of mostly private, high-end residential property, but also flood some USFS land and cross the wilderness boundary.

The city has maintained conditional water-storage rights for both reservoirs since 1965.

“To the extent that you feel that the summary of consultation is asking you to lay out all your evidence, I don’t really see that it is,” Ryan told Covell during the status conference. “I think it is more asking to make sure we have something in the record to support that you’ve met your burden of proof here, before any ruling is entered.”

As water court referee, Ryan’s also charged with investigating the factual and legal aspects of water rights applications before making a ruling.

The issues facing the city were raised in two summaries of consultation that Alan Martellaro, the division engineer, filed with the water court in January after consulting with Ryan about the city’s applications.

Both summaries of consultation filed in response to the Castle and Maroon applications said the city “must demonstrate that it will secure permits and land-use approvals that are necessary to apply the subject water rights to beneficial use.”

They said the city must show that it “will complete the appropriations within a reasonable time” and that “a specific plan is in place to develop the subject water rights.”

They also said the city “must demonstrate substantiated population growth in order to justify the continued need for these water rights” and that it must show it is “not speculating with the subject water rights.”

The U.S. Forest Service, one of 10 parties opposing the city in water court, has told the court it cannot issue a permit for the reservoirs, and so the city cannot complete the reservoirs in a reasonable time. Pitkin County, another opposer, told the court the city has not demonstrated it needs the water and that the city appears to be speculating.

The summaries of consultation required a response from the city to the court, and on July 10, the city submitted only a limited response.

During the Aug. 10 status conference, Ryan told Covell she did not find Aspen’s answers in July to the summaries of consultation “substantive.”

“We’re not trying to play hide the ball here,” Covell then told Ryan, “but a lot of those questions were legal questions, basically asking the city to put out the evidence it is going to use to prove its case at trial, and we just don’t think that’s an appropriate use of the summary of consultation process.”

But Ryan, the water court referee, disagreed.

“I think the purpose of the summary of consultation is to make sure the applicant can support any ruling that is entered in this case. And here the issues raised in the summary of consultation were ‘can and will’ — can the applicant develop this water right within a reasonable amount of time?” Ryan said. “And I do think that is something that needs to be in the record before I can enter any ruling in this case.”

If Ryan is dissatisfied with the city’s responses, she could issue a ruling denying the city’s applications. And the city could then appeal her ruling and take the case to trial before a water court judge. Ryan also can accept the city’s responses and issue a ruling that would maintain the city’s water rights for another six years.

During the Aug. 10 status conference, Ryan agreed to give the city more time (90 days) to respond to the issues raised in the summaries of consultation. The next status conference is set for Nov. 9.

Sometime after that, the city will need to file a substantive response, Ryan said.

Editor’s note: Aspen Journalism is collaborating with The Aspen Times on coverage of water and rivers. The Times published this story online on Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2017.

Aspen joins two adversaries in water court to apply for Colorado water funds

A crop of potatoes growing on an irrigated field in lower Woody Creek. The potatoes are being irrigated on land owned by Pitkin County as part of it's open space program.

Western Resource Advocates and Wilderness Workshop are opposing the city of Aspen’s efforts in water court to maintain conditional water storage rights tied to two potential dams on Castle and Maroon creeks. But the environmental organizations are formally collaborating with the city on finding water-supply alternatives to the two potential dams.

In late July, Western Resource Advocates and Wilderness Workshop joined the city in filing a preliminary application with the Colorado Water Conservation Board seeking state funds for a local study of potential “agricultural transfer mechanisms,” or ATMs.

Such programs provide alternatives to the “buy and dry” approach often used by cities to obtain water from ranchers and farmers.

“We all recognize that the issues that face our region will only be solved through the creative interaction of the entire community, and we hope that this effort will lead to more productive and collaborative projects,” Margaret Medellin, a utilities portfolio manager with the city, wrote in an email about the joint application.

CWCB officials recently asked water managers in the state to file either grant applications or notices of intent to apply so they could gauge interest for a new $10 million grant program designed to spur projects and programs spelled out in the 2015 Colorado Water Plan.

By the Aug. 1 deadline the state received 28 such notices for future grant cycles, including the one from the city and the environmental groups. In total, the “intent” notices identified more than $7.6 million in spending on various projects, according to a CWCB newsletter sent out Aug. 3. The CWCB also received 32 regular grant applications, requesting a total of $8.9 million for projects worth $60 million.
Recommended Stories For You

The scope and details of the emerging collaborative effort among the city, Western Resource Advocates and Wilderness Workshop were not included in their preliminary application to the CWCB, including how much money the groups might seek.

“At this point, there isn’t much information to share as project details still need to be developed,” Medellin said. “Once we jointly identify a pilot project, we will submit an application to the CWCB for funds.”

The application says a statement of work, a budget and a list of other funding sources will be forthcoming.

The CWCB’s board of directors will review and approve the new water plan grants in a two-step, two-meeting, process. The next grant application deadline is Oct. 1.

A field in the Roaring Fork River valley below Aspen. The city of Aspen hopes to work with irrigators to develop a source of water to meet its needs.

Work with irrigators

The three entities told the state they “seek to work with one or more irrigators in the Roaring Fork Valley to develop an alternative transfer mechanism that will help meet local water needs and demonstrate an alternative to buy-and-dry.”

According to the state water plan, ATMs can include techniques such as “rotational fallowing,” where irrigators voluntarily enter into a lease to stop watering parts of their fields during drought conditions. Or they can take the form of “interruptible supply agreements,” where irrigators agree to lease a certain percentage of their water to a city.

The joint application to the state says “the exact type of ATM would be determined in collaboration between Aspen, irrigators, Wilderness Workshop and Western Resource Advocates, and be in accordance with ATM types described” in the water plan.

On Aug. 3, the city put forth a settlement agreement to the two environmental organizations it is now collaborating with and to eight other opposing parties in the water court cases regarding the potential dams.

The city said it was willing to move its conditional right to store 4,567 acre-feet of water on Maroon Creek to other locations in the Roaring Fork River valley, including land in Woody Creek next to the Elam gravel pit, and the gravel pit itself.

However, the city did not commit to moving its 9,062-acre-foot right in Castle Creek, apart from a small portion that might flood a sliver of the wilderness.

While Wilderness Workshop and Western Resource Advocates are collaborating with the city on alternatives to storage, they are firmly opposed to the city maintaining storage rights in either Castle or Maroon creek valley.

“Moving the dams out of these two iconic valleys is dead center with our mission,” said Sloan Shoemaker, executive director of Wilderness Workshop. “Working collaboratively with partners in exploring alternative approaches to water supply will help achieve that mission-centric goal.”

A status conference was held about the cases with the water court referee Aug. 10. The parties agreed to another 90-day period to continue settlement efforts, with the next status conference in the case set for Nov. 9.

Aspen Journalism is an independent nonprofit news organization collaborating with The Aspen Times on the coverage of rivers and water. The Times published this story on Thursday, Aug. 17, 2017.

Southeastern Colorado Water inks agreement with Fountain and Fort Carson for hydro project

The new north outlet works at Pueblo Dam — Photo/MWH Global

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Conrad Swanson):

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which owns and operates the Pueblo Dam, signed an agreement last week allowing for the soon-to-be-built plant to connect to the dam, Chris Woodka, the district’s issues management program coordinator, said in a release.

The agreement was signed after the Colorado Springs City Council unanimously approved the creation of a military sales tariff on Tuesday. The tariff will cover costs for Colorado Springs Utilities to act as an intermediary, buying power from the district and selling it to Fort Carson.

With all the necessary agreements in place, the district hired Mountain States Hydro, LLC, to build the $19 million plant, Woodka said. Construction will begin in September and the plant should be operational by the spring.

Half of the electricity from the plant, estimated to be up to 7.5 megawatts, will be sold to Fort Carson and the other half will be sold to Fountain Utilities.

The plant is expected to generate about $1.4 million in revenue each year, Woodka said.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Jon Pompia):

“This is a monumental moment in the history of the district,” said Jim Broderick, the district’s executive director. “We have been working to put all of the pieces in place since 2011. Now that this project is coming to fruition, it represents not only a sustainable income stream for our stakeholders, but develops a clean source of power for the future.”

Added Chris Woodka, the district’s issues management program coordinator, “The Lease of Power Privilege clears the way for the hydropower plant to connect to Pueblo Dam, a federally owned structure. Mike Ryan, director of the Great Plains Region for Reclamation, signed the lease Friday.”

In order to satisfy all federal requirements related to the project, members of the district have been working for the past 18 months to put a series of other agreements in place.

“The district has contracted with Mountain States Hydro, LLC, to build the plant,” Woodka said, “with construction to begin in September. It is scheduled to be completed during the fall and winter months when releases from Pueblo Dam generally decrease.”

It’s anticipated that the plant will be online by spring 2018.

The plant will cost about $19 million to build. Last year, the district secured a $17.2 million loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, with the district’s business enterprise providing matching funds.

Over time, those funds will be paid off by revenues from the sale of power.

For a decade, power from the plant will be purchased by the city of Fountain and by Colorado Springs Utilities for use at Fort Carson.

“After that, Fountain intends to purchase all of the power for at least 20 more years,” Woodka said.

The plant will generate up to 7.5 megawatts of power by using three turbines capable of producing power from 35 to 800 cubic feet per second of flow in the Arkansas River. Water will pass through a connection that was built into the service line for the Southern Delivery System, then into the Arkansas River.

Projections by district staff show that an average of 28 million kilowatt hours will be produced annually, with about $1.4 million in average revenue per year.

This money will be used to pay off the CWCB loan and to satisfy contractual agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as a carriage agreement with Black Hills Energy. All remaining funds will go to enterprise activities, including the Arkansas Valley Conduit.

Aspen puts forward settlement proposals for Maroon and Castle creek dams

This meadow, about two miles below Maroon Lake, would be covered by the potential Maroon Creek Reservoir. The 85-acre reservoir would also flood portions of the Maroon Bells -Snowmass Wilderness.

The city of Aspen has told opposing parties in two water court cases it is willing to remove the prospect of a potential Maroon Creek Reservoir from the Maroon Creek valley, if the way is made clear for it to apply to transfer the conditional water rights for the reservoir to other sites in the Roaring Fork River valley.

The city’s proposal requires the parties to let the city’s periodic diligence applications proceed unopposed, and to also agree not to challenge the city’s efforts to transfer the water rights in new cases, according to several attorneys for opposing parties who attended a city-hosted settlement meeting Wednesday.

And, the city said, even if it’s not successful in those cases, it won’t return and try to store water in the current location of the potential Maroon Creek Reservoir.

“We had a great meeting with the city yesterday and we’re very encouraged that we’ll be able to settle the Larsen family’s opposition on the Maroon Creek Reservoir by the end of the year,” said Craig Corona, a water attorney in Aspen representing Larsen Family LP, which is only in the Maroon Creek case in water court.

Aspen City Attorney Jim True said Thursday that “potential resolutions of the cases were discussed” at the meeting. He was there along with other Aspen officials, including City Manager Steve Barwick, Mayor Steve Skadron and Aspen City Councilwoman Ann Mullins.

Representatives or attorneys from nine of the 10 opposing parties were at the closed-door meeting.

The city of Aspen told the opposing parties it wants to transfer the full 4,567 acre-foot conditional storage right in the Maroon Creek Reservoir to other potential sites, including the Aspen golf course, Cozy Point Ranch at Brush Creek Road, an approximately 60-acre site next to the gravel pit in Woody Creek operated by Elam Construction Inc., or the already-excavated gravel pit. (Barwick, during a July 19 press conference, described the city’s general intent to try and transfer the water rights).

Paul Noto is a water attorney representing American Rivers, Colorado Trout Unlimited and the Roaring Fork Land and Cattle Co. in the Maroon Creek case, and the two environmental groups in the Castle Creek case. He said they were “getting closer” to a settlement.

“The proposal on Maroon Creek, we are a lot closer on, because as I understand it, the city is committing to move their water storage right, and therefore the potential to dam the creek, out of Maroon Creek valley forever and always,” he said. “And that’s a good thing.”

A map showing the potential Castle Creek Reservoir. The City of Aspen has agreed not to flood property owned by Simon Pinniger and Mark and Karen Hedstrom, and so the reservoir is expected to be smaller than shown.

Castle Creek proposal

The city’s proposal regarding the 9,062-acre-foot Castle Creek Reservoir is more complex than its proposal for the Maroon Creek Reservoir.

The city said it would be willing to reduce the size of the Castle Creek Reservoir so it does not flood very small portions of the wilderness, as it does under its current decree. It would then move those portions of the water rights out of the Castle Creek valley.

(Since 2010 the city has signed agreements with two other private property owners whose lands would be flooded by the Castle Creek Reservoir. The city agreed not to flood portions of land owned by Simon Pinniger and by Mark and Karen Hedstrom, on the upstream edge of the potential reservoir. “It is expected that this commitment by Aspen will result in a reduction in the volume and surface area of the Castle Creek Reservoir, and Aspen has contracted for a preliminary investigation of the anticipated revised size and volume of the Castle Creek Reservoir,” the city’s due diligence application from Oct. 31 states. As such, it already be the case that the potential reservoir would not encroach on the wilderness).

The city also said it might further reduce the size of the reservoir if that’s consistent with the size of the city’s future water needs, which are not yet determined. It also might move the resulting reservoir off the private land where it is now sited to another unspecified location or locations.

“The city is just not willing yet to make the commitment to move the water right out of the Castle Creek valley forever and always,” Noto said. “They have more work to do and studies to do to be able to be comfortable in making that commitment.”

But the negotiations over Castle Creek could slow down an agreement on Maroon Creek.

“At this point they aren’t willing to commit to settling the Maroon Creek case separately from the Castle Creek case, so there is a bit of a timing issue because we have more work to do on Castle Creek,” Noto said.

A view, looking toward Aspen, of the gravel pit in Woody Creek operated by Elam Construction Inc. The city has put the sage-covered property next to the gravel pit, to the right in the photo, under contract as a potential reservoir site.

Since 1965

As currently decreed, the Maroon Creek Reservoir would be formed by a 155-foot-tall dam that would back up water over 85 acres of USFS land about 2 miles below Maroon Lake and would flood a portion of the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness.

The Castle Creek Reservoir would require a 170-foot-tall dam across Castle Creek two miles below Ashcroft, mainly on private land, but with some USFS and wilderness land flooded. The surface area of the reservoir would cover 120 acres of land.

The conditional storage rights for the two reservoirs carry a 1971 decree date and were filed by the city in 1965. Since then the city has periodically told the state it still intends to build the two reservoirs someday, if necessary.

In October, the city submitted two due diligence applications for the potential reservoirs in water court. The applications drew opposition from 10 parties, including four landowners, four environmental groups, Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service.

“I think the city has done a lot of work in a short time frame since the last meeting, but there is still a lot more work for all the parties to do,” said Rob Harris, an attorney with Western Resource Advocates who is representing WRA and Wilderness Workshop in the two cases. “Frankly, for both of these water rights, neither one is moved out until they are moved out. We can talk about potential alternative solutions, but we’re not through the woods until both water rights are out of these valleys.”

When asked about the city’s proposal on Castle Creek, Harris said WRA was “committed to protecting” both valleys.

“We do genuinely believe that the city’s goal is to protect these valleys and to avoid building dams in them,” Harris also said. “But their goal is also to hang on to as much of their water right as they can feel comfortable hanging on to. And we have to work really hard to make those goals compatible.”

Aspen Journalism is collaborating with The Aspen Times on coverage of water. The Times published this story on Friday, August 4, 2017.

Aspen puts forward proposals to avoid dams on Maroon, Castle creeks — @AspenJournalism

A map provided by the city of Aspen showing the two parcels in Woody Creek it has under contract. The city is investigating the possibility of building a reservoir on the site, as well as looking at the possibility of a reservoir in the neighboring Elam gravel pit.

From Aspen Journalism (Brent Gardner-Smith) via The Aspen Times:

The city of Aspen has told opposing parties in two water court cases it is willing to remove the prospect of a potential Maroon Creek Reservoir from the Maroon Creek valley, if the way is made clear for it to apply to transfer the conditional water rights for the reservoir to other sites in the Roaring Fork River valley.

The city’s proposal requires the parties to let the city’s periodic diligence applications proceed unopposed, and to also agree not to challenge the city’s efforts to transfer the water rights in new cases, according to several attorneys for opposing parties who attended a city-hosted settlement meeting Wednesday.

And, the city said, even if it’s not successful in those cases, it won’t return and try to store water in the current location of the potential Maroon Creek Reservoir.

“We had a great meeting with the city yesterday and we’re very encouraged that we’ll be able to settle the Larsen family’s opposition on the Maroon Creek Reservoir by the end of the year,” said Craig Corona, a water attorney in Aspen representing Larsen Family LP, which is only in the Maroon Creek case in water court.

Aspen City Attorney Jim True said Thursday that “potential resolutions of the cases were discussed” at the meeting. He was there along with other Aspen officials, including City Manager Steve Barwick, Mayor Steve Skadron and Aspen City Councilwoman Ann Mullins.

Representatives or attorneys from nine of the 10 opposing parties were at the closed-door meeting.