This historical photo shows the penstocks of the Shoshone power plant above the Colorado River. A coalition led by the Colorado River District is seeking to purchase the water rights associated with the plant. Credit: Library of Congress photo
State water officials debated a controversial proposal to use two powerful Colorado River water rights to help the environment, weighing competing interests from Front Range and Western Slope water managers.
Almost 100 water professionals gathered in Durango this week for a 14-hour hearing focused on the water rights tied to the Shoshone Power Plant, owned by an Xcel Energy subsidiary. Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board were originally set to make their final decision on the proposal this week, but an eleventh-hour extension pushed their deadline to November.
Board members peppered presenters with questions during the hearing, weighing thorny issues like who has final authority to manage the environmental water right and how much water is involved.
Their decision could make a historic contribution to the state’s environmental water rights program and impact how Colorado River water will flow around the state long into the future.
“It’s pretty hard to anticipate all of the ways that ‘in perpetuity’ may play out,” said Greg Felt, who represents the Arkansas River on the board. “Building in representation for flexibility … is not a bad idea for an acquisition like this.”
The Shoshone Power Plant, next to Interstate 70 east of Glenwood Springs, has used Colorado River water to generate electricity for over a century.
Graphic credit: Laurine Lassalle/Aspen Journalism
In May, the Colorado River District, representing 15 counties on the Western Slope, shared a proposal to add another use to the water rights: keeping water in the Colorado River channel to help the aquatic environment.
The change requires approval from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which runs the state’s environmental water rights program, and other entities like water court and the state’s Public Utilities Commission.
The Colorado River District wants to add the environmental use as part of a larger plan to maintain the “status quo” flow of water past the power plant, regardless of how long the power plant remains in operation.
Western Slope communities, farms, ranches, endangered species programs and recreational industries have become dependent on those flows over the decades.
“What we’re presenting here today is an offer of a historic partnership,” Andy Mueller, Colorado River District general manager, said. “We believe that this sets the state up for a truly collaborative future on the Colorado River.”
But any change to Shoshone’s water rights could have ripple effects that would affect over 10,000 upstream water rights, including those held by Front Range water groups, like Denver Water, Northern Water, Colorado Springs Utilities and Aurora Water.
These water managers and providers are responsible for delivering reliable water to millions of people, businesses, farms and ranches across the Front Range.
They raised concerns in the hearings about how their water supply could be impacted by the Western Slope’s proposal.
For board member John McClow, who represents the Gunnison-Uncompahgre River, one key question came down to authority.
“I just want to make sure we have adequate legal justification for doing what you suggest we should do,” McClow told CWCB staff during the hearing.
When the Colorado River is too low to meet Shoshone’s needs, its owner, Public Service of Colorado, a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, can call on upstream water users with lower priority water rights to cut back on using their water so that Shoshone has enough.
Whoever manages this “call” impacts thousands of upstream users, including Front Range providers.
Under the proposal, the Colorado River District will own the water rights. The district has an agreement with Xcel to buy the rights for about $99 million.
Generally, the Colorado Water Conservation Board is supposed to be the sole manager of environmental water rights under state law.
The Colorado River District says it should have a say, giving examples of other agreements with similar arrangements between the water board and water rights owners.
Northern Water said the state should have exclusive authority. This is the most important issue for the conservation district, Kyle Whitaker, water rights manager for Northern Water, said Thursday.
If the state agency hands over any amount of control, then the district would push for the water court to approve a smaller amount of water available to Shoshone. That would send less water to Western Slope communities.
If the River District controlled the environmental right, they could conceivably max out the amount of water passing by the power plant year-round, which would impact upstream water rights.
“We have to protect our systems under all future potentialities,” Whitaker said. “This will have a chilling effect on collaboration and cooperation amongst all involved and is likely to result in an outcome that is not only less desirable but also less beneficial to the Colorado River.”
The River District has said it plans to maintain these flows without changing how other water users are impacted.
For board members, this question of authority is just one of many sticky legal and management issues they have to weigh as they make a decision about the Shoshone water rights while tasked with representing the interests of the entire state.
“As far as I’ve been able to understand it, I agree with you about what the statute and the rules say we may do,” Felt told CWCB staff. “I believe we’re here to determine what we should do.”
San Luis Valley center pivot August 14, 2022. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
September 12, 2025
Woes of the Colorado River have justifiably commanded broad attention. The slipping water levels in Lake Powell and other reservoirs provide a compelling argument for changes. How close to the cliff’s edge are we? Very close, says a new report by the Center for Colorado River Studies.
But another cogent — and somewhat related — story lies underfoot in northeastern Colorado. That’s the story of groundwater depletion. There, groundwater in the Republican River Basin has been mined at a furious pace for the last 50 to 60 years.
Much of this water in the Ogallala aquifer that was deposited during several million years will be gone within several generations. In some places it already is. Farmers once supplied by water from underground must now rely upon what falls from the sky.
In the San Luis Valley, unlike the Republican River Basin, aquifers can be replenished somewhat by water that originates from mountain snow via canals from the Rio Grande. The river has been delivering less water, though. It has problems paralleling those of the Colorado River. Changes in the valley’s farming practices have been made, but more will be needed.
In a story commissioned by Headwaters magazine (and republished in serial form at Big Pivots), I also probed mining of Denver Basin aquifers by Parker, Castle Rock and other south-suburban communities.
Those Denver Basin aquifers, like the Ogallala, get little replenishment from mountain snows. Instead of growing corn or potatoes, the water goes to urban needs in one of America’s wealthier areas.
Parker and Castle Rock believe they can tap groundwater far into the future, but to diversify their sources, they have joined hands with farmers in the Sterling area with plans to pump water from the South Platte River before it flows into Nebraska. This pumping will require 2,000 feet of vertical lift across 125 miles, an extraordinary statement of need in its own way.
Like greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, these underground depletions occur out of sight. Gauges at wellheads tell the local stories, just like the carbon dioxide detector atop Hawaii’s Mauna Loa has told the global story since 1958.
Colorado’s declining groundwater can be seen within a global context. Researchers from institutions in Arizona, California, and elsewhere recently used data from satellites collected during the last two decades. The satellites track water held in glaciers, lakes, and aquifers across the globe. In their study published recently in Science Advances, they report that water originating from groundwater mining now causes more sea level rise than the melting of ice.
“In many places where groundwater is being depleted, it will not be replenished on human timescales,” they wrote. “It is an intergenerational resource that is being poorly managed, if managed at all, by recent generations, at tremendous and exceptionally undervalued cost to future generations. Protecting the world’s groundwater supply is paramount in a warming world and on continents that we now know are drying.”
This global perspective cited several areas of the United States, most prominently California’s Central Valley but also the Ogallala of the Great Plains.
In Colorado, the Ogallala underlies the state’s southeastern corner, but the main component lies in the Republican River Basin. The river was named by French fur trappers in the 1700s, long before the Republican Party was organized. The area within Colorado, if unknown to most of Colorado’s mountain-gawking residents, is only slightly smaller than New Jersey.
A 1943 compact with Nebraska and Kansas has driven Colorado’s recent efforts to slow groundwater mining. The aquifer feeds the Republican River and its tributaries. As such, the depletions reduce flows into down-river states.
Farmers are being paid to remove land from irrigation with a goal of 25,000 acres by 2030 to keep Colorado in compliance. So far, it’s all carrots, no sticks. Colorado is also deliberately mining water north of Wray to send to Nebraska during winter months. This helps keep Colorado in compact compliance. So far, these efforts have cost more than $100 million. The money comes from self-assessments and also state and federal grants and programs.
In some recent years, more than 700,000 acre-feet of water have been drafted from the Ogallala in the Republican River Basin. To put that into perspective, Denver Water distributes an average annual 232,000 acre-feet to a population of 1.5 million.
Hard conversations are underway in the Republican River Basin and in the San Luis Valley, too. They will get harder yet. Sixteen percent of all of Colorado’s water comes from underground.
The Colorado River has big troubles. It’s not alone.
Part II: South Metro cities starting to diversify water sources: Castle Rock and Parker 25 years ago were almost entirely dependent upon groundwater. They are diversifying, and one plan is to import water from far down the South Platte River Valley.
The Republican River basin. The North Fork, South Fork and Arikaree all flow through Yuma County before crossing state lines. Credit: USBR/DOIRio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868Water stored in Colorado’s Denver Basin aquifers, which extend from Greeley to Colorado Springs, and from Golden to the Eastern Plains near Limon, does not naturally recharge from rain and snow and is therefore carefully regulated. Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey.The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
The greenback cutthroat trout is a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Biologists are hoping to return the species to the Colorado River headwaters in the Kawuneechee Valley. Kevin Rogers/U.S. Forest Service
13 years ago, Colorado’s state fish could only be found in a single stream in the entire state. Today, a coalition of agencies and experts are working to change that. The Poudre Headwaters Project is a 10 to 12-year effort led by Rocky Mountain National Park and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, among other organizations, to restore the greenback cutthroat trout to its native waters — about 40 miles of streams in parts of Rocky Mountain National Park and the Arapaho National Forest…
For decades, the National Park Service and state fisheries stocked millions of fish, mostly brook trout, in the native waters of the greenbacks. But once brook trout have established themselves in a stream, they will outcompete greenbacks for food and habitat, Clatterbuck said. Restoring native greenbacks requires killing off the non-native brook trout that have long threatened their survival. To kill the fish, crews must apply the pesticide rotenone to streams with invasive brook trout and other non-natives. Rotenone is a dangerous chemical in high concentrations, but it has been widely used by fisheries for decades and is carefully managed when applied to streams…The pesticide specifically targets aquatic species, making it the ideal treatment method for fish removal. Consuming rotenone-treated fish is unlikely to poison a mammal, Clatterbuck said…
A map of the Poudre Headwaters Project area. U.S. Forest Service, J.Scott/Courtesy photo
Once the areas are confirmed to be free of non-native trout, biologists will reintroduce the native greenback cutthroat trout to its original habitat in the headwaters of the Cache la Poudre River, according to park officials…Colorado State University Professor Robert Behnke reported that once brook trout gained access to streams, greenback cutthroat trout were virtually gone within five years. In the 1960s, Behnke spearheaded efforts to restore greenback cutthroat trout to streams of their native range east of the Continental Divide. Since then, fisheries have worked to build fish barriers, often in the form of small dams, near the downstream ends of headwater streams to protect native fish while applying chemicals to kill off brook trout upstream. However, none of these projects have been able to prevent non-native trout invasion long term. Clatterbuck is hopeful that with time and collaboration, this new restoration project will build a metapopulation, or a network of connected subpopulations that can strengthen the species’ genetic diversity and resilience.
Select Douglas County water districts are poised to receive up to $2.75 million combined for projects dealing with sustainable drinking water or new pipelines. That’s on top of $20 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding already allocated for a wastewater project in northwest Douglas County. Back in May, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, had requested $9 million in federal funding for the Louviers Water & Sanitation District’s drinking water distribution replacement and Castle Rock Water’s Plum Creek to Reuter-Hess Reservoir pipeline projects. On July 22, the federal House Appropriations Committee advanced a bill that included $1.75 million specifically for Castle Rock’s project. The panel also advanced $1 million for the Louviers project, according to county officials…The funding still needs the full approval of Congress, which is expected later in the year…
Castle Rock Water officials said the $1.75 million is likely the most the project has ever received in outside funding. The money is needed for a new transmission water pipeline and pump station from Plum Creek in Castle Rock to the Reuter-Hess Reservoir in Parker, a roughly a seven-mile stretch. The $24.8 million project had earlier been “put on hold until additional funding could be secured,” according to Castle Rock Assistant Director Mark Henderson…A major water project aims to replace about 12,000 feet of aged galvanized steel pipe, including 86 service lines and 15 fire hydrants, in a small northwest Douglas County town. The project, called the Louvier’s Water & Sanitation District Water Distribution Replacement, will provide residents with “cleaner drinking water, increase system reliability, and enable better fire flow capacity,” Douglas County officials said in a news release…Meanwhile, near Louviers, a new million wastewater treatment facility near Chatfield Reservoir seeks to improve water quality in the area. The $20 million facility is funded with American Rescue Plan Act dollars. The project would benefit five nearby communities, according to Dominion Water & Wastewater officials, who oversee the project.
A Douglas County firefighting helicopter brought members of its helitack team to help fire the fire and made multiple drops of water on the late July blaze.
Fran and Terry Haury
Click the link to read the article on the Canyon Courier website (Jan Reuter). Here’s an excerpt:
August 13, 2025
Fran and Terry Haury were eating lunch in their mountaintop Conifer-area home July 22 when thunder and lightning struck.
“It was so instantaneous, and the noise was so loud, we didn’t even realize there was a light flash,” Terry Haury said. “I didn’t see any smoke, but another neighbor called and said they had. Sure enough, a tree was on fire. Then it just blew up, and the fire was higher than the trees.”
That was the start of the White Hawk fire. Due to the steep, rocky terrain and that day’s windy conditions, the blaze had the potential to be disastrous. Instead, just more than a single acre burned…Neighbors, firefighters and state officials attribute its minimal impact to two factors: mitigation and a swift attack…
A decade before, eight neighboring landowners used a grant and pooled their funds to pay the balance for the Jefferson Conservation District to mitigate 235 acres. JCD assists private landowners with planning and implementing forest and noxious weed management projects to restore ecosystems and mitigate wildfire hazards…Firefighter response was also crucial. Elk Creek Fire, the Conifer Wildland Division, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and a Douglas County helicopter equipped with a water tank joined forces at the site…The JCD’s efforts, which also include a slash program, are voluntary. It exists to help private landowners address resource concerns about wildlife habitat, wildfire, water and invasive species…JCD’s preference is to mitigate across multiple landowner boundaries to make a treated area as large as possible. That magnifies the positive impact on wildlife and wildfire mitigation, Stephens said.
Up until late August, this summer has been particularly dry, both for the Denver region and for the West Slope, the source of half of Denver Water’s supply. And that combination has translated into a heavy workload for the utility’s largest reservoir, the 257,000-acre-foot Dillon Reservoir in Summit County.
Dillon Reservoir in Summit County is Denver Water’s largest reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.
A summer largely bereft of the monsoon rains (which bolster our water supply and reduce water use by our water-smart customers) combined with long stretches of days above 90 degrees pushed up demand among the 1.5 million people Denver Water serves.
The dry summer situation also triggered calls for more water from farmers and ranchers who have senior water rights that put them at the front of the line for receiving water from the South Platte River system. Denver Water’s supplies are also constrained on the north side of its system, as ongoing work on the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project requires the utility reduce the amount of water it stores in that reservoir during the project.
Dillon Reservoir provides Denver Water with a supplemental supply to use when the amount of water available from its south system source, the South Platte River, is not enough to meet demands.
That all combined to make Denver Water more heavily reliant on Dillon Reservoir than usual, forcing the utility to push higher volumes from Dillon through the Roberts Tunnel to the Front Range.
“A lot of factors combined to see us lean hard into our Dillon supplies this summer,” said Nathan Elder, manager of supply for Denver Water. “We know this impacts recreation, both what we release into the Blue River below the reservoir and the water levels for the marinas at Dillon Reservoir. We try very hard to maintain good conditions for recreation at Dillon, but this summer posed challenges.”
The Dillon Marina at Dillon Reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Overall, the amount of water flowing into Dillon was at just 70% of normal in the April-through-July stretch. July alone saw just 48% of typical flows into the reservoir — that’s 20,000 acre-feet below average, about the capacity of Antero Reservoir west of Fairplay.
The situation serves as a reminder for Denver Water customers to stay smart about water use.
Especially amid a hot, dry summer, customers should make sure to follow watering rules and skip irrigation during rainy periods. And they should consider landscape changes that replace thirsty turfgrass with plants that need less water.
Yet, despite relentless dry periods covering July and most of August, Denver Water customers did a good job managing irrigation. They used water at a rate of just about 2% above the five-year average, and just 1.6% above the longer term, 2000-2024 average.
These plants from Resource Central’s Garden In A Box program are water-wise and interesting throughout the year. Photo credit: Denver Water.
But even as Denver Water customers kept demands low by historical standards, the combination of conditions saw water levels in Dillon fall below levels optimal for the marinas at the reservoir by the end of August.
Typically, Denver Water tries to keep the surface of Dillon Reservoir at 9,012 feet in elevation through Labor Day. But this year, levels will fall a few feet below that.
And water volumes flowing out of Dillon into the Blue River — flows important to rafters and anglers — also fell significantly. Since late July, those outflows were about 100 cubic feet per second, about half of normal for this time of year. In August they dropped even further, to 75 cubic feet per second.
The overall picture began to improve slightly in late August, as the state benefited from a cooling trend and bursts of rainfall. The cooler, wetter weather in the metro area cut Denver Water customers’ demand for water in the Denver region, easing the need to pull as much water from Dillon.
Even so, the tough summer means Denver Water will likely enter the new, 12-month water year, which begins Oct. 1, with its reservoirs, including Dillon, at below-average elevations.
That puts the onus on the upcoming winter season to come through with a good snowpack, never a sure thing.
“We’ll hope to see water demands fall in September and then look to a good snowpack in the winter and spring,” Elder said.
“But we’ll be starting from behind. We hope we can make up the gap in reservoir storage with a wet winter and spring. And we’ll need our customers to help us with smart water practices.”
Save The Poudre will not appeal a judge’s ruling allowing Thornton’s pipeline project to proceed.
The environmental advocacy group focused on the Poudre River contends Colorado water law, created more than 100 years ago, is not in line with public values today.
Save The Poudre urges Thornton to take a more active role in protecting and restoring the Poudre River
In announcing the decision not to appeal the judge’s ruling, Save The Poudre Executive Director Gary Wockner said Colorado’s water law gives agencies the right to drain rivers, and it doesn’t seem like a wise use of resources to appeal when a challenge would likely fail…
Todd Barnes, communications director for the city of Thornton, noted the deadline to appeal is still ahead, on Aug. 21. He said Thornton doesn’t plan to issue a statement about the development as of now…Thornton and Northern Water have planned to co-locate a few miles of their pipelines to reduce disruption. But Barnes said Thornton has heard nothing concrete from NISP. Regardless, he said, the city will follow through with all of the requirements of its permit, which includes co-location.
Cranes and construction equipment line the shore at Gross Reservoir on June 19, 2025 in Boulder County, Colorado. The construction is part of an expansion project that will supply water to Denver’s residents. (Cassie Sherwood/The Water Desk)
Pieter Strauss used to love hosting stargazing parties at his house in the Lakeshore Park neighborhood up Flagstaff Road southwest of Boulder. The hobbyist astronomer would fire up the barbecue and spend hours showing his neighbors the night sky through his observatory and telescopes.
Strauss’s house sits looking directly over Gross Reservoir, which provides water to Denver residents.
But when a project to significantly raise the reservoir’s dam began construction in 2022, those moments of neighborhood tranquility were lost for some residents. For Strauss the biggest impact was the bright construction lights used to keep work moving overnight.
“It became impossible to sit on the deck before sunrise and after sundown, astrophotography was impossible. They lit up the skies,” with powerful floodlights, Strauss said.
For over 20 years, residents and various environmental groups have protested the project, which suffered a series of legal blows this year. Construction on the massive dam ground to a halt in April amidst the courtroom wrangling, and subsequent decisions have cast a new level of uncertainty over large-scale water projects that propose to draw on the beleaguered Colorado River.
However, by the end of May, federal courts ruled that construction could continue due to concerns surrounding uncompleted construction and potential flooding possibilities, but that the reservoir could not be filled.
The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project involves raising the height of the existing dam by 131 feet. The dam will be built out and will have “steps” made of roller-compacted concrete to reach the new height. Image credit: Denver Water
Raising the dam
Gross Reservoir’s dam is owned and operated by Denver Water. The utility built it in the 1950s, with two other building phases planned to accommodate future water needs. The current dam expansion will raise the height of the dam 131 feet, tripling the current capacity of the reservoir, and providing more water for Denver Water customers.
The construction was spurred by “a combination of demands in our system, as well as concerns about climate and concerns about the needs for greater resilience in our system,” said Jessica Brody, general counsel for Denver Water.
The need for the expansion is similar to a bank savings account, Brody said. Tripling the capacity of the reservoir is a savings account that can be drawn on in circumstances of an emergency.
“If we have an extreme drought event, we want to have more water banks that we can help smooth the impacts to our customers,” Brody said.
When the utility initially announced plans to begin moving forward with a dam expansion, residents of the area were concerned. Environmental threats and the disruptions from the massive construction project topped the list of worries. They attended meetings at town halls with county commissioners. They organized with other residents in and around Coal Creek canyon.
While some residents fought the expansion, others anticipated it. When the dam was initially constructed, the utility planned to expand further down the line.
Since construction began in 2022, residents have experienced noise and light pollution. Five neighbors have moved from the Lakeshore Park neighborhood. Pieter Strauss, at whose house they once held stargazing gatherings, was among them.
Beverly Kurtz, member of TEG, on Pieter Strauss’s former porch overlooking Gross Reservoir on June 19, 2025. Once construction began, Strauss was no longer able to host neighborhood stargazing parties due to light pollution. (Cassie Sherwood/The Water Desk)
“The most valuable thing to all the people who have moved up here is that they had a quiet nature sanctuary. But then when you take that away, is it worth it?” said Anna McDermott, another resident of the area.
“We sleep with our windows open. Not one house has air conditioning, so you sleep with your windows open in the summer months,” she said. “You hear these giant backup beepers crashing, grinding all night long. Even with earplugs, I can’t sleep.”
The Environmental Group (TEG) is an organization of residents in the Lakeshore Park neighborhood and surrounding residents, focused on engaging the community in action when environmental issues arise. Along with Save the Colorado, The Sierra Club, and other environmental organizations, TEG has fought the expansion. Beverly Kurtz, former president of TEG, has worked to hold Denver Water and the companies working on the dam, Kiewit Corp. and Barnard Construction Company Inc., accountable during construction.
Heavy duty trucks are required to use a different road to access the dam rather than the paved road up Flagstaff Mountain due to fire concerns. Large semi-trucks have slid off the road due to the steep grade, which can cause traffic jams and road closures.
“At one point they had one of the two roads down this mountain closed for five months,” Kurtz said. “It wasn’t until we called the sheriff out here and he realized the safety concern that they opened the road back up.”
Legal snares slow construction
In October 2024, two years after construction began, Save the Colorado, along with other environmental groups, won a lawsuit against Denver Water. U.S. District Court judge Christine Arguello found the utility’s dam construction permit violated the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. At the time, construction was able to continue and Arguello ordered the groups to work out an agreement regarding damages.
In April 2025, the judge ordered a temporary halt on construction. The initial lawsuit argued that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who provided the project permitting, did not fully consider climate change impacts when it approved the dam’s expansion.
A month later, Arguello ruled that Denver Water could finish construction on raising the dam, but that the reservoir could not be filled until the Army Corps reissued the permits.
“If you stop the construction of a dam when it is partially built, the dam doesn’t function as it was ultimately designed to function,” said Denver Water’s Brody. “That was a big concern of ours and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.”
The utility has also been ordered to not remove any additional trees surrounding the dam until the proper permits are obtained. The project proposes the removal of over 200,000 trees.
Arguello’s opinion also called into question the underlying water rights Denver Water would rely on to fill the newly enlarged reservoir when construction finished. Gross Reservoir is filled with water from the headwaters of the Colorado River, which has experienced steep declines in water supply amid a long-term warming and drying trend in the Rocky Mountains.
“The Environmental Impact Statement didn’t even look at the fact that the flows of the Colorado River are in decline. Most of the science suggests they will continue to decline further,” said Doug Kenney, Western Water Policy Program director at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Natural Resources Law Center. Acquiring new permits will require Denver Water to redefine the project’s purpose and evaluate the environmental damage, he said.
The case is more than a local water project. Diverting more water across the western slope of Colorado has created concerns for ecosystems throughout the overappropriated watershed and for communities downstream in California, Nevada and Arizona.
“It makes it more difficult to ensure that there’s sufficient flow downstream as a result,” Kenney said. “We have got to stop this practice of taking more and more water out of the upper reaches of the Colorado River because it just increases the stress on a river that is already under a tremendous amount of stress.”
By calling into question the project’s potential to have downstream impacts, the decision could add a new legal hurdle future water development infrastructure will have to clear.
“Historically, agencies in recent decades have not done enough to consider climate change in decisions,” Kenney said. Cases like this one need to happen in natural resource law more generally, he said, as they help establish precedents for future projects that could potentially put the environment at risk.
Denver Water is appealing the court decisions that bar the expansion. That could result in a reissue of the permits with a redefined purpose or a dismissal of the court rulings made earlier this year.
“We think that the district court made some misjudgements or misinterpretations when it found the Army Corps committed these errors,” Brody said.
Learning to live alongside it
Amid the stops and starts of Gross Reservoir construction, nearby residents are not ready to let go of what they used to have.
Kurtz and McDermott recall their old activities along the reservoir’s north shore. A handful of neighbors would walk their dogs everyday along the hiking trail that connected the reservoir to their neighborhood. The trail has since been widened significantly, to allow for excavating equipment. They would host Memorial Day parties along the water’s edge.
Beverly Kurtz and Anna McDermott, longtime residents of the Lakeshore Park neighborhood pose in front of Gross Reservoir on June 19, 2025. They are members of TEG, an environmental group involved in a lawsuit against Denver Water. (Cassie Sherwood/The Water Desk)
Now they minimize their excursions to the shore as much as they can. At this point they’re more than ready for construction to be completed, exhausted from the daily disruptions, explosions and drilling.
“Now clearly, when the work is done, the things which negatively impacted my life would go away. But I couldn’t last them out,” Strauss said. He recently relocated to the Boulder area. “It was just my bad luck that my golden years coincided with the worst effects of the project.”
Some residents found that the expansion project has renewed their sense of community in Lakeshore Park.
“In a weird way a lot of us have gotten even closer because we were in the battle together,” Kurtz said. “We feel like at this point we won the battle, but we’ve lost the war.”
“They will get the permits to eventually fill this reservoir following the expansion,” she said.
However, federal courts requiring the proper permits to continue construction is a win in her and TEG’s book, as it sets a precedent for any large construction processes that occur in the future. It will ensure that the proper environmental permits are obtained before construction can begin on a project.
“If nothing else, we hope that precedent still stands. Because it will help somebody else,” she said.
This story was produced by The Water Desk, an independent journalism initiative at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.
Big Thompson Flood, Colorado. Cabin lodged on a private bridge just below Drake, looking upstream. Photo by W. R. Hansen, August 13, 1976. Photo via the USGS.
Re-upping this post for July 31, 2025. The flood remains Colorado’s deadliest. Here’s a link to Coyote Gulch coverage mentioning the Big Thompson Flood.
July 31, 1976, Steamboat Springs: I had been wandering around the Flat Tops Wilderness for a week or so with Mrs. Gulch. Drizzle in between downpours during the monsoon. We were holed-up in a hotel to dry out and I phoned my mother to check in.
She asked, “Johnny are you anywhere near the Big Thompson Canyon? There’s been a terrible flood.”
And it was a terrible flood. After the September 2013 floods Allen Best wrote about being part of the disaster response in The Denver Post. It’s a good read on this 40th anniversary. Here’s one passage:
I was at the Big Thompson disaster. I was living in Fort Collins then and was among scores of young men (sorry, women, those were different times) with strong backs who could be summoned in case of forest fires. My only fire was at an old sawmill site in the foothills. The joke was that one of us had set the fire because we were so desperate for minimum-wage work.
Then came July 31. It was hot that night in Fort Collins. It hadn’t rained a drop.
I was living above Gene’s Tavern, just two blocks from the Larimer County Courthouse. When the call came, I was at the sheriff’s office almost immediately. It was 9 p.m.
Being among the first at the command center at the Dam Store west of Loveland, near the mouth of Big Thompson Canyon, I was assigned to a pickup dispatched to look for people in the water near the turnoff to Masonville. Already, the river was out of its banks. From the darkness emerged a figure, dripping and confused. “I went fishing at Horsetooth (Reservoir) and was driving home and then there was all this water,” he sputtered. He was befuddled. So were we.
Our leader decided we’d best get out of there. From what I saw the next morning, that was an excellent decision. Water later covered the road there, too. I spent the night at the Dam Store as the water rose. Helicopters were dispatched, but there was little that could be done. Our lights revealed picnic baskets, beach balls and propane bottles bobbing in the dark, roiling water that raced past us, but never any hands summoning help.
In the morning, we found those hands. The bodies were stripped of clothing and covered with mud. The first I saw was of a woman who we guessed was 18, not much younger than I was then. This thin margin between life and death was startling in my young eyes.
Eventually, 144 people were declared victims of the flooding that night (although one turned up alive in 2008 in Oklahoma).
Estes Park got some rain, but not all that much. The larger story was partway down the canyon, in the Glen Haven and Glen Comfort areas, where the thunderstorm hovered. In just a few hours, it dropped 10 to 14 inches of water.
Downstream in the canyon, just above the Narrows, some people were unaware that anything was amiss until they went outside their houses and saw the water rising in their yards. It hadn’t even rained there. One cabin I saw a few days later was stripped of doors and windows but stood on its foundations, a mound of mud 5 or 6 feet high in the interior. I seem to recall a dog barking as we approached, protecting that small part of the familiar in a world gone mad.
At the old hydroelectric plant where my family had once enjoyed Sunday picnics, the brick building had vanished. Only the turbines and concrete foundation remained. In a nearby tree, amid the branches maybe 10 or 15 feet off the ground, hung a lifeless body.
The river that night carried 32,000 cubic feet per second of water at the mouth of the canyon, near where I was stationed. It happened almost instantaneously — and then it was gone. It was a flash flood.
Here’s an excerpt from a look back forty years from Michelle Vendegna writing for the Longmont Times-Call.
Night on the ledge
“We, Terry Belair-Hassig and Connie Granath-Hays, graduated from Berthoud Jr. Sr. High School the month before, and were anxious to begin the summer. We spent the beautiful, sunny day of July 31, 1976, at a Hewlett-Packard company picnic at Hermit Park not far from Estes Park. After the picnic, we drove up to Estes Park and had dinner at Bob and Tony’s Pizza.
The clouds started moving in about 6 p.m., so we began the drive down to Loveland via U.S. 34. Within minutes, Connie had to pull her car over because the driving rain was causing zero visibility. We needed to get home, so she started out again, but we didn’t get too much farther before we were blocked by trees, boulders and debris washing down the canyon sides. We had just passed the Loveland Heights area — barely three miles since entering the canyon. The closest town, Drake, was miles away.
Connie pulled over to the side of the mountain as far as she could. There were a few other cars in this section doing the same, but we all sat in our cars — planning to wait out the storm. However, once the river began to rise and the water was hitting the tires, we decided to leave the car and start climbing. Connie’s dad had taught her to always ‘be prepared,’ so she had a tarp and a few extra jackets stored in her trunk. We grabbed them before climbing. It was a dark, treacherous climb.
A small group of people scrambled up the mountain near us. Connie gave one of the men her extra jacket. She also had a flashlight which came in handy later in the evening when the lightning wasn’t lighting up the canyon. The other people were lucky enough to find an overhang of rocks to sit under. We tentatively settled on a ledge out in the open, and wrapped ourselves in the tarp. Of course, the tarp was just an old tarp, not waterproof like the ones are today. It protected us for a while, but with the downpour of rain and runoff from the hillside, it too became drenched.
After only a little while, we watched her car, during the lightning flashes, being lifted up and carried down the river. We decided at this point we should climb higher, so we found a ledge where we spent the long, cold night. We had spent many winters skiing and had never been as cold as we were that night.
We sat on that little ledge (3 foot by 1 foot) with our knees drawn up to keep us from sliding off. We sang, shivered, cussed and did anything we could to keep our minds off of how cold and achy we were. We heard and saw cars, houses and propane tanks floating down the river during flashes of lightning. We thought by now it must be about morning time, but looking at our watch, it was about 10 p.m. We had a long night ahead of us.
The next morning was another blue bird day and we were freezing and soaked to the bone. We decided it would be warmer to take our jackets off and left them on the ledge. The road below us had been washed away, but the river had receded enough that we could get off the ledge and move around a little on the steep mountainside. We heard the helicopters for a long time before we saw one. Finally, we were rescued off the side of the mountain by a four-seat helicopter,and dropped off up river on a section of the highway that had survived. There were several other people there. I remember we were all surveying the canyon in a daze. There wasn’t much conversation. I leaned over and picked up a small piece of asphalt and put it in my pocket.
Click here to read the Fort Collins Coloradoan special about the flood.
On July 31, 1976, during the celebration of Colorado’s centennial, the Big Thompson Canyon was the site of a devastating flash flood that swept down the steep and narrow canyon, claiming the lives of 143 people, 5 of whom were never found. This flood was triggered by a nearly stationary thunderstorm near the upper section of the canyon that dumped 300 millimeters (12 inches) of rain in less than 4 hours (more than 3/4 of the average annual rainfall for the area). Little rain fell over the lower section of the canyon, where many of the victims were.
Around 9 p.m., a wall of water more than 6 meters (20 ft) high raced down the canyon at about 6 m/s (14 mph), destroying 400 cars, 418 houses and 52 businesses and washing out most of U.S. Route 34. This flood was more than 4 times as strong as any in the 112-year record available in 1976, with a discharge of 1,000 cubic meters per second (35,000 ft³/s).
Officials on Friday detailed how a Big Thompson River that was flowing at 30 cubic feet per second increased to 30,000 by the time it got to the narrows near Sylvan Ranch and the Dam Store.
The 2013 flood, by contrast was flowing at 16,000 cubic feet per second at the same point. But Bob Kimbrough, from the U.S. Geological Survey, said that number can be misleading. Just because it was flowing at less than half the rate, doesn’t mean the water was half as high as it was in 1976. It could have been a foot or two lower, Kimbrough said.
Further, the 2013 flood lasted longer. Where the 1976 flood dissipated nearly as quickly as it rose, the 2013 flood flowed over saturated ground for days, causing foundation failures and greater erosion than the 1976 flood.
Click here to read the extensive coverage from The Estes Park Trail-Gazette.
Big Thompson Flood, Colorado. Cabin lodged on a private bridge just below Drake, looking upstream. Photo by W. R. Hansen, August 13, 1976. Photo via the USGS.
Heavy rainfall in late July in Colorado’s past caused two of the state’s worst floods, the Spring Creek Flood and the Big Thompson Flood.
The 1997 Spring Creek Flood resulted in five deaths and over $200 million in damages in Fort Collins.
The 1976 Big Thompson Flood led to 144 fatalities and $35 million in damages.
Twenty-eight years ago this week, 14 inches of rain fell on Fort Collins in just over a day, overwhelming the Spring Creek and leading to the deaths of five people.
And 49 years ago this week, more than a foot of rain fell on the Big Thompson River west of Loveland in about four hours, creating a wall of water that swept away and killed 144 people. It’s not a coincidence that both events happened in the same week of July, though they were years apart. It’s flash-flood season in Colorado, and three of the state’s worst floods occurred from mid-July through mid-September, which is also the state’s monsoon season.
Engineering students take measurements from a scale model of the dam at Halligan Reservoir in a lab at Colorado State University in Fort Collins on July 15, 2025. Their data will help make the soon-to-be-built dam safer in the real world. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
July 15, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West produced by KUNC and supported by the Walton Family Foundation.
If you’re going to build a new reservoir, you better be dam sure it’s safe.
Engineers at Colorado State University are doing exactly that by running tests on a giant model of a dam that will soon be built near Fort Collins. In an airy warehouse at CSU’s foothills campus, they’re sending water through a 24:1 scale mockup of the dam that will hold back an expanded Halligan Reservoir.
“It just gives us assurances on so many different levels that our design is sound, that it is going to be constructable, and that it is going to perform when it’s built, as expected,” said Darren Parkin, Halligan Water Supply Project Manager with the City of Fort Collins.
Water flows through a scale model of the area surrounding Halligan Reservoir in a lab at Colorado State University on July 15, 2025. The model was built to precisely mimic conditions at the actual reservoir. Alex Hager/KUNC
The new dam will be built to survive a one-in-ten-million year precipitation event — or 72 inches of rain — which is required to get building permits. For comparison, the devastating Spring Creek flood of 1997 was caused by 14.5 inches of rain.
Running that test, even on a dam that’s a fraction of the size of the real one, requires a huge pulse of water. It tumbles and whooshes through the manmade river with so much force that it’s hard to hear the person standing next to you.
When engineering students switch on the model, a large tank fills behind the dam. First, it spills down the stairstep-like face of the structure with a gentle trickle. Before long, it’s hitting the base as roiling whitewater. That’s exactly where most of this team’s research has been focused.
They built a series of “baffles” to slow that water down and prevent it from bashing the dam and eroding its base. They are essentially large blocks that change the speed and direction of water cascading over the dam. The engineers working on the dam say they were able to figure out precisely the best place to put those baffles, how many to install, and how far apart they should be because they were running tests on this model instead of a computer program.
A Colorado State University student monitors data at a scale model of the Halligan Reservoir dam in Fort Collins on July 15, 2025. Alex Hager/KUNC
“We can easily change things in a physical model,” said Jeff Ellis, who manages the hydraulics lab where the model is housed. “We can move things by an inch and just keep on retesting, and it’s really optimizing performance.”
The City of Fort Collins is nearing construction on the dam, which will enable them to expand Halligan Reservoir’s storage capacity. City officials say that it’s necessary to supply water to the growing city in the future. Work on the new dam, about 25 miles northwest of Fort Collins, is expected to start in early 2027 and finish in late 2029 or early 2030.
Ellis said the project serves another function, too. It’s giving engineering students a new kind of experience.
“It’s super rewarding,” he said. “A lot of time in class, you’re doing a lot of theoretical work, it’s not hands-on. Where this, they’re actually doing design and they’re helping solve these real world problems.”
Water tumbles over a model of the Halligan Reservoir dam in a lab at Colorado State University in Fort Collins on July 15, 2025. Students tested different baffles at the base of the dam to help prevent erosion during times of excess flow. Alex Hager/KUNC
Students helped build the intricate model, which is shaped exactly like the area around Halligan Reservoir, and they operate the data-gathering equipment that helps engineers form conclusions from their testing. Catherine Lambert, an undergraduate senior studying Environmental Engineering, said the experience was fun and exciting, but would also help prepare her for a career.
“It’s really cool to see all of our hard work actually translate into the real world,” she said, “We’re very proud of what we do here.”
Halligan Reservoir aerial credit: City of Fort Collins
Unlike the sparsely populated Republican River Basin, the south metro area of the Denver Basin has large and still-growing cities. Most of the south metro area lies within Douglas County, whose population ballooned between 1980 and 2025 from 25,200 to nearly 400,000.
Castle Rock, the county’s largest city, has 87,000 residents. Based on approved development, the city expects to grow to a population of 120,000 to 140,000. Parker, the second largest city, has 68,000 residents and has zoning for 80,000. Utilities serving these two cities in 2005 were almost 100% dependent upon extractions from the underlying Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe and Laramie-Fox Hills aquifers. Both cities as well as other jurisdictions have lessened their dependence, but they have much work to do.
How much water remains? That’s not an easy answer to deliver, as a consultant told the Castle Rock City Council in 2005. A council member asked him: “Just how much water remains?” Perhaps leery of trying to offer easy answers that required a half-hour explanation, he simply smiled and said: “It’s dark down there.”
That absence of total certainty was at the heart of a Colorado Supreme Court decision handed down in late 2024. Parker Water and Sanitation District, Castle Rock Water and others had squared off in water court beginning in 2021 with the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Parker Water has 33 wells that are 515 to 2,745 feet deep. State-issued permits for the newest five wells limit the volumes to what could be withdrawn during 100 years at a rate of 1% a year. Parker Water and several other south-metro jurisdictions disputed the state’s authority to attach this stipulation.
The stipulation was premised on a 1973 law in which state legislators ordered a “slow sip” of Denver Basin aquifers. Later legislation and rulemaking clarified that withdrawals were not to exceed 1% of total recoverable water in that portion underlying the land of the permittee’s well in any given year.
Castle Rock believes it has underlying water in the Denver Basin aquifers to satisfy its needs for 300 years but is also making efforts to reduce per-capita use while also diversifying sources. It has 87,000 residents now but expects to grow to between 120,000 and 140,000. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
This dispute is about the future. When the cities reach those 100-year limits and the total volumetric limits associated with their wells, will they be able to continue pumping. Must they cease pumping even if water remains in the aquifer?
Aurora, which lies within a half-mile of Parker Water wells, argued its water rights could be harmed if Parker pumped more than the total volume of water found to be available for its wells.
It’s crucial to understand that water underground knows no property lines, no signs saying “Welcome to Parker.” Water could, in theory, flow from below Aurora’s land to Parker’s wells. Underground, there are no fences.
Colorado Supreme Court justices, in their November 2024 majority opinion, warned of a “race to the bottom of the aquifer, with earlier permittees receiving a significant head start.” What would happen if Parker Water, Castle Rock Water and others had their druthers? “Absent a total volumetric limit, a permittee who continues to pump at the maximum permitted rate for more than 100 years would end up pulling water to its well that would not otherwise be underlying its land,” said the justices in their majority opinion.
In his dissent, Justice Brian Boatright came to the opposite conclusion, siding with the south-metro jurisdictions.
A study by the U.S. Geological Survey published in 2011 used a model that found 1% to 2% of precipitation becomes water in the bedrock aquifers and 7% in the alluvial aquifer. For urban irrigation, such as at the Watercolor subdivision in Castle Rock, 2.5 inches of water makes it back to underlying aquifers each year. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Some south-metro entities may seek state legislation that reflects what they believe is the best policy. As it stands now, a permit-holder that has withdrawn the total volumetric amount identified on a well permit must cease pumping, says Jason Ullmann, the state engineer and director of the Colorado Division of Water Resources. He has authority to notify users in writing of their violations. Could he shut down wells? They would be given “time as may reasonably be necessary to correct deficiencies,” he says. But yes, they would be “subject to enforcement.”
Just how much water remains in the Denver Basin aquifers? The Division of Water Resources issues well permits, and in doing so, estimates the potential volume of water underlying the applicant’s parcel. But the state agency does not track changes in volume over time, nor does it track the amount of water that wells pump. It requires well owners to maintain pumping records.
When asked how much water remains in Castle Rock’s wells, Mark Marlowe, director of the city’s water utility, suggested consultation of a hydrogeologist, perhaps from the U.S. Geological Survey. Pressed further, he said Castle Rock’s groundwater supply will last more than 300 years “from a legal standpoint” based on current rates of use.
The practical effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Castle Rock? Very little in the short term, Marlowe says. In 2005, Castle Rock set out to create a pathway to dramatically lessen groundwater dependence. “We’ve been headed down this road for a long time,” he says. So why participate in Parker’s lawsuit? Because, he replied, the city wants to make long-term use of its investment in groundwater extraction. And as a practical matter, the city commonly extracts less than the 1% allowed annually.
Marlowe’s answer is not totally satisfying, but the work done by Castle Rock since 2005 must be acknowledged. It was 100% dependent on groundwater extraction then. It is adding new impoundments to store surface water, pumping water upstream from Chatfield Reservoir, and doubling the daily capacity for treating wastewater. Castle Rock already has lessened its dependence on groundwater to less than 69% over the last four years and Marlowe says he’s confident that by 2050 it will lessen to 25%.
Several of Castle Rock’s successes have involved working with other south-metro jurisdictions, including the Parker Water and Sanitation District. In 2013, when Ron Redd was hired by Parker Water as general manager, the utility was still 90% groundwater reliant. He was given a mission: transition to renewable sources.
A key project has been water reuse. Water introduced into the South Platte River from other basins or from groundwater can be reused. Aurora Water set out to do so in 2003. The $680 million Prairie Waters Project pumps water from the river-side aquifer near Fort Lupton to a reservoir in the southeast metropolitan area. From there, in 2010, Parker Water, Castle Rock and eight other south-metro communities joined Denver Water and Aurora Water in a partnership called WISE (Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency) to further manage infrastructure cooperatively and deliver the reclaimed water to their members.
Making this possible was a new 75,000-acre-foot impoundment called Rueter-Hess Reservoir. Completed in 2012, it is a core asset for Parker Water and three other utilities who share its use.
Jim Yahn, left, manager of the Prewitt Reservoir, which might become part of the Platte Valley Water Partnership, speaks with Ron Red, manager of Parker Water and Sanitation District, and Joe Frank, general manager of the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, which is part of the proect. There is still hope that Prewitt would be part of the plan,” says Yahn. “The decree that Parker and Lower South Platte are seeking still has Prewitt Reservoir as a component of the plan.” Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
The Platte Valley Water Partnership is even more ambitious. Parker Water and Castle Rock Water have joined with the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District.
They plan to detain South Platte River water that currently flows downstream into Nebraska during winter and spring runoff. The South Platte River Compact allows the use of this water. Little excess exists in many years, but when there is, such as in 2023, no place exists to store that water. The project plans to use Prewitt Reservoir and a new reservoir northwest of Akron in the capture and storage of those flows before pumping some of that water 125 miles to Rueter-Hess Reservoir.
Farmers will also have access to a cut of this “new” water — with agricultural users receiving 50% of the captured water and municipalities receiving 50%. Construction is set to begin around 2035, at an anticipated cost of $780 million.
As of mid-July, it’s not clear how the Nebraska lawsuit against Colorado involving water for Nebraska’s proposed Perkins Canal might affect this project.
A final important component of the path forward for the water utilities who mine Denver Basin aquifers lies in conservation, particularly for outdoor landscaping. The prevailing theme at one time was use as much as you want — but pay for it. That thinking has shifted to limits and goals of reduced use.
Parker has reduced groundwater dependence to 60% and has goals to reduce it to 25%. Might that be achieved in tapping the aquifers of the San Luis Valley? The idea has provoked outrage for more than 30 years.
“Thanks, but no thanks,” is how Redd describes Parker’s response to the idea of a lengthy straw sucking water from two river basins away.
“We have our project, and financially it makes a lot more sense to go that route.”
For that matter, the San Luis Valley aquifers have their own problems.
Part III: Declines in flows of the Rio Grande parallel those of the Colorado River during the 21st century. There were problems anyway for the potato and other growers around in the eponymously named San Luis Valley farm community of Center. Simply put, less water must be pumped from underground. Easier said than done. You can also download the entire story here in a magazine format.
against the state of Colorado to clear the way for construction of the Perkins County Canal, a contentious proposal to divert water from the South Platte River in Sedgwick County to a storage facility on the Nebraska side of the state line.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday and claims Colorado is threatening Nebraska’s water supply through “unlawful water diversions” that have deprived Nebraska’s farmers of water.
Nebraska’s Western Irrigation District, a beneficiary of the compact, was recently forced to shut off the majority of its surface water irrigation due to lack of supply from the South Platte River, according to the lawsuit.
“These breaches have harmed Nebraska and pose a significant, ongoing threat to Nebraska, from its agricultural economy to the water security of its major population centers,” the lawsuit said.
Perkins County Canal Project Area. Credit: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
The complaint also alleges Colorado is obstructing Nebraska’s efforts to build the Perkins County Canal.
In February, landowners in Sedgwick County, where the river leaves Colorado and flows into Nebraska, received notices of condemnation, giving them 90 days to accept a buyout from the state of Nebraska or face eminent domain.
The letters escalated what was until then a simmering disputebetween the states over enforcement of the South Platte River Compact, an agreement ratified by the governors of Colorado and Nebraska in 1923.
The compact guarantees Nebraska a flow of 120 cubic feet per second from April 1 to Oct. 15 where the South Platte leaves Colorado just northeast of Julesburg. For the other half of the year, the compact allows Nebraska 500 cubic feet per second through a canal that would pull from the river near Ovid. Without a canal, Colorado gets first dibs on the South Platte’s winter flow.
Historically Colorado has sent significant winter water across the state line, but the state’s rapid development in recent years spooked officials in Nebraska.
The century-old compact permits Nebraska to use eminent domain to build the canal, but is unclear about whether eminent domain can be used in another state.
The lawsuit said the states are at an impasse about key terms in the compact.
Earlier this year, Attorney General Phil Weiser called the move onto Colorado soil “novel” and said that he was willing to challenge the move by Nebraska in court.
It appears he will get his chance.
In an emailed statement Wednesday, Weiser said that the lawsuit is “unfortunate and predictable given the misguided effort driving the proposed canal.”
“Nebraska has now set in motion what is likely to be decades of litigation. And if, after decades of litigation, the court allows Nebraska to move forward with its wasteful project, Nebraska’s actions will force Colorado water users to build additional new projects to lessen the impact of the proposed Perkins County Canal,” Weiser wrote.
At that point, Weiser started making trips to the northeastern corner of Colorado to brief people about the project, under the impression that it was unlikely to move forward based on the cost, the cross-border dealings and evaluations by a state water engineer.
“I also said I think this feels more like a political stunt. It doesn’t make sense,” Weiser told The Colorado Sun in February.
Nebraska hopes to complete the Perkins County Canal by 2032.
The Platte River is formed in western Nebraska east of the city of North Platte, Nebraska by the confluence of the North Platte and the South Platte Rivers, which both arise from snowmelt in the eastern Rockies east of the Continental Divide. Map via Wikimedia.
In early July, Denver Water’s reservoirs filled nearly to the brim, holding the most water they’ll hold this year.
Nearly full reservoirs are certainly good news for Denver Water and the 1.5 million people who rely on the water stored in them every day. But for the utility’s water watchers, 2025’s “peak storage” moment was a letdown — and even a warning of sorts.
Dillon Reservoir, Denver Water’s largest reservoir is a popular spot for recreation. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Why?
Initial forecasts had suggested more water might run downhill, enough to fill the reservoirs and also provide extra water that could spill and boost river flows. But dry conditions in Colorado’s high country during April, May and June sapped that extra runoff, as drier soils and warmer air soaked up the potential excess.
“We thought we were going to have some excess water to play with this year,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supply. “But as it turned out we just barely saw enough runoff to fill our reservoirs.”
This year’s quick turn from abundant supplies to just-enough-to-almost-fill is another reminder that even in years when overall snowpack is reasonably good, such as this past winter, we can’t take water supplies for granted. That’s even more apparent in an era of climate change, when warming temperatures and longer dry spells can quickly shrink projected water supplies.
And as the hot summer irrigation season begins on the Front Range, it’s a reminder to residents to be thoughtful with outdoor water use: Adhere to watering rules, turn off irrigation systems during wet stretches, and think about changes to your landscape that, over time, will reduce watering needs.
And, keep in mind, half of Denver Water’s supply comes from the West Slope, where a dry spring is making supplies tight.
“Back on April 1, we thought we were going to be ‘filling and spilling,’” Elder said. “But we saw streamflow forecasts really drop and even in the Colorado River Basin, where we had a solid snowpack, it did not translate into the supplies we expected.”
The Snake River as it flows through Keystone toward Dillon Reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.
At least one key reason for the swift turn from a forecast for “filling and spilling” to just enough runoff to fill Denver Water’s reservoirs was lack of precipitation — just 50% to 70% of normal — in April, May and June in the mountainous counties of Park, Grand and Summit where Denver Water collects supplies.
That dry spell helped drive runoff down, especially in the South Platte Basin. The amount of spring runoff flowing to Strontia Springs southwest of Denver has been only 46% of normal, below an already weak forecast of 60%. Inflows into Dillon have also been lower than expected, just 75% of normal after forecasts of 100%.
As a result, Denver Water’s supply reservoirs peaked July 1, at just 95% of capacity and are now being drawn down as summer watering season gets into full swing. (One caveat: The peak storage number would have been a bit higher, closer to 97%, but for a storage limitation at Gross Reservoir while construction activities continue on the expansion project there.)
Denver Water hopes to see its reservoirs hit 100% of their storage capacity every year. This year’s shortfall across the reservoir system was about 7,500 acre feet, enough water to supply more than 15,000 households for a year.
“We missed filling by a relatively small amount, but we never know if this is a short-term situation or the start of the next drought,” Elder said. “We have filled up those saving accounts and now our reservoirs only go down from here with the peak of the heat season. So, we ask customers to stick to our rules and water with care.”
In addition to the lower-then-expected peak storage numbers, Denver Water also faces another “substitution year” on the West Slope.
That is a technical way of saying Denver Water must release water from its West Slope reservoirs to make up for a shortage of water in the federally operated Green Mountain reservoir downstream from Dillon Reservoir. The water will serve downstream water users on the Colorado River.
Substitution years are uncommon, usually required once or twice per decade. But, at least in recent years, that’s changing, with such “water refunds” from Denver Water required in 2021, 2022 and now, 2025.
“That is another thing that, like the spring dry-up in the mountains, we didn’t expect this year,” Elder said.
But other aspects of the state’s weather in recent months have been more positive.
Big rains in the metro region in May and June kept water usage down and sent a lot of water down the South Platte River to farmers and communities. That supply boost helped reduce calls for Denver Water to bypass additional water, leaving it in the streams, to meet those downstream demands.
“Those storms really helped us out; we haven’t had to run big exchanges and send our reservoir water down to meet those needs,” Elder said.
The wet weather locally also cut down on outdoor watering, as customers paid attention to weather and shut off sprinklers. June water use in Denver Water’s service area was just 94% of average, a system-wide water savings of 1,600 acre feet compared to anticipated demands during June.
Finally, as water watchers do every year about this time, we look to the monsoon season to bring helpful afternoon rainstorms in July and August, which can also drive down water demand.
“The less we can draw on our reservoirs,” Elder said, “the better chance we can fill up again next season.”
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, at center, and Gov. Jim Pillen, at right, announce a lawsuit against Colorado before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to assert Nebraska’s water rights to the South Platte River that crosses state lines. At left is Jesse Bradley, director of the Nebraska Department of Water, Energy and Environment. July 16, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN, Nebraska — Nebraska state leaders filed a lawsuit against Colorado on Wednesday seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court assert the Cornhusker State’s century-old water rights to the South Platte River that crosses state lines.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, announcing the legal action at a news conference with Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and other state and local officials, said, “Every drop of water matters.”
Pillen and Hilgers accused Colorado officials of siphoning off more and more water every day, even as Nebraska had been “nice” with Colorado, which has seen increases in housing, agricultural and business development along the waterway.
“We’re here to put our gloves on,” Pillen said, to defend what he called a “multi-generation investment” afforded under the South Platte River Compact that took effect in 1926.
“We’re going to fight like heck. We’re going to get every drop of water,” Pillen continued Wednesday. “We’ve been losing to Colorado on this issue for too long. It’s time we win.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called Wednesday’s lawsuit “unfortunate” and said Pillen and Hilgers “put politics above farming communities and the regional agricultural economy.”
“The failure to look for reasonable solutions and to turn to litigation is both unfortunate and predictable given the misguided effort driving the proposed canal,” Weiser said in a statement.
‘They want everything’
Hilgers said his team had exercised all options in communications with Weiser’s office before filing the 55-page complaint before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Governor Clarence J. Morley signing Colorado River compact and South Platte River compact bills, Delph Carpenter standing center. Unidentified photographer. Date 1925. Print from Denver Post. From the CSU Water Archives
The complaint accuses Colorado of violating the interstate compact between Colorado and Nebraska, which was ratified in the states in 1923 and enacted federally in 1926. Under the agreement, Nebraska is entitled to at least 120 cubic feet of water per second each day of the summer, during irrigation season.
State Sens. Kathleen Kauth, Carolyn Bosn, Jana Hughes, John Fredrickson and Dave Murman tour part of what could be part of the proposed Perkins County Canal in western Nebraska on Monday, May 1, 2023. (Courtesy of State Sen. Carolyn Bosn)
Hilgers said it’s hard to say precisely how long more water than allowed has been taken and that it’s getting worse, an assertion Colorado officials denied in 2022. So far this summer, Hilgers said, Nebraska has gotten its mandated water flows about half the time, averaging 75 cubic feet per second of water daily.
Nebraska’s Western Irrigation District was also recently forced to shut off the majority of its surface water irrigation due to a lack of water from the South Platte River, despite the compact, according to the lawsuit.
Pillen said Colorado is storing more water for its “upstream economy,” which he said comes at the expense of Colorado and Nebraska farmers, with Nebraska’s western neighbors having “no interest in anything being fair and just.”
“They want absolutely everything, they’re even stealing the water from their own farmers, for crying out loud,” Pillen told reporters.
‘All-front war’
The interstate compact also allows Nebraska to construct the “Perkins County Canal,” a major water project through Keith County and into Colorado that would allow Nebraska to divert at least 500 cubic feet of water per second in the winter, during non-irrigation season.
Nebraska is also afforded “eminent domain” over some Colorado land to build the canal, meaning the state could seize private land if needed.
Work on the Perkins County Canal near Ovid, Colorado, began in 1894, but the project halted after running out of money. (Courtesy of the Perkins County Historical Society)
State lawmakers, to the tune of more than $600 million, have approved funding to build a canal up to 1,000 cubic feet of water per second to capture more water flow in above-average water years. Nebraska officials say newly captured water would flow statewide and is not just focused on western Nebraska.
According to the court filing, Nebraska officials in January tried to purchase land from landowners in Sedgwick County, Colorado, at 115% of fair market value, deals that ultimately fell through. Nebraska pledged to take land “only if the parties failed to reach amicable terms.”
Hilgers said the situation escalated to an “all-front war” in the past year, with Hilgers and Pillen accusing Colorado officials of stepping up opposition, including through local Colorado landowners.
Nebraska-Colorado ‘impasse’ reached
Hilgers said he and his team have had many conversations with their Colorado counterparts but are at an “impasse,” largely over the project’s scope, including canal size, location and Nebraska’s eminent domain rights, a provision Weiser has said he is ready to challenge Nebraska on.
The eminent domain provisions are believed to be one of a kind among any interstate compacts in the nation’s history, according to Hilgers.
“There is no alternative forum capable of fully resolving the claims Nebraska asserts against Colorado, which are of such seriousness and dignity as to justify the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction,” the complaint to the Supreme Court states.
Weiser said that if the Supreme Court does greenlight the “wasteful project,” it will force Colorado water users to build additional projects to lessen the impact of the canal. He encouraged “collaboration and collaboration, rather than litigation,” which could lead to a “durable and thoughtful solution” that increases regional resiliency and agricultural strength.
In 2022, a spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis called the project a “canal to nowhere” and a “boondoggle.”
Polis on Wednesday called the lawsuit “meritless” and said the state had continued to meet with Nebraska in “good faith” despite its efforts to intimidate some Colorado landowners. He reasserted that his state has always complied with the South Platte River Compact.
“This escalation by Nebraska is needless, and Colorado will take all steps necessary to aggressively defend Colorado water users, landowners, and our rural economy,” Polis said in a statement.
Pillen, asked whether he had talked to Polis about the canal or lawsuit, said plainly: “No.”
“The bottom line: He and I do not agree one iota. And there’s no sense in further conversations,” Pillen said. “I’m not playing goober politics on this. We’re going to fight for Nebraska.”
Then-Gov. Pete Ricketts joined other state officials in an unannounced visit in September 2022 to the area of the proposed Perkins County Canal. (Courtesy of Nebraska Governor’s Office)
Former Gov. Pete Ricketts, now a Republican U.S. senator for Nebraska, unearthed and reinvigorated the compact in 2022 with Hilgers, the then-speaker of the Legislature.
Hilgers said it was probably always “inevitable” that the U.S. Supreme Court would decide the issue. He acknowledged that while a minority of state senators have tried to claw back funding for the Perkins County Canal, he anticipated that future efforts to do so would continue to fail.
‘The future of Nebraska’
Jesse Bradley, director of the newly merged Nebraska Department of Water, Energy and Environment as of July 1, said his team would continue to move forward with the project, parallel to the litigation, estimating that permitting and design would finish by 2028 for construction to begin.
The hope is that water will flow through the new canal no later than 2032.
“This is critical to the future of Nebraska,” Bradley said. “We will continue to push forward aggressively.”
Also joining Wednesday’s news conference were representatives of the Nebraska Public Power District, Central Platte Natural Resources District, Central Nebraska Power and Irrigation District, Twin Platte Natural Resources District, the Nebraska Western Irrigation District, the South Platte Natural Resources District and the state’s chief water officer, Matt Manning.
Hilgers estimated the state lawsuit could cost a couple of million dollars, including hiring outside experts or legal counsel, and take three to five years before the Supreme Court decides.
Pillen said Nebraska would not “save pennies” on the project and would have the “A Team 100% of the time” to win, “not a shadow of a doubt.”
Weiser estimated that “when the dust finally settles,” more than a billion dollars would be spent over a possible decade of litigation, and “no one in Nebraska or Colorado will be better off.”
Hilgers said he’s thankful the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the issue.
“We could maybe not get everything we want in front of the Supreme Court. But if we don’t file, we will lose. Period, full stop,” Hilgers said. “And what we will lose will so far outstrip the cost of this particular project that will really be a ‘shame on us’ moment if we don’t actually follow through.”
Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Aaron Sanderford for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com.
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Millions of dollars in federal funding has been released to continue restoring lands and streams in the fire-scarred Upper Colorado River Basin watershed in and around Grand Lake and Rocky Mountain National Park.
The roughly $4 million was frozen in February and released in April, according to Northern Water, a major Colorado water provider and one of the agencies that coordinates with the federal government and agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service to conduct the work.
Esther Vincent, Northern Water’s director of environmental services, said the federal government gave no reason for the freeze and release of funds.
The amounts and timing of the freeze and release are being reported here for the first time.
U.S. Congressman Joe Neguse, who represents Grand County, did not respond to a request for comment regarding the funds.
The news comes as tens of millions of dollars in federal grants and budget allocations are being cut in Colorado and across the country as part of the Trump administration’s reorganization of federal agencies and associated budget cuts.
In June, Gov. Jared Polis’ office released an accounting of federal money that has flowed to state agencies. That analysis showed the agencies were able to retain $282 million in funding, but that $76 million had been lost, and another $56 million is at risk.
It’s unclear how much funding that flows through federal agencies to other Colorado entities and nonprofits such as those in the Upper Colorado River Basin, has been lost.
The U.S. Forest Service did not respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation declined to comment on the funding actions.
In Grand County, $761,000 has been released from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to help move forward on a broad-based effort by the Kawuneeche Valley Restoration Collaborative, according to Northern Water. The valley has been damaged by drought, failing irrigation systems and overgrazing by wildlife and is a critical piece of the Colorado River’s upper watershed. The collaborative, established in 2020, is a major partnership of seven entities, including Northern Water, Grand County, the Nature Conservancy and Rocky Mountain National Park.
East Troublesome Fire. Photo credit: Northern Water
The $3.3 million in East Troublesome fire funding that has been released through the U.S. Forest Service will help restore the watershed around Grand Lake and land in Rocky Mountain National Park. The fire began in October 2020 and burned nearly 200,000 acres, making it the second largest fire in Colorado history.
The fire burned land that constitutes a sprawling water collection area for Northern Water, a major water provider that pipes Colorado River water from Grand County, under the Continental Divide and east to the Front Range, where it serves roughly 1 million residents of northern Colorado and hundreds of farms.
Steve Kudron, former mayor of Grand Lake who now serves as its town manager, said restoration work in both projects is critical to the economy and health of the historic tourist town, which lies at the western edge of Rocky Mountain National Park.
“The biggest concerns that we had were closing parts of the forest because there hasn’t been sufficient cleanup. Some mountainsides are unstable,” he said. “It’s the funding that makes it safe for the public to go into those areas. That’s why it was important to get the funding back.”
On July 3, Larimer County District Court Judge Michelle Brinegar ruled that commissioners were justified in their decision to approve the application for 10 miles of pipeline through the county…In its lawsuit, Save The Poudre asked the judge to vacate the board’s decision to approve the pipeline. The nonprofit alleged that commissioners didn’t adequately follow the county’s standards for these kinds of applications. Specifically, Save The Poudre contends that commissioners should have required Thornton to present a plan for the so-called Poudre River option, which would have conveyed the water through the Poudre River downstream of Thornton’s current diversion point…But commissioners concluded that while they could encourage the Poudre River option, they couldn’t require it. Brinegar sided with commissioners, saying they can’t compel Thornton to present all possible alternatives, only those that are reasonable.
Chimney Hollow Reservoir Project managers are investigating strategies to mitigate the presence of mineralized uranium that is anticipated to be present in the first fill of the reservoir.
Mineralized uranium was detected in water samples taken from behind the cofferdam at the site following a series of major precipitation events in summer 2023. Further testing through 2024 identified the source of the minerals as being the granitic rock being quarried on the west side of the reservoir for placement in the rockfill shell of the asphalt-core dam. The low-level uranium minerals detected were not anticipated to be the result of leached material at the site.
During dam testing and first fill of the reservoir starting later this summer and continuing through 2027, no releases of water from Chimney Hollow Reservoir are expected. Ongoing monitoring of water quality at the reservoir will help managers develop a mitigation strategy that could include treatment and dilution with the significant sources of other water present in the infrastructure nearby.
As more information becomes available, Northern Water will share it with project participants, partner agencies and the public.
Workers from Denver Water and contractor Kiewit Barnard stand in front of Gross Dam in May 2024 to mark the start of the dam raise process. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Politics website (Michael Karik). Here’s an excerpt:
Although she stood by her prior determination that the project permit was unlawful, a federal judge last week decided construction on a major Denver Water infrastructure project should continue for safety reasons…Earlier this spring, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello found that, as a result of federal law violations, the expansion of Gross Reservoir and Dam should cease permanently and any further construction on the ongoing project would stop temporarily. The pause on construction, Arguello explained, would give her time to hear from engineers and determine what work would need to occur to make the dam safe…
However, on May 29, Arguello retreated from her prior bellicose tone.
“There is a risk of environmental injury and loss of human life if dam construction is halted for another two years while Denver Water re-designs the structure of the dam,” she wrote in her latest order. “Furthermore, the evidence shows that enjoining dam construction would harm Denver Water and the general public by requiring Denver Water to lay off much of its specialized workforce (which also harms those workers), as well as interfere with Denver Water’s contracts with contractors supplying materials and labor for the Project, which in turn, would significantly increase the costs.”
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
Afederal judge will allow Denver Water to continue work on a $531 million project to raise a dam in Boulder County, dealing a blow to environmentalists who had hoped to stop the construction.
However, Senior U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello in her ruling May 29 prohibited Denver Water from filling Gross Reservoir until federal environmental permits can be rewritten by the Army Corps of Engineers.
“There is no evidence that there would be additional environmental injury resulting from completion of the dam construction. In fact, the opposite is true,” Arguello wrote. “There is a risk of environmental injury and loss of human life if dam construction is halted for another two years while Denver Water redesigns the structure of the dam and gets that re-design approved by” the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
FERC is involved because of the hydroelectric plant at the base of the dam.
Denver Water’s general counsel, Jessica Brody, said Friday her agency was pleased the judge recognized the safety issues in leaving the dam half-built.
“We’re relieved that the judge understood and appreciated the safety issues. We are relieved as well that she understood the impact to Denver Water’s customers,” Brody said.
The construction is expected to be completed this year, she said. In the meantime, she said, her agency will move forward in asking a federal appeals panel to rule on whether key environmental permits need to be rewritten, as Arguello has ordered.
If the permits are redone, it could mean that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will determine that the metro Denver water provider, which serves 1.5 million people, needs less water from the Fraser River to fill an expanded Gross Reservoir than the original permit authorized.
Save The Colorado, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said Friday morning that it will defend the portion of the Thursday ruling that could prevent or reduce additional diversions from the Fraser River, a key tributary in the Upper Colorado River system.
“Importantly,” said Save The Colorado’s Gary Wockner, “her original 86-page ruling still stands … so they can’t cut trees and they can’t put water in it until it is all resolved.”
Denver Water is helping ensure its future water security with the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. When the project is complete, it will nearly triple the Boulder County reservoir’s capacity to 119,000 acre-feet. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
How the case progressed
In her April 3 ruling, Arguello said Denver Water had acted recklessly in proceeding with construction in 2022, knowing that important legal questions were being challenged by Save The Colorado, the Sierra Club and others.
The massive construction project to raise the dam 131 feet and triple the capacity of Gross Reservoir has sparked fierce opposition in Boulder County and prompted several legal challenges from Save The Colorado, a group that advocates on behalf of rivers. Though its early lawsuits failed, the group in 2022 won an appeal that put the legal battle back in play. Despite months of settlement talks, no agreement was reached.
Denver Water first moved to raise Gross Dam more than 20 years ago when the water provider began designing the expansion and seeking the necessary federal and state permits. Denver Water has said raising the dam and increasing capacity of the reservoir is necessary to ensure it has enough water throughout its delivery system and to help with future water supplies as climate change continues to reduce streamflows.
After years of engineering, environmental studies and federal and state analyses, Denver received a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and construction began in 2022.
Arguello’s April 3 ruling said, in part, that the Army Corps should have considered whether ongoing climate change and drought would leave the Colorado River and Western Slope waterways too depleted to safely allow transfer of Denver Water’s rights into a larger Gross Reservoir for Front Range water users.
At the same time, she ordered a permanent injunction prohibiting enlargement of the reservoir, including tree removal and water diversion, and impacts to wildlife.
Almost immediately, Denver Water filed for temporary relief from the order, saying, in part, that it would be unsafe to stop work as the incomplete concrete walls towered above Gross Reservoir.
Arguello granted that request, too, allowing Denver to continue work on the dam considered necessary for safety.
The Airborne Snow Observatories plane prepares for takeoff at the Eagle County Regional Airport in April 2023. Photo credit: Mark Schwab, Airborne Snow Observatories Inc.
If you want to know about the snow, the sky is the limit when it comes to collecting data about the mountain snowpack.
That’s why Denver Water, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and other water providers across the state are investing in a high-tech program to measure snowpack using lasers from a plane.
And in mid-May, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill to formally incorporate the program into the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The board’s mission is to conserve, develop, protect and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations.
Monitoring the mountain snowpack is critical for Denver Water because once the snow melts, it becomes the water supply for the 1.5 million people the utility serves in Denver and surrounding suburbs.
Traditionally, Denver Water has tracked the snowpack by sending crews to collect and measure snow samples on the ground and monitoring data from automated backcountry weather stations called SNOTELs.
In 2019, to help improve water supply forecasts, Denver Water began working with Airborne Snow Observatories Inc., or ASO for short, to gain a fuller picture of the snowpack. The company uses advanced technology developed at NASA to measure the snowpack that’s built up across entire watersheds.
“Getting this high-tech information about the snowpack from ASO before the snow starts to melt improves the accuracy of our spring runoff and water supply forecasts for the coming year,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supply.
“Having the ASO information in the spring helps us manage our water resources and gives us a better idea of if we’ll need to have watering restrictions for our customers in the summer. The data also gives us a very good idea of how the spring runoff in the rivers could impact aquatic habitat and recreation.”
Space age tech
ASO planes fly with two key pieces of technology and equipment onboard: a lidar and an imaging spectrometer.
The ASO plane uses lidar (the front laser beam under the wings) to measure the depth of the snow. The spectrometer (the rear beam near the tail) measures the amount of solar energy that is reflected by the snowpack. Image credit: Airborne Snow Observatories.
The spectrometer measures how much solar energy is reflected by the snow. This information is used to help determine how fast the snowpack will melt.
Lidar, which stands for light detection and ranging, uses beams of light to measure distance. To determine snow depth, the plane flies over a watershed in the summer and uses lidar to scan the earth’s surface when it’s free of snow.
Then in the spring, when the landscape is covered with snow, the ASO team flies over the same territory again and measures the distance from the plane to the snow surface below. By comparing the differences in elevation, the ASO team can accurately calculate the depth of the snow.
Digging it old school
To supplement the data collected from the plane, ASO also incorporates three “old-school” sources of data. It uses information collected by automated weather stations called SNOTELs, from snow samples collected and measured by crews at predetermined locations in watersheds, and data from samples collected by the ASO team or partners from snow pits dug in the same watersheds the plane flies over.
Denver Water crews use a special tube [Federal Sampler] to gather snow samples near Winter Park as part of pre-set snow courses. ASO uses these ground measurements to supplement data collected from the planes to determine how much water is in a watershed. Photo credit: Denver Water.
This ground-based data helps to verify the airborne snow-depth measurements. The ground data also provides snow density information, which is used to calculate the volume of water in the snowpack, called the snow water equivalent, or SWE.
“We’re able to use the traditional methods in combination with our next generation technology to measure the mountain snowpack to an accuracy that has never before been possible,” said Jeffrey Deems, ASO’s co-founder.
Cara Piske, an ASO operations scientist, collects a sample of snow from a pit dug in Mayflower Gulch near Copper Mountain in Summit County. The sample is weighed to determine its density, which is used to calculate the amount of water frozen in the snow, called the snow water equivalent. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Deems said the data from the ASO flights is incredibly valuable because the plane can accurately measure the snow across an entire watershed and at high elevations that don’t have automated weather stations and are inaccessible to people.
ASO snow depth measurements in the Blue River Basin above Dillon Reservoir in April 2021. Photo credit: Jeffrey Deems, Airborne Snow Observatories.
In 2023, ASO flew over eight regions in Colorado (including Denver Water’s watersheds in the Upper South Platte, Blue, Fraser and South Boulder Creek river basins.)
During the first set of flights in April, which aimed to capture the peak snowpack, the ASO team calculated that there was 108,000 acre-feet of water packed into the snow in the Upper South Platte Basin, 175,000 acre-feet of water in the Blue River Basin which feeds into Dillon Reservoir, and 104,000 acre-feet of water in Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System located in the Fraser River Basin.
A second round of flights were conducted in late May and early June to capture any new snow and to see how fast the snow melted.
Elder said the ASO snowpack estimates in 2023 turned out to be a very strong prediction of the actual streamflow during that year’s spring runoff.
The ASO plane flew over the Blue River Basin in Summit County in early May. Scanning the entire watershed takes three to six hours. Photo credit: Kat McNeal, Airborne Snow Observatories.
“Having ASO really helps reduce uncertainty and improve decision making for our water planning, and each flight uncovers new insight into the snowpack that is otherwise unmeasurable,” Elder said. “Our first charge is to ensure we have an adequate water supply for our customers, and the sooner we can make that determination the better.”
Having the additional data helps water planners because traditional snowmelt forecasts can have significant errors or wide ranges, which makes it more challenging to manage water supplies.
Building a statewide program
Recognizing the value of building a statewide ASO effort, in 2021, Denver Water helped coordinate and develop the Colorado Airborne Snow Measurement program or CASM.
The CASM program includes agricultural and municipal water providers such as Denver Water, as well as environmental groups and nonprofits with support from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and federal agencies.
In 2025, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed H.B. 1115 into law, which formally integrated the CASM program into the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The bill created a dedicated staff member to administer the program to help coordinate ASO flights, distribute data and manage funding statewide.
ASO flew over eight regions in 2023 as part of the Colorado Airborne Snow Measurement, or CASM, program. Two rounds of flights were conducted in April, May and June. Image credit: CASM.
“Having accurate water supply data helps all water users,” said Taylor Winchell, climate adaptation specialist at Denver Water. “Our goal with CASM has always been to create a sustainable statewide program, and this new legislation is a major step in making that goal a reality.”
The Colorado Water Conservation Board will formally coordinate CASM’s planning team, which includes Denver Water, Colorado River District, San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, Northern Water, St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District, Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District, and the Dolores Water Conservancy District, along with ASO and LRE Water.
Benefits today and tomorrow
Winchell said one of the big benefits of the ASO flights is that the data is available within a few days of collecting it, so water managers have a better estimate of how much water supply they’ll have for the coming year — and when to expect the water to end up in mountain streams.
The other benefit is having a wealth of high-quality data covering thousands of square miles to monitor the effects of climate change.
“As our snowpack changes with the changing climate, being better able to measure that snowpack becomes more important as more snow falls as rain, as the timing of the spring melt changes and as snow falls at ever-higher elevations because of warming,” Winchell said.
“We can’t rely as much on historical snowpack datasets to understand the new snowpack reality.”
ASO, which also conducts data collection flights in California, Wyoming, Oregon and internationally, also continues to develop its technology and modeling to help water providers get the information they need.
“We’re really proud of what we’re doing,” Deems said. “We love the snow and feel like we’re making a difference in helping our society better understand our mountain snowpack reservoir.”
Members of the ASO team, (left to right) Jeffrey Deems, Kate Burchenal and Cara Piske, teamed up with Denver Water’s Taylor Winchell (in the black jacket) to dig a snow pit in Summit County. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. An environmental group is now suing the Army Corps of Engineers over a key permit for Northern Water’s proposal. (Save the Poudre lawsuit, from Northern Water project pages)
You might have read recently about how the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, is contributing $100 million to a fund for projects to improve the Cache la Poudre River in northeastern Colorado. That funding is part of an agreement between the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, known as Northern Water, and the nonprofit group Save the Poudre that will conclude a federal lawsuit against the project.
It’s an outcome that both sides can accept because of the importance of both the Poudre River and a much-needed water supply to communities throughout the region.
The agreement should catch the attention of Denver metro-area water providers that are looking to export existing irrigation water supplies out of northeastern Colorado to serve their future customers.
Brad Wind of Loveland is the general manager of Northern Water, which supplies water to more than 1 million people in northeastern Colorado.
For background, NISP was conceived in the 1990s and early 2000s to provide water to the emerging communities of the northern Front Range. The project will consist of two off-channel reservoirs, one located northwest of Fort Collins and one north of Greeley. It also anticipates exchanges of water with nearby farmers eliminating the dry-up of some agricultural land in the future.
Throughout the lengthy permitting process for NISP, the public has had many opportunities to offer comments and concerns to federal, state and local officials. Some of the concerns were incorporated into mitigation and improvement requirements associated with the project, and all written comments were addressed specifically in the final Environmental Impact Statement produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The $100 million settlement of the federal litigation identifies even more improvements that can be made in the region beyond those required by permitting agencies.
Unfortunately, actions by certain Denver metro-area water providers that anticipate removing water from northeastern Colorado do not undergo such robust scrutiny. Oftentimes, advocates for water resources in the region learn about potential water transfers only when an item appears on a meeting agenda of a metro-area water provider. By then it is too late to consider the regional economic, environmental and social impacts that such a change could produce.
Frequently, these water deals are brokered by third parties who quietly accumulate water and land assets to present them behind closed doors in neat and tidy packages to thirsty cities. There are few, if any, opportunities to discuss how these water transfers will impact local communities in northeastern Colorado or how these impacts could be mitigated by those who seek to move water to the Denver metro area.
The half-million residents who receive water from NISP participants are going to pay billions of dollars to develop water resources for their communities while addressing concerns in the Poudre River watershed. At the same time Denver metro communities are working to undercut the existing supplies that previous northeastern Colorado residents have invested in and relied upon for decades.
Water providers in the Denver area need to be part of the long-term solution to how our northeastern Colorado communities remain vibrant, not distant parties to single point-in-time transactions that provide a perpetual benefit to communities beyond the horizon.
If native water supplies must depart for the Denver metro area from northeastern Colorado, it is appropriate that the new water user should not just pay for the costs to acquire water but also offset the impacts to northeastern Colorado’s degraded quality of life, and diminished regional economy.
All of our futures are diminished by the loss of water from our region. Public processes and mitigation can lessen, to a degree, the perpetual impacts such a loss will endure.
North Fork Snake River. Melted snow is the primary source of drinking water for the 1.5 million people who rely on Denver Water every day. Photo credit: Denver Water.
News headlines this spring offered a bleak picture of Colorado’s snowpack heading into the spring runoff season. But, as always with headlines, it is best to also read the story that follows.
Because the story for Denver Water isn’t quite so dour.
Snowpack woes hit Colorado’s southern half hard. For Denver Water, positioned farther north, the water supply looks better.
First, let’s do the numbers.
Denver Water had a weak showing in the South Platte River Basin, with peak snowpack hitting just 84% of normal and — most unhelpful of all — peaking on April 6, 19 days earlier than typical.
The news was far better in the Colorado River Basin (north of the South Platte River Basin), which accounts for the other half of Denver Water’s supply. There, peak snowpack clocked in at 109% on April 25, right on the mark for a typical peak date.
“Overall, not great, but not terrible either,” summed up Nathan Elder, water supply manager for the utility.
The best news for Denver Water: The utility is starting the runoff and reservoir-filling season with existing storage levels about 2% above average.
That’s a credit to its customers’ efforts to conserve water and translates into a good chance that Denver Water will be able to fill its storage reservoirs that help 1.5 million people get through the summer hot season.
But “fill” doesn’t mean “spill.” That is, there won’t be excess water to spill into rivers in what can make for dramatic visuals and provide an extra boost to river flows.
“We hope to fill our reservoirs right to the brim, but that’s where it stops,” Elder said.
Denver Water’s planners are concerned about a hot-and-dry trend taking hold in May, and emphasize the need for residents to adhere to the utility’s annual summer watering rules that allow irrigation only in the evening and morning hours (between 6 p.m. and 10 a.m.) and limit irrigation to no more than three days a week — preferably just one or two days when springtime temperatures are lower.
And watch the skies. When we do get a good rainstorm, turn your sprinkler dial to “off” for a few days.
The generally poor snowpack and early runoff in much of the state, including in the South Platte River Basin, also stokes concerns for a rough fire season, as 9News meteorologist Chris Bianchi pointed out in a May 13, 2025, story:
“This year’s snowpack levels resemble those recorded in 2018, 2012, 2002 and 1992. All of which were marked by intense wildfire activity. Three out of those four years saw large-scale fires, raising concerns that 2025 could follow a similar trajectory unless weather patterns shift dramatically.”
And, on a too-long-didn’t-read basis, here’s Bianchi’s tweet that summed up the story:
Denver Water’s watershed experts agree that conditions could increase wildfire risk.
“The risk of wildfire is relatively low when there is snow on the ground. When snowpack melts rapidly, vegetation can dry out quickly and become susceptible to wildfire ignitions,” said Madelene McDonald, a watershed scientist and wildfire specialist for Denver Water.
Though McDonald notes that experts anticipate “average” wildfire behavior in Colorado in 2025, that still means thousands of fires that could collectively affect more than 100,000 acres in the state.
“It’s important to stay vigilant and prepared to experience wildfire under any snowpack conditions or fire outlook scenarios,” she said.
An April pivot
The current outlook is a pivot from what had been looking like a normal year for snowpack as recently as April 1, Elder said.
“For Denver Water, April is typically a month where we build snow,” he said.
But that didn’t happen this year, and by mid-May the snowpack had shriveled to half its typical percentage.
The tepid spring in the South Platte River Basin also highlights the importance of Denver Water’s Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, which recently has been slowed in federal court. (Read Denver Water’s recent statement on a May 6 court hearing.)
That project will expand the reservoir and add roughly 80,000 acre-feet of water storage capacity in the utility’s north system, which gathers snowmelt from the Upper Colorado River Basin. That additional water storage will provide a buffer to protect the utility’s customers from the effects of years when the snowpack is weaker, like this year, in Denver Water’s separate and unconnected south system.
“Our system is robust but suffers from significant imbalance,” Elder said.
“We rely too heavily on our south system, on the South Platte, which accounts for 90% of our storage,” he said. “Increasing storage to the north will give Denver Water far more flexibility to handle these weaker snowpack years on the South Platte.”
And years marked by a weaker snowpack in the South Platte River Basin have become more common.
In four of the last five years, the South Platte snowpack above Denver Water’s collection system has peaked below normal. And in that fifth year — last year — it barely cleared the “normal” bar at 101%. All of which amplifies the need for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.
Raising Gross Dam, seen here on April 8, 2025, will nearly triple the water storage capacity of the reservoir behind it. The project has been in the permitting and review process for 23 years. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Now, as June approaches, water managers will turn their focus to runoff levels, temperatures and fire potential. And come summer, they will once again — as always — hope for a big dose of monsoonal moisture.
Those big rainstorms not only deliver a boost to rivers and reservoirs but prompt attentive customers to turn off their irrigation system and let their grass and plants drink up nature’s soaking bounty.
Remember, the less you pour, the more your water utility can store.
And it’s never a bad time to consider transforming your landscape, or even parts of it.
Denver Water has a new guide to help: the DIY Landscape Transformation Guide, and it includes ways to eradicate grass in the areas where you want to remodel your landscape with native plants and other changes.
Denver Water relies on a network of reservoirs to collect and store water. The large collection area provides flexibility for collecting water as some areas receive different amounts of precipitation throughout the year. Image credit: Denver Water.
The Cache la Poudre River flows through Bellevue, Colorado on May 12, 2025. Water from the river will be used to fill the nearby Glade Reservoir once it’s built. The cost to build the new water storage project has grown from $400 million to $2.2 billion. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 15, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
There’s a stretch of highway in Larimer County where prairie grasses sway with each passing vehicle. Cars, horse trailers and semi trucks zip through the valley on their way between Fort Collins and Laramie. Soon, it’ll be under more than 200 feet of water.
U.S. Highway 287 runs through the future site of Glade Reservoir. The Larimer county Board of County Commissioners approved the 1041 Land Use Permit for NISP in September, 2020. Photo credit: Northern Water
It’s the planned site of Glade Reservoir, the cornerstone of a massive new water storage system designed to meet the demands of fast-growing towns and cities in Northern Colorado. After more than two decades of permitting, planning and environmental lawsuits, it’s closer than ever to breaking ground.
But along the way, some things changed. Over the years, costs to build the reservoir system — and reroute seven miles of U.S. Highway 287 — have ballooned. Price estimates for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, often referred to as NISP, went from $400 million to $2.2 billion. Because of that, some of the towns that signed up to use its water are cutting back on their involvement before the reservoir system stores a single drop.
Northern Water, the agency building NISP, has projected confidence that it will still get built as planned. The long road from idea to construction, and the things that have changed along the way, can tell us a lot about how Northern Colorado uses water, and how much it costs to keep taps flowing.
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. (Northern Water project pages)
Rising costs
When it was first pitched, in the early 2000s, NISP garnered support as a way to make sure small towns with fast-growing populations could host new housing developments without going dry.
For a tiny town like Severance, that was an attractive proposition. Just 11 years ago, about midway through the NISP planning process, the town had a population of about 3,000. That’s when Nicholas Wharton took the job as town manager. Since then, he’s overseen the installation of the town’s first stoplight, the from-scratch development of its own police department and a homebuilding boom that has nearly quadrupled Severance’s population.
Signing on to NISP, he said, was a way to make sure Severance had enough water for all that growth.
“I think for smaller towns,” he said, “It was a great idea back when it was affordable to us.”
Wesley Lavanchy, the town administrator for Eaton, Colo., poses outside of his office on April 15, 2025. His town is one of four water agencies that reduced the amount of water it would store in NISP, and the amount it would pay to keep it there. Alex Hager/KUNC
Since then, Severance has cut back on the amount of water it will store in NISP, and the amount it will pay to be a part of the project. At one point, the town held 2,000 shares of the project. In 2024, it sold off 1,500 of those shares. Wharton said the town council might try to sell off even more.
And Severance isn’t alone.
Due West, in Eaton, town officials also got cold feet. They were one of four NISP shareholders to offload a portion of their involvement in the new reservoir project on the same day in July 2024.
For years, the water agencies that were part of NISP were mostly focused on paperwork — making sure the project had the permits it needed to get built. Then, there was a lawsuit from environmentalists standing in the way. But after NISP’s proponents were mostly seeing green lights on permits and decided to settle a major lawsuit, the focus shifted to money.
“I think the question for us now is, how do we afford this?,” said Wesley Lavanchy, Eaton’s town administrator. “Moving forward, how much can we afford? It’s like chocolate cake. You like it, it tastes great, but you can’t eat the whole thing.”
Ultimately, Eaton decided to sell off more than half of its NISP shares.
“I suspect that more entities would have been able to hold their commitment had the permitting process not drug on so long, the cost escalated, the litigation kind of wrapped things up,” Lavanchy said.
Cheaper alternatives
While the cost to build NISP has gone up, the cost of other water sources has gone down. Eaton and Severance said it’s getting easier to afford shares of the Colorado-Big Thompson project, which was a big motivator in their pullback from NISP.
That project, referred to as CBT, pipes water from the Colorado River across the continental divide. It flows underneath Rocky Mountain National Park and into major reservoirs along the Northern Front Range, such as Horsetooth Reservoir near Fort Collins and Carter Lake outside of Loveland.
Water from the Colorado-Big Thompson project is managed by Northern Water, the same agency building and operating NISP.
Boats cruise across Horsetooth Reservoir near Fort Collins, Colorado on May 12, 2025. The reservoir holds water from the Colorado-Big Thompson project, which has seen prices level off in recent years. Glade Reservoir is expected to be even larger than Horsetooth. Alex Hager/KUNC
For years, the CBT system was the main way for growing cities in Larimer and Weld Counties to get water for residential development. Typically, farms have sold their portion of CBT water to cities, towns, or developers. Occasionally, they are taken to auction, where cities bid against one another for water stored in those big reservoirs.
The cost of that water skyrocketed between 2010 and 2022. Estimated prices, adjusted for inflation, went from less than $20,000 per share, to around $100,000 per share, according to data from the consulting firm Westwater research. Since 2022, that soaring rise has leveled out.
“We believe that’s largely driven by a softening in the home construction sector,” said Adam Jokerst, a Fort Collins-based regional director for Westwater. “A lot of CBT purchases are by municipalities and developers who dedicate them to municipalities. And when new home construction slows, we see less demand for those shares.”
How did NISP get so expensive?
Northern Water said the price to build NISP has been climbing for about 15 years. Brad Wind, the agency’s general manager, cited inflation and rising interest rates as major drivers. He doesn’t, however, expect that to stop or significantly change the reservoir project.
“It’s an expensive project,” Wind said. “We and the participants advancing the project like it was envisioned.”
The lengthy process to get the project’s two reservoirs — Glade, and a smaller one called Galeton reservoir — from concept to construction gave time for the winds of economic change to shift direction. It’s not uncommon for a massive dam project like NISP to take more than fifteen years to attain a laundry list of environmental permits.
The project also faced opposition from local governments and nonprofits. At one point, Fort Collins voted to oppose the project. The most significant roadblock came from the environmental nonprofit Save the Poudre.
The group rallied local support and took legal action to try and stop NISP. At a 2015 event, Save the Poudre director Gary Wockner told a crowd of supporters that he would “fight to stop the project for as long as it takes.”
In late February, Wockner’s group settled for $100 million dollars. Northern Water will pay that sum into a trust over the course of the next two decades, and the money will be used to fund river improvement projects. In the intervening time, though, the price tag to build NISP likely grew significantly.
Wind said Northern plans to hire a contractor that could find ways to bring down the price by changing construction methods, but doesn’t expect “substantial reductions” to building costs, especially with rising prices of imported construction materials.
Over the years, the towns and water agencies that wanted to use NISP signed periodic agreements to stay part of the project. Now, time is ticking for those participants to sign a binding contract.
Eaton’s Lavanchy said that upcoming contract made his town take a harder look at their water needs, and whether those needs would be satisfied by NISP.
“We’re not dating anymore,” he said, “We’re getting married, and there’s no way out. Divorce is not an option. So it’s like, ‘Let’s be smart and think about, what are these obligations going to run us?’”
‘Demand continues to increase’
Even as some entities cut back on their financial ties to NISP, the project still has momentum.
For one, those towns and water agencies looking to sell their shares found a willing buyer. Eaton, Severance, Fort Lupton and the Left Hand Water District all sold their shares to the Fort Collins Loveland Water District.
Vehicles drive on U.S. Highway 287, near Bellevue, Colo. on May 12, 2025. The highway will be rerouted to make way for a massive new reservoir. Alex Hager/KUNC
The Fort Collins Loveland Water District, which serves an area roughly between Harmony Road and State Route 34, declined to be interviewed for this story.
Second, NISP has a total of 15 participants, and many of them are still on board for the same amount of water they signed up for years ago.
“No matter what,” Severance’s Wharton said, “In one way, you’ll see those 15 probably still continue to be a part of it no matter what, because everybody does realize how precious that water is and how this will be one of the last [big reservoirs.] I don’t think anybody’s discouraged.”
Even the towns that reduced the amount of water they’ll pay to use from NISP are keeping some. Severance and Eaton said they want to make sure they’re getting water from a diverse group of sources, especially with climate change and political bickering threatening their main source of water — the Colorado River via the CBT.
Ultimately, the fast-growing region served by Northern Water — from Boulder County to Fort Collins, and east to Fort Lupton — will keep needing water for a future that will likely see plenty of new home construction.
“It doesn’t appear that folks are shying away from moving to Northern Colorado,” Brad Wind said. “Either from within our state or from outside of our state, so the demand continues to increase for a high quality water supply, which NISP will produce.”
Following a day of testimony on May 6, Denver Water has been asked by U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello to provide the court with the utility’s final summary highlighting its position following the witness testimony and exhibits. There isn’t a specific timetable set for this yet.
The focus of the hearing was for the judge to determine if construction can safely stop while Denver Water moves forward on an additional permitting review as the court ruled on April 3. Here is Denver Water’s statement on the risk presented by delaying construction:
Denver Water has already started the appeal process with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of this, the project has been allowed to continue (under a temporary stay) while legal proceedings are underway.
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
The Palisades Fire, photographed here from Palisades Drive, ignited Jan. 7, 2025, in the Santa Monica Mountains of Los Angeles County. It spread rapidly because of hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, burning for 24 days, consuming more than 23,000 acres and destroying 6,837 structures. Photo credit: Ariam23, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0
One of the initial concerns during the series of tragic Los Angeles wildfires that burned in January 2025 was whether fire hydrants were ready to combat the inferno that left so much destruction in its wake.
To be clear, and as Denver7 highlighted in January, public water systems are designed to help firefighters battle urban fires.
For instance, Denver Water’s system includes built-in redundancies to ensure it can meet water demand, and the utility continually invests in the system to keep it that way.
Denver Water’s distribution system includes 31 treated water storage tanks across the metro area (many of which have been upgraded in recent years), more than 3,000 miles of pipe and 22,000 fire hydrants, along with dedicated mechanics who focus on maintaining those hydrants and keeping them in top condition.
During a fire in the Denver Water service area, its operators can analyze and adjust the operation of the distribution system so that firefighters have the water pressure they need to fight the blaze. The utility also will send experts to the scene to help maintain pressure.
The system of hydrants is not designed, however, to provide sufficient flows for a long enough period to effectively battle long-lasting, wind-driven, large-scale wildfires. Hydrants are pressurized and are crucial to fighting structure fires, but they can only do so much. And when many hydrants are in use in the same area at the same time, water pressure is going to weaken.
While Denver Water can store millions of gallons of drinking water in dozens of large water storage tanks around town to accommodate increases in demand, there are limits — like being able to provide enough water to fight a wildfire.
Fortunately, much of Denver Water’s service area is in a different environment compared to Los Angeles. But that doesn’t mean the area is immune, as there are portions that blend wildland environments with urban communities.
In fact, just last summer a string of wildfires ignited during the same week in the foothills along the Front Range. The fires required aggressive coordination from fire departments up and down the corridor, alongside state and federal agencies, to extinguish, with a focus on wildland firefighting. Wildland fire responders cleared fire lines and fought the fires from the air.
A plane pulls in water from Chatfield Reservoir to help fight the Quarry Fire, a wildfire that ignited in summer 2024 in Jefferson County, Colorado. The fire required a multi-jurisdictional effort to extinguish. Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Urban fire hydrants were not the focus.
Ultimately, when a fire like the tragic blazes in Los Angeles occurs, it is always going to require a coordinated, multijurisdictional effort, often across city, state and even international lines.
So, what can be done?
Colorado Public Radio in January spoke with Colorado State Forest Service wildfire mitigation program specialist Chad Julian, who discussed the importance of focusing on the right topics when analyzing any fire.
“If we focus on increasing budgets, more water storage, more fire trucks, it’s not going to change the outcome of the next event. It would take the engagement of homeowners to really work on the resistance to ignition and hardening those buildings, the vegetation and the yards,” he said.
“Ninety-five percent of it was likely still caused by land use patterns, how we build, how we interact with the ecosystem, whether we adapt to it or not. And unfortunately, that’s not the focus at the moment,” he said.
But this was the focus in Colorado after the devastating Marshall Fire of 2021, leading to new legislation:
In Louisville, an ordinance took effect in December 2024 requiring implementation of wildfire-resistant measures in buildings. (Boulder is considering something similar.)
Many new construction sites in Denver include 5-foot vegetation barriers around new structures in their landscape planning.
The Wildfire Resilient Homes Grant Program, created by Colorado’s state legislature, encourages homeowners to make their properties more resistant to wildfire.
Julian says these are the types of changes that can make a real difference.
Denver Water has long focused on investing in the resiliency of its watersheds and system, and plans to invest about $1.8 billion over the next 10 years.
When customers pay their water bill, the money goes to building a reliable system, which includes regular infrastructure inspection and maintenance programs to ensure pipes, hydrants and storage tanks are ready to protect communities during urban fires.
Water bills also fund watershed resiliency projects that protect the lands and facilities that collect and store Denver’s drinking water.
The From Forests to Faucets partnership alone has committed more than $96 million to reduce wildfire risk in critical areas, from 2010 through planned work into 2027. Half of that money has come from Denver Water. The risk of wildfire in Denver Water’s watersheds remains the greatest risk to Denver’s water supply, making this investment crucial to the resilience of the system.
A Ponsse tree harvester works to thin a 40-acre section of forest in Breckenridge in August 2020, as part of the From Forests to Faucets partnership. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water’s 10-year investment plan also includes expanding Gross Reservoir in western Boulder County, which will improve water supplies on the north side of the metro area and make the system more balanced and resilient in the face of increasing impacts from climate change, drought and wildfire.
This improvement on the north side of the metro area will prove pivotal should wildfire inhibit resources that deliver water on the south side of the region, via the South Platte River, where wildfires have struck consistently over the past 20 years.
These are just a few examples of investments and partnerships already underway, but challenges lie ahead.
As Salazar noted in his column published in The Denver Post (which can also be found on Denver Water’s TAP news site), climate change continues to impact the environment and, as the wildland-urban interface continues to merge, even more investment and collaboration will be crucial.
Denver Water is helping ensure its future water security with the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. When the project is complete, it will nearly triple the Boulder County reservoir’s capacity to 119,000 acre-feet. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Adam engineer who designed a major expansion of Gross Reservoir Dam in Boulder County told a federal judge Tuesday that the raising of the dam, facing a potential halt due to an April federal court ruling, needs to proceed to protect public safety.
Mike Rogers, the civil engineer who designed the $531 million expansion of the dam, said bad weather could create flood conditions that would lead to a catastrophic failure similar to what occurred with the Oroville Dam failure in California in 2017.
But Stephen Rigbey, a Canadian dam safety expert testifying for Save The Colorado, said any issues with putting the construction project on hold, even in its partially-complete state, could be addressed, and that the risk of a catastrophic failure was “negligible.”
Workers from Denver Water and contractor Kiewit Barnard stand in front of Gross Dam in May 2024 to mark the start of the dam raise process. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Rogers’ and Rigbey’s testimony Tuesday came during a federal hearing in Denver, after which U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello will determine whether to allow construction to move forward on the Denver Water project or whether the construction will be paused until new federal reviews she has ordered are completed and legal questions are answered.
But at the end of Tuesday’s hearing, Arguello said the parties to the case had not provided enough information for her to make a decision and ordered them to submit more data later this month.
The massive construction project has raised fierce opposition in Boulder County and prompted several legal challenges from Save The Colorado, a group that advocates on behalf of rivers. Though its early lawsuits failed, in 2022 the river defenders won an appeal that put the legal battle back in play. Despite months of settlement talks, no agreement was reached.
Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann was unmoved by Rogers’ testimony, saying she hopes the judge halts the work to prevent further environmental damage in Boulder County and to protect the Fraser River, a tributary to the Upper Colorado River. The Fraser has served as the source of water for Gross Reservoir since the 1950s, when it was built.
“It’s incredibly disappointing that Denver has chosen to move forward,” Stolzmann said. “With climate change, it really is a time for different entities to work together to repair the climate. I want to see Denver seek alternative solutions.”
Denver Water first moved to raise Gross Dam more than 20 years ago when the water provider began designing the expansion and seeking the necessary federal and state permits. Denver Water has said raising the dam and expanding the reservoir is necessary to ensure it has enough water throughout its delivery system and to help with future water supplies as climate change continues to reduce streamflows.
The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project involves raising the height of the existing dam by 131 feet. The dam will be built out and will have “steps” made of roller-compacted concrete to reach the new height. Image credit: Denver Water
After years of engineering, environmental studies and federal and state analyses, Denver received a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and construction began in 2022. It has involved taking apart a portion of the original dam and raising its height by 131 feet to nearly triple the reservoir’s storage capacity to 119,000 acre-feet from 42,000 acre-feet.
The case took center stage again April 3, when Judge Arguello put a temporary halt to construction of the higher dam, at Save The Colorado’s request.
In that high-profile ruling, Arguello said, in part, that the Army Corps should have considered whether ongoing climate change and drought would leave the Colorado River and Western Slope waterways too depleted to safely allow transfer of Denver Water’s rights into a larger Gross Reservoir for Front Range water users.
At the same time, she ordered a permanent injunction prohibiting enlargement of the reservoir, including tree removal and water diversion, and impacts to wildlife.
Almost immediately, Denver Water filed for temporary relief from the order, saying, in part, that it would be unsafe to stop work as the incomplete concrete walls towered above Gross Reservoir.
Arguello granted that request, too, allowing Denver to continue work on the dam considered necessary for safety.
Denver Water has also filed an appeal with the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of appeals, seeking to permanently protect its right to continue building the dam. The appeals court is expected to wait for the lower court to rule, before considering Denver Water’s request.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
What’s 4-feet deep, 6-feet wide and 26-miles long? The original City Ditch — one of Colorado’s earliest and most influential irrigation canals, constructed between 1864 and 1867 by the Capitol Hydraulic Company to bring much-needed water to the dry, dusty lands of the Denver metropolitan area. This hand-dug canal, also known as Smith’s Ditch, was engineered by Richard S. Little and financed by businessman John W. Smith, according to local historian Larry Borger. It stretched from its headgate near present-day Chatfield Reservoir, above Littleton, and ran roughly 26-to-27 miles northeast to Capitol Hill in Denver, relying solely on a 100-foot drop in elevation to move water without pumps. When it opened in 1867, the ditch enabled the growth of trees, sugar beet crops and neighborhoods, providing Denver with its primary irrigation source for more than 25 years. The ditch also supported a network of more than 1,000 lateral ditches, greening up city parks and supplying water to offshoots that irrigated cropland and street trees. Its construction and operation were so significant that the ditch is often called the “oldest working thing” in Denver, predating paved streets and railroads. Today, the City Ditch is mostly hidden from view. About 2.5 miles of the ditch remain open-channel, while the rest is mostly piped and buried. In Littleton, the portion of the ditch that runs along Santa Fe Drive from Slaughterhouse Gulch Park to the C-470 highway is owned by the City of Englewood. Englewood plans to convert the remaining open channel between Chatfield Reservoir and the Charles Allen Water Treatment Plant into a buried pipe, a move that would end the historic open flow through the area.
The City of Englewood’s City Ditch Piping Project map. Courtesy of the City of Englewood.
Englewood is giving Littleton a chance to save the historic flume structures — man-made, open channels designed to carry water, usually sloping downward and with raised sides above the surrounding ground — at Lee Gulch and Slaughterhouse Gulch Park. Ryan Germeroth and Brent Soderlin, deputy director and director of Public Works & Utilities presented Littleton City Council with options for the Slaughterhouse Gulch Flume — which Englewood would start construction on first this summer — at the study session on April 22.
The Town of Kiowa has good news to report, including a new Main Street Board and progress towards funding the Water Well Redundancy Project…After some starts and stops, the Kiowa Water and Wastewater Authority is making headway on its Water Well Redundancy Project, thanks in part to Congresswoman Lauren Boebert. On March 20, Boebert visited with Town of Kiowa staff and town trustees…Boebert pledged to write letters supporting road improvement and parks projects, and also agreed to write Kiowa Water and Wastewater Authority a congressional letter of support for the Well Redundancy Project, [Kim] Boyd said. Boyd further explained that the Town of Kiowa currently relies on a single 66-foot alluvial groundwater well to meet the community’s water needs.
“This infrastructure is insufficient for current demands and poses a significant risk in the event of mechanical failure or environmental stress,” she shared. “It limits the town’s ability to grow and sustain essential services, including domestic water supply and fire protection.”
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) mandates that municipal water systems maintain at least two wells to ensure redundancy and protect public health.
The discussion will focus on the Juchem Ditch and the Farmers Highline Canal and review how early settlers dug ditches by hand to support mining and agriculture. The event is free to the public and is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. to noon on May 17 at the Arvada Elks Lodge in Olde Town, at 5700 Yukon St. Panelists will include local historians Ed Rothschild, Tom Fletcher and Bob Krugmire. The event will be moderated by Arvada City Councilmember Sharon Davis. Arvada Historical Society President Judith Denham said the idea for the first History Speaks lecture — which will potentially be part of a larger series of talks — came when the organization was planning last year’s Cemetery Tour, which centered on the early pioneers who built the city’s ditches.
“We thought it would be a great idea to expand on this story and find a way to talk more about this crucial part of Arvada’s history,” Denham said. “I think people are going to really enjoy hearing about this large piece of Arvada’s history. It’s a panel and we’ve invited water experts and ditch company representatives to talk about how water influenced Arvada’s early history.
“They’re going to tell us the fascinating stories about how early settlers Wadsworth, Swadley and Jochem dug ditches with hand tools and mules so they could provide water for their farms,” Denham continued. “And add in the stories about the early conflicts over water usage and how that whole complicated system of water rights and water law started.”
Registration for the event can be completed at historyarvada.org. The Arvada Press and Colorado Community Media are partnering with the Arvada Historical Society for this project.
Farmers Highline Canal near the Tuck Ditch Headgate April 30, 2019. Day 30 of the #30daysofbiking challenge.
Workers from Denver Water and contractor Kiewit Barnard stand in front of Gross Dam in May 2024 to mark the start of the dam raise process. Photo credit: Denver Water.
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Denver Water to share information with the environmental groups who successfully challenged a reservoir expansion project in Boulder County, as both sides prepare for a hearing to determine how much additional construction is necessary to stabilize the structure…Days later, Arguello allowed for necessary construction to temporarily resume, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has since extended that window while it reviews Arguello’s order. However, last Wednesday, the groups that challenged the project’s legality asked Arguello to intervene on another issue related to the upcoming hearing about how much stabilizing work is warranted…In response to the groups’ questions about risk management plans, spillway capacity and failure modes — plus a request for project documents — Denver Water told the petitioners that disclosure “poses Dam security risks.”
“The fact remains that Denver Water is the only party that currently has available to it extensive documentation that bears directly on the specific safety issues that this Court ordered all parties to address at the hearing,” the environmental groups added in their court filing.
The dam raise process begins at the bottom of the dam using roller-compacted concrete to build the new steps that will go up the face of the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water vowed this week to take the high-stakes battle over a partially built dam in Boulder County to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to defend what it sees as its well-established right to continue construction and deliver water to its 1.5 million metro-area customers.
“It would be irresponsible not to do that,” Denver Water’s General Manager Alan Salazar said in an interview Tuesday as a tense month of legal maneuvering continued.
Senior U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello on April 3 put a halt to construction of the $531 million Gross Reservoir Dam raise nearly four months after Denver Water and the river-defending nonprofit Save the Colorado failed to negotiate a settlement that would add new environmental protections to the project. When settlement talks stalled, Save the Colorado asked for and was granted an injunction.
Almost immediately, Denver Water filed for temporary relief from the injunction, saying, in part, that it would be unsafe to stop work as the incomplete concrete walls towered above Gross Reservoir in western Boulder County.
Arguello granted that request, too.
Now the water agency, the largest utility in the Intermountain West, has filed an emergency request with the federal appeals court, seeking to permanently protect its right to continue construction as the legal battle continues.
A decision could come as early as this week as a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel considers Denver Water’s emergency request, according to environmental advocate Gary Wockner. Wockner leads Save The Colorado, a group that has financed and led litigation against Denver Water and many other agencies seeking new dams or river diversions. Wockner said he is ready to continue the fight as well.
“We are prepared to defend the district court’s decision,” Wockner said, referring to the construction halt.
Alan Salazar, who became Denver Water CEO/Manager in August 2023 Photo credit: Denver Water
The high-profile dispute erupted in Denver just weeks after Northern Water agreed to a $100 million settlement with Save The Colorado and its sister group, Save The Poudre, to allow construction of the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, to proceed.
The money will be used to help restore the Cache la Poudre River, including moving diversion points and crafting new agreements with diverters that will ultimately leave more water in the river. Northern Water, which operates the federally owned Colorado-Big Thompson Project for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is overseeing the permitting and construction of NISP.
But two years of talks and negotiations between Save The Colorado and Denver Water failed to yield a similar environmental settlement over the Gross Reservoir Dam expansion project. It was after the talks failed that Federal District Court Judge Arguello agreed to halt construction on the dam.
Whether a new environmental deal will be forthcoming now isn’t clear. Both sides declined to comment on whether settlement talks had resumed.
Salazar also declined to discuss whether a deal similar to the $100 million NISP settlement would emerge over the Gross Reservoir lawsuit.
“I don’t want to get into the cost of a settlement,” Salazar said. “But the impact on ratepayers would be significant.”
Case sets the stage for future water projects in Colorado
Across the state, water officials are closely watching the case play out.
For fast-growing Parker Water and Sanitation, the preliminary injunction to stop construction, though temporary, is worrisome.
Its general manager, Ron Redd, said he wasn’t sure how his small district, which is planning a major new water project in northeastern Colorado, would cope with a similar injunction or a U.S. Supreme Court battle.
“In everything permitting-wise you need consistency in how you move projects forward,” Redd said. “To have that disrupted causes concern. Is this going to be the new normal going forward? That bothers me.”
Denver Water first moved to raise Gross Dam more than 20 years ago when it began designing the expansion and seeking the federal and state permits required by most water projects.
After years of engineering, studies and federal and state analyses, construction began in 2022. It has involved taking part of the original dam, built in the 1950s, and raising its height by 131 feet to nearly triple the reservoir’s storage capacity to 119,000 acre-feet from 42,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot of water equals 326,000 gallons, enough to serve up to four urban households each year.
The giant utility has said it needs the additional storage to secure future water supplies as climate change threatens stream flows in its water system, a key part of which lies in the Fraser River, a tributary to the Upper Colorado River in Grand County. The expansion was also necessary to strengthen its ability to distribute water from the northern end of its system, especially if problems emerged elsewhere in the southern part of its distribution area, as occurred during the 2002 drought.
And the judge agreed climate change is a factor but she said it’s not clear the water would ever even materialize as flows shrink. She overturned Denver Water’s permits because she said the Army Corps had not factored in Colorado River flow losses from climate change, and whether Denver would ever actually see the water it plans to store in an expanded Gross. Arguello also ruled the Army Corps had not spent enough time analyzing alternatives to the Gross Reservoir expansion.
Wockner said forcing Denver Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to re-analyze water projections under new climate change scenarios, as his group has asked, is critical to helping protect the broader Colorado River and stopping destructive dam projects.
Whether the questions the case raises about permitting and environmental protections ultimately make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court isn’t clear yet.
But James Eklund, a water attorney and former director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the state’s lead agency on water planning and funding, said Denver Water has the expertise and financial muscle to take it there.
“They have really sharp people over there,” he said. “I would say they are not only willing, they would have the facts to present a case they believe would be successful.”
The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project involves raising the height of the existing dam by 131 feet. The dam will be built out and will have “steps” made of roller-compacted concrete to reach the new height. Image credit: Denver Water
On a picture perfect, late-March bluebird day in the Colorado mountains, Rob Krueger and Jay Joslyn gear up for a unique job at Denver Water — venturing into the wilderness to measure snowpack.
Boots? Check. Gloves? Check. Hats? Check. Jackets? Check. Very special metal tube and a scale? Check, check. All of it is loaded into their winter travel vehicle, a snowcat.
Denver Water owns a snowcat that is used to access facilities and remote locations during the winter months in Grand County. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“We’re heading up to Vasquez Creek to one of our snow courses,” Krueger says as he fires up the Tucker 2000XL and starts rolling. “It’s around 10 miles up to our destination, and it takes about 30-40 minutes in the snowcat.”
The journey starts at Denver Water’s Grand County office just west of Fraser and heads into the Arapaho National Forest.
“The snowcat is kind of like a truck with tank-like tracks on it,” Krueger said. “We use it throughout the winter to reach our remote buildings and dams and to get to our snow courses.”
The journey would be impossible in a regular car or truck. But the snowcat, designed to tackle this type of terrain, easily powers over the snow.
“We’re a 24/7 operation so we need a vehicle like this in the winter,” he said. “Whether it’s snowing, sleeting, raining or we have 60-mile-per-hour winds and it’s negative 6 degrees out, we still have to get around. So that’s what makes the snowcat such an important piece of equipment for us.”
Rob Krueger drives the snowcat through a snow-covered road near Winter Park. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Krueger drives the snowcat through the trees on a snow-covered U.S. Forest Service road and into Denver Water’s collection system.
The collection system is the area where Denver Water captures melting snow during the spring runoff. The water then flows through creeks, canals, tunnels and reservoirs to treatment facilities on the Front Range where it’s cleaned for delivery to 1.5 million people in metro Denver.
After reaching their destination, Krueger and Joslyn get ready for their task of measuring the snowpack.
Snowshoes are strapped on and equipment, including a snow measuring tube, is assembled for the trek across Vasquez Creek to reach a “snow course.”
“A snow course is basically a preset path where we take samples to measure the snowpack,” Joslyn said. “We do these same courses four times over the winter.”
The courses are set up across Colorado’s mountains and managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service, also known as the NRCS, to monitor snowpack. The data from these courses are used by cities, farmers, ranchers, water utilities and recreationists to help predict the amount of water that will flow down the mountains during the spring runoff.
Joslyn and Krueger snowshoe across Vasquez Creek to reach the snow course. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water partners with the NRCS to do snow courses in Grand, Park and Summit counties where the utility collects its water.
In Grand County, there are five locations where Denver Water samples snow.
The Vasquez snow course starts a few feet from the creek and is surrounded by a canopy of spruce and fir trees. On this trip, the snow on the course ranged from 4 to 5 feet deep.
Joslyn stabs the snow with the measuring tube to collect a snow sample. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Joslyn carries the measuring tube [Federal Snow Sampler], then stabs it into the snow and checks the reading. He calls out “53,” which is the depth of the snow in inches. Then he takes a closer look at the slots on the tube and calls out a second number; this one is the length of the snow core captured inside.
Next up, Joslyn uses a handheld scale to weigh the tube with the snow inside. “42,” he calls out. This time referring to the weight in ounces.
Krueger records this number, then subtracts the weight of the empty tube from the total, which gives the water content in inches of the snow core sample. They also calculate the density of the snow.
Joslyn weighs the tube with the snow inside. The process is used to determine the water content and density of the snowpack. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The pair does the same process 10 times at 25-foot intervals on the course. On this trip, the snowpack was in good shape, coming in at 118% of normal for the end of March 2025.
“Denver Water has a long history in this valley, and we’ve been doing snow courses in Grand County dating back to 1939,” Krueger said. “With decades worth of data, we can get a really good idea of how much water we’ll see during the spring runoff.”
The data is sent to Denver Water’s planning department and the NRCS. Planners combine the snow course information with data from SNOTEL sites and high-tech flights over the mountains to predict how much water will flow into the utility’s reservoirs where water is stored for customers.
“The information from the snow courses is critical to our planning, as it gives us boots-on-the-ground information about the snowpack,” said Nathan Elder, water supply manager at Denver Water. “Our crews in the mountains often have to brave a lot of harsh weather to get the data we need, so we’re thankful for their hard work.”
Working for Denver Water in Grand County involves a variety of jobs that change throughout the seasons, with the snow courses being one of the most unique.
“The snow courses are interesting and of course being out in the snow and driving the snowcat is pretty fun,” Krueger said. “Our work feels valuable to Denver Water as a whole to understand what kind of water resource we have to send to the city.”
The city of Denver along with Jefferson County, The Mile High Flood District and the city of Wheat Ridge presented options for potential upgrades to the Clear Creek Trail during an open house in early April at Centennial Elementary School.
A section of the trail near Inspiration Point may get an upgrade for people that bike and walk. Currently, trail-users headed west must cross over West 52nd Avenue and then travel down about 1,100 feet of Gray Street, a residential street, before reaching the trail again.
The new plans unveiled at the open house offered five different options for new routes to avoid going down Gray Street, and all of them included under passes or bridges so trail users won’t have to cross West 52nd Avenue at grade anymore.
All of the options presented include new bridges or underpasses and involve several different routes that meander between Marshall Street and West 53rd Avenue. All of the proposed routes are west of the residences on Gray Street and south of Interstate 76. A study of the trail is expected to be completed in the fall.
At the meeting, residents were given the option to rank the five options and pick their favorites and least favorites. To learn more and give input on the potential routes, people can visit https://bit.ly/ClearCreekTrail. A current survey is open until April 18. [ed. emphasis mine]
Straight line diagram of the Lower Arkansas Valley ditches via Headwaters Magazine
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
April 6, 2025
Colorado Springs’ latest annexations, now under challenge, have left Arkansas River communities wary
As a worker maneuvered a massive leveler in the fields behind their house, Alan and Peggy Frantz pondered the future of their Rocky Ford farm — and their larger agricultural community strung along the Lower Arkansas River east of Pueblo. The collapse of it all doesn’t feel too far out, too improbable, Alan Frantz said. Maybe not in their lifetimes, the couple said, but they’ve made sure to send their kids to college in case it all goes away.
“At some point, the cities just have to stop growing,” Alan Frantz said. “If you want a Dust Bowl like the ’30s, go ahead and take all the water, dry this all up.”
Flood irrigation in the Arkansas Valley via Greg Hobbs
Colorado Springs is one of the cities Frantz and many of his neighbors worry most about — and now they fear a proposed 6,500-home annexation to that city will increase pressure on its utilities to source more water from the Arkansas. The farmers use the river to irrigate more than 220,000 acres of farmland, the economic backbone of the region. Already, Colorado Springs Utilities estimates it will need 34,000 more acre-feet of water — or 11 billion gallons — annually to meet population growth for when the city fully develops inside its current boundaries, estimated to occur around 2070. Every annexation of land into the state’s second-largest city adds to that future gap. Without water, there is no farming. And without farming, Frantz said, there would be no towns along the Lower Arkansas as it stretches from Pueblo to the Kansas border…
The controversy around the Colorado Springs annexation is the most recent flashpoint illustrating one of the central tensions in the state: Colorado’s cities do not have enough water to meet projected growth and climate change is shrinking the finite amount of water available. Where should the cities go for more supply? Who will give up their water? The decades-old battle plays out across the state as growing Front Range communities seek new water sources. Communities on the Western Slope fear more of their water will be routed east across the Continental Divide, especially as the region’s largest river shrinks. Farmers and ranchers in the San Luis Valley successfully fought off an attempt by a company to pipe water from the valley’s depleting aquifer to ever-growing Douglas County. Aurora’s $80-million purchase of Otero County water rights last year rankled water leaders in southeastern Colorado, prompting threats of litigation.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
Perkins County Canal Project Area. Credit: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Politics website (Marianne Goodland). Here’s an excerpt:
April 7, 2025
On or around April 17, six landowners in Sedgwick County will face a decision: whether to sell their land to the state of Nebraska for a canal that will be at least partially constructed in Colorado, or face what is likely to be an unprecedented land grab…The history of the proposed canal dates back more than 100 years, to the compact between Colorado and Nebraska regarding water from the South Platte River. Article VI of the compact states that Nebraska can divert 500 cubic feet per second during the non-irrigation season, as well as any additional available flows, into the canal. That non-irrigation season runs from Oct. 15 to April 1…
However, Nebraska claims that Colorado has increased its own diversions and related water uses during the non-irrigation season, leaving Nebraska with no choice but to construct the canal and claim its non-irrigation season water. The canal would start just east of Ovid, in Sedgwick County, and continue into Perkins County, just across the state line in Nebraska. The 1923 compact allows Nebraska to build the canal, using eminent domain, and to seek it in federal court if necessary.
People work on the Perkins County Canal in the 1890s. The project eventually was abandoned due to financial troubles. But remnants are still visible near Julesburg.
Perkins County Historical Society
For one state to grab the land of another is unprecedented, Attorney General Phil Weiser told Colorado Politics earlier this year. While Colorado agreed to the canal in 1923, that’s not how Weiser sees it now. Weiser sent a letter to the Sedgwick County commissioners in January, stating that he is opposed to Nebraska’s potential action. He wrote that he had advised Nebraska’s attorney general that the project would provide little to no benefit to the state of Nebraska. However, if Nebraska moves forward, Colorado will defend its rights, he added.
Perkins canal drawing showing the Colorado portion, courtesy Nebraska Department of Natural Resources.
F Street in Salida February 2025. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
April 8, 2025
Federal funds for climate-change-related projects in Colorado have started arriving in almost perfect concert with the spring thaw.
Among the applications for the hundreds of millions of dollars will be:
energy efficiency work in southwestern Colorado communities,
curbing methane emissions from old coal mines west of Carbondale, and,
preparation of a climate action plan for the Yampa Valley.
Among the smaller grants, $187,605 went to Salida and Chaffee County. The money will fund a staff position shared by the two jurisdictions to create a greenhouse gas inventory, a climate action plan, and then the means to implement what the city and county decide to do.
That grant and seven others for rural Colorado jurisdictions from the U.S. Department of Energy totaling $1.865 million were announced in August 2024. The federal program had received key funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.
The awards were temporarily frozen by President Donald Trump.
The money is largely to be used for staffing for climate action planning but also for workforce training in communities where extraction and combustion of fossil fuels has been fading.
“Capacity is an essential component of local climate action, and these new awards will play an important role in enabling this work in Colorado’s rural and mountain communities,” Christine Berg, senior policy advisor for local governments in the Colorado Energy Office, said in the August 2024 announcement.
A far larger grant of $200 million to the Denver Regional Council of Governments, or DRCOG, had been announced in July 2024.
That money, a product of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, was to have been used for retrofits of buildings in the nine-county metropolitan area. DRCOG did not respond to repeated requests as to whether the money has been unthawed or is expected to be.
The Colorado Energy Office had been awarded $129 million. A spokesperson confirmed the money has arrived. It will be used:
To deploy advanced methane monitoring technology to produce data that will inform regulatory policy concerning methane emissions from landfills and coal mines, including those in the Redstone-Paonia area.
For energy efficiency and electrification upgrades in large commercial buildings that are otherwise hard to decarbonize.
To help local governments to implement projects that help reduce emissions from buildings, transportation, electric power, waste and other economic sectors. The money is to be administered through a new program, the Local Government Climate Action Accelerator.
Part of the $129 million received by the Colorado Energy Office will be used to work on large commercial buildings that are hard to decarbonize. Photo/Allen Best
What melted the ice?
The Trump administration’s budget office on Jan. 20 had ordered a pause on previously promised funds if they helped advance the “green new deal,” as the Congressional laws adopted when Joe Biden was president have been called. A federal court issued a temporary restraining order in late January, but the Trump administration seemed to ignore it.
Colorado in early February joined 21 other states and the District of Columbia in asking the court to require the federal agencies to release the money.
Will Toor, the executive director of the Colorado Energy Office, at the time declared that the federal government had signed contracts granting more than $500 million to Colorado through the 2021 and 2022 federal laws. “By not meeting these contractual obligations, the federal government is inflicting real harm on our state,” he said in a statement posted on the CEO website.
The Trump administration seemed to ignore the legal requirement, and a federal court judge on March 6 ordered the administration to comply.
Judge John J. McConnell Jr., of the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island, said the case amounted to executive overreach. The directive from the White House budget office, he said in a New York Times story, “fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.” Without his action, he said, “the funding that the states are due and owed creates an indefinite limbo.” A federal appeals court on March 26 upheld that decision.
On March 28, Colorado Energy Office spokesman Ari Rosenblum reported that the $129 million in funding announced last summer for the state agency has been unfrozen.
“We are moving forward with work on all projects funded through this grant,” he wrote in an e-mail in response to a query from Big Pivots. “We expect to launch the Local Government Climate Action Accelerator this summer.”
What melted the ice?
The Trump administration’s budget office on Jan. 20 had ordered a pause on previously promised funds if they helped advance the “green new deal,” as the Congressional laws adopted when Joe Biden was president have been called. A federal court issued a temporary restraining order in late January, but the Trump administration seemed to ignore it.
Colorado in early February joined 21 other states and the District of Columbia in asking the court to require the federal agencies to release the money.
Will Toor, the executive director of the Colorado Energy Office, at the time declared that the federal government had signed contracts granting more than $500 million to Colorado through the 2021 and 2022 federal laws. “By not meeting these contractual obligations, the federal government is inflicting real harm on our state,” he said in a statement posted on the CEO website.
The Trump administration seemed to ignore the legal requirement, and a federal court judge on March 6 ordered the administration to comply.
Judge John J. McConnell Jr., of the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island, said the case amounted to executive overreach. The directive from the White House budget office, he said in a New York Times story, “fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.” Without his action, he said, “the funding that the states are due and owed creates an indefinite limbo.” A federal appeals court on March 26 upheld that decision.
On March 28, Colorado Energy Office spokesman Ari Rosenblum reported that the $129 million in funding announced last summer for the state agency has been unfrozen.
“We are moving forward with work on all projects funded through this grant,” he wrote in an e-mail in response to a query from Big Pivots. “We expect to launch the Local Government Climate Action Accelerator this summer.”
Projects in rural Colorado
The $1.8 million grant — this is in addition to the program for local assistance that the Colorado Energy Office created with its $129 million — funded projects for Salida and Chaffee County and these additional rural communities:
$240,000 for Lake County to support a new position to lead development of the county’s first climate action plan and implement the county’s climate initiatives in and around Leadville. These and other similar positions are for three years.
$240,000 to the Colorado River Valley Economic Development Partnership, which has representatives of municipalities from New Castle and Silt on the east and Parachute and Battlement Mesa, as well as parts of unincorporated Garfield County. The project has a strong emphasis on workforce development and new job training in a county that formerly had a strong component of fossil fuel extraction.
$264,100 to the Routt County Climate Action Plan Collaborative. The money is to scale up electrification in Hayden, Oak Creek, Steamboat Springs and Yampa as well as other parts of Rout County. As with the Colorado River communities, there will be a workforce development and job training component as two coal-burning units at Hayden will close in the next several years. The coal for the plant comes from Twentymile Mine.
$240,000 to Pueblo and Pueblo County for a staff position for implementing city and county sustainability projects.
$240,000 to the City of Durango for a staff position to be housed within the Four Corners Office for Resource Efficiency to work with La Plata Electric Association and the city government to implement energy efficiency and so forth.
$191,100 to EcoAction Partners, a consortium of San Miguel and Ouray counties along with the towns of Telluride, Mountain Village, Ophir, and Norward. This money is to provide staffing to assist the 10 jurisdiction members with climate action plan projects and programming implementation.
$262,194 to Larimer County to help with staffing to develop a climate action plan for Estes Park and ensure alignment with Larimer County climate Smart Future Ready plan.
A $240,000 grant was awarded to the City of Durango to work with the a local non-profit group, the Four Corners Office for Resource Efficiency, and La Plata Electric Association on energy efficiency. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Salida tree grant
Salida will also receive another $250,000 to cover the costs of planting trees in a somewhat newer but lower-income neighborhood during the next five years.
The older part of Salida that can be seen along F Street, the town’s older commercial corridor, has many tall shade trees. The town’s southeast corner, though, is an area converted from light industrial and commercial into manufactured and other housing. It has a paucity of trees.
Sara Law, Salida’s sustainability coordinator and public information officer, explained that Salida expects to get hotter during summer months in coming decades because of accumulating greenhouse gases. The goal was to get medium- to low-tree covers to help provide cooling on those hot days of summer.
Awardees of that grant program, including Salida, are now able to work on their tree projects and submit for reimbursement.
Teddy Parker-Renga, associate director of communications and communities for the Colorado State Forest Service, reported on March 31 that awardees of that particular grant program, including Salida, had become eligible that day to submit reimbursements for their work. The money comes from the U.S. Forest Service and grants are administered by the Colorado State Forest Service.
At an elevation of 7,400 feet, Salida has a climate warm enough to accommodate rattlesnakes. They can be encountered on hiking trails of nearby Methodist Mountain, the northernmost peak in the Sangre de Cristo Range. Salida’s all-time high temperature record of 102 degrees was set in July 2019.
The construction site at the bottom of Gross Dam with equipment used to place concrete and build the new steps. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
April 7, 2025
The state’s largest water utility will have two weeks to complete any necessary work on its $531 million dam expansion project before a court-ordered construction halt takes effect, a federal judge ruled Sunday. The granting of a temporary window for construction follows an order late Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello blocking Denver Water’s expansion of Gross Reservoir outside Nederland and barring further construction work to raise the height of the dam…In response to the order, Denver Water asked the judge to allow dam construction to continue while the utility appealed her decision.
“Denver Water faces enormous irreparable harm from the order stopping ongoing project construction, which may threaten the safety of the half-constructed dam; require Denver Water to quickly lay off hundreds of construction workers; impose millions in additional materials and equipment costs on Denver Water and its ratepayers; and increase the risk of water shortages,” lawyers for the utility wrote in their request.
Arguello denied the utility’s request to allow construction to continue during the appeal but granted the 14-day stay on her order blocking all construction. After a yet-to-be-scheduled hearing, she will decide exactly how much more construction to allow to make the existing dam structurally sound…Arguello in her Sunday order reiterated her criticism of Denver Water’s decision to start construction even though it faced challenges to the legality of the project.
“The financial concerns argued by Denver Water do not outweigh the irreparable injury of environmental harm,” the judge wrote. “Denver Water took a calculated risk when it decided to move forward with construction despite the lawsuit.”
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. Credit: Northern Water project pages
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
March 5, 2025
Two new bodies of water in northern Front Range will boost water supplies for 15 communities
Plans for a $2 billion water supply project in northern Colorado will move forward after the communities supporting it agreed to pump $100 million into improving the health of the Cache la Poudre River — a settlement ending decades of dispute over the water infrastructure plans. Leaders from the Northern Integrated Supply Project and the nonprofit environmental group Save the Poudre finalized the settlement on Friday, clearing the way for two new reservoirs. The deal will funnel $100 million over 20 years into a fund to sustain 50 miles of the river from the mouth of the Poudre Canyon, northwest of Fort Collins, to the river’s confluence with the South Platte. The Poudre River Improvement Fund will pay for projects to enhance the river’s flows, water quality, ecosystem and recreational opportunities. The settlement ends Save the Poudre’s 2024 lawsuit alleging the Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider the environmental impacts of the Northern Integrated Supply Project when it issued a Clean Water Act permit for its construction. Environmentalists with the group have opposed the project for decades because it would drain the river and damage its ecosystems…
Northern Water, the utility that’s spearheading the project, and other water suppliers have pursued the water infrastructure improvements since 1980, stating they are critical to meeting the needs of the growing region. When complete, the Northern Integrated Supply Project will include Glade Reservoir northwest of Fort Collins, Galeton Reservoir northeast of Greeley, 50 miles of buried water pipelines and five pump plants. The project will send more than 40,000 acre-feet of water annually to the participating water suppliers in Boulder, Weld and Larimer counties — enough water for about 80,000 households.
“This is a milestone day for the communities participating in the project,” Northern Water General Manager Brad Wind said in a news release. “The settlement agreement will close the permitting process for the project, open the door to constructing a project that will deliver much-needed water supplies to vibrant communities, and allow for dozens of large-scale riverine investments in and along the Poudre River.”
Construction of Glade Reservoir is expected to begin in 2026. It will hold about 170,000 acre-feet of water from the Poudre River — a capacity slightly larger than that of Horsetooth Reservoir, according to Northern Water’s release. Construction of 45,600-acre-foot Galeton Reservoir will begin after the first reservoir is complete, and it will store water from the South Platte. An acre-foot of water is enough to support two Colorado households for a year. The project will support water supplies for 15 towns and water districts in northern Colorado, including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, the Left Hand Water District, Fort Morgan and Erie.
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
From email from Denver Water:
April 4, 2025
Denver Water is gravely concerned about this ruling and its ramifications for the future of metro Denver and its water supply. We plan to appeal and seek an immediate stay of this order that leaves a critical project that is 60% complete on hold and puts at risk our ability to efficiently provide a safe, secure and reliable water supply to 1.5 million people. Denver Water will do everything in its power to see this project through to completion.
It’s impossible to reconcile the judge’s order with what is clearly in the broader public interest.
We view this decision as a radical remedy that should raise alarm bells with the public, not only because of its impacts to water security in an era of longer, deeper droughts, catastrophic wildfire and extreme weather, but because it serves as an egregious example of how difficult it has become to build critical infrastructure in the face of relentless litigation and a broken permitting process. In this case, the order is even more appalling with the project so deep into construction.
Denver Water will abide by the judge’s order and temporarily halt construction on the dam pending a hearing with the judge and will rapidly appeal the decision. Work for the spring season was scheduled to begin April 10, and the final part of the dam raise was to be completed this year. Leaving the project incomplete creates ongoing safety and water supply issues, as Denver Water cannot fill the reservoir to capacity during construction and, as we have testified to the judge, the original gravity dam has been deconstructed and its foundation excavated, exposing steep rock slopes that depend on bolts to temporarily shore them up. These are among the issues that we will address with the judge in an upcoming hearing.
This order is also exacting a significant human cost, as it comes just as Denver Water and its contractors were preparing for spring construction season. With an extended freeze on construction, hundreds of men and women will be thrown out of work, many with specific skillsets who relocated to the region to work on this specific project. It also required enormous effort over years from Denver Water and its contractors to build the workforce for this complex project. All of that now stands in jeopardy, causing immediate harm to our valued workers, their families, the dozens of business partners, and our local economy.
It’s crucial to understand that Denver Water was granted all required local, state and federal permits to move ahead with the project after a regulatory oversight process stretching over nearly two decades, dating to 2002. Further, Denver Water has committed more than $30 million to over 60 environmental mitigation and enhancement projects on the Front Range and West Slope. The utility proceeded with construction on the expansion in 2022, under an order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to complete the project by 2027.
On top of that legally binding FERC order, Denver Water has an enormous sense of urgency surrounding the project, considering increasingly variable weather and water supply patterns, how close we have come to falling short of water on the north side of our system in years past, our harrowing experiences with the threats and impacts of wildfire in our collection area and the need for system flexibility to ensure we can provide a critical public resource under crisis conditions.
To be clear, these are not theoretical matters. Denver has seen the impact of drought and catastrophic wildfire before. The starkest example came in 2002, when extended drought and fast-moving wildfire struck the region in dramatic fashion. Denver Water came very close to being unable to provide our northern customers with safe, clean drinking water – an absolute human health and safety priority, and the responsibility of this utility, as the region’s water provider.
Denver Water is also missing opportunities to store additional, critical water supplies. Had the expansion been complete in 2013, for example, Denver Water could have easily filled Gross Reservoir, including storing additional storm water during the catastrophic flooding that year. In 2015, water flowed out of state because existing Denver Water reservoirs were full and there was no place to capture and store it. In the hot, dry 2018 summer, we would have been able to provide extra water to the Fraser River or Williams Fork River basin to help enhance the conditions of these dry rivers.
The expansion of Gross Reservoir is intended to protect the people who rely on us, now and in the future. The Gross Reservoir expansion reduces the significant pressure on our southern system, which delivers 80% of our water supply, depends heavily on the South Platte River and has seen a series of wildfires that threaten water delivery, water quality and water treatment. In both 1996 and 2002, sediment loads from deluges following the Buffalo Creek and Hayman fires created impacts to our southern system that challenged our ability to ensure water supply to our customers; we are still addressing these impacts to this very day.
Denver Water is responsible for providing a safe and secure water supply for 1.5 million people in Denver and portions of the surrounding metro area and has understood the urgency of the Gross Reservoir expansion since the 1990s, when the environmental community recommended expansion of the reservoir as part of a plan to address future supply and water security.
To repeat: The utility began working on permitting for this project in 2002, more than 20 years ago. The project has been analyzed and permitted in various forms by no fewer than seven state and federal environmental agencies, and Denver Water has consulted extensively with environmental organizations, nonprofits, the public and other stakeholders to identify efforts to enhance and reasonably restore resources on both the West Slope and Front Range. Denver Water is operating under a legally mandated deadline for project completion in 2027 from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is not part of this current lawsuit.
Throughout the permitting process, Denver Water has been driven by these values: the need to do this expansion the right way and the safe way, by involving the community; upholding the highest environmental standards; providing a sustainable, high-quality water supply to our customers; and protecting and managing the water and natural environment that define Colorado. In keeping with these values, Denver Water designed and implemented the project to provide a net environmental benefit to impacted local watersheds.
Denver Water looks forward to working with the agencies and the courts to move this critical project toward completion.
Workers from Denver Water and contractor Kiewit Barnard stand in front of Gross Dam in May 2024 to mark the start of the dam raise process. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
April 4, 2025
Colorado’s largest water provider must stop construction on a $531 million dam expansion already underway in Boulder County after a federal judge found that assessments of how the project would impact the environment were flawed. U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello in an order late Thursday blocked Denver Water from enlarging Gross Reservoir east of Nederland until major federal environmental permitting processes are redone. The judge found that allowing the reservoir expansion to continue without redoing the permits would cause irreparable environmental damage that cannot be compensated for by monetary payments. That harm would outweigh any financial costs Denver Water would incur from halting construction, she wrote.
“Environmental injury is often the very definition of irreparable harm — often permanent or at least of long duration,” Arguello wrote. “All parties agree that there will be environmental harm resulting from completion of the Moffat Collection System Project, including the destruction of 500,000 trees, water diversion from several creeks, and impacts to wildlife by the sudden loss of land.”
She issued a preliminary injunction ordering Denver Water to halt construction on the dam until a further hearing when engineers can explain how much further construction is needed to make the partially built dam safe and structurally sound. Denver Water planned to raise the height of the dam by 131 feet, allowing the utility to store more water. She will then issue a permanent injunction on how much more construction will be allowed. The order is a huge victory for environmental groups that for years have opposed the controversial project. A coalition of environmental groups first filed suit in 2018 to stop the expansion of the reservoir, which they say would harm the health of the Colorado River system — where the reservoir’s water is sourced.
Snowfall in March has helped decrease the likelihood of drought developing this spring in Colorado’s northwest mountains. However, a warm and dry spring could still change the tide heading into summer. The National Weather Service, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, released its latest seasonal drought outlook on Thursday, March 20. It showed that drought conditions are unlikely to develop in most of northwest Colorado through June…Brad Pugh, a forecaster with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s climate prediction center, said these outlooks predominantly take into account the current conditions, climatology temperature and precipitation outlooks over the next three months.
“In northwestern Colorado at this time of year, you know going into the springtime, mountain snowpack is a critical factor,” Pugh said.
As of March 18, much of northwest Colorado was in line with, or just above, normal snowpack. This has continued to improve in the state’s north-central mountains since January. According to OpenSnow, as of Monday the snow totals and percentage of normal on the season so far were as follows:
Winter Park – 315 inches (117%)
Copper Mountain Resort – 303 inches (113%)
Vail Mountain – 292 inches (101%)
Breckenridge Ski Resort – 284 inches (107%)
Steamboat Resort – 279 inches (108%)
Aspen Highlands — 267 inches (88%)
Loveland Ski Area – 261 inches (108%)
Snowmass – 243 inches (83%)
Keystone Resort – 239 inches (107%)
Beaver Creek – 227 inches (108%)
Arapahoe Basin Ski Area – 225 inches (112%)
Aspen Mountain – 210 inches (92%)
Ski Cooper – 206 inches (106%)
Buttermilk – 147 inches (89%)
Colorado Drought Monitor map March 25, 2025.
The latest U.S. Drought Monitor for Colorado reported no drought in many of the northwest counties including Summit, Grand, Routt and Jackson counties as well as the eastern reaches of Eagle and Moffat counties. Heading west, the monitor shows abnormally dry conditions in Pitkin County and the eastern portions of Garfield and Rio Blanco counties. Conditions continue to get progressively drier the further west toward the border.
Talk Given to Business for Water Stewardship on March 10, 2025
In Colorado, we confront challenges as opportunities. As Wallace Stegner, the famed Western writer, once put it—it’s impossible to be pessimistic in the West; it’s the native land of hope. How we manage our water is a test of that ethos.
There are no two ways to put this: we face significant water scarcity challenges in Colorado and the West. That scarcity is driven, in part, by increasing demands as population booms. And it’s also driven by our changing climate, which is reducing snowpack, changing runoff patterns, increasing evaporation, and drying soils.
While we know that climate change significantly impacts Colorado’s water, its extent and exact impact is presently unknown. That uncertainty, coupled with the unpredictability in rainfall and snowpack, is destabilizing—making it difficult for farmers, ranchers, and even cities to know what to expect each year or how to plan for the future. Unfortunately, the variable weather patterns we are seeing are very likely to be our new normal, creating considerable pressure for us to create more adaptive and resilient systems for water management.
Increased uncertainty and unpredictability in water make planning more important than ever, with an imperative of developing new and innovative strategies for water management. It is no exaggeration to say that the future success of Colorado will depend, in considerable part, on our ability to adapt to scarcity and reduce the uncertainty and unpredictability that come with it. The best and most durable solutions will go beyond individual success and will collaborate with other interests to find win-win solutions.
I know this is important to Business for Water Stewardship, and I’m excited to talk with you about it today. I also want to speak about how our management of water must remain intertwined with respect for the rule of law, as the solutions we craft are only as good as the laws they are built upon and the institutions charged with implementing and upholding them.
I. Moving Toward a Resilient and Adaptive System of Water Management
Adapting to scarcity and creating more certainty will require us to develop innovative and collaborative strategies for water management. It will also require collective action. We cannot focus on individual successes and ignore the community in which these projects occur. I appreciate how you captured this point on your website:
We believe businesses have an opportunity—and a responsibility— to ensure that their operations and investments improve communities and ecosystems where they do business. And in water-stressed regions, that responsibility is deeply rooted in how we value, use, and protect water. That’s why we help businesses work collaboratively with community and policy stakeholders to advance solutions that ensure people, economies, and ecosystems have enough clean water to flourish.[1]
I couldn’t agree more. Each of us, whether as businesses or individuals, has a responsibility to ensure that, wherever we can, we work to improve communities and ecosystems where we live and work. Let me begin by focusing on a few projects that have done that. And I want to contrast those with projects that do not.
The Maybell Diversion Project is a wonderful example of a project that has multiple benefits. Updating and modernizing the Maybell Diversion Project improved efficiency for irrigation, increases resiliency to drought, and benefitted threatened and endangered species.[2]
Before the project was completed in 2024, irrigators from Maybell Irrigation District had to trudge two hours through steep, rugged sagebrush country to manually open and close the rusted and broken metal headgate.[3] It was an arduous, yet crucial task because Maybell is one of the largest irrigation diversions on the Yampa.[4]
The Nature Conservancy worked with numerous partners to help fund the $6.8M project. Funding partners include: the Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART program; the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program,[5] and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.[6]
Today, the opening and closing of the Maybell headgate can be controlled remotely and is determined by a combination of water user needs and available flows into the Maybell Ditch. The Maybell Irrigation District also coordinates with the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the Division of Water Resources to guide water use in the Lower Yampa.[7]
As I said previously, this project promises mutual benefits. It allows continued irrigation of historical lands, which supports local farmers and the economy. At the same time, it also improves fish habitat and removes barriers to boat passage, supporting the environment and secondary economic benefits like river recreation.
In 2021, I spoke to the Colorado Water Congress about “The Imperative of Investing in Water Infrastructure.”[8] In that speech, I highlighted important water infrastructure projects around the state, including a plan to replace the aging Grand Valley Hydroelectric facility with a new more efficient plant capable of producing 1.5 times as much power. Like the Maybell Diversion Project, that plan brought multiple benefits. In addition to producing more clean electricity, their continued use of the water right will ensure that water flows into the 15-mile Reach, a critical stretch of river for four species of endangered fish. Many local irrigators will also benefit from increased diversions at an upstream diversion point supplying the plant.
In that speech, I also emphasized the importance of developing funding sources and investment opportunities in water infrastructure. I mentioned a few success stories, like Proposition DD, HB 21-1260, which provides $20 million in funding for implementation of the Colorado Water Plan, and HB 21-240, which provides $30 million for watershed restoration in response to wildfires, including funding for flood prevention and mitigation. But those are not enough. With continued growth on the horizon, our commitment to fund projects laid out in the Colorado Water Plan is imperative. That plan is the roadmap for investing in our future and fulfilling the Plan’s vision will take billions of dollars.
Photo credit: Rye Resurgence Project
B. Rye Resurgence Project
The Rye Resurgence Project in the San Luis Valley supports continued farming, while reducing water use, improving soil health, and helping the community flourish.
During this time of drought, it is critical that we find ways to use less water without sacrificing economic opportunities. This can help build resilience in the face of shrinking water supplies. Crops, like rye, can use far less water—up to 40%—than other similar crops like barley or oats.[9] This difference is huge in a region that is trying to conserve water in order to balance Rio Grande water use with supply. Data in 2024 shows the San Luis aquifer at its lowest recorded level in history.[10]
An important element of the Rye Resurgence Project is that it recognizes that switching to crops that require less water will only succeed if there is a market where farmers can sell those new crops at a profit. The project helps build a market for Colorado rye by investing significant effort and resources in marketing, branding materials, and personnel to develop relationships between the growers and the end users of rye such as brewers, distillers, millers, bakers, and consumers.[11] Building the market for San Luis Valley Resurgence Rye gives farmers an option to reduce their impact, earn a living wage, and support the local community. By keeping farmers farming, the future health of the community will be sustained.
II. Two Cautionary Tales to Avoid in the Future
The above two projects reflect effective strategies for managing water during this challenging time. There are, however, examples that have proven to be ineffective that are important to learn from. I will discuss two such cautionary case studies, highlighting some pitfalls of mismanaging water.
A. Alfalfa for Saudia Arabia
The growing of alfalfa in Arizona to ship to Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most glaring example of a project whose success comes at the expense of the community in which it occurs.[12] The short story of this project is that Saudi firms bought up 9 square miles of land in Arizona for irrigating and growing alfalfa grass.[13] The firms grew alfalfa in Arizona to export to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates because they had already drained their own aquifers.[14]
Alfalfa is an incredibly water-intensive crop. Growing it in a desert climate drastically impacts the surrounding communities. The Saudis were using the same amount of water to grow hay just for export as what a million people in the state use for water every year.[15] The Saudis invested a huge amount of water into the crop which they couldn’t grow at home because they don’t have the water. Essentially, this is exporting Arizona’s water.
By transporting the alfalfa overseas instead of selling it domestically, this also eliminated all future economic returns on that water. If that alfalfa stayed in Arizona, for example, it could have been sold to domestic cattle producers and benefited local communities and businesses. None of those domestic gains were achieved once the alfalfa left our shores.
Potential Water Delivery Routes. Since this water will be exported from the San Luis Valley, the water will be fully reusable. In addition to being a renewable water supply, this is an important component of the RWR water supply and delivery plan. Reuse allows first-use water to be used to extinction, which means that this water, after first use, can be reused multiple times. Graphic credit: Renewable Water Resources
B. Buy and Dry Schemes
In Colorado, we have seen before what is now labelled a “buy and dry” scheme. This scheme involves the sale of relatively all the water from a community, shipping it to a thirsty urban community and destroying a local agricultural economy. That is, in short, the tale of what happened in Crowley County.[16] As captured in Colorado’s Water Plan, it is an approach that we are committed to avoiding in the future.[17]
For an example of a buy and dry project now on the table, consider the case of the (improperly named) Renewable Water Resources. That project would buy out wells that are currently used to irrigate lands in the San Luis Valley and, rather than using that water for irrigation and farming, it would be piped to the front range for new suburban houses.[18] This has several direct and indirect negative economic impacts as well as cultural impacts on the San Luis Valley. This project makes one rural community suffer while a suburban community prospers.
In contrast to the Rye Resurgence Project, which invests in farmers to help them adapt to new markets, this project disregards farmers and eliminates the economic driver for their community. Proponents say the water is necessary to ensure other communities have enough water supply to secure their future. But we can’t let ourselves be tricked into believing that economic prosperity or managing our water resources is a zero-sum game.
Perkins County Canal Project Area. Credit: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
C. Perkins County Canal
For another example of approaching our water management challenges as a zero-sum game, take the case of Nebraska’s proposed Perkins County Canal project. In a zero-sum game, there can be some winners, but at a high cost to others. In this case in particular, there will be many more losers and lots of wasted time and money. Rather than pursue such a costly path, we can find shared goals and interests and build solutions to help achieve those.
Under Nebraska’s plans, it will invest the time, money, and effort to build a canal to divert water in Colorado for use in Nebraska under the 1923 South Platte River Compact. If Nebraska does that, then Colorado water users will likely build countermeasures to offset impacts of the canal. Under this scenario, both Nebraska and Colorado would end up investing hundreds of millions of dollars, but almost all water users in each state would end up in a position that is no better than they were before Nebraska proposed the canal.
A better approach to the issue is one that recognizes that the agricultural economy and the communities it supports doesn’t observe state boundaries. The economy is regional. Farmers own land in both states. An individual farmer might buy supplies in Nebraska and farm in Colorado. And the reverse is likely true. Durable solutions need to benefit the region and not make the success contingent on the failure of the other. I will continue to do all I can to work towards such a solution.
See Article 7.
III. The Importance of the Rule of Law in Water Management
As we adapt to changing hydrology and look for flexible and collaborative solutions, it will also be important to stand firm on certain principles. Our success not only relies on our adaptability, but also on a solid foundation of laws that are consistently enforced with predictable results.
Colorado’s framework for managing water is based on state-level oversight and ultimate responsibility. This is bolstered by significant reliance on regional and local partnerships to facilitate solutions that are tailored to the water supply needs of local communities. The Colorado model prioritizes respect for and collaboration with regional bodies, such as water conservancy and conservation districts, with a norm of deferring to local expertise and solutions whenever possible. Nonetheless, the ultimate responsibility of managing Colorado’s water and ensuring compliance with compacts, laws, and regulations falls to the State. This is especially true when we talk about compliance with interstate water compacts.
Governor Clarence J. Morley signing Colorado River compact and South Platte River compact bills, Delph Carpenter standing center. Unidentified photographer. Date 1925. Print from Denver Post. From the CSU Water Archives
A. Interstate Compact Compliance
Compliance with Colorado’s nine interstate water compacts, two international treaties, and three equitable apportionment decrees is exclusively the responsibility of the State. This authority is established by the compact clause of the U.S Constitution that allows States, as sovereigns, to enter into agreements to apportion water between them to avoid conflicts over water.
Once ratified by Congress, interstate compacts become federal law. That does not mean, however, that the federal government controls state water resources. The power to control uses of water is an essential attribute of State sovereignty.[19] When states compact with each other to apportion the waters of interstate streams, those compacts also bind the federal government.[20] As we negotiate or litigate over our interstate compacts, I am dedicated to defending Colorado from federal overreach and protecting Colorado’s compact apportionments.
To the extent a state fails to comply with its interstate compact obligations, the State—and not individual water users, conservation or conservancy districts, or local governments—is held solely liable and responsible for complying or possibly paying damages out of the State’s General Fund.[21] In 2006, for example, the State was required to pay nearly $35 million in damages and legal costs to Kansas for violating the Arkansas River Compact.[22] When there is a challenge to State actions under the terms of these agreements, it is the State that is on the hook and local and regional entities are precluded from participating as parties to help defend the State in such litigation.[23] That is because interstate water disputes, reserved to the “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court,[24] necessarily invoke States’ sovereignty, with each representing “the interests and rights of all of her people in a controversy with the other.”[25]
Elected officials in charge of managing Colorado’s water are accountable to taxpayers who, as noted above, will ultimately bear the cost of any failure to comply with interstate compacts. If the State manages water in a way in which constituents do not approve, they are able express their views directly to their elected officials or engage in the election process to have their voices heard. It is critical for the State to retain full authority to administer and distribute the waters of the State arising there to comply with interstate compacts as the sovereign with the exclusive authority to do so.
For a cautionary tale of how a state mismanaged its water consider what happened in Nebraska, when it faced an issue of how to manage its groundwater. In short, Nebraska delegated its regulatory authority over groundwater to local Natural Resource Districts instead of the state’s Department of Natural Resources.[26] Those local districts represented only the interests of their own water users, and they faced no direct liability for falling out of compact compliance. As a result, the districts failed to make the difficult policy and enforcement decisions necessary for Nebraska to comply with the compact, and Nebraska was forced to pay nearly $6 million in damages to Kansas after the U.S. Supreme Court found that Nebraska had violated the Republican River Compact.[27]
B. Developing Adaptable and Resilient Strategies for Colorado
Projects like the Maybell Diversion and Rye Resurgence are important to help individuals and communities adapt to variable water supplies. We will also need statewide strategies—and legal institutions—to allow those types of water users to occur while ensuring compliance with our interstate compact obligations. Together, we are well positioned to start a broader conversation on what adaptability and resilient strategies—and what legal tools—can help us achieve this critical goal.
Stakeholders have started to suggest different possible tools that can enable Colorado to better manage our water in an adaptive and resilient manner. One suggested strategy is to create a statewide conservation program that compensates people who forego use of their water rights, particularly at times of great demands on a particular system. The Rio Grande Conservation District is implementing such a system to protect its groundwater resources, for example.[28]
A second concept that some have suggested is to create a strategic reserve of water that Colorado could release to protect its water users from mandatory curtailments that might otherwise result from a shortage of water to downstream states. Under this model, the state would acquire and manage “slack capacity,” putting the state in position to navigate shortages and times when there is more demand for water than available.
Whatever strategies are ultimately developed, they are sure to be more successful if they can be built and tested before we need them. Given the pressures we are seeing on multiple fronts, the time to develop and test such ideas is now. As we know from lessons from other countries, the stakes are high and adopting an imperfect system can give rise to most unfortunate consequences.[29]
* * *
Our ability to adapt to the scarcity of water in Colorado and reduce uncertainty and unpredictability is critical to ensuring a promising future for our state. As I have explained, the best and most durable solutions will go beyond individual success and will collaborate with other interests to find win-win solutions like the Maybell Diversion and Rye Resurgence Projects. As we adapt to changing hydrology and look for flexible and collaborative solutions, it is also imperative to ground solutions in the rule of law and an admirable system. This is a formidable challenge, but one we can undoubtedly meet in the native land of hope.
[19] Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614, 631 (2013).
[20] Texas v. New Mexico, 602 U.S. 943, 962 (2024).
[21] Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445, 459 (2015) (finding local district boards bore no responsibility for complying with compact and assumed no share of the penalties Nebraska would pay for violations).
[22] Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1, 20 (2001) (remanding the case to the Special Master for a determination of damages); Fifth and Final Report of Arthur L. Littleworth, Special Master, at 3, Kansas v. Colorado, No. 105 Orig., vol. II (Jan. 31, 2008).
[23] Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. 913 (2017) (denying motions to intervene by local water districts in compact dispute between states).
[25] Wyoming v. Colorado, 286 U.S. 494, 508-09 (1932); New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369, 372 (1953); see also South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256, 267 (1953) (“In its sovereign capacity, a State represents the interests of its citizens in an original action, the disposition of which binds the citizens.”); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1, 21 (1995) (“A State is presumed to speak in the best interests of [its] citizens. . . .”).
[26] Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 46-702 (“The Legislature also finds that natural resources districts have the legal authority to regulate certain activities and, except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, as local entities are the preferred regulators of activities which may contribute to ground water depletion.”).
Fort Morgan has never fully owned its water supplies. The small farm town on the Eastern Plains has always leased its water from whomever had some to spare.
But with the late February settlement of a lawsuit that will allow construction of the $2 billion Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, to move forward, Fort Morgan’s 10,564 residents will rest easier, knowing that for the first time, they will own the water that flows from their taps, according to City Manager Brent Nation.
“It has been our intention all along to own our water,” Nation said. “With this settlement, we can finally move forward. It’s a good thing for us.”
Fifteen water districts and cities in northern Colorado have banded together to build the massive project, which will take water from the Cache la Poudre River and create two dams and reservoirs and a sprawling pipeline system.
Participants include Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Erie, Fort Morgan, Left Hand Water District, Central Weld County Water District, Windsor, Frederick, Lafayette, Morgan County Quality Water District, Firestone, Dacono, Evans, Fort Lupton, Severance and Eaton.
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. Credit: Northern Water
When completed, sometime after 2030, according to Northern Water, which is NISP’s sponsor, it will deliver 40,000 acre-feet of water annually to some 80,000 families. One acre-foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons, enough to serve two to four urban households each year.
But before then, and for years to come, the settlement will begin reshaping and restoring the Poudre.
Why the fuss?
Concern over the river has been rising for years.
According to Save the Poudre, nearly 400,000 acre-feet of water flow out of Poudre Canyon, but some 300,000 acre-feet are taken out by farmers and others almost immediately, leaving the river shallow, stressed and over heated as it flows more than 100 miles to its confluence with the South Platte River east of Greeley.
According to the settlement agreement, the $100 million will pay to move water diversion points farther downstream, leaving more water in the river as it flows east, rather than taking the water out higher up and reducing its flows.
Water-sharing arrangements between cities and farmers will be written to enhance recreation and stream improvements. New fish and boat passages will be installed around existing dams on the river. A new network to track the health of the river, its temperature and water quality, will also be added…
New dams and reservoirs must go through extensive permitting and environmental reviews to win approval from federal and state regulators. It took NISP about 15 years to win its final permit. That permit already includes requirements that will help the river, according to Northern spokesperson Jeff Stahla.
Under the federal permit, for instance, one-third of the total water delivered by the project must be delivered at specific volumes to boost stream flows in the winter and in the summer to aid fish and cool water temperatures, Stahla said.
Help delivered through the new settlement will come in addition to the federal and state requirements.
“It’s going to make a significant difference to the Poudre,” Northern Water General Manager Brad Wind said.
The settlement has also taken a lot of the heat out of the rooms where water planners and environmentalists…fought for more than a decade…
Dan Luecke is a well-known hydrologist and environmentalist who led the successful fight to stop Two Forks dam southwest of Denver in the 1980s. That too was a long, tortured battle, which largely ended when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with backing from the White House, rejected the proposal in 1990. There was no financial settlement then, Luecke said. But the $100 million Poudre agreement, though not as large as others in the American West, such as the $450 million Klamath River settlement, is noteworthy.
“$100 million is a pretty substantial number. It’s impressive in my mind,” Luecke said. “And the complexity of it, that they have to pump water in these reservoirs and use long pipelines to get the water back out to the urban areas. … It’s monumental.” (Luecke is a board member of Water Education Colorado, which founded Fresh Water News.)
The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which serves parts of both cities, is the largest participant in the NISP project, and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars for its share of the project and the settlement. And that’s OK with Stephen Smith, a member of the district’s board.
The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which serves parts of both cities, is the largest participant in the NISP project, and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars for its share of the project and the settlement. And that’s OK with Stephen Smith, a member of the district’s board.
“I feel comfortable with that,” Smith said, adding that he was speaking as a private individual, not a board member. “This money is going to go into the Poudre. If the money were going to buy off Save The Poudre, that would be a negative to me, but to have this six-member committee and to have an opportunity to put $100 million into the river, I consider that to be outstanding, I couldn’t be happier.”
Mid-February’s weeklong series of storms that dropped 4-to-5 feet of snow in areas of Denver Water’s collection area could be termed a “Sweetheart Surprise,” followed by a dumping of “Presidents Day Powder” that just kept going.
“It was an impressive week of snow with a bullseye right on our collection area,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supply. “After a couple dry weeks to start out the year, it was nice to see stormy winter weather return to the mountains.”
Elder said mountain snowpack in the parts of the South Platte and Colorado River basins where Denver Water collects its water jumped significantly due to the storms.
From Feb. 14-21, snowpack in the Upper South Platte River Basin climbed from 84% of normal up to 108%. During the same time period in the Upper Colorado River Basin, the snowpack jumped from 105% of normal up to 120%.
Snow piles up along the banks of Tenmile Creek near Copper Mountain in Summit County on Feb. 19. The creek is one of the main tributaries of Denver Water’s Dillon Reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.
However you look at it, all the snow in the second half of February has been great news for our water supply. And there’s an interesting trend happening during the 2024-25 snow season in Colorado: The major storms keep hitting on the holidays.
The February storm cycle started just in time for Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14, continued dumping through Presidents Day, Feb. 17, and then another storm delivered a bonus round of snow Feb. 20-21.
The snow is good news for Denver Water, which relies on mountain snow to supply water to 1.5 million people in the metro area.
Just take a look at the snow totals from the weeklong series of storms that spanned Feb. 14-21, as reported by the ski resorts located in Denver Water’s collection area:
Arapahoe Basin: 43”
Breckenridge: 47”
Copper Mountain: 45”
Keystone: 47”
Winter Park: 62”
A snowboarder enjoys fresh powder at Winter Park in Grand County. The ski resort reported 62” of snow between Feb. 14-21. Photo credit: Winter Park Ski Resort.
It’s been a great winter so far at Winter Park and Copper Mountain, which have seen 257” and 255” of snow respectively as of Feb. 21, making them the two snowiest ski resorts in the state.
Snowpack is a measurement of the amount of water in the snow if it were to melt. In general, about 10 inches of snow melts down to around 1 inch of water here in Colorado.
Elder said what’s been interesting this year is that the majority of snow has fallen right around holidays starting after Halloween, then before Thanksgiving, between Christmas and New Years, and now between Valentine’s Day and Presidents Day.
“We can see the snowpack looks like steps on our charts around all these holidays,” Elder said. “With the recent storms, we saw basically an entire month’s worth of snow in seven days.”
Elder said that having the snowpack above 100% heading into March is a good sign for our water supply in the coming year.
The Fraser River at the bottom of Berthoud Pass is covered in snow. The river is part of the Colorado River Basin where Denver Water captures snow for its water supply. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“March and April are typically our snowiest months of the year in Colorado. Those two months usually provide about one-third of our annual snowpack. That’s because the snow that falls in those months has a higher water content than snow that falls in the beginning and middle of winter,” he said.
Denver Water’s total reservoir supply stands at 82% full as of Feb. 21, which is about average for this time of year. Remember that reservoir levels fall over the winter and then go back up in the spring when the snow melts.
As for what to expect for the rest of the ski season, maybe consider heading to the hills on St. Patrick’s Day or Easter, and who knows possibly even Mother’s Day in May!
An artist’s rendering shows what Glade Reservoir, a key component of the Northern Integrated Supply Project would look like after construction. The project is going ahead after Northern Water agreed to settle a lawsuit by Save the Poudre for $100 million.
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
March 5, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
A massive new reservoir project in Northern Colorado is closer to reality after its architects settled a lawsuit with an environmental group seeking to block construction. The Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, will go ahead sooner than expected after a lawsuit settlement. Northern Water will pay $100 million into a trust after Save the Poudre, a nonprofit, agreed to drop its lawsuit. That money will fund river improvement projects.
The controversial water project, which will cost around $2 billion to build, has been tied up in planning and permitting for more than two decades. Advocates for the new reservoirs say it’s an important way to make sure fast-growing communities in Larimer and Weld counties have enough water for new homes and residents. Opponents worry it will take water out of a Cache la Poudre River that is already taxed by diversions for cities and farms.
…the settlement money will go into a new “Poudre River Improvement Fund.”
[…]
The fund can be used for “ecological, habitat, and recreational improvements,” including the potential creation of a “Poudre River Water Trail” from Gateway Park in Poudre Canyon to Eastman Park in Windsor. The fund will be managed by a six-person committee, three of whom will be appointed by Save the Poudre, and three by the NISP enterprise…
Proponents of the Northern Integrated Supply Project say it will help fast-growing communities along the northern Front Range keep pace with the volume of new residents. (From Northern Water project pages)
NISP would supply 15 different water providers along the northern Front Range through two reservoirs and a system of pipelines and pumps. Northern Water, the agency that would build and operate NISP, projects that it will provide water to nearly 500,000 people by 2050.
Water from the system would flow to a diverse group of towns and cities north of Denver. Small, fast-growing towns such as Erie and Windsor stand to receive some of the largest water allocations from NISP. The list also includes the Fort Collins Loveland Water District, the Left Hand Water District, which is just north of Boulder, and Fort Morgan on the eastern plains.
“These are communities that have identified the need for housing as something that will increase the quality of life,” said Jeff Stahla, a spokesman for Northern Water. “So this is an important time for us as residents to realize that we can help to solve some of the problems and some of the the challenges that we’re seeing out there on the horizon as more people choose to live here.”
Stahla said construction is expected to take off in 2026, with some pipes being laid in the summer and fall of this year. If Save the Poudre’s lawsuit was still in place, he said, construction would have begun in “2027 or even beyond.” Glade Reservoir, the centerpiece of NISP’s water storage system, would flood a valley northwest of Fort Collins that is currently home to a stretch of U.S. Highway 287 connecting Fort Collins and Laramie, Wyo. That section of road would be rebuilt further East.
Kids play in the Poudre River Whitewater Park near downtown Fort Collins on Oct. 20, 2023. The Cache la Poudre is often referred to as a “working river” because it carries a large volume of water from manmade reservoirs to cities and farms far from its banks. Photo credit: Alex Hager/KUNC
Stahla said Northern Water’s permit includes requirements to mitigate environmental impacts caused by the new reservoirs. He alluded to the fact that the river is already connected to a number of large reservoirs and its water is piped and pumped far away from its original course.
“The Poudre River has really been a working river for 150 years now,” he said. “What NISP is planning to do certainly is not the only impacts to the river that have been occurring or will occur.”
…Stahla…suggested work on diversion structures, which redirect the river’s water towards farms and water treatment plants. Stahla suggested they could be modernized… and moved further downstream to allow more water to flow through certain sections of the river.
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. Credit: Northern Water
Here’s the release from email from Jeff Stahla at Northern Water:
February 28, 2025
BERTHOUD, Colorado – Northern Water, on behalf of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) Water Activity Enterprise, and the nonprofit group Save the Poudre have reached a settlement to the lawsuit challenging the federal permit issued for NISP, clearing the way for the construction of the vital water supply project in Northeastern Colorado.
The agreement, signed late on Friday, Feb. 28, by the Northern Water Board of Directors, outlines the creation of a new and long-term funding source for additional investments to benefit the reach of the Poudre River from the mouth of the Poudre Canyon to the river’s confluence with the South Platte River near Greeley. Throughout the next two decades, $100 million will be contributed by project participants to create a fund likely at the NoCo Foundation, or similar type foundation, with the intention of the money to be made available for projects and initiatives that improve the river for recreational uses, wildlife, water quality and more.
The agreement includes dismissal of the legal challenge to the federal Section 404 Clean Water Act permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in January 2023. Northern Water received the permit after two decades of work showing the need for the project. The mitigation requirements in the permit will remain, with the settlement funding adding projects beyond those outlined in the various permit documents issued for the project.
“This is a milestone day for the communities participating in the project,” said Northern Water General Manager Brad Wind. “The settlement agreement will close the permitting process for the project, open the door to constructing a project that will deliver much-needed water supplies to vibrant communities, and allow for dozens of large-scale riverine investments in and along the Poudre River.”
NISP’s Program Manager, Carl Brouwer, added, “This added investment to the river will complement the mitigation and enhancements identified by the involved permitting agencies.”
When complete, the project will include Glade Reservoir northwest of Fort Collins, a forebay and pump plant below the Glade Reservoir dam, Galeton Reservoir northeast of Greeley, 50 miles of buried pipelines to convey water to project participants, four additional pump plants, improved diversions on the Poudre River to allow fish passage and a requirement to convey 30 percent of the NISP water downstream for added benefit to the Poudre River. A section of U.S. Highway 287 will be rerouted around Glade Reservoir at the expense of project participants. Engineers estimate the project will cost $2 billion, with full buildout producing an annual yield of 40,000 acre-feet.
Construction of a fish passage at Watson Lake northwest of Fort Collins and a wetlands area at Eastman Park in Windsor has already occurred. Work on the remaining pipeline segments, the relocation of U.S. Highway 287 and the Glade Reservoir dam is projected to begin in 2026, with construction at Galeton Reservoir occurring after the completion of Glade Reservoir.
NISP includes participating communities and water providers large and small. The 15 participants include Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Erie, Fort Morgan, Left Hand Water District, Central Weld County Water District, Windsor, Frederick, Lafayette, Morgan County Quality Water District, Firestone, Dacono, Evans, Fort Lupton, Severance and Eaton.
Water storage such as NISP is identified in the Colorado Water Plan as a necessary component for Colorado’s long-term water future. It joins water conservation, land use planning and other solutions to meet future water needs in Colorado.
About Northern Water
Northern Water, a public agency created in 1937, provides water for food production and municipal, domestic and industrial uses for more than 1 million people in Northeastern Colorado via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Pleasant Valley Pipeline and Southern Water Supply Project. Northern Water also generates hydropower at two sites and provides water quality services throughout the region. Its Municipal Subdistrict delivers water through the Windy Gap Project.
Through the building of two new reservoirs in Northern Colorado, the Northern Integrated Supply Project will supply 15 Northern Front Range water providers with 40,000 acre-feet of new, reliable water supplies. Aside from needed water storage, the project will incorporate an array of environmental and wildlife mitigation aspects and bring additional recreation opportunities to the region. Learn more at www.NISPwater.org.
Chances are when you’ve watched your favorite weather person on the local news you may have seen them put up a map of Colorado that shows the statewide snowpack.
If you’re a curious person you may wonder: Why do they show the map? What is snowpack? And where do they get all that information?
We’re here to help answer these questions.
First off, snowpack is the amount of water stored in the snow that blankets the mountains across our state. It’s important to measure the snowpack because the snow is where Colorado gets about 80% of its water supply for household and agricultural uses.
So now to answer the final question: Where does information about the snowpack come from? The data comes from SNOTELs.
OK, so what’s a SNOTEL?
Well, SNOTEL is short for “snow telemetry.” Think of it as just a fancy way of describing an automated weather station in a remote location that beams information back to a database.
9News meteorologist Cory Reppenhagen talks about the statewide snowpack during an evening weathercast. Image credit: 9News.
“In Colorado, we have 117 SNOTEL sites, and there are over 900 sites across 13 western states,” said Brian Domonkos, a hydrologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. “These sites have been around since the late 1970s and provide critical information about the amount of water in the snowpack.”
SNOTELs use “snow pillows” to measure the water content.
Snow pillows are rubber bladders on the ground that are filled with water and ethanol (to prevent the water from freezing). The pillow then weighs the snow, like when you stand on a scale to get your weight.
This SNOTEL site is located on the top of Berthoud Pass in Grand County. The snow pillow is covered in snow in front of the shed. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The pressure on the pillow pushes an equal amount of the antifreeze liquid into a measurement tube, which converts the weight of the water contained in the snow into inches of water content. This measurement is the snowpack, which is technically called the Snow Water Equivalent, and also known as SWE.
A sensor reads the SWE from the tube and sends the data to the NRCS’s central database.
The same SNOTEL site at Berthoud Pass in the summer shows the gray snow pillows located in front of the shed. Photo credit: Natural Resources Conservation Service.
“Generally speaking, here in Colorado, 10 inches of snow melted down equals roughly about 1 inch of water,” Domonkos said. “The data is used to predict how much water will flow into rivers and streams when the snow melts in the spring.”
The information from the SNOTELs is used by farmers, ranchers, water utilities, environmental groups and recreationists. Communities also use the information to be aware of the potential for flooding during the spring runoff.
There are 16 SNOTELs in Denver Water’s collection area that are viewed daily by the utility’s water planning team.
“The SNOTEL network is the most important source of information we have to manage our water supply, and I honestly can’t image how we’d get by without them,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supply.
This chart uses SNOTEL data to determine the Snow Water Equivalent in the area of the Colorado River Basin where Denver Water collects its water. Note the left side that shows the inches of water content in the basin. Image credit: Denver Water.
This map shows the 16 SNOTEL sites located in areas where Denver Water collects water for 1.5 million people in the metro area. Image credit: Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Elder’s team uses the data to make informed decisions about reservoir management and whether any water restrictions for Denver Water customers may be needed in addition to the regular summer watering rules.
Denver Water also monitors 115 SNOTEL sites upstream of Lake Powell to keep an eye on conditions in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Denver Water collects half of its water supply from rivers and streams that feed into the Colorado River.
“We use the SNOTEL data to provide insight into potential water rights calls that may impact our operations,” Elder said. “The earlier we have information, the better decisions we can make with our water supply.”
Denver Water also relies on manual snowpack readings collected on snow courses and from data collected in the spring from an Airborne Snow Observatory. Learn about these methods in this TAP story.
This map shows snowpack information collected from SNOTEL sites in river basins across the western U.S. Image credit: National Resources Conservation Service.
Domonkos said the SNOTELs are also critical in monitoring long-term weather trends across the western U.S.
“When you’re watching the news, you’ll see the various river basins showing a certain percent of the normal amount of snowpack for that date,” Domonkos said. “We always like to see the snowpack in the 100% to 120% range so it’s not too high that could lead to flooding and not too low that could lead to water shortages.”
Along with measuring the snowpack, the SNOTEL sites also measure all other forms of precipitation like rain, hail and ice. They also measure air temperature, soil moisture and soil temperature.
Brian Domonkos checks out weather data at the Berthoud Pass SNOTEL site in Grand County. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“These sites are very important for not only day-to-day weather information, but also for comparing snowpack year to year so we can keep track of any emerging trends,” Domonkos said.
All of the information is available for free on the NRCS website, which has a variety of data from each SNOTEL site. The information can be found on the NRCS website.
Here’s the release from the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water District (Jenny McCarty):
February 21, 2025
LONGMONT – Funding approved by Longmont’s voters in 2024 is enabling the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District to leverage grants and other sources to provide $1.7 million this year to community partners working to address the most imminent water and watershed issues today. The funds will help mitigate wildfire risks, improve farm irrigation, save water by reducing non-functional turf grass, and enhance stream flows to benefit the environment.
In 2025, the District is partnering with and funding the Boulder Valley and Longmont Conservation Districts, Crocker Ditch, HFR Enterprises, Holland Ditch Company, Hover Park Home Owners Association (“HOA”), Town of Lyons, and The Watershed Center. 2025 marks the fourth year the District offered funding through their Partner Funding Program. Including $352,000 earmarked for 2025, the District has awarded 25 partners a total of $1.2 million, leveraging those dollars for more than $6.1 million since January 2022 (369%) toward improvements in water management within the St. Vrain watershed.
The St. Vrain Forest Health Partnership (“SVFHP”) includes 100+ partners including fire districts, agencies, towns and community members working to increase fire resilience to benefit communities, the forests and water quality. A portion of the District’s $352,000 will go to support the SVFHP’s outreach and education efforts. “We couldn’t accomplish this work without the District’s support and funding and are grateful to our community who voted for the ballot initiative,” said Yana Sorokin, Executive Director of The Watershed Center.
The Boulder Valley and Longmont Conservation Districts (“BVLCD”) are working alongside the SVFHP to develop forest management plans on private properties and conduct forest treatments to reduce risk of catastrophic wildfires. “These funds will help to reduce wildfire risk to life, property, and important surface waters within District boundaries,” explained Rob Walker, Director of BVLCD.
Boulder County Ditch and Reservoir map. Credit: The St. Vrain and Lefthand Water Conservancy District
The District is also partnering with Crocker Ditch, HFR Enterprises, and Holland Ditch Company to help improve local aging agriculture infrastructure and vegetation encroachment to support its future function.
Andy Pelster, Agriculture and Water Stewardship Sr. Manager for City of Boulder, which has ownership in Crocker Ditch, stated, “District funds will help improve water delivery efficiency and tracking.” Danna Ortiz, a representative of HFR Enterprises added, “This project gives us hope that the Knoth Reservoir may once again function, providing water for our ag neighbors and wildlife.” Larry Scripter, Vice President of the Holland Ditch Company said, “We wouldn’t be able to keep going with this work without the District’s financial support.”
Hover Park HOA is leading one of the first District-supported turf replacement projects in Longmont this year. In addition to funding support from other local agencies, Hover Park HOA is working to “replace over 8,200 square feet of thirsty turf grass with water-wise plants that support pollinators, look beautiful, and will create a more usable space for our community,” says Barbara Hau, resident representative for the HOA.
The Town of Lyons is using District funding to complete a preliminary analysis for managing stream flows on the St. Vrain Creek through Lyons for environmental benefit. Tracy Sanders, Lyons Flood Recovery Lead, said the District’s funds might “help determine whether environmental flows can improve creek conditions for temperature, and ultimately fish health.”
“These partnerships continue the District’s strong history of collaboration,” said Sean Cronin, Executive Director of the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District. “Each project advances our goals the voters approved: to protect water quality, maintain healthy rivers and creeks, support local food production, and protect forests that are critical to our water supply,” he added.
About the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District
The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District (“District” and “SVLHWCD”), created in 1971, is your trusted local government working to safeguard water resources for all. The District’s work is founded in the Water Plan five pillars: protect water quality and drinking water sources, safeguard and conserve water supplies, grow local food, store water for dry years, and maintain healthy rivers and creeks. Aligned with the Water Plan, the District is pleased to promote local partner water protection and management strategies through the Partner Funding Program.
As a local government, non-profit agency formed at the request of our community under state laws, the District serves Longmont and the surrounding land area and basin that drains into both the St. Vrain and Left Hand Creeks. Learn more at http://www.svlh.gov.
If you have any questions about the District’s Partner Funding Program, please contact Watershed Program Manager at: jenny.mccarty@svlh.gov or 303.772.4060.
