Fort Collins breweries to hold panel on water issues, April 18, 2017 — BizWest

New Belgium brewery. Photo credit Wisconsin Distributors.

From BizWest (Jensen Werley):

Northern Colorado breweries are gathering for Earth Day to discuss how breweries can help protect the local watershed.

Fourteen area breweries, including Odell Brewing Co. and Horse and Dragon Brewing Co., are gathering at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, at New Belgium Brewing Co. for the BreWater panel discussion.

“We’ve been gathering for the last couple of years to share water conservation practices and to learn about critical watershed issues from local experts,” Katie Wallace, assistant director of sustainability at New Belgium, said in a prepared statement. “This event will allow the greater community to hear about water issues that affect local brewers and to provide feedback on what matters to them.”

BreWater has already had success in helping fund the removal of the defunct Josh Ames Division Dam. Members have also toured the local watershed and hosted water experts.

“Brewers in Fort Collins are united on a lot of fronts,” said Carol Cochran, co-founder of Horse & Dragon Brewing Co., “but our common interest in great water is perhaps our strongest bond.”

The 14 breweries that are part of BreWater are 1933 Brewing, Black Bottle Brewery, CooperSmith’s Pub & Brewing, Equinox Brewing, Fort Collins Brewery & Tavern, Horse & Dragon Brewing Co., Intersect Brewing, Maxline Brewing, New Belgium Brewing, Odell Brewing Co., Pateros Creek Brewing Co., Snowbank Brewing, Soul Squared Brewing Co. and Zwei Brewing.

Guest who attend the panel will be able to get discounted beers and the chance to win local brewery gear.

Fort Morgan should be able to avoid watering restrictions this season

First water through the Adams Tunnel. Photo credit Northern Water.

From The Fort Morgan Times (Jenni Grubbs):

The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Board of Directors on Thursday approved increasing the Colorado-Big Thompson Project water pipeline quota to 80 percent, according to a news release.

Fort Morgan receives its water from that , with water availability subject to the quota set periodically by the Northern Water Board. It had been adjusted to 50 percent last November.

Such quota changes do not affect city water rates, which are set by the Fort Morgan City Council. But it does affect the amount of water available to the city for use.

This new quota is one that means good news for Fort Morgan water customers, according to Nation…

Lots of data was taken into account by the Northern Water Board in setting this latest quota, according to the news release.

“The Board considered snowpack totals, stream flow runoff projections and input from farmers and municipal and industrial water providers in setting the quota,” the release stated. “C-BT supplements other sources of water for 33 cities and towns, 120 agricultural irrigation companies, various industries and other water users within Northern Water’s 1.6 million-acre service area.”

That includes Fort Morgan and Morgan County Quality Water District.

For Fort Morgan, the increased quota likely even means having more C-BT water available than will be needed by city residents and businesses, according to Nation.

“The higher quota also allows the city to lease out excess water above our projected needs for the year,” Nation said. “In most cases this water is leased by farmers to help complete their water supplies for the year.”

…the precipitation that fell in March within the water district’s collection area was 27 percent below what would be considered normal for that month, according to Northern Water.

@Northern_Water 2017 quota set at 80%

Map of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project via Northern Water

Here’s the release from Northern Water:

Northern Water’s Board increased the Colorado-Big Thompson Project quota allocation to 80 percent at its April 13 Board meeting. With many farmers concerned about the lack of recent moisture and the hope that cities may be willing to provide some rental water to help the region’s agricultural economy, the Board chose to make available an additional 30 percent as supplemental quota for 2017.

The approval increased available C-BT water supplies by 93,000 acre-feet, from the initial 50 percent quota made available last November.

The Board considered snowpack totals, streamflow runoff projections and input from farmers and municipal and industrial water providers in setting the quota. C-BT supplements other sources of water for 33 cities and towns, 120 agricultural irrigation companies, various industries and other water users within Northern Water’s 1.6 million-acre service area.

Directors considered the general dearth of moisture in March as they discussed the quota options. March precipitation was 27 percent below normal and contributed to the Board’s decision to raise the quota.

“It’s dry, it really is,” said Board President Mike Applegate. “The C-BT Project was created to provide a supplemental supply and we have the reserves to do that.”

He echoed the Board’s consensus in making its 61st annual C-BT quota. “Let’s make the water available now so our allottees can make their plans.”

Directors base their decision on the region’s need for supplemental water, while balancing project operations and maintaining water in storage for future dry years.

To learn more about Northern Water and the C-BT quota, visit http://www.northernwater.org.

Lake Granby spill June 2011 via USBR. Granby Dam was retrofitted with a hydroelectric component and began producing electricity [in 2011] as water is released in the Colorado River.

The Peetz Town Board is backing test wells to determine extent of sewage lagoon leakage

Peetz Town Hall via Archair Explorer.

From The Sterling Journal-Advocate (Jeff Rice):

Like many small towns across Colorado, Peetz has been told by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that their sewage lagoons are leaking contaminants into the groundwater and must be replaced or remediated. The decision is based on a calculation of how much wastewater flows into the lagoons, how much evaporation takes place on a monthly basis, and how much water is left in the lagoons. It’s clear from that calculation that more water is flowing in than is evaporating, so the water can only be leaking out the bottom.

The trustees don’t argue that their sewage lagoons are seeping water into the ground underneath them, but they want proof that it’s actually doing harm. They reason that, being more than 150 feet above groundwater, the seepage is cleaned adequately in the earth, sand, and gravel that it percolates through.

It’s not just a stubborn streak in small town folk that’s driving their argument. Although Peetz doesn’t yet have any real numbers on the cost of new lagoons, they know that Fleming has priced theirs at more than $2.5 million. With diminishing assistance from state and federal agencies to pay for that kind of project, Fleming officials already know they’ll have to at least double sewer rates for a population that is largely on fixed income.

#Colorado Springs: Arkansas River Basin Water Forum, April 26-27

Here’s the release from the Arkansas River Basin Water Forum (Jean Van-Peldt):

Denver Water lawyer to share message of cooperation

Water agreements are always tricky, a matter of give and take.

Most importantly, they require cooperation.

That’s the message Patricia Wells, general counsel for Denver Water, will bring to the Arkansas River Basin Water Forum when she kicks off the second day of the forum on April 27 at Hotel Elegante, 2886 S. Circle Drive, Colorado Springs. The two-day forum will feature panels and tours to discuss water issues of concern to the Arkansas River basin, and El Paso County in particular.

“We’ll be talking about examples of how, when you’re dealing with the supply gap, you need to deal with others,” said Wells, who is also a member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “Multiple parties can accomplish more.”

Wells has represented Denver Water since 1991, coming on board just after the EPA veto of Two Forks. It changed how the state’s largest water provider dealt with the growth of its system, as well as the way it treated its neighbors. Wells came superbly prepared for the job, with her background as Denver City Attorney and as a staff attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.

“The Two Forks veto came as a result of the environmental laws in the 1970s and ‘80s and was a paradigm shift,” Wells said. “Most large water organizations have gone through a metamorphosis in the last 30 years.”

In the case of Denver Water, that has meant two of the most far-reaching agreements in the history of Colorado Water, both occurring during Wells’ tenure at the legal helm. They were very different types of negotiations.

The first was the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, which brought together 40 parties, primarily on the Western Slope, which had fought for decades over Denver’s appropriation of Colorado River water. Denver sought the support, or at least lack of opposition, from the communities in order to enlarge Gross Reservoir, a key supply for Denver Water located in Boulder County.

“We did all the right things,” Wells said. “But we’re still in the 13th year of permitting on Gross Reservoir. If we can’t get Gross Reservoir done then water projects can’t be done in Colorado.”

The second was the WISE (Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency), which looked at how Denver, Aurora and water providers in the South Metro Water Supply Authority could pool resources.

They were far different negotiations, but the common thread was the need to work together for common interests and to overcome operational hurdles.

“The state Water Plan talks about CRCA and WISE as how projects should be developed,” Wells said. “But I don’t think there’s a single way to do things.”

The Upper Arkansas River Voluntary Flow Management Program, which will be discussed in one of the workshops at the forum, is an example of multiple parties working together in the Arkansas River basin. That program has been in effect since 1991.

“These agreements take a lot of time to put together and a long time to get organized,” Wells said. “It’s about how you work with other people and why you work with other people.”

Registrations and information about this year’s forum are available at http://www.ARBWF.org.

Arkansas River Basin — Graphic via the Colorado Geological Survey

The CCWCD April 10, 2017 Newsletter is hot off the presses

Orr Manufacturing Vertical Impact Sprinkler circa 1928 via the Irrigation Museum

Click here to read the newsletter from the Central Colorado Water Conservation District. Here’s an excerpt:

2017 Pumping Quota Set

The CCWCD Board announced the 2017 Pumping Quota at the annual Member Meeting held at the Island Grove 4H Building on March 23. GMS 55% and WAS 55%. GMS say an increase of 5% from last year making it the highest since 2004. Prior to 2004 GMS had no pumping restrictions. WAS members have seen an increase from a 5% quota in 2013 to 55% during the 2016 growing season and again for the 2017 growing season.

The annual assessments paid by the Groundwater Management Subdistrict (GMS), the Well Augmentation Subdistrict (WAS) and bond funds from the 2012 election are used to purchase new water storage facilities and purchase water shares that will help our augmentation plans. To date, CCWCD has purchased 631 acre feet of senior water rights and 8,724 acre feet of storage related project using the 2012 bond funds. The Hokestra Reservoir Complex near Firestone is being purchased from Weld County using member’s annual assessments. Hokestra will increase GMS water supplies by 1,100 acre feet.

The CCWCD Board is dedicated to building a water supply to accommodate both augmentation plans. To read more on our projects please visit our website at http://CCWCD.ORG.

HB16-1228 Agriculture Protection Water Right Transfer Mechanism meeting recap

Flood irrigation — photo via the CSU Water Center

From The Sterling Journal-Advocate (Jeff Rice):

The Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado Division of Water Resources is holding a series information and input meetings on the new Agricultural Water Protection Water Right law. A handful of local farmers and other interested parties attended the session on Wednesday at the Sterling Public Library.

The new law, which was sponsored by both Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, and Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, installs safeguards in the event that irrigators want to change part of their water right to a new beneficial use.

Deputy State Engineer Kevin Rein conducted the session, first walking through the process of writing rules and regulations to put the new law into effect, and then encouraging questions and discussion of the new rules.

Much of the discussion centered around whether the new program was even feasible for individual irrigators or would be a better fit for irrigation districts and ditch companies. It was generally agreed that, because of costs and the intricacies of water law, the larger the entity managing the lease, the better the plan would work. Individual irrigators could pledge a certain number of their water shares toward the ditch company’s AWPWR program and let the company worry about return flows, legal fees, and other details based on the total amount of water leased.

Don Ament, who represents Colorado in the South Platte Recovery Program, said he wants to follow up to see whether irrigators in the South Platte River Basin would, by virtue of being part of the SPRP, be automatically part of a conservation program, as required by the new law. He was told during the meeting that “Title 38” of Colorado Revised Statutes might prohibit that. It’s possible the wrong CRS was cited, since Title 38 has to do with tenant and landlord rights, while Title 37 is about water and irrigation. Ament said he would have to look into the law…

There also was significant discussion of just how much water a farmer could lease. The new law limits the amount of water an irrigator can lease out to half of his consumptive use right. That’s to help make sure most of the irrigation water still goes to irrigate crops.

Early in the discussion, Rein displayed a graphic that showed a water right that allowed 10 cubic feet per second of water flow through an irrigator’s head gate. If his historic return flow was four CFS, that meant his consumptive use is six CFS. He would then be allowed to lease half of the six CFS, or three CFS, under the AWPWR program. That would leave him a total of seven CFS of ditch flow to irrigate with. Because he would be running less water on his land, his return flow would naturally diminish. That’s why the law requires a substitute water supply plan; it would show how the irrigator would maintain his historic return flow of 4 CFS.

But that, it turns out, is the simple part. To complicate matters, irrigators don’t actually measure their water rights in a ditch company in cubic feet per second, but in shares. And farmers typically wouldn’t want to lease half of their total shares as part of an alternative transfer, even temporarily.

If, for instance, a farmer owns 100 shares in a ditch company, he may want to commit half of that, or 50 shares, to the AWPWR program. Because he would have only 50 shares in the program, he could lease only half of those 50 shares. But return flow still needs to be calculated, and return flow is measured in acre feet of water per year or in cubic feet per second. The irrigator (or his ditch company) would have to show how that return flow would be maintained.

To further complicate matters, shares don’t necessarily mean a specific amount of water. The amount of water a farmer’s 50 shares contains depends on how much water is available, who else is taking water with a higher, or older, priority, and other factors.

Rein said all of those factors would be up to the state engineer’s office to determine…

While discussion moved into the more esoteric realm of hypothetical legal matters, John Stulp, who serves as Gov. John Hickenlooper’s special policy advisor for water, reminded the group of the purpose of the new law.

“Keep in mind that the spirit of the law was to protect agriculture, and to give farmers the chance to participate in some of those revenue opportunities that are available through ATMs,” he said. “You need to be getting ready; it may not be your generation (that participates) but you need to do the groundwork for being flexible with your water right.”

Joe Frank, manager of the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, is known to be skeptical of ATMs because there is rarely any mention of how the water is to be stored for transfer and what kind of infrastructure will be needed to transfer it. He said after the meeting that, while he thinks flexibility in determining the end user on an ATM is a good thing, the new law still doesn’t address some of his concerns.

“There are still the inherent question marks about ATMs,” Frank said. “This just gives somebody who’s thinking about ATMs the ability to go to court once, change their water right, and be able to be flexible in who they lease the water to.

“But ATMs in general still have the issues that I brought up; you need a place to store it, you need a way to get it to the end user, you need a way of bringing multiple users together, so there are still those inherent issues.”

Frank said ATMs still represent a “drying up” of some farmland because the water is being diverted from irrigation to other consumptive uses.

“My alternative to ‘buy and dry’ is new supply,” he said. “We need to capture unappropriated water and store it, and maybe plug in ATMs. In my perfect world the best way to plug in an ATM is as part of a new project that takes advantage of available water supplies.”

Here’s the summary from the Colorado General Assembly website:

The act authorizes an owner of an absolute decreed irrigation water right in water division 1 or 2 that is used for agricultural purposes to seek a change-in-use decree in water court to obtain an agricultural water protection water right.

Under the changed water right available in water division 1 or 2, the water right owner may apply for a renewable one-year substitute water supply plan through which the water right owner may lease, loan, or trade up to 50% of the historical consumptive use portion of the water subject to the water right without designating the specific beneficial use for the leased, loaned, or traded water. The one-year substitute water supply plan authorizing the lease, loan, or trade of water may be renewed twice without reapplying if the terms and conditions of the plan remain unchanged. A new application is required every 3 years to maintain the substitute water supply plan.

Pursuant to rules developed by the state engineer and reviewed by the water judge for water division 1, the state engineer may approve a one-year renewable substitute water supply plan authorizing the lease, loan, or trade of water subject to an agricultural water protection water right in water division 1 or 2 if the following conditions are met:

  • The remaining portion of the water subject to the water right must continue to be used for agricultural purposes;
  • The water right must be protected by the owner’s participation in an agricultural water protection water program, for which the Colorado water conservation board will establish minimum criteria and guidelines;
  • The owner shall not lease, loan, or trade water subject to the water right outside of the water division with jurisdiction over the location of historical consumptive use; and
  • The transferable portion of the water subject to the water right must be delivered to a point of diversion that is subject to an existing water court decree.