Even if Coloradans slash water use, their bills will likely rise due to new drought fees — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News)

Wastewater is aerated as it flows over steps at Aurora’s Prairie Waters Project, which treats wastewater to drinking water standards. Credit: Jerd Smith

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

April 2, 2026

Colorado homeowners and businesses are already planning for a brutally dry summer. They should also be planning for an expensive one, as Denver and other cities prepare to impose drought fees to encourage conservation and to buffer their budgets against millions of dollars in lost water sales as customers cut back.

Denver Water, which announced Stage 1 drought restrictions last week, said its preliminary estimates suggest $30 million to $70 million may be lost as a result of restrictions. It has annual revenue of $488.5 million. Denver Water is Coloradoโ€™s largest water utility, serving more than 1.5 million people in the city of Denver and across the southern and western suburbs.

The agency said its surcharges will be designed to penalize high-volume outdoor water use, while keeping the price for drinking, cooking and bathing water unchanged.

ts surcharge prices, if approved by the board this month, will vary depending on how homeowners and businesses use water indoors and outside. A low surcharge for a conservation-minded homeowner who doesnโ€™t do much, if any, outdoor watering might be just $7 per bill, according to the agency, but the drought fee could rise to $76 a month on a residential bill where outdoor water use is high.

Denver Water spokesperson Todd Hartman said via email that the agency will use a portion of its cash reserves to offset the lower water sales and other costs associated with the drought. It has also taken steps to reduce other costs, such as leaving job vacancies open longer.

Colorado experienced record-low mountain snows this year and a scorching hot spring, which has the thin snowpack melting sooner than normal. Reservoir storage is stable for this year, at roughly 80% of average across the state. But heavy water use could drain those reservoirs too quickly, potentially causing major shortages next year if this winter is as dry as last winterโ€™s was, officials have said.

To protect reservoir storage, cities want customers to reduce water use by 10% to 20%. 

Theyโ€™re hoping the surcharges will help them reach those goals.

Chris Goemans, a professor in the agricultural and resource economics department at Colorado State University, said the drought fees are an important tool in water conservation, and can have a lasting impact on water use if they go on for a long period of time.

For several years after the deep drought Colorado experienced in 2002, for instance, water providers saw a lingering โ€œdrought shadowโ€ where users continued to tighten their spigots, even after the drought fees were removed, according to research by Goemans, and others.

โ€œThey can promote lasting change,โ€ he said.

Not every city will use the fees. Colorado Springs has permanent three-day-per-week watering rules and does not plan to impose a surcharge, at least not this year, spokesperson Jennifer Jordan said. She said the cityโ€™s drought plan allows surcharges only when reservoir storage is below 1.5 years on April 1. Right now, the system has three years of storage available.

And Aurora has only used them once before, in 2023, but took them off almost immediately when big rains came, according to Aurora Water spokesperson Shonnie Cline.

Cline said the severity of this drought is forcing the city to gear up for unprecedented times.

โ€œWe always thought that 2002 was the worst possible year, but we are expecting something worse this year,โ€ she said.

Castle Rock will impose surcharges, if its council approves them in the coming weeks, but it is taking a different approach because its customers live with a water system based on what are known as water budgets, according to Mark Marlowe, director of Castle Rock Water. 

Its customers already are limited every year in how much water they can use during the lawn-watering season, an amount that is based on home and lot size. A small home with a small yard is allocated less water each year and typically has a smaller bill than a large home with a large yard, which is given more water and pays a larger bill. 

This year, Castle Rock will reduce everyoneโ€™s water budget. If homeowners exceed those lower budgets, they will be hit with a higher fee than normal. 

To help offset that and keep its conservation message top of mind, Castle Rock envisions drought surcharges of $6.91 per thousand gallons initially and rising to $10.31 if the drought deepens, Marlowe said. 

Is there any good news here? Maybe. City officials said if customers cut back as much as they are being asked to, say 10% to 20%, their bills might not change at all because they are using less water.

More by Jerd Smith

Mrs. Gulch’s landscape August 6, 2025.

What about this warm, wacky and very weird weather? Meteorologists say #Coloradoโ€™s record temperatures in March were โ€œanomalous.โ€ Will we shrug it off, like so much other evidence of #ClimateChange? — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #snowpack #runoff

Coloradoโ€™s top-25 March heat waves since 1951, defined as 4-day averaged statewide temperatures. Coloradoโ€™s warmest heat wave (set last week, March 18-21) eclipsed its previous warmest heat wave (March 23-26, 2004) by nearly 5ยฐF. Data from NCEI nclimgrid via the Colorado Climate Center

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

March 30, 2026

It was weird, it was wacky. This string of summer days in Colorado that arrived around the first day of spring was extraordinary. Will it change us in some fundamental way?

Itโ€™s not like 9/11, the day we saw people jumping from the skyscrapers in New York City to escape an even more cruel death by fire. We knew instantly that the world was different and in a very big way.

But doesnโ€™t this anomaly deserve more than a shrug of the shoulders? As summer arrived in the last days of winter, I heard several people say, โ€œWell, enjoy this nice weatherโ€ as you passed through their doors. A well-intentioned pleasantry but detached from a vital truth. Nice weather for Arizona maybe, but this was Colorado.

Winter had altogether been very, very warm. November was the third warmest November on record across Colorado. December the warmest. February also broke records.

Then came March. Alamosa, a town at 7,543 feet in elevation in Coloradoโ€™s San Luis Valley, notched 11 record highs during March going into the last weekend. This included nine in a row from March 18-26. Of special note was the record high of 83 degrees recorded on March 21. It broke the old record by 7 degrees. It also was a higher temperature than has ever been recorded in Alamosa in April.

Crested Butte had a high temperature of 68, a full 10 degrees higher than the old record for that date.

Dates of first 90ยฐF or warmer day in Fort Collins from 1895-present. The blue dashed line shows the 1991-2020 mean 90ยฐF or warmer day, which is June 9. Data from ACIS.

Fort Collins got to 91 degrees, also 10 degrees more than the old record for that date. It was the highest ever mark for March โ€” but also higher than anything ever recorded in April, whose record remains 89 degrees. The average first day for 90 degrees in Fort Collins is June 15.

Allie Mazurek, of the Colorado Climate Center staff,ย posted a reportย on Thursday morning that defines in numbers what she calls an event โ€œimpossible to ignore.โ€ Included in her presentation is theย  chart atop this essay that shows how anomalous this four-day streak of heat was compared to others in Colorado during March.

This heat was nearly uniform across Colorado. โ€œThere were far more stations in the state that broke all-time monthly high records for March than did not,โ€ wrote Mazurek. โ€œTo see monthly records shattered by more than 5 degrees F across numerous stations is truly remarkable. The kind of heat that we saw last week across Colorado is more typical of June or even July.โ€

Remarkable about theheat in Colorado was not only its intensity but its longevity across four days (March 18-21). โ€œOver that period, several locations set new monthly records every one of those days, with each day being warmer than the last.โ€

March maximum temperature records at various long-term weather stations throughout Colorado. Data from ACIS.

This heat comes at a particularly bad time. The thin snowpack was already melting. The deepest snowpack in Coloradoโ€™s mountains has traditionally occurred in early May, because of accumulations at higher elevations.

That assumes a normal of some sort โ€” although it is questionable whether โ€œnormalโ€ has any true meaning given how fast the climate is now changing. So take this for what itโ€™s worth: the statewide snowpack this past week sat at 38% of the 1991-2020 median. And what must be noted here โ€” as with the temperature records that were broken โ€” is that we have had an exceptional increase of heat in Colorado in the last 25 years.

Notable in the lifetimes of baby boomers in Colorado were the winters of 1976-77 and 1980-81. This yearโ€™s meager runoff will almost certainly surpass those dry years. New is the heat.

High-pressure heat domes can be predicted but are notoriously challenging to forecast weeks or months in advance. They also remain rare, but the warming atmosphere makes them more likely.

โ€œWe do have high pressures every year across the West,โ€ said Mark Wankowski, a meteorologist at the Pueblo office of the National Weather Service. โ€œThis one was extremely early.โ€

Writing from Colorado Springs last weekend in an essay in The Atlantic titled โ€œThereโ€™s No Way the West Will Have a Normal Summer,โ€ Rebecca Boyle explained that the heat wave was created by a โ€œa bizarrely strong ridge of high pressure in Earthโ€™s atmosphere.โ€ This ridge suppressed cloud formation and brought in warmer air. โ€œSuch atmospheric ridges are more common in the summer, but this one would be unusually intense even for that season.

Kaitlyn Trudeau, a senior researcher at the science nonprofit Climate Central, told Boyle this was the strongest ridge ever observed in March. Climate Central has developed a prediction model that assesses how much a warming trend or record high can be attributed to human-caused climate change. According to this model, the western high temps were five times more likely because of elevated greenhouse gas emissions.

I feel rattled by this heat. You may remember the high-pressure cooker that broiled the Pacific Northwest in June 2021. Temperatures spiked to 116 degrees in Portland. People in apartments that were not air conditioned died from the heat. In Multnomah County, the location of Portland, 72 deaths were attributed to heat. Farther north, in British Columbia, the town of Lytton went up in flames after several days of intense heat, including a temperature that reached 121 degrees Fahrenheit.

After that heat, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission asked Xcel to assess how well it could respond to somewhat similar heat in Colorado. The company concluded it had the resources.

But this week, in the wake of the intense spring heat, the PUC commissioners were clearly worried, part of a growing concern about โ€œresource adequacy.โ€ Will Xcel be able to meet critical electrical needs if another heat dome arrives in Colorado this summer? The commissioners asked Xcel to return with strategies for reducing demand from big industrial customers if demand for cooling spikes.

Colorado Drought Monitor map March 24, 2026.

Curious about an on-the-ground perspective from this heat and sparse snow, I called Paul Bonnifield in Yampa. A drought map colors that part of northwest Colorado mahogany, beyond extreme drought and in the realm of โ€œexceptional.โ€ What did exceptional drought look like to him?

Yampa lies at the headwaters of the Yampa River, between the Gore Range and the Flattops. It has a bucolic setting, a place of hay meadows and grazing cattle. Lying upstream are a couple of reservoirs on the edge of the Flattops.

Itโ€™s not uncommon for snow to remain on the ground at Yampa, elevation, 7,900 feet, in late March. Not this year. โ€œThe ground is hard, just dry, dry, dry,โ€ said Bonnifield.

Bonnifield grew up a few miles away at Phippsburg, a railroad town, and he worked on the railroad himself in addition to spending time teaching and writing at a college in Oklahoma. Heโ€™s now in his late 80s and can put this yearโ€™s anomalous heat and drought into perspective.

โ€œWe are in serious trouble,โ€ he said. โ€œIโ€™ve never seen it like this before.โ€

Less water will mean less hay production in Egeria Park, where this photo was taken about eight years ago. Photo/Allen Best

Unless a miracle arrives in the form of spring rain and snow, ranchers in Bonnifieldโ€™s area โ€” called Egeria Park โ€” will have to decide what to do with their cattle. Thereโ€™s not enough water to grow grass. There will be wildfire smoke besotting the sky, dampening tourism. And as for river rafting downstream on the Yampa โ€“ not likely. Steamboat Spring has already imposed watering restrictions for lawns.

Denver Water this week adopted lawn-watering restrictions for its customers in Denver as well as those in surrounding jurisdictions. It has 1.5 million customers, directly and indirectly, in the metro area.

Nathan Elder, the utilityโ€™s manager of water supply, reported to board members on Wednesday that snowpack levels are at historic lows and melting earlier and more rapidly.

Denver Water diverts water from rivers and creeks on both sides of the Continental Divide. In Grand and Summit counties, at the headwaters of the Colorado River, the snowpack was 53% of normal and the lowest on record for the date, Elder said. The South Platte River has it even worse, just 40% of normal.

โ€œThese are really unprecedented snowpack conditions,โ€ he said at the meeting on March 25. During the previous week โ€” the week of the heat dome โ€”Denver had lost 25% of its snowpack in the areas it collects water, he reported.

Denver Water is asking the 1.5 million households and businesses that get water from the utility to refrain from starting to irrigate lawns, including this one in southeast Denver, until mid-May. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Can it get worse? Well, yes, it could. โ€œItโ€™s well documented that, in part, due to climate change, the runoff generated from a given snowpack has declined when compared to the past,โ€ said Elder. โ€œSo we can expect even less water from this already low snowpack.โ€

Might a miracle arrive? After the drought and heat of 2002, metro Denver was stressed. Then, on St. Patrickโ€™s Day 2003, three feet of snow fell. In the San Luis Valley, monster rainfall last fall swelled the Rio Grande, leaving water in the soil that will help even now as farmers begin preparing their fields for early plantings.

NOAA projects continued likelihood of above normal temperatures and below-normal precipitation across Colorado, including Denverโ€™s collection area, during April.

Denver aims to reduce water use 20% by its customers in Denver and in outlying suburbs. It will permit lawn watering two days per week and then after 6 p.m. or before 10 a.m. It is also urging customers to refrain from watering their lawns until mid-May. Thatโ€™s not an easy ask when it feels like June in March. In April, Denver Waterโ€™s board members will be asked to approve โ€œdrought pricing.โ€

Russ Schumacher, the state climatologist in Colorado, is called upon frequently to give programs to water organizations and others. This past week he gave a presentation to the Fort Collins Chapter of the Colorado Renewable Energy Society.

โ€œWildfire certainly is top of mind,โ€ he said while showing a time-lapse video of a wildfire called High Park Fire that occurred west of Fort Collins in 2012.

Dry and hot temperatures leave Russ Schumacher, the state climatologist, apprehensive about potential wildfires this year. Above photo is from the Longmont area in August 2020, a hot and smoky year when wildfires continued almost into November. Photo/Allen Best

Global warming is a simple proposition, he said.

โ€œIf you put a pot of water on your stove youโ€™re not going to be able to predict all those individual bubbles or exactly when itโ€™s going to start boiling,โ€ he explained. โ€œBut you know that when you turn that heat on, the waterโ€™s going to get warmer and itโ€™s going to continue to warm the more heat that you add. So the physics of climate change is actually rather similar in that regard.โ€

And, of course, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere traps heat, which heats the planet. โ€œWhen you add heat to something, then it warms.โ€

Colorado has had outliers of heat before. The Dust Bowl during the mid-1930s was a time of heat and drought. More hot and dry arrived in the 1950s.

This chart shows snowpack in Colorado. The heat dome caused rapid melting of snow. In the San Luis Valley, heavy rains of last October may allow farmers to survive better than during 2002.

Dry has not changed. The hot has changed. What used to be an extremely hot year in Colorado is now a fairly average year or just slightly-above-average year, said Schumacher.

Citing NOAA data, Schumacher showed a sharp rise of almost 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1980. The heat has been most acute in the summer and fall โ€” although, obviously, recent months spoil that easy narrative.

With a moderate rate of emissions, we can expect another 2.5 to 3 degrees of warming by around 2050. That expectation comes with a disclaimer about uncertainty. Itโ€™s a best guess.

Precipitation has been more complicated than temperature in Colorado. As for the future, it remains a puzzle. Could be more, could be less. Either way, it will be impacted by temperatures.

โ€œIf itโ€™s warmer, if itโ€˜s windier, itโ€™s less humid, the air is thirstier for water from the soils, crops, forests, reservoirs, wherever.โ€ Schumacher said. โ€œAs it gets warmer, that evaporative demand goes up. The air is thirstier for water, and this has big implications for drought and water supply and water resources.โ€

Might warming occur more slowly? Thatโ€™s possible, and a possibility tied strongly to whether global emissions of greenhouse gases can be abated. Given the current political climate in the United States, a key player in world politics, this low-emissions scenario looks highly unlikely. More likely are the heat domes.

Like the pot of water on the stove that Schumacher described, weโ€™re certain to see more heat bubbles. Hard to tell where and when they will be, but there will be more of them. That leaves me distinctly uncomfortable. In Colorado I have felt 104 degrees. I cannot fathom the 118 degrees of Portland.

Colorado statewide annual temperature anomaly (ยฐF) with respect to the 1901-2000 average. Graphic credit: Colorado Climate Center

Grim outlook: #Colorado faces limited water supply after record-low #snowpack — Russ Schumacher (Colorado Climate Center) #runoff

Lake Dillon, a reservoir in Coloradoโ€™s Summit County, is owned and managed by Denver Water and supplies water to people living in Metro Denver. It is Denver Waterโ€™s largest reservoir and provides about 40% of Metro Denver water. A 23-mile-long trans-basin diversion pipeline, called the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel, carries water from the reservoir under the Continental Divide to Denver. Photo credit: Colorado State University

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado State University website (Russ Schumacher):

March 25, 2026

Each day during the winter and spring, one of the first things I look at is the U.S. Department of Agricultureโ€™s website that shows the current status of the snowpack in Coloradoโ€™s mountains.

Maybe that sounds like the strange habit of a state climatologist, but Iโ€™m far from the only one. Why? Because the snow that falls in our stateโ€™s mountains will, when it melts in the spring and summer, become a large portion of the water supply for tens of millions of people.

Those people arenโ€™t only here in Colorado, but are in other states, Tribal nations, and Mexico, drawing their water from the rivers that originate in Colorado. Mountain snow is essential for our winter recreation industry, for farms and ranches that grow our food, for drinking water, for ecosystem health, and much more.

It hasnโ€™t been a pretty sight when I have opened that USDA website each morning this winter. In an average year, our mountains get a lot of snow: In places like the Park Range, the West Elk Mountains or the San Juans, a typical year brings hundreds of inches of snow, carrying more than 40 inches of liquid water. This year, we struggled to get half that. Now, after an unprecedented heat wave in March, the snow is already disappearing quickly.

Figure 1: Map of annual average precipitation over 1991-2020 in Colorado, with color scale matching the colors in the state flag. Data from the PRISM Climate Group. Credit: Colorado Climate Center

As of March 25, averaged across 115 stations in Coloradoโ€™s mountains, the snow water equivalent was just 38% of the 1991-2020 average. (The snow water equivalent is the amount of water stored in the snowpack.) This represents the lowest snowpack in more than 40 years โ€“ and possibly ever โ€“ in Coloradoโ€™s mountains. Conditions havenโ€™t been any better along the Front Range and Eastern Plains, which have also lagged far behind the average amount of snowfall.

Figure 2: Statewide snow water equivalent from the SNOTEL network, as of March 25, 2026. The median over 1991-2020 is shown with the green line, the historical range is shown from red (low) to blue (high), and this year is shown in the black line. From USDA/NRCS.

There have been other major snow droughts in the past, notably the winters of 1976-1977 and 1980-1981, that threatened the ski industry and resulted in record-low streamflow on some of Coloradoโ€™s rivers. But this snow season has been unrivaled in its warmth. The first five months of the water year โ€“ from October through February โ€“ were Coloradoโ€™s warmest on record by a large margin. And itโ€™s almost certain that we are in the midst of the warmest March on record as well.

The warmth has been remarkably persistent, as relentless ridges of high pressure have prevented the usual snowstorms from moving into the state. The Fort Collins weather station at Colorado State University recorded an astonishing 43 days with a high temperature of 60ยฐF or above during climatological winter (December through February). The previous record, from records dating back to the late 19th century, was 22. Starting March 18, Fort Collins had temperatures higher than had ever been observed in March, four days in a row. This was capped by a high of 91ยฐF on March 21; there had never previously been a 90-degree day in Fort Collins before May.

Figure 3: Number of winter days with high temperatures of 60ยฐF or above at the official Fort Collins weather station on the CSU campus. Winter 2025-2026 had 43 days, far more than the previous record of 22 in 1980-1981. Credit: Colorado Climate Center

Records for March were smashed across the state and the western U.S., at both low and high elevations. One thing we do as state climatologists is put current conditions into historical context, as usually with some investigation, itโ€™s possible to find a past analog to what weโ€™re experiencing now. But the intense and prolonged heat has been unlike anything previously observed in March.

This, of course, is occurring in the context of a long-term trend toward warmer conditions, both globally and locally, largely attributable to increases in greenhouse gases. Per data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, nine of the 11 warmest years in Colorado records have occurred since 2012, and Colorado has now warmed by 3ยฐF since the 1890s. Droughts come and go, and they have always been a challenge in Colorado and the West. But warming is making them more likely and more intense. In other words, climate change is water change.

When above-average temperatures and precipitation deficits stack up over the course of months, we start to see drought conditions develop or worsen. The impacts of drought are wide-ranging and include economic and agricultural repercussions. Farmers and ranchers may face lower crop yields and higher costs of feeding livestock. A snow drought like this winterโ€™s can reduce outdoor recreation opportunities and hurt the stateโ€™s tourism industry. Drought years also tend to be years with more and larger wildfires.

Drought impacts can be felt a long distance from where the precipitation deficits occur. For example, southeastern Colorado received decent precipitation this winter, but low snow in the mountains hundreds of miles away near Leadville means less water on the Arkansas River, an important source for farmers in southeastern Colorado.

As each winter progresses, even if the mountain snowpack isnโ€™t looking great, we can always look ahead to March and April as the time when big storms are possible and the deficits can be made up. Unfortunately, this year has been just the opposite: Instead of much-needed snowstorms, weโ€™re in an unprecedented March heat wave that is accelerating the melting of what little snow is there. The chances of getting back into the range of average have dwindled away, and if the weather pattern doesnโ€™t turn around in April, we may be headed for uncharted territory for Colorado water.

Colorado SNOTEL basin-filled map March 22, 2026.

Water providers across Douglas County urge conservation this irrigation season — Town of #CastleRock

Water stored in Coloradoโ€™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.

#Denver Water #snowpack and water supply update: March 16, 2026, snowpack update for Denver Waterโ€™s collection area — News on Tap #SouthPlatteRiver #ColoradoRiver

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website:

March 16, 2026


Esta historia estรก disponible en espaรฑol a continuaciรณn.


Denver Water depends on mountain snowpack for 90% of its water supply, which serves 1.5 million people in Denver and surrounding suburbs. 

Snowpack as of March 16, 2026, was at or near record lows: The Colorado River Basin within Denver Waterโ€™s collection system was at 71% of normal. The South Platte River Basin within Denver Waterโ€™s collection area was 54% of normal. In Denver Waterโ€™s decades of records for its watershed collection areas, as of March 16, Colorado River snowpack ranked the third-worst on record, and the South Platte River snowpack remains ranked at the worst.

No matter what, Denver Waterโ€™s annual summer watering rules will always be in place during the irrigation season. And, it is likely that we will need to implement additional drought response measures this year. Denver Waterโ€™s response to drought conditions uses a layered approach, including the potential for additional watering restrictions, in order to preserve water supplies. Denver Water is developing recommendations on a potential drought response for the Board of Water Commissioners to consider over the next several weeks. 

Since 2000, Denver Waterโ€™s response to dry conditions in previous years included issuing a Drought Watch (voluntary restrictions) in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012 and 2013. In some of those years (2002, 2003, 2004, 2013), Denver Water levied additional drought restrictions as part of declaring a Stage 1 level response, which required mandatory reductions in outdoor water use. 


Denver Water snowpack update for March 16, 2026 

  • Conditions remain highly concerning. Poor snowfall combined with warm temperatures have left us roughly 3 feet to 4 feet of snow short of where weโ€™d prefer to be in the Denver Water collection area at this time. To reach the normal spring snowpack peak, which typically occurs in April, we need to see an additional 7 feet to 7.5 feet of snow this spring.
  • Reservoir storage conditions are below average, but in reasonably good shape: as of March 16, 2026, the reservoirs were 80% full versus an average of 85% full for this time. Those levels are also temporarily affected by the need to keep Gross Reservoir low duringย construction to raise the dam, a project designed to increase the storage capacity of the reservoir.ย 
  • Denver Water has been here several times over roughly 50 years of reliable records. On the positive side, we have experienced years that started dry and conditions dramatically improved in March, April and May. This year, however, we are running out of time to build the snowpack.
  • Weโ€™re reminding customers to do their part byย making water-efficient upgrades, inside and outside, including rethinking their yards. These steps preserve water supplies and create moreย adaptable and drought-resilient landscapesย that fit naturally into our climate.ย 
  • No matter what, Denver Waterโ€™sย annual summer watering rulesย will always be in place during the irrigation season.ย Additional drought restrictions, voluntary or mandatory, will depend in part on how the rest of the snow season shapes up and will be aimed at preserving water supplies in case this unusually dry stretch deepens into a multiyear drought. ย 

Comment from Greg Fisher, Denver Water’s manager of demand planning:ย 

โ€œAnother weekend snowstorm was welcome, though it mainly benefited lower elevations along the Front Range. Unfortunately, mountain regions didnโ€™t receive significant snow. The good news is that moisture we get in the Denver region should give our yards and landscapes a good dose of moisture, limiting the need for any watering this week,โ€ said Greg Fisher, Denver Water’s manager of demand planning.

โ€œOverall, weโ€™ve had an extremely dry winter, and that continues this week โ€” the last week of winter โ€” with unusually warm temperatures expected across the region. That could lead to snow melt even at high elevations and highlights the need to conserve water and limit the pull on our reservoir storage. We continue to emphasize the need to keep irrigation systems off until mid-to-late May at the earliest, and to be prepared for outdoor watering restrictions this spring.

โ€œItโ€™s a good time to consider landscape changes to your yard, with plants and grasses that require far less water and are far more adapted to Coloradoโ€™s dry stretches. Such landscapes, once established, can get through dry stretches like this far easier, and with far less water, and still give your yard a colorful and vibrant look.โ€

Denver Water has many resources for homeowners looking for inspiration and information about landscapes that fit naturally into our dry climate. Click here forย conservation and efficiency tipsย for outdoor irrigation and toย get more details on ways to ColoradoScapeย your property, including through rebates for turf removal and a DIY guide for landscape changes, among many other potential water-saving steps.ย 


This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on March 16, 2026, in the area of the Colorado River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 71% of normal, which ranks third-lowest on record for March 16. Image credit: Denver Water.
This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on March 16, 2026, in the area of the South Platte River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 54% of normal, which ranks as the lowest on record for March 16. Image credit: Denver Water.

To learn more about the work Denver Water employees do to monitor the snowpack, read this TAP story about Denver Water employees snowshoeing into the forest near the top of Vail Pass in late February 2026 to conduct a monthly โ€œsnow survey.โ€

Additional information on Denver Waterโ€™s drought planning can be found here. Additional information on Denver Water reservoir levels, customer water use and snowpack can be found in the Water Watch Report, which is updated regularly during winter, spring and summer.


Novedades de Denver Water sobre el deshielo de la montaรฑa y el suministro de agua

Novedades sobre el deshielo de la montaรฑa del 16 de marzo de 2026 para el รกrea de recolecciรณn de agua de Denver Water.


16 de marzo de 2026 | Escrito por: ย Personal de TAP


Denver Water depende del deshielo de la montaรฑa para el 90โ€ฏ% de su suministro de agua, el cual da servicio a 1.5โ€ฏmillones de personas en Denver y en los suburbios de alrededor.

En 16 de marzo de 2026, el deshielo de la montaรฑa se encontraba cerca de niveles histรณricamente bajos: La cuenca del rรญo Colorado dentro del sistema de recolecciรณn de Denver Water estaba al 71โ€ฏ% de lo normal. La cuenca del rรญo South Platte dentro del รกrea de recolecciรณn de agua de Denver Water estaba al 54โ€ฏ% de lo normal. En las dรฉcadas de registros de Denver Water sobre sus cuencas hidrogrรกficas de recolecciรณn, al 16 de marzo el deshielo de la montaรฑa en la cuenca del rรญo Colorado ocupaba el tercer peor lugar y el deshielo de la montaรฑa en la cuenca del rรญo South Platte ocupaba el peor de todos.

Pase lo que pase, lasโ€ฏreglas anuales de riego en veranoโ€ฏde Denver Water siempre estarรกn vigentes durante la temporada de riego.โ€ฏAdemรกs, es probable que este aรฑo sea necesario implementar medidas adicionales de respuesta ante una sequรญa. La respuesta de Denver Water a condiciones de sequรญa utiliza un enfoque por niveles, que incluye la posibilidad de aplicar restricciones adicionales de riego para preservar el suministro de agua.  

Denver Water estรก preparando recomendaciones para la Junta de Comisionados del Agua de Denver sobre una posible respuesta a la sequรญa en las siguientes semanas.

Desde 2000, la respuesta de Denver Water a condiciones secas en aรฑos anteriores incluyรณ la emisiรณn de una alerta de sequรญa (restricciones voluntarias) en 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012 y 2013. En algunos de esos aรฑos (2002, 2003, 2004 y 2013), Denver Water impuso restricciones adicionales por sequรญa como parte de la declaraciรณn de una respuesta de Nivelโ€ฏ1, la cual exigรญa reducciones obligatorias en el uso de agua en exteriores.

Novedades sobre el deshielo de la montaรฑa de Denver Water al 16 de marzo de 2026

  • Las condiciones siguen siendo motivo de gran preocupaciรณn. Las escasas nevadas, combinadas con temperaturas cรกlidas, han dejado aproximadamente entre 3 y 4โ€ฏpies de nieve por debajo de lo que serรญa deseable en el รกrea de recolecciรณn de Denver Water para esta รฉpoca. ย Para alcanzar el pico normal de deshielo de la montaรฑa en primavera, que por lo general se produce en abril, necesitamos ver entre 7 y 7.5โ€ฏpies adicionales de nieve esta primavera.
  • Las condiciones de almacenamiento en los embalses estรกn por debajo del promedio, pero razonablemente en buen estado: al 16 de marzo de 2026, los embalses estaban llenos al 80โ€ฏ%, frente a un promedio del 85โ€ฏ% para esta รฉpoca. Estos niveles tambiรฉn se ven afectados temporalmente por la necesidad de mantener bajo el nivel del embalse Gross durante laโ€ฏconstrucciรณn para elevar la presa, un proyecto diseรฑado para aumentar la capacidad de almacenamiento del embalse.โ€ฏ
  • Recordamos a los clientes que tambiรฉn puedenย colaborarโ€ฏrealizando mejoras para un uso eficiente del agua, tanto dentro como fuera del hogar, incluyendo replantear el diseรฑo del patio. Estas medidas ayudan a preservar el suministro de agua y crean paisajes mรกsโ€ฏadaptables y resilientes frente a la sequรญa, que se integran de forma natural en nuestro clima.โ€ฏ
  • Pase lo que pase, lasโ€ฏreglas anuales de riego en veranoโ€ฏde Denver Water siempre estarรกn vigentes durante la temporada de riego.โ€ฏLas restricciones adicionales por sequรญa, voluntarias u obligatorias, dependerรกn en parte de cรณmo evolucione el resto de la temporada de nieve y estarรกn orientadas a preservar el suministro de agua en caso de que este perรญodo inusualmente seco se convierta en una sequรญa de varios aรฑos.

Comentario de Greg Fisher, gerente de planificaciรณn de la demanda de Denverโ€ฏWater:

“Le dimos la bienvenida a otra tormenta invernal este pasado fin de semana, aunque solo beneficiaron รกreas con elevaciรณn bajas en el Front Range. Desafortunadamente, las regiones montaรฑosas no recibieron cantidades de nieve significativas. Las buenas noticias es que la humedad que recibimos en la regiรณn de Denver le dio a nuestros jardines y paisajismos una buena dosis de humedad y asรญ limitar el riego esta semana.

“Hemos tenido un invierno muy seco y estas condiciones continuaran esta semana, la รบltima semana de invierno, con temperaturas inusualmente altas anticipadas a travรฉs de la regiรณn. Continuamos enfatizando la importancia de mantener sus sistemas de riego apagados hasta mediados o finales de mayo y estar preparados para posibles restricciones de riego esta primavera.”

Denver Water cuenta con muchos recursos para propietarios de viviendas que buscan inspiraciรณn e informaciรณn sobre paisajes que se integren de forma natural en nuestro clima seco. Haga clic aquรญ paraโ€ฏobtener consejos de conservaciรณn y eficienciaโ€ฏpara el riego exterior yโ€ฏconocer mรกs detalles sobre maneras de aplicar ColoradoScapesโ€ฏen su propiedad, lo que incluye reembolsos por la eliminaciรณn de cรฉsped y una guรญa para realizar cambios en el paisajismo por cuenta propia, entre muchas otras medidas para ahorrar agua.

Puede encontrar informaciรณn adicional sobre laโ€ฏplanificaciรณn ante sequรญas de Denver Water aquรญ (en inglรฉs). Puede encontrar informaciรณn adicional sobre los niveles de los embalses de Denver Water, el uso de agua de los clientes y el deshielo de la montaรฑa en el informeโ€ฏWater Watch Report (en inglรฉs), que se actualiza con regularidad durante el invierno, la primavera y el verano.

Denver Water’s entire collection system. Image credit: Denver Water.

#Drought cueing #Aurora water restrictions in April, possibly dire limits this summer: โ€œThis is not a good situation this year at all,โ€ Marshall Brown said — Aurora Sentinel #SouthPlatteRiver #ColoradoRiver #ArkansasRiver

West Drought Monitor map March 17, 2026.

Click the link to read the article on the Aurora Sentinel website. Here’s an excerpt:

March 19, 2026

City water officials are sounding increasingly urgent alarms about Auroraโ€™s water supply, warning that worsening drought conditions and poor snowpack could force early and potentially escalating restrictions this year. Aurora Water General Manager Marshall Brown told city leaders yesterday that the situation has deteriorated enough that staff will likely recommend a formal Stage 1 drought declaration as early as April 6, nearly a month ahead of the cityโ€™s typical seasonal watering restrictions. If approved by the City Council, new limits on water use would take effect April 7, officials said.

โ€œOur water supply situation is actually bleak enough that, if things donโ€™t improve, and we donโ€™t get a community response that we need during a Stage 1 restriction, the forecast indicates we may be in a Stage 2 restriction by the end of the year,โ€ Brown said. โ€œThat would be really dramatic.โ€

Aurora breaks water supply and restrictions into four categories:

  • Normal: Current permanent rules limit landscape irrigation from 10 a.m. โ€“ 6 p.m. for a maximum of three days per week.
  • Stage I: Considered when reservoir levels are lower, often reducing outdoor irrigation to two days per week.
  • Stage II: More stringent, potentially reducing irrigation to one day per week.
  • Stage III: Emergency conditions with severe restrictions, including no landscape irrigation.

The warningย marks a notable shift from just weeks ago, when city leaders said conditions were concerning but not yet dire. Now, officials say a combination of record warmth, minimal precipitation and dwindling snowpack has pushed the system closer to critical thresholds. According to the latest Aurora Water report, conditions across Colorado remain deeply dry. More than 75% of the state is classified as abnormally dry, with over half in moderate drought and significant portions in severe to extreme drought. February and March so far have offered little relief, statewide water officials reported. Those trends are expected to continue. Long-range forecasts from federal agencies indicate warmer and drier-than-normal conditions through the spring, further reducing the likelihood of meaningful runoff to replenish reservoirs.

Metro #Denver cities begin enacting mandatory outdoor watering limits for spring as #drought, warmth continue — The Denver Post #snowpack

Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (John Aguilar). Here’s an excerpt:

March 15, 2026

Thornton is first to adopt restrictions; Denver Water, others prepare similar measures

When Thornton enacted a Stage 1 drought declaration last week, it became the first city in metro Denver to place a mandatory twice-weekly limit on outdoor watering for the upcoming hot season. But the northern suburb likely wonโ€™t be the last. Metro cities and utilities are starting to lay out various defensive strategies against what has become a crispy-dry 2026, starting with anย alarmingly warm and dry winter in Coloradoย thatโ€™s been marked byย one of the worst snowpacks in recorded state history. Denver Water, which serves 1.5 million people, could follow a similar track to Thorntonโ€™s by monthโ€™s end. Aurora Water, which is relied upon by 400,000 people, may be right behind with its own Stage 1 drought declaration in early April…Locally, that also translates to abysmal conditions in the Clear Creek basin, where Westminster gets most of its water. Last week, the Westminster City Council discussed enacting a drought watch โ€” a less severe step than a Stage 1 declaration that would rely on voluntary cutbacks.

…theย latest monthly bulletin from the National Weather Serviceย painted a grim weather picture based on conditions in Denver. Last month was the third-warmest and second-driest February in the city, while it was the least-snowiest February on record for Denver, tying 2009โ€™s equally snow-starved February…

What water managers can control sits on the demand side of the water ledger. Thornton gets the bulk of its water from the Upper South Platte River and Clear Creek watersheds, which are both at โ€œrecord low levels,โ€ according to a memo accompanying last Tuesdayโ€™s council meeting. Emily Hunt, Thorntonโ€™s interim infrastructure director, says the concern lies not so much with the summer ahead but with the summers to follow, assuming precipitation stays meager. Coloradoโ€™s sixth-largest city is presently at 83% of storage capacityย across the 19 reservoirs that hold its water. It stores a large portion of the water it consumes in Standley Lake, which is also a water source for Westminster and Northglenn.

โ€œWeโ€™re going into the summer with good storage, but with this snowpack, weโ€™re not going to be able to top off our reservoirs the way we normally would,โ€ Hunt said. โ€œWeโ€™re basically trying to keep the year in balance so that if the drought continues into next year, weโ€™ll be in pretty good shape.โ€

Colorado snowpack basin-filled map March 15, 2026.

One year after landmark $100M #PoudreRiver settlement, work faces delays — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News) #NISP #SouthPlatteRiver

Fly fishing on the Poudre River west of Fort Collins. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

March 12, 2026

More than a year after a landmark $100 million environmental settlement designed to improve the Poudre River was OKโ€™d, little progress has been made to put the agreement into action.

The settlement, signed last February, came after Save The Poudre sued to stop the $2.7 billion Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). The deal was crafted to allow NISP to move forward while paying to improve the Poudre and protect it from any harm the project could cause.

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 Waterโ€™s proposal. (Save the Poudre lawsuit, from Northern Water project pages)

NISP is designed to serve roughly one dozen fast-growing cities along the Northern Front Range and will include two reservoirs and a pipeline.

The Community Foundation of Northern Colorado is leading the effort to implement the settlement, which includes projects that will make the river healthier for fish and aquatic habitat, improve water flows and water quality, and increase recreational opportunities.

The foundation is overseeing a six-member committee that began meeting last August. The committee will decide how to implement the ambitious environmental projects outlined in the settlement.

โ€œWe are taking time to be intentional,โ€ said Jodie Riesenberger, the foundationโ€™s vice president for community impact. 

But work has also been slow because key payments from NISP participants to the foundation are tied to benchmarks in building the massive reservoir and pipeline system. The committee received its first $5 million payment last year when the settlement was signed and is supposed to get its next $5 million payment when construction begins, something that could have happened later this year but has since been delayed. The full $100 million is to be paid out over a 20-year period, Riesenberger said.

Since the settlement was approved, though, the projectโ€™s largest customer, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, has dropped out of NISP. A handful of other cities, including Evans, have also dropped out, citing concerns about soaring design and construction costs, as well as the cost of the environmental settlement.

In response, Northern Water, which is overseeing project construction, temporarily halted design work as it re-examined NISPโ€™s size.

Now, construction isnโ€™t likely to begin until 2027 or later, according to Northern Water spokesman Jeff Stahla.

โ€œWe did slow things down,โ€ Stahla said, โ€œbut there is still a chance we can start in mid-2027.โ€

Save The Poudre River President Gary Wockner said the delays arenโ€™t surprising.

The committee has โ€œbeen moving slow because there is a lot to learn. If you want to fix problems on the river, you have to understand the river and know what the problems are,โ€ he said. 

Since the river committee began meeting in August, Riesenberger said work has focused on analyzing what the issues are and trying to figure out how and whether to spend the money they have on hand now.

The delays โ€œdonโ€™t impact what weโ€™re doing yet, but it could if it drags on longer. The dream is that these dollars could do transformational things for the river,โ€ Riesenberger said.

More by Jerd Smith

The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.

As Coloradoโ€™s winter dries up, so do revenues for weather dependent businesses — #Colorado Public Radio

Clear Creek rafting via MyColoradoLife.com

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Public Radio website (Haylee May). Here’s an excerpt:

February 16, 2026

The only thing snow shovels have been gathering recently is dust as Metro-Denver finds itself more than a foot behind its normal snowfall total this winter. Boulder National Weather Service Meteorologist, Russell Danielson, said the normal snow total through the end of January for metro-Denver is 27 inches. This year, just 13.4 inches fell. Thatโ€™s a sharp drop from 2025, when the region saw 38 inches of snow over the same time frame. In the mountains, itโ€™s even starker. Breckenridge typically sees 101.7 inches by the end of January. This year? Just 34 inches. The lack of snow has largely been framed as a ski industry problem. But across the Front Range and into Coloradoโ€™s river corridors, itโ€™s become something broader โ€” and more immediate. From car washes in southwest Denver to rafting guides scanning snowpack data in the high country, the dry winter is rewriting balance sheets in real time…For other weather-dependent businesses, the impact is far more dramatic.

โ€œWe calculated that we’re about 70% down,โ€ said Amy Campbell, office manager for Bear Creek Tree Service in Englewood. In a typical winter, her crews plow at least every other week โ€” sometimes multiple times depending on the storm…

West Drought Monitor map March 3, 2026.

The economic ripple from a dry winter wonโ€™t stop when the season changes. And that has small business owners who rely onย summerย tourism also worried. In Kremmling, co-owner of Downstream Adventures, Jonathan Snodgrass, is already watching the snowpack charts โ€” not for ski conditions, but for river levels.

โ€œI’m feeling a little worried,โ€ he said. โ€œIf it stays on this track, we’re looking at not a lot of water to work with for rafting. That could have some big impacts on the duration of our season and the quality of our product.โ€

Rafting on Clear Creek and the upper Colorado River depends heavily on snowmelt. In low years like 2018, Clear Creek trips ended around the third weekend of July. In stronger years, they run into late August โ€” sometimes up to Labor Day. Those final weeks are critical.

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map March 8, 2026.

Snowpack finally saw some above average gains last week — Northern Water #SouthPlatteRiver #ColoradoRiver

Wild Horse Reservoir to shift locations in preparation for NEPA process — The Flume

Click the link to read the article on The Flume website (Meryl Phair). Here’s an excerpt:

February 18, 2026

Plans for the Wild Horse Reservoir have recently updated the location of the proposed water reserve in Hartselย based on Aurora Waterโ€™s evaluation of several alternative locations in preparation for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)โ€™s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Located southwest of Spinney Mountain Reservoir, the site will be shifting to the Wild Horse South Reservoir, a move that representatives of Aurora Water describe as having significant advantages for construction. Aurora Water Assistant General Manager Sarah Young stated in a media briefing on the recent planning change that the NEPA process Aurora Water has been working through with the BLM, in collaboration with Park County government, aims to both clarify the need for the project and understand all available alternatives for meeting that need.

โ€œWe evaluated twenty different options,โ€ Young said. โ€œAs we were evaluating these alternatives, what we found out is that the Wild Horse South Reservoir has a number of significant advantages.โ€ย 

In addition to the initially proposed Wild Horse Reservoir Project, some of the alternatives included the Small Wild Horse Reservoir and Denver Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Alternative, expanding existing capacities in Spinney Mountain Reservoir, a no-action alternative and the Wild Horse South Reservoir Alternative. Regarding the projectโ€™s need, the proposed reservoir undertaking aims to enhance the City of Auroraโ€™s water management of supplies from the Arkansas and Colorado River basins. As the third-largest city in Colorado, Aurora serves over 400,000 residents, yet lacks access to an immediate water source. Projections in the statewide Colorado Water Plan indicate that a significant statewide water supply gap is anticipated by 2050 and the Wild Horse Reservoir was identified in Auroraโ€™s 2017 Integrated Water Master Plan as a crucial step in meeting the growing need.ย The shift in plans comes during a record low snow pack year for Colorado, the lowest since 1987, which is projected to affect state water resources down the line.

โ€œWhen weโ€™re having a year like weโ€™re having right now, [Wild Horse] will help us bridge these types of droughts by storing water that comes from times when the snowpack is much better,โ€ Young said.ย 

Denver Water #snowpack and water supply update: February 9, 2026, #snowpack update for #Denver Waterโ€™s collection areaย — DenverWater.org

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website:

February 9, 2026

Denver Water depends on mountain snowpack for 90% of its water supply, which serves 1.5 million people in Denver and surrounding suburbs. 

Snowpack as of Feb. 9, 2026, was near record lows: The Colorado River Basin within Denver Waterโ€™s collection system was at 55% of normal. The South Platte River Basin within Denver Waterโ€™s collection area was 42% of normal. In Denver Waterโ€™s decades of records for its watershed collection areas, as of Feb. 9, the Colorado River snowpack ranked among the worst, and the South Platte River snowpack ranked the worst.

No matter what, Denver Waterโ€™s annual summer watering rules will always be in place during the irrigation season. And, it is possible that we will need to implement additional drought response measures this year. Denver Waterโ€™s response to drought conditions uses a tiered approach, including the potential for additional watering restrictions, in order to preserve water supplies. Denver Water will move closer to developing recommendations for its Board of Water Commissioners on a potential drought response over the next couple of months.

Since 2000, Denver Waterโ€™s response to dry conditions in previous years included issuing a Drought Watch (voluntary restrictions) in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012 and 2013. In some of those years (2002, 2003, 2004, 2013), Denver Water levied additional drought restrictions as part of declaring a Stage 1 level response, which required mandatory reductions in outdoor water use. 


Denver Water snowpack update for Feb. 9, 2026 

  • Conditions remain highly concerning. Poor snowfall combined with warm temperatures have left us roughly 4 feet of snow short of where weโ€™d prefer to be in the Denver Water collection area.ย 
  • Reservoir storage conditions are below average, but in reasonably good shape: 81% full versus an average of 85% full for this time. Those levels are also artificially affected by the need to keep Gross Reservoir low duringย construction to raise the dam, a project designed to increase the storage capacity of the reservoir.ย 
  • Denver Water has been here several times over roughly 50 years of reliable records. On the positive side, we have experienced years that started dry and conditions dramatically improved in March, April and May. This year, however, we are running out of time to build a healthy winter base.
  • Weโ€™re reminding customers to do their part byย making water-efficient upgrades, inside and outside, including rethinking their yards. These steps preserve water supplies and create moreย adaptable and drought-resilient landscapesย that fit naturally into our climate.ย 
  • No matter what, Denver Waterโ€™sย annual summer watering rulesย will always be in place during the irrigation season.ย Additional drought restrictions, voluntary or mandatory, will depend in part on how the rest of the snow season shapes up and will be aimed at preserving water supplies in case this unusually dry stretch deepens into a multiyear drought. ย 
  • Comment from Nathan Elder, Denver Waterโ€™s manager of water supply:ย 
  • โ€œWe are running out of winter. Conditions are highly concerning, and as we continue to hope for relief in the spring months, we also are preparing recommendations for our drought response. We encourage customers to think about conservation even now, with smart indoor use and potential changes in landscapes that would reduce outdoor use in the irrigation season.
  • “Water is a precious resource that supports our way of life across Colorado, from the mountains to the ski resorts to our communities on both sides of the Continental Divide. We all have a role to play in using water responsibly.ย 
  • “If youโ€™ve been up skiing, youโ€™ve likely seen the low snowpack firsthand, and โ€” if conditions donโ€™t improve โ€” when that snow melts, it wonโ€™t be enough to completely fill our reservoirs this spring and summer.โ€

This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on Feb. 9, 2026, in the area of the Colorado River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 55% of normal, which ranks among the lowest on record for Feb. 9. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.
This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on Feb. 9, 2026, in the area of the South Platte River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 42% of normal, which ranks as the lowest on record for Feb. 9. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.

To learn more about the work Denver Water employees do to monitor the snowpack, read this TAP story about Denver Water employees snowshoeing into the forest near the top of Vail Pass in late January 2026 to conduct a monthly โ€œsnow survey.โ€

Additional information on Denver Waterโ€™s drought planning can be found here. Additional information on Denver Water reservoir levels, customer water use and snowpack can be found in the Water Watch Report, which is updated regularly during winter, spring and summer.

Adams County water district sues #Denver over contamination from fire training facility: Since the South Adams Water & Sanitation district first discovered problem in 2018, it has spent tens of millions on mitigation — The #Denver Post

Firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals is responsible for contamination in Fountain Valley. Photo via USAF Air Combat Command

Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elliot Wenzler). Here’s an excerpt:

January 21, 2026

An Adams County water district filed a lawsuit against Denver on Tuesday [January 20, 2026], alleging that foam from the cityโ€™s fire training facility has contaminated its water for decades. Theย South Adams County Water and Sanitation Districtย says the cityโ€™s Roslyn Fire Training Facility, near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, has used firefighting foam containing a group of chemicals known as PFAS, also known as โ€œforever chemicals,โ€ since at least 1991…

โ€œDenver has failed to eliminate or control releases of (the chemicals) at and from the fire training facility and those releases have contaminated and continue to contaminate the Districtโ€™s drinking water supplies,โ€ the lawsuit alleges.

The district serves about 75,000 residents in Commerce City and unincorporated Adams County. It firstย discovered the contamination in 2018. Since then, the district has spent tens of millions of dollars to mitigate the issue, according to the lawsuit. Officials there built another water treatment facility specifically to treat PFAS, and itย purchased water from Denver Waterย to dilute the contaminated water…Even with state and federal funding, the lawsuit says, โ€œthere remains a huge deficitโ€ from the costs associated with the firefighting foam. The district asks a U.S. District Court judge to rule that Denver is liable for the response costs and for the ongoing costs the district will incur. It notes that water district officials notified Denver city officials of this claim back in 2019. The amount that the city of Denver would have to pay, if found liable, would be determined in a trial.

Municipal Partnerships for Instream Flow on #Coloradoโ€™s Front Range — Jessica Pault-Atiase (Colorado Lawyer)

Dillon Reservoir. Photo credit Greg Hobbs.

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Bar Association website (Jessica Pault-Atiase):

January/February 2026

Incorporating instream flow uses into municipal water supply planning efforts can provide numerous public benefits. This article discusses the framework and opportunity for collaborative instream flow protection in municipal water supply operations.

Coloradoโ€™s instream flow program is a dynamic approach to protecting the natural environment that encourages practical and creative solutions to evolving environmental concerns. While water rights typically involve diverting water from the stream, the instream flow program protects water in the stream. Environmental values associated with instream flow uses can work synergistically with municipal water supply operations to realize several public benefits, such as improved water quality, riparian health, urban cooling, resiliency, recreational opportunities, and aesthetic value. As illustrated by the examples discussed later in this article, the instream flow program can facilitate cooperative agreements with municipal water providers for shared beneficial use of our stateโ€™s most precious resource.

Water Rights and the Prior Appropriation Doctrine in Colorado

The prior appropriation doctrine governs the ownership and use of water and water rights in Colorado. In simple terms, the prior appropriation system is described as โ€œfirst in time, first in right.โ€ A water user that has demonstrated an intent to put water to beneficial use first has a vested and prior right to use water in that amount against subsequent water users. This system developed out of necessity during the colonial expansion westward and was influenced by Spanish settlers and early miners to allocate water in the arid environment of Colorado, as an alternative to the more common riparian system of water rights based on land ownership abutting water ways.1

The prior appropriation doctrine has been enshrined in the Colorado Constitution. Article XVI, ยง 5 dedicates water in Colorado as public property for use by the people, subject to appropriation, and ยง 6 gives the right to appropriate water for beneficial use in priority.2ย The 1969 Water Rights Determination and Administration Act (1969 Act) provides the legal framework for surface and tributary ground water distribution and use under the prior appropriation doctrine.3

An appropriation of a water right under the 1969 Act, as originally codified, meant โ€œtheย diversionย of a certain portion of the waters of the state and the application of the same to a beneficial use.โ€4ย Similarly, beneficial uses were limited to diversions of water from the stream system for extractive uses such as domestic or municipal, irrigation, and manufacturing or industrial activities.5ย  Environmental uses of water, including instream flows, were not initially addressed in the 1969 Act but were later incorporated through amendments.6

Colorado Instream Flow Program

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) was first established by the Colorado legislature in 1937 to protect and develop Coloradoโ€™s water resources for the benefit of present and future generations.7ย It was not until the national environmental movement in the late 1960s, however, that discussions regarding the value of instream flows and role of the CWCB in the protection of such flows began to garner serious attention and focus.8ย In 1973, those discussions culminated in the passage of SB 97 to create the Colorado Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Program.9ย SB 97 was unprecedented at the time and amended the 1969 Act to define beneficial use of a water right to include use by the CWCB for protection of stream flows within a specified reach without a diversion of water from the stream.10

Under the instream flow program, the CWCB has exclusive authority to hold a water right for instream flow uses in Colorado and may appropriate water rights or acquire existing water rights for instream flow, provided that it determines that such water rights are necessary to preserve or improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.11ย Since the programโ€™s inception, the CWCB has appropriated nearly 1,700 instream flow rights across 9,700 miles of stream and completed over 35 water acquisition transactions.12

The General Assembly has reinforced and expanded the CWCBโ€™s ability to acquire water rights for instream flow purposes on several occasions.13ย Acquiring and changing senior water rights for instream flows in over-appropriated systems can add great value by preserving the priority date, and therefore the availability, of the water for greater instream flow protection.14ย Acquisitions can be donated to or purchased by the CWCB, and the statutory language specifically anticipates potential acquisitions from governmental entities, like municipalities.15ย Other free-market developments to the Colorado instream flow program enacted by the state legislature over the years include streamlined processes for loans of water rights for instream flow use, instream flow protection for mitigation releases, and stream flow augmentation plans.16ย These developments provide additional opportunities for water users, including municipalities, to participate in the program in support of instream flows.

In addition to implementing the instream flow program, the CWCB is tasked with creating the Colorado Water Plan, which addresses the stateโ€™s water challenges through collaborative water planning, including expanded opportunities for instream flow protection.17

Case Studies Along the Front Range

The instream flow program providesย reasonableย protection of the environment for benefit of the public and is emphasized in the Colorado Water Plan as a balanced approach to addressing environmental needs in the face of climate change.18ย Similarly, municipal water service providers, acting in the interest of their respective jurisdictions, must often balance water supply with other public interests. Municipal water projects and water supply planning efforts can be designed to address multiple needs and related uncertainties across a jurisdiction, informed by integrated planning efforts. The various public interests typically considered by municipalities may align with instream flow protection in many respects. The Colorado Water Plan includes several policy considerations that highlight this potential overlap between municipal water interests and instream flows.19

Fundamentally, the Colorado Water Plan encourages a holistic, collaborative approach to water management that balances multiple uses and benefits to meet water shortages throughout the state.20ย As competition for water resources in Colorado becomes more pronounced with increased demands and costs, the benefits of water sharing and collaboration will also likely increase.21ย The Colorado Water Plan focuses on thriving watersheds as an action area to support stream health, recreational uses, resiliency, erosion control, and water quality, all of which provide tangible benefits to municipal water service providers.22ย Accordingly, more water in the stream system for instream flows can be a natural complement to a municipality seeking to balance growing water demands with related public interests. The following examples demonstrate how instream flow uses can benefit municipal water supply, and vice versa, to realize this balance in a meaningful way.

Boulder Creek Instream Flow Project

The Boulder Creek instream flow project is a long-standing cooperative project that has been operating in Boulder County for almost 35 years. This project has operated successfully due in large part to the partnership between the City of Boulder and the CWCB and their collaboration with neighboring water users in Boulder County to support environmental stream flows and other uses in the creek.

In the early 1990s, Boulder donated a suite of valuable senior water rights to the CWCB to establish a year-round instream flow program on North Boulder and Boulder Creeks.23ย The acquisition was memorialized in a series of donation agreements between Boulder and the CWCB pursuant to CRS ยง 37-92-102(3), following certain legislative amendments throughout the 1980s that clarified and enhanced the CWCBโ€™s acquisition authority for instream flows.24 Boulder and the CWCB, as co-applicants, also received a water court decree to change the use of the donated rights to include instream flow uses for the project.25

Figure 1. Map depicting locations of instream flow protected reaches along Boulder Creek. Image created by the City of Boulder (Oct. 2018).

The Boulder Creek instream flow project protects three segments from below the Silver Lake Reservoir near the headwaters of North Boulder Creek down to 75th Street in Boulder County (see fig. 1). The donated rights include reservoir releases, bypassed diversions, and changed irrigation ditch shares to support instream flows throughout the year. As part of its donation to the CWCB, Boulder retained the right to use water available under the donated rights (1) for municipal purposes under certain conditions, including drought and emergency conditions in its municipal water supply operations; (2) for municipal purposes anytime they are not needed to meet instream flow amounts; and (3) for beneficial reuse downstream of the protected reaches.26ย This provides operational flexibility for the cityโ€™s municipal water supply while also supporting instream flow uses by the CWCB in most years. Its participation in the Boulder Creek instream flow program has also helped the city address US Forest Service regulatory requirements for bypasses related to its diversions from North Boulder Creek as part of federal permitting for one of its raw water pipelines.27

The City of Boulder has a long-standing environmental ethos that incorporates instream flows into its water supply planning and operations. Boulderโ€™s water supply planning documents from the 1980s identified the goal of supporting instream flows in Boulder Creek to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystems, reflecting city plannersโ€™ prediction that dry-up periods in the creek would become more severe and frequent with increased water demands.28ย Subsequent Boulder water supply and land use planning documents have included similar goals focused on balancing instream flows and environmental preservation with municipal water demands and operations, and emphasizing the connection between stream health and reliable drinking water supplies.29

Because the protected stream segments run through the Boulder city limits, and extend both above and below the city, the project benefits water quality, riparian health, and resiliency in the Boulder municipal watershed and water system operations and provides additional environmental benefits to the larger Boulder County community.

Gross Reservoir Environmental Pool Project

The cities of Boulder and Lafayette entered into an intergovernmental agreement in 2010 with Denver Water to establish a 5,000 acre-foot environmental pool in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to augment stream flows in South Boulder Creek.30ย Boulder recognized the need to address low flows on South Boulder Creek as a key goal in its planning documents and identified Denver Waterโ€™s planned expansion of Gross Reservoir as an opportunity to use upstream storage to establish a robust instream flow program. Lafayette similarly identified Gross Reservoir for potential water storage in its water rights decrees, providing both a water supply and environmental benefit to its operations. The parties proactively agreed to cooperate to mitigate the reservoir expansionโ€™s impacts to aquatic resources in the South Boulder Creek basin by creating and operating the environmental pool.31

Coordinated with municipal water system operations, releases from the environmental pool will allow Boulder and Lafayette to store their decreed water rights for later release to meet specific target flows below Gross Reservoir in South Boulder Creek throughout the year. The segments identified for the target flows include Gross Reservoir to South Boulder Road (Upper Segment, depicted as segments 1 and 2 in fig. 2) and South Boulder Road to the confluence with Boulder Creek (Lower Segment, depicted as segment 3 in fig. 2).32ย The agreement also includes provisions to address emergencies such as extended drought or an unexpected problem with water storage, conveyance, or treatment infrastructure to allow for flexibility in operations to meet both target flows and municipal needs.

Boulderโ€™s releases from the environmental pool are protected as instream flows according to a Water Delivery Agreement with the CWCB dated September 9, 2019, and a water court decree entered for Boulder, Lafayette, and the CWCB.33ย Water released by Boulder to meet the target flows will be protected for instream flow uses to the extent that such flows do not exceed the amounts that CWCB has determined to be appropriate to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree in South Boulder Creek. Boulderโ€™s target flow releases will support CWCBโ€™s existing appropriated instream flow rights up to the specified amounts (see fig. 2). Boulder may then redivert the water downstream of the protected reaches for its municipal uses.

The environmental pool will provide permanent, dedicated storage for water rights owned by Boulder and Lafayette to be released to enhance stream flows in South Boulder Creek prior to downstream uses for municipal purposes by the parties. These operations provide added flexibility, resiliency, and redundancy to the citiesโ€™ respective water supply systems. In turn, the enhanced stream flows will benefit 17.3 miles of South Boulder Creek, including Eldorado Canyon State Park, South Boulder Creek Natural Area, and City of Boulder open space lands, and will support native fish populations and riparian and wetland habitats.

Figure 2. Map depicting target flows and reaches for enhanced stream flows on South Boulder Creek. Image created by the City of Boulder (Aug. 7, 2018).

Poudre Flows Project

The Poudre Flows Project is the first stream flow augmentation plan developed pursuant to CRS ยง 37-92-102(4.5).34ย It is a partnership amongst the CWCB; municipalities of Fort Collins, Thornton, and Greeley; Colorado Water Trust; Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Cache la Poudre Water Users Association; and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The project will augment stream flows through a 52-mile reach of the Cache la Poudre River, with an overarching goal to improve river health (see fig. 3).35ย The concept was first envisioned as part of the Poudre Runs Through It working group, a collaborative group of diverse partners and stakeholders in the Poudre River.36ย The City of Fort Collins planning priorities incorporate similar goals, including to โ€œ[p]rotect community water systems in an integrated way to ensure resilient water resources and healthy watersheds.โ€37

The project anticipates that the CWCB, through agreements with water right owners, including Fort Collins and Greeley, will use previously changed and quantified water rights owned by these municipalities and potentially others to augment stream flows in six segments of the Poudre River spanning from Canyon Gage to the confluence with the South Platte River.38ย Besides the instream flow protection of the environment to a reasonable degree, project partners have identified numerous additional benefits such as connectivity for fish passage and decreased temperatures and nutrient concentrations, all while avoiding impacts to existing water rights and operations.39

Figure 3. Poudre Flows Project. Source: fcgov.com.

Conclusion

By integrating water supply planning with a holistic approach to water development and management that provides multiple public benefits, municipalities can become strong partners with the CWCB. Together, they can help protect instream flows and balance growing water demands and future uncertainties with the environmental values that make Colorado a beautiful place to live.

NOTES

citation Pault-Atiase, โ€œMunicipal Partnerships for Instream Flow on Coloradoโ€™s Front Range,โ€ 55 Colo. Law. 48 (Jan./Feb. 2026), https://cl.cobar.org/features/municipal-partnerships-for-instream-flow-on-colorados-front-range.

1. See generally Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, 447 (Colo. 1882).

2. Colo. Const. Art. XVI, ยงยง 5โ€“6. See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. CWCB, 594 P.2d 570, 573 (Colo. 1979) (โ€œThe reason and thrust for this provision was to negate any thought that Colorado would follow the riparian doctrine in the acquisition and use of water.โ€).

3. CRS ยงยง 37-92-101 et seq.

4. CRS ยง 148-21-3 (1969) (emphasis added). See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist., 594 P.2d at 574.

5. Id.

6. See Bassi et al., โ€œISF Lawโ€”Stories About the Origin and Evolution of Coloradoโ€™s Instream Flow Law in This Prior Appropriation State,โ€ 22(2) U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 395 (2019), https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/cwcbsearch/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=211090&dbid=0.

7. See Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, https://cwcb.colorado.gov/about-us.

8. Bassi, supra note 6 at 396โ€“97.

9. SB 97, 49th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 1973). See CRS ยง 37-92-102(3).

10. Bassi, supra note 6 at 398. See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist., 594 P.2d at 576. SB 97 was carefully drafted to provide environmental protection through the CWCB, as a fiduciary to the public, without inviting riparian rights for adjacent landowners. Id. The Colorado Supreme Court reiterated this important distinction in St. Jude Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, LLC, 351 P. 3d 442 (Colo. 2015), ruling that a diversion from a steam for private instream flows is a โ€œforbidden rightโ€ contrary to the prior appropriation doctrine; only the CWCB, with strict limitations identified by the general assembly, can hold an instream flow right for the benefit of the public. Id. at 451.

11. CRS ยง 37-92-102(3) (The CWCB is โ€œvested with exclusive authority, on behalf of the people of the state of Colorado, to appropriate . . . such waters of natural streams . . . as the board determines may be required for minimum streamflows . . . to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.โ€ The board also may acquire water rights โ€œin such amount as the board determines is appropriate for streamflows . . . to preserve or improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.โ€). Legislation enacted in 2002 expanded the Colorado instream flow program to provide that water rights may also be used by the CWCB to improve the natural environment (and not just for preservation purposes). Bassi, supra note 6 at 391.

12. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, โ€œInstream Flow Program,โ€ https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/ecosystem-health/instream-flow-program.

13. See Bassi, supra note 6 at 405โ€“06, 417โ€“18.

14. Id. at 406. The Colorado Water Trust was formed in 2001 to support Coloradoโ€™s instream flow program by promoting voluntary, market-based efforts to restore stream flows in Coloradoโ€™s rivers. The Water Trust has been instrumental in facilitating and streamlining the acquisition of water rights from willing partners for use by the CWCB. See https://coloradowatertrust.org.

15. CRS ยง 37-92-102(3).

16. See generally CRS ยงยง 37-83-105, 37-92-102(8), 37-92-102(4.5).

17. The Colorado Water Plan was adopted by the CWCB in 2023 as a framework for decision-making to address water challenges and build resiliency in the state. The 2023 Water Plan is an update to the first iteration of the plan released in 2015. See https://cwcb.colorado.gov/colorado-water-plan.

18. See St. Jude Co., 351 P. 3d at 449 (in its use of water for instream flows, the CWCB has a โ€œโ€˜statutory fiduciary dutyโ€™ to the people . . . to both protect the environment and appropriate only the minimum amount of water necessary to do so . . . .โ€).

19. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Water Plan (2023), https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/CWCB/0/edoc/219188/Colorado_WaterPlan_2023_Digital.pdf.

20. See id. at 217โ€“19, 231, 233 (โ€œAll areas of the Water Plan are interconnected, and projects need to consider multi-purpose, multi-benefit solutions.โ€).

21. See id. at 217 (โ€œMulti-purpose projects better address water supply challenges across municipal, agricultural, environmental, and recreation sectors as they occur.โ€).

22. See id. at 181, 204โ€“07 (stream health and related environmental benefits can enhance municipal supply or improve the quality of life in urban areas).

23. See Decree, In re Application for Water Rts. of the Colo. Water Conservation Bd. on Behalf of the State of Colo. and Water Rts. of the City of Boulder, No. 90CW193 (Colo. Water Div. 1, Dec. 20, 1993).

24. Id. See Bassi, supra note 6 at 405โ€“07.

25. Decree, supra note 23.

26. See id.

27. Bassi, supra note 6 at 408โ€“09.

28. City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan: Vol. 2โ€”Detailed Plan 2-1, 2-3, 3-77, 5-20 (Apr. 2009) (discussing previous planning efforts and priorities regarding instream flows), https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/7670/download?inline.

29. Id. at 3.71, 5-21 to 5-33, 7-3. See also Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: 2020 Mid-Term Update 31, 62 (adopted 2021), https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/3350/download?inline.

30. See Decree, In re Application for Water Rts. of City of Lafayette, City of Boulder, and Colo. Water Conservation Bd. in Boulder Cnty., No. 17CW3212 (Colo. Water Div. 1, Feb. 11, 2021). The author represented the City of Boulder in Case No. 17CW3212 and was involved in prosecuting the case and negotiating the underlying agreement with CWCB.

31. Denver Waterโ€™s enlargement of Gross Reservoir is the subject of pending litigation.

32. The target flows and target reaches are based on previously collected data and analysis by Colorado Parks and Wildlife using the R2Cross method, which supported CWCBโ€™s previous instream flow appropriations.

33. See id. CRS ยงยง 37-92-102(3), 37-87-102(4).

34. The cities of Fort Collins and Greeley were instrumental in getting HB 20-1037 passed to authorize the CWBC to use water rights previously decreed for augmentation uses for instream flows. Castle, โ€œTo Boost Poudre River Flows, Cities, Conservationists Craft New Plan From Old Playbook,โ€ Water Education Colorado (Jul. 3, 2019), https://watereducationcolorado.org/fresh-water-news/to-boost-poudre-river-flows-cities-conservationists-craft-new-plan-from-old-playbook. See also HB 1037, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2020), https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb20-1037.

35. See Boissevain, โ€œPoudre Flows: Collaboration to Protect the Cache la Poudre River,โ€ Colorado Water Trust (Oct. 29, 2024), https://coloradowatertrust.org/collaboration-to-protect-the-cache-la-poudre-river.

36. City of Fort Collins, โ€œPoudre Flows,โ€ https://www.fcgov.com/poudreflows.

37. Id.

38. See Application, In re Application for Water Rts. of Cache La Poudre Water Users Assโ€™n, City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley, Colo. Water Tr., N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., City of Thornton and Colo. Water Conservation Bd. in Larimer and Weld Cntys., No. 21CW3056 (Colo. Water Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2021).

39. See โ€œPoudre Flows,โ€ supra note 36.

Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

This yearโ€™s snow season off to record-low start: But hey, if Bo Nix and the Broncos can come from behind, so can Mother Nature — Jay Adams (DenverWater.org)

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Jay Adams):

December 31, 2025

Colorado is off to a record-low start to the snow season.

But with snowpack, like in football, whatโ€™s important is not how you start. Itโ€™s how you finish.

Just ask Bo Nix and the Denver Broncos.

This season, the Broncos made history with 12 comeback victories โ€” a new National Football League record.

Elder pointed to the teamโ€™s big win against the New York Giants on Oct. 19, 2025.

โ€œI think most of us thought the Broncos were done in that game after going scoreless for three quarters, but then they had an amazing turnaround in the fourth quarter and came back to win at the last second,โ€ said Nathan Elder, Denver Waterโ€™s manager of water supply.

โ€œLetโ€™s hope Mother Nature can do the same as Bo Nix and deliver a big comeback this winter.โ€

Snowmaking at Keystone Ski Resort on Dec. 31, 2025. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Record low start to the snowpack

Elder said the first three months of the 2025-26 snow season, from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2025, ranked as the driest on record in Denver Waterโ€™s water collection area.

The records date back to the winter of 1979-80, when SNOTEL measuring gauges started being used to measure mountain snowpack.

Denver Waterโ€™s previous year-ending, record-low snowpack on Dec. 31 occurred during the winter of 1980-81.

This year, as of Dec. 31, 2025, the snowpack in the South Platte and Colorado river basins where Denver Water collects water stood at 51% and 49% of normal, respectively, according to SNOTEL measurements.

Snowpack in the South Platte River Basin at the end of December 2025 stood at 51% of normal. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Snowpack in the Colorado River Basin at the end of December 2025 stood at 49% of normal. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The lack of powder days is not only tough on Coloradoโ€™s ski resorts, but low snowpack also raises concerns about river levels and our water supply which comes primarily from mountain snow.

A skier navigates through early season conditions at Breckenridge on Dec. 23, 2025. Photo credit: Denver Water.

โ€œWe definitely prefer a snowier start to winter over a dry one,โ€ Elder said.

โ€œBut we still have about four months left in the snow accumulation season. We will need a lot of snow to catch up to get back to normal.โ€

The first three months of the snow season typically account for about 20% of the annual snowpack. The good news is that the snowiest months of March and April are still ahead.

Loveland Pass in Summit County on Dec. 24, 2025. The lack of snow is clearly visible on the higher peaks. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Elder said that along with the low snowfall, strong winds and above-normal temperatures created windy and warm weather, which led to increased sublimation of the snowpack (think of sublimation like evaporation just for snow).

โ€œIn mid-December, we actually saw a noticeable drop in the snowpack in the South Platte River Basin, which is very rare for that time of year because itโ€™s usually too cold for snow to melt,โ€ Elder said.

What to expect in 2026?

While unfortunately thereโ€™s no crystal ball for snow forecasting, Elder pointed to other years that experienced similarly slow starts to the snowpack for a guess as to where this season could end up.

For Denver Water, snowpack typically peaks in mid-to-late April.

The lowest peak occurred during the winter of 2001-02, when snowpack peaked at just 56% of normal. The second-lowest peak was measured during the winter of 2011-12, when mountain snowpack peaked at 58% of normal.

Both of those seasons started slow and snowfall stayed below normal levels all winter long.

In contrast to those two dismal winters, Elder said the winter of 1999-2000 offers a glimmer of hope.

โ€œThat season started slow, but snow came on strong in April and May and we ended up right around normal in terms of peak snowpack by the end of the season,โ€ he said.

Water managers also watch for a couple of big storms that could quickly bolster a lackluster snowpack.

Taking action

Denver Waterโ€™s reservoirs are currently at 83% of capacity, which is 4% below average for this time of year.

Dillon Reservoir in Summit County had open water on Dec. 24, 2025, due to warm conditions. The reservoirโ€™s average โ€œice-inโ€ date is Dec. 24. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Elder said that while the reservoir levels are expected to be in relatively good shape heading into summer, itโ€™s too early to say if there will be any watering restrictions.

โ€œWe live in a dry climate with increasingly variable weather patterns, which means all of us need to pitch in to help conserve the precious water supplies that we have,โ€ Elder said.

โ€œNow is a good time to check your faucets and toilets for leaks, and fix any you find inside your home. Itโ€™s also a good time to start planning how to remodel your yard this summer to save water outside.โ€

Denver Waterโ€™s website has free tips, including a step-by-step DIY Guide that can help you replace thirsty Kentucky bluegrass with water-smart plants, available at denverwater.org/Conserve.

In 2026, the utility will again be offering customers a limited number of discounts on Resource Centralโ€™s popular, water-wise Garden In A Box kits and turf removal.

Itโ€™s also important to water your plants and trees during dry winter stretches in the metro area.

Itโ€™s important to water trees and plants during dry periods in the winter months. Soaker hoses are a great way to efficiently water a tree. Photo credit: Denver Water.

#Conservation studies findings on #Coloradoโ€™s Western Slope have lessons for water managers: Western Slope water users want Front Range to match cuts — Heather Sackett (AspenJournalism.org) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Colorado State University researcher Perry Cabot talks to a group about forage crops at the Fruita field station. Cabot studies the effects of irrigation withdrawal and forage crops that use less water. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

December 12, 2025

The findings of recent water-conservation studies on the Western Slope could have implications for lawmakers and water managers as they plan for a future with less water.

Researchers from Colorado State University have found that removing irrigation water from high-elevation grass pastures for an entire season could have long-lasting effects and may not conserve much water compared with lower-elevation crops. Western Slope water users prefer conservation programs that donโ€™t require them to withhold water for the entire irrigation season, and having the Front Range simultaneously reduce its water use may persuade more people to participate. Researchers also found that water users who are resistant to conservation programs donโ€™t feel much individual responsibility to contribute to what is a Colorado River basinwide water shortage. 

โ€œItโ€™s not a simple economic calculus to get somebody to the table and get them to sign a contract for a conservation agreement,โ€ said Seth Mason, a Carbondale-based hydrologist and one of the researchers. โ€œIt involves a lot of nuance. It involves a lot of thinking about tradeoffs.โ€ 

Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall

Over the past 25 years, a historic drought and the effects of climate change have robbed the Colorado River of its flows, meaning there is increasing competition for a dwindling resource. In 2022, water levels in Lake Powell fell to their lowest point ever, prompting federal officials to call on the seven states that share the river for unprecedented levels of water conservation. 

The Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) have experimented for the past decade with pilot programs that pay agricultural water users to voluntarily and temporarily cut back by not irrigating some of their fields for a season or part of a season.

The most recent program was the federally funded System Conservation Pilot Program, which ran in the Upper Basin in 2023 and 2024, and saved about 100,000 acre-feet of water at a cost of $45 million. The Upper Basin has been facing mounting pressure to cut back on its use, and although some type of future conservation program seems certain, Upper Basin officials say conservation must be voluntary, not mandatory.

Despite dabbling in these pilot conservation programs, Upper Basin water managers have resisted calls for cuts, saying their water users already suffer shortages in dry years and blaming the plummeting reservoirs on the Lower Basin states (California, Nevada and Arizona). Plus, the Upper Basin has never used its entire allocation of 7.5 million acre-feet a year promised to it under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, while the Lower Basin uses more than its fair share. 

Sketches by Floyd Dominy show the way he’d end the Glen Canyon Dam. From the article “Floyd Dominy built the Glen Canyon Dam, then he sketched its end on a napkin” on the Salt Lake Tribune website

But as climate change continues to fuel shortages, makes a mockery of century-old agreements and pushes Colorado River management into crisis mode, the Upper Basin can no longer avoid scrutiny about how it uses water. 

โ€œWe need a stable system in order to protect rivers,โ€ said Matt Rice, director of the Southwest region at environmental group American Rivers, which helped fund and conduct the research. โ€œ(Upper Basin conservation) is not a silver bullet. But itโ€™s an important contributing factor, itโ€™s politically important and itโ€™s inevitable.โ€

Researchers from Colorado State University used this monitoring station to track water use on fields near Kremmling. Researchers have found that Western Slope water users are more likely to participate in conservation programs if there is a corresponding Front Range match in water use reduction. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Findings

Papers by the researchers outline how water savings on Coloradoโ€™s high-elevation grass pastures โ€” which represent the majority of irrigated acres on the Western Slope โ€” are much less than on lower-elevation fields with other annual crops. Elevation can be thought of as a proxy for temperature; fewer frost-free days means a shorter growing season and less water use by the plants. 

โ€œOur results suggest that to get the equivalent conserved consumptive-use benefit that you might achieve on one acre of cornfield in Delta would require five acres of grass pasture if you were up near Granby, for example,โ€ said Mason, who is a doctoral candidate at CSU. โ€œThis is a pretty important constraint as weโ€™re thinking about what it means to do conservation in different locations across the West Slope.โ€

In addition to the science of water savings, Masonโ€™s research also looked at the social aspects of how water users decide to participate in conservation programs. He surveyed 573 agricultural water users across the Western Slope and found that attitudes toward conservation and tendencies toward risk aversion โ€” not just how much money was offered โ€” played a role in participation. 

Many who said they would not participate had a low sense of individual responsibility to act and a limited sense of agency that they could meaningfully contribute to a basinwide problem.

If you donโ€™t pay attention to the attitudes of water users, you could end up with an overly rosy picture of the likelihood of participation, Mason said.

โ€œIt may do well to think less about how you optimize conservation contracts on price and do more thinking about how you might structure public outreach campaigns to change hearts and minds, how you might shift language as a policymaker,โ€ he said. โ€œA lot of the commentary that we hear around us is that maybe this isnโ€™t our problem, that this is the Lower Basinโ€™s problem. [ed. emphasis mine] The more you hear that, the less likely you are to internalize a notion of responsibility.โ€

Mason also found that a corresponding reduction in Front Range water use may boost participation by Western Slope water users. The fact that Front Range water providers take about 500,000 acre-feet annually from the headwaters of the Colorado River is a sore spot for many on the Western Slope, who feel the growth of Front Range cities has come at their expense. These transmountain diversions can leave Western Slope streams depleted. 

Western Slope water users often describe feeling as if they have a target on their back as the quickest and easiest place to find water savings.

โ€œI think they tend to be appreciative of notions that have some element of burden sharing built into them,โ€ Mason said. โ€œSo they arenโ€™t the only ones being looked at to contribute as part of a solution to a problem.โ€

Perry Cabot, a CSU researcher who studies the effects of irrigation withdrawal and forage crops that use less water, headed up a study on fields near Kremmling to see what happens when they arenโ€™t irrigated for a full season or part of a season. The findings showed that fields where irrigation water was removed for the entire season produced less hay, even several years after full irrigation was resumed. Fields where water was removed for only part of the season had minimal yield loss and faster recovery. 

โ€œIn the full season, you can have a three-year legacy effect, so thatโ€™s where the risk really comes in if youโ€™re a producer participating in these programs,โ€ Cabot said. โ€œFor three years after, youโ€™re not getting paid even though youโ€™ve diminished that yield.โ€

At the CSU research station in Fruita, Cabot is studying a legume called sainfoin, a forage crop and potentially an alternative to grass or alfalfa. He said sainfoin shows promise as a drought-tolerant crop that can be cut early in the season, allowing producers to have their cake and eat it too: They could maintain the income from growing a crop, avoid some of the worst impacts of a full-season fallowing, and still participate in a partial-season conservation program. 

โ€œIโ€™d like to see flexible options that allow us to think about conservation happening on fields that still have green stuff out there,โ€ Cabot said.

This field near Kremmling participated in an early study on the effects of removing irrigation water. Researchers found the effects of full-season fallowing can have lasting impacts. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Part of the solution

The Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District has been one of the loudest voices weighing in on conservation in recent years, helping to fund Cabotโ€™s and Masonโ€™s studies, as well as conducting its own. The River District, which represents 15 counties on the Western Slope, is not a fan of conservation programs, but it has long accepted their inevitability. It has advocated for local control and strict guidelines around a programโ€™s implementation to avoid negative impacts to rural agricultural communities. 

River District General Manager Andy Mueller said there is still a lot of resistance to a conservation program in Colorado โ€” especially if the saved water is being used downstream to fuel the growth of residential subdivisions, computer-chip factories and data centers in Arizona. In addition to wanting the Front Range to share their pain, Western Slope water users donโ€™t want to make sacrifices for the benefit of the Lower Basin. [ed. emphasis mine]

โ€œThey want to be part of the solution, but they donโ€™t want to suffer so that others can thrive,โ€ Mueller said. โ€œThatโ€™s what I keep hearing over and over again from our producers on the ground: They are willing to step up, but they want everybody to step up with them.โ€

Water experts agree Upper Basin conservation is not a quick solution that will keep the system from crashing. Complicated questions remain about how to make sure the conserved water gets to Lake Powell and how a program would be funded. 

And as recent studies show, the tricky social issues that influence program participation, multiseason impacts to fields when water is removed and the scant water savings from high-elevation pastures mean the state may struggle to contribute a meaningful amount of water to the Colorado River system through a conservation program. 

โ€œIf the dry conditions continue, itโ€™s hard to produce the volumes of water that make a difference in that system,โ€ Mueller said. โ€œBut are we willing to try? Absolutely. It has to be done really carefully.โ€

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

Can beavers help heal burn scars after wildfires? #Colorado researchers built their own dams to find out — The #Denver Post

A beaver dam analog in Rocky Mountain National Park’s Kawuneeche Valley. Photo by Eric Brown, courtesy of Northern Water

Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:

December 30, 2025

High in the mountains west of Fort Collins, teams of scientists and engineers are pretending to be beavers.

They may not be swimming or chewing trees, but researchers with the U.S. Forest Service and Colorado State University are building [beaver dam analogs] in burn scars to study how wetlands created by the dams impact ecosystem restoration and water quality after wildfires. The research led by Tim Fegel is some of the first of its kind, he said. Scientists have studied how meadow and wetland restoration affects wildlife habitat, but thereโ€™s been little exploration of how wetlands created by beaver dams could change water quality post-wildfire, said Fegel, a biogeochemistry lab manager with the Forest Service who is leading the project.

โ€œItโ€™s kind of a brave new world for us with this type of work,โ€ said Fegel, who is also a doctoral candidate at Colorado State University.

Wildfires destabilize soils and make them less capable of absorbing rain and snowmelt, resulting in higher runoffs and increased flood probability. High volumes of water, combined with a lack of vegetation roots to hold soil in place, mean that more sediment and debris travel downstream, impacting water quality and water treatment systems.

A burnt sign on Larimer County Road 103 near Chambers Lake. The fire started in the area near Cameron Peak, which it is named after. The fire burned over 200,000 acres during its three-month run. Photo courtesy of Kate Stahla via the University of Northern Colorado

Five years ago,ย the Cameron Peak and East Troublesomeย wildfires ripped through Coloradoโ€™s northern mountains, charring more than 620 square miles across watersheds that provide water for hundreds of thousands of people who live along the Front Range. Thatโ€™s where Fegel and other researchers think the [beaver dam analogs] can help. Fegel hopes the work will provide land managers and water utilities with more data and, potentially, another water-quality tool. The team installed beaver-style dams across the Cache la Poudre and Willow Creek watersheds โ€” both burned in the 2020 wildfires โ€” to help slow water flow and instead spread the water over a floodplain. Engineers designed the dams, which are generally made of large logs hammered into the earth with branches and other material.

Ash and silt pollute the Cache la Poudre River after the High Park Fire September 2012. Photo credit: USDA

Gross Damโ€™s successful year: Dam raise 95% complete — Jay Adams (DenverWater.org) #BoulderCreek #FraserRiver #ColoradoRiver #COriver #SouthPlatteRiver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Jay Adams):

December 12, 2025

Workers raise dam 109 feet in 2025. Next yearโ€™s goal: Reaching the top.

The Denver Water team working on Gross Dam in Boulder County is celebrating a successful year after the dam raise is 95% complete.

โ€œIn 2025, we raised the height of the dam by 109 feet above the original structure,โ€ said Jeff Martin, Denver Waterโ€™s program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. โ€œWe have 22 feet left to go to reach the new height and weโ€™re on track to reach that in 2026.โ€

The dam-raising aspect of the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project wrapped up for the season on Nov. 14, due to the drop in temperatures. The project is designed to nearly triple the water storage capacity of Gross Reservoir.

In 2025, workers raised the height of Gross Dam by 109 feet. The final 22 feet will be completed in 2026 to reach the damโ€™s new height of 471 feet. Photo credit: Denver Water.

“We have to stop placing roller-compacted concrete when the temperatures drop below freezing,โ€ said Casey Dick, deputy program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.

โ€œTo prepare for winter, we put blankets on top of the new concrete to keep it from getting too cold. Thatโ€™s because if the concrete freezes while it is still curing, it can lead to a weakened final product.”

Work associated with the dam raise will resume in spring 2026, when the weather warms up enough to complete the final 22 feet.

Protective โ€œblanketsโ€ were placed on top of the dam to insulate the new concrete, so it does not fully cure over the cold, winter months. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Once that work is complete, the dam will be 471 feet tall, which is 131 feet higher than the original. The completed dam also will be longer across its crest, or top. The original crest was 1,050 feet long; the higher dam will have a crest that stretches 2,040 feet from one side of the canyon to the other.


Learn more about theย Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.


This year marked the second year of dam raising construction work at Gross.

As of December 2025, workers had placed more than 730,000 cubic yards of concrete. To put that in perspective, Empower Stadium at Mile High, where the Denver Broncos play their home football games, required just 29,000 cubic yards of concrete to build, about 4% of the concrete placed so far on Gross Dam.

Protective โ€œblanketsโ€ were placed on top of the dam to insulate the new concrete, so it does not fully cure over the cold, winter months. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Roller-compacted concrete is a special mix of concrete that allows crews to place it on the dam and then spread it out. The concrete is firm enough to be able to drive machinery on top of it. The process is a fast and efficient method of raising the dam. During the construction work, crews raised the height of the dam by about 1 foot per day.

Construction crews use GPS technology and survey equipment to keep track of how high theyโ€™ve raised the dam.

โ€œThe way we keep track of the elevation gain is that the bulldozers are equipped with GPS-grade control technology, which ensures that each layer of concrete is spread to the correct thickness,โ€ Dick said.

โ€œOnce the concrete is rolled and vibrated into place, each layer ends up being 1 foot thick. It’s then checked by surveyors with their equipment to verify the exact elevation.โ€

The bulldozers are equipped with GPS-grade control technology to monitor the height of the concrete as it is spread across the top of the dam and keep track of the elevation. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Work wonโ€™t completely stop over the winter.

Mechanical and pipe work will be done inside the dam, and crews will build a stilling basin at the base of the dam. The basinโ€™s function is to slow the speed of water coming down the damโ€™s spillway and safely redirect the water into South Boulder Creek.

Work on the stilling basin at the base of the dam will continue over the winter. The stilling basin is designed to slow the flow of water coming down the spillway and channel it into the creek. Photo credit: Denver Water.

โ€œThis season was a huge success, and our team met a ton of challenges in raising Gross Dam,โ€ Martin said. โ€œWe had legal challenges and adverse weather challenges. We also had wildfire safety operation challenges that shut down our power supply up here. Despite all those setbacks, the dedicated team of 500 men and women rose to the challenge. I’d just like to thank everybody who committed themselves to this project and helped us make 2025 a success.โ€

Jeff Martin, Denver Waterโ€™s program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, stands at the south side of the dam. Once completed, the dam will reach up to white line on the rock wall. Photo credit: Denver Water.

A private water company is leading a $150 million rush for Northern Colorado #groundwater — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News) #SouthPlatteRiver

Via the VitaH20 Project website.

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

December 23, 2025

A private development company is investing $150 million in an ambitious plan to harvest groundwater lying beneath sprawling northern Colorado ranches to serve fast-growing towns along the Interstate 25 corridor.

FrontRange H2O, backed by a Texas oil and real estate company, is behind the venture. The firm has been operating in Colorado for more than 20 years, treating and delivering wastewater from oil wells for oil industry reuse on the West Slope, and overseeing extensive real estate holdings in Denver and elsewhere, according to Brent Waller, who is president of the Loveland-based company.

โ€œWe were recycling produced water before it was cool,โ€ Waller said. Produced water describes wastewater that is generated through oil production.

Experts say the large-scale, private urban water development  is the first of its kind in Colorado and could help  thirsty towns like Fort Collins and Loveland shore up their water systems.

But others worry that the privatization of water in the state could lead to price hikes and might also, because of its reliance on nonrenewable groundwater, undermine the stateโ€™s future water security.

Still, Front Range H20 believes its system will deliver water at less cost and sooner than other government-backed projects.

Until now, Colorado communities have relied on water that is captured, stored and treated by public, nonprofit water utilities, such as Denver Water. The agency is an independent entity governed by commissioners who are appointed by the Denver mayor. In other cases, cities operate their own water systems. Public entities such as these are required by law to regulate water rates, to issue bonds to finance their work, and they are subject to oversight by elected or appointed bodies.

But FrontRange H2O is a private company that is using millions of dollars in private financing to secure the water rights, obtain state permission to drill the groundwater wells, and to build a water treatment system and pipeline to carry the water. Although it must obtain state permission to drill the wells and build the water treatment plant, it is not subject to the same public oversight as a public government system would be.

โ€œThis kind of thing is common in Texas and Arizona, particularly with groundwater, but it is unique in Colorado,โ€ said Adam Jokerst, Rocky Mountain regional director for WestWater Research, based in Fort Collins. Jokerst is a groundwater expert who has consulted with Front Range H2O on its northern Colorado plans.

FrontRange H2O refers to its current project as VitaH2O. Nine wells drilled into the aquifer are expected to generate up to 5,000 acre-feet of water initially, Waller said. An acre foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons of water and is eough to serve to two to four urban households for one year. The waterย  will be treated at a new plant north of Nunn and then delivered down to Cobb Lake, a reservoir owned by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, or FCLWD.

The district was in the news earlier this year when it opted out of a large-scale water and reservoir project run by Northern Water known as NISP, the Northern Integrated Supply Project. It will instead partner with VitaH2O.

Typical water well

As the project moves forward, Waller said FCLWD will contribute an additional $150 million to help complete the new water supply project. Chris Pletcher, general manager of FCLWD, declined an interview request. The water district was NISPโ€™s largest customer and was on track to pay $400 million to help build the giant system.

Colorado derives most of its water supplies from melting snows that fill its streams and rivers, but large swaths of the state, including Douglas County, rely heavily on wells drilled deep into aquifers, many of which are not recharged through rain and snow.

As the state grows, the pressure to tap these nonrenewable waters is growing as well.

According to the Colorado Division of Water Resources, interest in drilling high producing groundwater wells in northern Colorado is growing.

โ€œThere has been more activity in this area in the last 10 years,โ€ said Tracy Kosloff, deputy state engineer at Coloradoโ€™s Division of Water Resources.

Major players in the area include Front Range H2O and the city of Greeley, among others.

The interest in nonrenewable groundwater worries people like Steve Boand, a former Douglas County commissioner and water consultant who has watched his regionโ€™s nonrenewable groundwater supplies shrink as they are used by fast-growing towns like Parker and Castle Rock.

Any project that relies on nonrenewable groundwater is problematic, Boand said.

โ€œIn general, sustainable water supplies are the preferred source,โ€ Boand said, noting that Douglas County water providers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to recycle water and tap rivers and streams to wean themselves off nonrenewable groundwater. Their hope is, eventually, to use their aquifers only in drought years when surface supplies are scarce.

And that is part of the plan with VitaH2O, Waller said. The project will use surface supplies that the Fort Collins-Loveland district already owns to recharge the aquifers they plan to withdraw water from, in hopes that the treated water being pumped back into the ground in wet years will extend the life of the nonrenewable aquifers.

Under Colorado water law, groundwater can be drilled by whomever owns the land above the aquifer, but they must demonstrate that they are extracting water gradually and must prove it will last at least 100 years.

Waller said he believes the surface supplies that VitaH2O will inject back into the aquifers in wet years will extend the life of the system beyond 100 years, to 300 years or more.

The location of the wellfield as seen in a PDF provided by the Vita H20 Project.

East of Wallerโ€™s development, the city of Greeley has already invested $85 million in developing an aquifer system under the Terry Ranch that will supply water in drought years and will also store treated water, according to Sean Chambers, Greeleyโ€™s director of water and sewer utilities.

โ€œWhat you are seeing now is a new approach to diversifying surface water supplies with this deep aquifer, nonrenewable groundwater โ€ฆ and there is a rush on that,โ€ Chambers said.

Looming in the background is Northern Waterโ€™s NISP project. It was originally designed to serve 15 entities, but three have already pulled out, including the largest, the Fort Collins-Loveland district. Waller said he is in talks with several other communities, including Wellington and Eaton, who are looking for an alternative to the costly $2.7 billion NISP, which will rely on renewable water supplies from the Poudre and South Platte rivers.

Brad Wind, general manager of Northern Water, said NISPโ€™s growing cost is prompting long-time supporters to rethink their participation and that some will inevitably go with other providers, such as VitaH2O.

โ€œPeople have some hard choices to make,โ€ Wind said.

How much water is available to be mined from these aquifers isnโ€™t clear yet, though developers such as Waller and Greeley have invested heavily in doing the hydrological analysis that gives them an estimate of what is available.

But overuse is a major concern and Chambers says that is a key issue the city is addressing as it develops its system.

โ€œCollectively we will have to find ways over time to make sure that northern Colorado and other communities that rely on this water donโ€™t just mine it to extinction โ€ฆ Greeley goes into this effort with our eyes very wide open about that,โ€ Chambers said.

โ€œThis is a resource that should last for 10 generations or longer and provide a runway for public officials to figure out how to build resilience into all of our sources of supply,โ€ he said.

Boand isnโ€™t convinced that the recharge technologies and state rules designed to make the water last longer are going to be enough to protect the aquifers.

โ€œRecharge has been somewhat successful but everybody has talked about it as if it is the great salvation, even though it is very much in the testing phase,โ€ Boand said. โ€œAnd it takes the same attention to detail that running a nuclear power plant takes โ€ฆ lots of engineers and lots of scientists.โ€

Another concern with having a private company develop a major public water supply is the stability of the company and the water system if the company should fail.

Waller says his companyโ€™s contracts provide protection for that possibility.

โ€œIf we go belly up, five years or 10 years down the road, the water districts and participants have the right to step in and take over the system. There are controls in place,โ€ Waller said. They expect to deliver water in the first quarter of 2029.

As with most new water projects, developers go through a special court review where they must prove their water estimates are accurate and that their water use wonโ€™t harm others. Waller said his companyโ€™s water court application was filed in October.

And it is being closely watched.

Chambers, with the city of Greeley, is concerned that the VitaH2O project may impact the Terry Ranch project, which lies nearby. He said he expects to fight to defend Greeleyโ€™s rights and will object to anything he sees as threatening.

โ€œWe intend to be an objector in the water court process to protect our decree and our investments,โ€ he said.

Via the VitaH20 Project website.

North Weld County Water District Rate Increase 2026 Among Lowest in Northern #Colorado

North Weld County Water District Service Area. Graphic via NWCWD.

Here’s the release from the North Weld county Water District:

December 10, 2025

North Weld County Water District implements modest 4% rate increase for 2026 โ€“ still among lowest in region 

WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (Dec. 10, 2026) โ€“North Weld County Water District (NWCWD) announced a comparatively modest 4 percent rate increase for 2026 โ€“ which is less than the previous year and significantly lower than the surrounding region.  

โ€œMaintaining our water service infrastructure continues to be a priority for the district and one that we balance with our fiduciary responsibility to our rate payers,โ€ said Eric Reckentine, General Manager, North Weld County Water District.

A diligent infrastructure improvement plan is highlighted in these key District projects designed to ensure a clean, robust, and affordable water supply:

  • Weld County West Transmission Line:ย The District will start construction of the Weld County west 42-inch transmission line and new 6 million gallon treated water tank in 2026 with a project cost of $20 million dollars.
  • Eastern Zone Distribution Line:ย The District will continue construction of the eastern zone 30-inch distribution line with the projectโ€™s third phase starting in 2026 and to be completed in 2027.
  • Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Plant Expansion:ย The SCWTP treatment plant capacity was expanded from 60 million gallons per day to 68 million gallons in 2025. In collaboration with the Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority and nearby District partners (such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water District), NWCWD is finalizing the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant Master Plan, and will begin design on a plant expansion for additional treatment capacity for the District to begin in 2029.

With these improvements, the district says it can meet growth needs well into the future.

โ€œUpgrades to our aging water delivery system allow the District to meet new treatment standards and accommodate the record-breaking growth in Northern Colorado,โ€ Reckentine said. โ€œA stable revenue stream from water rates enables us to accomplish that.โ€

About North Weld County Water District:

Weld County is the fastest growing in the state.  North Weld County Water Districtโ€™s cities, residents, and businesses rely on the safe, reliable, and affordable water we have been delivering for over 64 years. The District constantly plans for growing communities, which now span from agricultural to rural to urban, ensuring that all future water needs are met and we can continue to deliver the highest quality water in the growing region for decades to come. To learn more, visit NWCWD.org.

The South Platte River originates in South Park and then wanders northeast, entering Nebraska just a few miles west of Coloradoโ€™s northeast corner. The red line here distinguishes the upper South Platte Basin in Colorado from the lower basin. Image: U.S. Geologic Survey.

Northern Water again delays filling Chimney Hollow Dam over uranium issues — Michael Booth (Fresh Water News)

Chimney Hollow Dam construction site. Photo credit: Northern Water

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Michael Booth):

November 13, 2025

Northern Water will further delay an initial partial filling of its new Chimney Hollow Reservoir into next year to allow time for expanded groundwater tests in the area to make sure unexpected uranium leaching inside the planned pool would not migrate to other supplies.

After spending years permitting and constructing the dam west of Loveland, Northern Water was surprised in June that routine water quality tests ahead of the filling go-ahead found natural uranium leaching out of rocks exposed from a quarry used for dam fill. Initial water fill-up was then delayed for testing, to see how long the leaching might last, and how the uranium would be diluted when water diverted under the Continental Divide by the Colorado-Big Thompson system eventually fills Chimney Hollow.

Now Northern Water says it needs more time to test groundwater outside the reservoir to provide background levels of naturally occurring uranium, and determine whether a filled reservoir would โ€œinfluenceโ€ nearby groundwater with uranium-tainted water. A Northern Water spokesperson used โ€œinfluenceโ€ rather than โ€œleakingโ€ to describe what engineers would be watching.

โ€œInfluence or mixing of surface and groundwater can vary greatly, depending on many factors, scenarios and even locations,โ€ spokesperson Amy Parks said. โ€œWithout adequate baseline data, we are not able to assess those future conditions, so this short delay allows us to do that work.โ€

Map from Northern Water via the Fort Collins Coloradan.

Similar-sized Carter Lake Reservoir is just over a ridge that makes up the east edge of Chimney Hollow.

โ€œAt this time, due to the existing bedrock, we do not think that migration of water from Chimney to Carter is likely. However, additional monitoring will help us ensure that can be detected in the future,โ€ Parks said.

Filling of a small portion of the reservoir had been planned for this month, but now is โ€œexpected in early 2026,โ€ according to the agency.

The 12 Northern Water members that bought into the project, including the cities of Broomfield and Loveland, are already paying for construction bonds through their rates. The delay in filling the reservoir is not expected to affect their finances, the utility said.

Members were not scheduled to receive Chimney Hollow water for years. โ€œThis doesnโ€™t affect water deliveries or anything that project participants have been expecting, so itโ€™s a good timeโ€ to widen testing protocols,  Parks said in an interview.

โ€œItโ€™s really just an abundance of caution and making sure weโ€™re putting the health and safety of our public and neighbors into priority, and making sure weโ€™re crossing our tโ€™s and dotting our iโ€™s before we take that step of adding water,โ€ she said.

What mitigation is necessary remains unknown

Northern Water still does not know the scale of mitigation required to keep uranium in Chimney Hollow water at safe levels. The agency earlier this year said it believed uranium leaching would decrease over time as stored water stopped penetrating farther into the naturally occurring seams. Excavators have now capped some unused construction materials that will eventually be underwater with a clay layer that will prevent some leaching.

If uranium levels in the filled pool do not drop far enough, other mitigation measures could include a water treatment plant or system below the reservoir, Parks said. Northern Water does not yet have a cost estimate on how much the testing, delays or treatment will cost, until more testing is complete, she said.

Engineering and testing teams decided โ€œitโ€™s best to delay this for a few months to make sure that we have the groundwater samples from the reservoir, from around the reservoir, before that water goes in there,โ€ Parks said. โ€œWe just want to make sure that any water that goes into the reservoir now doesnโ€™t influence groundwater around it.โ€

Chimney Hollow was built to store 90,000 acre-feet of water for 11 northern Colorado communities and water agencies and the Platte River Power Authority. The project was meant to โ€œfirmโ€ or store water rights Northern Water owns in the Windy Gap project near Granby, which collects and pumps Colorado River water into the Adams Tunnel for Front Range buyers. Windy Gap and Chimney Hollow allow the Front Range communities to take advantage of their water rights in wet years when Lake Granby is too full to contain their portion of the river. Northern Water has also suffered setbacks this year on its other major project, the proposed $2.7 billion twin-reservoir Northern Integrated Supply Project. Some members of NISP, a slightly different list than Chimney Hollow members, are warning they will pull out of the two-dam and pipeline construction plan after decades of permitting because costs have risen too high and delays raise uncertainty.

More by Michael Booth

How is #Coloradoโ€™s response to invasive mussels going? Funding and public education are key, experts say — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News)

Adult Zebra mussel. Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Shannon Mullane):

October 23, 2025

Colorado is in its first year of responding to a zebra mussel infestation in a big river, the Colorado River. State staff say they have what they need to handle the high-priority needs โ€” they just need their funding to stay off the chopping block.

The fast-reproducing mussels, or their microscopic stage called veligers, were first detected in Colorado in 2022. Since then, the stateโ€™s aquatic nuisance species team and its partners have been working to monitor water, decontaminate boats, and educate the public to keep the mussels from spreading. That effort logged a serious failure this summer when state staff detected adult zebra mussels in the Colorado River, where treatment options are limited.

CPW sampling on the Colorado River found zebra mussel veligers. The river is now considered โ€œpositiveโ€ for zebra mussels from its confluence with the Roaring Fork River to the Utah state line. CREDIT: PHOTO COURTESY OF COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE

โ€œWeโ€™re continuing to sample the Colorado from below the Granby Dam all the way out to the [Utah-Colorado] state line,โ€ said Robert Walters, who manages the invasive species program for Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Adult zebra mussels, about the size of a thumbnail with a zebra-striped shell, reproduce quickly and can clog up pipes, valves and parts of dams, costing millions of dollars to remove. They also suck up nutrients, out-eating other native aquatic species, and their razor sharp shells cause headaches for beachgoers.

The stateโ€™s first adult zebra mussel showed up in Highline Reservoir near Grand Junction in 2022. But even after the lake was drained and treated, the mussels appeared again.

Then this year in July, the mussels showed up in a private reservoir in Eagle County near the Colorado River. And in September, specialists found adult zebra mussels in a stretch of the Colorado River itself.

Colorado has been working to keep these invasive species out of its waters since 2007, when a task force was created to coordinate management efforts.

In 2008, Colorado approved a law that makes it illegal to possess, import, export, transport, release or cause an aquatic nuisance species to be released.

Now, the program completes over 450,000 inspections each year, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlifeโ€™s website. The teams have intercepted 281 boats with zebra or quagga mussels attached.

But their treatment options are limited on the Colorado River. CPW does not intend to treat the main stem of the Colorado River due to multiple factors, including risk to native fish populations and critical habitat, the length of the potential treatment area and complex canal systems, the agency said in a mid-September news release.

The goal continues to be educating the public โ€” including lawmakers who are scheduled to hear an update on the zebra mussel issue during the Oct. 29 Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee meeting.

โ€œWhat I think that we really need to help us more effectively tackle this issue is a higher level of public awareness,โ€ Walters said.

The first year of infestations

For invasive species teams, the first year involves a lot of monitoring, according to Heidi McMaster, the invasive species coordinator for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Sheโ€™d know: She has helped Reclamation with its response to invasive species, like quagga mussels.

Quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead, Lake Mojave and Lake Havasu on the Colorado River in January 2007. The mussels were later confirmed in Lake Powell in 2013, according to the Bureau of Reclamation.

Hoover Dam with Lake Mead in the background December 3, 2024.

Colorado River water from Coloradoโ€™s mountains eventually collects in Lake Powell before flowing through the Grand Canyon to downstream states, Lake Mead and Mexico.

โ€œI would think that the first response is probably panic, especially if people are not prepared for it,โ€ McMaster said. โ€œOnce that initial panic wears off, it is tapping into the existing resources, the preparedness plans that state or managers have on how to deal with it.โ€

During the first year, specialists are looking at existing rapid response plans, vulnerability assessments and communication plans. They take samples and track life cycles to try to understand how the mussels reproduce, how environmental conditions impact breeding and what kinds of treatments might work to stop the spread.

In the Southwest and along the Colorado River, the temperature of the water allows invasive species to breed multiple times a year, McMaster said. Each one can produce a million larvae. Not all survive: There are turbulent waters, areas with fewer nutrients, and other threats, like predators. But if they grow to adulthood they can layer on top of each other on underwater surfaces.

If left unchecked, invasive mussels could clog up pipelines that carry cooling water to turbines used to generate hydroelectric power. Without the cooling effect of the water, the turbine would โ€œburn upโ€ and power generation would shut down, McMaster said.

The goal at the end of the first year is mainly to inform the public. That means repeating the โ€œclean, drain, dryโ€ refrain as often as possible to anyone moving watercraft from one body of water to another, she said.

After that, a successful first-year response will also include setting up inspection and decontamination stations. Then, specialists move onto treatment options, McMaster said.

At Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, on the Nevada-Arizona border, managers took an aggressive treatment approach to avoid damage to the dam, she said. They used UV lights to stun and temporarily paralyze the microscopic veligers so they cannot attach inside the dam.

โ€œPrevention is still the No. 1 goal,โ€ McMaster said.

Itโ€™s the cheapest and least risky option, she said. Once an invasive mussel species arrives in an area, however, the costs can ramp up exponentially into the millions of taxpayer dollars. The goal is always to keep them at bay as much as possible, she said.

โ€œThey might be in the state of Colorado,โ€ McMaster said, โ€œbut if you look at the overall percentage of uninfested areas, thatโ€™s still a lot of maintenance thatโ€™s not having to happen.โ€

Pest control on a private lake

On July 3, Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff discovered adult zebra mussels in a privately owned lake in western Eagle County, according to a news release.

CPW also identified additional zebra mussel veligers in the Colorado River near New Castle, Highline Lake and Mack Mesa Lake at Highline Lake State Park, the release said.

There were too many mussels in the Eagle County lake to count, Walters said in late August. Any hard structure in the lake and any underwater rocks were relatively covered in adult mussels, he said.

An invasive species specialist said in July that they believed the lake was an upstream source of the mussels in the Colorado River, and that an outlet from the lake was bringing zebra-mussel-infested water into the Colorado River, according to news reports.

Walters said that has not been confirmed.

โ€œWe are just continuing to try to monitor,โ€ Walters said during an interview Aug. 29. โ€œWhat I can say is that, to the best of our knowledge, there currently is no connection from this privately owned body of water into any of the river systems of the state.โ€

The stateโ€™s team spent about eight hours on Aug. 25 treating the lake with a copper-based molluscicide, a substance used to kill mollusks, he said.

Staff also sampled the private lakeโ€™s water Aug. 27 to make sure the treatmentโ€™s concentration was at the right level and planned to continue monitoring and treating the water throughout September, Walters said.

No boats or other watercraft were entering or exiting the lake, he said.

โ€œItโ€™ll be a long time before we know if it was truly effective at eradicating the zebra mussels,โ€ he said.

Zebra mussels. Photo credit: Colorado Parks & Wildlife

The state focuses its monitoring efforts on public waters, mainly those with high recreational use. Motorboats and other types of boats are the main way the mussels spread, he said.

However, that doesnโ€™t mean the teams donโ€™t survey private ponds and lakes, Walters said.

After the state discovered zebra mussel veligers in the Colorado River and Grand Junction area, they started asking landowners if they could survey private lakes, ponds, gravel pits and more near the river. They often survey privately owned recreational areas, like water skiing clubs, he said.

โ€œWe have been trying to work with those private landowners to allow us access to come out and sample them for invasive species,โ€ Walters said.

We need to keep our existing funding

But with thousands of private and public water bodies in the state, CPW alone is never going to be able to monitor all of them as frequently as the high-risk water bodies, he said.

The staff normally work in teams of two to inspect reservoirs and lakes. They pull fine mesh nets through the water to try to find microscopic veligers. They do shoreline surveys to look for razor sharp shells and other signs of invasive species.

On a small pond, the process can take one to two hours. On a big reservoir like Blue Mesa, Coloradoโ€™s largest reservoir, it would take six to eight hours, he said.

โ€œI donโ€™t think that there is ever going to be capacity to monitor every public and private body of water in the state of Colorado. And I donโ€™t think that thatโ€™s ever going to be our expectation,โ€ Walters said.

The aquatic nuisance species program has more resources than ever, but thereโ€™s always room for more, Walters said.

โ€œAt this time, we feel like we do have a good amount of resources to be able to sample the waters that we consider to be the highest priority,โ€ he said.

Formerly, the team was based in Denver. Now, the state has established a traveling team to cover the Western Slope and another focused on the Grand Junction area.

They donโ€™t need more authority to monitor private water bodies, he said.

โ€œWhat we need is to continue to receive the funding that we are receiving today, and hope that does not get threatened if thereโ€™s any sort of budget cuts that are considered,โ€ Walters said.

Aquatic nuisance species stamp sales cover about $2.4 million, or 50%, of the programโ€™s annual funding needs. All motorboats and sailboats must have this stamp before launching in state waters, according to the CPW website.

Colorado state law calls on federal agencies, like the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Forest Service, to cover the other half of the funding needs since many high-risk waters in Colorado are federally owned or managed.

How are other water providers responding?

Zebra mussels go with the flow. They naturally move downstream with the riverโ€™s current, but boats traveling from one lake to another can carry them upstream.

That has upstream water managers, like Northern Water and Denver Water, keeping a close eye on developments along the Colorado River.

The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District works with the federal government to transfer Colorado River water on the Western Slope through a series of reservoirs, pump stations and tunnels โ€” called the Colorado-Big Thompson Project โ€” to farmland and over 1 million residents from Fort Collins across northeastern Colorado.

Horsetooth Reservoir looking west from Soldier Dam. Photo credit: Norther Water.

Zebra mussels are such prolific reproducers they can clog up water delivery pipelines, the main concern for a water manager like Northern Water, spokesman Jeff Stahla said.

The C-BT project is no stranger to invasive species. In 2008, quagga mussels showed up in several reservoirs, including Grand Lake, Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir. Another reservoir, Green Mountain, was also positive for quagga mussels in 2017.

All of the lakes are mussel-free and delisted, Stahla said. Now theyโ€™re tightening up security.

โ€œThe biggest task we can right now is to inspect those boats going into the reservoirs to make sure that theyโ€™re not going to be causing the problem,โ€ he said.

Dillon Reservoir in Summit County is Denver Waterโ€™s largest reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Denver Water, which serves 1.5 million people in Denver and nearby suburbs, is also focused on inspecting and decontaminating boats.

โ€œItโ€™s a little unnerving. Thatโ€™s for sure,โ€ Brandon Ransom, recreation manager for Denver Water, said. โ€œItโ€™s certainly not welcome news that anybody in the state wants to see.โ€

The water provider also transfers Colorado River water through mountain tunnels and ditches to Front Range communities. Not only are the invasive mussels a concern for gates, valves, pipes and tunnels, they also cause problems for recreation. The shells are sharp enough to cut feet and the decaying mussels and old shells โ€œsmell to all heck,โ€ Ransom said.

They havenโ€™t launched new prevention efforts in response to zebra mussels reports, but thatโ€™s because the provider and its partner agencies already had fairly controlled boat launch and inspection procedures, he said.

A view of part of Eleven Mile State Park in Park County, Colorado. The view shows the Eleven Mile Canyon Dam and part of the Eleven Mile Canyon Reservoir. By Jeffrey Beall – Own work, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=154086653

They already intercepted adult zebra mussels on boats this year, he said. The latest catch was at Eleven Mile Reservoir in early October.

Theyโ€™re trying to get the word out to people to make sure their boats and gear are clean, drained and dry. The zebra mussels like to hide in dark cavities, particularly around motors.

The good news is that Denver Waterโ€™s reservoirs, pipelines and tunnels on the Western Slope are upstream from the main infested areas, Ransom said.

โ€œIt doesnโ€™t help me sleep at night, letโ€™s put it that way,โ€ he said. โ€œWe know that itโ€™s closer and closer, and weโ€™re trying to be extra vigilant when it comes to prevention in our waters.โ€

More by Shannon Mullane

Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

Uranium Monitoring, Testing and Modeling Continue — Northern Water E-Waternews October 2025

Map from Northern Water via the Fort Collins Coloradan.

From email from Northern Water:

Northern Water and Chimney Hollow participants are committed to keeping our customers, stakeholders and end users, as well as the general public, informed as we gather additional information on the discovery of uranium at the Chimney Hollow Reservoir construction site. Collecting data and modeling are crucial steps in the development of mitigation strategies, and we are actively working to learn more by evaluating test results from field investigations and modeling scenarios.   

Before making mitigation decisions, we want to make sure we have all the information to evaluate operational and treatment options. We are following a rigorous process, starting with geochemical characterization and scoping studies, to inform mitigation alternatives analyses and ultimately select a final approach. Following these steps allows us to make informed decisions, evaluate trade-offs and determine the best path forward.โ€ฏ  

Northern Water has been testing how the uranium minerals leach into water and what concentration to expect when the reservoir fills and its operation begins. To allow time for additional data collection and investigations to advance, we have elected not to fill the reservoir as quickly as initially planned. A small amount of water (less than 2 percent of total capacity) will be moved into Chimney Hollow Reservoir in November 2025. During this time, additional water quality data will be collected and used to evaluate the performance of model simulations, and required dam safety monitoring will begin. Even as the reservoir fills, no water will be released as further assessments are underway and mitigation options continue to be evaluated.  

Because the mineralized uranium is coming from materials quarried at the site, excess (unused) rock from construction has been buried under a layer of water-sealing clay. The clay cap will effectively minimize uranium leaching from these materials.  

We expect uranium leaching from the dam to decrease over time because there is a finite quantity of soluble uranium at the site. The duration of the leaching process is not yet fully understood and will depend on how the reservoir is operated over time. While the discovery of mineralized uranium has caused Northern Water and the Chimney Hollow participants to modify our plans, it is an issue that can be safely managed. The new reservoir remains an important part of securing water supply needs for Northern Colorado and its future. Please visit the Water Quality page on our website for more information and a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

Snowmaking off to a fast start, even as Mother Nature takes her time: Ski resorts crank up the snow guns, thanks to โ€˜wet-bulbโ€™ weather and Denver Water

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Todd Hartman):

October 27, 2025

The snow season in Coloradoโ€™s high country is off to a slow start, but snowmaking at the ski resorts? Thatโ€™s going gangbusters.

As October draws to a close, ski resorts are cranking out the snow due to a combination of the resortsโ€™ annual race to opening day, this yearโ€™s unusually compressed window for the right meteorological conditions, and long-standing water supply agreements with Denver Water.

Snowmaking underway on the slopes at Breckenridge Ski Resort, one of six ski resorts in Denver Waterโ€™s watershed with agreements in place to use some of the utilityโ€™s water to make snow in the winter. Photo credit: Denver Water.

This yearโ€™s race to be the first ski resort to open ended over the weekend, when Keystone opened Saturday for three hours of afternoon skiing, followed by Arapahoe Basin, which opened for a full day of skiing on Sunday. 

Denver Water collects water from across 4,000 square miles of mountain watershed, an area thatโ€™s also home to six major ski resorts: Arapahoe Basin, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Frisco Adventure Park, Keystone and Winter Park.

And stream gauges operated by Denver Water act as a proxy measure for snowmaking activity. 

For example, the gauges monitoring streams affected by snowmaking at Winter Park and Keystone showed big overnight dips in recent days, as the resorts diverted water from the streams to their snowmaking equipment to get a head start on the ski season.

โ€œThe snow guns are blasting โ€” and we can really see it reflected in those stream gauges,โ€ said Nathan Elder, manager of water supply for Denver Water. โ€œThis appears to be one of the bigger starts to snow-making at the resorts as they gear up for opening day.โ€

The series of big drops in the amount of water flowing through the Moffat Tunnel last week indicates water being diverted to make snow at Winter Park Resort. Image credit: Colorado Water Conservation Board, Division of Water Resources.

The snowmaking boom can also be credited to something called โ€œwet bulbโ€ temperatures, a concept explained by 9News meteorologist Cory Reppenhagen in a story that aired Oct. 23.

Itโ€™s a reference to the impact of evaporative cooling in the dry Colorado air. In essence, the low humidity of the cold and dry air allows resorts to make snow even if the actual air temperature is above freezing. 

โ€œThese โ€˜wet bulbโ€™ conditions that are ideal for snowmaking have come later in the year than usual, so the resorts have had less time to make snow and are going strong now,โ€ Elder said.

Water managers can see the activity in places like gauges on the Snake River, where overnight on Oct. 21, the stream that was flowing at 21 cubic feet of water per second plunged down to 6 cubic feet per second for several hours, then jumped back up to 32 cfs when the snowmaking at Keystone stopped the next day.

Importantly, the snowmaking machines couldnโ€™t work their magic without the water the ski resorts are able to divert from high country streams. And the resorts can do that thanks to agreements with Denver Water that get the most use out of every drop of water.

Denver Water has very senior water rights in Grand and Summit counties, dating back to the 1920s and 1940s, before the ski resorts were open or made snow.

Agreements between Denver Water and the six ski resorts โ€” Arapahoe Basin, Breckenridge, Cooper Mountain, Frisco Adventure Park, Keystone and Winter Park โ€”allow the resorts to capture and use water for snowmaking, helping get the ski season off to an earlier start than they likely would be able to do otherwise.

The resorts use water that would otherwise get collected and stored in Denver Water reservoirs.

But it all evens out in the end. When the machine-made snow melts, it will flow downstream and wind up in the utilityโ€™s reservoirs on its way to customer taps next spring and summer.

Providing water for snowmaking is just one way Denver Water helps improve recreation in our collection system.

Watch a video on how Arapahoe Basin makes snow: 

And those agreements are crucial this year, due to a late start to the snowfall season.

The average amount of snow measured at mountain tracking sites (called SNOTELs) as of Oct. 23 was 0 inches.  There have only been seven other years, in the 46 years since SNOTELs began tracking data in 1979, when the average measurement was zero that late in October.

However, says Elder, do not despair.

A slow October roll-out does not automatically translate to a bad snow year overall.

โ€œA slow start does not mean the peak snowpack in April will be low,โ€ he said. โ€œIn some of those years the peak was well above average.โ€

And forecasts indicate that โ€˜wet-bulbโ€™ temperatures are looking good for the remainder of this week, meaning more snowmaking will be underway.

So, if you havenโ€™t already, get ready to break out those skis.

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.

2 Northern #Colorado communities back away from #NISP, but project is ‘pressing on’ — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver

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

Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Erin Udell). Here’s an excerpt:

October 24, 2025

Key Points

  • Eaton and Evans recently announced they are backing away from the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, due to rising costs.
  • The news comes months after Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, NISP’s largest participant, announced its hopes to sell its 20% share in the project.
  • Despite some growing reluctance, Northern Water plans to move forward with the full project.

Eaton and Evans recently notified Northern Water they will not be participating in the interim agreement or water allotment contract for its Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, next year. Eaton Mayor Scott Moser notified Northern Water in a Sept. 2 letter. Evans Mayor Mark Clark’s letter was dated Oct. 7. Both communities, which cited NISP’s rising project costs in their decision, would entertain offers to sell their NISP shares, Evans and Eaton staff told the Coloradoan on Oct. 21. The project’s largest participant,ย Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, notified Northern Water of its interest in selling its 20% share in NISP back in July, the water district’s General Manager Chris Pletcher told the Coloradoan at thetime...

Over the years, the project has grown in both scope and price. As NISP’s once conceptual designs met reality, the scale of its reservoirs, pipelines and pump stations increased and the relocation of U.S. Highway 287 to accommodate Glade Reservoir proved to be “more complex and expensive than originally planned,” according to a staff presentation to Evans City Council on Oct. 7.

Mediation ordered for Denver Water, environmental group over turbulent Gross Dam project — Michael Booth (Fresh Water News)

The middle section of the dam is arched to give the dam strength as water pushes up against the structure. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Michael Booth):

October 23, 2025

Denver Water and Save the Colorado must enter mediation at the end of the month to see if a deal is possible on the mid-project challenge to the water utilityโ€™s $531 million dam raising underway at Gross Reservoir in Boulder County, according to an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals.

A federal trial judge initially halted construction on the nearly finished dam, saying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for Denver Water violated U.S. environmental laws and that the water level at Gross could not be raised. Judge Christine Arguello later lifted the injunction on construction, for safety reasons, while Denver Water appealed the permit issues to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 10th Circuit will take briefs from both sides of the dam dispute in November, and is now ordering a mediation session for Oct. 30. The conference is to โ€œexplore any possibilities for settlementโ€ and lawyers for both sides are โ€œexpected to have consulted with their clients prior to the conference and have as much authority as feasibleโ€ on settlement questions, the court order says.

Construction has continued since the injunction was lifted, with Denver Water pouring thousands of tons of concrete to raise the existing dam structure on South Boulder Creek. Denver Water has argued it needs additional storage on the north end of its sprawling water delivery system for 1 million metro customers, to balance extensive southern storage employing water from the South Platte River basin.

Denver Water’s collection system via the USACE EIS

Save the Colorado and coplaintiffs the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians and others argue too much water has already been taken from the Colorado River basin on the west side of the Continental Divide, and that the forest-clearing and construction at Gross is further destructive to the environment. Gross Reservoir stores Fraser River rights that Denver Water owns and brings through a tunnel under the divide into South Boulder Creek.

“We look forward to having a constructive conversation with Denver Water to find a mutually agreeable path forward that addresses the significant environmental impacts of the project,” Save the Colorado founder Gary Wockner said.

When securing required project permits from Boulder County, Denver Water had previously agreed to environmental mitigation and enhancements for damages from Gross construction. But Save the Colorado and co-plaintiffs sued to stop the project at the federal level, and Arguello agreed that the Army Corps had failed to account for climate change, drought and other factors in writing the U.S. permits.

Denver Water declined comment Tuesday on the mediation order.

The halt and restart of the Gross Dam raising came in what has turned out to be a tumultuous year for major Colorado water diversion and storage projects.

While the Gross Dam decisions were underway, Wockner was finishing negotiations with Northern Water over $100 million in environmental mitigation funding to allow the $2.7 billion, two-dam Northern Integrated Supply Project to move forward. Once the 15 communities and water agencies subscribed to NISP water shares saw the increasing price tag, some began pulling out.

Northern Water reviewed the scale of NISP with engineers, then said it planned to move forward at the previously announced scale. The consortiumโ€™s board has asked all 15 initial members to indicate by Dec. 31 where they stand with the project and its price tag.

More by Michael Booth

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.

Water rates to edge up slightly in 2026 — Cathy Proctorย and Kim Unger (DenverWater.org)

October 22, 2025

A core element of Denver Waterโ€™s mission is ensuring the large, complex system that collects, cleans and delivers drinking water for 1.5 million people is prepared to meet future challenges. 

And with more than 100 years of operations under its belt, Coloradoโ€™s largest water provider, which serves about 25% of Coloradoโ€™s population, is in the biggest period of capital investment in its history. Denver Water expects to invest about $1.7 billion into the system during the next 10 years. 

โ€œThe work we do provides the critical water supply that the community we serve needs to thrive and grow,โ€ said Denver Water CEO/Manager Alan Salazar.

โ€œContinuing to maintain and invest in the system that supports our water supply will ensure that we โ€” Denver Water as well as our customers โ€” are ready for what lies ahead, from a warming climate to the potential for new regulations, while keeping rates as low as good service will allow,โ€ Salazar said. 

Since 2022, Denver Water has replaced an average of 97,000 feet of water mains per year. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Responsibility to maintain and protect the stateโ€™s largest water system, along with a desire to encourage water conservation, keep essential indoor water use affordable and ensure the utility is financially stable, were incorporated into the Oct. 22 decision by Denverโ€™s Board of Water Commissioners to approve new water rates for 2026. 

Denver Water is protecting and preparing the complex system and its customers for the future in many ways, including: 

  • Theย Lead Reduction Program, which started in 2020, is protecting customers from the risk of lead in their drinking water and to date hasย replaced more than 35,000 old, customer-owned lead service linesย at no direct cost to customers.
  • The newย Northwater Treatment Plant, which began operations in 2024, can clean up to 75 million gallons of water per day and can be expanded when needed to 150 million gallons per day.
  • Theย Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, which began construction in 2022, is designed to nearly triple the reservoirโ€™s storage capacity.
  • Theย Landscape Transformation Program, which helps customers remodel landscapes dominated by water-intensive Kentucky bluegrass into water-wise, climate-resilient ColoradoScapes.
  • And ongoing work to replace aging water mains, upgrade infrastructure on the utilityโ€™s southern collection and treatment system, and reach aย net-zero carbon emissionsย goal by 2030.

Overall, Denver Water expects to invest $1.7 billion over the next 10 years in projects that will maintain, repair, protect and upgrade the system, and make it more resilient and flexible in the future. 

In addition to rates paid by customers, funding for Denver Waterโ€™s infrastructure projects, day-to-day operations and emergency expenses like water main breaks comes from bond sales, cash reserves, hydropower sales, grants, federal funding and fees paid when new homes and buildings are connected to the system.

The utility does not receive tax dollars or make a profit. It reinvests money from customer water bills and fees to maintain and upgrade the water system. 

And the utility is committed to delivering a safe, clean and affordable water supply to its customers while managing the impacts of the larger economy, from inflation to supply chain issues. 

How the 2026 water rates will affect individual customer bills will vary depending on where the customer lives (either in Denver or in one of the utilityโ€™s suburban distributor districts) and how much water they use. 

And major credit rating agencies recently confirmed Denver Waterโ€™s triple-A credit rating, the highest possible, citing the utilityโ€™s track record of strong financial management. 

Also, itโ€™s important to note that Denver Water has made clear in discussions with the Denver Broncos that any costs associated with relocating some of the utilityโ€™s operations facilities, if needed, to accommodate a new stadium cannot be financed or subsidized by its ratepayers. (See Denver Waterโ€™s statement on the Broncosโ€™ Sept. 9 announcement of Burnham Yard as their preferred site.) 

New rates for 2026

Monthly bills for single-family residential customers are comprised of two factors: a fixed charge, which helps ensure Denver Water has a more stable revenue stream to continue the necessary water system upgrades to ensure reliable water service, and a volume rate for the amount of water used.

Combining both of those factors, a typical single-family residential customer who uses 104,000 gallons of water annually will see their monthly bill increase by an average of $2.45 to $3.30 over the course of the year, depending on where the customer lives (in Denver or in one of the utilityโ€™s suburban distributor districts) and the type of service the customerโ€™s suburban distributor district receives from Denver Water. 

(See the infographic below for information about Denver Waterโ€™s suburban distributor districts, types of service and rates.) 

The monthly bill example above includes an increase to the fixed monthly charge, which is tied to the size of the meter. For most single-family residential customers with a 3/4-inch meter, the fixed charge will increase by $1.85 in 2026, to $20.91 per month.

The more you use, the more you pay

After the fixed monthly charge, Denver Waterโ€™s rate structure for residential single-family customers has three tiers based on the amount of water used. The tiers are designed to keep essential indoor water use affordable while encouraging water conservation outdoors. (See additional details about the 2026 rates for the three tiers in the infographic below.)

  • The first tierย is charged at the lowest rate and covers essential indoor water use for bathing, cooking and flushing toilets. Each customer has their individual first tier determined by the average of their monthly water use as listed on bills that arrive in January, February and March โ€” when there is very little or no outdoor watering.
  • The second tierย is for water consumption, typically used for outdoor watering, that is above the customerโ€™s first tier and up to 15,000 gallons of water per month. Water use in this tier is considered to be an efficient use of water outdoors.
  • The third tierย is for water use of more than 15,000 gallons per month. It is priced at the highest level to signal potentially excessive water use and encourage conservation efforts by larger-lot customers.

Bills in the summer months can be higher if customers use water to irrigate their outdoor landscapes. 

Need help? 

Denver Water offers one-time payment assistance to customers who may qualify. The utilityโ€™s Customer Care representatives also can help customers navigate payment options and unique circumstances. Customers can reach them via denverwater.org/ContactForm or by calling 303-893-2444.

What customers can do to save water, money

Denver Water encourages all customers to conserve water where they can indoors and out.

Finding and plugging leaks inside the home can be done year-round, and the utility offers rebates for qualified water-saving toilets and sprinkler equipment.

To help customers remodel their lawns to create a more vibrant, diverse ColoradoScape, Denver Water in 2026 will again offer a limited number of customer discounts on Resource Centralโ€™s popular turf removal service and its water-wise Garden In A Box plant-by-number kits. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Outside, Denver Water encourages customers to conserve water by remodeling unused areas of water-intensive Kentucky bluegrass into more diverse, water-wise ColoradoScapes that fit naturally into our dry climate and are interesting to look at through all seasons. These drought-resistant and climate-resilient ColoradoScapes include tree canopies and plants that help maintain vibrant urban landscapes and benefit our communities, wildlife and the environment.

Using less water also means more water can be kept in the mountain reservoirs, rivers and streams that fish live in and Coloradans enjoy. It also can lower monthly water bills, saving money.

Note 1:ย An individual customerโ€™s monthly water bill will vary depending on where they live in Denver Waterโ€™s service area (in Denver or in one of the utility’sย suburban distributor districts), the types of service the suburban distributor district receives from Denver Water, and how much water the customer uses.

Note 2:ย The difference in volume rates (in the infographic above) for Denver Water customers who live inside Denver compared to those who live in the suburbs is due to the Denver City Charter (seeย Operating Rules), which allows permanent leases of water toย suburban water districtsย based on two conditions: 1) there always would be an adequate supply for the citizens of Denver, and 2) suburban customers pay the full cost of service, plus an additional amount.

What exactly is #Nebraskaโ€™s dispute with #Colorado about? — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #SouthPlatteRiver

South Platte River south of Brush. Photo/Allen Best

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

October 16, 2025

Colorado say this is really an effort by Nebraska to renegotiate the 1923 South Platte River Compact. But is the core of this story about water for metropolitan Denver?

Mark Twain in July 1861 traveled through the northeast corner of what was then Colorado Territory, stopping briefly at a place called Overland City. Itโ€™s now called Julesburg. It lies along the South Platte River no more than three or four miles from the Nebraska border.

After briefly serving in the Civil War, the young fellow was on his way to the gold mining riches of the Sierra Nevada. In โ€œRoughing It,โ€ his later recounting of that and other Western adventures, he called the encampment the โ€œstrangest, quaintest, funniest frontier town that our untraveled eyes had ever stared at and been astonished with.โ€

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

Twain always was the master of overstatement. But then, you need to remember he had come of age on the Mississippi River when reading his description of the South Platte River. He called it a โ€œmelancholy streamโ€ that was โ€œonly saved from being impossible to find with the naked eye by its sentinel rank of scattering trees standing on either bank. The Platte was โ€˜up,โ€™ they said โ€” which make me wish I could see it when it was down, if it could look any sicker and sorrier.โ€

Oh, that Clements fellow could milk a moment. He spent only an hour there before continuing west. I actually spent a night in Julesburg. The next morning I drove to the community cemetery. Itโ€™s located east of the town, the river, and Interstate 76. From the cemetery I made out an incision in the side of a hill. It was the remnant of the effort begun in 1894 to create a ditch. The ditch was to export water from the South Platte 13 river miles in Colorado and into Nebraska, there to irrigate farms in Perkins County.

Investors in that ambition, the Perkins County Canal, ran out of money. A compact governing the South Platte between Colorado and Nebraska negotiated in 1923 left Nebraska with the right to build the canal and divert up to 500 cubic feet per second from mid-October until April 1, according to Nebraska Public Media, and the idea was studied again in the 1980s. But again, it got no traction.

Three years ago, Nebraska set out again to realize the diversion. It has set aside $628 million, most of it received from the federal government as part of the Covid-19 pandemic stimulus. The state has taken steps to plan and permit the project through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In July, Nebraska asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that Colorado has violated the compact, both by not delivering enough water in the non-irrigation season and also by preventing Nebraska from building the canal. Colorado has said it is abiding by the compact and acknowledges Nebraskaโ€™s right to build a canal.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser, who hopes to succeed Polis as governor, announced yesterday that they had urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the case.

โ€œNebraskaโ€™s claimed violations rely on speculative and premature allegations. To the extent any legal issues arise in the future, there are alternative forums to resolve them. The Supreme Court need not take a case that would put the court and the parties on a long, time-intensive, and expensive path that might well, in the end, put the states right back where they were before Nebraska filed (its) proposed complaint,โ€ said Weiser.

โ€œEven if the court decides to take up part or all of Nebraskaโ€™s case. Iโ€™m confident that we will win on the merits. Both the facts and the law are on our side.โ€

The South Platte River originates in South Park and then wanders northeast, entering Nebraska just a few miles west of Coloradoโ€™s northeast corner. The red line here distinguishes the upper South Platte Basin in Colorado from the lower basin. The compact between Colorado and Nebraska speaks only to the lower basin. Image: U.S. Geologic Survey.

Coloradoโ€™s brief in response to Nebraskaโ€™s lawsuit is just that, at least by legal standards: 35 pages long. It opens with this statement: โ€œLike every western state, Nebraska wants more water.โ€ Colorado acknowledges Nebraskaโ€™s right to build a canal, it says, but the Cornhusker state has โ€œonly just begun to plan and permit its project.โ€

In other words, Colorado contends that whatever may eventually be disputed is not ready for prime time. The Supremes have better ways to spend their time.

Why the Supreme Court? Because interstate issues must go before the highest court. In such cases, it commonly appoints a โ€œspecial master,โ€ typically a retired judge, to hear the case and report findings to the Supremes.

For example, a special master was used in the dispute between Texas, New Mexico and Colorado involving the Rio Grande. A special master was also enlisted in the dispute between Kansas and Colorado involving the Arkansas River.

Colorado wants to avoid this battle.

Coyote Gulch’s VW Bus South Park 1973.

A hard-working river

The South Platte may be among the hardest-working rivers in the United States. It arises in South Park, flanked by the Mosquito and Tarryall ranges, southwest of Denver, flow 380 miles through Colorado before entering Nebraska. Between 70% and 85% โ€” seemingly authoritative sources differ substantially in estimates โ€” of Coloradoโ€™s nearly 6 million residents live in the South Platte River Basin. The basin also has 30% of the stateโ€™s irrigated agriculture, well more than half coming from the flows of the South Platte or its tributaries.

What exactly is this dispute about?

Nebraska, says Colorado, โ€œappears to be using the prospect of the canal and this request for Supreme Court action as leverage to renegotiate the South Platte River Compact.โ€

Oct. 15 was Coloradoโ€™s deadline for responding to the lawsuit filed by Nebraska against Colorado on July 15. The press conference where Nebraskaโ€™s politicos announced the lawsuit was full of rhetoric. โ€œWeโ€™re going to fight like heck. Weโ€™re going to get every drop of water,โ€ said Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. โ€œWeโ€™ve been losing to Colorado on this issue for too long.โ€

He piled it on. โ€œThey want absolutely everything. Theyโ€™re even stealing the water from their own farmers, for crying out loud,โ€ he said according to a July 16 story in the Nebraska Examiner.

Pillen said Colorado is storing more water for its โ€œupstream economy,โ€ presumably reference to the Denver metropolitan area.

Polis, in his Oct. 15 comments, made no mention of metropolitan Denver, instead emphasizing the threat to โ€œour robust agriculture industry and our rural communities in Northeastern Colorado.โ€ He dismissed the lawsuit by Nebraska as โ€œmeritless.โ€

The South Platte River provides the water crucial for even a marginal economy in the lower South Platte River Valley of Colorado. Perkins County Canal Project Area. Credit: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

The Denver Post, in a Sept. 21 story, mined the agriculture component after reporter Elise Schmelzer followed Weiser to a meeting in Julesburg to meet with farmers there. Darrin Tobin, a Sedgwick County commissioner, said if the canal gets built, it will potentially turn everything in the last 20 miles of the South Platte River Valley to the state line into โ€œalmost an unusable wasteland.โ€

If the canal is built, Nebraska will use much of the winter river flow that Coloradans rely upon to fill ponds, which are used for augmentation. These augmentation ponds allow the farms to use more water during irrigation season.

Irrigated land produces more and hence has higher property values, which means a broader tax base. Sedgwick County ranks 44th among Coloradoโ€™s 64 counties in per capita income.

What is this dispute about?

Is this really about retaining the vitality of places like Ovid and Julesburg? I have to think itโ€™s more โ€” as the Nebraska governor insinuated โ€” about the situation of metropolitan Denver and other northern Front Range communities.

The South Platte long, long ago ceased to be able to support a population this large and farms, too. Denverโ€™s first major transmountain diversion began importing water from the Colorado River headwaters through the original bore of the Moffat Tunnel in 1936. Now, the headwaters of the Colorado River are all but plumbed out. Too, the Colorado River has its own problems.

In recent years, Front Range communities have started looking inward, to impose greater efficiencies. Denser populations enable that. Denver has actually expanded its population greatly in the last 20 yeas without using more water. The city has been rising, not expanding. The growth in demand comes from the outer rings of suburbs and the exurbs.

Platte Valley Water Partnership project overview. Credit: Parker Water

Revealing are the plans by Parker Water and Sanitation District, now joined by Castle Rock, to build a pipeline far down the South Platte River to the Sterling area. The plan would be to hold back water during winter or those occasional times of spring runoff when the river is carrying uncommitted amounts of water. This plan, called the Platte River Water Partnership, would involve some new impoundments of water.

The Lower South Platte Water Conservation District, which consists almost entirely of farmers, supports the plan in collaboration with Parker Water. They see some benefits to โ€œnewโ€ water, courtesy of Parkerโ€™s checkbook, and an alternative to โ€œbuy and dry.โ€ย The broad outlines are explained in this story published in Big Pivots during July.

Ron Redd, district manager of Parker Water and Sanitation District, right, makes a point to Jim Yahn and Joe Frank at the structure used to divert water from the South Platte River to Prewitt Reservoir. Owners of Prewitt, who are part of Yahnโ€™s organization, have decided they do not want to be part of Parkerโ€™s ambitions. Frank leads the South Platte River Water Conservancy District. Photo/Allen Best

The fundamental story is that the newer and more affluent cities on metropolitan Denverโ€™s southern fringe rely heavily on unsustainable pumping of groundwater. They have started lessening that dependency in the last 20 years, and this is an effort to further reduce that dependency.

As you might expect, the issues in this dispute between the two states are somewhat complex. I found a Sept 24 essay by J. David Aiken, a professor in the Department of Agriculture Economics at the University of Nebraska โ€” Lincoln, illuminating.

Aiken takes the story back to the drought of 2002, the year that Colorado was finally forced to address a long-festering issue about the impact of wells drilled for agriculture along the riverine aquifer in the South Platte Valley. That action yielded 4,000 (out of 9,000 total irrigation wells being required to cease pumping.

We then have a study in 2017 South Platte storage. It found that Colorado was allowing an average 332,000 acre-feet of water to flow into Nebraska beyond minimum compact compliance. That was followed by a study of how these โ€œsurplus flowsโ€ could be used by Denver instead. of buying agriculture land for its water rights, a.k.a. โ€œbuy and dry.โ€

Then came work by Denver metro water interests on a study about how to take advantage of the 332,000 acre-feet. Soon after came Parker Waterโ€™s plans to avoid buy-and-dry in its partnership with the lower-valley irrigators by figuring out how to retain the remaining uncontested water.

Who will this contest between Colorado and Nebraska?

Nebraska has some valid complaints about Coloradoโ€™s actions, says Aiken, but Colorado โ€œwill likely raise some very interesting legal issues of their own, which could lead to Nebraskaโ€™s not being able to pursue the Perkins County Canal project.โ€

Whooping Crane. Photo: Kenton Gomez/Audubon Photography Awards

A legal wildcard

One legal wildcard will be whether Nebraska could demonstrate that the Denver metro water supply projects in the South Platte Basin would reduce flows through the protected critical habitats in Nebraska used by whooping cranes. The species is listened as endangered by the federal government. This argument could strengthen Nebraskaโ€™s case.

Aiken makes many other points, and I wonโ€™t try to explain them all here. You can read for yourself here. Or watch the webinar from earlier in September which preceded his essay.

Here is Nebraskaโ€™s 55-page filing with the Supreme Court. And Coloradoโ€™s 35-page response can be found here.

When Nebraska first announced its renewed Perkins County canal plans, I shrugged it off as a minor tempest. But now I find it more interesting, part of the tightening vise on Coloradoโ€™s still rapidly-growing Front Range cities. Certainly, weโ€™re not Las Vegas. Not even a Phoenix. In some ways, we are still luxuriant with water. But now, Colorado is seeing the bottom of the cup. This new reconciliation has been underway since the early 1990s.

As for the South Platte and the 1923 Colorado-Nebraska compact, remember that it allowed Nebraska to divert up to 500 cfs from Oct. 15 through March. On Wednesday night, the river was flowing 270 cfs at the Balzac Gage near Sterling. There are asterisks to this that we donโ€™t want to get into, but the point is that there isnโ€™t much river here and hence the quarrel.

Twain has often been credited with saying that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. Actually, somebody else almost certainly made up that phrase now grown tiresome in its use. But if Weiser, is correct, there will likely be plenty of fighting. He told the Post in September that more than a billion dollars might be spent in litigation during the next decade, and he insisted that all the time in the courtroom will leave neither state better off.

The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Release: #Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Reject #Nebraska Case on #SouthPlatteRiver

Perkins canal drawing showing the Colorado portion, courtesy Nebraska Department of Natural Resources.

Here’s the release from Governor Polis’ office (Lawrence Pachecoย and Shelby Wieman):

October 15, 2025

Governor Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a case about the South Platte River Compact and Nebraskaโ€™s efforts to build the Perkins County Canal. Colorado is complying with its obligations under the compact and not obstructing Nebraskaโ€™s efforts to build the canal, so there is nothing for the court to review at this time, according to a brief filed with the court.   

The South Platte River originates in Colorado and supplies water for the stateโ€™s biggest cities and some of its most productive agricultural lands. The river starts in the Rocky Mountains and winds roughly 380 miles northeast into Nebraska. The South Platte River Compact is an agreement between Colorado and Nebraska that establishes the Statesโ€™ rights and responsibilities to use water in the South Platte. 

While Colorado acknowledges Nebraskaโ€™s right to build the Perkins County Canal, Nebraska has failed to move forward on the project for over 100 years. Recently, Nebraska officials have taken preliminary steps to plan and permit the project through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but numerous steps lie ahead during which Nebraska, and others who might be affected by the project, will identify potential issues and fully study any impacts.

Nebraska appears to be using the prospect of the canal and this request for Supreme Court action as leverage to renegotiate the South Platte River Compact. Colorado will ensure that Nebraska honors the letter of the Compact, just as Colorado always has. 

โ€œWater is the lifeblood of our state. We have always faithfully honored the century-old South Platte Compact and all other water agreements with our downstream neighbor states, and we will continue to do so. We refuse to sit idly by while Nebraska chases a meritless lawsuit that threatens Coloradoโ€™s precious water resources, our robust agriculture industry, and our rural communities in Northeastern Colorado,โ€ said Governor Jared Polis. 

Attorney General Weiser said Colorado is complying with the compact and not interfering with Nebraskaโ€™s efforts to build the canal. As such, Nebraska hasnโ€™t raised any claims ripe for Supreme Court review. Whatever issues arise in the future can be addressed through federal permitting processes or lower courts. 

โ€œNebraskaโ€™s claimed violations rely on speculative and premature allegations. To the extent any legal issues arise in the future, there are alternative forums to resolve them. The Supreme Court need not take a case that would put the court and the parties on a long, time-intensive, and expensive path that might well, in the end, put the States right back where they were before Nebraska filed their proposed complaint,โ€ said Attorney General Weiser. โ€œEven if the court decides to take up part or all of Nebraskaโ€™s case, Iโ€™m confident that we will win on the merits. Both the facts and the law are on our side.โ€

Nebraskaโ€™s claims that Colorado authorizes water uses that harm Nebraska during the irrigation season are not supported by facts. Jason Ullmann, the State Engineer and Director of the Division of Water Resources, said Nebraska has only recently suggested they were concerned that Colorado was not meeting its obligations during the irrigation season.

โ€œFor over 100 years the Colorado State Engineerโ€™s Office has worked with Nebraska and performed the hard work of ensuring Colorado meets its compact obligations on the South Platte River. This means we make difficult decisions every day on who receives their water and when based on the priority system and compact terms. As a result, water users in Colorado and Nebraska all receive their allotted share, said Jason Ullmann, State Engineer and Director of the Division of Water Resources โ€œWe were surprised and disappointed by Nebraskaโ€™s lawsuit and are hopeful once all the briefs are filed that we can resume discussions to meet the mutual needs of both of our States.โ€

The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over interstate disputes, such as border disputes and water rights. States must file a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint to bring a case to the court. The Supreme Court must still decide whether to accept the case.

The case is Nebraska v. Colorado, case number 220161.

Read Coloradoโ€™s Response in Opposition to Nebraskaโ€™s Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint (PDF).

The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Colorado Water Trust Responds to Devastating #Drought Conditions with Unprecedented Restoration Efforts — Kate Ryan and Blake Mamich

Colorado Drought Monitor map October 7, 2025.

Here’s the release from the Colorado Water Trust (Kate Ryan and Blake Mamich):

October 7, 2025

Coloradoโ€™s rivers are running on empty asย drought grips the intermountain west. But a record-setting response from Colorado Water Trust is helping keep critical stretches of rivers around our state flowing for fish, farms, and communities alike.

This year, Colorado Water Trust is operating more projects across more rivers than at any point in its 24-year historyโ€”and restoring more water to streams than ever before. Across the state and on both sides of the Continental Divide, Colorado Water Trust is partnering with local irrigators, water districts, state agencies, and funders to release more than 16,000 acre-feet of water (over 5.2 billion gallons) back into rivers when itโ€™s needed most. This unprecedented effort highlights how collaboration and creativity can sustain Coloradoโ€™s rivers through crisis, offering a model of resilience at a time when the stateโ€™s waterways face one of their toughest seasons yet.

Colorado is in the grip of a devastating drought.ย Nearly 45% of the stateย is currently experiencing at least moderate drought conditions, with significant portions in severe and extreme drought. Streams across the state are shrinking, water temperatures are rising, and ecosystems, farms, and communities are all feeling the strain.ย In many places, streamflow gauges are reporting flows in the lowest 10-25 percentile for this time of year. Rivers in some regions are hitting historically low levels far earlier in the season. This year marks theย earliest call on the Yampa River in recorded history. The situation is dire, and without swift, creative intervention, stretches of Coloradoโ€™s treasured rivers could be left dry.

In response, Colorado Water Trust is rising to meet this challenge by running nearly all of its projects across the state, ensuring that water is returned to rivers when it is needed most. The scale of the response is unprecedentedโ€”this year is predicted to see more water restored to Coloradoโ€™s rivers through Colorado Water Trustโ€™s work than in any other year since the organization was founded. Some of this yearโ€™s projects include:

This map shows the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River near Grand Junction, home to four species of endangered fish. Map credit: CWCB

Colorado River: On the Colorado River, Colorado Water Trust is again operating its project on the 15-Mile Reach, a stretch of river critical to the survival of four endangered and threatened fish species. Colorado Water Trust is expected to restore well over 1 billion gallons of water to this critical reach by releasing water from Ruedi Reservoir near Basalt which is then restored to the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork Rivers before it reaches the 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River. Through innovative partnerships with the Grand Valley Water Users Association, Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, and the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program, water is being delivered at key times to support flows in this fragile habitat. Backed by generous support from corporate partners such as Niagara Cares, Coca-Cola, and Coors Seltzer, this project has become a model of collaboration and creativity.

Yampa River: Further north in the Yampa Valley, Colorado Water Trust is implementing our projects on the Upper and Lower Yampa River. Releases from Stagecoach Reservoir, made possible through collaboration with Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, have been restoring significant volumes of water to the Upper Yampa as it passes through downtown Steamboat Springs since June. This water is vital for endangered fish within the reach, as well as the recreation economy downstream. Additionally, on the Lower Yampa, strategic releases out of Elkhead Reservoir in coordination with the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the Colorado River District are sustaining critical habitat for endangered fish, as well as supporting the agricultural community downstream. These projectsโ€”already amounting to thousands of acre-feetโ€”are keeping the Yampa River flowing through one of its most critical seasons. Without these boosts, irrigators, fish, and the communities of the valley would be facing even greater hardship. These projects are made possible thanks to generous funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Yampa River Fund, Colorado River District, and more.

Around the state: On smaller tributaries, Colorado Water Trust is also making a difference.The Slater Creek Project, in partnership with local ranchers and Western Resource Advocates, is improving conditions for an important headwater tributary to the Yampa River while supporting the local agricultural economy. So far, this project has restored over 100 million gallons of water to Slater Creek. On the Fraser River, Colorado Water Trust has teamed up with the Grand County Mutual Ditch and Reservoir Company to improve late-season flows through the Vail Ditch Project. This effort, which will return roughly 16 million gallons of water this year, helps cool the river and support critical trout spawning runs. In Boulder County in the Indian Peaks Wilderness by the Continental Divide, Colorado Water Trustโ€™s project out of Jasper Reservoir released water and accounted for approximately 32% of flows in Middle Boulder Creek upstream of Barker Reservoir and 25% of flows in Boulder Creek in downtown Boulder. Across the state, permanent long-term projects are also running, steadily and reliably delivering water to rivers during the hottest, driest part of the year.

Taken together, these efforts represent the most ambitious season in Colorado Water Trustโ€™s history. By weaving together partnerships with irrigation companies, conservancy districts, state and federal agencies, and local communities, and by drawing on the support of a diverse array of fundersโ€”Colorado Water Trust is delivering hope where it is needed most.

โ€œThese projects demonstrate the power of partnership to keep rivers flowing, even in the toughest years,” said Kate Ryan, Colorado Water Trustโ€™s Executive Director. โ€œIt just goes to show how everyoneโ€”no matter who you are or where you liveโ€”cares about protecting Coloradoโ€™s rivers and the people who depend on them.โ€

While drought continues to tighten its grip on Colorado, these projects demonstrate that collaboration and innovation can keep rivers alive. In the face of crisis, Colorado Water Trust is proving that when partners and funders come together, rivers can be sustained for people, farms, fish, and communities alike. This year will mark the most flow ever restored to Coloradoโ€™s rivers through Colorado Water Trustโ€™s workโ€”a milestone born from collaboration, ingenuity, and urgent necessity.

โ€œItโ€™s a strange mix of pride and worry,โ€ said Blake Mamich, Program Director for the Colorado Water Trust โ€œOn one hand, Iโ€™m thrilled to see so much water restored to rivers this year. On the other, I know that the only reason we can do this work at this scale is because itโ€™s so needed: drought and climate stress are hitting us harder and harder. Thatโ€™s a hard truth we carry with us every day.โ€

As Colorado enters one of its most critical water years in recent memory, Colorado Water Trust is committed to ensuring that, even in the face of historic drought, Coloradoโ€™s rivers will continue to flow.


About Colorado Water Trust

Colorado Water Trust is a statewide nonprofit organization with a mission to restore water to Coloradoโ€™s rivers. Since 2001, theyโ€™ve restored over 26 billion gallons of water to Coloradoโ€™s rivers and streams. ColoradoWaterTrust.org.

Just Add Water: The Jasper Lake Donation and a New Model for Water #Conservation in the West — Kate Ryan & Matt Moseleyย (#Colorado Water Trust)

Jasper Reservoir from dam. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Water Trust website (Kate Ryan & Matt Moseley):

September 16, 2025

Introduction

In an era where climate change and overconsumption threaten our waterways, a remarkable act of generosity and foresight has emerged from the Indian Peaks Wilderness area of Colorado. On August 29, 2024, an anonymous donor gifted Jasper Lake, including the parcel of land surrounding it and the senior water rights it stores, to the Colorado Water Trust. This marked the largest water donation in Coloradoโ€™s history.  This act ensures the protection of 37 miles of Boulder Creek, safeguarding its flow, ecosystems, and recreational value for generations to come.  Since 2024, 100 million gallons of water have been restored to the river as a result of this donation, and the annual benefit will continue to accrue to Boulder Creek streamflow indefinitely.  A warming climate will continue to put pressure on Boulder Creek, but this source of water will be protected forever.

Over the past 25 years, the Colorado Water Trust has restored 27 billion gallons of water to 814 miles of rivers and streams throughout Colorado.  Here is how it works: Much like a land trust can invest in conservation easements to protect property for future generations, the Colorado Water Trust invests in water rights to protect streamflow in our rivers. Water in Colorado is not only the lifeblood of our state and economy, but the right to use it can also be bought and sold.  Instead of diverting water out of the river, the Water Trust uses water rights to protect that water in the river.

In the western United States, where water scarcity is an ever-pressing reality and climate change threatens to exacerbate hydrological extremes, the permanent donation of storage water from Jasper Lake to environmental benefit marks a profoundly important milestone.  This is not merely a gift of water; it is a precedent-setting, visionary act that fuses water law ingenuity, ecological foresight, and an ethic of stewardship.  In an era dominated by competing interests and escalating scarcity, the Jasper Lake donation offers a replicable path forward for other Western states grounded in cooperative frameworks, legal adaptability, and the kind of selfless generosity that serves the public interest.

Jasper Lake Donation

In 1890, nearly a century before Congress designated the Indian Peaks Wilderness as a part of the nationโ€™s Wilderness Preservation system, the Boulder High Line Canal Company constructed Jasper Reservoir.  Known to hikers and wilderness visitors as Jasper Lake, the reservoir has been a source of agricultural water in Boulder County and areas east of the mountains since that time. Nestled just east of the Continental Divide, this enclave for cold-water fish, moose, and backpackers doubled in purpose. Irrigation companies and the Colorado Power Company operated the reservoir over the next century.

Since the 1890s, Jasper Lake has been in a series of private ownerships, having been bought and sold multiple times. In recent years, the City of Boulder leased Jasper Lake water from private owners and provided that water to various Boulder County irrigators.  During that time, the Colorado Water Trust worked with the owners of Jasper Lake to craft a plan for its use for environmental improvements and public benefit.  As these conversations progressed, the owners generously offered Jasper Lake as a donation to the Water Trust.

The Water Trust then sought out a steward for the reservoir with both the capacity and knowledge necessary to manage and maintain the reservoirโ€™s infrastructure. While the Water Trust owns multiple water rights, it focuses its time and energy on transactions that boost streamflow.  Finding the right stewardโ€”one who would commit to using Jasper Lake water in environmentally-compatible operationsโ€”would free the nonprofit from the burden of operating a high-hazard dam while meeting its mission to add water to Coloradoโ€™s rivers. Accordingly, the Water Trust sought a partner with a desire to uphold the environmental and community values vital to operating Jasper Lake in a way that complements the mission of the Water Trust. Luckily, the nonprofit found such a willing steward and partner in the Tiefel Family.

The Tiefel Family, long-time residents of Colorado, have a deep-rooted connection to the stateโ€™s natural landscapes and water resources. Known for their unwavering commitment to environmental preservation, the Tiefel Family has dedicated themselves to protecting Coloradoโ€™s vital water ecosystems. With a passion for ensuring that future generations can enjoy the natural beauty of Boulder Creek and its surrounding areas, the Tiefel Family established 37-Mile LLC. Named after the length of protected streamflow from Jasper Lake through the wilderness and down Boulder Canyon, 37-Mile LLC is a testament to its mission of safeguarding the regionโ€™s water resources from development pressures while promoting sustainable agricultural and irrigation practices.

โ€œOur stewardship of Jasper Reservoir aligns with our broader vision of environmental conservation and community enrichment,โ€ said Doug Tiefel of 37-Mile LLC. โ€œThe family is honored to partner with the Colorado Water Trust to ensure that the reservoirโ€™s water continues to benefit the local ecosystems and communities, reinforcing our legacy of environmental responsibility.โ€

Jasper Reservoir/Boulder Creek. Credit: Colorado Water Trust

With the support of the Tiefel Family and 37-Mile LLC, the Colorado Water Trust entered into an arrangement that benefits all involved.  After the Water Trust accepted the reservoir donation, 37-Mile LLC entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the reservoir subject to a public access easement and a set of restrictive covenants that permanently protect public access to the reservoir and ensure that water released from Jasper Lake will continue to provide environmental benefits well into the future. As an additional benefit, once the water has traveled through Boulder Canyon and to the plains, agricultural producers can then use the water downstream.

The Jasper Lake water donation is truly exceptional in its structure and intent. The reservoir is ideally positioned at high elevation with a long carriage distance, benefiting stream flow in a highly visible and environmentally conscious area like Boulder Creek.  The ability for a secondary use downstream for agricultural benefit further enhances its value.  Most environmental water transfers have historically involved direct flow rightsโ€”typically less reliable and subject to seasonal variability.  What makes Jasper Lake unique is that it involves the donation of storage water, which is highly reliable and valuable.  Unlike junior water rights that may or may not be available in a dry year, this donation ensures actual wet water in the stream, when and where it is needed.

Through a uniquely cooperative agreement involving the Water Trust, a generous donor, a family with strong farming and ranching ties to the region, and planning support from the City of Boulder, this donation not only protects two critical componentsโ€”agricultural heritage and instream ecological healthโ€”but also creates a new archetype for interagency collaboration.  The result is a permanent, flexible, and legally sound environmental asset that will benefit both the creek and downstream users in perpetuity.

This project involving Jasper Lake and its water rights represents a new concept in water management, one that the Water Trust hopes to replicate many times in the future. It proves out the potential for the prior appropriation system to rise to meet environmental challenges without the application of an administrative public trust regulatory layer. The biggest challenge is financial. These are market-based transactions and so the Water Trust must either accept donations or be prepared to make competitive offers to be able to acquire permanent public access, remove development potential, and safeguard environmental benefits.

How the Water Trust was Formed; Colorado Water Law 101

Some of the best legal minds in Colorado and the West meticulously brewed the initial notion for a nonprofit trust that would utilize water rights for environmental benefit. The Water Trust was founded in 2001 by water rights scholar David Getches and now-retired water attorneys Michael Browning and David Robbins.  Browning, who was the first chair of the board credits the initial concept being introduced by fellow law colleague Larry McDonnell, who was also on the faculty at the University of Colorado Law School.  With early guidance from David Harrison, the Water Trust has grown from a fledgling nonprofit to a respected water rights innovator, facilitating over sixty transactions that have restored millions of gallons to rivers and streams across Colorado.

The Water Trust emerged from the recognition that the prior appropriation doctrine, often seen as rigid and zero-sum, could be creatively applied to benefit rivers.  The Water Trust set out to proactively secure senior water rights for instream flows in collaboration with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), a state agency that holds the exclusive authority to place water to the beneficial use of instream flow in the State of Colorado as a way to preemptively address concerns about the future of the doctrine.  Colorado has been a pure prior appropriation state since even before the 1873 Centennial State ensconced the practice in its constitution. Known as the โ€œColorado Doctrine,โ€ a set of laws that the Territorial legislature passed in the 1860s established that:

  1. The stateโ€™s surface waters and groundwaters constitute a public resource for beneficial use by public agencies, private persons and entities;
  2. A water right is a right to use a portion of the publicโ€™s water supply;
  3. Water rights owners may build facilities on the lands of others to divert, extract, or move water from a stream or aquifer to its place of use;
  4. Water rights owners may use streams and aquifers for the transportation and storage of water.

The Water Trust operates squarely within the strict prior appropriation structure that the Colorado Doctrine established. In some western states, such as California, the public trust doctrine has been recognized to create an affirmative duty of state government to act as legal guardian for natural resource assets, including streams and rivers. Colorado, however, has remained a pure prior appropriation state since the 1800s.

The creation of the CWCB instream flow program in 1973 was an environmental era attempt to address streamflow issues without creating an exception to prior appropriation.  As the federal government legislated into law environmental measures including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the State of Colorado ensured that water right administration and the practice of prior appropriation would remain untouched by federal environmental measures. However, the initial CWCB instream flow program was not effective enough in protecting streamflow. At the outset, the CWCBโ€™s instream flow program could only appropriate junior water rights and acquire senior water rights at minimum stream flow rates โ€œnecessary to preserve the environment to a reasonable degree,โ€ which were often insufficient for genuine environmental protection. This shifted in 2002 when the legislature enabled the CWCB to acquire senior water rights and change their use to instream flow in water court, achieving more reliable priorities and stream flow rates โ€œto improve the environment to a reasonable degree.โ€

Still, by the turn of the Century, the CWCB had acquired only a handful of senior water rights for instream flow use, and consequently, not all Coloradans found the state instream flow program to be satisfactory. Citizen-led groups had proposed multiple ballot initiatives, but each had failed to recognize one form or another of public trust in Colorado.  Michael Browning explained that the Water Trustโ€™s formation in 2001 was partly a response to concerns surrounding the public trust doctrine and its potential impact on established water rights in Colorado. The founders of the Water Trust aimed to acquire senior water rights voluntarily and work with the CWCB to convert them to instream flow use, preserving their priority dates. The founders understood that acquiring senior priorities for instream flow water rights was key to both meeting environmental priorities and safeguarding the prior appropriation system in an era where many people value sustainability and recreation equally with consumptive water use.

Key early strategies involved acquiring agricultural water rights and partnering with the CWCB for holding and applying them to instream flow use. Browning described the initial concept of purchasing existing water rights for agriculture and converting them to instream flows.  The founders sought input from environmental and agricultural groups to ensure they wouldnโ€™t be seen as a threat and engaged with the CWCB to navigate the politics of instream flows.  Over time, the Water Trust strategy has expanded to include acquisition of reservoir rights like Jasper Lake and exploring ancillary uses such as downstream agricultural application, with environmental benefits accruing on a stream reach but no instream flow use per se.

It has always been crucial for the Water Trust to be perceived as working within the prior appropriation water rights system and not as a radical group trying to undermine it.  From the outset, the Water Trust has committed to voluntary transactions and working through water courts. The initial board consisted of water engineers and lawyers, with an effort to include representatives from agriculture. Browning noted that there were initial fears from some in the water community, but the boardโ€™s credibility helped alleviate opposition.  Over time, the Water Trust has grown from a small, Denver-based nonprofit to an influential statewide organization, with staff in the Upper Arkansas Basin and southwest Colorado, establishing roots in the communities where it has the greatest impact.

The first Water Trust acquisition of the Moser Water Rights on Boulder Creek near the Blue River was instructive.  A retiring ranching couple wanted to protect their land under conservation easements, but then discovered they could also protect their senior water rights to benefit the environment.  Their senior water rights gained a dual-purpose when the Mosersโ€™ collaborated with the Water Trust:  CWCB-facilitated instream flow for the creek, and downstream augmentation supply for the Colorado River District, stored in Wolford Mountain Reservoir.  The initial funding for the first water right purchase was primarily private, with the water right costing around $15,000. A significant turning point was the involvement of the Walton Family Foundation, which provided substantial grants allowing the Water Trust to grow and hire staff, including Amy Beattie as its first full-time executive director. Linda Bassi, Chief of the Instream Flow program for the CWCB, was also a key supporter, recognizing the opportunity to enhance the seniority of instream flow rights. The Water Trust developed a partnership with the CWCBโ€”the Water Trust would work with water right owners to purchase water rights and develop streamflow restoration projects, and the CWCB would hold and operate the acquired water for instream flows.

Case studies such as the Little Cimarron River transfer further highlight the Water Trustโ€™s innovative model.  In that project, water rights were split to allow both early-season irrigation by the landowner and late-season instream flow use by the CWCB, satisfying both agricultural and environmental needs without the typical winner-takes-all approach.  This was the first โ€œsplit-seasonโ€ use of water for both irrigation and instream flow approved in Colorado water court. Nuanced arrangements like this have allowed the Water Trust to earn the confidence of landowners, water users, and government entities alike.

How the Water Trust has Adapted; Water Law 201

Under the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, water rights are governed by โ€œfirst in time, first in right.โ€ While this doctrine has often been characterized as overly rigid, seasoned attorneysโ€”such as the late Colorado Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs and othersโ€”have long shown how water rights can be changed for new uses while maintaining senior priority. As Hobbs is purported to have said, and as board members and staff attorney for the Water Trust have expressed: Weโ€™ve done this forever for our clientsโ€ฆ now letโ€™s do it for our rivers.

Colorado law permits changes of use to be decreed by its water court, provided thereโ€™s no injury to other vested and decreed water rights.  Changing a water right requires limiting the use to historical consumption and diversion patterns in time, place, and amount.  The change process is cumbersome, often requiring tens of thousands of dollars in legal and engineering fees in addition to multiple years to usher a water court application from start to finish.  However, the end result is essential for water users who need a reliable supply, because the seniority, or date of appropriation assigned to a water right originally, is maintained throughout the change of use process.  Historically, an overwhelming proportion of these transfers have involved shifting water from agriculture to municipal or industrial uses.  In recent years, and thanks in part to the fortitude of the Water Trust and the CWCB, instream flow rights transfers have grown to become 1% of water right changes statewide.  While the shift is small, it has transformed rivers like the Little Cimarron and the Alamosa, adding flowing water back into riverbeds that were once unseasonably dry.  It signals that environmental uses are not second-class claims but essential components of modern water management.

The Jasper Lake donation exemplifies this principle.  The donor, instead of selling the valuable storage water on an open market, permanently gifted it for environmental useโ€”a use now recognized and legally protected under Colorado law.  And it was not only the generous donor who has supported their local stream systemโ€”37-Mile LLC as the buyer agreed to a set of strict covenants, essentially stripping the Jasper Lake water right of its development potential. This donation operates within the same legal framework as the early consumptive use transfers, including the Moser and Little Cimarron water rights, proving that environmental values can thrive without rewriting the rulebook.

Borrowing from Land Conservation Practices to Save Rivers

The water from Jasper Lake is not just turned loose; it is released into Jasper Creek, from which point it flows down 37 miles of Middle Boulder Creek and Boulder Creek before the Tiefel Family diverts it back out of the stream system for irrigation use. Unlike many Water Trust projects, there is no CWCB instream flow use of the water. Instead, the Water Trust ensured that the water would remain in Boulder Creek by choosing to partner with 37-Mile and requiring, as a condition of their partnership and sale, that 37-Mile would agree never to redivert the water until it reaches that 37-mile point, in addition to several other restrictions.

The restrictions that the Water Trust imposed include restrictive covenants and a public access easementโ€”legal constructs adopted from land use law.  Applying these principles, the property and water rights are permanently tied to ecological and public uses, while still respecting historical agricultural use for the Jasper Lake water. This flexibility was a key component that made the donation viable and attractive, and avoiding water court for a change of use enabled the participants to save on costs and time. The protections that the Water Trust tied permanently to Jasper Lake, the parcel of land surrounding it, and the water rights stored in it include the following:

  1. An easement allowing the public to access Jasper Lake and the parcel of land surrounding it. Colorado law limits the liability of landowners who hold title to inholdings on public lands provided there is signage, which was key to the ability of 37-Mile to take on this responsibility;
  2. Jasper Lake water must be stored until at least August 15 of each year, which provides the public with an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of its waters;
  3. The owner of the Jasper Lake water right must take water deliveries beginning on or after August 15 of each year, which ensures that flows in the Boulder Creek drainage are boosted after snowmelt, when fish and the environment need it most;
  4. The owner of Jasper Lake must take steps to avoid abandonment of the water right;
  5. The owner of Jasper Lake must allow Colorado Parks and Wildlife to stock the lake with fish; and
  6. Finally, if the owner of Jasper Court ever goes to water court, they must consult with the CWCB regarding the possible addition of instream flow use to the water right.

The covenant model ensures that the ecological intent of the donation is locked in perpetuity, regardless of future ownership changes.  This legal durability is critical in an age of shifting climate variability and volatile hydrology.  Moreover, the Jasper Lake donation includes an engineering-informed management plan that allows for strategic releases during critical low-flow periods, providing adaptive benefits for aquatic species, riparian vegetation, and downstream users. It is this combination of legal permanence and operational flexibility that makes the model so powerful.

Why Storage Matters: True Volume, True Impact

Storage rights, especially those high in the drainage area like Jasper Lake, offer great flexibility in release and can be timed to supplement flows when needed most. The long carriage distance of Jasperโ€™s releases down Boulder Creek allows for significant stream flow restoration. Storage water can be released during dry seasons when streamflow is lowest, directly improving water quality, mitigating temperature spikes, and sustaining aquatic life. As the old adage goes, โ€œThe solution to pollution is dilution.โ€ More water in the stream doesnโ€™t just benefit fish and bugs; it improves drinking water quality for downstream communities and strengthens overall watershed health.

This is a crucial point: while senior direct flow rights can sometimes provide benefit when left in the stream, they often do so inconsistently.  Stored water, by contrast, provides discretely measurable volumes that can be scheduled and managed.  This transformed the Jasper Lake donation from a gesture to a guaranteed outcome.  Drinking water providers, such as those in the Boulder and Denver metro areas, depend on baseflows to keep treatment costs low.  High-quality source water means fewer chemicals and less energy to meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards.  In this way, streamflow restoration becomes an upstream investment in downstream public health.

Perhaps most importantly, leaving water in the river should be understood not as a passive default, but as an affirmative beneficial use.  Traditionally, beneficial use has been defined through diversionโ€”water being taken out of the river for agriculture, industry, or municipal supply.  But Colorado law now affirms that instream flows can meet the beneficial use standard when they are legally protected and used to preserve the natural environment.  This conceptual shift is profound.  It re-centers the health of the river itself as a priority, recognizing that a flowing stream provides ecological services, supports recreation economies, enhances water quality and sustains life throughout the basin.

Why Permanence Matters: Creative and Collaborative Solutions

What makes the Jasper Lake donation especially promising is its emphasis on collaboration.  Governments, nonprofits, agricultural stakeholders and local communities worked in unison to ensure the projectโ€™s success.  Each party brought their priorities to the tableโ€”agricultural heritage, legal acumen, ecological resilienceโ€”and emerged with a better outcome than any could have achieved alone.

There are few other legal mechanisms in Colorado to protect water for the environment: RISIDS (Recovery Implementation for Endangered Species), Wild & Scenic River designation (with only one such stretch in Colorado), or narrowly focused instream flow rights used by the CWCB.  The Jasper Lake project expands this limited toolbox, showing that partnerships and legal creativity can yield conservation outcomes without requiring federal mandates.

Another instructive comparison is the Water Trustโ€™s work on the Yampa River system, where cooperative agreements among the CWCB, environmental organizations, and agricultural users have led to temporary instream flow leases and beneficial use deliveries to preserve flows during dry years.  These leases, though helpful, are inherently limited by duration and uncertainty.  That uncertainty is, at least to some extent, mitigated by the existence of the Yampa River Fund, an endowed and locally-managed fund that pays for water leasing and sponsors other work to improve the Yampa River and its tributaries.  Jasper Lake moves even beyond that, embedding conservation in perpetuity.

A Model for the West

Twenty-nine states operate under some form of the prior appropriation doctrine.  The Jasper Lake donation stands as a model that others can emulate.  Michael Browning said he still sees great opportunities for similar initiatives in other western states, especially those in the Colorado River Basin, emphasizing the role of nonprofits in adapting the water rights system to recognize environmental and recreational values.  By demonstrating that private rights can be permanently converted to public goodsโ€”without litigation, without legislative overhaul, and without harming other usersโ€”this project charts a replicable path forward.

While unique in the seven states of the Colorado River Basin, the Water Trust is not alone. The Oregon Water Trust, founded in 1994, and the Washington Water Trust, founded in 1998, are similar organizations.  There is an Arizona Water Trust that primarily focuses on land donations that may include water rights.  Montana, New Mexico, and Utah have all explored instream flow programs, but few have integrated storage donations.  In the Upper Snake Basin of Idaho, a pilot effort to lease stored water for environmental flows is promising, but still temporary.  Jasper Lake shows that permanent storage donations are possible, legal, and immensely beneficial. Especially in the seven basin states, the Colorado Water Trust serves as a useful model and tool for others to replicate.

Lessons Learned

Perhaps the most profound lesson from Jasper Lake is the value of permanence. One-time leases and short-term mitigation projects are common, but they do not provide the stability or reliability that rivers need.  Permanency ensures predictability.  It signals to ecosystems and economies alike that someone is planning for the long term.

Moreover, the donation sets a precedent that stored water can and should be used for instream benefitโ€”and that such uses are not just legally viable but deeply beneficial to the broader hydrological system.  As we consider future projects, the importance of true volume, collaborative administration, and permanence cannot be overstated.

Another key takeaway is the importance of patience.  Water transactions require timeโ€”not just to navigate the legal and engineering hurdles, but to build the trust among stakeholders that makes such projects durable.  Funders, partners, and policymakers must embrace this long view.  Water transactions require the same patience and investment mindset we bring to ski areas, resorts, transportation, reservoirs or other large infrastructure projects.  But the payoffโ€”cleaner rivers, healthier ecosystems, and stronger communitiesโ€”is well worth it.

Gratitude and Foresight

As Michael Browning said, โ€œProgress is possible with goodwill and a shared need.โ€  The Jasper Lake donation is more than a gift.  It is a template, a catalyst, and a moral benchmark.  It shows that with legal creativity, trust among partners, and courageous donors, we can build a more resilient and ecologically rich future.

As the West grapples with aridification and changing demands, projects like Jasper Lake shine like beacons.  They show us what is possible when we work together and think beyond ourselves.  None of this would be possible without the extraordinary foresight and generosity of the donor.  In a market where water rights fetch increasingly high prices, the choice to donateโ€”permanently, and without reservationโ€”is not only rare but deeply courageous.  It reflects an ethic of care that transcends personal gain and speaks to a commitment of legacy, community, and the natural world.

The success of the Colorado Water Trust also reflects gratitude for the legislative frameworks that made it possible.  Coloradoโ€™s instream flow program, the CWCBโ€™s administrative role, and the legal structure built into prior appropriation water law all played essential roles. The Jasper Lake project didnโ€™t require new laws; it simply needed the right vision and the will to collaborate. All it required was to Just Add Water. 

Jasper Lake is truly a remarkable and historic gift.

The Water Report
Written by: Kate Ryan & Matt Moseley 
Read the original article here.

Author Bios: 

Kate Ryan is a water lawyer who joined Colorado Water Trust in 2018 and was appointed as Executive Director in 2023. Her past clients included farmers, ranchers, municipalities, landowners, and the CWCB. Before going to Berkeley Law she obtained a masterโ€™s degree in geography at the University of Colorado. Kate does her work at the Colorado Water Trust in order to support that which she holds most dearโ€“our incredible state and the people within, the beautiful rivers and mountains we explore, and a future for her kids where they can experience a continuation of it all.

Matt Moseley is a communication strategist, author, speaker and world-record adventure swimmer. He is the principal and CEO of the Ignition Strategy Group, which specializes in high-stakes communications and issue management. As the author of three books and is the subject of two documentaries, he uses his swimming around the world to bring raise awareness about water issues. He is the co-chair of the Southwest River Council for American Rivers and is a member of the Advisory Board for the Center for Leadership at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He lives in Boulder with his wife Kristin, a water rights attorney and their two children.

Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

#Hartsel Water seeks to raise funds for Community Water Station Project — The Park County Republican & #Fairplay Flume

Hartsel Community Center at 80 Valley Drive in Hartsel. Photo courtesy of the Hartsel Community Center.

Click the link to read the article on The Park County Republican & Fairplay Flume website (Meryl Phair). Here’s an excerpt:

October 2, 2025

A new nonprofit in Hartsel is seeking to raise funds to support a Community Water Station Project that would benefit area residents who struggle with water access. Recently formed this May, the community-driven initiative is rallying residents to support its ongoing efforts through monthly community meetings and an upcoming family-friendly Fall Festival Fundraiser in October.ย  Angie Mills, Vice President of Hartsel Water, explained that the organization will be applying for funding from the Park County Land and Water Trust Fund (LWTF) with an ask of $2 million, 10% of which would be covered by Hartsel Water. โ€œWeโ€™re currently working on trying to raise $200,000,โ€ said Mills. โ€œThatโ€™s our primary focus right now.โ€ย Mills stressed the strong need for the local water station in Hartsel, as many residents are unable to drill their own wells. โ€œWhether it is for financial reasons or their location,โ€ said Mills. โ€œCloser to town, thereโ€™s a lot of hard water, and unless you put it in an expensive filtration system, it makes things tough.โ€ย As a result, Mills said that most residents use cisterns, water totes, or drive to other cities to retrieve their water resources, which is not always convenient or even feasible in the rural mountain town.ย Currently working with an engineer on technicalities, Mills said Hartsel Water has a few potential plots for the station in mind, ideally close to Highway 24 and Highway 9, conveniently located close to town.

Gross Dam construction making steady progress: Dam is now 60 feet taller after busy summer of work — Jay Adams (DenverWater.org)

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Jay Adams):

September 18, 2025

Denver Waterโ€™s Gross Dam in Boulder County continues to rise after a busy summer of construction.

Hundreds of workers are taking part in the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, which will raise the height of Gross Dam by 131 feet.

As of Sept. 5, crews had raised the dam by 60 feet. The project is designed to increase the water storage capacity of Gross Reservoir, which supplies water to 1.5 million people in the Denver metro area.

โ€œOver the past two years, weโ€™ve been working on the original dam to prepare it for the enlarged height and width,โ€ said Casey Dick, Denver Waterโ€™s deputy program manager for the project.

โ€œAt the end of June, the concrete work reached the original crest, so now all the concrete placements are above the existing structure.โ€

A dump truck fills up with concrete at the top of Gross Dam. The trucks drive across the top of the dam and place the concrete in layers to raise the dam higher. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Once completed, Gross Dam will be 471 feet tall and around 2,000 feet wide.

As the dam has gone up, it has become easier to see some of the differences between the original dam, which was completed in the 1950s, and the newly renovated structure.

For instance, the original surface of the downstream side of the dam was smooth. Now, the downstream side of the dam is a series of stair steps. The steps were an integral part of the construction process and supported the trucks that deposited layers of concrete onto the original structure of the dam.

This picture was taken from roughly the crest of the original dam. The dam has been raised 60 feet as of Sept. 5. The new face of the dam features a stepped design, which was needed for the construction process. Photo credit: Denver Water.

The renovated dam will also take on a new shape.

โ€œThe original structure was built as a โ€™curved gravityโ€™ dam,โ€ Dick said. โ€œNow, weโ€™re taking advantage of that curved geometry in the middle portion of the dam to create whatโ€™s called a โ€˜thick archโ€™ dam in the center of the canyon.โ€

The middle section of the dam is arched to give the dam strength as water pushes up against the structure. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Arches are used in dam construction because the force of the water in the reservoir pushes up against the arch and into the canyon walls. This gives an arched dam more strength compared to a flat structure.

โ€œWeโ€™ve also built what are called โ€™thrust blocksโ€™ on the sides of the original dam,โ€ Dick said. โ€œThese give the dam additional support by essentially extending the canyon walls upward to support the arch.โ€

The โ€œthrust blocks,โ€ highlighted in red, extend out from the canyon wall. The blocks provide additional strength where the arch of the dam meets the rock. Photo credit: Denver Water.

As work has risen above the original crest of the dam, workers have built formwork, or temporary molds, on both the upstream and downstream sides of the dam. The temporary structures hold the freshly placed concrete in the proper shape until it hardens and cures.

Workers build formwork, or temporary molds, on the top of the dam. The forms hold new concrete in place until it cures. Photo credit: Denver Water.

With the new added concrete added during the project, Gross Dam is now much steeper than the original structure. At the base, the dam is 300 feet thick, but it gets skinnier as it goes up. At the top, the dam will be just 25 feet thick. Crews have had to adjust to the smaller work area to maneuver their equipment as the project progressed.

Work to raise the dam will continue as late as possible into 2025, until weather conditions make it too cold to place concrete.

โ€œWeโ€™d like to thank all the men and women out here from Kiewit-Barnard and the other contractors out here,โ€ Dick said. โ€œThey are working around the clock and as fast as they can to complete this project.”

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.

#Arvada buys property for new water treatment plant: 25-acre property purchased for $5.7 million is located just west of existing plantย — The Arvada Press

The site for the new water treatment plant, marked โ€œWestโ€ on the map. Courtesy City of Arvada.

Click the link to read the article on The Arvada Press website (Rylee Dunn). Here’s an excerpt:

September 25, 2025

The city of Arvada is one step closer to replacing its aging water infrastructure, as city council unanimously approved the purchase of a 25-acre plot of land located at 6809 State Highway 93 for $5.7 million at the Sept. 16 city council meeting.ย The land is located just west of the existing Arvada Water Treatment Plant, which was built in 1979 and is nearing the end of its life, according to Arvadaโ€™s Communications Manager for Infrastructure, Katie Patterson. Arvada purchased the property from the Keller family. The city plans to annex the site, which is currently located in unincorporated Jefferson County, into Arvada as part of its next steps, the cityโ€™s Director of Infrastructure Jacqueline Rhoades said…The project is being funded by bond funding, customer rates and fees and development charges, not by general tax dollars. The city is utilizing bonds in an effort to curb rate increases by spreading out the cost of the project over time.ย Patterson said that once the new plant is operational, the old Arvada Water Treatment Plant will be decommissioned. That plan is still in the works, as some facilities at that site will remain in service after the plant is shut down…According to the Department of Infrastructure, the new site is ideal for a few reasons, including lower potential for groundwater, a property shape that allows for easier construction and an efficient site layout, minimal disruption to the natural views of the area, better terrain for construction and operation, a property size that allows for future expansions if needed and elevation that allows water to be delivered by gravity to most of the city.

Competing interests debate sale of historic #ColoradoRiver rights during marathon hearing — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News) #COriver #aridification

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

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Shannon Mullane):

September 18, 2025

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 stateโ€™s environmental water rights program and impact how Colorado River water will flow around the state long into the future. 

โ€œItโ€™s pretty hard to anticipate all of the ways that โ€˜in perpetuityโ€™ may play out,โ€ said Greg Felt, who represents the Arkansas River on the board. โ€œBuilding in representation for flexibility โ€ฆ is not a bad idea for an acquisition like this.โ€

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 stateโ€™s environmental water rights program, and other entities like water court and the stateโ€™s Public Utilities Commission.

The Colorado River District wants to add the environmental use as part of a larger plan to maintain the โ€œstatus quoโ€ 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. 

โ€œWhat weโ€™re presenting here today is an offer of a historic partnership,โ€ Andy Mueller, Colorado River District general manager, said. โ€œWe believe that this sets the state up for a truly collaborative future on the Colorado River.โ€

But any change to Shoshoneโ€™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 Slopeโ€™s proposal. 

For board member John McClow, who represents the Gunnison-Uncompahgre River, one key question came down to authority.

โ€œI just want to make sure we have adequate legal justification for doing what you suggest we should do,โ€ McClow told CWCB staff during the hearing. 

When the Colorado River is too low to meet Shoshoneโ€™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 โ€œcallโ€ 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.

โ€œWe have to protect our systems under all future potentialities,โ€ Whitaker said. โ€œThis 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.โ€

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. 

โ€œAs far as Iโ€™ve been able to understand it, I agree with you about what the statute and the rules say we may do,โ€ Felt told CWCB staff. โ€œI believe weโ€™re here to determine what we should do.โ€

This is a developing story and may be updated.

More by Shannon Mullane

Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

Why declining aquifers in #Colorado matter: #ColoradoRiver rightfully gets attention. So should the #groundwater depletion underway in the #RepublicanRiver and other basins — Allen Best (BigPivots.com)

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 cliffโ€™s edge are we? Very close, says a new report by the Center for Colorado River Studies.

But another cogent โ€” and somewhat related โ€” story lies underfoot in northeastern Colorado. Thatโ€™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 valleyโ€™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 Americaโ€™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 Hawaiiโ€™s Mauna Loa has told the global story since 1958.

Coloradoโ€™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.

โ€œIn many places where groundwater is being depleted, it will not be replenished on human timescales,โ€ they wrote. โ€œIt 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 worldโ€™s groundwater supply is paramount in a warming world and on continents that we now know are drying.โ€

This global perspective cited several areas of the United States, most prominently Californiaโ€™s Central Valley but also the Ogallala of the Great Plains.

In Colorado, the Ogallala underlies the stateโ€™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 Coloradoโ€™s mountain-gawking residents, is only slightly smaller than New Jersey.

A 1943 compact with Nebraska and Kansas has driven Coloradoโ€™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, itโ€™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 Coloradoโ€™s water comes from underground.

The Colorado River has big troubles. Itโ€™s not alone.

For stories in the series, see:

Part I: Hard questions about groundwater mining in Colorado: Itโ€™s going fast! What needs to be done in the Republican River Basin?

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.

Part III: 20th century expansions and 21st century realities in the San Luis Valley: The solutions seem fairly obvious. Executing them is another matter.

Part IV: Balancing demands of today and tomorrow:  Are we doing better than kicking the can down the road?

How much water remains in Baca County?: Study commissioned by legislators uses newer techniques than were available in 2002.

Efforts underway to return greenback cutthroat trout to headwaters of #Colorado Rivers: Native species to be restocked after brook trout are poisoned away — Sky-Hi News

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

Click the link to read the article on the Sky-Hi News website (Izzy Wagner). Here’s an excerpt:

September 9, 2025

13 years ago, Coloradoโ€™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.ย  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 โ€” 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 pesticideย rotenoneย to streams with invasive brook trout and other non-natives. Rotenone is a dangerous chemical in high concentrations, but it has beenย widely usedย 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,ย greenback cutthroat trout were virtually goneย 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 speciesโ€™ genetic diversity and resilience.

Cutthroat trout historic range via Western Trout

Douglas County water projects could receive $2.75 million in federal funding — #Colorado Politics

Douglas County.

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Politics website (Noah Festenstein). Here’s an excerpt:

September 4, 2025

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. Thatโ€™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 Coloradoโ€™s 4th Congressional District, had requested $9 million in federal funding for the Louviers Water & Sanitation Districtโ€™s drinking water distribution replacement and Castle Rock Waterโ€™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 Rockโ€™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 โ€œput on hold until additional funding could be secured,โ€ 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 Louvierโ€™s Water & Sanitation District Water Distribution Replacement, will provide residents with โ€œcleaner drinking water, increase system reliability, and enable better fire flow capacity,โ€ 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.

White Hawk Fire: A near disaster that didnโ€™t happen, decade-old fire mitigation project saves the day for Conifer homeowners — The Canyon Courier

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.

โ€œIt was so instantaneous, and the noise was so loud, we didnโ€™t even realize there was a light flash,โ€ Terry Haury said. โ€œI didnโ€™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.โ€

That was the start of the White Hawk fire. Due to the steep, rocky terrain and that dayโ€™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 forย the Jefferson Conservation Districtย 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 Sheriffโ€™s Office and a Douglas County helicopter equipped with a water tank joined forces at the site…The JCDโ€™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…JCDโ€™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.

Dog days a drag for Dillon Reservoir: Tough combination of conditions force Denver Water to lean heavily on its Summit County workhorse for summer water supply — Todd Hartman (DenverWater.org)

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Todd Hartman):

August 28, 2025

The dog days of summer have been draining for Dillon Reservoir.

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 Waterโ€™s supply. And that combination has translated into a heavy workload for the utilityโ€™s largest reservoir, the 257,000-acre-foot Dillon Reservoir in Summit County.

Dillon Reservoir in Summit County is Denver Waterโ€™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 Waterโ€™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.

โ€œA lot of factors combined to see us lean hard into our Dillon supplies this summer,โ€ said Nathan Elder, manager of supply for Denver Water. โ€œWe 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.โ€

The Dillon Marina at Dillon Reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Adding to the mix: Lower inflows into the reservoir. 

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 โ€” thatโ€™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 Centralโ€™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 โ€” flows important to rafters and anglers โ€” 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 customersโ€™ 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. 

โ€œWeโ€™ll hope to see water demands fall in September and then look to a good snowpack in the winter and spring,โ€ Elder said. 

โ€œBut weโ€™ll be starting from behind. We hope we can make up the gap in reservoir storage with a wet winter and spring. And weโ€™ll need our customers to help us with smart water practices.โ€

Denver Water’s entire collection system. Image credit: Denver Water.

Save The Poudre won’t try to stop #Thornton from finishing water pipeline — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver

The black line shows the preferred route of the pipeline as of November 2023. Credit: City of Thornton

Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:

August 18, 2025

Key Points

  • 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

The environmental advocacy group that seeks to protect the Poudre River says it will not appealย a judge’s ruling that allowed the project to proceed. Theย project is set to bring water from the Poudre to Thornton via a pipeline running through Larimer, Weld and Adams counties.,Larimer County commissioners, and the planning commission before them, approved the pipeline permit in 2024. Then Save The Poudre sued, saying the board of commissioners exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion when it granted the permit…

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.

Here’s the statement from Save the Poudre:

As Gross Reservoir rises, Boulder County residents grapple with projectโ€™s legal turmoil — The Water Desk #BoulderCreek

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 Denverโ€™s residents. (Cassie Sherwood/The Water Desk)

Click the link to read the article on The Water Desk website (Cassie Sherwood):

July 23, 2025

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. 

Straussโ€™s house sits looking directly over Gross Reservoir, which provides water to Denver residents.

But when a project to significantly raise the reservoirโ€™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. 

โ€œIt became impossible to sit on the deck before sunrise and after sundown, astrophotography was impossible. They lit up the skies,โ€ 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 โ€œstepsโ€ made of roller-compacted concrete to reach the new height. Image credit: Denver Water

Raising the dam 

Gross Reservoirโ€™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 โ€œa combination of demands in our system, as well as concerns about climate and concerns about the needs for greater resilience in our system,โ€ 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.

โ€œIf we have an extreme drought event, we want to have more water banks that we can help smooth the impacts to our customers,โ€ 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 Straussโ€™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)

โ€œThe 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?โ€ said Anna McDermott, another resident of the area. 

โ€œWe sleep with our windows open. Not one house has air conditioning, so you sleep with your windows open in the summer months,โ€ she said.  โ€œYou hear these giant backup beepers crashing, grinding all night long. Even with earplugs, I canโ€™t sleep.โ€ 

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. 

โ€œAt one point they had one of the two roads down this mountain closed for five months,โ€ Kurtz said. โ€œIt wasnโ€™t until we called the sheriff out here and he realized the safety concern that they opened the road back up.โ€

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 utilityโ€™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 damโ€™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.

โ€œIf you stop the construction of a dam when it is partially built, the dam doesnโ€™t function as it was ultimately designed to function,โ€ said Denver Waterโ€™s Brody. โ€œThat was a big concern of ours and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.โ€

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. 

Arguelloโ€™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. 

โ€œThe Environmental Impact Statement didnโ€™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,โ€ said Doug Kenney, Western Water Policy Program director at the University of Colorado Boulderโ€™s Natural Resources Law Center. Acquiring new permits will require Denver Water to redefine the projectโ€™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. 

โ€œIt makes it more difficult to ensure that thereโ€™s sufficient flow downstream as a result,โ€ Kenney said. โ€œWe 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.โ€

By calling into question the projectโ€™s potential to have downstream impacts, the decision could add a new legal hurdle future water development infrastructure will have to clear. 

โ€œHistorically, agencies in recent decades have not done enough to consider climate change in decisions,โ€ 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. 

โ€œWe think that the district court made some misjudgements or misinterpretations when it found the Army Corps committed these errors,โ€ 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 reservoirโ€™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 waterโ€™s edge.ย 

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 theyโ€™re more than ready for construction to be completed, exhausted from the daily disruptions, explosions and drilling. 

โ€œNow clearly, when the work is done, the things which negatively impacted my life would go away. But I couldnโ€™t last them out,โ€ Strauss said. He recently relocated to the Boulder area. โ€œIt was just my bad luck that my golden years coincided with the worst effects of the project.โ€ 

Some residents found that the expansion project has renewed their sense of community in Lakeshore Park.

โ€œIn a weird way a lot of us have gotten even closer because we were in the battle together,โ€ Kurtz said. โ€œWe feel like at this point we won the battle, but weโ€™ve lost the war.โ€

โ€œThey will get the permits to eventually fill this reservoir following the expansion,โ€ she said. 

However, federal courts requiring the proper permits to continue construction is a win in her and TEGโ€™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. 

โ€œIf nothing else, we hope that precedent still stands. Because it will help somebody else,โ€ she said. 

This story was produced by The Water Desk, an independent journalism initiative at the University of Colorado Boulderโ€™s Center for Environmental Journalism. 

This week in history, Larimer County experienced 2 of its worst floods — The #FortCollins Coloradoan

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.
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.

Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:

July 29, 2025

Fort Collins, Spring Creek flood July 28, 1997
  • 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’sย monsoon season.

‘We’re very proud of what we do’: #Colorado State University students help test dam safety on Halligan Reservoir model — Alex Hager (KUNC.org) #PoudreRiver

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 youโ€™re going to build a new reservoir, you better be dam sure itโ€™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 CSUโ€™s foothills campus, theyโ€™re sending water through a 24:1 scale mockup of the dam that will hold back an expanded Halligan Reservoir.

โ€œIt 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 itโ€™s built, as expected,โ€ 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 โ€” or 72 inches of rain โ€” 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 thatโ€™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 itโ€™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, itโ€™s hitting the base as roiling whitewater. Thatโ€™s exactly where most of this teamโ€™s research has been focused.

They built a series of โ€œbafflesโ€ 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

โ€œWe can easily change things in a physical model,โ€ said Jeff Ellis, who manages the hydraulics lab where the model is housed. โ€œWe can move things by an inch and just keep on retesting, and it’s really optimizing performance.โ€

The City of Fort Collins is nearing construction on the dam, which will enable them to expand Halligan Reservoirโ€™s storage capacity. City officials say that itโ€™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. Itโ€™s giving engineering students a new kind of experience.

โ€œItโ€™s super rewarding,โ€ he said. โ€œA lot of time in class, youโ€™re doing a lot of theoretical work, itโ€™s not hands-on. Where this, theyโ€™re actually doing design and theyโ€™re helping solve these real world problems.โ€

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.

โ€œIt’s really cool to see all of our hard work actually translate into the real world,โ€ she said, โ€œWe’re very proud of what we do here.โ€

Halligan Reservoir aerial credit: City of Fort Collins

Part II: South Metro #Denver cities starting to diversify water sources: #CastleRock 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 #SouthPlatteRiver Valley — Allen Best (BigPivots.com)

Castle Rock. Photo credit: Allen Best

Click the link to read the series on the Water Education Colorado website. Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

July 20, 2025

This is Part II of a four-part series about groundwater basins in Colorado. The story was commissioned by Water Education Colorado and appears in a variant form in the summer 2025 issue of Headwaters magazine. Photos by Allen Best unless otherwise noted.

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 countyโ€™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? Thatโ€™s not an easy answer to deliver, as a consultant told the Castle Rock City Council in 2005. A council member asked him: โ€œJust how much water remains?โ€ Perhaps leery of trying to offer easy answers that required a half-hour explanation, he simply smiled and said: โ€œItโ€™s dark down there.โ€

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 stateโ€™s authority to attach this stipulation.

The stipulation was premised on a 1973 law in which state legislators ordered a โ€œslow sipโ€ 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 permitteeโ€™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.

Itโ€™s crucial to understand that water underground knows no property lines, no signs saying โ€œWelcome to Parker.โ€ Water could, in theory, flow from below Auroraโ€™s land to Parkerโ€™s wells. Underground, there are no fences.

Colorado Supreme Court justices, in their November 2024 majority opinion, warned of a โ€œrace to the bottom of the aquifer, with earlier permittees receiving a significant head start.โ€ What would happen if Parker Water, Castle Rock Water and others had their druthers? โ€œAbsent 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,โ€ 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 โ€œtime as may reasonably be necessary to correct deficiencies,โ€ he says. But yes, they would be โ€œsubject to enforcement.โ€

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 applicantโ€™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 Rockโ€™s wells, Mark Marlowe, director of the cityโ€™s water utility, suggested consultation of a hydrogeologist, perhaps from the U.S. Geological Survey. Pressed further, he said Castle Rockโ€™s groundwater supply will last more than 300 years โ€œfrom a legal standpointโ€ 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. โ€œWeโ€™ve been headed down this road for a long time,โ€ he says. So why participate in Parkerโ€™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.

Marloweโ€™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 heโ€™s confident that by 2050 it will lessen to 25%.

Several of Castle Rockโ€™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,โ€ says Yahn. โ€œThe decree that Parker and Lower South Platte are seeking still has Prewitt Reservoir as a component of the plan.โ€ 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 โ€œnewโ€ water โ€” 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, itโ€™s not clear how the Nebraska lawsuit against Colorado involving water for Nebraskaโ€™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 โ€” 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.

โ€œThanks, but no thanks,โ€ is how Redd describes Parkerโ€™s response to the idea of a lengthy straw sucking water from two river basins away.

โ€œWe have our project, and financially it makes a lot more sense to go that route.โ€

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.

Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

#Nebraska sues #Colorado over construction to pull water from #SouthPlatteRiver — Parker Yamasaki and Olivia Prentzel (WaterEducationColorado.org)

The confluence of the Big Thompson and South Platte rivers near Greeley. Credit: Westervelt Ecological Services

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Parker Yamasaki and Olivia Prentzel):

July 16, 2025

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 Nebraskaโ€™s water supply through โ€œunlawful water diversionsโ€ that have deprived Nebraskaโ€™s farmers of water.

Nebraskaโ€™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.

โ€œThese 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,โ€ the lawsuit said.

Perkins County Canal Project Area. Credit: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

The complaint also alleges Colorado is obstructing Nebraskaโ€™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 Platteโ€™s winter flow.

Historically Colorado has sent significant winter water across the state line, but the stateโ€™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 โ€œnovelโ€ 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 โ€œunfortunate and predictable given the misguided effort driving the proposed canal.โ€

โ€œNebraska 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, Nebraskaโ€™s actions will force Colorado water users to build additional new projects to lessen the impact of the proposed Perkins County Canal,โ€ Weiser wrote.

Nebraska has been inching toward building the canal since April 2022, when the state legislature approved the $500 million project, citing fears about Coloradoโ€™s increased water use.

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.

โ€œI also said I think this feels more like a political stunt. It doesnโ€™t make sense,โ€ Weiser told The Colorado Sun in February.

Nebraska hopes to complete the Perkins County Canal by 2032.

More by Parker Yamasaki and Olivia Prentzel

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.

Reservoirs almost fill, fall short of (predicted) spill: An abrupt dry spell in the high country shriveled the spring #runoff, a reminder to conserve precious water supplies — Todd Hartman (DenverWater.org) #SouthPlatteRiver #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Todd Hartman):

July 8, 2025

In early July, Denver Waterโ€™s reservoirs filled nearly to the brim, holding the most water theyโ€™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 utilityโ€™s water watchers, 2025โ€™s โ€œpeak storageโ€ moment was a letdown โ€” and even a warning of sorts.

Dillon Reservoir, Denver Waterโ€™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 Coloradoโ€™s high country during April, May and June sapped that extra runoff, as drier soils and warmer air soaked up the potential excess.

โ€œWe thought we were going to have some excess water to play with this year,โ€ said Nathan Elder, Denver Waterโ€™s manager of water supply. โ€œBut as it turned out we just barely saw enough runoff to fill our reservoirs.โ€

This yearโ€™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 canโ€™t take water supplies for granted. Thatโ€™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, itโ€™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 Waterโ€™s supply comes from the West Slope, where a dry spring is making supplies tight.

โ€œBack on April 1, we thought we were going to be โ€˜filling and spilling,โ€™โ€ Elder said. โ€œBut 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.โ€

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 Waterโ€™s reservoirs was lack of precipitation โ€” just 50% to 70% of normal โ€” 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 Waterโ€™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 yearโ€™s shortfall across the reservoir system was about 7,500 acre feet, enough water to supply more than 15,000 households for a year.

โ€œWe 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,โ€ Elder said. โ€œWe 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.โ€

In addition to the lower-then-expected peak storage numbers, Denver Water also faces another โ€œsubstitution yearโ€ 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, thatโ€™s changing, with such โ€œwater refundsโ€ from Denver Water required in 2021, 2022 and now, 2025.

โ€œThat is another thing that, like the spring dry-up in the mountains, we didnโ€™t expect this year,โ€ Elder said. 

But other aspects of the stateโ€™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. 

โ€œThose storms really helped us out; we havenโ€™t had to run big exchanges and send our reservoir water down to meet those needs,โ€ 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 Waterโ€™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.

โ€œThe less we can draw on our reservoirs,โ€ Elder said, โ€œthe better chance we can fill up again next season.โ€

#Nebraska state leaders filed a lawsuit against #Colorado on Wednesday seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court assert Nebraskaโ€™s century-old water rights to the #SouthPlatteRiver that crosses state lines — Zach Wendling (ColoradoNewsline.com)

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)

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Newsline website (Zach Wendling):

July 16, 2025

This story was originally published by the Nebraska Examiner.

LINCOLN, Nebraska โ€” Nebraska state leaders filed a lawsuit against Colorado on Wednesday seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court assert the Cornhusker Stateโ€™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, โ€œEvery drop of water matters.โ€

Pillen and Hilgers accused Colorado officials of siphoning off more and more water every day, even as Nebraska had been โ€œniceโ€ with Colorado, which has seen increases in housing, agricultural and business development along the waterway.

โ€œWeโ€™re here to put our gloves on,โ€ Pillen said, to defend what he called a โ€œmulti-generation investmentโ€ afforded under the South Platte River Compact that took effect in 1926.

โ€œWeโ€™re going to fight like heck. Weโ€™re going to get every drop of water,โ€ Pillen continued Wednesday. โ€œWeโ€™ve been losing to Colorado on this issue for too long. Itโ€™s time we win.โ€

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called Wednesdayโ€™s lawsuit โ€œunfortunateโ€ and said Pillen and Hilgers โ€œput politics above farming communities and the regional agricultural economy.โ€

โ€œThe failure to look for reasonable solutions and to turn to litigation is both unfortunate and predictable given the misguided effort driving the proposed canal,โ€ Weiser said in a statement.

โ€˜They want everythingโ€™

Hilgers said his team had exercised all options in communications with Weiserโ€™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 itโ€™s hard to say precisely how long more water than allowed has been taken and that itโ€™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.

Nebraskaโ€™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 โ€œupstream economy,โ€ which he said comes at the expense of Colorado and Nebraska farmers, with Nebraskaโ€™s western neighbors having โ€œno interest in anything being fair and just.โ€

โ€œThey want absolutely everything, theyโ€™re even stealing the water from their own farmers, for crying out loud,โ€ Pillen told reporters.

โ€˜All-front warโ€™

The interstate compact also allows Nebraska to construct the โ€œPerkins County Canal,โ€ 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 โ€œeminent domainโ€ 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 โ€œonly if the parties failed to reach amicable terms.โ€

Hilgers said the situation escalated to an โ€œall-front warโ€ in the past year, with Hilgers and Pillen accusing Colorado officials of stepping up opposition, including through local Colorado landowners.

Nebraska-Colorado โ€˜impasseโ€™ reached

Hilgers said he and his team have had many conversations with their Colorado counterparts but are at an โ€œimpasse,โ€ largely over the projectโ€™s scope, including canal size, location and Nebraskaโ€™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 nationโ€™s history, according to Hilgers.

โ€œThere 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 courtโ€™s jurisdiction,โ€ the complaint to the Supreme Court states.

Weiser said that if the Supreme Court does greenlight the โ€œwasteful project,โ€ it will force Colorado water users to build additional projects to lessen the impact of the canal. He encouraged โ€œcollaboration and collaboration, rather than litigation,โ€ which could lead to a โ€œdurable and thoughtful solutionโ€ that increases regional resiliency and agricultural strength.

In 2022, a spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis called the project a โ€œcanal to nowhereโ€ and a โ€œboondoggle.โ€

Polis on Wednesday called the lawsuit โ€œmeritlessโ€ and said the state had continued to meet with Nebraska in โ€œgood faithโ€ despite its efforts to intimidate some Colorado landowners. He reasserted that his state has always complied with the South Platte River Compact.

โ€œThis escalation by Nebraska is needless, and Colorado will take all steps necessary to aggressively defend Colorado water users, landowners, and our rural economy,โ€ Polis said in a statement.

Pillen, asked whether he had talked to Polis about the canal or lawsuit, said plainly: โ€œNo.โ€

โ€œThe bottom line: He and I do not agree one iota. And thereโ€™s no sense in further conversations,โ€ Pillen said. โ€œIโ€™m not playing goober politics on this. Weโ€™re going to fight for Nebraska.โ€

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 Governorโ€™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 โ€œinevitableโ€ 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.

โ€˜The future of Nebraskaโ€™

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.

โ€œThis is critical to the future of Nebraska,โ€ Bradley said. โ€œWe will continue to push forward aggressively.โ€

Also joining Wednesdayโ€™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 stateโ€™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 โ€œsave penniesโ€ on the project and would have the โ€œA Team 100% of the timeโ€ to win, โ€œnot a shadow of a doubt.โ€

Weiser estimated that โ€œwhen the dust finally settles,โ€ more than a billion dollars would be spent over a possible decade of litigation, and โ€œno one in Nebraska or Colorado will be better off.โ€

Hilgers said heโ€™s thankful the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the issue.

โ€œWe could maybe not get everything we want in front of the Supreme Court. But if we donโ€™t file, we will lose. Period, full stop,โ€ Hilgers said. โ€œAnd what we will lose will so far outstrip the cost of this particular project that will really be a โ€˜shame on usโ€™ moment if we donโ€™t actually follow through.โ€

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.

$4 million in federal funds restored for Upper #ColoradoRiver Basin watersheds damaged by fire, overgrazing — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News) #COriver #aridification

Lands in Northern Water’s collection system scarred by East Troublesome Fire. October 2020. Credit: Northern Water

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

July 10, 2025

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 Waterโ€™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 administrationโ€™s reorganization of federal agencies and associated budget cuts.

In June, Gov. Jared Polisโ€™ 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.

Itโ€™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 Riverโ€™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.

โ€œThe biggest concerns that we had were closing parts of the forest because there hasnโ€™t been sufficient cleanup. Some mountainsides are unstable,โ€ he said. โ€œItโ€™s the funding that makes it safe for the public to go into those areas. Thatโ€™s why it was important to get the funding back.โ€

More by Jerd Smith

Colorado-Big Thompson Project map. Courtesy of Northern Water.

Judge’s ruling keeps #Thornton water pipeline project moving forward — The #FortCollins Coloradan #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver

Thornton Water Project preferred pipeline alignment November 16, 2023 via ThorntonWaterProject.com

Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:

July 7, 2025

Key Points

  • A Larimer County judge ruled in favor of Larimer County commissioners, upholding their approval of a permit for Thornton’s 10-mile pipeline project.
  • Save The Poudre, an environmental group, sued the county, arguing the commissioners didn’t properly consider the ‘Poudre River option.’
  • Save The Poudre is considering an appeal, while Thornton says it continues to focus on providing water to its residents.

The city of Thornton is the true winner in a recent court ruling focused on the pipeline it’s planning to build in Larimer County to bring more water to its residents. The lawsuit was filed a year ago by Save The Poudre,ย an environmental advocacy group. Its target was theย Larimer County commissioners, who had approved a permit for construction of the pipeline.

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.