The $33 million Colorado River Connectivity Channel diverts the river around the Windy Gap Dam to improve river health, fish passage and habitat in the upper headwaters of the Colorado River. (Northern Water, Contributed)
With the snip of a ribbon Tuesday, Colorado water managers officially opened a new waterway in Grand County that reconnects a stretch of the Colorado River for the first time in four decades to help fish and aquatic life.
The milelong waterway, called the Colorado River Connectivity Channel, skirts around Windy Gap Reservoir, where a dam has broken the natural flow of the river since 1985. The $33 million project’s goal is to return a stretch of the river to its former health, a river where aquatic life thrived and fish could migrate and spawn. But getting to the dedication ceremony Tuesday took years of negotiations that turned enemies into collaborators and can serve as a model for future water projects, officials say.
“It speaks to the new reality of working on water projects, which is that it doesn’t have to be an us-versus-them situation,” Northern Water spokesperson Jeff Stahla said. “People can get together and identify things that can help not only the water supply, but also help the environment.”
Windy Gap Reservoir and the new channel are just off U.S. 40 near Granby, a few miles southwest of popular recreation areas around Lake Granby and Grand Lake.
The reservoir was designed to deliver an average of 48,000 acre-feet of water per year from Grand County through numerous reservoirs, ditches, canals and pipelines to faucets in homes and sprinklers on farms across northeastern Colorado. One acre-foot roughly equals the annual water use of two to three households.
But soon after construction finished in 1985, locals and fly fishermen started noticing problems — starting with the bugs.
Drivers used to cleaning insects out of their radiators suddenly had one less chore as certain types of mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies disappeared. In 2011, state biologists calculated a 38% loss in diversity between the early 1980s and 2011.
The dam blocked fish passage, and the reservoir became a breeding ground for whirling disease, a deadly condition for local trout caused by a microscopic parasite.
Windy Gap Reservoir before construction started for the Colorado River Connectivity Channel. The dam, built in 1985, blocked the Colorado River and inhibited a healthy fishery. The new channel around the reservoir will improve the health of the Upper Colorado River. (Northern Water, Contributed)
It choked seasonal high flows. Without the flows to flush the sediment from between small rocks, the habitat for a fundamental food source, small organisms called macroinvertebrates, diminished. The sculpin, a small fish that often serves as an indicator of river health, disappeared entirely.
Macro Invertebrates via Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge Water Quality Research
“The ecosystem started crashing,” said Kirk Klancke, a longtime conservationist in the area. “It didn’t die out completely, but it certainly started crashing. We lost all the sensitive, most important macroinvertebrates.”
The fishery’s gold medal status was threatened, and losing that would have been a blow to the local economy, he said.
The reservoir also couldn’t reliably serve its main purpose: catching water and pumping it 6 miles to Lake Granby to eventually reach the Front Range. When the lake is filled to the brim in wet years, it can’t store Windy Gap’s water, leaving northeastern communities in the lurch, according to Northern Water.
Restoring a river channel in the Upper Colorado Basin. Graphic credit: Northern Water
The new channel is the fix.
To create the channel, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District started work in 2022, draining Windy Gap Reservoir and cutting its size in half. The result is a smaller reservoir and a floodplain through which the channel flows.
Crews built a new diversion headgate — the main focus of the dedication this week — that manages how much water enters the reservoir from the channel. They removed a small, upstream dam crossing the Fraser River that blocked fish passage.
After vegetation is established, the channel will open to fishing and recreation, likely around 2027.
Water has been flowing through the channel for about a year, and officials are already seeing benefits: Colorado Parks and Wildlife said Tuesday that the sculpin has been detected in that stretch for the first time in 20 years.
“Seeing the project come to fruition, and then getting the bonus of having wildlife biologists tell you, ‘Yep, we’re already seeing signs of biological healing,’ was just mind blowing,” said Tony Kay, former president of Trout Unlimited who has been working on connecting the river for 26 years.
It was emotional. Not everyone who started this process was able to see it through to the end, like Bud Isaacs, a downstream landowner who was one of the first to raise the alarm and who passed away in 2022, Kay said.
“We never actually thought that this would happen,” he said.
The channel is also one facet of a sweeping, multimillion-dollar plan to fix multiple problems in one go.
Through the Windy Gap Firming Project, growing Front Range communities will have more reliable water storage in the form of Chimney Hollow Reservoir, which is under construction near Loveland and will work in tandem with Windy Gap to provide water supplies.
The effort to build the connectivity channel has seemed slow moving at times, but officials, environmentalists and urban areas are celebrating it as an example of hard-won collaboration.
“It was a gamble to partner with Front Range water diverters. There were a lot of people who told us you can’t do deals with the devil. You’re going to end up really regretting it,” Klancke said. “The connectivity channel has proved we went down the right road.”
It’s also just one step in addressing chronic low-flow issues along the upper Colorado River caused by drought and massive water diversions to Colorado’s Front Range, Klancke said.
In five years time, Kay hopes to see a healed river through the new channel and farther downstream. He’ll be saying “thank you” every time he drives past that stretch of the river.
The dam raise process begins at the bottom of the dam using roller-compacted concrete to build the new steps that will go up the face of the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
October 17, 2024
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when approving permits for the construction of the dam, U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello found in the ruling, issued Wednesday. The federal agency failed to sufficiently consider other options that could be less environmentally damaging than dam expansion, Arguello wrote in her order. Arguello did not order Denver Water to stop construction on the dam, in part because the utility already plans to halt construction in November for the winter season. An abrupt halt to the project could also affect the integrity of the dam, she wrote. The defendants and plaintiffs will now work to create a remedy for the improperly issued permits. Each side must submit briefs on proposed solutions to Arguello by Nov. 15. In a statement, Denver Water said it still hopes “to move the project toward completion.”
[…]
Denver Water argued in its filings that the issues raised were moot since construction had already begun and one of the permits in question already used. Arguello, however, dismissed that argument, as the reservoir had not yet been expanded and the 400 acres of land and 500,000 trees it would drown still remained above water…
One of the Army Corps of Engineers’ failures was its lack of analysis of how climate change could impact the project. As climate change shrinks the amount of water available in the Colorado River system, Arguello asked, is it practical and reasonable to build a reservoir to store water that doesn’t exist? The lack of analysis shows that the USACE did not fully analyze the practicality of the dam project, as required by law, she wrote.
Water stored in Colorado’s Denver Basin aquifers, which extend from Greeley to Colorado Springs, and from Golden to the Eastern Plains near Limon, does not naturally recharge from rain and snow and is therefore carefully regulated. Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey.
Nearly 40 years ago, after watching aquifers below Douglas County plunge amid fast growth and heavy use, Colorado lawmakers adopted a “sip slowly” management process that required communities such as Parker and Castle Rock to pump out fixed amounts of nonrenewable groundwater each year in an effort to make the resource last at least 100 years.
Fast forward to 2020. That year, the state directed well owners to sip even slower, explicitly stating how much water their permits entitled them to, and requiring them to stop pumping at the end of that 100-year period if they have fully used the water to which they were entitled when the original well permits were issued.
But Parker and Castle Rock objected, suing the state over the new permitting language. They argued that the original volume estimates used to calculate their annual pumping rates were never meant as formal, total volume limits. Those limits, they argued, could sharply limit their future water supplies because they were essentially a best guess, based on measuring technology that has changed considerably since then.
Aurora and Greeley joined the case, siding with the state. A special water court ruled against Parker and Castle Rock, which together appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The high court is expected to issue a ruling in the case before the end of the year, according to spokeswoman Suzanne Karrer.
Under Colorado’s so-called 100-year rule, well owners can extract no more than 1% of the water under their lands each year, pumping all the water within 100 years of the issuance of their permits. But prior to use of the new permitting language, the total volume of water that could be taken out over the life of the permit was never explicitly stated on the permits themselves, though it was used to calculate the annual extraction rate.
State officials said they added the water volumes to ensure wells are regulated in a uniform way and that well owners are informed at the start of that 100-year clock how much actual water they can pump.
Deputy State Engineer Tracy Kosloff explained, via email. “If the amount pumped is less than the annual maximum, the length of time it takes to reach the total allowed withdrawal will be more than 100 years. For instance, if one pumps half of the maximum each year, it will take 200 years to reach the total.”
However, if the maximum allowed each year is pumped, then the permit will expire at the end of the 100 years, and the well owner would have to stop pumping and find other water sources, Kosloff said.
But Parker and Castle Rock argue that water levels in the aquifer vary and that over that 100-year period more water might actually be available to them. Establishing a lifetime limit, especially one based on an estimate and old measuring technology, could deprive them of water to which they are entitled.
Colorado designated groundwater basins.
Colorado is home to several aquifer formations, some of which can be easily recharged via rainfall and snowmelt, and are considered renewable. Others cannot be readily recharged and thus are considered to be nonrenewable. These are known as nontributary aquifers and wells drilled in these areas are at the heart of the dispute.
Sean Chambers, Greeley’s director of water and sewer utilities, supports water regulators’ effort to more closely manage nonrenewable underground supplies by including a specific volume on permits because it will better protect everyone over the long run.
Greeley is planning a major new aquifer storage facility on the Wyoming border known as the Terry Ranch. The city wants to ensure water it stores underground isn’t inadvertently tapped by other users whose pumping could siphon off the city’s supplies, Chambers said via email.
When it became clear in the 1980s and 1990s that the aquifers were in decline, Douglas County communities began reducing the amount of water they were taking out of the aquifers, adding surface supplies from the South Platte River and Cherry Creek, and building multimillion dollar water recycling plants so they can reuse the water they already own.
Parker once relied on nonrenewable groundwater for more than 90% of its supplies, but has since reduced that use to roughly 35%. By 2050, it hopes to drop that amount to 25% of its supplies, according to Ron Redd, manager of the Parker Water and Sanitation District.
Ultimately, Redd said, it’s likely that the state laws on the books now will have to be changed as a result of the dispute.
“If we lose, we will try to run legislation upholding our interpretation of the law,” he said. “We were surprised by this. No one knew it was coming until suddenly we saw this condition on our well permits.”
More by Jerd Smith. Jerd Smith is editor of Fresh Water News. She can be reached at 720-398-6474, via email at jerd@wateredco.org or @jerd_smith.
Water treatment process in Greeley. Graphic via Greeley Water
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. An environmental group is now suing the Army Corps of Engineers over a key permit for Northern Water’s proposal. (Save the Poudre lawsuit, from Northern Water project pages)
The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit from environmentalists last week that sought to force Larimer County to reevaluate a massive northern Colorado water project, which would eventually supply 13 billion gallons of water to 15 Front Range communities. The Northern Integrated Supply Project would pump water from the Poudre River into two large reservoirs that would be built near Fort Collins and Greeley and would include dozens of miles of new pipelines and a major renovation of existing canals. The utility proposing the project, Northern Water, says it’s the only way to meet demand for an additional 500,000 customers it expects to serve by 2050…In promotional materials, Northern Water said the reservoir project would add water into the Poudre River during dry spells, and that the project would improve water quality in the river basin…
In 2019, Save the Poudre and No Pipe Dream, another advocacy organization, sued the Larimer County Board of Commissioners for approving a local permit for the project. The groups alleged that two commissioners were biased in favor of the project and that the permit — a critical step before construction — should be denied. In an Oct. 3 decision, the appeals court upheld a lower court decision and confirmed the permit was properly issued…The ruling inches the reservoir project one step closer to construction more than 20 years after it started in earnest. Northern Water first started planning for the project in the 1980s. It has already cleared significant hurdles, including approval from multiple state and county agencies and the federal government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers…
The reservoir project may still require a local permit from Fort Collins, since part of its pipelines may cut through the city. For years, the city opposed the project because of its potential impact to wetlands and other natural features. In 2023, the city strengthened its approval process for large infrastructure works, which means it will have to be impartial when evaluating those permits. In July 2024, the city council formally rescinded its opposition to the project.
American beaver, he was happily sitting back and munching on something. and munching, and munching. By Steve from washington, dc, usa – American Beaver, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3963858
A beaver evangelist of sorts, Goldfarb has dived deep into the world of beavers in writing his 2018 book “Eager: The Surprising, Secret Life of Beavers and Why They Matter”. The volume explores the environmental consequences of losing the water-loving rodents that once inhabited lakes and rivers across the country at a population size between 100 to 200 million. Hunted for their fur, beavers were nearly extinct in North America by the late 1800s. The loss of their damming activities dramatically changed our landscapes, leading to the erosion of streams and the loss of wetlands and riparian habitat…While beaver populations are estimated to be only a tenth of what they once were, many projects are working to boost beaver populations including some locally in Park County. The rodents are even being revered as critical players in fighting complex environmental challenges including drought, flooding, wildfire, extinction and climate change. Some of these beavers have made their home at SCR, a 71-acre property owned and managed by the Mountain Area Land Trust (MALT) which hosts educational programming, high alpine research, publicly accessible walking trails and of course, beaver ponds. Hosted in collaboration with the local Mosquito Range Heritage Initiative, the evening’s beaver walk and talk with Goldfarb was well attended.
Goldfarb asked participants why the rodents can’t seem to get enough of creating wetlands, blocking streams and rivers with their signature dams to create wide still stretches of water.
“Beavers are tireless when it comes to repairing dams,” said Goldfarb. “If we tore some of those logs out and started to drain this pond, the beavers would be at that spot tonight.”
It didn’t take long to identify the need to create wetlands helps beavers protect themselves from predators like wolves, coyotes and mountain lions that would easily make a tasty treat out of a stay beaver. “They’re a fat, slow-moving meat packet,” said Goldfarb. With iron teeth that never stop growing, fur that traps air and a second set of lips, Goldfarb says if someone described a beaver, you probably wouldn’t think it was real.
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Beer bottles are washed on a conveyor belt in a microbrewery. Less water used in the cleaning process is one way factories are trying to increase water savings. Photo by AETB
Denver-based Leprino Foods Company generates some of its own water. In fact, the company holds a water right for water developed at its Greeley manufacturing facility.
“We actually are contributing more water to the river than we take in from our municipal source,” says Erik Nielsen, associate general counsel at Leprino Foods, which is the world’s largest producer of mozzarella cheese and a global producer of whey protein and other dairy ingredients.
Leprino has been a net contributor to Colorado watersheds since at least 2017. In 2020, the company was granted a water right associated with the quantity of water that it conveys to the Poudre River after deducting the amount of water that it takes in from municipal sources.
Milk is about 87% water. The process of evaporating or concentrating milk products produces condensate of whey water. Leprino recovers this water and stores it on-site in silos, often reusing it multiple times. Later, it is cleaned to stream quality standards and discharged. This, in addition to other water efficiency and recovery projects, generates about 600 acre-feet per year, or enough water to supply around 1,000 homes for a year. Leprino licenses most of this byproduct water to the City of Greeley for municipal uses, says Nielsen.
These water-saving processes not only reduce the company’s environmental footprint but are also critical to Leprino’s manufacturing future in Colorado.
“It seems like you shouldn’t be doing business in Colorado if you’re not thinking really deeply about water,” says Nielsen. “You’ve probably heard the saying, you never think about the value of water until the well runs dry.”
Water is required for cooling, heating, washing, diluting and other processes at nearly 6,000 manufacturing facilities in Colorado. As historic droughts threaten water availability across the state, consumers increasingly demand water-smart practices, and inflation continues to squeeze the private sector, many manufacturers are shifting their approach to water use and conservation.
“Manufacturers are increasingly becoming good stewards of water,” says JC Ye, corporate business director of water reuse at Veolia, a global water services company. “Many have a strong incentive to implement water stewardship practices and invest in improving the reliability of water supply. In most industrial processes, disruption of water availability has an immediate, acute impact on manufacturing operations.”
But water is highly contextual. Every river and stream has a unique ecosystem and different needs depending on the season. Solutions to protect and restore these resources are just as complex. Companies are taking a variety of approaches to water stewardship, from investing millions in local conservation work to making small but impactful infrastructure upgrades.
The original Coors brewery was built in Golden specifically for Clear Creek’s remarkable water quality. The company has a history of conducting projects aimed at protecting this water, which ends up in its product. As a founding member of the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation, the Molson Coors Beverage Company has helped to clean up some of the estimated 1,600 orphaned mines in the watershed, which threaten water quality by overflowing and discharging heavy metals and mine drainage into the river.
These days, water stewardship is about both public perception and product quality: Consumer-facing brands like Coors know that they face a reputational risk if they don’t invest in water-use reduction and watershed protection.
“[People] need to have confidence that we are serious about our water use, that we’re serious about protecting the watershed,” says Ben Moline, director of water resources and environmental policy for Molson Coors Beverage Company.
The entire state of Colorado has experienced severe to extreme drought on and off for more than two decades. The public is watching water use more closely as resource scarcity becomes a more serious concern. Recently, some communities have pushed back against water consumption for manufacturing.
BlueTriton — the owner of major U.S. bottled water brands, including Poland Spring — has been embroiled in legal battles with water boards, environmentalists, and other activists across the country for years. The company pumps water from Colorado’s Upper Arkansas River Basin, a semi-arid region particularly impacted by historic drought. In July 2021, about 20 community members protested outside of the Chaffee County Courthouse, opposing the renewal of a permit that allows BlueTriton to export 65 million gallons of water per year. After negotiating more than $1.25 million in community contributions from BlueTriton, county commissioners approved the permit the following month.
Veolia found in a 2023 study that fewer than 30% of surveyed companies had set water conservation goals, with water lagging behind carbon and waste as the environmental priority for companies. But Ye notes a recent shift in the way companies approach sustainability. Water scarcity concerns, public pressure, reputational risk, and cost-saving opportunities are leading to the proliferation of water initiatives across the private sector.
Michael Kiparsky, founding director of the Wheeler Water Institute at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, sees this as an opportunity: “Can we use transparency coupled with some degree of public awareness of water as a resource to put pressure on corporate entities to do something that might not be strictly in their economic interest otherwise?”
Small changes, big impact
The Coors brewery in Golden uses an estimated 2.7 billion gallons of water from Clear Creek each year: about 782 million gallons for its products, and 2 billion gallons for brewing processes, including production and malting. Of those 2 billion gallons of process water, 95% is cleaned and returned to Clear Creek.
This is representative of manufacturers at large: According to the Colorado Water Plan, industrial users account for only 3% of Colorado’s total annual water consumption, or water that is permanently removed from its source.
“We are diversion heavy, but depletion light,” says Moline, noting that Molson Coors is actively working to bring its water consumption rate even lower, while continuing to work with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to ensure wastewater discharged back to Clear Creek after treatment meets permit requirements.
Molson Coors treats wastewater from its operations as well as much of the City of Golden’s wastewater. The company entered into a consent order with CDPHE earlier this year to address permit exceedences for total suspended solids, metals, oil and grease, and whole effluent toxicity in its discharge water. Even before the consent order, the brewery began upgrading its wastewater treatment plant in preparation for meeting tightening water quality limits. Water treatment improvements are big changes with big impact, but small infrastructure changes also lead to big results — for example, fermentation tank design.
A few times per month, depending on the type of beer, the brewing team empties each fermentation tank through a valve on its side, leaving a small amount of beer just below the valve’s opening. The team clears the excess beer and thoroughly cleans the floor of the tank to prepare for the next batch, using water and a squeegee multiple times over. Across more than 100 fermentation tanks of varying sizes, which produce approximately 9.7 million barrels of beer per year, a portion of beer is lost in the cleaning process.
Molson Coors Beverage Company is updating its fermentation tanks to a new, vertical design with a cone-shaped bottom, through which a valve completely empties the beer directly below the tank. Now, the brewery can produce the same number of barrels for less, because beer — and water — isn’t left on the tank floor. This means less water used for malting, heating and cooling beer that ultimately doesn’t make it to consumers, and less water used in the cleaning process.
The upgrades are a part of Molson Coors Beverage Company’s G150 project, in honor of the 150-year anniversary of the Coors brewery’s inception. The company has invested “several hundred million dollars” in the project, which is expected to save 80 million gallons of water annually after its completion by the end of 2024. Moline says that upgrading its fermentation tanks is contributing a large part of these water savings.
Other food and beverage manufacturers are updating infrastructure to save water: Swire Coca-Cola, which produces, sells, and distributes Coca-Cola and other beverages in 13 states across the American West, says that it installed a new filtration and recovery system at its Denver plant to reduce water usage by about 20%. And Bellvue-based Morning Fresh Dairy, a fifth-generation dairy farm that produces the nationally popular Noosa Yogurt brand, installed an automated clean-in-place system to clean the interior of food and beverage process pipes, reducing water consumption by 30%.
Corporate mandates
PepsiCo, Amazon, Google and Facebook have all committed to being water-positive, or replenishing more water than they use from natural systems, by 2030. In addition to water-efficiency projects, much of this work is done through cross-sector partnerships, which have provided critical support to local water stewardship efforts.
“Corporate support has been very important to our ability to staff project work and, even more so, to purchase water for streamflow restoration,” says Kate Ryan, executive director of the Colorado Water Trust.
For example, the tech giant Intel relies on the Colorado River and the Rio Grande to supply water downstream to its Arizona and New Mexico manufacturing facilities. The company has partnered with the Colorado Water Trust and Trout Unlimited on multiple projects to support the Colorado River watershed. Intel reports that 120% of the water it used across the U.S. in 2023 was either returned to the source or restored through investment in water stewardship projects.
The Colorado Water Trust has received more than $421,000 in corporate funding from companies like Intel, Coca-Cola, MCBC, Seltzer, and Niagara Cares, a philanthropic arm of Niagara Water, since 2019. This money, in addition to foundation funding, individual contributions, and water donations, has enabled the organization to lease well over 10,000 acre-feet of water, which would typically cost $400,000 to $2,500,000, depending on the water right, says Ryan. The projects improved flows on the 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River — a critical stretch of river for endangered fish species near Grand Junction, Colorado — as well as on the Yampa River and tributaries to the Fraser River.
And while BlueTriton has received pushback from community members on its water use, the company has partnered with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to dedicate a conservation easement to preserve 122 acres of wildlife habitat and protect groundwater resources along the Arkansas River.
“These sustainability programs work well, and Western rivers would benefit from more of them,” says Ryan. “The amount of water they have made possible for streamflow restoration in recent years is significant.”
But experts agree that the pathway to meet water-positive goals, or even water-neutral goals, is not straightforward.
Context is key
A Colorado Water Trust project benefits the Little Cimarron River using a senior water right that keeps productive land irrigated in a split-season arrangement, where water is applied to fields in the first part of the season, then left in the river during later summer months when fish need it most. The trust also partners with corporations, such as Coca Cola, to secure funding for water conservation work. Courtesy Colorado Water Trust
“Being ‘water neutral’ in an honest way requires a great amount of thought and engagement with people who have direct interest or represent the interest of the communities and environment that might be affected,” says Kiparsky.
In 2023, the nonprofit Ceres published a benchmark analysis of 72 companies from four water-intensive industries — apparel, beverage, food, and high-tech — and found that only 35% consider contextual factors such as local watershed conditions, regulatory dynamics, and community water needs when assessing water use risks. Only 14% consider contextual factors when assessing water quality risks.
“[We] found that while many companies are setting goals aimed at using less water, most are not setting strong targets to reduce water pollution,” says Kirsten James, senior program director for water at Ceres. “We also noted a lack of commitment around protecting freshwater ecosystems and clean water supplies for communities.”
Where and when water is replenished makes a significant difference for water systems. Simply measuring the amount of water a company uses and returns to its source each year, for example, does not account for when that water was used or returned. If most water is pumped during the summer and returned during the winter, these activities could still be disruptive to wildlife, ecosystems, and overall river flow rates.
“Unlike in sustainability efforts involving carbon offsets, there is no single atmosphere to improve. Every river has different needs at different times of the year,” says Ryan.
Implementation of corporate water goals requires detailed reporting and independent validation to ensure the efforts are sustaining or restoring and not damaging ecosystems.
“It’s a simple concept, becoming water neutral, but putting it in practice is not simple,” says Kiparsky. “A lot of the implications are going to rely on analysis by third parties that are experts in understanding water impact.”
This year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began requiring most public companies to disclose climate-related information, including water-related financial risks, so investors can consider how companies are managing climate risks when making investment decisions. James says this is an important step that will help raise the bar with U.S. companies on water-related disclosures.
“As water risk continues to escalate, investors and companies need full transparency to be able to manage and adapt to these threats,” says James.
Homes line the foothills outside Colorado Springs on Sept. 11, 2024. The city has doubled down on water conservation to make its recent spike in population growth possible. (Luke Runyon/The Water Desk)
When researcher Brian Richter set out to take a close look at how big cities in the Western U.S. were adapting to water scarcity, he already knew the story’s basic contours.
Previous studies showed the trend clearly for some large utilities. As a megadrought has baked the Southwest since 2000, the region’s biggest cities have reined in their use to keep pace with the declining supply.
But it had been years since someone took a more region-wide look at who was conserving and how much. Richter, a lecturer at the University of Virginia, and president of his own independent research firm, Sustainable Waters, was up to the task.
After gathering data for 28 large and medium-size water utilities dependent on the Colorado River, Richter and his team were able to see the more modern trend lines in sharp detail. The results surprised him. It wasn’t just that cities like Denver, Los Angeles, Tucson and Las Vegas were using less. They were doing it while growing rapidly.
His 2023 study found that collectively the region’s cities had grown by 25% from 2000 to 2020, while their water use dropped by 18%. Per person use rates declined even more sharply, falling by 30%.
“We thought that was nothing short of miraculous, to be honest,” Richter said. “It’s quite a water conservation success story.”
Richter had heard the region’s growth anxieties before. As homes spring up, highways widen and new schools open, conversations about rising populations in the arid West eventually find their way to water. Those new residents mean more green lawns and household faucets, forcing cities to scramble to meet the new demand, or so the thinking goes.
It’s easy to understand why the notion that more people beget more water use jumps to people’s minds, Richter said. All of the on-the-ground impacts of growth are highly visible.
“What you can’t see so easily are the numbers, the water numbers behind that growth,” Richter said. “We felt it was really important to start getting those numbers out there, and to start revealing the fact that it’s not necessarily true any longer, that as a city’s population grows its water use has to increase at the same time.”
Now, as pressure from climate change mounts, the region faces a critical question: Can urban areas keep pace with their past successes in water conservation, or is there a floor to just how much water savings can be wrung from Southwestern cities?
The Colorado Springs skyline rises above Fountain Creek on Sept. 11, 2024. For the past couple decades the city has experienced rapid population growth while ratcheting down its demand for water. (Luke Runyon/The Water Desk)
Using less in Colorado Springs
Until 2002, Colorado Springs was using water like there’s no tomorrow. As the city grew, so did its water demand, hand-in-hand.
“There was a lot of inefficiency out there, a lot of inefficient fixtures, a lot of landscape irrigation, primarily of turf grass,” said Scott Winter, Colorado Springs Utilities water conservation project manager. “A lot of it was, frankly, egregious.”
A punishing drought in 2002 provided a shock to the system. While reservoirs declined, the people in charge of Colorado Springs started to realize that unchecked water use would eventually lead to serious shortages. Mandatory restrictions on use at the city level ran from 2002 to 2005.
“I don’t think people thought of the water system, the water supply, as being constrained in any way until we hit 2002 and then our perspective changed on the scarcity of water and how reliable our supply was,” Winter said.
Conservation is now seen as a reliable way to live within their means, he said.
Scott Winter, Colorado Springs Utilities water conservation project manager, points out a turf grass conversion project on Sept. 11, 2024. The utility offers incentives to encourage homeowners and commercial businesses to swap lawns for native grasses. (Luke Runyon/The Water Desk)
Colorado Springs has taken a gradual approach. First came the rate changes. Residents who irrigated more paid more per gallon. Then came the incentives to swap out indoor plumbing fixtures, such as replacing a toilet that uses 5 gallons per flush with a new model that uses less than 1.
The city has also begun to embrace the loss of its lawns. It ramped up its lawn replacement program, in which thirsty yards are replaced with native grasses, like blue grama or buffalo grass, which use 60%-80% less water. The utility offers 50 cents per square foot of lawn converted.
Since Colorado Springs started those conversions in 2013, the city has swapped in native grass on about 3.1 million square feet, or about 72 acres, mostly on commercial properties like shopping centers, churches and business parks. In 2020 a permanent shift to only allow for three days per week of outside watering on existing grass went into effect as well.
Blue grama grows alongside a Colorado Springs parkway on Sept. 11, 2024. Concerns over dwindling water supplies have sped up the city’s conversions of turf grass to blue grama and other native species. (Luke Runyon/The Water Desk)
All of the focus on conservation is paying off, Winter said. From 2000 to 2023, Colorado Springs has grown by about 40%, while also recording a 39% reduction in average per capita water use and about a 25% drop in total water deliveries. The city’s water use is now about equal to what it was in the late 1980s, despite the rapid growth, he said.
Mandatory conservation measures have started taking hold in some parts of the Colorado River Basin, like a nonfunctional turf ban in Las Vegas, for example. But Winter said the cultural and political contours of Colorado Springs mean water managers have to get creative, relying more on voluntary incentives than strict mandates that could rile its conservative voter base.
When the city decided to overhaul its building code a few years ago, the process brought up the usual tensions over growth. One code change ruffled feathers. A restriction on new developments limited turf to 25% of the total landscape.
“Individual freedom is a core value here,” said Nancy Henjum, a Colorado Springs city council member. Henjum summarized the early complaints of some fellow council members: “What do you mean I wouldn’t be able to have Kentucky bluegrass in my whole yard?”
But after lengthy discussions, plus field trips to the infrastructure that brings Colorado River basin water over the mountains to Colorado Springs, lightbulbs went off for the city council members about the scarce nature of their supply, she said. As of June 2023, the turf restriction is now officially part of the city’s landscape code.
“It was ultimately fascinating to watch people who are policymakers kind of push back initially, and then little by little over time recognize this is the right thing to do,” Henjum said.
A sign indicates where to find low water use plants in Colorado Springs Utilities demonstration garden on Sept. 11, 2024. A punishing drought in 2002 reframed the way the community saw its reliance on the shrinking Colorado River. (Luke Runyon/The Water Desk)
Conserving the way out
While city leaders are proud of the water conservation success they’ve had over the past two decades, they say that was the easy part. In Colorado Springs, another 40% reduction in use over the next few decades will be tough, if not impossible, Winter said.
“Used to be that we could put a conservation program out there and anyone could participate. Almost everyone was inefficient, and so you could just broadcast a program out there and it worked,” he said. “It’s getting harder, it’s getting more expensive. We’re having to get a lot more strategic and targeted in our approach.”
The same is true just to the north, in Aurora. The city grew by 40% from 2000 to 2020, while lowering both its total water use and per-person use, according to Richter’s study.
“We are the first city (in Colorado) to pass a turf ban,” said Alex Davis, assistant general manager for Aurora Water. “Fifty percent of our use is outdoor water use in the summer, and we’re trying to ratchet that down.”
A path winds through the Colorado Springs Utilities demonstration garden on Sept. 11, 2024. Because of gradual water conservation measures the city has been able to add thousands of new residents while using less water from the Colorado River basin. (Luke Runyon/The Water Desk)
But Davis isn’t convinced a city like Aurora, with its steep population curve, can rely solely on conservation to make its way toward a stable water future.
“When we look at our demand projections going forward, we have a gap that we need to fill, right?” she said. “We have a projected need that we can’t meet today for what we expect the population to be in 2060, and so we have to acquire more water resources and do more supply projects in order to meet that gap.”
A big portion of that gap is being driven by climate change, Davis said. Longer, hotter dry spells mean the uncertainty about future water supplies is greater than it was 20 years ago. Her team uses models to game out what kinds of policies the city might need to make it through extreme droughts.
Under those severe scenarios, Aurora’s plans indicate it would first cut down on outdoor watering, then eliminate it all together. That would leave just indoor, household use, but Davis said, “there are projections where we don’t have enough water to meet household use only in these very severe projected scenarios.”
John Fleck, a University of New Mexico water policy professor, said this is the challenging future facing many of the West’s municipal water leaders. Even so, he cautioned against too much hand-wringing over population growth and urban water use. There’s still a lot of slack in the system and a lot more savings to be had, he said.
Because so much water is used outdoors, Western cities face a fundamental question: As the region warms and dries, how much green space are they willing to part with to close the gap between supply and demand? It’ll be a tough call, but not an impossible one, Fleck said.
“When you think deeply about it, it would be weird for people, for communities, not to take the necessary steps to ensure their future existence, right?” he said.
“If you’re facing the choice of getting rid of some swimming pools and lawns, or abandoning your city, it’s a no-brainer. People are going to use less water. And that’s what we see happen over and over again.”
This story is part of a series on water myths and misconceptions, produced by KUNC, The Colorado Sun, Aspen Journalism, Fresh Water News and The Water Desk at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Mrs. Gulch’s landscape September 12, 2024. Blue Gramma in the far left corner of the photo.
The Soldier Canyon Dam is located on the east shore of Horsetooth Reservoir, 3.5 miles west of Fort Collins, Colorado. The zoned earthfill dam has an outlet works consisting of a concrete conduit through the base of the dam, controlled by two 72-inch hollow-jet valves. The foundation is limey shales and sandstones overlain with silty, sandy clay. Photo credit Reclamation.
Nearly 150,000 residents will have greater access to safe drinking water without high costs for decades to come, after an approval by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). This authorization will increase capacity at the Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Plant from 60 to 68 million gallons per day (MGD).
“The approval from CDPHE is a big win and a huge savings in dollars for the Tri-Districts all operating from the Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority’s Plant,” says Eric Reckentine, General Manager of North Weld County Water District.
The re-rating by the CDPHE which increases capacity from 60 to 68 million gallons per day (MGD), was successfully accomplished by the collective work of the three water districts operating out of Northern Colorado – North Weld County Water District (NWCWD), East Larimer County Water District (ELCO), and the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD).
“The expansion ensures that we can continue to provide water supplies to match our customers’ future growth needs and provide added resilience to our water supply systems,” states Mark Kempton, P.E, CWP, General Manager of Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority. “The Authority achieved the 8 MGD expansion using the Plant’s existing facilities, resulting in no construction and minimal costs. This efficiency has allowed us to keep our water rates low for our customers while continuing to provide a reliable, safe, and affordable drinking water supply to the Tri-Districts.”
The CDPHE expansion will provide water and larger capacity many years into the future for the tremendous development and population growth that Northern Colorado towns are experiencing.
“We continue to see projections for additional growth in the northern Colorado region and expanding water treatment capacity is a fundamental building block to sustain that growth. This treatment capacity increase represents the most cost-effective expansion in Soldier Canyon’s history and ensures all three partners can continue delivering high-quality drinking water well into the future,” explains Chris Pletcher, P.E., General Manager of Fort Collins – Loveland Water District.
“Like much of Northern Colorado, we anticipate continued growth within the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) service area, and this addition of water treatment capacity will aid in meeting that new demand,” states Mike Scheid, General Manager of ELCO.
“I am very proud of the work of the other water districts and the staff and board of North Weld County Water District for helping to make accomplishments like this happen – it further stands by our commitment that we follow-through on what we promise for our customers,” says Reckentine. “This collaborative undertaking between the districts ensures we have secured the highest quality treated water for our Northern Colorado customers today, tomorrow, and into the future.”
ABOUT THE SOLDIER CANYON WATER TREATMENT AUTHORITY:
The Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority (SCWTA) owns and operates the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant, which is a 68 million gallon per day (MGD) conventional water treatment plant located in Fort Collins, CO. Since 1961, the Authority has provided high quality, reliable, safe, and affordable drinking water to over 145,000 people living in three water districts and adjacent communities in the Northern Colorado region. The three water districts (Tri-Districts) are:
Jasper Reservoir, in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area in Western Boulder County, has been sold under a set of covenants will ensure it waters are available to Middle Boulder Creek during the fall, when it is driest. Courtesy: The Colorado Water Trust
Ten years ago, an anonymous benefactor approached the Colorado Water Trust intent on providing it with an interesting gift: a reservoir high in the forests of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area in western Boulder County.
The 23-year-old nonprofit was thrilled, understanding that the ultimate sale of the gift would insure its financial future, and making sure its mission to keep water in rivers continues.
The trust set to work immediately looking for a buyer who would agree to some very tough restrictions: permanent public access for fishing, hunting and camping, keeping the tiny reservoir full during the summer, and releasing the water down through Barker Reservoir in Nederland into Middle Boulder Creek during the fall, when the 37-mile stream segment is driest. Equally important is a conservation easement that prohibits any development of the water and land around the reservoir.
“The covenants are quite strict,” said Kate Ryan, the trust’s executive director. “We’ve taken away the development potential of the reservoir, so we had to have the right person come along.”
The trust’s day job is to connect private water-right owners with threatened streams, helping set up financing and the legal agreements necessary to ensure the water can be transferred to the state, where it becomes part of the state’s environmental program leaving water in streams that would otherwise be diverted.
Jasper Reservoir/Boulder Creek. Credit: Colorado Water Trust
If that sounds like a tall order, it often is. And finding a buyer for this reservoir would prove equally daunting. It turns out there aren’t a lot of people interested in buying covenant-restricted reservoirs, even in a water-short state such as Colorado.
But in August, the trust and Boulder County’s Tiefel family finalized the deal.
“The trust wanted a partner to help manage the reservoir and run the water down Boulder Creek,” said Doug Tiefel, a real estate developer whose family farms in eastern Boulder County and also has a small reservoir of its own. The family uses its reservoir to irrigate its operations and it leases any excess water to other growers in the area when water is available.
Tiefel said the Jasper Reservoir deal fit his family’s water needs, and their environmental ethic.
“For the ecosystem it is critical to keep more water in the river in late summer and early fall, and that’s why we forged this partnership agreement,” Tiefel said.
Prior to the sale, the reservoir’s water was often leased to other entities, such as the City of Boulder, which would in turn lease it to growers east of town. But the reservoir was managed differently every year. Under the Tiefel’s management plan, the water will flow more consistently, providing Middle Boulder Creek more certainty than it has had in the past, and a continuing supply of water for growers, Tiefel said.
Kim Hutton, the City of Boulder’s senior water resources manager, said the sale is a step forward for the entire Boulder Creek watershed, especially as climate change continues to reduce stream flows.
“The benefit of this sale is to release water when stream flow is low, and that is complementary to what we’re doing,” said Hutton, referring to the city’s efforts to keep water in the creek system.
Ryan hopes the deal will be the first of many in Colorado in which permanent protective easements can be placed on water. She said she’s also grateful for the financial security it provides the nonprofit.
“The revenue gives us the certainty for years to come that we will be able to add water back into Colorado’s rivers and streams,” she said.
The Colorado River flows through the Shoshone diversion structure on Jan. 29, 2024. Northern Water, which supplies cities and farms on the Front Range, is asking for more data about how much water will stay on the Western Slope after the Colorado River District purchases rights to the water that flows through Shoshone. Photo credit: Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
September 11, 2024
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
A Front Range water distributor is pushing back on a planned transfer of rights to water from the Colorado River. It has led to a disagreement between two major water agencies — a minor flare-up of longstanding tensions between Eastern Colorado and Western Colorado, which have anxiously monitored each others’ water usage for decades.
Northern Water, which serves cities and farms from Fort Collins to Broomfield, is asking for more data about the future of the Shoshone water right. Meanwhile, the Colorado River District, a powerful taxpayer-funded agency founded to keep water flowing to the cities and farms of Western Colorado, says Northern Water may be attempting to stymie its purchase of the water rights.
In early 2024, The Colorado River District announced it would spend nearly $100 million to buy rights to the water that flows through the Shoshone power plant, near Glenwood Springs. Shoshone’s water right is one of the oldest and biggest in the state, giving it preemptive power over many other rights in Colorado.
Shoshone Falls hydroelectric generation station via USGenWeb
Even in dry times, when water shortages hit other parts of the state, the Shoshone power plant can send water through its turbines. And when that water exits the turbines and re-enters the Colorado River, it keeps flowing for a variety of users downstream.
Since that announcement, the river district has rallied more than $15 million from Western Colorado cities and counties that could stand to benefit from the water right changing hands. Those governments are dishing out taxpayer money in hopes of helping make sure that water stays flowing to their region, even if demand for water goes up in other parts of the state.
The river district plans to leave Shoshone’s water flowing through the Colorado River. It’s an effort to help settle Western Colorado’s long-held anxieties over competition with the water needs of the Front Range, where fast-growing cities and suburbs around Denver need more water to keep pace with development.
The water right is classified as “non-consumptive,” meaning every drop that enters the power plant is returned to the river. The river district wants to ensure the water that flows into the hydroelectric plant also flows downstream to farmers, fish and homes. The agency plans to buy rights to Shoshone’s water and lease it back to the power company, Xcel Energy, as long as Xcel wants to keep producing hydropower.
Almost all of the $98.5 million for the river district’s purchase of Shoshone’s water will come from public funds. In addition to money from its own coffers and Western Colorado governments, the river district also plans to apply for federal funding to pay for its purchase of Shoshone’s water. It is planning to seek $40 million from the Inflation Reduction Act.
Despite decades-long tensions between water users on the Western Slope and the Front Range, leaders on the East side of the mountains have stayed mostly quiet about the Shoshone transfer.
Bicycling the Colorado National Monument, Grand Valley in the distance via Colorado.com
Northern Water’s recent statements about Shoshone perhaps mark the most notable public pushback to the pending deal. The agency supplies water to Front Range cities such as Loveland and Greeley, as well as farms along the South Platte River all the way to the Nebraska border.
The agency outlined its concerns in a letter to elected representatives, including Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper and congresspeople Joe Neguse, Lauren Boebert, Yadira Caraveo and Greg Lopez.
In short, Northern said it supports the concept of the transfer, but wants an independent study of how much water the Colorado River District plans to send down the river each year.
“We want to make sure that we’re all going into this with the same data to make sure that everyone’s interests are being addressed,” said Jeff Stahla, Northern Water spokesman.
Northern posits that the Western Slope could pull more water than the amount that has been historically used by Shoshone – enough to increase strain on upstream reservoirs that also supply the Front Range.
The River District calls that claim a “gross mischaracterization” of its plans.
“Their points ignore the stated intent of the effort and are counter to the stated values,” said Matthew Aboussie, a spokesman for the River District, “And they 100% know that.”
The River District published its own letter about the matter. The agency’s director said Northern Water’s efforts “were received as intentional obstacles intended to threaten the viability of the Shoshone Permanency Project,” and said Northern’s calls for more data collection could require a time-intensive study of the project and tie it up in litigation for up to a decade.
“We are not looking to change the historic flows,” Aboussie said. “So the intention is to protect the status quo.”
The River District is currently compiling data about the history and future of the Shoshone water right and plans to present it in Colorado’s water court, which is part of the state’s normal process to approve the transfer or sale of water rights.
Screenshot from the Highland Ditch Company website.
Here’s the release from the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District (Sean Cronin):
September 9, 2024
LONGMONT, COLO – This fall, the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District (“District”) and the Highland Ditch Company are collaborating on a unique pilot project to save fish in St. Vrain Creek. As ditch diversions are closed off for the fall, fish often become trapped in standing pools behind the headgates, which eventually dry up. The pilot project will rescue these fish and return them to the adjacent creek, protecting local fish populations and aligning with the community’s values of environmental stewardship.
Healthy fisheries are essential not only for the ecological health of local streams but also for supporting the recreational fishing economy—well worth the half days’ work it will take to move the fish back into the creek.
“The District and Highland are piloting this salvage effort, in the hopes that the results may be scaled up across the District, and potentially in other parts of Colorado,” said the District’s Watershed Program Manager Jenny McCarty.
Highland Ditch Company, which has been diverting water for over a century, sees this initiative as an example of the symbiotic relationship that can exist between local agriculture and environmental health.
The channel’s water “is used to irrigate 35,000 agriculture acres in this valley. Those farms are part of the fabric of this community… residents eat food from [these] farms,” said Wade Gonzales, Highland’s Ditch and Reservoir Superintendent. “We are all connected, and this pilot project will show how we can work together toward common goals.”
“Our constituents across the St. Vrain and Left Hand Valley have time and again supported approaches that balance water needs for thriving agriculture and a healthy environment”, said Sean Cronin, the District’s Executive Director. “We’re honored to be a trusted partner to Highland in leading this effort.”
Media are invited to the fish salvage effort in late September, 2024. Date to be determined. Please email jenny.mccarty@svlh.gov if you are interested in attending.
About the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District
The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District, created in 1971, is a local government, non -profit agency that serves Longmont and the surrounding land area. The District is dedicated to safeguarding water resources for all and promotes/partners on local water protection and management strategies that align with the five pillars of its Water Plan. Learn more at http://www.svlh.gov.
About the Highland Ditch Company
The Highland Ditch Company, based in Longmont, CO, was established in 1871 and irrigates about 35,000 acres of land along St. Vrain Creek, the most of any within District boundaries. The Highland Ditch Company pursues its mission to manage and deliver water for its shareholders by embracing innovative opportunities. Learn more at http://www.highlandditch.com.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer and Joe Rubino). Here’s an excerpt:
September 8, 2024
…after decades of revitalization and efforts to stabilize flows, sections of the urban South Platte still smell of decay and waste, and city officials discourage swimming. But cyclists also pedal along miles of paved trails on the riverfront. Kayakers and surfers play in the whitewater. Carp and trout lurk under bridges, while families of ducks paddle along the calmer waters. And strips of green parks border long stretches of the river where, in previous decades, factories spewed sludge and landfills leached pollutants. After a long era of neglect and abuse, city officials, nonprofit leaders and developers hope to build on that progress as they pose a question for the future: How can we turn the city toward the river — the waterway that made Denver’s existence on the High Plains possible — instead of putting it at our backs and ignoring it? More than a quarter of a billion federal dollars are flowing into ecosystem restoration and flood management along the South Platte. For the first time, the Denver City Council recently created a committee dedicated to issues on and development near the river…
Developers plan to invest hundreds of millions of dollars along the river in coming years, building as much as 15 million square feet of combined new residential and commercial space on the land where Elitch Gardens Theme and Water Park sits today. If completed, that square footage will be nearly five times larger than Denver International Airport’s terminal building. Should that and other ambitious projects reach their full potential, the Platte would serve as a focal point of brand new high-rise urban neighborhoods that expand the city’s skyline in a new direction…Property owners ranging from the Denver Housing Authority to Stan Kroenke, the billionaire owner of the Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets, to the city itself will all play roles in determining how new construction capitalizes on a restored South Platte. The impending turnover of underutilized and unappreciated land has generated buzz and a glut of glossy renderings. At the same time, it’s inducing heartburn in some corners of the city that have seen new investment like that drive gentrification in nearby low-income and minority neighborhoods.
Still, establishing the river as an asset rather than a barrier to urban growth is a sea change that veteran Denver city-builders like architect Chris Shears have hoped for decades would come. His firm, Shears Adkins Rockmore, has its hands in nearly every landscape-shifting project being contemplated near the South Platte today. The plans include transforming the vast parking lots around Empower Field and Ball Arena into new mixed-use neighborhoods.
Jasper Reservoir from dam. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust
Here’s the release from the Colorado Water Trust (Kate Ryan and Doug Tiefel):
August 30, 2024
The Boulder Creek watershed is set to receive a vital boost in streamflow thanks to landmark water-sharing agreement facilitated by Colorado Water Trust. This agreement will support wildlife, ecosystems, and recreation during the driest months of the year in perpetuity.
Beginning this fall, water from Jasper Reservoir, located high in the Indian Peaks Wilderness above Nederland, will boost flows in 37 miles of Boulder Creek and its tributaries before being reused below the City of Boulder to help sustain local agriculture. This unique water-sharing agreement is the result of a generous donation of Jasper Reservoir by an anonymous donor to Colorado Water Trust and a subsequent transfer to 37-Mile LLC. The strategic release of water from Jasper Reservoir promises substantial environmental and community benefits for the Boulder Creek watershed and its residents and highlights the potential for collaborative multi-benefit solutions to enhance water resources and protect vital ecosystems in the face of climate change and ongoing development pressures.
On August 29, Colorado Water Trust accepted the donation of Jasper Reservoir in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area from an anonymous donor. Executing on several years of careful planning, Colorado Water Trust immediately conveyed the reservoir to Doug Tiefel of 37-Mile LLC with a set of restrictive covenants that permanently protects public access to Jasper Reservoir and optimizes the environmental benefits of Jasper Reservoir water in the Boulder Creek system.
Jasper Reservoir/Boulder Creek. Credit: Colorado Water Trust
This fall, 37-Mile LLC will begin releasing water from Jasper Reservoir into the Boulder Creek system. In most years, late summer and fall are the periods in which Boulder County streamflow drops, and aquatic ecosystems benefit from boosted flows. Water released from Jasper Reservoir will be protected for 37 miles from Jasper Reservoir through the streams that traverse the Indian Peaks Wilderness, the Towns of Eldora and Nederland, and the entirety of Boulder Canyon. This project was several years in the making and showcases the opportunity for cross-industry collaborations that protect our precious Colorado resource from development and keep our water in our rivers through reaches of creeks and rivers in need of boosted flows.
Project History and Backstory:
The beautiful Jasper Reservoir located deep in the Indian Peaks Wilderness was built in 1896. It is a valuable source of water for the Boulder Creek watershed, a popular camping and fishing destination and provides sustenance for wildlife in the region. Its protection is vital to the environment and local rivers, from Jasper Creek in the mountain headwaters, all the way down Boulder Canyon. In late summer and early fall, when temperatures are hottest and streamflow drops low, Jasper Reservoir will help prop streamflows back up.
In 1890, nearly a century before Congress designated the Indian Peaks Wilderness as a part of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation system, the Boulder High Line Canal Company constructed Jasper Reservoir. Irrigation companies and the Colorado Power Company operated the reservoir over the next century.
Since the 1980s, Jasper Reservoir has been in a series of private ownerships, having been bought and sold multiple times. In recent years, the City of Boulder leased Jasper Reservoir water from private owners and provided that water to various Boulder County irrigators. During that time, Colorado Water Trust worked with the owners of Jasper Reservoir to craft a plan for its use for environmental improvements and public benefit. As these conversations progressed, the owners generously offered Jasper Reservoir as a donation to Colorado Water Trust.
The nonprofit then sought out a steward for the reservoir with both the capacity and knowledge necessary to manage and maintain the reservoir’s infrastructure. Additionally, Colorado Water Trust sought a partner with a desire to uphold the environmental and community values vital to operating Jasper Reservoir in a way that complements the mission of Colorado 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 state’s natural landscapes and water resources. Known for their unwavering commitment to environmental preservation, the Tiefel Family has dedicated themselves to protecting Colorado’s vital water ecosystems.
Jasper Creek. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust
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 the protected streamflow, 37-Mile LLC is a testament to their mission of safeguarding the region’s water resources from development pressures while promoting sustainable agricultural and irrigation practices.
With the support of the Tiefel Family and 37-Mile LLC, Colorado Water Trust made an arrangement that benefits all involved. After Colorado Water Trust accepted the reservoir donation, 37-Mile LLC entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the reservoir subject to a set of restrictive covenants that will permanently protect public access to the reservoir and ensure that water released from Jasper Reservoir will continue to provide environmental benefits well into the future.
As an additional benefit, once the water has traveled through Boulder Canyon and on to the plains, agricultural producers can then use the water downstream.
Why This Project is Important and Novel:
Colorado Water Trust’s permanent protections safeguard this wetland that provides invaluable wildlife habitat and will remain forever accessible to the public for camping and fishing. The water will continue to improve Boulder Creek streamflow during the driest months of the year. It’s a multi-benefit solution, which is Colorado Water Trust’s trademark, because it supports local water users, protects the environment and ensures all people can continue to enjoy the beauty of the area. The transaction also helps Colorado Water Trust, a small but mighty statewide nonprofit organization, in its mission to restore water to Colorado’s rivers.
Transactions and sales of water occur regularly throughout the state of Colorado. Certain types of water users have outsized purchasing power, which frequently results in water being transferred without much thought to the water’s role in supporting local river environments and community assets. Similar to how land trusts purchase and protect land through conservation easements, Colorado Water Trust is taking a public-interest approach on water-market transactions to protect rivers and streams in Colorado.
This project involving Jasper Reservoir and its water rights is a new concept in water, one that Colorado Water Trust hopes to replicate many times in the future. The biggest challenge is financial, as these are market-based transactions and Colorado Water Trust must make competitive offers to be able to acquire permanent public access, remove development potential, and safeguard environmental benefits.
Luckily, the anonymous donor in this transaction wanted to donate the reservoir and see its water protected, and the Tiefel Family was willing to forego development potential as the new steward of Jasper Reservoir. Their primary interests include securing environmental protections for the reservoir and Boulder Creek system and keeping water in agriculture to avoid “buy and dry” on the Front Range.
Colorado Water Trust is proud to have led the way on this innovative solution to protect our rivers and hopes to participate in more projects like this in the future.
QUOTE FROM COLORADO WATER TRUST:
“The last twenty-five years of my life have been ever so special, with countless hiking and fishing trips up to Jasper and in Boulder Canyon. Colorado Water Trust’s work will ensure that my loved-ones and our growing community continue to enjoy Jasper’s epic summer views and that we can save streamflow in the Boulder Creek watershed, all the way from the mountains to the City of Boulder.” -Kate Ryan, Colorado Water Trust
QUOTE FROM DOUG TIEFEL:
“Our stewardship of Jasper Reservoir aligns with our broader vision of environmental conservation and community enrichment. The family is honored to partner with the Colorado Water Trust to ensure that the reservoir’s water continues to benefit the local ecosystems and communities, reinforcing our legacy of environmental responsibility.” -Doug Tiefel, 37-Mile LLC
Denver’s City Ditch is celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2017. Learn about the Ditch’s important role in Denver’s history and how Denver Water helps out.
August 14, 2024
Long before Denver was established, residents of the area drank water directly from the South Platte River and Cherry Creek.
But the surface wells and buckets of water used as a delivery system were not an adequate means of providing the one thing these early travelers needed for survival: water. Irrigation ditches were the next step forward for the growing population spurred by the city’s Gold Rush of 1859.
But the surface wells and buckets of water used as a delivery system were not an adequate means of providing the one thing these early travelers needed for survival: water. Irrigation ditches were the next step forward for the growing population spurred by the city’s Gold Rush of 1859.
Crews work on City Ditch in this 1935 photo. Photo credit: Denver Water
“City Ditch first started flowing in 1867,” said Sarah McCarthy, Washington Park community member. “It’s a huge part of the Denver community.”
City Ditch was the vision of the Capitol Hydraulic Company, which saw an opportunity to bring more water to Denver from the South Platte River system, explained Holly Geist, Denver Water’s records management analyst.
“The Kansas Territorial Legislature allowed the company to build a ditch and use water for agricultural, mining, mechanical and city purposes,” Geist said.
The company’s first attempt to build the ditch failed in the early 1860s in part because the slope wasn’t high enough for water to flow to Denver.
According to Geist, surveyor and engineer Richard Little — the man for whom Littleton is named — was brought in to build a new flow path for the ditch that was farther up the river, closer to Waterton Canyon. Businessman John W. Smith was brought in to complete building the ditch and water began flowing into the city in 1867.
“There really was nothing in the area but scrub where Washington Park is today,” McCarthy said. “The ditch brought water for farms and homes and helped transform City and Washington parks into the urban gardens they are today.”
The city of Denver took control of the ditch in 1875, and by 1898 nearly all of the ditch within city limits had been placed in pipes. Denver Water acquired the ditch in 1918.
Community members “christen the monument with water balloons” during a celebration at Washington Park in Denver on Aug. 12, for the 150th anniversary of City Ditch. Photo credit: Denver Water
City Ditch continues to flow today, but in two sections. The southern section is managed by the city of Englewood and the northern section by Denver Water.
Denver Water’s portion of the open ditch can still be found flowing through Denver’s Washington Park. City Ditch’s primary function now is to irrigate and fill the lakes in Washington and City parks.
In an effort to conserve more river water supplies, Denver Water began using water from its Recycling Plant in 2004 for the northern section of the ditch. Stormwater also flows through it. Washington Park and the open section of City Ditch were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1976 and designated a Denver Landmark in 1977.
McCarthy hopes people will visit a monument at Washington Park that honors John W. Smith and the people who helped build City Ditch. The monument is located south of the playground near Smith Lake.
“If John W. Smith were here today, he’d be very proud that City Ditch is still supplying water that’s vital to our community,” McCarthy said. “We hope the anniversary raises awareness about the ditch and its history and increases our community’s pride in the city.”
The Central Arizona Project canal passes alfalfa fields and feedlots in La Paz County, Arizona. The fields are irrigated with pumped groundwater, not CAP water. Source: Google Earth.
Imagine that you’ve set off for a hike in the desert of western Arizona, hoping to get up high so you can get a view of the juxtaposition of alfalfa fields against the sere, rocky earth. But you somehow get disoriented, the sun reaches its apex and beats down on you, the temperature climbing into the triple digits. The ground temperature becomes so hot you can feel it through the soles of your Hoka running shoes. Your water bottle is empty. Feeling certain you are going to die you pick a direction and stagger in as straight a line as you can manage, rasping for help. And then, just when you’re about to curl up under a rock and surrender, you see, coming straight out of a hillside, a virtual river. It must be a mirage, you think, or a hallucination, you run toward it, climb the fence, and dive into the cool, deep water.
This is not a fantasy scenario. There is, in fact, a place in the western Arizona desert where a lost traveler could stumble upon a giant canal emerging from the earth.
The Central Arizona Project’s Mark Wilmer pumping plant at Lake Havasu. The 14 plants on the CAP system push water across more than 300 miles with a vertical gain of 3,000 feet. Moving water requires enormous amounts of power, making the CAP the state’s largest single electricity user, with annual power bills totaling $60 million to $80 million. Source: Google Earth.
Central Arizona Project canal daylighting at the Buckskin Mountain Tunnel. Source: Google Earth
The outlet of the San Juan Chama Project runs into Willow Creek west of Los Ojos before running into Heron Lake. Source: Google Earth
The Rio Blanco intake for the San Juan-Chama Project, which takes water from three upper San Juan River tributaries and ships it across the Continental Divide to the Chama River watershed and, ultimately, the Rio Grande. Source: Google Earth
It’s just one of the crazy plumbing projects along the Colorado River and its tributaries. And they can look pretty weird when you stumble upon them in remote places. That’s what happened to me the other day — virtually. I was using Google Earth to chart the 1776 Escalante-Dominguez expedition’s path when, near Chama, I came across a large volume of water emanating from an arid meadow. After some thought I realized it was the outlet for the San Juan-Chama Project that diverts about 90,000 acre-feet of water annually from three tributaries of the San Juan River, sends it through the Continental Divide via a tunnel, and delivers it to Willow Creek and Heron Reservoir. From there it can be released into the Chama River, which runs into the Rio Grande, which is used by Albuquerque and Santa Fe to supplement groundwater and the shrinking Rio Grande.
The Big Thompson Project sucks water out of the Colorado River near its headwaters and siphons it through the mountains via the Alva Adams Tunnel. The water feeds reservoirs that feed Front Range cities and is used to generate hydropower. Adams tunnel inlet at Grand Lake. Source: Google Earth
The Big Thompson Project sucks water out of the Colorado River near its headwaters and siphons it through the mountains via the Alva Adams Tunnel. The water feeds reservoirs that feed Front Range cities and is used to generate hydropower. Penstocks and powerplant at Flatiron reservoir on the right. Source: Google Earth
These things aren’t only unsettling in a visual way, but in a conceptual way as well. One would expect cities and agricultural zones to rise up around where the water is and to grow according to how much water is locally available. Instead, cities rise up in places of limited water and grow as if there were no limits, importing water (and power and other resources) from far away.
The Julian Hinds pumping station, near Desert Center, California, lifts water from the Colorado River Aqueduct 441 feet as it makes its way toward Los Angeles. Source: Google Earth
The Southern Nevada Water Authority was forced to build a third water intake from Lake Mead that was able to draw water as the reservoir continued to shrink. The pumping plant is pictured. Source: Google Earth
Coal fired plant near Hayden with the Yampa River 2015. Photo credit: Ken Nuebecker
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
August 17, 2024
Will there be a water bonus as we close coal plants? In the short term, yes. It’s harder to say in the long term. Here’s why.
Use it or lose it. That’s a basic premise of Colorado water law. Those with water rights must put the water to beneficial use or risk losing the rights to somebody who can. It’s fundamentally anti-speculative. But Colorado legislators this year created a major exception for two electric utilities that draw water from the Yampa River for coal-burning power plants. They did so through Senate Bill 24-197, which Gov. Jared Polis signed into law in Steamboat Springs in late May.
The two utilities, Xcel Energy and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, plan to retire the five coal-burning units — two at Hayden and three at Craig — they operate in the Yampa River Basin by late 2028. These units represent Colorado’s largest concentration of coal plants, 1,874 megawatts of generating capacity altogether. That’s 40% of Colorado’s total coal-fired electrical generation. Together, they use some 19,000 acre-feet of water each year.
What will become of those water rights when the turbines cease to spin? And what will replace that power? The short answer is that the utilities don’t know. That’s the point of the legislation. It gives the utilities until 2050 to figure out their future.
While the legislation is unique to the Yampa Valley, questions of future water use echo across Colorado as its coal plants — two units at Pueblo, one near Colorado Springs, one north of Fort Collins, and one at Brush — all will close or be converted to natural gas by the end of 2030.
This story was originally published in the July 2024 issue of Headwaters Magazine. Photo above of the Hayden Generating Station and the Yampa River was taken by Ken Neubecker in spring 2015. All other photos by Allen Best unless otherwise noted.
Both Xcel and Tri-State expect that at least 70% of the electricity they deliver in 2030 will come from wind and solar. The final stretch to 100%? That’s the hard question facing utilities across Colorado — and the nation and world.
Natural gas is expected to play a continued role as backup to the intermittency of renewables. Moving completely beyond fossil fuels? No one technology or even a suite of technologies has yet emerged as cost-effective. At least some of the technologies that Xcel and Tri-State are looking at involve water.
Fossil fuel plants use less than 1% of all of Colorado’s water. Yet in a state with virtually no raw water resources left to develop, even relatively small uses have gained attention. Colorado’s power future will have implications for its communities and their water, but how exactly that will look remains unknown.
Emissions Goals
The year 2019 was pivotal in Colorado’s energy transition. State lawmakers adopted legislation that specified a 50% economy-wide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 100% by 2050. A decade before, that bill would have been laughed out of the Colorado Capitol. Even in 2019, some thought it unrealistic. But proponents had the votes, and a governor who had run on a platform of renewable energy.
Something approaching consensus had been achieved regarding the risks posed by climate change. Costs of renewables had plummeted during the prior decade, 70% for wind and 89% for solar, according to the 2019 report by Lazard, a financial analyst. Utilities had learned how to integrate high levels of renewables into their power supplies without imperiling reliability. Lithium-ion batteries that can store up to four hours of energy were also dropping in price.
Colorado lawmakers have adopted dozens of laws since 2019 intended to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Tied at the legislative hip to the targets adopted in 2019 were mandates to Colorado’s two investor-owned electric utilities, Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy. By 2030 they must reduce emissions by at least 80% compared to 2005 levels. Both aim to do even better.
Xcel, the largest electrical utility in Colorado, was already pivoting. In 2017, it received bids from wind and solar developers in response to an all-sources solicitation that caused jaws across the nation to drop. In December 2018 shortly after the election of Gov. Polis, Xcel officials gathered in Denver to boldly declare plans to reduce emissions by 80% by 2030. Platte River Power Authority, the provider for Fort Collins and three other cities in the northern Front Range, later that month adopted a highly conditioned 100% goal. In January 2020, Tri-State announced its plans to close coal plants and accelerate its shift to renewables — it plans to reduce emissions by 89% by 2030. In December 2021, Holy Cross Energy, the electrical cooperative serving the Vail and Aspen areas, adopted a 100% goal for 2030. It expects to get to 91% by 2025.
Colorado Springs Utilities burned the last coal at the Martin Drake power plant along Fountain Creek in August 2022. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Colorado’s emissions-reduction goals are economy wide, not just for power production. In practice, this means replacing technologies in transportation, buildings and other sectors that produce greenhouse gas emissions with low- or no-emissions energy sources. As coal plants have closed, transportation has become the highest-emitting sector. Colorado had 126,000 registered electric vehicles and hybrids as of June but hopes to have 940,000 registered by 2030. Buildings pose a greater challenge because most of us don’t replace houses the way we do cars or cell phones. Solutions vary, but many involve increased use of electricity instead of natural gas.
A final twist that has some bearing on water is Colorado’s goal of a “just transition.” House Bill 19-1314 declared that coal-sector workers and communities were not to be cast aside. Efforts would be made to keep them economically and culturally whole.
Possible Water Dividends
The Cherokee Generating Station north of downtown Denver is now a natural gas-fired power plant.
Where does this leave water? That’s unclear and, as the 2024 legislation regarding the Yampa Valley spelled out, it is likely to remain unclear for some time. The law prohibits the Division 6 water judge — for the Yampa, White and North Platte river basins — from considering the decrease in use or nonuse of a water right owned by an electric utility in the Yampa Valley.
In other words, they can sit on these water rights through 2050 while they try to figure what technologies will emerge as cost competitive. Xcel Energy and Tri-State will not lose their water rights simply because they’re not using them during this time as would, at least theoretically, be the case with other water users in Colorado.
Conversion of the Cherokee power plant north of downtown Denver from coal to natural gas provides one case study of how energy shifts can affect water resources. Xcel converted the plant to natural gas between 2010 and 2015. Its capacity is now 928 megawatts.
Richard Belt, a water resources consultant for Xcel, says that when Cherokee still burned coal, it used 7,000 to 8,000 acre-feet of water per year; since 2017, when natural gas replaced coal, it uses 3,000 to 3,500 acre-feet per year.
Does that saved water now flow downstream to farmers in northeastern Colorado?
“If the wind is really blowing, there could be some water heading downstream on certain days,” Belt answered. In other words, there’s so much renewable energy in the grid that production from the gas plant at times is not needed. A more concrete way to look at this conversion, Belt says, is to step back and look at Xcel’s water use more broadly across its system. It also has the Rocky Mountain Energy Center, a 685-megawatt combined-cycle natural gas plant along Interstate 76 near Keenesburg that it bought in 2009 and began operating in 2012. With the plant came a water contract from Aurora Water.
Xcel has been renegotiating that contract, which it projects will be effective in early 2025. The new contract will allow Xcel to take water saved at Cherokee and instead use it at the Rocky Mountain Energy Center. That will allow it to use 2,000 acre-feet less of the water it has been leasing from Aurora each year. Belt says it will save Xcel customers around $1 million a year in water costs.
“Another way to look at this dividend is that we’re going to hand [Aurora] two-thirds of this contract volume, around 2,000 acre-feet a year, and they can use that water within their system,” Belt explains.
Other coal-burning power plants have also closed in recent years, with water dividends of their own. One small coal plant in southwestern Colorado at Nucla, operated by Tri-State, was closed in 2019. In 2022, Xcel shut down one of its three coal units at the Comanche Generating Station in Pueblo.
Colorado Springs Utilities stopped burning coal at its Martin Drake coal-fired plant in 2021, which is located near the city’s center, and replaced it with natural gas. It used some 2,000 acre-feet of water per year in the early 2000s, and was down to only 14 acre-feet per year in 2023. Colorado Springs Utilities — a provider of both electricity and water — delivers 70,000 to 75,000 acre-feet of water annually to its customers. Whatever water savings were achieved in that transition will be folded into the broader operations. The city’s remaining coal plant, Ray Nixon, burns both coal and natural gas. The city delivers about 2,000 acre-feet per year to Nixon to augment groundwater use there.
The 280-megawatt Rawhide coal-fired power plant north of Fort Collins is to be shut down by 2030. Platte River Power Authority, which owns and operates the plant, had not yet chosen a replacement power source as of June 2024. Platte River delivers electricity to Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland.
The Cherokee plant along the South Platte River north of downtown Denver uses significantly less water since tis conversion from coal to natural gas. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
That leaves just the 505-megawatt Pawnee among Colorado’s existing coal plants. The plant near Brush is to be retrofitted to burn natural gas by 2026. The water dividend? Xcel is trying to keep its options open.
The one commonality among all the possible power-generating technologies that Xcel may use to achieve its goal of emissions-free energy by 2050 is that, with the exception of some battery technologies, they all require water, says Belt. And that, he says, means it would be unwise to relinquish water without first making decisions about the future.
That’s why this year’s bill was needed. Colorado’s two biggest electrical providers, Xcel and Tri-State, both with coal plants retiring in the Yampa Valley, have questions unanswered.
The Future of Energy
Strontia Springs Dam and Reservoir, located on the South Platte River within Waterton Canyon. It is ranked #32 out of 45 hydroelectric power plants in Colorado in terms of total annual net electricity generation. Photo by Milehightraveler/iStock
What comes next? Obviously, lots more wind and solar. Lots. The graph of projected solar power in Colorado through this decade looks like the Great Plains rising up to Longs Peak. Construction of Xcel’s Colorado Power Pathway, a 450-mile transmission line looping around the Eastern Plains, will expedite renewables coming online. Tri-State is also constructing new transmission lines in eastern Colorado. The plains landscape, San Luis Valley, and other locations could look very different by the end of the decade.
Very little water is needed for renewables, at least once the towers and panels are put into place.
You may well point out that the sun goes down, and the wind doesn’t always blow. Storage is one holy grail in this energy transition. Lithium-ion batteries can store energy for four hours. That works very effectively until it doesn’t. Needed are new cost-effective technologies or far more application of known technologies.
One possible storage method, called iron-rust, will likely be tested at Pueblo in 2025 by a collaboration between Xcel and Form Energy, a company that proclaims it will transform the grid. It could provide 100 hours of storage. Tri-State’s electric resource plan identifies the same technology.
Granby Dam was retrofitted at a cost of $5.1 million to produce hydroelectricity effective May 2016. It produces enough electricity for about 570 homes. Photo/Northern Water
Other potential storage technologies involve water. Pumped-storage hydropower is an old and proven technology. It requires vertical differences in elevation, and Colorado has that. In practice, finding the right spots for the two reservoirs, higher and lower, is difficult.
Xcel Energy’s Cabin Creek project between Georgetown and Guanella Pass began electrical production in 1967. In this closed-loop system, water from the higher reservoir is released through a three-quarter-mile tunnel to the second reservoir 1,192 feet lower in elevation. This generates a maximum 324 megawatts to help meet peak demands or to provide power when it’s dark or the wind stops blowing. When electricity is more freely available, the water can be pumped back to the higher reservoir. Very little water is lost.
Near Leadville, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has a pumped-storage hydropower project at Twin Lakes, the Mt. Elbert Power Plant, with a more modest elevation difference. The plant can generate up to 200 megawatts of electricity.
Graphic credit: Joan Carstensen
A private developer with something similar in mind has reported reaching agreements with private landowners along the Yampa River between Hayden and Craig. With private landowners, the approval process would be far easier than if this were located on federal lands. Cost is estimated at $1.5 billion.
Belt points out that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has streamlined the permitting process for pumped-storage hydro but that technology remains expensive and projects will take probably 10 to 12 years to develop if everything goes well.
“During that 10 to 12 years, does something new come along? And if you’re committed to pumped storage, then you can’t pivot to this new thing without a financial impact,” he says, explaining a hesitancy around pumped storage.
Green hydrogen is another leading candidate in the Yampa Valley and elsewhere. It uses electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Renewable energy can be used to fuel the electrolysis. That’s why it is called green hydrogen as distinct from blue hydrogen, which uses natural gas as a catalyst. A news story in 2023 called it a “distant proposition.” Costs remain high but are falling. Tax incentives seek to spur that innovation.
Gov. Polis’ administration remains optimistic about hydrogen. It participated in a proposal for federal funding that would have created underground hydrogen storage near Brush. That proposal was rejected, but Will Toor, the chief executive of the Colorado Energy Office, has made it clear that green hydrogen and other emerging technologies remain on the table. Xcel says the same thing. “It’s not something we are going to give up on quite yet,” says Belt. The water savings from the conversion of coal to natural gas could possibly play into those plans.
Gov. Jared Polis stopped by the Good Vibes River Gear in Craig in March 2020 prior to attending a just transition workshop. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Polis is bullish on geothermal, both kinds. The easier geothermal uses the relatively constant 55 degree temperatures found 8 to 10 feet below ground to heat and cool buildings. The Colorado Capitol has geothermal heating, but the most famous example is Colorado Mesa University, where geothermal heats and cools about 80% of the campus. This technology may come on strong in Colorado, especially in new construction.
Can heat found at greater depths, say 10,000 feet or from particularly hot spots near the surface, be mined to produce electricity? California generates 10.1% from enhanced geothermal, Nevada 5.1%, and Utah 1.5%. Colorado generates zero. At a June conference, Polis said he thought geothermal could produce 4% to even 8% of the state’s electricity by 2040. Geothermal for electric production would require modest water resources.
Nuclear? Those plants, like coal, require water. Many smart people believe it may be the only way that civilization can reduce emissions as rapidly as climate scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic repercussions. Others see it as a way to accomplish just transition as coal plants retire.
Costs of traditional nuclear remain daunting. Critics point to projects in other states. In Georgia, for example, a pair of reactors called Vogtle have been completed but seven years late and at a cost of $35 billion, more than double the project’s initially estimated $14 billion price tag. The two reactors have a combined generating capacity of 2,430 megawatts.
New reactor designs may lower costs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2023 certified design of a small-modular reactor by NuScale. It was heralded as a breakthrough, but NuScale cancelled a contract later that year for a plant in Idaho, citing escalating costs.
With a sodium fast reactor, integrated energy storage and flexible power production, the Natrium technology offers carbon-free energy at a competitive cost and is ready to integrate seamlessly into electric grids with high levels of renewables. Graphic credit: http://NatriumPower.com
Greater optimism has buoyed plans in Wyoming by the Bill Gates-backed TerraPower for a 345-megawatt nuclear plant near the site of a coal plant at Kemmerer. It has several innovations, including molten salt for energy storage and a design that allows more flexible generation, creating a better fit with renewables. Ground was broken in June for one building. An application for the design is pending with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gates has invested $1 billion and expects to invest many billions more in what he estimates will be a $10 billion final cost. He also hopes to see about 100 similar plants and reduced costs. Other companies with still other designs and ideas say they can also reduce costs. All these lower-cost nuclear solutions exist in models, not on the ground. Uranium supply remains problematic, at least for now, but more difficult yet is the question of radioactive waste disposal.
Into The Future
The potential for nuclear is balled up in the issue of just transition. Legislators in 2019 said that coal communities would not be left on their own to figure out their futures. What this means in practice remains fuzzy.
Consider Pueblo. Xcel Energy on August 1 is scheduled to submit to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission what is being called the Pueblo Just Transition Electric Resource Plan. Through that plan, Xcel must determine to what extent it can, through new generating sources, leave Pueblo economically whole after it closes the coal plants. Existing jobs will be lost, although others in post-closure remediation of the site will be gained. What, then, constitutes a just transition for Pueblo?
What will Xcel propose in October for Pueblo as it makes plans for the retired of the last of the Comanche coal-burning units in 2030? Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
A task force assembled by Xcel Energy in January delivered its conclusions after nearly a year of study: “Of all of the technologies that we studied, only advanced nuclear generation will make Pueblo whole and also provide a path to prosperity,” concluded the task force. They advised that a natural gas plant with carbon capture would be a distinctly secondary choice.
What will happen with the water in Pueblo? Xcel Energy has a take-or-pay water contract with Pueblo Water for 12,783 acre-feet per year for the Comanche Generating Station. It must pay for the water even if it does not take it. Pueblo Water has a similar take-or-pay contract for 1,000 acre-feet annually for the 440-megawatt natural gas plant operated by Black Hills Energy near the Pueblo airport.
The draw of these water leases from the Arkansas River isn’t that notable, says Chris Woodka, president of the Pueblo Water board, even in what he describes as a “small year,” with low flows in the river. These water leases constitute some 5% or less of the river’s water, Woodka says. Xcel could tap that same lease for whatever it plans at Pueblo. And if it has no use? “We haven’t had many conversations around what we would do if that lease goes away, because it is so far out in the future.”
Xcel and Tri-State both own considerable water rights in the lower Arkansas Valley, near Las Animas and Lamar. Neither utility has shared plans for using the water, as the ideas of coal or nuclear power plants that initially inspired the water purchases never moved forward. Water in both cases has been leased since its acquisition to Arkansas Basin agricultural producers in order to maintain an ongoing beneficial use.
Yampa River. Photo credit: Yampa River Integrated Water Management Plan website
Why don’t Tri-State and Xcel lease their water in the Yampa River as they do in the Arkansas? Jackie Brown, the senior water and natural resources advisor for Tri-State, explains that there is no demand for additional agricultural water in the Yampa Basin. About 99% of all lands capable of supporting irrigated agriculture already get water. This is almost exclusively for animal forage. This is a valley of hay.
However, the Yampa River itself needs more water. The lower portion in recent years has routinely suffered from low flows during the rising heat of summer. Some summers, flows at Deerlodge, near the entrance to Dinosaur National Monument, have drooped to 20 cubic feet per second. Even in Steamboat, upstream from the power plants, fishing and other forms of recreation, such as tubing, have at times been restricted.
One question asked in drafting the legislation this year was whether to seek protection with a temporary instream flow right for some of the 45 cfs that Tri-State and Xcel together use at the plants at Craig and Hayden. The intent would have been to protect the delivery of some portion of that water to Dinosaur National Monument through 2050. That idea met resistance from stakeholders.
Instead, a do-nothing approach was adopted. Those framing the bill expect that most of the time, most of the water will flow downstream to Dinosaur anyway. In most years, no demands are placed on the river from November through the end of June. The challenge comes from July through October. The amount of water, used formerly by coal plants, that reaches Dinosaur will depend upon conditions at any particular time. Have the soils been drying out? Has the summer monsoon arrived?
The Yampa River at Deerlodge Park July 24, 2021 downstream from the confluence with the Little Snake River. There was a ditch running in Maybell above this location. Irrigated hay looked good. Dryland hay not so much.
“Even if you’re adding even half of that [45 cfs], it is a big deal,” says Brown. “If you can double the flow of a river when it’s in dire circumstances it’s a big deal.”
A study conducted by the Colorado River Water Conservation District several years ago examined how much water released from Elkhead Reservoir, located near Hayden, would reach Dinosaur. The result: 88% to 90% did.
Brown says river managers will be closely studying whether the extra water can assist with recovery of endangered fish species and other issues. “There’s a lot of learning to be done. My key takeaway is that that’s really going to contribute to the volume of knowledge that we have and the future management decisions that are made.”
A larger takeaway about this new law is that it gives Colorado’s two biggest electrical providers time. Xcel and Tri-State don’t know all the answers as we stretch to eradicate emissions from our energy by mid-century. Many balls are in the air, some interconnected, each representing a technology that may be useful or necessary to complement the enormous potential of wind and solar generation now being created. All of these new technologies will require water. Some water in the conversion from coal is being saved now, but it’s possible it will be needed in the future.
No wonder Xcel’s Belt says its “imprudent in a very water-constrained region to let go of a water asset that you may not get back, until you know how some of these balls are going to land.”
In response to a flash drought that has developed throughout the northern Front Range, the Board of Directors of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has increased the quota allocation of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project by 10 percentage points.
In a unanimous vote, the Board on August 14, 2024, increased the quota from 70 percent to 80 percent, meaning an approximate 31,000 acre-feet of water will be made available to allottees of the Project.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, a large area of eastern Boulder and Larimer counties have entered severe drought status in July, and an area of drier conditions in the Longmont-Boulder area has worsened into extreme drought conditions, putting at risk the ability of farmers to finish production of their crops for 2024.
Water storage levels in the Project are adequate to meet the additional quota declaration.
Northern Water’s Board typically sets an initial quota in November and a supplemental quota in April, but there have been occasions in which additional quota has been allocated, including in 2020 and 2022. In April, the Board set the quota at 70 percent, which allowed project allottees to access seven-tenths of an acre-foot for each allotment contract unit they own.
From satellite view, the land north of the Arkansas River is a seemingly random checkerboard of vital green and desperate brown, quickly fading from a few thriving farm acres to the broad, water-drained desolation of northern Crowley County.
From the cab of Matt Heimerich’s pickup, each alternating square of emerald corn or desiccated knapweed is a decision by a distant big city — to either share Colorado resources responsibly or toss rural Arkansas River counties to the fate of the hot summer winds.
That square was reseeded with native grass after Aurora bought the water in the 1970s, Heimerich says. That plot, Colorado Springs dried up and it’s all weeds. That farm, Aurora wants to dry it up soon, but the water court referee wants a better reseeding plan.
Heimerich’s family is one of the few farmers remaining in the 790 square miles of Crowley County after city water buy-ups shrank the county’s irrigated acres from more than 50,000 in the 1970s to just a few thousand this year. He jumps down from the pickup to clear invasive kochia weeds from a pipe opening gushing cool canal water down a 1,500-foot corn row.
Straight line diagram of the Lower Arkansas Valley ditches via Headwaters Magazine
Two miles away is downtown Olney Springs, population 310. Crowley County as a whole has only 5,600 residents, and more than a third of those are inmates at two prisons. The only retail operation left in Olney Springs is a soda vending machine against the wall of town hall.
As Heimerich clears his irrigation pipe, he pauses to jab a thumb over his shoulder 150 miles to the north at Aurora, where the population increased by more than 100,000 over 20 years. “When you build a new development, at the end of the day, you’re drying up a farm,” Heimerich said. “Where else is it going to come from?”
“Crowley is just the worst example of what can happen when nobody cares, and nobody pays attention,” he said. The tiny community serves as an enduring reminder of the cultural and economic ruin that occurs when big cities in Colorado and elsewhere purchase farms, dry up the land and move the water to urban areas. It gave rise to the term “buy and dry,” a practice now widely condemned.
The practice was supposed to end in the Lower Arkansas Valley in 2003 with a hard-fought federal court battle and settlement. Since then, state lawmakers and top water and farm agencies have changed laws and spent millions of dollars testing new protective methods for sharing water temporarily between rural and urban areas. They have also spent heavily to improve water quality for thousands of people living near the river who still don’t have clean water to drink.
The big cities insist they have learned their lessons from the Crowley County disaster.
“The results of what happened in Crowley County are unacceptable and widely recognized as a travesty,” said Colorado Springs Utilities spokesperson Jennifer Jordan. “We’ve taken those lessons to heart.”
Arkansas River Basin — Graphic via the Colorado Geological Survey
But outraged Lower Arkansas growers and water districts say new efforts to protect their farm water aren’t working. At the same time, the big cities say new laws making it easier to share farm water don’t provide enough reliable water to grow their communities.
The cities also say big changes in the future water picture, climate-driven reductions in stream flows and threats to their Colorado River supplies leave them little choice but to draw more farm water.
This year they did that, inking deals in the Lower Arkansas worth more than $100 million to buy and lease land and water, raising alarms among local growers and generating big questions about whether the state is doing enough to protect rural farm communities and the water that keeps them going.
Buy and dry light
The cities say a lot has changed in the past 20 years and that these new deals represent innovations in water sharing. But critics in the Lower Arkansas Valley say these same deals signal that no one is doing enough to prevent “buy and dry” or the latest tool in the water acquisition quiver, “lease and dry,” in which water is pulled from farmland periodically.
Aurora, for instance, spent $80 million in April to buy nearly 5,000 acres of farms in Otero County and the more than 6,500 acre-feet of water associated with that land. An acre-foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons of water, enough to irrigate half an acre of corn, or supply at least two urban homes for one year.
Aurora plans to use the water itself in three out of 10 years, leaving it on the farms the rest of the time. Some 4,000 acres of land will be dried up intermittently when Aurora is using the water, according to Karl Nyquist, a developer and grower who negotiated the deal with Aurora and who is operating the farms for Aurora under the lease agreement.
Colorado Springs has a different arrangement just downriver in Bent County, where it will permanently purchase up to 15,000 acre-feet of water from local farmers. Colorado Springs will also help pay local farmers to install modern center pivot irrigation systems that use less water, allowing the city to keep the saved water for its use.
In Crowley County. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
In this deal, Colorado Springs and the farmers will be responsible for revegetating any dried-up land. It will use the water in five out of 10 years, and it has agreed to make a one-time, upfront payment of $2.5 million to Bent County plus payments each year based on how much water is taken off the fields. The money is in addition to payments to farmers.
“We wanted to make sure Bent County was kept whole,” said Scott Lorenz, a senior water projects manager with Colorado Springs Utilities.
Bessemer Ditch circa 1890 via WaterArchives.org
And in Pueblo County, perhaps the least controversial of the three deals, Pueblo Water agreed to purchase nearly one-third of the shares in the local historic Bessemer Ditch system for $56.2 million. Pueblo continues to lease the water back to the farmers for now. At the same time, the Palmer Land Conservancy has developed a sophisticated new framework that measures farm productivity on land watered by the Bessemer Ditch and will eventually help direct water to the most productive farms as Pueblo takes its water. The hope is that the new system will increase overall farm productivity on the ditch system and help make up for anything lost when the less productive lands are dried up, according to Dillon O’Hare, Palmer’s senior conservation manager.
Palmer is also working to analyze the impact of the deals on water quality downstream and how to prevent further damage, O’Hare said.
Irrigated farmland is evaporating
The three projects come as new data shows Colorado’s irrigated farmlands are shrinking. Since 1997, the state has lost 32% of these lands, with areas in the Lower Arkansas Valley seeing losses higher than that, according to an analysis of federal agricultural data by Fresh Water News.
Crowley County has lost 90% of its irrigated lands in that period. Pueblo has lost 60.2%, and Bent and Otero have lost 37.6% and 35.2%, respectively.
State agriculture and water officials are worried about the decline, but say they have few tools to prevent it because farmers are free to sell their water rights to whomever they want.
“Am I concerned? Definitely,” said Robert Sakata, a long-time vegetable grower near Brighton, and former member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board who now serves as the director of water policy for the Colorado Department of Agriculture. “We all talk about water being a limited resource, but prime farmland is also limited and it’s important to take that into consideration.”
Not all these losses are due to big city water prospecting. Climate change, market challenges and legal obligations to deliver water to downstream states are also fallowing Colorado farmlands.
Everyone is sympathetic. No one is in charge.
Still, more than 20 years after the intergovernmental peace accords, it wasn’t supposed to be this way.
The Lower Arkansas Valley region is part of the sprawling Arkansas River Basin. The river has its headwaters near Leadville and flows through Buena Vista, Salida, Cañon City, into Pueblo Reservoir and on over the state line east of Lamar.
Its counties were once a sweet spot in the basin’s agriculture economy. The river fed a bountiful chain of tomato, sugar beet and onion fields, as well as acres of luscious Rocky Ford melons, and chiles, corn and alfalfa.
Cities say these latest deals, which they call “water sharing” agreements, will bolster the agricultural economies and keep remaining water on farm fields forever. But the term “sharing” doesn’t sit well with some local farmers and water officials who have a deep distrust of the cities they blame for the region’s decline.
“I call it a charade,” said Mike Bartolo, a retired Colorado State University Extension research scientist who farms in Otero County near Rocky Ford. “You dry up an acre, you’re drying up land that was formerly irrigated. That’s buy and dry.”
While the state’s highly touted Water Plan cheers for the concept of cities helping rural areas thrive after water losses, there is no mechanism or state law or bureaucracy to watchdog new sales.
After the 2003 agreement in the Lower Arkansas Valley, state and local water leaders began testing new ways for cities and farmers to temporarily share water, something that had been almost impossible under older water law.
But Aurora and Colorado Springs say the early experimental programs didn’t provide enough water at reasonable prices to fulfill their fast-growing community needs permanently.
Lorenz, the Colorado Springs Utilities manager, said the city does lease some water in the valley, but it hasn’t been enough to ensure the stability of its long-term water supply.
“The major concern is that we would lease from a particular farmer, and then a different city would come out and buy those water rights and the farmer wouldn’t lease to us anymore,” he said.
And in fact that is what just happened in April, when Aurora purchased the Otero County farms, which had formerly leased water to Colorado Springs.
Colorado Springs Utilities formally opposes the latest Aurora water deal, as do the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District based in Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District in Rocky Ford.
But their anger has so far been expressed by passing resolutions, not filing lawsuits.
How Aurora Water and other cities have treated Arkansas River counties like Crowley after past buy-ups leaves nothing but suspicion about newly announced deals, local leaders say.
Though Aurora says it is not attempting any more permanent dry-ups of local land, “I don’t think any of us believe them,” said Heimerich, Crowley County’s representative on the Southeastern Conservancy board. Heimerich also is a member of the board of Water Education Colorado, which is a sponsor of Fresh Water News. “They’ll do whatever they need to do and apologize later.”
Thornton, Larimer and Weld counties conducted a similar debate publicly — from the 1990s to this year — as Thornton bought up 17,000 acres of northern Colorado farms and their water rights and began drying up the land. County commissioners and other local officials brought their legal weight and bully pulpits to bear in demanding extensive concessions from Thornton. The Adams County city has been reseeding dried up land with native grass and backfilling lost property taxes, but gets mixed reviews from locals.
The latest Lower Arkansas water deals are also pitting Colorado’s big cities directly against each other in conflicts not seen for decades. When the board of Colorado Springs Utilities passed a resolution earlier this year condemning Aurora’s Otero County deal, it was a direct shot from leadership of a city of nearly 500,000 — the Colorado Springs City Council is the utility board.
“The idea is that there’s Denver, there’s a Denver metro complex and they’re going to just do whatever they want to do and the rest of the state has to go along with it,” City Councilman Brian Risley said.
But Alex Davis, a top Aurora Water official, said Colorado Springs’ ire is unwarranted.
“Aurora has worked in close partnership with Colorado Springs for decades and that will continue,” she said. “This is a case where we disagree.”
Peter Nichols, general counsel for the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District in La Junta, said he is deeply concerned by what cities are proposing now.
“We thought we were through with all of this. We thought we had it under control,” he said of the Aurora and Colorado Springs purchases.
Nichols is among those who have spent much of the past 20 years creating a system, now known as the super ditch, that allows seven local irrigation companies to negotiate leases with cities.
A map of the Fry-Ark system. Aspen, and Hunter Creek, are shown in the lower left. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project western and upper eastern slope facilities.
Importantly, it also won the legal right to move leased water stored in Pueblo Reservoir out of the valley, via the federal Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the Otero Pipeline, removing what had been a key barrier to leasing.
Nichols said local growers and water districts have worked hard to find ways to share water so that it doesn’t permanently leave the valley. That the cities are now jumping the line with these new deals isn’t OK with him.
A farmer’s — and a county’s — greatest asset
Colorado Springs and the other thirsty Front Range cities want farmers like the young Caleb Wertz to be the new face of urban water agreements. On a recent 95-degree summer afternoon, Wertz high-tailed it across Bent County driving an ambulance to take an injured neighbor to the hospital. He had planned to be on his farm, but that’s life in the Lower Arkansas Valley.
The population is shrinking, and everyone has too many jobs to count. The local farmer is also a first responder. Your primary care provider is a farmer’s wife.
Arriving back at the farm just after 5 p.m., Wertz talks about what is perhaps the most controversial decision he has ever made: Selling a portion of his agricultural water to fuel housing growth in Colorado Springs.
The deal will pay him enough so that he can install modern irrigation systems, drying up portions of the fields, known as corners, that won’t be reached by the new, center pivot sprinklers, and allow Colorado Springs to buy the saved water.
He is also planting cotton alongside his traditional corn, and he believes he is the first in the state to do so. A new modern variety is supposed to use half the water, just one acre-foot per acre, rather than the two acre-feet of water that older types, such as those grown in Arizona, use.
For Wertz, the agreement will give him enough money to keep farming and enough new technology to make his remaining agricultural water go farther. He will become a rarity in the area: A young farmer with enough land and water to continue the business his family started in 1919 and to expand it.
“The water purchase makes it a lot more doable because we can farm those acres so much more with pivots,” Wertz said. “That’s the case even though we’re drying up the corners. … That has a bad connotation to it. But Colorado Springs is reimbursing the farmers to turn those corners into pasture land or to revegetate. … Even if it is not producing corn, it’s not just becoming wasteland.”
But to some of his neighbors in the valley, Wertz has entered a hostile no-man’s land, facilitating yet another dry-up of farmland in a region that has already lost too much water and land to urban thirst.
“I know people don’t like it and people are entitled to their opinions, but a lot of those are the older generation who don’t like seeing it because of what happened years before I was even born,” said Wertz, who is 23. “I was glad to see the Springs come in and ask questions about working with us.
“We were quite leery at first. But they have proved it to us. It is extending the water use for them and us, and allowing my brother and I to start taking over some of these acres that haven’t been farmed for a while because there isn’t enough manpower.”
But can the land come back after fallowing?
Another worry for Lower Arkansas growers is whether new methods that allow cities to take the water off the fields for one or more years and then return it at a later time, do more harm than good. They’re not sure farmland in the region is resilient enough to bounce back from cycles of city-caused drought.
Perry Cabot, a research scientist and specialist in farming practices and farm economies, has spent years studying the issue. He says that there is hope for fallowing, after years of experiments and tests, but only with crops such as alfalfa and other grasses and sometimes corn.
“The programs we have done saw alfalfa return almost with a vengeance,” Cabot said. “Grass hay is the second-best candidate.”
Nyquist, the developer and grower who is leasing back and farming the land he recently sold to Aurora, agreed, saying fallowing programs do work, but they are not good for small growers who don’t have the cash to buy the necessary new equipment and nutrients that are needed to help fully restore the crops once water returns.
Still, Jack Goble, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District in Rocky Ford is wary of plans that take water from parts of farm fields over long periods of time.
“And I haven’t found a farmer yet that believes that that’s a viable farming situation, ” he said. “It’s tough to bring that land back.”
Dan Hobbs irrigating from the Bessemer Ditch. Credit: Greg Hobbs
For years, valley water hasn’t been drinkable
Anger aimed west and north from Lower Arkansas Valley towns extends to water quality issues, not just water volume.
For many decades, groundwater wells and the river have been contaminated by farm runoff, mining operations and some naturally occurring pollutants.
The same federal Fryingpan-Arkansas Project that in 1962 created Pueblo Reservoir was also supposed to solve the drinking water problem for 40 communities downriver by building the 130-mile Arkansas Valley Conduit to move clean water from Pueblo Reservoir. But it wasn’t until 2023 that final funding for the $610 million pipeline arrived.
Some downstream leaders are galled that Aurora can start taking more fresh water out of the Arkansas before serious pipeline construction has begun to serve the 50,000 people in long-suffering downstream towns.
“My whole life has been under drinking water restrictions, not being able to attain safe drinking water except to go buy it or to go through extraordinary measures to treat it,” said Dallas May, whose family ranches 15,000 acres north of Lamar. May also is on the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Water Quality Division, which tests Lower Arkansas water a few times a year, classifies most of the river below Pueblo Reservoir as not supporting drinking water or “aquatic life use.” The classification calls the Lower Arkansas suitable for “warm-water aquatic life” and recreation.
The state did not respond to requests for more detailed assessments of Lower Arkansas water health. Asked if state efforts were improving water quality on the Arkansas, a spokesperson said in an email, “Trend studies require extensive data over a significant period of time. The water quality in watersheds is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including precipitation and weather trends that can highly influence the water quality from year to year.”
Some Lower Arkansas farmers and officials are tired of waiting. They see the problem getting worse as, for instance, Aurora takes more water out of Otero County, “What happens is all of the bad things are concentrated into what is left,” May said, “and that is a huge problem.”
Silence at the state level?
The Colorado Water Conservation Board spent years writing the statewide Water Plan, convening forums and task forces, and conducting listening sessions on the tensions between city water needs and the survival of agricultural communities. They say they are concerned about new city water buys, but add they have no authority to influence any deals because water rights are private property rights and can be bought and sold at will.
The board declined an interview request about Aurora’s water purchase or the broader water use questions.
“The Colorado Water Plan sets a vision for meeting the state’s future water needs and was broadly supported by local communities,” Russ Sands, the board’s water supply planning chief, said in email responses to questions. “But the decisions that happen in local communities regarding their water purchases and planning are largely outside of the state’s control. Accountability for staying true to the vision of the Water Plan is a collective responsibility.”
The loss of irrigated farmland isn’t expected to slow anytime soon as climate change dries up streams and population growth drives cities to buy more. The Colorado Water Plan’s forecast shows the population of the Arkansas River Basin, which includes Colorado Springs and Pueblo, surging more than 60% by 2050, increasing the pressure to tap farm water.
Sakata, the state water policy advisor, who farms near Brighton, said protecting the state’s irrigated farmland will take more work. “We can’t just say lease the water for three out of 10 years. We need to have agreements so that water sharing will be really available.”
As an onion grower, Sakata can’t do interruptible water supply agreements because he has long-standing yearly agreements with suppliers that require him to deliver vegetables. If he fallows his land for a year, the money he would likely be paid wouldn’t be enough to compensate him for the loss of onion sales and the need to support his employees during the break.
Farm research scientist Cabot would like to see the state begin buying irrigated farms, using conservation easements to protect them from development or purchase, and then leasing that land and its water to young growers.
What else state leaders can do to preserve what’s left of Colorado’s irrigated land isn’t clear yet, but Alan Ward, a Pueblo native who is also director of water resources for the Pueblo Water, said the state needs to reexamine its policies and goals.
“There is only so much water available, and I don’t think it’s realistic for the state to continue to think that we can control our urban areas and grow them fast without impacting agriculture.” Clarifying that he was speaking as a private individual, rather than a water official, he said, “I’d rather have the farms continue and not have the urban growth, but I am probably in the minority on that.”
Where does the battle flow next?
Water veterans such as Cabot said the state is likely doing everything it can right now to protect irrigated ag lands. But like Sakata, he says more work needs to be done to shore up farm markets and to create easier, more lucrative water sharing arrangements.
“I don’t want to oversimplify this,” Cabot said, “but the simplest way for cities to get this water is to go to farmers and say ‘How much did you make last year?’ and then offer them 10% more. … These are not just fields. They are farm enterprises.”
Kate Greenberg, Colorado’s agriculture commissioner, is overseeing multimillion-dollar efforts to protect farmlands by improving soil health, solving market challenges and making farm water use more efficient. She says the people of Colorado are on board with her agency’s efforts.
“We did a study last year that showed over 98% of Coloradans believe agriculture is an integral part of our state. If we’re taking water out of agriculture, where are we putting it to beneficial use?
“Are we conserving it to grow urban developments and do we want to see that over preserving agriculture and biodiversity. We need to answer that question as a state.”
Bartolo, the retired CSU researcher, hopes the answer comes soon, before any more of the valley water is siphoned off for urban use.
As news of the deals spreads, Bartolo’s sense of deja vu is growing and his fears for the future of the valley’s irrigated ag lands is growing too. No one knows yet what will happen when Aurora’s contract to use the Fryingpan-Ark to deliver water expires in 2047.
“Having lived through it in my lifetime, I have seen the drastic changes,” Bartolo said.
What worries him, and other growers too, is “what happens if they come back after 2047? What happens then?”
In certain parts of the city, Denver residents face temperatures up to twelve degrees higher than they should be, according to the Urban Heat Island index released this month. The index from Climate Central estimates how much additional heat different areas experience based on their built environments. On average, Denver is 7.84 Fahrenheit degrees hotter than air temperatures just outside of the city, according to the index, with the temperature boosts ranging from as high as 12.5 degrees to as low as 4.9 degrees per census block group — more than a seven-degree difference. By neighborhood, the averages range from 10.95 to 5.50 degrees hotter. The index analyzes 65 major cities across the country, with Denver ranking 48th for overall average temperature increase. However, the Mile High City jumps to 17th place for most residents living in areas that are at least nine degrees warmer. Over 49,000 Denver residents live in such areas, according to the index…
All five of Denver’s hottest neighborhoods are located downtown and border one another. The top three coolest neighborhoods are all on the far northeastern edge of the city, nearing Aurora and Commerce City. The only centrally located neighborhood to crack the top-coolest list houses the 160-acre Washington Park. The Urban Heat Island index estimates that Denver’s temperature increases by census block groups. Westword combined the data for each of the city’s 78 neighborhoods, averaging the temperatures of the census block groups as they fall within neighborhood boundaries. Here are the top five hottest and coolest neighborhoods in Denver, so you know where to seek relief during the next heat wave:
Hottest Neighborhoods
5. Civic Center 9.13 degrees hotter Bounded by West Colfax Avenue to the north, Broadway to the east, and Speer Boulevard to the southwest. Includes the Denver Art Museum and part of Civic Center Park featuring the City and County Building.
4. North Capitol Hill 9.66 degrees hotter Bounded by East 20th Avenue to the north, Park Avenue and North Downing Street to the east, East Colfax Avenue to the south, and Broadway to the west. Includes the Fillmore Auditorium and the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception.
3. Auraria 9.70 degrees hotter Bounded by Cherry Creek to the northeast, West Colfax Avenue to the south, and the South Platte River to the northwest. Includes the Auraria campus, housing the University of Colorado Denver, Community College of Denver and Metropolitan State University.
2. Central Business District 10.85 degrees hotter Bounded by 20th Street to the northeast, Broadway to the east, West Colfax Avenue to the south, Cherry Creek to the west, and Lawrence Street to the northwest. Includes the Colorado Convention Center and part of the 16th Street Mall.
1. Union Station 10.95 degrees hotter Bounded by 20th Street to the northeast, Lawrence Street to the southeast, Cherry Creek to the southwest, and the South Platte River to the northwest. Includes Union Station, Commons Park and part of the 16th Street Mall.
Sunrise over Sloan’s Lake in Denver July 27, 2024. Wildfire smoke creating the colors.
Denver Water on Tuesday celebrated the completion of its new treatment plant, the Northwater Treatment Plant, after nearly a decade of planning, design and construction.
The plant, built along Highway 93 north of Golden, can clean up to 75 million gallons of water per day and was designed to be expanded if needed. Over time, the new plant will replace the utility’s Moffat Treatment Plant, which was built in Lakewood in the 1930s.
“It was time to build a plant that could replace one of our older plants,” said Nicole Poncelet-Johnson, the head of the water quality and treatment group at Denver Water.
“This new plant will help us better meet the needs of a changing regulatory environment, the impacts of climate change and the need to be more sustainable in our operations,” she said.
The Northwater Treatment Plant began operations earlier this year and was completed under budget.
Denver Water also operates the Foothills Treatment Plant, located near Roxborough and completed in 1983. It’s Marston Treatment Plant, located in southwest Denver, started operations in 1924. Both plants have been updated over their decades of operation.
The Northwater plant incorporates new technology and lessons learned from other treatment plants. Its design also allows for upgrades to be added as needed.
“The designers and contractors have worked on other conventional treatment plants along the Front Range, and you can see in this plant that they brought the best designs and ideas here to Northwater,” Poncelet-Johnson said.
Unique elements at Northwater include deeper filter beds, which are used to filter out dirt particles in water. The deeper filters at the new plant can be operated for longer periods of time between cleanings, making them better suited for treating water affected by various aspects of climate change such as wildfires or floods.
The Northwater Treatment Plant’s filter beds remove dirt particles from the water as it flows through the treatment plant. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The plant uses ultraviolet technology to help clean the water, technology that reduces the time, space and chemicals needed to disinfect the water for delivery to customers.
And a generator that harnesses power from the water flowing into the plant, when combined with other energy efficiency improvements, is capable of producing more energy than it needs for operations.
“This plant helps us be ready for the next 100 years. It’s a great investment in the future for Denver Water and its customers,” Poncelet-Johnson said.
A look back at building the Northwater Treatment Plant
With the old Moffat Treatment Plant, which started operations in the 1930s, nearing its end life, Denver Water decided to build a new treatment plant along Highway 93 north of Golden, near its Ralston Reservoir.
The project requiredinstalling a new pipeline, more than 5 feet in diameter, to carry water more than 8 miles from the new treatment plant to the site of the old Moffat Treatment Plant in Lakewood. The new pipeline replaced one that dated from the 1930s. The Moffat plant also was modified as it will transition from cleaning water to primarily storing water following the completion of the Northwater plant.
The new plant, pipeline and modifications to the Moffat facility are known as the North System Renewal project.
Installing the new water pipeline required tunneling under two railroad lines and three major highways, including Interstate 70:
Denver Water is building a new $90 million water pipeline in Jefferson County, Colorado. The pipeline replaces two existing pipelines and is needed for Denver Water’s new water treatment plant.
Construction on the Northwater Treatment Plant started in September 2018.
In the spring of 2019, the new plant was the subject of a senior capstone project for graduating civil engineering students at the University of Colorado Boulder. The students, working in teams, presented their designs for the building that houses the filter systems at the plant to Denver Water’s leaders on the project.
How did the CU Boulder students do? Watch here:
For CU Boulder engineering students, their spring 2019 capstone project revolved around Denver Water’s new state-of-the-art water treatment plant.
How construction of Denver Water’s newest treatment plant stayed on schedule in 2020, despite the COVID-19 pandemic.
The summer of 2021 saw the beginning of the massive effort to place the thousands of yards of concrete that would make up two giant concrete water storage tanks, each capable of holding 10 million gallons of clean water. The tanks, now partially buried, are most visible aspects of the plant seen from Highway 93.
Pouring the concrete floor of the first of two 10-million-gallon water storage tanks at the new Northwater Treatment Plant started at 2:30 a.m. on Friday, May 14, 2021, and continued through noon that day. Photo credit: Denver Water.
By the end of 2021, the plant had officially passed the 50% complete milestone for construction while the people working on the project had collectively dedicated 1 million hours to the effort.
The Northwater Treatment Plant received several national awards during its years of construction. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In 2022, the project received an award from the American Water Works Association, the largest organization of water supply professionals in the world. The project was the recipient of the 2022 AWWA Innovation Award, given to utilities that have inspired or implemented an innovative idea, best practice, or solution to address a challenge facing the industry.
In 2023, construction of the Northwater plant received national recognition from the American Public Works Association for its commitment and accomplishments around safety, including protecting the health of hundreds of workers on the project during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Lauren Penington). Here’s an excerpt:
Rocky Mountain Lake — located at 3301 West 46th Avenue in Denver — closed Thursday after recent testing found toxic levels of algae around the shoreline, the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment said in a statement on social media…Recent routine testing at Lake Arbor in Arvada also revealed blue-green algae was approaching toxic levels, forcing the city to close the lake indefinitely Thursday, Arvada officials said in a news release…
The number of algae blooms will increase as Colorado’s climate becomes warmer, according to previous reporting. The blue-green algae found in the lakes are naturally occurring and an important part of the ecosystem, but the blooms can produce toxins if they grow big enough. Harmful algae looks like thick pea soup or spilled paint with a green, red, gold or turquoise color. They also often have foam or scum.
Toxic-algae blooms appeared in Steamboat Lake summer of 2020. The lake shut down for two weeks after harmful levels of a toxin produced by the blue-green algae were found in the water. As climate change continues, toxic blooms and summer shutdowns of lakes are predicted to become more common. Photo credit: Julie Arington/Aspen Journalism
Save The Poudre is suing the city of Thornton and the Larimer County commissioners. The lawsuit, filed in Larimer County District Court, specifically names Commissioners John Kefalas, Jody Shadduck-McNally and Kristin Stephens. It asks the court to find that the board exceeded its jurisdiction and/or abused its discretion in granting permission for a 10-mile water pipeline that would convey Poudre River water to Thornton…
The lawsuit said Save The Poudre was denied due process rights because it and members of the public weren’t allowed to combine public comments into an extended group presentation exceeding three minutes, while the commissioners placed no time limits on Thornton’s presentations, “which lasted hours and allowed for group presentations.” It said the board erred in not requiring Thornton to present an alternative that would use the Poudre River itself to convey the water and not requiring presentations outlining alternative water diversion locations.
The lawsuit also cited several sections of the county’s land use code that it believes Thornton’s application did not meet. Save The Poudre alleges the project:
does not have “benefits, in terms of physical improvements, enhanced services, or environmental impacts, of the proposed project” that “outweigh the losses of any natural resources or reduction of productivity of agricultural lands.”
does not, “to the greatest extent possible,” mitigate impacts to the environment and natural resources.
will “exacerbate or worsen climate change.”
does not “mitigate impacts on rivers, streams and wetlands to the greatest extent possible.”
“will have a significant impact on natural resources of statewide importance.”
does not significantly mitigate and will have significantly adverse impacts on water quality and quantity in the Poudre River.
does not “implement the vision and policies of the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan.”
does not “regulate development in a manner consistent with legitimate environmental concerns.”
does not “reflect principles of resource stewardship and conservation.”
The lawsuit also states the board exceeded its jurisdiction and/or abused its discretion by not requiring “complete co-location of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) pipeline, a separate project also set to run through Larimer County. And it says the board was wrong in its finding that water diversion and water right are beyond the scope of the 1041 review.
Rainbow and brown trout are free to move as they please through Eleven Mile Canyon once again, following the removal of an unused dam on the stretch of South Platte River near Lake George. The 1952 Colorado Springs Utilities diversion dam was removed last year as part of a $4.8 million project to unite 45 miles of river. The river and its surrounding ecosystems have already seen significant benefits, particularly for fish who make their home in the clear waters of the mountain canyon.
“We have photos of fish attempting to jump the dam when it was in place,” said Charles M. Shobe, a Research Geomorphologist with the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station. “Now that they’re able to move upstream, they’re bringing their biomass upstream which provides a better distribution of nutrients throughout the watershed.”
[…]
Scientists from the Rocky Mountain Research Station along with members of the South Park Ranger District conducted river sampling on April 25, mapping the bottom of the riverbed to get information on the shape of the river channel, collecting sediment samples to look at the aquatic habitat of the riverbed and bagging insect larvae to get a measure on who’s there. Measuring in April was essential for the team, Shobe explained, as it was after the dam’s disassembly but before the river that was diverted through a spillway while the dam was taken down, filled the canyon once again. Another sampling will be taken likely in June and then annually through 2027…
Returning the stretch of the South Platte to its pre-dam state will likely first improve habitat for the little insects that live in the stream bed, which in term will revitalize the whole system as fish feed on the insects, and bigger animals like eagles feed on the fish. While the research is still in the works, Shobe said they’ve observed anecdotally a change in the former pond area from finer sediment like mud and sand to coarser, larger sediments like gravel which will be a positive change for the aquatic organisms that swim in the stream as they tend to not do as well in a muddier environment. The buildup of sediment is a unique aspect of the Eleven Mile Canyon dam removal project as unlike other dams where removal of the river obstruction has flushed a wave of collected sediment downstream, a lot of the sediment was able to be dug out from behind the dam before removal. For that reason, downstream impacts aren’t expected, and the scope of the ongoing research will only include a couple 200 feet downstream of the former dam.
Because the town argues that Craft was not qualified to serve on the water provider’s board, the complaint says that legally, “a vacancy existed since his appointment in 2022 by the Town.” The Kiowa Board of Trustees — the equivalent of a town council — object to Craft’s activity on the water provider’s board, according to the suit.
“Mr. Craft has publicly stated an intent to unlawfully terminate a separate operating agreement between the Town and KWWA,” the complaint says. “Mr. Craft’s actions create a risk of irreparable harm to the Town of Kiowa and the Board of Trustees, because he is exercising authority and duties to which he has no lawful right.”
According to the complaint, in order to serve on the water provider’s board, a person must meet one of three criteria:
• They are a resident of the town who is registered to vote in Colorado;
• They own “real property” within the town boundaries;
• Or they are the person designated by the owner of real property within the boundaries of the town to be qualified to serve on the board by such owner. (The designation by an owner does not require that the person be appointed to the board.)
Craft’s designation to serve did not meet the third criteria, the complaint argues.
Take an animated tour of the unique construction process.
Raising the height of a dam involves many steps, literally and figuratively.
After two years of excavation and preparation work on the canyon around Gross Dam, workers in May began placing concrete, starting the three-year process of raising the height of the dam itself.
Denver Water is raising the height of Gross Dam by 131 feet as part of the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. Once complete, the dam will be able to store nearly three times as much water in Gross Reservoir, which will add more resiliency and flexibility to Denver Water’s water storage system.
Workers from Denver Water and contractor Kiewit Barnard stand in front of Gross Dam in May to mark the start of the dam raise process. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Raising the dam is being done by building 118 steps made of roller-compacted concrete. Each step will be 4 feet wide with a 2-foot setback. The existing dam is 340 feet tall. The completed dam will be 471 feet tall.
Check out this animated video to see how the process works.
This animation shows how Denver Water plans to raise the height of Gross Dam in Boulder County, Colorado, as part of the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. #grossreservoir#civilengineering#howtoraiseadam
The construction site at the bottom of Gross Dam with equipment used to place concrete and build the new steps. Photo credit: Denver Water.
It will take roughly three years to complete all the steps, with a final completion date set for 2027.
The dam raise process begins at the bottom of the dam using roller-compacted concrete to build the new steps that will go up the face of the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Planning and permitting for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project began in 2002. Take a look at this video to learn about the process and major accomplishments.
Denver Water is raising the height of Gross Dam in Boulder County, Colorado as part of the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. This video looks at the history of the project and the work being done to raise the dam.
Left to Right: Harriet Crittenden LaMair (High Line Canal Conservancy), Paula Herzmark (High Line Canal Conservancy Board of Directors), Dessa Bokides (High Line Canal Conservancy Board of Directors), Amy Heidema (Denver Water), Mark Bernstein (Denver Parks and Recreation), Diana Romero Campbell (Denver City Council), Tom Roode (Denver Water), Alan Salazar (Denver Water), Jim Lochhead (High Line Canal Conservancy Board of Directors), Steve Coffin (High Line Canal Conservancy Board of Directors), Laura Kroeger (Mile High Flood District), Lora Thomas (Douglas County Commission), Evan Ela (High Line Canal Conservancy Board of Directors), Melissa Reese-Thacker (South Suburban Parks and Recreation), Dan Olsen (Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority), Pam Eller (South Suburban Parks and Recreation Board of Directors), Earl Hoellen (Cherry Hills Village City Council), Jeff Baker (Arapahoe County Commission), Leslie Summey (Arapahoe County Commission), Shannon Carter (Retired – Arapahoe County Open Spaces), Bill Holen (Arapahoe County Commission), Carrie Warren-Gully (Arapahoe County Commission), Gretchen Rydin (Littleton City Council), Gini Pingenot (Arapahoe County Open Spaces), Amy Wiedeman (City of Centennial), Suzanne Moore (City of Greenwood Village), Brian Green (Aurora Parks, Recreation and Open Space), Nicole Ankeney (Aurora Parks, Recreation and Open Space). Credit: High Line Canal Conservancy
In a groundbreaking move to protect the historic 71-mile High Line Canal, one of the nation’s longest continuous urban trails, Denver Water announces the transfer of 45 miles of the beloved High Line Canal to Arapahoe County, and with it, a conservation easement that permanently protects the Canal as a natural open space for the region. This visionary action marks the end of a century-long stewardship by Denver Water and ushers in a new chapter for the historic water delivery system, now one of the region’s treasured urban trails meandering through 11 governmental jurisdictions.
Effective this month, the High Line Canal Conservancy will hold and manage a conservation easement for this 45-mile stretch, safeguarding it for future generations. This easement will ensure the Canal will forever be maintained as a public linear open space park and trail while protecting the Canal’s unique conservation values, including preserving the natural environmental beauty and public recreational benefits of this cherished greenway and preventing future development, while continuing stormwater management and public utility uses.
The collaborative agreement between Denver Water, Arapahoe County, and the High Line Canal Conservancy marks a significant advancement toward the community vision to honor, enhance and repurpose this landmark of our agricultural heritage, a 71-mile irrigation canal, into one of our region’s premier green spaces connecting neighborhoods, people and nature.
“This historic milestone represents a major step forward in the ongoing transformation of the High Line Canal,” said Tom Roode, Chief Operations and Maintenance Officer at Denver Water. “This very positive evolution of the Canal reflects Denver Water’s mission to advance public health and water conservation while ensuring the Canal is protected for generations to come.”
While Denver Water is transferring ownership of more than half of the Canal to Arapahoe County, the water provider will continue to own nearly 20 miles of the Canal during the transformation process. Maintenance of the corridor is a collaboration between Denver Water, the counties, local jurisdictions and the Conservancy.
“For decades, the High Line Canal has been an important and well used recreational asset for Arapahoe County residents, making this ownership transfer a natural fit for our open spaces, parks and trails portfolio,” said Arapahoe County Commissioner and Board Chair Carrie Warren-Gully. “Our work to preserve natural and legacy spaces will be greatly expanded through the conservation easement, ensuring the greenway remains a treasured asset for generations.”
Trail users will not see a dramatic difference from the ownership change; however, over time care for the natural resources will improve under county ownership. The Canal trail will always remain free to use the Canal for hiking, biking, horseback riding and enjoying the outdoors; and the Conservancy will continue to be a central point of contact for any inquiries.
“Denver Water’s protection of the Canal through a Conservation Easement demonstrates tremendous foresight and partnership. The easement is a lasting gift that will forever improve the quality of life in the Denver region for the hundreds of thousands of people who use the Canal today and for generations to come,” said Harriet Crittenden LaMair, CEO, High Line Canal Conservancy. “All of us at the High Line Canal Conservancy – our board, staff and volunteers – are so honored to accept this responsibility.”
The Conservancy, Denver Water, and Arapahoe County in collaboration with local governments spent years completing a comprehensive plan that recommends investments and management changes to support the long-term transition of the Canal from a water delivery function to a protected, regional open space and trail with multiple environmental and recreational benefits.
“Denverites already know the High Line Canal as one of the best places to run, hike, and bike. The work being done here will ensure future generations know it, as well,” said Mayor Mike Johnston. Jolon Clark, Executive Director of Denver Parks and Recreation also remarked, “With over a million users each year, the High Line Canal is a vital part of our parks and trail system within the City & County of Denver. For decades we have been deeply engaged and have invested in the preservation and enhancement of the High Line Canal. We look forward to fostering our partnerships to ensure that the High Line Canal remains a cherished recreational and natural resource for Denver residents.”
The long-term protection of the Canal will require ongoing public and private funding. The High Line Canal Conservancy is working toward that as they near the close of a transformational $33 million campaign, Great Lengths for the High Line, that is leveraging public funding for a total investment of $100 million in the Canal over 5 years.
“We are thrilled with the incredible support the Great Lengths campaign has received from across the region, including a generous $10 million investment from Denver Water and $7 million from Great Outdoors Colorado,” said Paula Herzmark, Board Chair of the High Line Canal Conservancy. “With the new ownership and conservation easement in place, Arapahoe County, the High Line Canal Conservancy, and Denver Water have collectively secured the Canal’s future. This ensures that it will be here as an essential natural open space, free and accessible to the public forever.”
Great Outdoors Colorado also provided funding to the Conservancy to support the creation of the conservation easement, including a present conditions report and the establishment of an endowment that will support ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the easement.
About Denver Water
Denver Water proudly serves high-quality water and promotes its efficient use to 1.5 million people in the city of Denver and many surrounding suburbs. Established in 1918, the utility is a public agency funded by water rates, new tap fees and the sale of hydropower, not taxes. It is Colorado’s oldest and largest water utility. Subscribe to TAP to hydrate your mind, and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
About Arapahoe County
Arapahoe County provides the best of everything Colorado has to offer. From babies to boomers and beyond, residents put down roots, raise families, start and run businesses, and embrace the endless opportunities and amenities that make the state unique. Arapahoe County spans 805 miles and features vibrant urban, suburban and rural communities, an unparalleled open space and trail system, major employment centers and a robust multimodal transportation network. Learn more at arapahoeco.gov.
About High Line Canal Conservancy
The High Line Canal Conservancy is a tax-exempt nonprofit formed in 2014 by a passionate coalition to provide leadership and harness the region’s commitment to enhancing and permanently protecting the High Line Canal. With support from each jurisdiction and in partnership with Denver Water, the Conservancy is leading a collaborative and region-wide effort to ensure the Canal is protected and enhanced for generations. Visit HighLineCanal.org for more information.
The rolling hills southwest of Denver offer spectacular views of the Pike National Forest, and the land is as rugged as it is beautiful.
Tucked in among the ponderosa pines, hills and rock formations is Miller Gulch, a popular recreation area for bikers and hikers near Bailey, Colorado. To the casual observer, seeing a forest dense with trees looks healthy, but it’s actually cause for concern.
That’s why in 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and Denver Water launched a forest health project to thin 1,500 acres of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees in the area.
The goal was to help return the forest to its natural structure and composition. The project wrapped up in the spring of 2024.
A look at the Miller Gulch area of the Pike National Forest after thinning work was completed. The spacing between the trees leads to a healthier forest that is less prone to large, catastrophic wildfires. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“While small fires are beneficial to the forest, large wildfires can be devastating,” said Ryan Kolling, a Forest Service Supervisory Forester. “Thinning the forest helps reduce the risk of large wildfires and helps the trees become more resilient to disease and insect infestation.”
Improving the health of the forest protects nearby homes and recreation trails from large fires. A healthier forest also offers better protection for an area that supplies water to Denver and several surrounding suburbs.
The Miller Gulch area before tree thinning shows the overly dense forest that is susceptible to large wildfires. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“Denver’s source water begins as the snow and rain that travels across the forests west of Denver,” said Madelene McDonald, a watershed scientist at Denver Water.
“As the water flows downhill into rivers and streams, the forest acts as a natural filter for what will eventually become our drinking water. That’s why forest health is critical to Denver Water and our customers.”
Forest treatments
Improving the health of the forest is done through “treatments” that reduce the amount of vegetation, or “fuels,” that could catch fire. Treatments range from using machines to remove trees and thin the forest to using prescribed fires to burn away debris on the forest floor.
Before any treatments began in the Miller Gulch area, the Forest Service conducted an analysis of the area and created a “prescription” that outlined which trees should be removed and which ones would stay. The agency partnered with the nonprofit Stewardship West to streamline the process and complete the work.
The treatment work involved a multistep process to thin the forest.
The first step involved removing selected trees with a large feller-buncher cutting machine equipped with two saws and a large “claw.”
After the trees were cut down, a machine called a “skidder” dragged them to a collection area, where another machine called a “dangle-head processor” removed the branches.
The last step involved a bulldozer-like machine called a “masticator” that works like a lawnmower, chopping up any remaining debris and spreading it across the ground.
A cutting machine, known as a feller-buncher, saws the bottom of a tree, lifts it and sets it aside on the ground for removal. Photo credit: Denver Water.
A “skidder” grabs the downed trees and drags them to a collection area. Photo credit: Denver Water.
A dangle-head processor removes branches from the downed trees and stacks the trees in piles. Photo credit: Denver Water.
A mastication machine drives around the area where trees have been removed like a lawnmower. The machine’s blades chop up debris and spread it across the forest floor. Photo credit: Denver Water.
After the treatment is complete, the forest will have openings and meadows between groups of trees, so if one tree is hit by lightning and catches fire, it will be harder for flames to jump to other trees and spread.
The area in the foreground shows the treated areas of Miller Gulch. There is more space between the trees and the forest is less dense compared to the untreated areas in the background. Photo credit: Stewardship West.
“The forest land recovers quickly after treatments. As an example, in areas around here where we’ve done treatments in the past, there are now grasses, new trees and wildflowers already coming back,” Kolling said.
“Thinning also helps stimulate new growth and gives the forest more diversity in terms of the age of trees as older ones are removed and new ones take root.”
Putting debris to good use
A key part of forest management is to make sure the removed trees are put to beneficial use.
In the Miller Gulch area, the cut trees were separated into large and small piles. The larger trees are taken to sawmills in Colorado where they’re turned into materials such as two-by-four boards and wood pallets.
Some tree piles are left on-site for the public to cut into smaller pieces for use as their own firewood. (A permit is required.)
Large trees on the left are taken to sawmills and turned into various wood products. The smaller branches and trees on the right are turned into firewood and mulch to be sold in the community. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The smaller trees and branches are used for firewood or turned into mulch and sold in the community. Other debris is scattered across the forest in areas where work was done to help the land recover.
“We’ve worked hard over the years to make sure we’re getting added benefit from our forest treatments, so these projects help the community in many ways,” Kolling said.
“The Buffalo Creek, Hayman and Hi Meadow fires were all high-intensity fires that burned on the Pike National Forest, which is in our South Platte watershed,” McDonald said.
“When these types of wildfires occur, the exposed landscape can experience significant erosion that degrades our water quality and fills up our reservoirs with sediment.”
Downed trees and debris from the 1996 Buffalo Creek fire ended up in Strontia Springs Reservoir after a flood hit the burn scar. Denver Water is trying to prevent future disasters from happening by investing in forest health to prevent major wildfires. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water has prioritized treatment in the Miller Gulch area because of its proximity to the North Fork of the South Platte River, which flows into Strontia Springs Reservoir. The reservoir is where 80% of the utility’s water passes through before heading to water treatment facilities.
“It’s very important to reduce the wildfire risk above Strontia Springs,” McDonald said.
“We’ve seen several big fires here in the past three decades that have caused significant problems to our water treatment operations and water delivery infrastructure.”
Federal help
The Pike National Forest is located in the Colorado Front Range Landscape, an area of 3.6 million acres recently identified in the Forest Service’s Wildfire Crisis Strategy as one of 21 landscapes at high risk for large wildfires. This is due to the area’s fire history, current vegetation conditions, number of homes and importance to the water supply for people across metro Denver.
The Wildfire Crisis Strategy is a 10-year plan developed by the Forest Service to dramatically increase the pace, scale and scope of forest health treatments across the Western U.S. The plan addresses wildfire risks to critical infrastructure, protecting communities and making forests more resilient.
The original From Forests to Faucets plan for Miller Gulch called for treating 419 acres. However, since the project was already in progress, it was selected for additional federal funding in 2022 and received $3.3 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. This additional funding allowed for the treatment of an additional 1,102 acres.
A section of Miller Gulch in 2023 shows how quickly the land recovers after treatment as grasses and wildflowers grow back. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“For years, Denver Water and the Forest Service have leveraged resources through the From Forests to Faucets partnership. And with support from the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, we are able to continue this proven approach and essentially triple the number of acres treated in Miller Gulch,” McDonald said.
“All of the work expands our efforts to reduce the wildfire risk in the area and helps protect our water supplies.”
Connecting landscapes
The Miller Gulch project is one of many forest health efforts that in recent years have been done in the Upper South Platte River Basin on the Pike National Forest. May of those projects are in the area of Bailey, Buffalo Creek and the Colorado Trail.
A prescribed fire along the Colorado Trail near Buffalo Creek in June 2023 is an example of other fuel reduction treatments in the Pike National Forest. Photo credit: Andrew Slack, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute.
“The goal is to connect the dots of forest treatments across the landscape,” Kolling said.
“We try to combine our treatment efforts with our partners and work with natural features like roads and rivers. This creates fuel breaks which will help us bring large-scale fires down to fighting size if one breaks out.”
Stewardship Agreements and partnerships
The Miller Gulch project is a prime example of what partnerships can accomplish by using Stewardship Agreements.
In 1999, Congress created the Stewardship Agreement tool, which gave the Forest Service the authority to work with partners collaboratively across shared landscapes. The goal is to accomplish impactful work and achieve mutually beneficial goals for the national forests.
For Miller Gulch, the Forest Service partnered with Stewardship West to speed up the treatment process and achieve shared forest health goals. Stewardship West is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to improving forest health across the Western U.S.
“We are a boots-on-the-ground, action-focused organization with a mission of engineering heathy and resilient forests,” said Kevin Zeman, president and CEO of Stewardship West.
“The Forest Service gives us the treatment plan and we do the coordination and implementation to make the project happen. This has allowed us to treat 1,500 acres in just 2.5 years, which is really unheard of in terms of land management.”
Ryan Kolling (right), a Forest Service supervisory forester, meets with Stewardship West’s Jennifer Baker (left) and Kevin Zeman to discuss the forest treatments in Miller Gulch. Photo credit: Denver Water.
As a neighboring water provider with shared wildfire risks, Aurora Water joined forces with Denver Water and the Forest Service in 2022 to help fund the Miller Gulch project. Aurora Water works with Denver Water and also uses Strontia Springs Reservoir to deliver water to its customers.
Denver Water’s collection system spans more than 4,000 square miles of forest land, so working with other agencies is critical, according to McDonald.
“We rely on our regional, state and federal partners to help protect our watersheds,” McDonald said.
“It really is a team effort, and the Miller Gulch project is a great example of how we can ensure a reliable water supply and improve the forest health at the same time.”
The snow that piled up in Denver Water’s collection system brought good numbers and big surprises this spring.
The numbers were strong: A peak at 100% of average in the South Platte River Basin and a peak at 124% in the Colorado River Basin.
The Continental Divide, shown here in Grand County, was buried in a wealth of snow this year (2024). Photo credit: Denver Water.
Those figures translate to a good snow year and a strong water supply for the warm months ahead.
The bigger surprise was how late into spring the snow stacked up.
In the portion of the Colorado River Basin where Denver Water collects its water, peak didn’t hit until May 15 — three weeks after the typical April 24 high point for snowpack.
Such a late peak is good news for water supplies.
Can you sing the summer watering rules? The Splashstreet Boys, with “I Water That Way.”
It means higher streamflows in the warmer months and reduces wildfire risk, among many other benefits. It often means a boost for recreation, too, with more water available for rafting season and elevated reservoirs deeper into the summer.
“Most importantly, it means water availability coincides with water demand,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of supply. “We don’t see big water demands from our customers in April and May, so if the snowpack peaks later and runs off later in June and July, it keeps our reservoirs stable, sustaining our savings account, so to speak.”
This year, May packed a big punch, delivering a whopping 10% of the snowpack in the Colorado River Basin portion of Denver Water’s system.
“That volume of May snowfall is rare,” Elder said. “We typically see snowpack losses in May and this year it gained.”
A good snowpack and a late runoff often boosts recreation on and downstream of storage reservoirs, like Dillon Reservoir above, during the summer months. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The season produced another quirk: snowpack peaked April 10 in Denver Water’s South Platte system, creating a 35-day stretch between peaks in the two basins.
That kind of gap has only occurred once in 44 years of data. That was in 1983, when the peaks were separated by 36 days (April 15/May 21).
Know before you go: Check denverwater.org/Recreation for updates and information about recreation on Denver Water reservoirs.
“This gap makes for a big deviation from the norm, which typically sees both basins hit peak within a couple of days of each other, in late April,” Elder said. “It’s another sign of how variable snowfall patterns can be in Colorado.”
Even so, both basins came in with strong snowpack numbers, bringing Denver Water a second straight year of healthy water supply.
The wealth of snow also means Denver Water will need to spill water from some of its reservoirs, an uncommon situation. The utility prefers to keep water in storage if it can, but a big runoff can force it to release water downstream to make room for more snowmelt coming off the high country.
In some years, a big snowpack can lead to Denver Water spilling some water from its storage reservoirs, like Strontia Springs in Waterton Canyon, to make way for the spring runoff. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Strontia Springs, located about 6 miles up Waterton Canyon southwest of Denver, along with Cheesman Reservoir further up the South Platte, began spilling in mid-May.
The healthy winter also means average reservoir storage was at 88% in early May.
That translates to a big splash of additional water — 35,000 acre-feet, greater than the capacity of Chatfield Reservoir south of Denver — above what is typically stored in Denver Water’s reservoirs at this point in the year.
Finally, a cool and wet spring have helped reduce customer demand for water. That, in turn, helps keep water in reservoirs and streams for later use.
“Our customers continue to watch the weather and be smart with their irrigation practices,” Elder said. “They play a big part in the water supply picture.”
LONGMONT, COLO – A St. Vrain trans-basin diversion, which has been a cornerstone of Colorado’s water rights history for over 140 years while simultaneously drawing environmental concern because of impacts to the South St. Vrain Creek, is making history again.
The South St. Vrain Diversion was at the center of the controversial 1882 Colorado Supreme Court water rights case Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Company that set the precedent for water rights across the western United States for establishing the “first in time, first in right” doctrine. Now the diversion structure is the first in the St. Vrain basin to employ remote operations of the diversion.
Coffin vs. Left Hand Ditch location map via the Left Hand Watershed Center
A collaboration between the Left Hand Ditch Company, the Left Hand Water District and the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District authorized the installation of new technology last year that directs more precise stream flows and provides better monitoring and metering.
The ability to operate this diversion remotely through a mobile phone app enables rejuvenating flows into South St. Vrain Creek. The upcoming summer months may be among the first to see water flow down South St. Vrain Creek for the first time in over a century. Previously, operating this diversion required a three-hour drive from Niwot to above the Peak-to-Peak Highway when the mountain access point was accessible and then required manual operation of a century-old diversion wheel. In winter, the only option of reaching the diversion was often via snowshoes. The new diversion operations equipment is charged by solar and controlled by cellular data. Flows as low as 5 cubic feet per second (CFS) can make a big difference to the health of the stream.
The collaborative project came about when the Left Hand Ditch Company sought expertise and funding from the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District to implement the infrastructural advancements. Because it derives water supply from Left Hand Creek below the diversion and because it shares a similar interest in the health and the integrity of the watershed, the Left Hand Water District provided additional funding for a total of $24,000. This initiative signifies a shift in the relationship between historical water management practices and environmental values, which have sometimes been at odds. The project demonstrates Left Hand Ditch Company’s interest in enabling environmental flows and could set a precedent for collaborative conservation efforts in the future. As Terry Plummer, Superintendent of Left Hand Ditch Company, concluded, “We’ve got to grow and change with the times.”
“The collaboration between the three entities represents trust, partnership, and environmental dedication,” said Sean Cronin, Executive Director at the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District. “This project underscores our unwavering commitment to preserving Colorado’s waterways while ensuring sustainable agricultural practices.”
“As the primary water manager on Left Hand Creek, we use this water and want to contribute to its success,” said Christopher Smith, General Manager of Left Hand Water District.
For media inquiries, interviews, or further information, please contact Jenny McCarty at 303.772.4060 or jenny.mccarty@slvh.gov.
About the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District
The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District (“District” and “SVLHWCD”), created in 1971, is your trusted local government working to safeguard water resources for all. The District’s work is founded in the Water Plan five pillars: protect water quality and drinking water sources, safeguard and conserve water supplies, grow local food, store water for dry years, and maintain healthy rivers and creeks. Aligned with the Water Plan, the District is pleased to promote local partner water protection and management strategies through the Partner Funding Program.
As a local government, non-profit agency formed at the request of our community under state laws, the District serves Longmont and the surrounding land area or basin that drains into both the St. Vrain and Left Hand Creeks. Learn more at http://www.svlh.gov.
About the Left Hand Ditch Company
The Left Hand Ditch Company, based in Niwot, CO, was established in 1866 to irrigate 30K acres of land along Left Hand Creek. It is a unique ditch company in the west for many reasons, the first of which being that several individual ditches gave up their individual operations to come together and form the single ditch company to manage the entire Left Hand Creek system most efficiently.
Today, the Left Hand Ditch Company’s mission to manage and deliver water for all of its shareholders effectively is as strong as ever, and the Left Hand Ditch Company embraces new technology, like remote operation at the South St. Vrain Diversion, to accomplish this mission in modern times. Learn more at http://www.lefthandditchcompany.com.
About the Left Hand Water District
Left Hand Water District is a quasi-municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, governed by Colorado Revised Statutes Title 32 Special Districts. The District has served customers in unincorporated areas of Boulder and Weld Counties since the early 1960’s. The Left Hand Water District’s service area is generally bounded by the City of Longmont on the north, the Cities of Boulder, Lafayette, and Erie on the south, I-25 on the east and the foothills on the west. Learn more at http://www.lefthandwater.gov.
Statewide, Colorado is at around 90% of its median snowpack, as of May 3, with some variation across basins.
The South Platte, which covers Fort Collins, is at 103% of its median snowpack this season, according to USDA data. Two notable bumps on this year’s snowpack came from the heavy storms in January and March, which dumped feet of snow across the state…
According to CSU’s climate report, “Colorado’s snowpack serves as a huge seasonal reservoir that stores about 15 million acre-feet of water on average at the spring peak and then makes that water available later in the year when water demands for agricultural uses and outdoor watering are higher.”
Studies have shown that SWE has decreased in most places across the state, “though the percentage declines in SWE in Colorado were generally smaller than in most other regions of the West due to Colorado’s relatively high elevations and colder winter climate,” the report says.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (John Aguilar). Here’s an excerpt:
May 9, 2023
Thornton will be able to build a critical segment of a 70-mile pipe to bring water from the Cache la Poudre River to the fast-growing suburb north of Denver, after elected leaders in Larimer County unanimously — if begrudgingly — approved a permit for the northern segment of the pipe on Wednesday night…But a procession of county residents has spoken out against the proposed project at a series of public hearings held over the past couple of weeks, insisting that Thornton simply could allow its shares in the Poudre River — equaling 14,700 acre-feet a year — to flow through Fort Collins before taking the water out for municipal use. Doing so, they say, would increase flows and improve the river’s health. But just hours before Wednesday’s meeting, one of the opposition groups to the project — No Pipe Dream — said it sensed momentum had turned the city’s way, issuing a public statement that said “we’ll skip the torture of tonight’s hearing on our ‘good neighbor’ Thornton’s plans to win the water tap lottery and appease hungry developers.”
[…]
Before casting her yes vote Wednesday, Larimer County Commissioner Kristin Stephens said she wished Thornton would send its water down the Poudre “because that’s what the community wants.”
[…]
“We can’t do that,” she said, referring to a 2022 Court of Appeals decision that ruled that Larimer County cannot force Thornton to use the river as a conveyance…
The fight over Thornton’s water pipe has been going on for years, and a denial of a permit for the project by Larimer County’s commissioners more than five years ago set off a flurry of unsuccessful court challenges that ultimately prompted the city this year to resubmit its application — this time with a different route and 17 fewer miles of pipe within the county’s boundaries. The city also relocated a pump house from the original plan to a site that is not near any houses, and it agreed to 83 county land use conditions to move the project forward.
Click the link to read “Larimer County commissioners approve city of Thornton’s water pipeline application” on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
May 9, 2024
Commissioners Kristin Stephens, Jody Shadduck-McNally and John Kefalas all said they believed the permit application, now with 83 conditions, met the criteria set by the county’s 1041 regulations that govern the permit process…[John Kefalas] said while advocates have suggested that Thornton’s 2023 application is no different than the one submitted a few years ago, “I must respectfully disagree, as the pipeline proposal and process have been different.”
[…]
Kefalas said the county legal counsel’s “prudent” interpretation of a 2002 Colorado Court of Appeals ruling, which sided with commissioners in their decision to reject but also said the county couldn’t require the water to be run through the Poudre, indicates what could be decided if the matter returns to the courts…
Thornton representatives have said that the water they are conveying is already being taken out of the river at a diversion point to the Larimer County canal. No additional diversions will be made after the project is complete, they’ve said. Shadduck-McNally said she looked thoroughly and critically at the 3,000-page application to make sure it complied with the criteria and believes the county’s higher standards did lead to a stronger application from Thornton.
“This is the system that we have in Colorado — the Colorado water system and the Colorado water court system — and I wish it was different, but it’s the system that I can’t change today. Water court and water decrees are serious business.”
LOVELAND, Colo. — The Bureau of Reclamation released a draft environmental assessment for the Upper Thompson Sanitation District Water Reclamation Facility and Lift Station Improvement Project. The project, located in the Estes Valley of Larimer County, Colorado, consists of construction, operation, and maintenance of a new wastewater treatment facility, two lift stations and connecting pipelines.
The project will allow the Upper Thompson Sanitation District to meet future wastewater flow estimates and applicable water quality standards and regulations. The replacement of aging and deficient infrastructure will also reduce long-term operation and maintenance costs for the district while allowing for future facility expansion.
“This project provides opportunities and partnerships to help meet the future wastewater treatment demands of Estes Park residents and visitors within the Upper Thompson Sanitation District,” said Reclamation’s Eastern Colorado Area Manager, Jeff Rieker.
The 2024 Upper Thompson Sanitation District Water Reclamation Facility and Lift Station Improvement Project Environmental Assessment has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and is available for public review and comment at the Eastern Colorado Area Office Schedule of NEPA Actions. Please direct any questions to Matt Schultz at 970-461-5469 or mjschultz@usbr.gov. Please submit comments on the draft environmental assessment to Matt Schultz, Environmental Specialist at mjschultz@usbr.gov by June 3, 2024.
Fast-growing Aurora plans to develop a new 200-acre site high in scenic Park County to build the largest reservoir in its system.
The $600 million-plus Wild Horse Reservoir project would store 93,000 acre-feet of water and be nearly twice the size of the city’s existing Park County storage pond, Spinney Mountain Reservoir, which holds 53,651 acre-feet of water. An acre-foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons of water, enough to serve at least two to four urban households for one year.
The proposed reservoir is among the latest moves by the city to secure future water supplies to meet growth-driven demand as streams and rivers shrink because of climate change.
Aurora, the third largest city in Colorado, is home to nearly 400,000 people and is expected to add some 300,000 more by 2070, according to the city’s website.
Pre-permitting discussions on the project have begun, according to Aurora Water spokesperson Greg Baker, and the process is expected to take at least two years. The reservoir is part of a larger water supply strategy that includes a recent $80.4 million purchase of farm water in the Arkansas River Valley, a deal that is drawing opposition from the Pueblo-based Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Park County Commissioner Amy Mitchell declined to comment on the Wild Horse proposal, citing the county commission’s legal responsibility to review it under what’s known as a 1041 permit review, a process that gives the county the ability to approve or reject construction projects. That review could happen as early as next year, she said.
Like other cities, Aurora officials say they need to move quickly now to ensure residents and industry will have enough water in the future.
“Are we moving fast? If the opportunity is there, yes, we are taking it. Water will only become more difficult and expensive to obtain,” Baker said.
Aurora raw water facilities. Credit: Aurora Water
Other major new storage projects are being planned by cities along the Front Range, with Parker Water and Sanitation District hoping to build a 72,000 acre-foot reservoir in northeastern Colorado as part of a new municipal farm-water collaboration known as the Platte Valley Water Partnership.
The Aurora and Platte Valley projects are expected to be completed in roughly 10 to 15 years.
For Aurora, the Wild Horse project will provide more opportunities to store water it already owns in the Upper Colorado, the Arkansas and South Platte river basins, and to move that water around, Baker said.
The city has a large-scale recycled water program known as Prairie Waters, which operates by claiming treated wastewater Aurora owns from the South Platte River on the Eastern Plains, filtering it through a series of gravel beds and then piping it back to Aurora’s water treatment facility where it is purified and mixed with fresh water and then delivered to residents and businesses.
But as the water is reused and becomes more concentrated, salinity levels rise, which means less water can be treated and reused. Wild Horse would allow more fresh water to be sent down the river, providing more “blend water” for Prairie Waters and expanding the amount of reused water Aurora Water can deliver to its customers, Baker said.
Water storage reservoirs have drawn fierce environmental opposition in the past 50 years, according to Ron Redd, manager of the Parker Water and Sanitation District.
In the past, water utilities would dam rivers, forever altering the ecosystem and harming water quality.
Parker and Aurora hope these new reservoirs will have fewer environmental impacts and won’t set off as many alarm bells because, in part, they won’t dam rivers or streams, Redd and Baker said. Instead, pipelines will be used to deliver water to the storage ponds.
The City of Greeley walked away from an expansion of its Milton Seaman Reservoir on the North Fork of the Cache La Poudre River in 2021, deciding instead to develop a groundwater and aquifer storage project beneath the Terry Bison Ranch, something the city believes will be easier to do and will give it more flexibility in managing its water supplies, according to Sean Chambers, director of Greeley’s Water and Sewer Department…
More by Jerd SmithJerd Smith is editor of Fresh Water News. She can be reached at 720-398-6474, via email at jerd@wateredco.org or @jerd_smith.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (John Aguilar). Here’s an excerpt:
May 2, 2024
Larimer County’s board of commissioners will decide the fate of the 70-mile, half-billion-dollar infrastructure project as soon as Monday [May 6, 2024]. As now proposed, the pipeline would follow an alignment that’s different from the one rejected in 2019…Ultimately, the commissioners will have to balance Thornton’s demands for water to support much-needed housing in the city of 145,000 against calls by county residents and environmentalists for an alternative that avoids putting the Poudre’s water in a pipe in the first place. They contend other outcomes would maintain the health of the river.
Colorado’s sixth most populous city wants to move 14,000 acre-feet of Poudre water to the city annually, via a 42-inch-diameter pipe.
It’s possible a final vote by the commissioners could be delayed until Wednesday, depending on how much more public comment there is Monday…
Carolynne White, an attorney representing Thornton, noted during the hearing that the city has owned its shares in the Poudre River for decades. It’s been diverting that portion of water into reservoirs northwest of Fort Collins, for use on farms in the area. Those water shares are the ones Thornton would send directly to the city through the pipe, rerouting water that does not flow through Fort Collins currently.
“This project does not reduce the river flows in the Poudre River,” White said.
Monday’s hearing started with a presentation from county staff, during which the Larimer County Planning Commission recommended approval of the project if proposed conditions were met. Thornton then gave another presentation to talk about how the city’s new application is different from the previous one. After that, the session was open to public comment, which will continue at the next hearing…
Planning Commission recommends approval
“With the proposed conditions of approval in place, this application meets the review criteria for a water transmission pipeline,” [John] Barnett said. “… Therefore, the development service team recommends approval of the Thornton water project.”
[…]
The public hearing session will resume at 6 p.m. May 6 via Zoom and in person in the First-Floor Hearing Room of the Larimer County Administrative Services Building, 200 W. Oak St. in Fort Collins. For more details on how to sign up for public comment and the 1041 regulations, visit www.larimer.gov/planning/1041-regulations. You can also track the progress on the permit and access related documents on this county portal.
April is a big month for water watchers. That’s when Colorado’s snowpack typically reaches its highest level before the big melt-out that follows.
The watchers call this moment “peak snowpack.” And it can be a useful measure to predict water supplies for the warm months to come.
The snow-covered Continental Divide, seen from Loveland Pass. Melted snow, captured and stored in mountain reservoirs, is the source of nearly all the water Denver Water provides to customers every day. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Peak moments that fall earlier on the calendar can mean a spring runoff that ends too soon and reservoirs that don’t fill. Conversely, late peaks can mean reservoirs spill and high-water flows that can overtop riverbanks.
Indeed, a closer look at “peak” numbers over the last several decades reveals some big surprises when the timing of the maximum snowpack falls outside the late April norm. Such off-rhythm peaks can lead to watering limits or, in the other extreme, raging runoff that can do damage to land and property.
For Denver Water, this year’s peak snowpack numbers look good.
A mid-to-late April high point appears likely, and a healthy amount of water in the snow supports the utility’s forecast for full reservoirs for the upcoming irrigation season.
In short, it’s what Denver’s water watchers might call “a typical year.”
In fact, though, the timing of the peak snowpack and how much frozen water the snow holds at that point is a highly variable condition and can leave water supply managers scrambling. This variability can be easy to forget when most years follow the script, or don’t veer far from it.
“As a water manager, if I only had one piece of data to determine how water supply was looking for a given year, it would be peak snowpack,” said Nathan Elder, who manages the tricky business of water supply for Denver Water.
“Snowpack peaks can be highly variable in quantity and timing, and those factors indicate what the runoff and water supply situation will look like.”
Take a look at the following graphs, which show the wide variability in the amount of water frozen in the snow at the point of “peak snowpack” over the past 45 years. The range in both the Colorado and South Platte river basins where Denver Water collects water can stretch from 10 inches to more than 25 inches of water in the snow.
The amount of water frozen in the snow at the moment of “peak snowpack” over the last 45 years in the Colorado River Basin, where Denver Water collects water. Image credit: Denver Water.
The amount of water frozen in the snow at the moment of “peak snowpack” over the past 45 years for the South Platte River Basin, where Denver Water collects water. Image credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water gets its water from parts of two major river basins — the South Platte and the Colorado. Both tend to hit peak snowpack in late April (the 23rd and the 25th respectively) and hit an average of about 12 and 17 inches of “snow-water equivalent,” or SWE, a fancy way of saying amount of water in the snowpack.
But some years Mother Nature has ignored those averages by frightening margins.
One of the scariest was 2012, when peak snowpack for Denver Water collection areas in both basins came not in mid-to-late April, but early March — March 5 in the South Platte and March 6 in the Colorado.
That was about seven weeks ahead of average and it forced Denver Water to implement outdoor restrictions as reservoirs failed to replenish.
Then there was the infamous spring of 2002, when snow-water totals for Denver Water collection areas at peak were a mere 50% of average in the South Platte Basin and 56% in the Colorado — another example, like 2012, of terrible numbers striking both of Denver Water’s collection basins in the same year.
The spring 2002 peak snowpack contained some of the lowest amount of water in the snow over the last 45 years of records.
My kids and their friends built a small terrain park in front of their house near Sloans Lake after the March 2003 St. Patrick’s Day blizzard.
That early 2000s drought hung on until the following spring in 2003, when it was busted — fantastically and famously — with a late March blizzard that dropped 7 feet of wet snow in the foothills, 3 feet of snow in the city and put an end to 19 months of below-average precipitation in Denver.
“Liquid Gold,” blared the banner headline of the now-closed Rocky Mountain News. Anyone living in Denver more than 20 years remembers the storm.
Peak snowpack has also offered surprises on the opposite end of the spectrum, bringing late peaks and a wealth of water.
In 2015, the peak snowpack date in both basins came a month later than normal, on May 23. That meant a more compressed runoff season and flooding challenges, particularly along the South Platte.
Watch this video about the epic spring runoff of 2015:
In 1997, the South Platte’s peak snowpack hit a stunning 203% of average. In all, that was 24 inches of water in the snow, twice the average level in a basin that fills four major reservoirs for Denver Water.
Another mark experts like to track is date of melt-out — the date when the last of the snow melts at various measuring spots in the high country. In both basins that typically happens in early June. But, like peak snowpack, melt-out dates can surprise too.
Way back in 1981, a terribly dry year, the South Platte basin saw melt-out April 27 — about the time when Denver Water would typically see peak snowpack! Scary stuff.
Alas, in 1995, the South Platte went to different extremes, with the final melt recorded July 4, an entire month later than average.
During the 1983 Colorado River flood, described by some as an example of a “black swan” event, sheets of plywood (visible just above the steel barrier) were installed to prevent Glen Canyon Dam from overflowing. Source: Bureau of Reclamation
In the Colorado River Basin, the latest such melt-out stretched to July 12, in 1983. That year is famous for the swollen river flows all the way to Lake Powell, where Glen Canyon Dam nearly overtopped.
That runoff season was memorialized in the “The Emerald Mile,” a remarkable book that chronicled attempts to take advantage of record river flows to set speed records boating through the Grand Canyon.
All of it is a reminder that average years are just another way nature leaves room for surprises.
So, let’s be satisfied this spring with an “average” peak and a solid water supply for 2024.
This USGS map shows the number of PFAS detected in tap water samples from select sites across the nation. The findings are based on a USGS study of samples taken between 2016 and 2021 from private and public supplies at 716 locations. The map does not represent the only locations in the U.S. with PFAS. Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Visit Media to see details.
From email from the EPA:
DENVER (April 23, 2024) — On Thursday, April 25, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator KC Becker will join U.S. Senator Michael Bennet on a visit to the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District (SACWSD) to break ground on a water treatment system that will allow SACWSD to deliver high-quality drinking water that meets all state and federal regulations, including EPA regulations for to treat PFAS chemical contamination by 2029.
WHO:
· U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
· EPA Regional Administrator KC Becker
· South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Board President Heidi McNeely
· South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Manager Abel Moreno
Additional representatives from South Adams County Water and Sanitation District will be in attendance, along with other key project partners from:
· Brown & Caldwell, engineering consultant
· PCL Construction, construction manager
· United States Environmental Protection Agency
· Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
WHAT:
EPA and partners will break ground on the Klein Enhancement Project. The project, a partnership with Brown & Caldwell Engineering and PCL Construction, will construct an ion-exchange water treatment system that will allow SACWSD to deliver high-quality drinking water that meets all state and federal regulations, including EPA regulations required to treat for PFAS chemical contamination. SACWSD was recently awarded nearly $61 million in federal funding to complete the construction. The project is expected to be completed in late 2026.
Tours of existing treatment facilities and the enhancement project site will be available after speakers’ remarks.
WHEN:2 p.m., Thursday, April 25, 2024
WHERE: 7400 Quebec Street, Commerce City, Colorado
This investment leverages public funding for a total investment of $100 million in the canal over five years, breathing new life into the 71-mile High Line Canal and ensuring its preservation, protection and enhancement for generations to come.
A sign along the High Line Canal trail in Aurora installed in 2021 provides a map to help trail users navigate the corridor. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In a significant leap toward this goal, the nonprofit on March 15 announced a $7 million contribution from Great Outdoors Colorado, often referred to as GOCO.
The conservancy said the extraordinary award from GOCO adds to the significant philanthropic support from donors across Colorado to date, including $10 million from Denver Water, and leaves the conservancy with a remaining $1 million to raise.
Completion of the campaign will ensure that the community vision for the canal is realized through more than 30 prioritized trail projects. The GOCO grant brings the conservancy closer to its goal, but there is still a great deal of work to be done.
“For decades, the future of the historic High Line Canal has been in jeopardy. Today, with tremendous public and private investment, we can immediately begin fulfilling the community’s vision for the canal and, together with our many partners, ensure the High Line Canal will be improved and protected as a centerpiece of our region’s park system,” said Harriet Crittenden LaMair, CEO of the High Line Canal Conservancy.
The High Line Canal is an irrigation ditch built in the 1880s. Denver Water still uses the canal to deliver irrigation water to customers when conditions allow. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Formed in 2014 to revitalize Denver Water’s historic 71-mile irrigation delivery system into one of the nation’s longest continuous urban trails, the High Line Canal Conservancy aims to enhance trail users’ experience and improve the region’s environmental health.
“Denver Water has a century-old canal that has outlived its usefulness as an irrigation canal,” said Alan Salazar, CEO/Manager of Denver Water.
“We wanted to transform the canal into a recreational and environmental crown jewel for the region. And, after years of building partnerships with the help of our governmental partners and the leadership from the High Line Canal Conservancy, today, with GOCO’s investment, we celebrate a giant leap toward this vision. With $32 million in private funds raised by the conservancy and matching funding from local partners and Denver Water, we are thrilled to help make this vision a reality for our region,” Salazar said.
Are you on TAP? Get the free weekly email for water conservation tips, news and stories about the people who deliver the water.
In partnership with local jurisdictions and Denver Water, the Great Lengths campaign will support the conservancy’s work to improve safety, ecological sustainability, community vitality, and equitable access along the High Line Canal, which meanders continuously from Waterton Canyon in Littleton to the high plains near Denver International Airport.
Over the past seven years, the conservancy and its partners have engaged communities across the region to develop a comprehensive plan, “The Plan for the High Line Canal,” to protect and enhance the trail.
Today, as one of the most exciting and largest urban trail projects in the country, the transformation of the canal with enriched landscape, safer crossings, improved access, better signage, and areas for gathering, play and education is becoming a reality.
The High Line Canal Conservancy in March announced its “Great Lengths for the High Line,” a $33 million campaign aimed at reimagining the historic canal as one of the nation’s premier linear parks. Image credit: High Line Canal Conservancy.
“We owe our progress to the more than 10,000 community members across the region — countless volunteers, youth and leaders — that have participated and underscored the importance of safety, connectivity, access and comfort along the Canal,” said LaMair.
“Now we look forward to High Line Canal users joining our Great Lengths for the High Line fundraising campaign, so this great work continues for decades to come.”
Projects along the canal will be implemented in partnership with the local governments, including counties, cities and special districts. No donation is too small and can be made by logging on to highlinecanal.org/great-lengths.
“We are grateful for this much-needed investment and commitment to improving accessibility and quality of life for residents across our region,” says Arapahoe County Board Chair Carrie Warren-Gully.
“The county has long been a leading partner in efforts to enhance the High Line Canal corridor. This new investment reinforces the power of collaboration to ensure future generations can enjoy this treasured resource, especially along a stretch of the canal that has been historically underserved and underfunded. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and get the work done.”
From “Poem: I am not alone” — Greg Hobbs along the High Line Canal. Photo credit: Bobbi Hobbs
Serving more than 1 million trail users annually across 11 jurisdictions, the canal traverses some of the most diverse communities in the state. The 860-acre canal connects 24 schools, hundreds of neighborhoods, and millions of people to more than 8,000 acres of open space.
“Investing in the Great Lengths Campaign is a wonderful way to improve the canal not just in your own community — but across all communities. It’s an opportunity for individuals to leverage their philanthropic dollars in a public-private partnership to create a legacy for generations to come,” said Tom and Margie Gart, co-chairs of the Great Lengths Campaign Committee.
Excavation and foundation preparation at Gross Dam wrapped up in April. The far side of the photo shows the new footprint of the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“Over the past two years we’ve excavated 260,000 cubic yards of rock and placed 27,000 cubic yards of concrete to get the existing dam and the rock around it ready for expansion,” said Doug Raitt, Denver Water’s construction project manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.
The next phase of the multiyear project begins in May, when crews will begin the process of building 118 new concrete “steps” that will create the higher dam. Construction on the expansion project began in April 2022 and is scheduled to wrap up in 2027.
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
The steps will be made of roller-compacted concrete and around 800,000 cubic yards of concrete will be needed to build them.
So, to prepare for raising the dam, a team from Kiewit Barnard is building a sophisticated concrete batch plant near the top of the dam. At the plant, cement, fly ash, sand and aggregates will be mixed together to make the specific type of concrete mixture used to build the steps.
The batch plant will produce roller-compacted concrete on-site using rock quarried from around Gross Reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“Producing the roller-compacted concrete on-site really makes for an efficient process so we don’t have to haul it in from off-site,” Raitt said. “We’re also crushing rock that we quarried on-site as well.”
Learn more about the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project at grossreservoir.org.
Crews are also building an elaborate conveyor system that will carry the concrete from the batch plant to the dam.
Workers are building a conveyor system that will move concrete from the batch plant to the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Once conveyed over the top of the dam, the concrete will slide to the bottom via a chute system, which also will be built this spring.
At the bottom of the dam, workers are creating a flat surface that will be the base for the new roller-compacted concrete steps.
Workers are building the base of the dam that will serve as a platform for the roller-compacted concrete steps. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“It’s an exciting time as we get ready for the actual dam raise phase of the project,” Raitt said. “Once the roller-compacted concrete process begins, it will take about three years to complete the expansion.”
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
The budget, which is not yet finalized, includes funding for non-lethal wolf deterrence, water litigation and wildlife management. The six-member Joint Budget Committee, which writes the state budget, settled on a $40.6 billion budget that would take effect July 1…
Water
The proposed budget also includes about $300,000 for two additional full-time employees in the Department of Law to help secure the state’s water interests…Colorado is part of nine interstate water compacts, one international treaty, two U.S. Supreme Court decrees and one interstate agreement.
“As climate change and population growth continue to impact Colorado’s water obligations, the DOL’s defense of Colorado’s water rights is more critical than ever,” according to the document.
One of the new employees, a policy analyst, will monitor government regulations and neighboring states’ activities on water policy. The other position will “bolster the representation and litigation support of the DOL across the various river basins,” support the state’s efforts to negotiate Colorado’s water and compact positions and communicate with the state’s significant water interests.
A whistleblower and watchdog advocacy group used an EPA database of locations that may have handled PFAS materials or products to map the potential impact of PFAS throughout Colorado. They found about 21,000 Colorado locations in the EPA listings, which were uncovered through a freedom of information lawsuit. Locations are listed by industry category. (Source: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility analysis of EPA database)
Nearly $86 million in federal funding to help small Colorado communities with the daunting task of removing so-called “forever chemicals” from their drinking water systems will begin flowing this spring, but whether it will go far enough to do all the cleanup work remains unclear.
Small Colorado communities are scrambling to find ways to remove the toxic PFAS compounds that wash into water from such things as Teflon, firefighting foam and waterproof cosmetics.
Thanks to the infusion of federal money this year, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is offering what are known as small and disadvantaged community grants to help with cleanup costs.
Around the country, the EPA is racing to help communities that have historically been left out of national funding initiatives, according to Betsy Southerland, a scientist with the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit that advises communities nationwide on the scientific and technical issues inherent in treating water quality problems.
“This is a massive effort,” Southerland said, likening it to the nation’s $15 billion-plus effort under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to identify and remove aging lead pipes from drinking water delivery systems.
Hundreds of communities in Colorado, large and small, are monitoring for PFAS, and some are planning costly new treatment plants to address the issue.
Credit: City of Greeley
Greeley, which is eligible for the new grant program, has yet to detect PFAS contaminants in its treated water because much of its current water supply flows down from the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River and is relatively clean. But the fast-growing city is also planning to develop new groundwater supplies and is therefore planning a new treatment plant capable of addressing any future contamination should it occur, according to Michaela Jackson, Greeley’s water quality and regulatory compliance manager.
Colorado lawmakers are also working on new legislation to address the widespread contamination.
Still, word of the Emerging Contaminants in Small and Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program, as it is known, has been slow to spread, Colorado public health officials said, in part because the problem is still being understood and remedies are still being studied.
“Emerging contaminant funding is relatively new. Many communities are still determining if they have a project they may need to request funding for,” state health department spokesman John Michael said in an email.
Each year for the next five years, the state will offer two rounds of grants, with millions of dollars committed. Communities interested in applying can explore the program here. The next grant cycle opens in July, according to Michael.
This year, perhaps as soon as this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to finalize the first PFAS drinking water treatment standard, which will require utilities to remove the contaminant at levels above 4 parts per trillion.
Prior to this, the federal oversight of the contaminants was advisory, meaning utilities were not technically required to remove it, according to state health officials. The advisory rule was set at 70 parts per trillion.
But for small communities lacking such resources, the costs and stakes are high.
Searching for millions of dollars more
The South Adams and Water Sanitation District, which serves Commerce City and unincorporated parts of Adams County, has been hard-hit by PFAS contamination in its groundwater wells. Where the toxins have come from isn’t entirely known, but could include firefighting foam used nearby at a firefighting academy owned by the City of Denver.
When PFAS was first detected in 2018, the Adams County district had to shut down its most contaminated wells, build an expensive system of filters, and buy water from Denver to dilute its water sources enough so that PFAS could no longer be detected.
It also built a cutting-edge testing lab, so that it can know within 24 hours whether its extensive treatment system is working and respond immediately if it is not.
But that isn’t enough. This year it will begin building a new $80 million treatment plant, $30 million of which will come from the new state grant program. It has also been approved for a special $30 million loan from the Colorado Water and Power Development Authority. It is still pursuing additional funding to minimize the amount it will have to seek from its customers to help cover the costs, according to Abel Moreno, the district’s manager.
“It’s absolutely critical that we find another source of funding because we don’t believe the contamination was caused by our rate payers, and we do not believe they should be asked to pay for it,” Moreno said.
And it’s not just initial construction costs for treatment systems that will need funding. Operating the systems and disposing of contaminated treatment equipment can cost millions of dollars as well, according to the American Water Works Association, which has been critical of the pending federal standard because it believes it will cost utilities and ratepayers too much money. It has advocated a lower treatment standard, of 10 parts per trillion.
The 4 parts per trillion standard will require “more than $40 billion of capital investment plus significant investment for operation and maintenance,” said Chris Moody, regulatory technical manager at the association, in an email. “The annual impact to communities and ratepayers is expected to exceed $3.8 billion, increasing household water rates by as much as $3,500 annually.”
But utilities such as the South Adams Water and Sanitation District believe there is no choice but to power ahead with the PFAS cleanup.
Rocky Mountain Arsenal back in the day
Decades of living near industrial producers and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site, and historic concern over the safety of its drinking water, have created a deep distrust among residents. Moreno says the district is working to rebuild faith in its water system.
“It is a priority of mine to change the trajectory of the district’s water image so the people we serve in this community have confidence in the work we’re doing and the water we are producing,” he said.
More by Jerd SmithJerd Smith is editor of Fresh Water News. She can be reached at 720-398-6474, via email at jerd@wateredco.org or @jerd_smith.
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Governor Jared Polis signs non-functional turf law. Photo credit: Allen Best
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
March 18, 2024
Bill signed into law on Friday makes thirsty imported grasses a no-no in new road medians and other public places that rarely see human feet. Native grasses OK.
The remarks in the office of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis on Friday afternoon were brief, befitting the bill that was soon to be signed into law, the state’s most aggressive effort yet to curb water allocated to urban landscaping.
“We want folks to be part of the solution around water and to reduce the water needs of their non-functional turf, ranging from Colorado-scaping and xeriscaping to lower-water solutions with different types of grasses that may require less water,” said Polis of SB24-005.
Taking the lectern, Sen. Dylan Roberts, a prime sponsor and a Democrat who represents much of northwestern Colorado, noted an irony. It had snowed hard the previous day along the northern Front Range, where about 75% of Coloradans live, and the snow was extremely wet, even for March.
“It’s funny, with all the snow right now, you might not think that we have to deal with a lot of water scarcity, but we do,” said Roberts, a Frisco resident.
“We know that in Colorado we face a historic drought and we need to put in place every single common-sense tool to save water that we can. And this is one of those.”
Colorado in 2022 began incentivizing removal of what is commonly called non-functional turf. The phrase means imported grass species with high water requirements that typically get almost no use. A legislative allocation of $2 million resulted in grants to about three-dozen communities across Colorado but especially in Front Range cities where 85% of the state’s residents live.
In September 2023, the Colorado Water Conservation Board awarded a $1.5 million grant to Boulder-based Resource Central. The nonprofit was formed in 1976 to encourage conservation. In 2023, it completed 604 lawn-replacement projects along the Front Range. Its marquee program, Garden In A Box, provides low-water plants and has partnerships with several dozen municipalities along the Front Range. The state grant will allow Resource Central to expand its programming to the Western Slope.
In October 2023 a year-round legislative water committee that is chaired by Roberts heard a proposal from Denver Water, Western Resource Advocates and others. That proposal was the basis for the new law.
Instead of incentives to change, the new law draws lines of restraint. Beginning in 2026, local governments can no longer allow the installation, planting or placement of non-functional turf, artificial turf, or invasive plant species. This applies to commercial, institutional, and industrial properties, but also common-interest community property. Read that as HOAs.
Also verboten will be planting of non-functional turf in street rights-of-way, parking lots, median or transportation corridors.
Non-functional turf planted with thirsty imported species will be banned from new road medians and other public and commercial places in Colordo that see few human feet beginning in 2026, a year earlier in projects of state government. Photo/Allen Best
The law applies to new or redeveloped state facilities beginning in 2025.
Imported species such as Kentucky bluegrass can use twice as much water as native grass. Native species such as buffalo and blue gamma or species hybridized for arid conditions will be allowed.
Several Colorado jurisdictions have gone further. Aurora and Castle Rock in 2022 both adopted limits to residential water use for landscaping. The state law does not touch water use at individual homes. The two municipalities both expect substantial population growth but have limited water portfolios for meeting new demand.
Other municipalities and water providers from Broomfield to Grand Junction have also adopted laws crowding out water-thirsty vegetation. Their motives vary but all are premised on Colorado’s tightening water supplies. Cities use only 7% of the state’s water, and roughly half of that goes to landscaping.
Yet developing new sources of water requires going farther afield, usually converting water from agriculture, and can become very expensive. Consider plans by Parker Water and Sanitation District and Castle Rock. They are planning a pipeline to the Sterling area in coming years with a new if smallish reservoir near Akron. In this case, the project has support from an irrigation district in the Sterling area, but all this new infrastructure comes at a great expense.
The bill faced no major opposition in the Legislature, although most House Republicans — nearly all from rural areas — voted against it.
During her time at the microphone, Rep. Karen McCormick, a Democrat from Longmont, emphasized the need to define what constitutes non-functional turf.
“Coming up with those terms of functional versus non-functional turf was really important so that the people of Colorado understand that the choices that we have in these spaces (can result in) beautiful, Western drought-tolerant grasses and bushes and flowers.” she said.
State Rep. Barbara McLachlan, a Democrat from Durango, emphasized cost savings as well as water savings. “If you’re not having a picnic on that little piece of turf or having a soccer game, you probably don’t need to be spending the water and money it takes to keep that alive.”
Sen. Cleave Simpson, a Republican from Alamosa who represents much of southwestern Colorado and the fourth prime sponsor, was not present for the bill-signing.
Rep. Karen McCormick of Longmont said that urban landscapes of great beauty can be created that need less water. Photo/Allen Best
Those present for the bill signing included Denver Water’s Alan Salazar, the chief executive, and Greg Fisher, the manager of demand planning.
A Denver Water staff member decades ago had invented the word “xeriscaping” but the agency had never put much muscle into curbing water use. After all, it had a flush water portfolio. The thinking as explained in Patty Limerick’s book about Denver Water, “A Ditch in Time,” was that if drought got bad enough, the agency could always squeeze residential use for water, as it did in the severe drought summer of 2002.
With new leadership and a worsening story in the Colorado River Basin, Denver had altered its thinking. The city – which provides water for about 1.6 million people, including many of the city’s suburbs – gets roughly half of its water from transmountain diversions. That statistic holds true for the Front Range altogether. Denver’s water rights are relatively senior, but they’re junior to the Colorado River Compact of 1922.
That compact assumed far more water in the river than occurred in most of the 20th century. Flows during the 21st century have diminished, at least in part due to intensifying heat. That heating – and drying – will very likely worsen in coming decades. While Colorado accurately claims that it has not used its full allocations under river compacts, there’s the underlying and shifting hydrology that argues against any certainty.
The city this year will partner with Resource Central, a first, to encourage transformation of front yards with high water demands into less-needy landscapes.
Lindsay Rogers, a water policy advisor for Western Resource Advocates, said the key work during the next couple of years will be to work with local jurisdictions to implement the new law.
“Not only that, they’ll need to figure out how they’re going to enforce their new landscaping standards. And if they do that well, this bill will be hugely impactful.”
She said this bill should be understood as being part of a “growing understanding that everyone needs to do their part to conserve. There are lots and lots of opportunities across the land-use development spectrum.”
At least some of those ideas can be found in a report by a state task force issued in late January. Polis had appointed the 21-member group a year before and gave it the job of examining what steps Colorado could take to reduce water devoted to urban landscaping.
After seven meetings, the task force issued a report in late January that concluded that “the time to rethink our landscapes is now.” It provided 10 recommendations.
Topping the recommendations was a statement in accord with the new law. The task force also called for continued support of turf replacement in existing development, promotion of irrigation efficiency and encouragement of pricing mechanism that steer decisions that promote water conservation.
Considering that it took well more than a century to install the existing urban landscapes, this shift will not be accomplished in a few short years. The climate could shift to produce more water for Colorado, but the warming atmosphere would almost certainly steal those gains.
In short, the water scarcity driving this new law is not going away.
See also this five-part series in 2023 published in collaboration with Aspen Journalism:
South Platte River at Goodrich, Colorado, Sunday, November 15, 2020. Photo credit: Allen Best
From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Katie Weeman):
March 13, 2024 (Denver, CO) – The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) approved 52 Water Plan Grant applications today, which will distribute $17.4 million to fund critical projects to manage and conserve water, improve agriculture, spark collaborative partnerships, and much more. This funding cycle, CWCB received a record 70 applications requesting $25.6 million—$8.2 million more than is currently available.
“Water is on the top of many Coloradans’ minds. And the projects this program funds are critical to meet and mitigate our state’s most critical water challenges,” said Lauren Ris, CWCB Director. “We received significantly more applications than we had funding for this cycle of Water Plan Grants, showing just how much demand there is for this important funding, and how critical it is that we continue to fuel this effort.”
Every year, the Water Plan Grant Program provides millions of dollars of funding for projects in five key categories: Water Storage & Supply, Conservation & Land Use, Engagement & Innovation, Agricultural Projects, and Watershed Health & Recreation. Water Plan Grants support the Colorado Water Plan, and funded projects are wide-ranging and impactful to the state, focusing on enhancing water infrastructure, restoring ecosystems, supporting education and community collaboration, boosting water conservation and efficiency, guiding resilient land use planning, and more.
During this fiscal year, the CWCB awarded 83 grants totaling $25.2 million. CWCB’s Water Plan Grants run on two application cycles: the December application deadline receives final Board approval during the March Board Meeting, and the July deadline receives votes in September. On March 13, 2024, the Board voted to approve December’s 34-project cohort.
This cycle’s project applications are diverse in scope and location. A few examples include:
South Platte River Basin Salinity Study (Agricultural, $464,361): Colorado State University will conduct a comprehensive study on salinization across seven regions in the South Platte River Basin, to understand the severity and variability of salinity in water and land resources.
Denver One Water Plan Implementation Phase 2 (Conservation & Land Use, $200,000): Mile High Flood District will continue Phase 2 of Denver’s One Water Plan, which promotes coordination and collaboration among various city departments, organizations, and agencies in charge of managing all aspects of the urban water cycle.
Watershed PenPal Program (Engagement & Innovation, $136,947): Roaring Fork Conservancy will connect communities across the Roaring Fork Valley and Front Range, fostering understanding of water challenges through discussion, letter writing, and shared experiences.
Park Creek Reservoir Expansion (Water Storage & Supply, $1,750,000): The North Poudre Irrigation Company will expand the Park Creek Reservoir, increasing water storage capacity by 3,010 acre-feet to benefit agricultural use and water management.
South Boulder Creek Watershed Restoration Phase 3 (Watershed Health & Recreation, $1,000,000): Colorado Trout Unlimited will build upon previous phases of this project to support final design and permitting for multiple in-stream diversion structures in South Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado.
Looking forward, the CWCB hopes to continue and advance the Water Plan Grant program for decades to come. Projects funded and supported through this program address water-related challenges by harnessing the latest research, tapping into community engagement, and developing innovative solutions that allow water partners, agencies, and Coloradans to work together.
After years of dealing with contaminated groundwater and an unreliable water supply, officials in Fort Lupton say a single solar project could solve both issues for the foreseeable future.
The city has an aging diesel-powered generator that has a habit of going offline at times of high demand and power outages. Officials have also been working to reduce algae blooms in their 300-acre-foot reservoir that the water treatment plant turns into drinking water.
To address both these issues, the city partnered with Brighton-based power provider United Power and contractor Schneider Electric to replace the old generator with an 850-kilowatt solar array and a 1,147-kilowatt battery storage system that floats in the city’s water treatment plant.
The project could receive up to $6.1 million in federal funds from the U.S. Department of Energy as part of its $1 billion Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas Program, which was created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021. However, the funding is not yet guaranteed, according to U.S. Rep. Yadira Caraveo (D-CO), who represents Fort Lupton and is pushing the project.
Fort Lupton City Administrator Chris Cross said he expects the project to increase power redundancy for the city, meaning it will have more than one power source to draw from. Cross also expects Fort Lupton residents to see roughly 9% savings on their average power bill.
Residents of Fort Lupton pay an average of $0.12 per kilowatt hour for residential power, which is about 5% greater than the statewide average, according to data from Electricity Local.
“Coupled with the floating panel benefits to the water storage, we are excited to see how high our overall savings will be from the project,” Cross said.
Fort Lupton, like many rural communities in Colorado, has faced challenges providing clean drinking water for decades. Data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment shows the city has recorded 268 water quality incidents since 1995. That total is comparable to much larger cities that are fed by waters from Carter Lake like Superior, Louisville, and Broomfield even though Fort Lupton has the smallest population at just 8,500 residents.
One of the most memorable water quality incidents in Fort Lupton happened in March 2009 when residents reported that their tap water had become flammable. An investigation found that nearby natural gas wells were leaking into the city’s groundwater supply, the Greeley Tribune reported.
In November 2023, a water main break at the intersection of 9th St. and Lancaster Ave. in Fort Lupton caused a high concentration of chlorine to enter the water supply for the nearby neighborhoods. Officials with CDPHE’s water quality division told Fort Lupton staff that “there will be water quality complaints” resulting from the break and that residents should flush their ice makers and sinks, although “a mandatory advisory would not be necessary at this time,” according to emails contained in a November 2023 CDPHE water quality incident report.
The city’s most recent water quality report also shows that the city’s water treatment plant reported one health-based violation in 2023 for having an inadequate backflow prevention and cross-connection control program. This program, “Uncontrolled cross connections can lead to inadvertent contamination of the drinking water,” the report says. Fort Lupton has hired a contracting firm called Aqua Backflow to help improve its backflow issues, according to the city’s website.
Schneider Electric North America Microgrid President Jana Gerber said these are just a few of the issues that the project team wanted to address when they pitched the microgrid idea to Fort Lupton officials. Gerber added that the project could serve as a model for other microgrid partnerships in rural communities.
As part of the agreement, Schneider Electric is responsible for designing and building the microgrid. United Power would then become the owner and operator of the grid while Fort Lupton pays for maintenance. United Power also plans to partner with Aims Community College and the BUENO Center for Multicultural Education to provide contracting outreach, according to United Power CEO Mark Gabriel.
John Tracy, director of the Colorado Water Center at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, said the issues with Fort Lupton’s drinking water system are indicative of the city’s age. Fort Lupton was incorporated in 1889, and Tracy said the city’s existing water system likely dates back to the 1970s when the Clean Water Act provided billions in federal subsidies for water improvement projects.
But maintaining that infrastructure is a delicate dance that is difficult for rural communities to perform, Tracy added. Many rural towns like Fort Lupton collect enough water fees to operate their system, not improve it, Tracy said. Fort Lupton’s 2024 budget projects a 10.7% decrease in water sales tax collections and a more than 5% increase in expenditures from its water sales tax fund. The city also plans to spend more than $18 million on capital improvements for its water system over the next six years.
With all of the planned expenditures, Fort Lupton needs to find a place to cut its operating costs. That’s where the floating solar array comes in. Tracy said Other cities like San Antonio, Texas have come to the same conclusion that green technology can reduce their operating costs by reducing their dependence on fossil fuels, which are more expensive to acquire than electricity.
“Fossil fuel energy prices have been too variable and it’s difficult to blend that into a municipal budget and project what those costs are going to be two years from now,” Tracy said. “If you’re doing something like either wind or solar, you have much more predictability in the cost.”
LONGMONT: It is 10:16 a.m. on Valentine’s Day. More than 100 people are gathered in a sprawling room at the Boulder County Fairgrounds. Pencils, notebooks, calculators, auction catalogs and heart-shaped chocolates lie on tables as buyers begin bidding for some of the most sought-after and pricey water in Colorado.
In less than an hour, they will have spent some $4.7 million to buy shares of water in the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project, a federal water system whose construction began after the Dust Bowl, which now serves more than 1 million people on the northern Front Range and which helps irrigate thousands of acres of farmland in the South Platte River Basin. It is operated by Northern Water.
This liquid, in some ways, is the Saks Fifth Avenue of water — high quality, clean, neatly packaged and easily delivered within the boundaries of Northern Water’s eight-county district. Another major attraction is that transactions involving C-BT shares don’t have to be approved by Colorado’s water courts, as most water sales do.
Under the contract between Northern Water and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, transfers of C-BT Project shares are instead approved by the Northern Water Board of Directors.
Some 90 shares were for sale on that morning, a tiny fraction of the 310,000 shares that comprise the entire project, according to Jeff Stahla, a spokesman for Northern Water, which operates the system for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
And the sales prices were low, averaging just over $52,000 per share, well below the $70,000-plus the water has fetched in recent years, Stahla said.
Jim Docheff is a retired dairyman from Weld County. He sits in the front row, in a Western red felt jacket and tan cowboy hat, one of his sons by his side.
Ultimately he will buy six shares of the water. “It’s all I could afford,” he said, smiling.
How much water is conveyed in a share of the Colorado-Big Thompson system varies from year to year and is tied to how much water the system gathers from the headwaters of the Colorado River and how much irrigators need, Stahla said. Each spring, Northern’s board decides how much water will be allotted to its shares, which are designed to supplement native supplies in the South Platte River Basin.
Some years, the board sets a quota as high as 100% per share, which is one-acre foot. The lowest it has set is 50%. In a dry year, the board might set the quota higher to help growers, and in a wet year, it may be lower because less water is needed.
An acre-foot of water equals about 326,000 gallons.
This purchase will add water security to Docheff’s dairy operations for years to come, he said, as his sons continue the work the family has been doing for 89 years.
But the deal must be approved by Northern Water, which will certify that the water will stay in its district, that it will be put to beneficial use, and that it will serve as a supplemental rather than a sole source of water, a requirement under its federal operating rules.
Docheff and others were surprised by the numbers. “Honestly, I thought the prices were low,” Docheff said.
In recent years, Colorado-Big Thompson shares have topped $70,000. And in fact, one share did sell for $79,200 on Valentine’s Day, but most sold for less, trading in the $50,000 to $72,600 range, according to Scott Shuman of Hall and Hall Auctions, which ran the morning’s proceedings.
And that was good news for farmers, who dominated the bidding. They were able to afford to buy shares in a system in which fast-growing cities from Broomfield north to the Wyoming state line once dominated the sales, often pricing farmers out.
“I think it actually speaks to the fact that there is a robust market for agriculture and you have producers who are looking to firm up their [water] portfolios,” Stahla said.
The lower prices may also be tied to a softening in the housing market in northern Colorado, Shuman said.
“We had an auction in 2019 and we had tons of cities participating,” Shuman said. But not this time around.
“In 2019 there were new subdivisions being built everywhere and we’re not seeing that kind of building now,” he said.
Throughout the proceedings, Carol Yoakum and her family, the sellers of the C-BT shares, sat at the back of the room, watching bid prices post on a huge screen behind the auctioneer.
“I think it went just fine,” she said, after the bidding closed. “I hope it makes everybody happy.”
More by Jerd SmithJerd Smith is editor of Fresh Water News. She can be reached at 720-398-6474, via email at jerd@wateredco.org or @jerd_smith.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project map. Courtesy of Northern Water.
Auctioneer Scott Shuman, right, with Hall and Hall, helped sell 90 units of Colorado-Big Thompson Project water on Wednesday. Bidders had to be cleared to participate in the auction by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which manages and delivers the water to cities and farms on the Front Range. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Longmont dairy farmer Jim Docheff has been in the dairy business for all of his 88 years, and his son Joe grows the corn and alfalfa for the dairy cows on the farm east of the city. On Wednesday, Docheff acquired six units of Colorado River water to use on his family farm by outbidding other would-be buyers in a water auction.
“I came with the idea of buying up to 10 units, but I only got so many dollars to spend,” Docheff said.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project map. Courtesy of Northern Water.
Docheff was one of 42 registered bidders who gathered at Barn A of the Boulder County Fairgrounds for a chance to buy some of the 90 units for sale of Colorado-Big Thompson Project water. The transmountain diversion project, built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in the 1940s, takes water from the headwaters of the Colorado River in Grand County and transports it via a system of tunnels, pipes and canals to farms and cities in northeastern Colorado.
The first bid for one unit of C-BT water hit a high mark of $72,000, but prices soon stabilized at around $46,000 per unit. After a bidder won the round, they said how many units they wanted to buy, with some people scooping up two, five or 10 units. A buyer’s premium of 10% was added to the high bid to get the total purchase price, which averaged $52,488 per unit.
After all 90 units had a high bid, auctioneer Scott Shuman with auction company Hall and Hall offered the crowd a last chance to outbid their neighbors and reopen bidding on any of the units, or to buy the entire 90 shares.
“If you didn’t get as much water as you thought you would, here’s your opportunity to add something to it,” he said. “I do not want to say ‘sold’ and then have anybody meet me in the parking lot saying ‘I really wanted to get a couple of those units; I would have given you more for it.’”
But no bidders raised their hands.
“All right, happy Valentine’s Day, ladies and gentlemen, we sold all the water units,” Shuman told the crowd. “Give yourselves a hand, give the Yoakum family a hand.”
When all was said and done, the auction netted a total sale price of about $4.7 million for about 63 acre-feet of water. The seller was longtime Longmont farmer Carol Oswald Yoakum.
Credit: Laurine Lassalle/Aspen Journalism
C-BT water regulated
It’s common for shares of C-BT water to change hands, but a large-scale sale by auction like the one held on Wednesday is rare. The last one was in 2019.
But not just anyone can own C-BT water. It is highly regulated and there are rules about its use. To participate in the auction, would-be buyers had to meet criteria set by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which manages and delivers the water to users. Northern does not allow more than three acre-feet of C-BT water per irrigated acre, and it’s best if a bidder is an existing water user like an irrigator or municipality within Northern’s delivery area who already has water from a different source since C-BT water is only meant to be used as a supplemental supply. And out-of-state investors looking to speculate get turned down immediately.
First water through the Adams Tunnel. Photo credit Northern Water.
“If they don’t have a farm, if they don’t have a beneficial need for the water, then there’s a very high probability that (Northern) would not approve a contract for them,” said Sherri Rasmussen, contracts manager with Northern Water. “I’ve had calls from New York people wanting to buy C-BT and my first question is: What do you want C-BT for? And they’re like, ‘Well, for investment, what do you think?’ And it’s like no, you don’t qualify.”
The C-BT project provides supplemental water to farms and cities along the northern Front Range and eastward along the South Platte River. Northern delivers this water to 33 municipalities and 120 ditch, reservoir and irrigation companies, according to its website. The project diverts about 200,000 acre-feet a year from the Colorado River basin.
Each year in April, Northern Water’s board determines the amount of water that users will get for each unit depending on whether it’s a drought year and how much water is available. The board most commonly settles on 7/10 of an acre-foot. That means Wednesday’s buyers paid an average of $74,600 per acre foot to own the water in perpetuity. That’s up from an average of $36,300 per acre-foot buyers were paying for C-BT water in 2015, according to WestWater Research, a water market research firm.
According to Adam Jokerst, a regional director with WestWater, C-BT unit prices are simply a function of supply and demand.
“Population growth largely drives water prices on the Front Range and in areas with the fastest population growth in the northern Front Range, that’s where we see the highest water prices,” he said.
But not all the buyers Wednesday were cities looking to transfer water from agriculture to support their continued growth. According to Shuman, of the 15 buyers, six were farmers; four were dairies; two were developers; two were municipalities and one was a farm foundation.
According to Jeff Stahla, public information officer for Northern Water, dairy farming in the district has been growing in recent years.
“That’s one of the takeaways from today: A lot of this water is staying in agriculture,” he said.
Another water auction is set to take place on Feb. 28 in Ault, east of Fort Collins. The Carlson Family Trust will sell 96 units of C-BT water and 154 acres of land.
Through the years, [Carol Oswald] Yoakum acquired 900 acres of farmland north of Longmont…A couple hundred acres went for a 20-home subdivision, 575 acres were put into a conservation easement with Boulder County so the views [of Long’s Peak] she lived with for 57 years would always be protected. She retained 175 acres…Now 91, Yoakum sold Meadow Green Farm in March 2023. On Wednesday, the last links to the property — 90 shares of Colorado-Big Thompson water — were auctioned at Boulder County Fairgrounds in Longmont. Fifteen buyers paid an average of $52,481 per share, or $4.72 million, making the water that once nourished the farm as valuable as the land itself.
The relatively rare water auction within Northern Water boundaries was the first of two this month that will ultimately see 186 shares of Colorado-Big Thompson water transition to new hands and new uses. On Wednesday, Yoakum’s 90 shares went to ditch companies, developers, farmers, ranchers and one municipality that will use it to add to their water holdings, supply water to new subdivisions and irrigate some farmland…Michael Markel of Markel Homes bought five shares at $49,500 each (including a 10% seller’s fee that goes to the auction house) to help provide water to homes in a 420-unit subdivision in Lafayette. “This will just cover a fraction” of the project, Markel said. Although the price per share opened at a high of $72,000, most shares sold for $46,000, plus seller’s fee. Water was sold in one to five units but could be combined for more shares. The largest share of water, 12 units, sold for $46,000 per share plus fees…Sterling Zehnder, who farms about 110 acres near Kersey, bought four shares at $53,000 each for irrigation.
On Feb. 28, the Carlson Family Trust will auction its 154-acre family farm in Eaton and 96 shares of Colorado-Big Thompson water. Markel said he may be among the bidders at that sale, too.
To buy Colorado-Big Thompson water, which is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and jointly operated and managed by Northern Water, a buyer has to represent a municipality or already own some shares; the water has to be used within district boundaries; and it can’t be the sole source of water. “C-BT is intended to supplement” an existing water supply, said Jeff Stahla, spokesperson for Northern Water.
Montgomery Reservoir, a source of water for Colorado Springs Utilities, can hold about 5,700 acre-feet of water. As the result of an agreement with West Slope opposers, Colorado Springs will be allowed to enlarge the reservoir to hold an additional 8,100 acre-feet without West Slope opposition. CREDIT: COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES
Colorado Springs has agreed to give up water rights tied to reservoirs in the Blue River basin in exchange for the ability to expand Montgomery Reservoir on the east side of the Continental Divide without opposition from Western Slope entities.
Colorado Springs Utilities had been fighting in water court since 2015 to hang on to conditional water rights originally decreed in 1952 and tied to three proposed reservoirs: Lower Blue Reservoir, on Monte Cristo Creek; Spruce Lake Reservoir, on Spruce Creek; and Mayflower Reservoir, which would also have been built on Spruce Creek. Lower Blue Reservoir was decreed for a 50-foot-tall dam and 1,006 acre-feet of water; Spruce Lake Reservoir was decreed for an 80- to 90-foot-tall dam and 1,542 acre-feet; and Mayflower Reservoir, was decreed for a 75- to 85-foot-tall dam and 618 acre-feet.
After negotiations with eight opposers, including the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Summit County and the town of Breckenridge, the parties are set to approve an agreement that would cancel the conditional water rights for Spruce Lake and Mayflower reservoirs. A third potential reservoir, Lower Blue, would keep its 70-year-old rights, but Colorado Springs would transfer the majority of the water stored to Breckenridge and Summit County, and would share the costs of building that reservoir, which would be owned and operated by Breckenridge and Summit County.
In exchange, the Western Slope parties will not oppose Colorado Springs’ plan to enlarge Montgomery Reservoir to hold an additional 8,100 acre-feet of water for a total capacity of about 13,800 acre-feet. That project is expected to enter the permitting phase in 2025. After the permitting and construction of the Montgomery Reservoir expansion, the conditional water rights for Spruce Lake and Mayflower reservoirs would be officially abandoned and the water rights for Lower Blue Reservoir transferred to Summit County and Breckenridge.
“These conditional rights we’re relinquishing in the agreement are for future reservoirs that would be difficult to permit and build for us,” Jennifer Jordan, senior public affairs specialist at Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), said in an interview with Aspen Journalism. “And we can gain in average years that same yield and perhaps a little bit more by getting the Montgomery Dam enlargement completed.”
A 2015 evaluation of the conditional water rights and proposed reservoirs by Wilson Water Group found several potential environmental and permitting stumbling blocks, including the presence of endangered species and challenging high-Alpine road construction.
CSU also agreed to a volumetric limit of the amount it will be allowed to take through the Hoosier Tunnel after the Montgomery Reservoir expansion: 13,000 acre-feet per year over a 15-year rolling average. CSU currently takes about 8,500 acre-feet per year through the tunnel.
Montgomery Reservoir is part of CSU’s Continental Hoosier System, which takes water from the headwaters of the Blue River between Breckenridge and Alma to Colorado Springs via the Hoosier Tunnel, Montgomery Reservoir and Blue River Pipeline. It is the city’s oldest transmountain diversion project.
Each year, transmountain diversions take about 500,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River basin to the Front Range. Colorado Springs is a large water user that draws from this vast network of tunnels and conveyance systems that move water from the mountainous headwaters on the west side of the Continental Divide to the east side, where the state’s biggest cities are located. Colorado Springs’ largest source of Western Slope water is its Twin Lakes system, which draws from the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River above Aspen.
Proposed reservoirs on the Blue River
Map: Laurine Lassalle – Aspen Journalism Source: Colorado Springs Utilities Created with Datawrapper
CSU to support Shoshone
The Glenwood Springs-based River District was created in 1937 to combat these types of diversions and keep water on the Western Slope. It was one of the entities that opposed CSU’s conditional water rights in its nearly nine-year water court battle, which kicked off when the water provider filed a diligence application. That is the process in which a conditional water-right holder must demonstrate to the water court that it can and will eventually develop the water right, and that in the previous six years, it has done its diligence in seeing a project through.
On Jan. 16, the River District board approved the settlement agreement, which includes a commitment from Colorado Springs that the utility will support the River District’s efforts at securing the Shoshone water right.
The River District is working to purchase water rights from Xcel Energy associated with the Shoshone hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon. The water rights date to 1902 and are nonconsumptive, meaning the water would stay in the river and flow downstream to the benefit of the environment, endangered fish and other water users on the Western Slope. The Colorado Water Conservation Board approved $20 million toward the $98.5 million purchase last week.
“The settlement provides additional local water supplies to the Blue River Valley and a commitment of support from Colorado Springs Utilities for the Shoshone Water Right Preservation effort, which provides substantial benefits to the health of the entire Colorado River, including important water security, economic and environmental benefits to the West Slope,” River District General Manager Andy Mueller said in a prepared statement. “In addition, the West Slope will benefit from clearly specified limits on the total amount of water Colorado Springs can divert through its Continental-Hoosier transmountain diversion tunnel.”
The agreement was also good news for Breckenridge, which will split the 600 acre-feet of water from Colorado Springs in a future Lower Blue Reservoir equally with Summit County. The reservoir was originally decreed for 1,006 acre-feet, but the agreement now limits the reservoir capacity to 600 acre-feet. Colorado Springs will retain the remaining amount, about 400 acre-feet, which can be stored in Montgomery Reservoir.
Breckenridge Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Owens said Breckenridge will be able to use the stored water in late summer, when flows in the Blue River are at their lowest.
“The way we see it is that we’ve now protected those waters, the snowmelt, and keeping it in the Blue River basin,” Owens said.
According to the agreement, Colorado Springs would pay 50% of the construction costs of a future Lower Blue Reservoir, and Breckenridge and Summit County would each pay 25%.
Colorado Springs City Council is expected to approve the agreement at its Feb. 13 meeting.
This story ran in the Feb. 5 edition of the Summit Daily.
Denver Water crews measure snow at 11 locations throughout the winter in Grand, Park and Summit Counties. Learn why these surveys are so important to Denver Water customers.
Storms that dumped several feet of snow in Park, Summit and Grand counties in January and February left behind great skiing conditions and a sorely needed boost to the mountain snowpack.
Entering 2024, the snowpack in the areas of the South Platte and Colorado river basins where Denver Water captures snow for its water supply were well below normal due to relatively dry weather in November and December 2023.
But storms in mid-January and early February boosted mountain snowpack in the two river basins to nearly normal for this point in the season.
A snowboarder enjoys the fresh snow at Copper Mountain on Jan. 19. Copper Mountain received 60” of snow in January. The resort is in Denver Water’s collection area, so snow that falls on the slopes flows into Dillon Reservoir. Photo credit: Denver Water.
As of Monday, Feb. 5, the snowpack in Denver Water’s collection areas stood at 106% of normal in the South Platte Basin and 98% of normal in the Colorado River Basin.
“January was great in terms of our water supply. In fact, the snowpack accumulation was nearly double the average for the month,” said Nathan Elder, water supply manager at Denver Water.
“We are right at normal for the season, and we’re hopeful the stormy weather pattern continues as we head into the snowier months of the year.”
The blue line on the charts below shows how a few big storms can quickly boost a very low snowpack (close to the bottom of the grey area) up to the black or “normal” line:
Image credit: Denver Water.
Image credit: Denver Water.
Monitoring the snow
Denver Water pays close attention to the snowfall in the mountains because snowmelt provides 90% of the water supply for 1.5 million people in its service area across metro Denver.
The utility monitors the snowpack in multiple ways through the season.
Once a month, January through April, Denver Water crews snowmobile and snowshoe through the snow to collect about a dozen samples of the snowpack along preestablished paths through the wilderness called “snow courses.”
Denver Water employees John King (left) and Conor Peters get ready to head out on a snow course to check the status of the snowpack in late January 2024. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water has snow courses at 11 locations in Grand, Park and Summit counties.
Capturing snow samples looks like spear-fishing. Crews jab a specially designed hollow pole into the snow until it hits the ground. The pole measures the snow depth and weight which is then used to determine the snow’s density.
This information is then used to calculate the snow water equivalent, or SWE. In simple terms, it’s the depth of water that would cover the ground if all the snow melted.
Denver Water crews measure mountain snowpack at 11 locations in Grand, Park and Summit counties from January through April. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“Ski areas love that champagne powder, but we like to see snow with lots of water inside,” said Rick Geise, a facility operator at Dillon Reservoir in Summit County. “The more water packed into the snow, the more water that flows into our reservoirs in the spring when all the snow melts.”
Denver Water shares the data collected from its snow courses with the National Resources Conservation Service, which puts out statewide snowpack and water supply information.
Donald McCreer, facility operator at Denver Water, checks the weight of the snow inside a special, hollow tube used to calculate snow density at a snow course on Vail Pass. Photo credit: Denver Water.
