Lafayette, CO — Today, House Assistant Minority Leader Joe Neguse, Co-Chair of the Colorado River Caucus, announced $2.4 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for two projects in Colorado’s 2nd District aimed at restoring and improving the ecological conditions of local waterways and aquatic habitat near the communities of Granby and Boulder. These investments were allocated by the Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART Environmental Water Resources Projects program.
“Local communities are instrumental in protecting and restoring Colorado’s rivers and streams. This important funding will support locally driven projects that enhance watershed health and resiliency, restore ecological conditions, and embody the spirit of ecological stewardship,” said Assistant Leader Neguse.
“Colorado is focused on protecting our vital water sources so that there is plenty of clean water for our communities and environment. I applaud Rep. Neguse’s leadership in Congress to pass federal legislation that is delivering for Colorado, and thank our State agencies and Coloradans carrying out these important projects,” said Governor Jared Polis.
Projects in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District include the Upper Colorado River Ecosystem Enhancement Project, managed by the Grand County Learning By Doing Cooperative Effort (LBD), and the Boulder Creek Headwaters Resiliency Project, led by the Boulder Watershed Collective. Additional information on both can be found HERE and below:
$1,425,859 for the Upper Colorado River Ecosystem Enhancement Project, to restore two stream reaches on the Fraser River and Willow Creek near the community of Granby.
$954,204 for the Boulder Creek Headwaters Resiliency Project, to restore and improve the ecological condition of 181 acres of degraded aquatic and riparian habitat, and 2.8 miles of wet meadow streams throughout the Boulder Creek Watershed near Boulder.
“This is just another great example of the successful collaboration taking place in Grand County across a wide range of stakeholders that is resulting in very tangible improvements in the ecological health of the Colorado River headwaters,” according to a statement from the Grand County Learning By Doing Management Committee.
“The projects selected are working through a collaborative process to achieve nature-based solutions for the health of our watersheds and river ecosystems to increase drought resiliency,” said Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton. “This historic investment from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gives Reclamation the opportunity to continue to collaborate with our stakeholders to leverage funds for these multi-benefit projects.”
“Denver Water is proud to support ongoing stream improvement projects like those to be funded in this latest round of federal funding. Congratulations to Grand County Learning by Doing on this award. We look forward to working with our partners on the upcoming restoration work to Willow Creek and the Fraser River to benefit the Colorado River Basin,” said Rick Marsicek, Chief of Water Resource Strategy at Denver Water.
As co-founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Colorado River Caucus, Neguse has brought together a bipartisan mix of lawmakers each representing a state along the Colorado River Basin. The group is working to build consensus on critical issues plaguing the river and support the work of the Colorado River Basin states on how best to address the worsening levels of drought in the Colorado River Basin.
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Patricia J. Rettig):
December 2, 2024
Imagine a best-selling, 900-page novel using “a sad, bewildered nothing of a river” as its centerpiece, connecting the earth’s geologic origin and dinosaur age to 1970s rural Colorado.
Now imagine that novel becoming a touchstone for its times, yet still relevant today, as our nation approaches its 250th anniversary. The book is James A. Michener’s Centennial, an unlikely novel published a half-century ago. By creating a microcosm of the country, he explained America to itself in anticipation of the 1976 bicentennial.
That the Pulitzer-prize winning Michener chose as his landscape the West—and the little-known South Platte River on Colorado’s northeastern plains—is surprising only in that this was his first epic novel related to the U.S. mainland.
But ever since he briefly lived in Greeley, Colorado, in the late 1930s before his writing career began, the winding South Platte River stuck with him. As a young college professor, Michener recognized the wealth of stories resulting from the hardships of people surviving in an arid area.
After Michener’s service on a national bicentennial committee left him frustrated, he decided to return to the Centennial State, Colorado, which gained statehood in 1876. He hoped to tell a tale of the American experience, and in the opening chapter a character states, “If we can make the Platte comprehensible to Americans, we can inspire them with the meaning of this continent.”
Forgoing stereotypical Western stories of railroad builders and farmers’ daughters, Michener fictionalized selected histories of settlement and created relatable characters.
South Platte at 52 bridge image by Laura Perry, courtesy USGS.
Native Americans, French trappers, Mennonite settlers, farmers of German-Russian descent, English ranchers, Mexican and Japanese laborers—all depended on the South Platte River and its tributaries in the dry, inhospitable land. They also had to depend on each other.
By starting with the land’s formation, Michener depicts every character as an immigrant. He estimates human arrival in the region at about 12,000 years ago, and those Indigenous peoples and their descendants remain present throughout the story. As more people arrived and society evolved, everyone built lives in relationship with the river.
For many, the river provided a pathway to the West. For a few, it revealed golden nuggets, though the real wealth was the water itself.
Yet what Michener presents as progress gradually becomes recognized as unsustainable. The memorable Potato Brumbaugh has not only the innovative idea of irrigating crops but also the radical concept of digging a tunnel under the Rocky Mountains to import water from west of the Continental Divide. When this source is not enough, groundwater pumping increases, with dire consequences.
Such innovation—water-related and otherwise—is important to understand today, but also significant is knowing the history of how communities got built. Michener also shows the conflicts that arose with each wave of newcomers bringing their own ideas about how to live.
He also demonstrates changing attitudes, including acceptance of racial differences and increasing dismay over environmental destruction. His story concludes in the early 1970s, referencing Watergate, international conflict and immigration. Characters face inflationary times and polluted air and water. They know they need to solve the coming water shortages.
Not much is different today.
The key difference is that as Michener’s characters decry the environmental damage caused by their ancestors and neighbors, they also recognize they need to know their history and honor their longstanding connections to the land and water.
This is what modern humanity has forgotten. Through the innovations of pipes, plumbing and chemical treatments, we have relegated our rivers to the background, as if they were merely an unending supply of water at our command. We have lost our connections to natural resources, to history, to each other.
Patricia Rettig, Associate Professor, Libraries, Colorado State University, March 29, 2022
As we now prepare for our 250th anniversary, Centennial, both the novel and the groundbreaking 26-hour television miniseries airing from 1978 to 1980, reminds us of the country’s strengths.
Nearly 900 pages in, a character skips a Colorado-Nebraska college football game to survey the South Platte by plane. As he nears the Nebraska state line, he says, “No one in Colorado will believe it, but this river is more exciting than football.”
Imagine if more people, in all states, felt the same way. Patricia J. Rettig is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. She is the archivist for the Water Resources Archive at the Colorado State University Libraries
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Douglas County is adding new homes like crazy. Some of its towns plan to double in size in the next 30 years, but these new homes use shockingly little water, blowing up traditional water planning rules and raising questions about how much water Colorado communities need to grow.
Sterling Ranch, for instance, has more than 10 years of data showing that the master-planned community of 3,400 residences just off Interstate 25 near Littleton uses just 0.18 acre-foot of water for each single family home, about 30% less than most urban homes, where 0.25 to 0.50 acre-foot per home is the norm. An acre-foot equals 326,000 gallons.
The community conserves by requiring water-wise lawns, using super-efficient showers and toilets, and installing separate meters for indoor and outdoor use. It also uses recycled water for its parks.
In response, Douglas County has allowed Sterling Ranch to adopt much lower water standards for the thousands more new homes it plans to build. The community will hold 12,500 homes when it is fully built.
Since 2013, Douglas County commissioners have twice allowed the community to dedicate less water to new homes, agreeing to a reduced standard of 0.40 acre-feet, from 0.75 in 2013 and to 0.24 in 2021. Next month, Sterling Ranch and its water district, Dominion Water and Sanitation, will ask the county for the authority to set the standards in the future as it sees fit, without county review, something that incorporated cities, such as Parker and Castle Rock do now.
Lindsay Rogers, a municipal water conservation analyst with Western Resource Advocates, said the lowering of water demand standards is welcome news.
“The new standard is a good approach,” she said, and very different from traditional planning efforts in Colorado, where cities routinely ask for much more water than is actually needed, placing higher demands on rivers and underground supplies and raising the cost of water service, a major contributor to higher home prices.
“We want to see counties, cities, and water providers setting a water dedication that is as closely aligned as possible with the water use on site,” she said.
“Sterling Ranch is a great example who has done this well, and has proven savings, and should be rewarded for its efforts,” she said.
More and more homes
Like other arid Western states being blistered by drought, warming temperatures, and lower stream flows, Colorado’s water future is not assured. The Colorado Water Plan predicts that the state could need up to 740,000 acre-feet of new water supplies by 2050 under the most dire planning scenarios, where the climate warms intensely and growth surges.
But if new homes can operate with 30% less water than they once did, would that lessen future shortages and provide the state some breathing room? Possibly.
But it’s not likely to do much, according to Kat Weismiller, acting head of the water supply planning section at the Colorado Water Conservation Board, because the scale of development is small.
“We look at a range of drivers, including social values, around water conservation and development to understand future water demands. While the new development at Sterling Ranch is innovative and sets an important example for how we can develop new communities in a water-efficient way, at this time, the scale of this type of development is fairly limited and it would be unlikely to meaningfully shift the way we forecast water needs at the state level or entirely close the gap,” she said.
Ultra-water-efficient homes
The trend toward ultra-water-efficient homes appears to be on an upward trajectory.
Another large Douglas County development under consideration, the Pine Canyon Ranch on Castle Rock’s border, asked for and has been given preliminary approval by the Douglas County Planning Commission to build 800 new homes and 1,000 townhomes and apartments with just 0.27 acre-feet of water per home.
Kurt Walker owns Pine Canyon Ranch. His family has been trying to annex into Castle Rock for 20 years. Tired of waiting for the city to act, the Walker family went to the county. Its plan calls for a sophisticated recycled water system and water-efficient homes.
The plan has drawn opposition from Castle Rock and others worried about the potential use of nonrenewable groundwater, and added traffic and congestion. If the land is annexed into Castle Rock — talks are underway again — the city would likely supply the water, bringing the ranch’s groundwater into its own water system, which uses a combination of surface water, recycled water and groundwater. Castle Rock requires new homes to come with 1.1 acre-feet of water.
Walker said he believes a deal will eventually be reached with Castle Rock. But he defends his family’s use of the nonrenewable groundwater it owns. In Colorado, landowners typically own rights to the water contained in the aquifers beneath their land.
“If I really wanted to maximize the amount of houses on my property, I would not have reduced the water standard to 0.27. … Our plan would leave about 50% of our groundwater rights in the ground, untouched,” Walker said. “If I was in this just to put as many houses on this property as I could, I would have taken everything out of the aquifer that I could. That could have added 600 or 700 houses onto what we proposed. But we didn’t do that.”
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.
A look into the past
There was plenty of that type of development in the 1970s as Douglas County began to boom. Developers tapped its groundwater repeatedly. The water was so pure, it needed little treatment. Other cities, such as Denver, brought water over mountains from miles away. But here, it could just be pulled up through a water well. This helped keep the cost of building homes low and lured developers who built Highlands Ranch, Parker and Castle Rock.
But those underground water supplies proved to be fragile. Some aquifers can be recharged from snowmelt and rain, but these, in the Denver Basin, are sealed in rock formations which recharge slowly. As pumping increased, the aquifers declined. Soon, wells began to fail and alarms began ringing.
The water picture today is much different. In 1985, state lawmakers forced well owners to limit their pumping by extracting just 1% of available water supplies each year, in the hope of extending the aquifers’ life for 100 years.
Now, though the Denver Basin aquifers continue to supply millions of gallons of water to Douglas County communities, the declines have slowed, and water districts and cities have moved to develop and use renewable surface supplies from rivers, and from recycled water plants.
And the county itself is much more concerned about future water supplies today. Though it does not own reservoirs and pipelines, it guides water use, as other counties do, by regulating how much water developers must bring to the table before they are approved to begin building.
This year it created its own Water Resources Commission and is creating a 25-year water plan. The county has been criticized for not creating a longer-term plan, say 100 or 300 years, as nearby counties have done. But County Commissioner George Teal said the 25-year plan is only a first-step.
“We plan on a 20-year horizon right now,” he said. “It doesn’t mean we won’t do a 100-year plan at some point.”
Some say it’s time to stop groundwater use entirely
Steve Boand, a former county commissioner and water consultant, has been monitoring the health of the county’s groundwater supplies for decades.
He supports lower water requirements for new homes, but he wants the county to go further and outlaw building solely with nonrenewable groundwater, something he acknowledges isn’t on the county’s political radar right now.
“It’s up to community planners to figure out what the right balance is — 0.5 is OK, if a house only needs 0.3, and 0.2 can be allocated to other uses, like park land,” Boand said. “We have to try these things to see if they will work.”
Western Resource Advocates’ Rogers says she’s encouraged by the data, at Sterling Ranch and elsewhere, that shows new homes can be built with much lower water profiles. That they are also likely to encourage more growth is real but less concerning, she said.
“It’s possible that these new standards will mean more homes,” she said. “But growth is happening, and it is going to continue whether it is in Douglas County or other places in Colorado. The fact that the growth is happening in places like Sterling Ranch, where they have all of these efficiencies in place, is a good thing.”
Fort Collins, Loveland, Timnath and Windsor residents who get their water from the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District will see a 30% increase or more in rates for 2025…Residents who reach higher tiers of water use and homeowners association accounts that go over allotments will be hit even harder if they don’t find ways to reduce. But after hearing from representatives of HOAs, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District board backed off charging “irrigation customers” five times as much when they go over their allotments, which were assigned at the time their accounts were created but haven’t been enforced. Instead, this segment of ratepayers, which includes commercial customers and parks, will pay twice as much as the normal rate for overages…The board approved the rate increases for 2025 on Nov. 19…
Base fees for residential, commercial and irrigation customers are increasing 30%. On top of that, rates per 1,000 gallons of water are increasing 30% across all tiers for residential customers. The 30% rate increases also apply to the three or four developments in what is known as “The City of Fort Collins service area as defined by IGA.”
[…]
The water district is also introducing a new fourth tier for residential customers. The cost of water will be five times higher than the next closest tier — for extremely high water use that exceeds 50,000 gallons per month…
Fees for single-family development taps will increase anywhere from 19% to 31%.
Fees for multifamily development taps will increase 15%.
Fees for commercial development taps will increase 33%.
Arapahoe County has enough water to meet its needs through 2050, according to a new study, but major steps will need to be taken to reduce future demand and protect the county’s groundwater supplies.
Arapahoe County Commissioner Jeff Baker, in a statement, said the study is a cautionary tale, showing that while existing supplies generate 141,000 acre-feet of water each year, future growth could strain those supplies.
“If they want to build, they need to make sure there is enough water to provide adequate water resources to people. This is not a green light to develop,” Baker said.
Arapahoe County is home to 656,000 people, who use 83,400 acre-feet of water a year. By 2050, those numbers are expected to soar, with population topping 900,000 and water demand increasing to as much as 116,000 acre-feet a year, according to the new report.
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.
As with other counties, Arapahoe County does not deliver water, relying instead on 12 separate water districts and agencies to supply its communities, according to Anders Nelson, a spokesman for the county. Some of its supplies come from renewable surface water — primarily runoff from mountain snowpack — while the more rural parts of the county rely on groundwater.
The study outlines several steps that should be taken to protect the fast-growing community southeast of Denver from future water shortages. The county will require developers to document adequate water for new construction projects; implement county-wide water-efficient landscaping rules, and encourage regional partnerships and water sharing agreements.
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 twin turbines of Xcel Energy’s Shoshone hydroelectric power plant in Glenwood Canyon can generate 15 megawatts. The plant was down for about a year and a half, according to the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
The Shoshone Hydropower Plant in Glenwood Canyon was not operating for nearly all of 2023 and more than half of 2024, adding urgency to a campaign seeking to secure the plant’s water rights for the Western Slope.
According to records from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the Shoshone Hydropower Plant was not operating from Feb. 28, 2023 until Aug. 8, 2024. According to Michelle Aguayo, a spokesperson from Xcel Energy, the company that owns the plant, there was a rockfall which forced an outage as well as maintenance which impacted operations during that time period.
The Grizzly Creek Fire burning along the Colorado River on August 14, 2020. By White River National ForestU.S. Forest Service – Public Domain
In 2024 the plant has been down for 221 days; in 2023 for 307 days; in 2022 for 91 days and in 2021 for 143 days. Water Resources Division 5 Engineer James Heath said he began tracking Shoshone outages in 2021 when they began to happen more frequently, starting with the post-Grizzly Creek fire mudslides in Glenwood Canyon.
“It was all these extended outages and just being able to have some sort of record of what was going on,” Heath said. “I kept getting questions from the parties on how many days we were operating ShOP and what the priorities were on those different days.”
The recent extended outages of the plant increase the urgency of the effort by the Colorado River Water Conservation District to acquire Shoshone’s water rights, which are some of the oldest and most powerful non-consumptive rights on the main stem of the Colorado River. If the plant were to shut down permanently, it would threaten the Western Slope’s water supply. The water rights could be at risk of being abandoned or acquired by a Front Range entity.
At a tour of the Shoshone plant in October, hosted by the Water for Colorado Coalition, River District Director of Strategic Partnerships Amy Moyer explained why the Shoshone water rights are important for improving water security and climate resilience on the Western Slope.
“As we’re sitting here in the iconic Glenwood Canyon. … It is a beautiful place, but we have an active highway, a railroad, a hydro power plant, all nestled in this tiny canyon that has experienced its fair share of natural hazards and risks over the years,” Moyer said. “When we’re looking at the level of risk, that is why we are looking for permanent protections for these water rights, and why we have a willing partner in Xcel Energy realizing that they had an incredible asset that was meaningful to Colorado’s Western Slope and the Colorado River itself.”
Water runs down a spillway at the Shoshone hydro plant in Glenwood Canyon. Rockfalls, fires and mudslides in recent years have caused frequent shutdowns of plant operations. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
According to the terms of ShOP, when it is on during the summer, the plant can call 1,250 cfs. In the wintertime, that number falls to 900 cfs. The agreement is in place for 40 years (with 32 remaining), a relatively short period in water planning, after which it could be renegotiated. And ShOP doesn’t have the stronger, more permanent backing of a water court decree.
“ShOP came about as a band aid to kind of maintain the river flow and the river regime when the plant was out,” said Brendon Langenhuizen, River District director of technical advocacy. “ShOP wasn’t meant to be for year after year after year of the plant being down.”
The Shoshone hydro plant in Glenwood Canyon. The River District has made a deal with Xcel Energy to buy the water rights associated with the plant to keep water flowing on the Western Slope. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
The River District’s campaign to acquire the Shoshone water rights has been gaining momentum over the last year, with about $55 million in committed funding so far from entities across the Western Slope, the River District and the state of Colorado. The River District plans to apply for $40 million in funding from the U.S. Bureau Reclamation’s B2E funding. This money from the Inflation Reduction Act is earmarked for environmental drought mitigation.
The River District’s plan is to add an instream flow use to the water rights in addition to their current use for hydropower. That requires working with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which is the only entity in the state allowed to hold instream flow rights which preserve the environment, as well as getting a new water court decree to allow the change in use.
That way, when the Shoshone plant is offline, the instream flow right would be activated to continue pulling water downstream, making ShOP obsolete and solidifying a critical water right for the Western Slope.
Xcel would lease the water right for hydropower from the River District for as long as the plant is in operation.
“New plot using the nClimGrid data, which is a better source than PRISM for long-term trends. Of course, the combined reservoir contents increase from last year, but the increase is less than 2011 and looks puny compared to the ‘hole’ in the reservoirs. The blue Loess lines subtly change. Last year those lines ended pointing downwards. This year they end flat-ish. 2023 temps were still above the 20th century average, although close. Another interesting aspect is that the 20C Mean and 21C Mean lines on the individual plots really don’t change much. Finally, the 2023 Natural Flows are almost exactly equal to 2019. (17.678 maf vs 17.672 maf). For all the hoopla about how this was record-setting year, the fact is that this year was significantly less than 2011 (20.159 maf) and no different than 2019” — Brad Udall
“Colorado’s Western Slope is truly at an epicenter of increased temperatures and decreased streamflows that are exacerbating temperature issues, creating water quality issues,” Moyer said. “So it’s imperative that we look for these legacy level, permanent solutions to build resiliency in our basin.”
On October 14th, the Poudre Flows Project, a collaboration of Colorado Water Trust, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Cache la Poudre Water Users Association, the cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, and Thornton, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, began increasing flows in the Cache la Poudre River. During the week of October 14, Thornton added flows between the mouth of the Poudre River and the confluence with the South Platte.
The Poudre Flows Project aims to reconnect the Cache la Poudre River past numerous frequent dry-up locations between the mouth of the Poudre Canyon and the confluence with the South Platte River while still allowing water rights owners to use their water. Under a temporary plan approved by the State, water provided by the cities of Thornton and/or Greeley can be used in a trial run of the innovative Poudre Flows Project. As conditions allow, the temporary plan allows water provided by Thornton to be used to increase flows by up to 20 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) for up to two weeks this fall and again in the spring. As conditions allow, the plan will also allow water provided by Greeley to be used to increase flows between 3-5 cfs between the months of April to October.
“The Poudre Flows project has brought a cross section of water users and river advocates together to add and protect flows on the Poudre River,” said Emily Hunt, Deputy Utilities Director for the City of Thornton. “Thornton is proud to contribute the first deliveries of water in a trial run of this project and is excited to continue its work with the Colorado Water Trust and the Poudre Flows partners to achieve significant environmental benefits for the Poudre River.”
Fly fishing on the Poudre River west of Fort Collins. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust
The Poudre Flows Project implements a new mechanism known as a Streamflow Augmentation Plan that was approved by the Colorado legislature to help restore depleted river flows. Generally, an augmentation plan is a tool used by water users to increase flexibility and maximize utilization of water supplies on a stream while still protecting other water users. While augmentation plans are typically used to replace water diverted from the river to meet water use needs, the Poudre Flows Project uses this same tool to meet environmental needs by releasing water to the river and protecting it from diversion by others as it flows downstream.
“The Colorado Water Conservation Board is proud to be a part of this critical effort to protect flows on the Cache La Poudre River,” said Lauren Ris, CWCB Director. “Through our agency’s Instream Flow Program, we are able to ensure that the river maintains its vital flows, supporting both the environment and the communities that depend on it. This collaboration highlights the importance of innovative solutions to protect Colorado’s water for generations to come.”
Historically, environmentalists and recreationalists have been at odds with water users who take water out of the river. The Poudre Flows Project is bringing together those who have previously been in conflict, including municipalities, water conservancy districts, state agencies and agricultural producers. This group will strategically leverage water rights to preserve and improve river flows in times of low flow. The Poudre Flows Project has a pending water court case; but in the meantime, Greeley and Thornton have obtained temporary approvals in October from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, via substitute water supply plans, to use their water rights in the Streamflow Augmentation Plan for one year. This is the first Streamflow Augmentation Plan in the state and could be a model for streamflow improvement in other river basins.
Playing in the Poudre River at the Fort Collins whitewater park. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust
“Greeley is excited to see the Poudre Flows project going live after many years of regional collaboration, enabling legislation, and investment in this innovative water administration strategy,” said Sean Chambers, Director of Water Utilities for the City of Greeley. “The project will physically enhance the Cache la Poudre river, its aquatic habitat, and the administration of water rights, and Greeley appreciates the Colorado Water Trust’s leadership and project management.”
THE POUDRE FLOWS STORY: For more than a decade, the water community of the Poudre River Basin has been working on an innovative plan to reconnect one of the hardest working rivers in Colorado, the Cache la Poudre River. Since the Colorado gold rush in the mid-1800s, people have diverted water from the Cache la Poudre River for beneficial uses that have helped northeastern Colorado grow into the agricultural and industrial powerhouse it is today.
While the Poudre River flows are high during the spring runoff, there are times throughout the year when the river dries out entirely in places below some water-diversion structures. To combat dry conditions and improve river health, local communities have worked hard over the past decade with the goal of improving and bringing vitality to the Cache la Poudre River. The Poudre Flows Project is a perfect example of those efforts.
The Poudre River during a dry-up period. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust
Colorado Water Trust, a statewide nonprofit organization with a mission to restore water to Colorado’s rivers, has been one small part of this process. Over a decade ago, Colorado Water Trust had an unorthodox, pioneering idea to reconnect the Poudre River, and the water community of the Poudre River Basin said, “Let’s get it done.” A broad collaboration of water providers, cities, state government, nonprofits, and a collective of farmers have worked tirelessly to make this novel idea a reality and rewater the Poudre River. Finally, this year, the Poudre Flows Project will be put into action through the generous contributions of water by the cities of Greeley and Thornton. This is the first step toward reconnecting the Poudre River both now and for future generations.
”The Poudre Flows Project is such a great example of collaboration and innovative thinking when it comes to water, and it shows a recognition of how important our streams are to us as Coloradans,” said Kate Ryan, Executive Director of Colorado Water Trust. “You have all different types of water users on the Poudre River coming together to take responsibility for the health and vitality of this river and to find ways to protect it for future generations. The success of this project could serve as a blueprint across the state for communities of water users to protect their own rivers and streams in the face of a changing climate.”
Colorado’s water landscape is very complex and the legal structure for this project is innovative. The Poudre Flows Project will provide water right owners a flexible opportunity to add their water to the plan on a temporary or permanent basis. This groundbreaking project has the potential to be replicated in other basins throughout Colorado. Lastly, one of the unique aspects of this project is that it doesn’t change the Poudre River from being the hardest-working river in Colorado. Instead, the Poudre Flows Project provides an avenue for optimal management of river water, to protect people’s livelihoods AND the river itself. The Poudre Flows Project proves that if we work together, we can maintain all that we love about Colorado, from the beauty and thrills of a flowing river to the local food and beer that river water helps provide, and the flourishing neighborhoods that depend on the river’s water in their homes.
“Partnerships are the key ingredient to the success of the Poudre Flows Project,” said Katie Donahue, Director of the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. “Together we are launching a new chapter of river resiliency for our community.”
FUNDERS FOR THIS PROJECT INCLUDE: • Xcel Energy Foundation • City of Fort Collins • City of Greeley • City of Thornton • Northern Water • Gates Family Foundation • Eggleston Family Fund of the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado • New Belgium Brewing Company • Odell Brewing Company • Alan Panebaker Memorial Endowment of the Yampa Valley Community Foundation • Telluray Foundation • Colorado Water Conservation Board
Cache la Poudre River drop structure. Photo credit: Northern Water
Cache la Poudre River. Photo credit: Allen BestFort Collins community members kayak and sit on the shore of the Poudre River during the grand opening of the Poudre River Whitewater Park off of North College and Vine Drive Oct. 12. (Alyssa Uhl | The Collegian)Poudre River whitewater park. Photo credit: Rocky Mountain CollegianFort Collins community members kayak and sit on the shore of the Poudre River during the grand opening of the Poudre River Whitewater Park off of North College and Vine Drive Oct. 12. (Alyssa Uhl | The Collegian)Construction begins on Cache la Poudre River for fish ladder near Watson Lake. Photo credit: Jason Clay/Colorado Parks and WildlifeCache la Poudre tributaries cutthroat stocking event August 2020. Photo credit: Jason Clay via Colorado Parks and WildlifeCache la Poudre River May 2018. Photo credit: Greg Hobbs Ralph Parshall squats next to the flume he designed at the Bellevue Hydrology Lab using water from the Cache la Poudre River. 1946. Photo Credit: Water Resource Archive, Colorado State University, via Legacy Water News.Cache la Poudre River from South Trail via Wikimedia Foundation.Grand River Ditch gaging station. Photo credit Greg Hobbs.Cache la Poudre River
Lake Powell has been about a quarter-full. The snowpack looks strong now, but it’s anybody’s guess whether there will be enough runoff come April and May to substantially augment the reservoir. May 2022 photo/Allen Best
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
October 24, 2024
Colorado River Basin states have scaled back their demands on the river. But agreement about solutions proportionate to the challenge remains distant as the 2025 deadline nears.
The story so far: Andy Mueller, the manager of the Colorado River District, the lead water policy body for 15 counties on the Western Slope of Colorado, used his organization’s annual seminar this year to call for the state to begin planning for potential curtailments of diversions. The river has delivered far less water in the 21st century than was assumed by delegates of the seven basin states when they drew up the Colorado River Compact in 1922. Might higher flows resume? Very unlikely, given what we know about climate change. See Part Iof the series and Part II.
“Having a state plan for compact curtailment has been on the table for what seems like forever, likely 2005 to 2007,” said Ken Neubecker. Now semi-retired, he has been carefully watching Colorado River affairs for several decades and has represented several organizations at different times.
Why hasn’t Colorado moved forward with this planning? When I called him to glean his insights, Neubecker shared that he believes it’s because such planning encounters a legal and political minefield.
“It’s not as simple as pre-1922 rights are protected and post-1922 rights are going to be subject to curtailment based on the existing prior appropriation system.”
Denver Water’s Moffat Tunnel diversion from the Fraser River to Boulder Creek. Most of water diverted to Colorado’s Front Range cities from Western Slope rivers and creeks have legal rights junior to the Colorado River compact. Photo/Allen Best
Front Range municipal water providers and many of Colorado’s agriculture diversions are post-1922 compact. And so are some agricultural rights on the Western Slope.
“I think everybody thinks that well, we’re on the slow-moving train and the cliff is getting closer but it’s not close enough – and there are other things that we can do to slow the train down.”
Taylor Hawes, Colorado River Program director for the Nature Conservancy via Water Education Colorado.
Taylor Hawes, who has been monitoring Colorado River affairs for 27 years, now on behalf of The Nature Conservancy, suspects that Colorado doesn’t want to show its legal hand or even admit the potential need to curtail water use in Colorado. She contends that planning will ultimately provide far more value.
“The first rule you learn in working with water is that users want certainty. Planning is something we do in every aspect of our lives, and planning is typically considered smart. It need not be scary,” she told Big Pivots. “We have all learned to plan for the worst and hope for the best.”
Colorado can start by creating a task force or some other extension of the state engineer’s office to begin exploring the mechanisms and pathways that will deliver the certainty.
“We don’t have to have all the answers now,” Hawes said. “And just because you start the process for exploring the mechanism to administer compact compliance rules doesn’t mean you implement them. It will give people an understanding of what to expect, how the state is thinking about it.”
Rio Grande near Monte Vista. Meeting Colorado’s commitments that are specified in the compact governing the Rio Grande requires constant juggling of diversions. Photo/Allen Best
Compacts have forced Colorado to curtail diversions in three other river basins: the Arkansas, Republican and Rio Grande. The Rio Grande offers a graphic example of curtailment of water use as necessary to meet compact obligations on a week-by-week basis.
The Republican River case is a more drawn-out process with a longer timeline and a 2030 deadline. In both places, farmers are being paid to remove their land from irrigation. The Colorado General Assembly this year awarded $30 million each to the two basins to bolster funding for compensation.
A study commissioned by the Nature Conservancy that involved interviews with water managers and others in those river basins had this takeaway message: “the longer (that) actions are delayed to address compact compliance, the less ability local water users have to tailor compliance-related measures to local conditions and needs and reduce their adverse impacts.”
In the Arkansas Basin, Colorado had to pay $30 million and water available to irrigators was reduced by one third.
“That’s the first lesson in how not to do compact compliance: do not wait to be sued because (then you lose) the flexibility to do stuff the right way,” said one unidentified water manager along the Arkansas River.
Neubecker points to another basin, the South Platte. Even in 1967, Colorado legislation recognized a connection between water drawn from wells along the river and flows within the river. The 2002 drought forced the issue, causing Hal Simpson, then the state engineer, to curtail well pumping, creating much anguish.
Ken Neubecker via LinkedIn
Creating a curtailment plan won’t be easy, Neubecker warns. “It could easily take 10 years. ’Look how long it took to create the Colorado Water Plan. It took a couple years and then we had an update five years later. And that was easy compared to this.”
All available evidence suggests the Colorado River Basin states are nowhere near agreement.
In August, Tom Wilmoth provided a perspective from Arizona in a guest opinion published by The Hill under the title of “Time is running out to solve the Colorado River crisis.” As an attorney he has worked for both the Arizona water agency and the Bureau of Reclamation before helping form a law firm in 2008.
“It has taken 24 years for the problem to crystalize, but less than 24 months remain to develop a solution,” he wrote. “Yet there appears to be little urgency in today’s discussion among the Colorado River Basin’s key players.”
Wilmoth said ”Deferring hard conversations today increases the risk of litigation later.” He, like all others, sees a reasonable chance it would end up before the Supreme Court – with the risk of the justices appointing a special master to adjudicate the conflict. “Its recent tendency has been to appoint individuals lacking in subject matter expertise, a troubling prospect given the complex issues at play.”
The area around Yuma, Ariz., and California’s Imperial Valley provide roughly 95% of the vegetables available at grocery stores in the United States during winter months. February 2017 photo/Allen Best
Monitoring the conversations from Southwest Colorado, Rod Proffitt sees Mueller trying to prepare people in the River District for the challenges ahead.
“I think he has tried to scare people. He is trying to get them prepared to make some sacrifices, and limiting growth is a sacrifice.”
A semi-retired water attorney, Proffitt is also a director of Big Pivots, a 501-c-3 non-profit.
Make no mistake, says Proffitt, more cuts in use must be made – and they need to be shared, both in the lower basin and in the upper basin. What those cuts need to be, he isn’t sure. Nor do they necessarily need to be the same.
For example, he can imagine cuts that are triggered by lowering reservoir levels. At a certain point, lower basins must reduce their use by X amount and upper basin states by Y amount.
The federal government has mostly offered carrots to the states to reduce consumption, a recognition of the river’s average 12.4 million acre-feet flows, far short of the flows assumed by the compact. It also has sticks, particularly regarding lower-basin use, but has mostly avoided using its authority. Instead, the lower-basin has reduced use voluntarily, if aided by the federal subsidies.
The Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, have yielded a river of money for projects in the West that broadly seek to improve resiliency in the face of drought and climate change. The seeds have been planted in many places. For example, a recent round of funding produced up to $233 million for the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona for water conservation efforts.
The federal government has also offered incentives to reduce consumption in the upper basin. The System Conservation Pilot Program ran from 2015 to 2018. The 2024 program was funded with $30 million through the Inflation Reduction Act and had hopes for conserving about 66,400 acre-feet.
The federal government, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has clear authority to declared water shortages in the lower basin. It has warned that three million acre-feet less water must be used. The lower-basin argues that the upper basin should share in some of this burden.
Grand Junction has a maze of irrigation canals but the municipal water utility gets water from a creek that flows from the Grand Mesa. Some diversions in Colordo are pre-compact, but many others occurred after 1922. This is a scene from Grand Junction. Photo/Allen Best
Should the federal government get out the stick?
“Nobody wants to apply vinegar this close to the November election,” said James Eklund when we talked in late September about the stalemate on the river.
Eklund has had a long association with the Colorado River. His own family homesteaded on the Western Slope near Colbran in the 1880s and the ranch is still in the family. He lives in Denver, though, and was an assistant attorney in the state attorney general’s office in 2009, when I wrote my first story. He later directed the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the lead agency for state policy.
For the last few years Eklund has been on his own, more or less, a water attorney now working for Sherman and Howard, a leading Denver firm, while trying to represent clients with diverse agriculture water rights.
“Litigation is a failure,” he said when I asked him about Mueller’s remarks in Grand Junction. He contends the upper basin must come to the table with more ideas about how to solve the structural imbalance between supplies and demands than it has so far. And this, he said, will involves some pain.
Creating compact curtailment will involve rule-making, though, and that will take time and effort. Echoing Denver Water’s position, he says it will divert Colorado from the more important and immediate work of helping negotiate solutions.
Eklund suspects an ulterior motive of the River District: to get the state to play its cards on what curtailment could look like so that it can begin jockeying for position.
On the other hand, he believes cutbacks should be premised on two bedrock principles: voluntary and compensated. But Eklund also says that if the situation becomes desperate enough, water will continue to find its way to cities. “The Front Range is not going to bend its knee to alfalfa plants. It’s not going to do it.”
And then, Colorado’s Constitution allows municipalities to take water. It requires compensation.
The Bureau of Reclamation has said the same thing in the lower basin. Las Vegas and other cities will not be allowed to dry up.
The Bureau of Reclamation has said that Las Vegas and other cities will not be cut off from water in the Colordo River. . Photo/Allen Best
But what if compact curtailment means making the hard decision about who doesn’t get water and does not get compensated – people like the farmers near Fort Morgan who, in 2002, had to cease pumping water?
Neubecker characterizes the position of Colorado as one of conflict avoidance. Look at where it got Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minster, in his negotiations with Hitler.
What Colorado must do is prepare for the worst-case scenario. “It’s a doomsday plan,” Neubecker says of compact curtailment. “Make the plan, involve all the people who are going to be effected by the plan, and put it on the shelf – but not too far back on the shelf, just in case you need it”
For now, water levels in the two big reservoirs are holding more or less steady.
Another winter like 2002 could trigger renewed clanging of alarm bells.
John Fleck at Morelos Dam, at start of pulse flow, used 4/4/14 as my new twitter avatar
In New Mexico, Fleck, the author, who also monitors Colorado River matters at his Inkstain blog, rejects the metaphor of the Titanic or the idea that conflict is inevitable. In 2002, California was still using 5.1 million acre-feet from the Colorado River, both for agriculture and to supply the metropolitan areas of Southern California. This was well above the state’s apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet. “The rhetoric was that it will be a disaster to California’s economy” to return to the allocated flows.
California eventually did cut back and it has done just fine. “Everybody would prefer not to do the adaptation, but they have done it just fine. We see that over and over again in community responses to drought in the Western United States,” he said.
Lake Powell currently has filled to 40% of capacity, a marked improvement from February 2023, when the reservoir had fallen to 22% of capacity. Mead is at 36% of capacity. The situation is not as tense as it was two years ago. That could change in the blink of another hot, dry runoff like that in 2002.
Figure 2. Graph showing reservoir storage between 1 January 2023 and 15 October 2024, highlighting the amount of reservoir recovery during each snowmelt season and the amount of reservoir drawdown during intervening periods. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies
Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Cathy Proctor and Jay Adams):
October 23, 2024
Preparing a water system to meet future challenges means investing in a flexible, resilient operation that’s ready for just about anything — such as a warming climate, pandemics, population growth, periodic droughts, competition for water resources, security threats and changing regulatory environments.
From meeting day-to-day challenges to addressing long-range issues, Denver Water is building and maintaining just such a system, one that stretches from the mountains to homes and businesses across the Denver metro area.
The goal: Ensuring a clean, safe, reliable water supply for 1.5 million people, about 25% of Colorado’s population, now and in the future.
To continue meeting that goal, Denver Water expects to invest about $1.8 billion into its water system during the next 10 years, from large projects to regular inspection and maintenance programs designed to ensure the system is flexible, resilient and efficient.
In addition to rates paid by customers, funding for Denver Water’s infrastructure projects, day-to-day operations and emergency expenses, like water main breaks, comes from bond sales, cash reserves, hydropower sales, grants, federal funding and fees paid when new homes and buildings are connected to the system. The utility does not make a profit or receive tax dollars.
Here’s an overview of some of Denver Water’s recently completed and ongoing work:
Northwater Treatment Plant
Denver Water in 2024 celebrated the completion of the new, state-of-the-art Northwater Treatment Plant next to Ralston Reservoir north of Golden. The new treatment plant was completed on schedule and under budget.
The treatment plant can clean up to 75 million gallons of water per day and the plant’s design left room for the plant to be expanded to clean up to 150 million gallons of water per day in the future as needed.
A major feature of the site visible from Highway 93 is the round, concrete tops of two giant water storage tanks. Most of the two tanks are buried underground; each tank is capable of holding 10 million gallons of clean, safe drinking water.
The plant is a major part of Denver Water’s North System Renewal Project, a multi-year initiative that included building a new, 8.5-mile pipeline between the Northwater Treatment Plant and the Moffat Treatment Plant. The new pipe, completed in 2022, replaced one that dated from the 1930s.
The Moffat Treatment Plant, which also started operations in the 1930s, is still used a few months during the year and will eventually transition to a water storage facility.
Lead Reduction Program
The water Denver Water delivers to customers is lead-free, but lead can get into drinking water as the water passes through old lead service lines that carry water from the water main in the street into the home.
The Lead Reduction Program, which launched in January 2020, is the biggest public health campaign in the utility’s history and considered a leader in the effort to remove lead pipes from the nation’s drinking water infrastructure.
Denver Water crews dug up old lead service lines from customers’ homes for years of study that led to the utility’s Lead Reduction Program. Denver Water has replaced more than 28,000 old, customer-owned lead service lines at no direct cost to the customer. Photo credit: Denver Water. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The program reduces the risk of lead getting into drinking water by raising the pH of the water delivered and replacing the estimated 60,000 to 64,000 old, customer-owned lead service lines at no direct cost to the customer. Households enrolled in the program are communicated with regularly and provided with water pitchers and filters certified to remove lead to use for cooking, drinking and preparing infant formula until six months after their lead service line is replaced.
To date, Denver Water has replaced more than 28,000 customer-owned lead service lines at no direct cost to the customers. The program received $76 million in federal funding in 2022 to help accelerate the pace of replacement work in underserved communities, resulting in thousands of additional lines being replaced during 2023 and 2024.
Water storage
Work on the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, the subject of more than 20 years of planning, got underway in April 2022. Expected to be complete in 2027, the project will raise the height of the existing dam by 131 feet.
The higher dam will nearly triple the amount of water that can be stored in Gross Reservoir, providing Denver Water with more flexibility to manage its water supply in the face of increasingly variable weather and snowpack patterns.
Check out the work done on Gross Dam during summer 2024:
After two years of preparation and foundation work, Gross Dam’s new look began to take shape in 2024 when workers began placing new, roller-compacted concrete at the base of the Boulder County dam in early May.
Raising the dam involves building 118 steps on the downstream side of the dam. Each step is 4 feet tall with a 2-foot setback.
At the height of construction, there will be as many as 400 workers on-site, and when complete the dam will be the tallest in Colorado.
Ongoing investments for the future
As the metro area grows and changes, it’s often an opportunity for Denver Water to upgrade older elements of its system.
Denver Water is continuing its investment in replacing about 80,000 feet of water mains under streets every year while also installing new water delivery pipe where needed. The utility has more than 3,000 miles of pipe in its system, enough to stretch from Seattle to Orlando.
In early 2025, Denver Water will wrap up a major project: replacing 5 miles of 130-year-old water pipe under East Colfax Avenue, from Broadway to Yosemite Street. The pipe replacement work was done in advance of the East Colfax Bus Rapid Transit project. That effort, led by the Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, broke ground in early October.
In addition to replacing the water mains under Colfax, Denver Water crews are replacing any lead service lines they encounter during the project.
Changing our landscapes
In recognition of the drought in the Colorado River Basin, Denver Water and several large water providers across the basin in 2022 committed to substantially expanding existing efforts to conserve water.
Among the goals outlined in the agreement is the replacement of 30% of the nonfunctional, water-intensive Kentucky bluegrass in our communities — like the decorative expanses of turf grass in traffic medians — with more natural ColoradoScapes that include water-wise plants and cooling shade trees that offer more benefits for our climate, wildlife and the environment.
Denver Water supported a new state law passed in 2024 designed to halt the expansion of nonfunctional, water-thirsty grass by prohibiting the planting or installation of high-water-using turf in commercial, institutional, or industrial property or a transportation corridor. The bill takes effect Jan. 1, 2026. The new law doesn’t affect residential properties.
To help customers remodel their landscapes to create diverse, climate-resilient ColoradoScapes, Denver Water offered two workshops this year and is planning additional workshops in 2025. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water also is working with partners — including local governments, fellow water providers and experts in water use and landscapes — to develop programs that will help transform our landscapes and expand our indoor and outdoor conservation efforts.
The utility in 2024 held water-wise gardening workshops and offered a limited number of customer discounts on Resource Central’s popular Garden In A Box water-wise garden kits and turf removal services.
Get tips and information about rebates available for conserving water indoors and out at denverwater.org/Conserve.
The utility also has started work transforming its own landscapes, including about 12,000 square feet around its Einfeldt pump station near the University of Denver. It’s Youth Education program has helped Denver-area students remodel landscapes at their schools.
And it’s supporting partners, such as Denver’s Parks and Recreation Department, which is replacing 10 acres of water-intensive Kentucky bluegrass covering the traffic medians on Quebec Street south of Interstate 70. The project is replacing the homogenous expanse of turf with a closely managed, water-wise Colorado prairie meadow filled with grasses and wildflowers that provide habitat to pollinators.
These projects are examples of how Denver Water is planning for a warmer, drier future by partnering with our community. Together, we can build a system and a landscape that supports our customers and creates a thriving, vibrant community now and in the future.
Denver Water’s collection system via the USACE EIS
A “water year” with two troubling features — a slow start to winter’s mountain snowpack and a very hot, very dry summer — wound up in surprising ways.
In short, despite those two big factors, supplies for Denver Water remained strong and the 2023-24 water year, having opened with drama, closed as a quiet success.
Strontia Springs Dam, seen here about 6 miles up Waterton Canyon, received enough water to fill in 2024, with extra spilled into the South Platte River. Photo credit: Denver Water.
What’s a water year? It’s that span from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30 that water utilities, hydrologists and other experts use to track the flow of annual precipitation, from early snowfall through runoff and the months of water use on farm fields and in cities.
And the water year ending last month, on Sept. 30, 2024, clocked in as a good one for Denver Water.
After the slow start, snowpack improved over late winter and spring, reservoirs filled and spilled and customers mostly stuck to watering rules, even amid a scorching, low-rain summer in Denver Water’s service area.
Some high notes from the past 12 months:
It marked the first year since 2019 that peak snowpack in both of Denver Water’s key river basins was above normal: 101% in the South Platte River basin and 124% in the Colorado River basin.
Denver Water’s reservoirs hit capacity, always an important outcome. And a two of those — Cheesman and Strontia Springs — spilled with excess water for the first time since 2019. Two others, Dillon and Williams Fork, spilled for the second straight year.
Supplies were so strong on the Front Range that Denver Water kept Roberts Tunnel — the conveyance that brings water from Dillon Reservoir on the West Slope — turned off for six months, from January to mid-July. The Moffat Tunnel that brings water from the Fraser River to Gross Reservoir was offline for three weeks in June.
It marked a remarkable turnaround from some big obstacles earlier in the year.
By mid-January 2024, anemic snowpack was ranked among the five worst totals for that time of year on record.
After a slow start to the year, a series of snowstorms boosted the snowpack, supporting recreation on Denver Water’s reservoirs, including paddleboarding on Dillon Reservoir, throughout the summer. Photo credit: Denver Water.
And a tough summer awaited. Denver Water’s records put the summer of 2024 as the fifth-hottest in the region. And precipitation was weak, ranking fourth worst in the utility’s service area.
But after that slow start, the snowpack rallied. Big snows occurred in late January, followed by normal snows in February and a big March storm that pushed snowpack numbers up, especially in the North Fork of the South Platte River.
Then, in a big surprise, the storms kept coming. Not only in April but in May, also, weeks beyond the point snowpack typically stops building.
More good news followed. Spring soil moisture was in good shape, so water stayed in streams and filled reservoirs instead of soaking into bone-dry ground, a frequent problem in recent years.
Then, customers did their part, largely adhering to watering rules that kept water use stable even amid such a hot and dry summer.
Daily use in Denver Water’s service area never soared above average and total summer demand from customers hewed close to normal.
“Customers continue to understand the basics: Don’t water in the heat of the day, turn off your irrigation after rainstorms. Keep your watering to two or, at most, three days a week,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supplies.
More customers are remodeling their yards and replacing water-needy Kentucky bluegrass with water-wise ColoradoScapes like this one that thrives in our semi-arid climate. Photo credit: Denver Water.
For Elder, the success story of the 2024 water year was how well Denver Water was able to manage its system to maximize flows for recreation and the environment.
Healthy supplies meant more water releases from Dillon that bolstered rafting in the Blue River. Good supplies also helped support rafting on the North Fork for the annual BaileyFest event. It also kept reservoir elevations high for flatwater recreation, such as boating and paddleboarding.
It also allowed releases to help aquatic environments, such as keeping stream temperatures in a safe range for fish in the Fraser River and providing flushing flows to improve fish habitat on the South Platte.
Supplies also helped ensure Denver Water could provide water downstream on the Colorado River to support endangered fish above Grand Junction.
“After a nerve-wracking start, the water year improved in a hurry,” Elder said. “Full reservoirs and good runoff give us the flexibility to move water around in a way that helps a lot of interests while serving our customers.”
Now, as the new water year kicks off, the watch for precipitation begins.
And we enter the new water year with good news: Denver Water reservoirs begin the 2024-25 water year with good supplies. But a dry summer in the region has left dry, thirstier soils that could drink up melting snow next spring. That could make 2025 trickier.
The wait, and watch, is on.
With the 2023-24 water year now in the books, Denver Water’s planners are eyeing the weather patterns to see what the winter storms will bring. Mountain snowpack, captured and stored in mountain reservoirs such as Strontia Springs (pictured) supplies most of Denver’s water. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Roaring Fork River September 2022. Photo credit: Allen Best
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
October 22, 2024
Our story so far: Andy Mueller used the Colroado River District seminar this year to call for Colorado to begin planning for potential curtailment of the Colorado River. The state engineer, who is legally responsible for such planning, it it occurs, pushed back, saying first things first. For Part I, go here.
Andy Mueller, general manager of the Colorado River District, has used the district’s annual seminar in Grand Junction in years past to warn of a worsening situation in the Colorado River Basin. Two years ago, for example, he warned that flows were already well below the 20th century averages. Might those flows of 13.5 to 14 million acre feet further decline to 9.5 million acre-feet in decades ahead?
Even relatively healthy snowfalls don’t necessarily produce robust volumes of runoff. For example, snow during the winter of 2023-24 was good but runoff just 84% of average.
“A new different” is how Dave Kanzer, the River District’s director for science and interstate matters, described the runoff numbers. [ed. emphasis mine]
“We are just kind of treading water, and where we are next year could be similar to where we are this year — unless something changes,” he added during the district’s seminar in Grand Junction. “There’s a lot of uncertainty.”
Warming temperatures most likely will produce continued declines in river flows. That was a key takeaway of the presentation by Russ Schumacher, the state climatologist. He’s a careful scientist, clear to differentiate what is known from that which is not. Much of what he said was not particularly new. Some of the conclusions he offered were little changed from those of a decade ago – but with one key difference. Another decade of data has been compiled to support those conclusions.
Seven of Colorado’s nine warmest years have occurred since 2012. The rise can be seen most clearly in summer and fall records. This past summer was part of that trend. It was the sixth hottest summer in Colorado’s recorded history going back to the late 1800s.
Some places were hotter than others, though. In Grand Junction, gages at Walker Airfield recorded the hottest June-August period ever, an average of more than 80 degrees. That’s the average temperature 24/7, day and night.
Precipitation? No clear trend has emerged. Levels vary greatly from year to year.
Graphic credit: Russ Schumacher/Colorado Climate Center
Integration of temperature and precipitation records tell a more complex and concerning story. Rising temperatures have produced earlier runoff. The warmth also exacerbates evapotranspiration, which is also called evaporative demand. The warmer it is, the more surface air draws water from the plants and dries out the soils.
The most powerful way of explaining all this was in two sequences of slides, one of which is reproduced here.
“The timing shift, even if the peak doesn’t change all that much – the timing is quite important,” said Schumacher. Colorado River flows at Dotsero, near Glenwood Canyon, have already declined 25% during late summer.
Schumacher and other scientists describe predictions with various degrees of confidence. There is, he said, high confidence of a future warming atmosphere that to an even greater degree reduces runoff no matter how much snow falls in winter. We can be sure of temperatures rising between one and four degrees F by mid-century, he said.
Unless Colorado gets far more snow and rain, the ColoradoRiver will decline further. [ed. emphasis mine]
Future warming depends upon how rapidly greenhouse gas emissions rise globally. In mid-October, they were at 418 parts per million high on the slopes of Hawaii’s Mauna Loa. They were 315 when the first measurements were taken there in 1958 and roughly 280 at the start of the industrial era.
Graphic credit: Russ Schumacher/Colorado Climate Center
And that returns us to the Colorado River Compact, the foundation for deciding who gets what and where in the basin — and who doesn’t.
In 1922, when the Colorado River Compact was drawn up at a lodge near Santa Fe, the Colorado River had been producing uncommonly robust flows. In their 2019 book, “Science Be Dammed,” Fleck and Eric Kuhn, the former general manager of the River District, explained that ample evidence even in 1922 existed of drier times just decades before. Later evidence documented lesser flows in the centuries and millennia before.
Not only were flows in the Colorado River during the 20th century much less than was assumed by the compact, the document failed altogether to acknowledge water rights for Ute, Navajo and 28 other Native America tribes in the basin who were to get water as would be necessary to sustain agricultural ways of life. Just how much had not been determined, although it’s now estimated at 20% of the river’s total flow. Some claims still have not been adjudicated.
Mueller called it a “flawed document” produced by a “flawed process” that had “faulty hydrological assumptions” and did not include “major groups of people who reside in and own water rights in this basin.”
A March 31, 1922 photo of the Colorado River Commission. Standing left to right: Delph E. Carpenter (Colorado), James G. Scrugham (Nevada), R. E. Caldwell (Utah), Frank C. Emerson (Wyoming), Stephen B. Davis, Jr. (New Mexico), W. F. McClure (California) and W. S. Norviel (Arizona). Seated: Gov. Emmet D. Boyle (Nevada), Gov. Oliver H. Shoup (Colorado), Herbert Hoover (federal representative and chair) and Gov. Merritt C. Mecham (New Mexico). The governors were not members of the Commission. Photo: Colorado State University Library
For its time, though, the compact was a grand bargain. Colorado’s Delph Carpenter was a key negotiator. He had realized that if diversions from the Colorado River were determined by the doctrine of prior appropriation, the bedrock for water law in Colorado and most other states, the upper-basin states would lose out because they would develop the Colorado River more slowly. Instead, the compact created an equitable apportionment, essentially a 50-50 split of the water between upper and lower-basin states.
It was the foundation for what is now called the Law of the River, by which is meant the many laws, court decrees and agreements concerning both surpluses and droughts.
Dams were built, diversion structures constructed – including, because of a law of Congress in 1968, the Central Arizona Project (which also resulted in dams on the Animas and Dolores rivers in Western Colorado). That 1968 legislation, the Colorado River Basin Project Act, recognized that the river would be short by as much as two million acre-feet, said Mueller.
And then the agreements of the 21st century have tried to acknowledge lesser flows. But they have also deferred the really hard questions. The harder questions, as Mueller suggested, may yet provoke the states to get out their legal swords.
Central to the dispute is how much water should the upper basin states be releasing from Lake Powell? This is the key clause in the compact: “The States of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years …”
Lee Ferry, located in Arizona but a few miles downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, is the formal dividing point between the upper-basin states and lower-basin states in the Colorado River. It is also the put-in location for boaters rafting or kayaking the Grand Canyon. Photo/Allen Best
Flows from Colorado and other upper-division states have been about 86 million acre-feet over the last 10 years.
Lower-basin states say no, that’s not enough. They argue that the upper basin states need to accept cuts, too.
For now, there is no dispute that the upper basin states are meeting that obligation. But what if a string of years like those of 2002-2004 return? And what if the case ends up before the Supreme Court and that court ultimately rules against the upper basin?
This sets up the potential – Mueller characterized it as a certainty – for conflict, a court case that will have to go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I don’t believe we’re violating the compact today, and I don’t think we’re going to be violating the compact necessarily if the river drops, if our delivery below Glen Canyon drops,” he said. “What I can tell you is we’re going to have litigation.”
In May 2022, a couple paused at once had been the bottom of the boat put-in ramp in Antelope Canyon to lok down on the receding waters of Lake Powell. The reservoir at that point was 22% full. Photo/Allen Best
Colorado, Mueller asserted, must put together rules for how it will handle shortages if the state must curtail it diversions in order to allow water to flow downstream. He called it a painful process but warned that the “future is not far away.”
The River District position is that the burden within Colorado cannot fall entirely on the Western Slope and its ag users. Programs designed to reduce compensation have been focused solely on the Western Slope and agriculture, says Lindsay DeFrates, deputy director of public relations.
“If we are looking to reduce water long term, we can’t put it on the backs of West Slope users,” she says. “It has to be a shared burden.”
Journalists insist that it’s Western Slope. People in the water community invariably say “West Slope.”
Next: Colorado River Basin states have scaled back their demands on the river. But But agreement about solutions proportionate to the challenge remain distant as deadline near.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
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.
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (John Fleck):
October 18, 2024
A federal judge this week criticized the federal government for failing to consider the risk of a Colorado River Compact call in its environmental review of the planning for Denver Water’s expansion of Gross Reservoir in Boulder County.
Wrangling over the risk of a compact call – which the judge said could force water use reductions in the Upper Basin if the Upper Basin states fail to deliver enough water past Lee Ferry to the Lower Basin – has been a key point in current negotiations between the two basins over future Colorado River operations.
The ruling, in a lawsuit against Gross Reservoir expansion by Save the Colorado River and others, allows construction to proceed, but criticizes the project’s planners for not considering the fact that the risk of a compact call means there might not be enough water to fill it. (Here’s Elise Schmelzer’s article about the decision.)
In the decision, federal judge Christine Arguello noted that the Army Corps of Engineers environmental review of the project “rests on the assumption that there will be no compact call…. However, considering the American West’s last few decades of severe aridity, such an assumption warrants considerable scrutiny.”
Here’s the full language from Arguello’s ruling. I’ve bolded the key bits:
Colorado River headwaters-marker. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
October 20, 2024
Andy Mueller, the general manager of the Colorado River District, delivered a strong message at the organization’s annual seminar in September. It was time, he declared, for Colorado to plan for potential curtailment of Colorado River diversions as necessary to comply with the compact governing the river among the seven basin states.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
Compact curtailment, sometimes described as a compact call, means that those with water rights junior to or filed since the Colorado River Compact of 1922 would be vulnerable to having no water. That could potentially include most of Colorado’s Front Range cities, which get roughly half of their water from the Colorado River and its tributaries. It could also include some towns and cities on the Western Slope and even some farmers and ranchers on the Western Slope as well as some ag users reliant upon transmountain diversions.
The precise trigger for such a call, reduced flows to lower-basin states, is open to argument. An ambiguous clause in the compact could be hotly debated, and likely will be, if river flows continue to decline. Mueller spoke of legal saber rattling by lower basin states.
This is not entirely a new subject. Colorado has been talking about the potential for compact curtailment for about 20 years but has not pursued it. The state government disputes the immediate need. What almost everyone can agree upon, however, is that it will be foolish to assume that the near-average or better river flows of the last two years will prevail.
Reservoir levels in the basin have been sagging for most of the 21st century. Most dramatic was the runoff in 2002 when the river yielded only 3.8 million acre-feet. Delegates of the seven basin states who had gathered near Santa Fe in 1922 to apportion the river assumed average flows of at least five times that much.
“New plot using the nClimGrid data, which is a better source than PRISM for long-term trends. Of course, the combined reservoir contents increase from last year, but the increase is less than 2011 and looks puny compared to the ‘hole’ in the reservoirs. The blue Loess lines subtly change. Last year those lines ended pointing downwards. This year they end flat-ish. 2023 temps were still above the 20th century average, although close. Another interesting aspect is that the 20C Mean and 21C Mean lines on the individual plots really don’t change much. Finally, the 2023 Natural Flows are almost exactly equal to 2019. (17.678 maf vs 17.672 maf). For all the hoopla about how this was record-setting year, the fact is that this year was significantly less than 2011 (20.159 maf) and no different than 2019” — Brad Udall
Flows in 2003 and 2004 were only marginally better. Slowly, there was acceptance of extended drought unknown in the 20th century. In 2017, a study by Brad Udall and Jonathon Overpeck identified warming temperatures as just as important as drought in explaining the declines. They called it aridification.
By May 2022, the situation looked grim at Powell, the reservoir that the upper basin uses to fulfill its commitment to lower basin states as specified by the compact to the lower-basin states. Water levels had receded so much that tracks laid into the canyon wall to construct Glen Canyon Dam emerged. They had been underwater since the reservoir began filling in the mid-1960s.
It might have worsened. Modeling evaluated the risk of Powell having too little water to generate electricity by the next year. Some talked about potential for the reservoir to have too little water to pass any downstream, what is called dead storage.
Snow fell in prodigious quantities in the winter of 2022-2023 in Steamboat Springs and some other locations along the headwaters of the Colorado River and its tributaries, temporarily averting crisis on the Colorado River. Photo/Allen Best
Instead of further decline, snow fell in prodigious quantities during the next winter of 2022-2023 across parts of Colorado, which is responsible for 55% of total flows in the river, as well as in Wyoming and other upstream locations. Stock fences were entirely buried in some places of the Yampa Valley.
The runoff that resulted was the third-best in the Colorado River in the 21st century. Five more consecutive runoffs of the same magnitude would fill Powell and all the other reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin, according to Utah State University’s Jack Schmidt.
What if, instead of epochal snows in the Rockies, pitiful runoffs parallel to those of 2002 to 2004 return?
“Let’s hope for the best and plan for the worst,” Mueller said at the seminar in Grand Junction held by the River District. The Glenwood Springs-based district — its official title is the Colorado River Water Conservation District — was created in 1938 to represent the interests of 15 of the 20 counties on the Colorado River drainage.
Several people who heard Mueller’s remarks applauded them. Colorado, they say, should not wait until the very last minute before devising a strategy. Curtailing water use will be a very difficult and lengthy process. Better to get on it now.
But there is also another level to the discussion, one of moral and ethical questions, according to one long-time Colorado Rive observer
“How do we, as a community of two nations, seven states and Mexico, and 30 sovereigns (Native American tribes) — how do we come together to recognize that this is a shared resource, and climate change is changing the resource. We need to understand how to collaboratively share the resource in a way that will be necessary to live in a climate-altered world,” says John Fleck, an Albuquerque-based author of several books, including “Water is for Fighting Over: And Other Myths about Water in the West.”
Colorado and other upper basin states, he observes, are saying it’s not their problem because they have met their commitments.
”That is morally wrong to me,” he said in an interview. As a practical matter, it’s also “seems really dumb” because in the political and legal system the upper basin states are unlikely to win that argument in a drier 21st century. “That just ain’t gonna work.”
The Colorado River Compact of 1922 apportions waters between the upper and lower basins. Lee Ferry, just a few miles below Glen Canyon, along the Utah-Arizona border, divides the two. Water from the river is also exported outside the basin to agricultureal areas of eastern Colorado and cities of the Front Range as well as southern California, Albuquerque and other places. Map credit: AGU
The 1922 compact apportioned 7.5 million acre-feet for the upper basin states – Colorado as well as New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — and 7.5 million acre-feet for the three lower basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada. The compact assumed deliveries to Mexico would be required by a future compact, and they also realized significant evaporation. Altogether, they assumed more than 20 million acre-feet flows in the river. That has rarely happened.
The debated clause is called the “non-depletion obligation.” It says the upper basin states must allow river flows of 75 million acre-feet over a rolling 10-year average at Lee Ferry. Lee Ferry is in Arizona, just below Glen Canyon and a few miles above the Grand Canyon.
Colorado’s position is two-fold. It argues that the lower basin overuse remains the primary problem coupled with climate change. And Colorado and its siblings in the upper basin didn’t create either.
“We take the position that we are not the cause of trending lower flows over the past 20 years,” said Jason Ullman, the state water engineer in a statement from the Colorado Department of Water Resources in response to a query by Big Pivots. “Climate change and aridification impact snowpack and soil moisture, which in turn reduce flows into the Colorado.”
Colorado and other upper-basin states altogether use between 3.5 and 4.5 million acre-feet annually compared to roughly 10 million acre-feet by the lower-basin states.
Denver Water, which provides water for the city and many of its suburbs, warns that compact curtailment planning might distract Colorado from negotiations with other states. Photo/Allen Best
“This is why Colorado believes that the responsibility to bring the river back into balance primarily lies with the lower basin and the need to bring uses within their compact apportionment with a plan to use less during times of shortage,” Ullman said.
Mueller, in his remarks at Grand Junction, didn’t disagree with that stance. But he insisted that Colorado needs to prepare a backup plan if the state must releases more water downstream, forcing the curtailment of its diversions.
“I think the best thing our state can do is, while continuing to make a very good case that we’re not the cause of this and that climate change is causing it, we need to be prepared in the event it occurs,” said Mueller
River District directors had recently asked Ullmann to “please get moving with compact curtailment rules,” he said.
The state needs to come up with the “right funds, have the right personnel, and get moving with our compact curtailment rules,” said Mueller.
This, he added, should not be seen as a sign of weakness by Colorado in the interstate negotiations, but rather as a sign “that we’re smart, that we’re helping our water users and our communities plan for the future.”
Colorado and other basin states are in the midst of negotiating new guidelines that govern operation of the two big reservoirs, Mead and Powell. The first set of guidelines were adopted by the states and the Bureau of Reclamation in 2007.
The regulations were abetted by the drought contingency plan, which brought cuts in water use to the lower basin and new water management tools to the upper basin.
The 2007 guidelines expire at the end of 2026. The states must come up with a new agreement that recognizes the shifted realities by the end of 2025.
Lake Powell was at 22% of capacity in May 2022 when this photograph was taken, revealing a ledge near the dam that had been used to construct Glen Canyon Dam. Photo/Allen Best
Lake Powell was at 22% of capacity in May 2022 a few weeks prior, a track used in that construction emerged from the receding waters, the first time it had been above water since Powell filled in the 1960s. Photo/Allen Best
State government does not absolutely reject the need for compact compliance rules, but the statement attributed to Ullman cites these negotiations.
“It would be imprudent to undertake any rule-making for compact compliance without knowing the terms of any seven-state consensus regarding operating guidelines that includes releases from Powell. Therefore, it is the position of the state engineer that undertaking compact compliance rule-making now would be premature.”
That sounds like no. But there’s more.
The state engineer has the exclusive authority to make and enforce regulations that enable Colorado to meet its compact commitments.
“Colorado recognizes that the first critical step in being able to administer to the compact, if necessary, is the ability to accurately measure diversions,” said Ullman in the written statement. “The state engineer is pursuing measurement rules for diversions to establish accuracy standards and better define where measurement is necessary. The goals of this effort include increasing the consistency of water right measurement so that Colorado sends only what is required to maintain compact compliance and not more.”
How much Colorado might have to curtail would depend upon findings of the Upper Colorado River Commission, which is governed by a 1948 compact.
The state engineer has adopted rules for one of the four water divisions on the Western Slope, and work is progressing in a second district. The engineer plans to also adopt measurement rules in the other two districts.
What do the big Front Range diverters with post-compact water rights have to say?
Denver Water falls in line behind the state position. It has major diversions from the Colorado River tributaries in Grand and Summit counties.
“We recognize interest from some in rules for compact administration, but it’s very important that this effort be undertaken at the right time, with thoughtful collaboration among water interests statewide. We know that the State Engineer laid out a potential process a few years ago, with the first step being a focus on measurement rules. If and when it becomes necessary to take further action, we trust the State Engineer to so do. In the meantime, we think it’s critical that states, including Colorado, should keep their focus on the post-2026 guidelines being negotiated now, and not be distracted during a process of the greatest importance to Colorado’s future.”
Northern Water, operator of the Colorado Big-Thompson diversions from the Colorado River headwaters in Grand County, says it will defer to the state. “Northern Water looks to the State of Colorado as the leader on matters related to interstate water agreements,” said public information officer Jeff Stahla.
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
