"I never thought it would come to this," Mayor Emily Francis admitted. https://t.co/jvIfCzNkfm
— Coloradoan (@coloradoan) October 22, 2026
Category: Poudre River Watershed
#Colorado’s Forgotten Diversion Dilemma: The Colorado-Big Thompson project was at the center of a fierce debate that shaped Americans’ relationships to their national parks — Michael Weeks (HistoryColorado.org) #SouthPlatteRiver #ColoradoRiver #COriver
Click the link to read the article on the History Colorado website (Michael Weeks):
February 14, 2023
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Magazine from History Colorado.
Few visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park will ever visit the East Portal. And why would they? Located just a few miles south of Estes Park, the East Portal contains no views of snow-capped peaks or broad valleys teeming with wildlife. Instead, it is framed by low-lying hills and power lines that draw energy from water flowing out of an odd-looking tunnel and pooling into a nondescript reservoir. It is, compared to some of the area’s more breathtaking vistas, an unremarkable landscape with seemingly little connection with the one drawing hordes of sightseers and adventurers into nearby Rocky Mountain National Park.
Yet appearances can be deceiving. Even while unsuspecting visitors explore one of the nation’s iconic landscapes, the tunnel is redirecting the natural flow of the Colorado River underneath the Rocky Mountains and out the East Portal, en route to users across Northern Colorado. Completed in 1944, the Alva B. Adams Tunnel forms the critical undermountain link in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT), a piece of hidden infrastructure that, as you read this, is supplying water to farms and municipalities across the Northern Front Range.
Despite the C-BT’s importance, few Coloradans consider it when they turn on their showers or dig into a plate of seasonal Front Range veggies. But from 1933, when it was proposed, until 1937, when Congress approved the project, the C-BT inspired passionate support and vitriolic opposition from a range of interest groups that Coloradans today would recognize immediately.
The supporters’ side included farmers, industrialists, local boosters and scientists. In the midst of a decade characterized by drought and depression, they argued that C-BT water would rescue the region’s agricultural economy from collapse by the simple act of moving water from a region that possessed it in comparative abundance to one desperately needing it.
On the other side were conservationists and nature-lovers who complained bitterly that the Adams tunnel would desecrate Rocky Mountain National Park. They wrote protest letters, pamphlets, and editorials, and appeared before hearings in Congress and the Department of the Interior. Some complained that the tunnel was a commercial intrusion into a national park. They excoriated the business interests and town developers for wanting to scar a landscape set aside for preservation and the enjoyment of the American people. They worried that it would set a precedent for the exploitation of other national parks. Other conservation-minded opponents argued that the tunnel violated the need to preserve wild places for the sake of wilderness. To remove water from the woods and pump it onto the plains, they said, would be to fundamentally alter fragile western ecosystems. The war of words reached such a fever pitch that historian Donald Swain says that the C-BT offered one of the most consequential examples of water project opposition in American history.
It’s not news that water is central to life, and that’s especially true here in arid Colorado. Access to water and the sanctity of public lands—issues that defined the fight over the Colorado-Big Thompson Project—resonate perhaps more than ever as climate change challenges our ability to engineer around aridity. Vitriolic discussions over water use for agriculture, for growing cities, for energy development, and for recreation are happening with just as much ferocity today as they did nine decades ago. Colorado’s central urban strip continues attracting residents at a breakneck pace, in part due to the outdoor lifestyle afforded by such close access to public lands. Cities on the Front Range are still buying C-BT water rights from farmers…even as the oil and gas industry injects some of that same water thousands of feet into the earth to be lost to underground hydraulic fracturing.
No matter what the use, hardly anybody gets to use water in Colorado without a fight. It’s as true today as it was in 1933, when the Colorado-Big Thompson project threatened to forever change one of the nation’s most prominent protected landscapes: the snowy peaks and verdant valleys of Rocky Mountain National Park.
Origins of Conflict
Ever since gold’s discovery near Denver in 1858, Front Range residents have far outnumbered those living in the western half of the state. But eighty percent of the state’s precipitation falls west of the Continental Divide, creating a problem for the many urban Front Range residents who live in a much drier climate. So, as Colorado’s population grew throughout the late 1800s, it did not take long for the water-starved majority to devise methods for circumventing geographic barriers.
Moving water underneath or around a mountain from one watershed to another—a process called transmountain diversion—was nothing new when the C-BT controversy emerged during the 1930s. The largest of these early projects, called the Grand River Ditch, transported water in an unlined ditch and wooden flumes to Fort Collins through an area that would eventually become part of Rocky Mountain National Park. In 1904 the Bureau of Reclamation, with sights set on a much larger diversion, suggested damming Grand Lake and then constructing a twelve-mile tunnel that could fill the ditches of Northern Colorado farmers. However, high construction costs and complex engineering tabled the project.
As water users created precedents for gravity-defying projects, conservationists developed a reputation for opposing them. The most notable example involved San Francisco’s 1907 proposal to dam Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley for water and power generation. Though Congress eventually approved San Francisco’s application, the project galvanized opposition from conservation organizations such as the Sierra Club. Protesters argued that national parks existed for the beauty and enjoyment of the nation and its people and that commercial development violated those core principles.
Politicians and federal officials took note of this growing tension between water developers and conservationists, spurring them to craft laws and principles for human activities in national parks. When Congress established Rocky Mountain National Park in 1915, Franklin Lane, Secretary of the Interior, sought to ensure the legality of water projects within park boundaries. As a former attorney for the city of San Francisco, Lane played a critical role in the bruising battle over damming Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley. Head of the vast Interior Department, which oversaw both national parks and the water project builders at the Bureau of Reclamation, Lane worried that national park designation might present too many obstacles to water development. So, the wily attorney inserted the following language into Rocky Mountain’s founding document: “The United States Reclamation Service may enter upon and utilize for flowage or other purposes any area within said park which may be necessary for the development and maintenance of a Government reclamation project.”
That language offered a legal justification for diverting water through the park. However, the following year Congress muddied the waters a bit. In 1916, legislators approved the Organic Act, a lengthy bureaucratic document which, among other things, established the National Park Service. According to the Act, that new agency’s mission was to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” For conservationists and park service employees, the Organic Act was a manifesto for resistance to all kinds of commercial development. Certainly, they reasoned, dynamiting a tunnel through the length of Rocky Mountain National Park would impair the public’s enjoyment and break the illusion of standing in an untouched wilderness.
Circumstances brought the potential of a massive hole through the national park into public consciousness during the 1930s as Colorado suffered through drought and economic collapse. As crops dried up, an array of Northern Colorado groups came together to request that the federal government investigate the feasibility of blasting a tunnel that could divert Colorado River water through Rocky Mountain. These included five counties, all but one member of Colorado’s Congressional delegation, editors of each of the region’s major newspapers, a majority of local elected officials, and Front Range farmers. In 1934 the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to conduct engineering studies in advance of a project proposal. Reclamation Commissioner John C. Page followed up with a letter to Acting Park Service Director Arthur Demaray requesting entry. Demaray refused.
In a formal letter of denial addressed to Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, Demaray penned the opening arguments in the fight over the tunnel. He complained that engineering studies taken in the park would require test drillings, resulting in “scars” and “unsightly debris.” According to Demaray, such surveys and any tunnel which might be built required constructing access roads and trails to “places where roads and trails should not rightfully go.” Demaray’s letter rhetorically transformed a local irrigation project into a national issue, pointing out that conservationists had fought to keep national parks “inviolate from such projects,” and that the proposed survey could be “an opening wedge in a hard-won wall of protection which surrounds our park system.” In response, Ickes, a noted supporter of national parks, nonetheless authorized the engineering surveys, believing that he was obligated by the fact that water diversion projects were embedded in Rocky Mountain’s founding legislation.
Conservationists Make Their Case
Following Ickes’ approval, conservation forces quickly mobilized in opposition. Organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society mailed flyers to their supporters and placed ads in newspapers throughout the country. Individuals then sent dozens of protest letters to federal agencies. While some letters appear entirely original, others were variations on templates developed by conservation organizations. Many of these letters are housed at the Broomfield branch of the National Archives. In addition, nationally recognized figures in the National Park Service, directors of conservation organizations, and scientists wrote op-ed pieces in magazines and newspapers.
Their strident opposition came during a period when national parks were drawing patrons in record numbers as many sought escape from the crushing economic collapse of the Great Depression. As the federal government considered the Colorado-Big Thompson Project between 1934 and 1937, annual visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park nearly doubled to 650,000. This was motivated in part by the recently built Trail Ridge Road, which offered stunning views to motorists as they traveled across the Continental Divide between Estes Park and Grand Lake.
The arguments made by conservationists in opposition to the tunnel probably resonate with today’s Coloradans who enjoy recreating in the state’s public lands. Letter writers universally expressed concerns that a massive engineering project inside park borders would mar the scenery and set the stage for similar projects in national parks elsewhere. Most protesters extolled the uniqueness of the landscape inside Rocky Mountain National Park, arguing that it was the highest expression of nature and the people of the nation had afforded it the most stringent degree of protection available at the time. Consequently, only development that enhanced the scenery and natural beauty of the parks should be allowed. Many made this distinction clear when they offered support for farmers’ need for water, as long as the conduits that delivered the resource were outside of the park boundaries. Other writers expressed concerns about the declining number of wild places in America, arguing that national parks offered the best opportunity for humans to have unimpaired encounters with wild nature. Finally, many protesters viewed Rocky Mountain through patriotic lenses. They claimed that national parks existed for every American and that a tunnel would prioritize local interests over national ones.
Among the varied written protests, none received more attention than a 1936 pamphlet titled, “A Protest of Conservation Organizations Against the Exploitation of Rocky Mountain National Park.” Its signatories included the most notable conservation organizations of the 1930s, including the Wilderness Society, the American Forestry Association, The Izaak Walton League, the Sierra Club, and the National Parks Association. They argued that the tunnel “violates the most sacred principle of National Parks, namely, freedom from commercial or economic exploitation,” and that if approved by Congress it would “establish a precedent for the commercial invasion of other parks.”
The most likely author of that pamphlet, Robert Sterling Yard, took the protest a step further, by arguing that the proposed tunnel was an assault on one among a dwindling number of wild places in America. By the 1930s, Yard was in a strong position to make this claim. As the head of the National Park Service’s Educational Division from 1916-1919, he promoted national parks as America’s “scenic masterpieces” which, like great art, had the potential to build a more enlightened public. For Yard, irrigation projects in national parks were akin to defacing a Rembrandt painting. So, during the 1920s, he directed much of his energy toward fighting water projects in parks such as Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand Teton.
During the same period, Yard became increasingly concerned that parks such as Rocky Mountain were being overrun with tourists who seemed more interested in driving through than in enlightening their minds. Though not the same as boring a hole through the mountain or clearcutting a forest, Yard regarded the assault of asphalt and autos as commercial invasions just the same, since they encouraged visitors to rapidly consume landscapes while disregarding their geologic or biologic value. For Yard, blasting holes through the park and the proliferation of roads were two sides of the same coin. Both compromised the core mission of national parks.
By 1930, Yard concluded that the best way to preserve the scientific and scenic qualities of the nation’s iconic parks was to promote vast roadless tracts called wilderness areas. So, in 1935, even as the first tunnel engineering surveys were getting underway, he helped to form the Wilderness Society. According to the Society’s first publication, wilderness areas are “virgin tracts in which human activities have never modified the normal processes of nature. They thus preserve the native vegetation and physiographic conditions which have existed for an inestimable period. They present the culmination of an unbroken series of natural events stretching infinitely into the past, and a richness and beauty beyond description or compare.” In short, Yard and his allies argued that the proposed tunnel would do more than deface park scenery; it would violate the fundamental laws of nature. To restore nature’s balance, Rocky Mountain needed less construction and more wilderness.
The most common protest expressed by Robert Sterling Yard and his conservationist allies was that the C-BT prioritized local needs over national ones. Yard’s Wilderness Society colleague Bernard Frank expressed that sentiment when he wrote that the national parks were areas “dedicated to the service and enjoyment of the people of the United States as a whole and not to any narrow interests of any particular locality.” Frank later emphasized that it would be the “primeval qualities” of the park which would be compromised should local “narrow interests” prevail. Letter writers Laurel and Lincoln Ellison of Montana cited national interests as well, claiming that the country’s need for outdoor recreation in “unspoiled nature…should take precedence over such local demands for irrigation and water power.” In an editorial in the New York Times, former National Park Service Director Horace Albright chimed in with similar reasoning. He cited the five million tourists who had visited Rocky Mountain National Park since 1915, the 550,000 travelers who entered the park in 1936, and the seven-and-half million dollars spent by park visitors, arguing that the C-BT would destroy “the natural charm of the landscape.” He concluded that “private interests should give way to the general good.”
The arguments against the tunnel put forth by conservationists resonate in Colorado today. Presently, there are forty-two wilderness areas in the state, most of which have been designated since Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964. Each wilderness is intended to minimize human impacts by restricting all forms of mechanized travel. In fact, four of these wilderness areas border Rocky Mountain National Park. Moreover, much of the park has been managed as wilderness since 1974. At the same time, the visitor’s desire to motor through has only increased. It took twenty years for total park visitation to hit the five million mark. Today, nearly that many people tour the park by car annually. These numbers are especially evident when spontaneous traffic jams occur at sites where elk or moose grace the roadside. Whether those scenes support or violate the conservation mission of Rocky Mountain remains the subject of sometimes heated debate.
Making the Case for the C-BT
Let’s return now for a moment to the East Portal, where Colorado River water flows out of the Alva B. Adams Tunnel and exits Rocky Mountain National Park. From there the water plunges 2,900 feet through twelve reservoirs and over one hundred miles of canals before it is available to farmers, municipalities, and businesses in Northern Colorado. In 1937, the intended beneficiaries of that water needed to address some of the arguments made by conservationists, even as they directed the debate away from the sanctity of national parks and toward economic benefit. Would the C-BT bring enough benefit to justify its price tag, estimated to be $44 million in 1937? To gain Congressional support and to counter conservationists’ arguments that the Adams Tunnel would desecrate a national treasure, they had to make the case that the C-BT would bring substantial economic benefit to the nation.
Among the many people clamoring for the C-BT, Ralph Parshall stands out. While Parshall was not the loudest voice in the debate, his arguments and evidence were perhaps the most convincing. A resident of Northern Colorado himself, Parshall graduated at the top of his engineering class at Colorado Agricultural College (CAC—the forerunner of Colorado State University) in 1904. After completing a master’s degree at the University of Chicago, he was hired by his alma mater in 1907. As a professor at CAC, Parshall engineered reservoirs, dams, and irrigation canals in Northern Colorado. Then, in 1913, Parshall took a position as an irrigation engineer with the USDA’s Bureau of Agricultural Engineering where he worked for the next forty years. While at the USDA, Parshall’s office and lab remained on the campus of CAC where he collaborated with students and faculty throughout his career.
By the time the C-BT came into public consciousness in the 1930s, Parshall was a well-known figure due to his namesake invention, the Parshall Flume. That innovation made water distribution to agricultural users more equitable wherever it was installed as it increased measurement accuracy in canals and ditches by up to thirty percent. This helped farmers to know how much water they were receiving and prevented water users from taking more than their allotted shares. By 1935, Parshall had also distinguished himself as a pioneer of snow surveys and for developing devices to remove debris from irrigation canals. Combined, Parshall’s work enabled farmers to plan their operations effectively since they could predict the quantity of water available to them. He also earned the respect of individual farmers since he frequently supervised the design and installation of his inventions on their land. Consequently, when the USDA needed a knowledgeable and well-respected figure to prepare an economic analysis of the C-BT, Parshall was a clear choice. He possessed an unshakeable reputation as a skilled irrigation engineer with intimate knowledge of the Northern Colorado landscape.
Parshall’s Agricultural Economic Summary Relating to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project came out in January 1937. It contained a dizzying array of economic data collected by Parshall and his team of researchers. They compiled statistics on value, acreage, water rights, and loan status for every irrigated farm in the region. They also collected precipitation records, breaking down the quantity of water available for every irrigation district and mutual irrigation company in the C-BT’s service area. Parshall went to pains to show how C-BT water would be an affordable and effective solution to the region’s water woes.
Even as the data spoke loudly, Parshall’s applied understanding of Northern Colorado’s irrigation-dependent farmers amplified statistics. Aware that a massive Reclamation project might be viewed as a government handout in the midst of the Depression, Parshall characterized the region’s farmers as “hardy, self-reliant American farmers and townspeople” who needed additional water to “stabilize the present economic achievement and make secure the possibilities of future progress.” In a nod to popular Depression-era programs, Parshall stated that the guarantee of sufficient water would be like “social security” for existing farmers, enabling them to gain the same security in their later years that working class Americans received. Seeking to demonstrate that the C-BT was a difference maker, Parshall argued that its greatest value would be that its flows would be available late in the growing season, when some water users ran out of water and when an additional application of water to high value crops might make the difference between breaking even and crushing debt. In stark financial terms, Parshall stated that irrigation provided $64 million worth of property value to Northern Colorado, a region valued at $200 million. This additional property value resulted in local, state, and federal taxes that could be invested in schools, infrastructure and economic development.
In Parshall’s analysis of the seventy years of irrigation in the region prior to 1935, he concluded that land values were high because of “greater assurance that crops will be produced and the possibility of growing crops of higher value than could be grown without irrigation.” According to Parshall, the economic gains made possible by irrigation were far higher than the C-BT’s estimated $44 million price tag. But Parshall extended his analysis far beyond the farm, arguing that prosperous Northern Colorado farmers supported the growth of local businesses, increased railroad traffic, enabled more construction, strengthened financial institutions, and made possible the sort of increased highway traffic that carries with it travelers and tourists eager to spend their money in local businesses.
Knowing that C-BT opponents might argue that the nation was suffering from too much agricultural production, Parshall turned that caution on its head by claiming that more water would shift agricultural production away from crops grown in surplus and toward crops not grown in sufficient quantities. For example, he argued that wheat, whose national supply had far outstripped its demand, was a crop of choice in Northern Colorado only when water was in short supply. By contrast, sugar beets, the most lucrative crop in the region, demanded more water than wheat. Yet, the majority of the nation’s sugar was imported. Consequently, according to Parshall, increasing Northern Colorado’s water supplies would push farmers to grow more beets and less wheat, thus aligning the nation’s agriculture more closely with consumer demand and reducing dependency on foreign sugar. Parshall concluded that the C-BT would support self-reliant, productive Americans who created real economic value that extended to the nation. In short, the C-BT was an overwhelmingly good investment.
No entity agreed more with Parshall’s assessment than Great Western Sugar, the nation’s largest supplier of domestic sugar and Northern Colorado’s most important economic driver. Great Western’s factories depended on the same water as the farmers who sold the company its beets. Moreover, as a late arrival to the region, its junior rights weren’t secure. In fact, during the 1934 refining campaign, the company’s ditches ran dry, and it had to beg local irrigation companies for water to complete its operations. So, the company always craved more water, either by cultivating relationships with its growers or through projects such as the C-BT. To energize local C-BT support, Great Western made liberal use of its grower magazine, Through the Leaves. In it the company published reader-friendly versions of scientific articles showing how their beet harvests would increase with just a little more water. In 1936, the company said it more explicitly: C-BT water would result in an average annual income increase of $400 per grower.
To make the national case for the C-BT, Great Western employed lobbyists in Congress. This was nothing new since the company had always pressured legislators to enact high tariffs against foreign sugar. In 1937, those lobbyists shifted from taxes to water. Great Western also took to the airwaves to make its case. In cooperation with other western beet sugar companies, it paid the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) to do a series of short radio programs titled, “Sugar Beets Tell the World.” The broadcasts emphasized how sugar beets grown in the irrigated regions of the West contributed to the American economy, providing figures on grower income, railroad shipments, resources used in refining beets into sugar, and the varied ways beet sugar was consumed. To hear Great Western tell it, beet sugar was essential to the American economy, and the C-BT was essential to the beet sugar industry.
Ultimately, the arguments made by Ralph Parshall, Great Western Sugar, and supporters of the C-BT proved successful. After spirited debate in June and July of 1937, Congress passed bills approving the project and authorizing an initial $900,000 in funding. The following year, prospective water users signed a contract to pay a maximum of $25 million over the course of forty years for the project, with the remainder of the costs being paid for by hydroelectric power generation. That $25 million cap turned out to be quite a bargain. When Reclamation finally completed the C-BT in 1957, total costs had soared to over $160 million.
Conservation, Cattle, and Water
The completion of the C-BT in 1957 heralded shifts in Northern Colorado’s agricultural landscape that would make the region look familiar to the present-day observer. Former Colorado Agricultural Commissioner Don Ament recently reflected on some of these changes while talking about his family’s long history in the region. During the 1930s, Ament’s family emphasized sugar beets on their irrigated lands near Sterling. As Ament transitioned into farming for himself in the 1950s and 1960s, he shifted from sugar beets to corn. As he explains, the C-BT played a critical role in the move to corn, a crop that required more water. More importantly, Ament’s well-watered corn found a ready market in the growing commercial cattle feeding industry. By 1970, Northern Colorado possessed the world’s largest collection of commercially fed cattle, and the region’s farmers cultivated most of their feed. Today, this is still true. As Ament points out: “two-thirds of Colorado’s agricultural output is livestock, primarily cattle.” Most of those animals are fed with corn from farms irrigated by C-BT water.
If the C-BT’s story in the 1960s and 1970s revolved around agricultural possibilities through increased water, the project’s story today is about growing municipal demands for water. During the 1950s, Northern Colorado possessed a population of fewer than 200,000 mostly rural residents. The 2020 census shows that the region’s population today is well over one million, with the majority concentrated in cities within thirty miles of the Front Range. Each of the cities receives an allocation of C-BT water for residential use. In support of this shift, the Bureau of Reclamation built new storage reservoirs and increased the capacity of existing ones, while extending water supply lines to previously underserved areas. This has led to increased tensions between municipalities and farmers over selling water rights. During the last thirty years, Northern Water—the agency that administers the C-BT—agreed to supply water to cities outside of original C-BT boundaries such as Broomfield, Superior, Lafayette, and Louisville. Other cities, such as Thornton, have been more aggressive. In 1986, to accommodate aggressive growth, it paid $55 million to buy up more than 20,000 acres of farmland and the associated water rights in Weld and Larimer Counties. All of this adds greater pressure to conserve remaining supplies.
Courtesy of Greeley Museum.
For conservationists, the unsuccessful fight to block the construction of the Alva B. Adams Tunnel through Rocky Mountain National Park turned out to be just the first in many battles over water projects within the Colorado River watershed. During the early 1950s, Congressional legislators proposed a series of large-scale projects called the Colorado River Storage Plan, to be constructed for irrigation, power, and flood control at various locales along the river. The most controversial piece of the plan involved constructing two dams along the Green River, within the boundaries of Dinosaur National Monument. In opposition, conservationists, led by the Sierra Club, undertook a massive publicity campaign that successfully removed the dams from the bill. However, it came at a cost as conservationists made a deal to withdraw their opposition to another project dam in a little-known area of sandstone cliffs rich in Native American artifacts known as Glen Canyon. In 1963, that dam was completed creating Lake Powell, which dams the Colorado, San Juan, Escalante, and Green Rivers. Presently, drought, climate change, and water demands have reduced Lake Powell to one-quarter of its capacity, prompting some conservationists, scientists, and others to call for tearing down the dam holding it back.
If there is a single thread that ties together the water and conservation issues of the 1930s with those of the present, it is that the process of moving and storing water is value-laden. For 1930s farmers in Northern Colorado C-BT water was money, since accessing sufficient water at a reasonable price during the Depression would support increased crop production. For conservationists, the cost of the water was too dear, since it would defile one of the most iconic landscapes in America, setting a precedent for the commercial exploitation of other national parks. Both sides tried to answer questions about the relative value of our natural and scenic resources. Those questions are as pertinent today as they were back then.
Michael Weeks
Guest Author
Michael Weeks is a lecturer in the Department of History and Political Science at Utah Valley University. He is the author of Cattle Beet Capital: Making Industrial Agriculture in Northern Colorado, which tells the story of how Greeley evolved from a planned agricultural colony to become the world’s epicenter for commercial cattle feeding.
Halligan Reservoir – The Best Option for #FortCollins — John Sanderson #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Below is the memo sent by John Sanderson to the Fort Collins City Council:
NOTE: Post edited to correct the title and last name of Chris Pletcher, General Manager of the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District.
October 12, 2026
Dear City Council and Utilities Leadership,
Thank you for the thoughtful and committed work you do to keep Fort Collins the city we love. Because I know you are committed to community and sustainability, I want to share with you an important perspective on the October 20, 2026 Council agenda item “Resolution/Ordinance-1st Reading – Water Storage Agreements, Re-appropriation of Project Funds, and Withdrawal of Permit Application.”
This ordinance is a major step toward abandoning the Halligan Water Supply Project after 20 years and $50 million of rate-payer investment with a plan to join the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). This is a major decision that is being advanced inconsistent with our City’s values. Specifically, this decision is being advanced with little transparency (the ordinance itself does not even mention “Halligan”) and no public engagement.
My request: Postpone the vote on this ordinance and create a transparent process for citizen input to this decision.
I make this request because, once made, this decision is likely irreversible. If the City does abandon Halligan, there is good reason to believe the outcome would be bad for rate payers, bad for water reliability, bad for community, and bad for the environment.
Here is why:
1) Cost. According to Utilities Finance Director Joe Wimmer, Fort Collins has already spent $50 million on the Halligan Water Supply Project.¹ According to the project website, the total cost is estimated at $308 million to store 8,200 acre-feet of water.² To our south, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District was slated to get less water from NISP (8,100 acre-feet) for more money (at least $400 million).³ In April, Fort Collins-Loveland withdrew from NISP, saying “participation no longer aligns with the District’s responsibility to provide reliable, cost-effective water service.”⁴ The Fort Collins-Loveland District Chief Chris
Fletcher[General Manager of the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District, Chris Pletcher].said, “major spenders like Fort Collins-Loveland are being asked to risk unlimited costs with no promise of delivered water amounts.”⁵ Echoing a similar sentiment, when the City of Evans pulled out of NISP in late 2025, Evans’ City Manager Cody Sims said, “The unfortunate reality is the costs have grown beyond what is sustainable for our community, potentially putting an unacceptable burden on Evans’ water utility ratepayers.”⁶Utilities staff has explained to me that there is not a one-to-one comparison between Fort Collins joining NISP and the Fort Collins-Loveland District abandoning NISP. Nonetheless, there is no denying that NISP is now a $2.7 billion dollar project.⁷ Steadily rising costs have compelled 6 of the original 14 NISP participants to withdraw from the project.⁸ As with all water projects, these costs will continue to rise, calling into question any suggestion that abandoning Halligan for NISP would be more affordable for Fort Collins Utilities customers.
2) Reliability. Halligan allows Fort Collins to maximize the value and reliability of an existing water portfolio that already includes many highly reliable (“senior”) Poudre River rights. In contrast, NISP will depend on much less reliable (“junior”) water rights that would be a greater risk as our climate continues to warm. This leads me to ask: Why should Fort Collins stop investing in infrastructure designed around its own long-held, reliable water rights and instead rely on a regional project built around a less-reliable water supply?
As important, Halligan is shared with only one other user (North Poudre Irrigation Company), whereas NISP is a much larger, more complicated, multi-participant project in which Fort Collins will have a much smaller role in managing, begging more questions: Why would Fort Collins abandon a project that is almost entirely in our sphere of control for one that is largely outside our control? And why would we mix up our highly reliable rights with much less reliable rights that, for example, would have yielded no water this year and future dry years?
NISP’s uncertain reliability was expressed by Fort Collins-Loveland District Chief Fletcher when he noted that the project came with “no promise of delivered water amounts.”
3) Environment. The Halligan website states, “The City of Fort Collins has a strong stewardship ethic that provides the foundation for the management of current and future water use in the Poudre Basin.” By replacing a dam that already exists on the North Fork of the Poudre, the Halligan project will improve streamflow conditions along ~16 miles of river. This opportunity to improve conditions exists because the existing dam that Fort Collins will replace has had serious negative impacts on the North Fork of the Poudre for over a century, including:
a. Current streamflow does not meet the basic needs of fish and wildlife.
b. High flows, needed to maintain river health, currently are sporadic and unnatural.
c. Fish can reproduce only within certain temperature bands. Current Halligan management does not support native fish reproduction.
With the expansion of Halligan, future water management is designed to address these negative impacts and to improve the environment. The Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, developed for the Halligan project over years of work by the City and its partners,⁹ describes how the Halligan Project will use science-based recommendations that will return positive results for the environment, going above and beyond what is required by law.
4) Community and Collaboration. The Halligan website says that the City is “also taking into account what the surrounding communities have said . . . ” City staff have worked diligently for more than 20 years with partners who have an interest in the North Fork of the Poudre and the landscapes that surround it. Withdrawing the Halligan permit now rejects that community and collaboration. Fort Collins can best honor its responsibility to current and future residents by investing in a water strategy that is community-based, financially accountable, and aligned with the city’s own environmental and growth priorities.
Notably, Attachment B of our City’s One Water Action Framework¹⁰ reports that two seasoned water professionals with the City were asked, Which of the City’s past, ongoing, or planned projects do you think would be the best role model projects to showcase the City’s commitment to a One Water approach and mindset? Their answer: Halligan.
5) Save the Poudre’s Guidance is Untrustworthy. Like many in Fort Collins, I am strongly aligned with Save the Poudre’s sentiment that we should do what we can to maintain a healthy Poudre River. But their motives and their guidance are suspect as they have urged Fort Collins to abandon Halligan and join NISP.
Regarding Halligan, their comments about Halligan’s impacts are misleading, and they completely ignore the potential for Halligan to improve river conditions.
Regarding NISP, Save the Poudre says, “NISP and its Glade Reservoir would be enormously expensive, it isn’t needed, and it would cause great harm,”¹¹ a position they have maintained for 20 years. It turns out, however, that a $100M settlement fund from NISP¹² has compelled Save the Poudre to not only stop opposing NISP but to urge Fort Collins to join NISP.¹³ One thing is certain about this settlement: if NISP is not built, Save the Poudre does not get $100M. Several things are uncertain about this settlement; most notably, unlike with Halligan where positive environmental outcomes are built into the plan, the NISP Settlement Agreement contains no guarantee of positive outcomes, only a “representative list” of projects that are highly speculative and in the best of circumstances will be difficult to complete.
The City, rate payers, the environment, and the river have waited more than 20 years for the Halligan Project. We have spent $50M on the project to date with good results: the project is in its last stages of planning and permitting, with construction expected to begin soon. It would be a waste of money, and a disservice to rate payers and the environment to let this slip through our hands.
My preference is that you simply vote “no” on this ordinance. If you do not want to vote “no,” I urge you to postpone the vote on this ordinance and create a process for citizen input to this decision.
¹ Fort Collins council signals support for steep 2027-28 utility rate increases. The NoCo Herald. October 2, 2026.
² Halligan Water Supply Project. City of Fort Collins.
³ $2B northern Colorado dam complex likely losing its largest customer as Fort Collins-Loveland drops out. Water Education Colorado. August 13, 2025.
⁴ UPDATE: FCLWD Officially Withdraws from the Northern Integrated Supply Project. Fort Collins-Loveland Water District. April 21, 2026.
⁵ Major customer pulling out of $2 billion Northern Colorado dams. The Colorado Sun. August 8, 2025.
⁶ 3rd Colorado city drops out of $2.7 billion NISP dams. The Colorado Sun. October 17, 2025.
⁷ Northern Colorado water projects’ cost soars to $2.7 billion, scaring a key customer as builders scramble to cut plan. The Colorado Sun. August 27, 2025.
⁸ Northern Water wins some, loses some on its $2.7 billion dams project. The Colorado Sun. June 10, 2026.
⁹ Halligan Water Supply Project FINAL Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, with memo describing
¹⁰ One Water Action Framework, City of Fort Collins
¹¹ NISP (Northern Integrated Supply Project) – Save The Poudre
¹² NISP-Settlement-Final-not-signed.pdf
¹³ Save The Poudre – Conserve, Protect, Restore the Poudre River
#HalliganReservoir Water Supply Project Update: City of Fort Collins seeks to join Northern Integrated Supply Project #NISP #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
From email from the City of Fort Collins:
October 15, 2026
For decades, the City of Fort Collins has been working on the Halligan Project to provide water storage to meet Fort Collins Utilities’ customer demands into the future and provide drought security and resilience. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not yet issued the final permit, and it has become increasingly doubtful the agency will issue an approval. Meanwhile, rising construction and permitting costs have made it increasingly difficult financially. Given these circumstances, the City had a responsibility to investigate other options.
On Oct. 20, City staff will present factors driving a recommendation to City Council to pivot to a different water storage project. Discussion points will include Halligan Project permitting challenges, water storage needs, financial impact analyses, environmental considerations, and overall recommendations to City Council. The City Council materials and agenda will be posted by end-of-business on Oct. 15 at this link.
The City plans to host an informational meeting so community members have a chance to learn what’s next and ask questions. When the date is finalized, we will send another email with the details.
Confluence: The Story of Greeley Water (Second Edition, 2026)
From Tishana ‘Tish’ Cano at the Greeley Water & Sewer Department:
“Here is a land where life is written in water.” Thomas Hornsby Ferril, named Colorado’s poet laureate in 1979, could not have composed a better description of the agricultural community founded at the confluence of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers. In April 1870, a group of far-seeking settlers after a long four-day train ride from New York City and other points back East. Their goal was to create a new way of life on the dry and desolate plains of northern Colorado. Water was the key – and in 1874, a conflict with upstream irrigators of the agricultural community of Fort Collins created a flashpoint in Colorado water law and the American West. Both sides met “half-way” near present-day Windsor and launched an iconic, heated debate over western water rights. With guns used in the Civil War at the ready, the parley led to the birth of western water law – the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.
Authors Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. and Michael Welsh describe the triumphs and challenges of Greeley’s water history, from its 1884 artesian well in City Park to its 1907 mountain water system. The book chronicles the Colorado-Big Thompson Project of the 1930s and the Milton Seaman Dam and Reservoir construction in the 1940s. Hobbs and Welsh describe the foresight and tenacity of creative men – David Boyd, Henry C. Watson, Delph Carpenter, W.D. Farr, Harold Evans, and others – who shouldered the work and pointed the way to identify, acquire, and deliver affordable water to Greeley for more than a century. “Plan for others as they have planned for you” guides and unites the actions of our story of Greeley Water.
From the Rocky Mountain American Water Works Association:
Public works agencies rarely have time to reflect on their accomplishments and lessons learned, as they pursue on a daily basis their operations, maintenance, and plans for future growth. Yet that retrospective is what the City of Greeley Water Utilities Department, with its century and one-half of service to the community, decided to engage with the research and publication of Confluence: The Story of Greeley Water (2020).
Harold Evans, chairman of the Greeley Water and Sewer Board for the past two decades, believed that those whom the utility served would benefit from a comprehensive analysis of the origins and development of an organization that began before Colorado statehood, and one that has grown over time by addressing the cycles of abundance and scarcity of water that define the Headwaters State.
Joining the team of researchers and writers in 2015 were Gregory J. Hobbs, Junior, a retired associate justice of the Colorado State Supreme Court, often considered the most knowledgeable member of the high court in matters of water law and policy, and Michael Welsh, a professor of history at the University of Northern Colorado, whose decades of teaching and scholarship included studies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Southwest and on the West Coast.
This team explored the range of issues and tasks of a municipal water system that began in the summer of 1870 with a single irrigation ditch on the Cache la Poudre River that conveyed water to the fledgling Union Colony (later to become the town of Greeley). As the population increased and the economy evolved, the Greeley water utility added a community artesian well (1884); a mountain water treatment facility above Fort Collins at Bellvue (1907); and a storage facility on the North Fork of the
Poudre River known as Milton Seaman Reservoir (1945); the latter two remaining operational over a century later. Residents of the Colony, and their policies and regulations, also played an important role in the development of statewide and interstate water law. One example would be the enshrining in Colorado’s 1876 constitution of the “prior-appropriation doctrine.” In addition, a Greeley native, Delph Carpenter, who had been employed as a youth inspecting the community’s ditch system to guard against violation of its rules, became an authority on the collaborative features of western water law. Carpenter would be tasked by the U.S. Commerce Secretary, Herbert Clark Hoover, with a key role in the drafting of the Colorado River Compact.
That agreement would permit a group of Greeley and Colorado water professionals a decade later to approach the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to confront the severity of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl by means of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project; a multipurpose facility that secured the future for farmers and ranchers of the South Platte River basin, and later the urban growth of the Front Range.
The Greeley Water & Sewer Board, originating in 1958 from the idea that local decisions in water belong with the people, and guided by those who understood and appreciated what water meant to Greeley, established the nonpartisan principles that inform the acquisition and development of water facilities. From the leadership of water pioneer W.D. Farr to today, with Harold Evans, who has a background in Civil Engineering, the Board has possessed expertise and foresight that contributes to Greeley’s good fortune with its most precious resource.
What began with that first ditch has now become a network of multiple reservoirs in four river basins, and prize-winning water pollution-control facilities. The City of Greeley also has taken the lead in water efficiency & quality, working with state and federal partners to replace aging lead pipes, and to institute an advanced metering system and residential and commercial “water budgets” that keep utility customers informed of their use patterns and the value of conservation in times of drought.
Once the first volume on the story of Greeley water appeared, the water utility continued to provide domestic water and wastewater treatment to its network of communities. The City also pursued regional cooperation with the municipalities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, and Evans. Greeley maintained its partnership with the Northern Water district, in particular its Chimney Hollow Reservoir, which will store additional supplies for a dozen water organizations that own water rights in the CBT system that are not reliably accessible in times of need.From that recognition in 2020 that the story of Greeley water had not ended came a new edition in the summer of 2026, written to incorporate the purchase of water rights to the vast underground aquifer in far northern Colorado known as the Terry Ranch Project. Other dimensions of the utility’s operations addressed in the second edition of Confluence are the expansion of the “non-potable” water system for use in public and private spaces; the application of sophisticated information technology; and the advanced-planning functions of the “Integrated Water Resources Program,” which identifies scenarios and options for a wide variety of challenges and opportunities in water-resource management decades into the future.
It is our hope that this new look at an old story helps residents and businesses of Greeley and surrounding communities realize how important their water supplies are to their security and prosperity. In 1941, in the midst of a world at war, and as the decade of the Dust Bowl neared an end, Greeley’s leaders embraced a simple but compelling idea: “To plan for others as others have planned for you.” Wise words for their time, and wise words for ours now.
#FortCollins Utilities, ELCO ask for voluntary watering cuts, for now — The Fort Collins Coloradoan #drought
Click the link to read the article on The Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell), Here’s an excerpt:
April 30, 2026
Two of Fort Collins’ water providers are calling on residents to voluntarily reduce their water use rather than imposing outdoor water restrictions with penalties, for now. Fort Collins City Manager Kelly DiMartino has declared a “water shortage watch,” according to a news release from Fort Collins Utilities, which is asking residential and business customers to limit outdoor water use starting May 1.
“By taking voluntary measures now to reduce water use, Utilities customers can actively help lower the chance of mandatory water restrictions if conditions worsen,” the news release stated.
Fort Collins Utilities and East Larimer County Water District, or ELCO, which are two of the city’s three major water providers, are asking customers to:
- Limit lawn watering to no more than two days per week.
- Avoid watering between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
The West Fort Collins Water District is required to follow city-issued water rationing and restrictions, according to its website. Sunset Water District is managed by ELCO.
One year after landmark $100M #PoudreRiver settlement, work faces delays — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News) #NISP #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):
March 12, 2026
More than a year after a landmark $100 million environmental settlement designed to improve the Poudre River was OK’d, little progress has been made to put the agreement into action.
The settlement, signed last February, came after Save The Poudre sued to stop the $2.7 billion Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). The deal was crafted to allow NISP to move forward while paying to improve the Poudre and protect it from any harm the project could cause.
NISP is designed to serve roughly one dozen fast-growing cities along the Northern Front Range and will include two reservoirs and a pipeline.
The Community Foundation of Northern Colorado is leading the effort to implement the settlement, which includes projects that will make the river healthier for fish and aquatic habitat, improve water flows and water quality, and increase recreational opportunities.
The foundation is overseeing a six-member committee that began meeting last August. The committee will decide how to implement the ambitious environmental projects outlined in the settlement.
“We are taking time to be intentional,” said Jodie Riesenberger, the foundation’s vice president for community impact.
But work has also been slow because key payments from NISP participants to the foundation are tied to benchmarks in building the massive reservoir and pipeline system. The committee received its first $5 million payment last year when the settlement was signed and is supposed to get its next $5 million payment when construction begins, something that could have happened later this year but has since been delayed. The full $100 million is to be paid out over a 20-year period, Riesenberger said.
Since the settlement was approved, though, the project’s largest customer, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, has dropped out of NISP. A handful of other cities, including Evans, have also dropped out, citing concerns about soaring design and construction costs, as well as the cost of the environmental settlement.
In response, Northern Water, which is overseeing project construction, temporarily halted design work as it re-examined NISP’s size.
Now, construction isn’t likely to begin until 2027 or later, according to Northern Water spokesman Jeff Stahla.
“We did slow things down,” Stahla said, “but there is still a chance we can start in mid-2027.”
Save The Poudre River President Gary Wockner said the delays aren’t surprising.
The committee has “been moving slow because there is a lot to learn. If you want to fix problems on the river, you have to understand the river and know what the problems are,” he said.
Since the river committee began meeting in August, Riesenberger said work has focused on analyzing what the issues are and trying to figure out how and whether to spend the money they have on hand now.
The delays “don’t impact what we’re doing yet, but it could if it drags on longer. The dream is that these dollars could do transformational things for the river,” Riesenberger said.
Municipal Partnerships for Instream Flow on #Colorado’s Front Range — Jessica Pault-Atiase (Colorado Lawyer)
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Bar Association website (Jessica Pault-Atiase):
January/February 2026
Incorporating instream flow uses into municipal water supply planning efforts can provide numerous public benefits. This article discusses the framework and opportunity for collaborative instream flow protection in municipal water supply operations.
Colorado’s instream flow program is a dynamic approach to protecting the natural environment that encourages practical and creative solutions to evolving environmental concerns. While water rights typically involve diverting water from the stream, the instream flow program protects water in the stream. Environmental values associated with instream flow uses can work synergistically with municipal water supply operations to realize several public benefits, such as improved water quality, riparian health, urban cooling, resiliency, recreational opportunities, and aesthetic value. As illustrated by the examples discussed later in this article, the instream flow program can facilitate cooperative agreements with municipal water providers for shared beneficial use of our state’s most precious resource.
Water Rights and the Prior Appropriation Doctrine in Colorado
The prior appropriation doctrine governs the ownership and use of water and water rights in Colorado. In simple terms, the prior appropriation system is described as “first in time, first in right.” A water user that has demonstrated an intent to put water to beneficial use first has a vested and prior right to use water in that amount against subsequent water users. This system developed out of necessity during the colonial expansion westward and was influenced by Spanish settlers and early miners to allocate water in the arid environment of Colorado, as an alternative to the more common riparian system of water rights based on land ownership abutting water ways.1
The prior appropriation doctrine has been enshrined in the Colorado Constitution. Article XVI, § 5 dedicates water in Colorado as public property for use by the people, subject to appropriation, and § 6 gives the right to appropriate water for beneficial use in priority.2 The 1969 Water Rights Determination and Administration Act (1969 Act) provides the legal framework for surface and tributary ground water distribution and use under the prior appropriation doctrine.3
An appropriation of a water right under the 1969 Act, as originally codified, meant “the diversion of a certain portion of the waters of the state and the application of the same to a beneficial use.”4 Similarly, beneficial uses were limited to diversions of water from the stream system for extractive uses such as domestic or municipal, irrigation, and manufacturing or industrial activities.5 Environmental uses of water, including instream flows, were not initially addressed in the 1969 Act but were later incorporated through amendments.6
Colorado Instream Flow Program
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) was first established by the Colorado legislature in 1937 to protect and develop Colorado’s water resources for the benefit of present and future generations.7 It was not until the national environmental movement in the late 1960s, however, that discussions regarding the value of instream flows and role of the CWCB in the protection of such flows began to garner serious attention and focus.8 In 1973, those discussions culminated in the passage of SB 97 to create the Colorado Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Program.9 SB 97 was unprecedented at the time and amended the 1969 Act to define beneficial use of a water right to include use by the CWCB for protection of stream flows within a specified reach without a diversion of water from the stream.10
Under the instream flow program, the CWCB has exclusive authority to hold a water right for instream flow uses in Colorado and may appropriate water rights or acquire existing water rights for instream flow, provided that it determines that such water rights are necessary to preserve or improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.11 Since the program’s inception, the CWCB has appropriated nearly 1,700 instream flow rights across 9,700 miles of stream and completed over 35 water acquisition transactions.12
The General Assembly has reinforced and expanded the CWCB’s ability to acquire water rights for instream flow purposes on several occasions.13 Acquiring and changing senior water rights for instream flows in over-appropriated systems can add great value by preserving the priority date, and therefore the availability, of the water for greater instream flow protection.14 Acquisitions can be donated to or purchased by the CWCB, and the statutory language specifically anticipates potential acquisitions from governmental entities, like municipalities.15 Other free-market developments to the Colorado instream flow program enacted by the state legislature over the years include streamlined processes for loans of water rights for instream flow use, instream flow protection for mitigation releases, and stream flow augmentation plans.16 These developments provide additional opportunities for water users, including municipalities, to participate in the program in support of instream flows.
In addition to implementing the instream flow program, the CWCB is tasked with creating the Colorado Water Plan, which addresses the state’s water challenges through collaborative water planning, including expanded opportunities for instream flow protection.17
Case Studies Along the Front Range
The instream flow program provides reasonable protection of the environment for benefit of the public and is emphasized in the Colorado Water Plan as a balanced approach to addressing environmental needs in the face of climate change.18 Similarly, municipal water service providers, acting in the interest of their respective jurisdictions, must often balance water supply with other public interests. Municipal water projects and water supply planning efforts can be designed to address multiple needs and related uncertainties across a jurisdiction, informed by integrated planning efforts. The various public interests typically considered by municipalities may align with instream flow protection in many respects. The Colorado Water Plan includes several policy considerations that highlight this potential overlap between municipal water interests and instream flows.19
Fundamentally, the Colorado Water Plan encourages a holistic, collaborative approach to water management that balances multiple uses and benefits to meet water shortages throughout the state.20 As competition for water resources in Colorado becomes more pronounced with increased demands and costs, the benefits of water sharing and collaboration will also likely increase.21 The Colorado Water Plan focuses on thriving watersheds as an action area to support stream health, recreational uses, resiliency, erosion control, and water quality, all of which provide tangible benefits to municipal water service providers.22 Accordingly, more water in the stream system for instream flows can be a natural complement to a municipality seeking to balance growing water demands with related public interests. The following examples demonstrate how instream flow uses can benefit municipal water supply, and vice versa, to realize this balance in a meaningful way.
Boulder Creek Instream Flow Project
The Boulder Creek instream flow project is a long-standing cooperative project that has been operating in Boulder County for almost 35 years. This project has operated successfully due in large part to the partnership between the City of Boulder and the CWCB and their collaboration with neighboring water users in Boulder County to support environmental stream flows and other uses in the creek.
In the early 1990s, Boulder donated a suite of valuable senior water rights to the CWCB to establish a year-round instream flow program on North Boulder and Boulder Creeks.23 The acquisition was memorialized in a series of donation agreements between Boulder and the CWCB pursuant to CRS § 37-92-102(3), following certain legislative amendments throughout the 1980s that clarified and enhanced the CWCB’s acquisition authority for instream flows.24 Boulder and the CWCB, as co-applicants, also received a water court decree to change the use of the donated rights to include instream flow uses for the project.25
The Boulder Creek instream flow project protects three segments from below the Silver Lake Reservoir near the headwaters of North Boulder Creek down to 75th Street in Boulder County (see fig. 1). The donated rights include reservoir releases, bypassed diversions, and changed irrigation ditch shares to support instream flows throughout the year. As part of its donation to the CWCB, Boulder retained the right to use water available under the donated rights (1) for municipal purposes under certain conditions, including drought and emergency conditions in its municipal water supply operations; (2) for municipal purposes anytime they are not needed to meet instream flow amounts; and (3) for beneficial reuse downstream of the protected reaches.26 This provides operational flexibility for the city’s municipal water supply while also supporting instream flow uses by the CWCB in most years. Its participation in the Boulder Creek instream flow program has also helped the city address US Forest Service regulatory requirements for bypasses related to its diversions from North Boulder Creek as part of federal permitting for one of its raw water pipelines.27
The City of Boulder has a long-standing environmental ethos that incorporates instream flows into its water supply planning and operations. Boulder’s water supply planning documents from the 1980s identified the goal of supporting instream flows in Boulder Creek to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystems, reflecting city planners’ prediction that dry-up periods in the creek would become more severe and frequent with increased water demands.28 Subsequent Boulder water supply and land use planning documents have included similar goals focused on balancing instream flows and environmental preservation with municipal water demands and operations, and emphasizing the connection between stream health and reliable drinking water supplies.29
Because the protected stream segments run through the Boulder city limits, and extend both above and below the city, the project benefits water quality, riparian health, and resiliency in the Boulder municipal watershed and water system operations and provides additional environmental benefits to the larger Boulder County community.
Gross Reservoir Environmental Pool Project
The cities of Boulder and Lafayette entered into an intergovernmental agreement in 2010 with Denver Water to establish a 5,000 acre-foot environmental pool in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to augment stream flows in South Boulder Creek.30 Boulder recognized the need to address low flows on South Boulder Creek as a key goal in its planning documents and identified Denver Water’s planned expansion of Gross Reservoir as an opportunity to use upstream storage to establish a robust instream flow program. Lafayette similarly identified Gross Reservoir for potential water storage in its water rights decrees, providing both a water supply and environmental benefit to its operations. The parties proactively agreed to cooperate to mitigate the reservoir expansion’s impacts to aquatic resources in the South Boulder Creek basin by creating and operating the environmental pool.31
Coordinated with municipal water system operations, releases from the environmental pool will allow Boulder and Lafayette to store their decreed water rights for later release to meet specific target flows below Gross Reservoir in South Boulder Creek throughout the year. The segments identified for the target flows include Gross Reservoir to South Boulder Road (Upper Segment, depicted as segments 1 and 2 in fig. 2) and South Boulder Road to the confluence with Boulder Creek (Lower Segment, depicted as segment 3 in fig. 2).32 The agreement also includes provisions to address emergencies such as extended drought or an unexpected problem with water storage, conveyance, or treatment infrastructure to allow for flexibility in operations to meet both target flows and municipal needs.
Boulder’s releases from the environmental pool are protected as instream flows according to a Water Delivery Agreement with the CWCB dated September 9, 2019, and a water court decree entered for Boulder, Lafayette, and the CWCB.33 Water released by Boulder to meet the target flows will be protected for instream flow uses to the extent that such flows do not exceed the amounts that CWCB has determined to be appropriate to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree in South Boulder Creek. Boulder’s target flow releases will support CWCB’s existing appropriated instream flow rights up to the specified amounts (see fig. 2). Boulder may then redivert the water downstream of the protected reaches for its municipal uses.
The environmental pool will provide permanent, dedicated storage for water rights owned by Boulder and Lafayette to be released to enhance stream flows in South Boulder Creek prior to downstream uses for municipal purposes by the parties. These operations provide added flexibility, resiliency, and redundancy to the cities’ respective water supply systems. In turn, the enhanced stream flows will benefit 17.3 miles of South Boulder Creek, including Eldorado Canyon State Park, South Boulder Creek Natural Area, and City of Boulder open space lands, and will support native fish populations and riparian and wetland habitats.
Poudre Flows Project
The Poudre Flows Project is the first stream flow augmentation plan developed pursuant to CRS § 37-92-102(4.5).34 It is a partnership amongst the CWCB; municipalities of Fort Collins, Thornton, and Greeley; Colorado Water Trust; Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Cache la Poudre Water Users Association; and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The project will augment stream flows through a 52-mile reach of the Cache la Poudre River, with an overarching goal to improve river health (see fig. 3).35 The concept was first envisioned as part of the Poudre Runs Through It working group, a collaborative group of diverse partners and stakeholders in the Poudre River.36 The City of Fort Collins planning priorities incorporate similar goals, including to “[p]rotect community water systems in an integrated way to ensure resilient water resources and healthy watersheds.”37
The project anticipates that the CWCB, through agreements with water right owners, including Fort Collins and Greeley, will use previously changed and quantified water rights owned by these municipalities and potentially others to augment stream flows in six segments of the Poudre River spanning from Canyon Gage to the confluence with the South Platte River.38 Besides the instream flow protection of the environment to a reasonable degree, project partners have identified numerous additional benefits such as connectivity for fish passage and decreased temperatures and nutrient concentrations, all while avoiding impacts to existing water rights and operations.39
Conclusion
By integrating water supply planning with a holistic approach to water development and management that provides multiple public benefits, municipalities can become strong partners with the CWCB. Together, they can help protect instream flows and balance growing water demands and future uncertainties with the environmental values that make Colorado a beautiful place to live.
NOTES
citation Pault-Atiase, “Municipal Partnerships for Instream Flow on Colorado’s Front Range,” 55 Colo. Law. 48 (Jan./Feb. 2026), https://cl.cobar.org/features/municipal-partnerships-for-instream-flow-on-colorados-front-range.
1. See generally Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, 447 (Colo. 1882).
2. Colo. Const. Art. XVI, §§ 5–6. See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. CWCB, 594 P.2d 570, 573 (Colo. 1979) (“The reason and thrust for this provision was to negate any thought that Colorado would follow the riparian doctrine in the acquisition and use of water.”).
3. CRS §§ 37-92-101 et seq.
4. CRS § 148-21-3 (1969) (emphasis added). See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist., 594 P.2d at 574.
5. Id.
6. See Bassi et al., “ISF Law—Stories About the Origin and Evolution of Colorado’s Instream Flow Law in This Prior Appropriation State,” 22(2) U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 395 (2019), https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/cwcbsearch/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=211090&dbid=0.
7. See Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, https://cwcb.colorado.gov/about-us.
8. Bassi, supra note 6 at 396–97.
9. SB 97, 49th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 1973). See CRS § 37-92-102(3).
10. Bassi, supra note 6 at 398. See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist., 594 P.2d at 576. SB 97 was carefully drafted to provide environmental protection through the CWCB, as a fiduciary to the public, without inviting riparian rights for adjacent landowners. Id. The Colorado Supreme Court reiterated this important distinction in St. Jude Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, LLC, 351 P. 3d 442 (Colo. 2015), ruling that a diversion from a steam for private instream flows is a “forbidden right” contrary to the prior appropriation doctrine; only the CWCB, with strict limitations identified by the general assembly, can hold an instream flow right for the benefit of the public. Id. at 451.
11. CRS § 37-92-102(3) (The CWCB is “vested with exclusive authority, on behalf of the people of the state of Colorado, to appropriate . . . such waters of natural streams . . . as the board determines may be required for minimum streamflows . . . to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.” The board also may acquire water rights “in such amount as the board determines is appropriate for streamflows . . . to preserve or improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.”). Legislation enacted in 2002 expanded the Colorado instream flow program to provide that water rights may also be used by the CWCB to improve the natural environment (and not just for preservation purposes). Bassi, supra note 6 at 391.
12. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, “Instream Flow Program,” https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/ecosystem-health/instream-flow-program.
13. See Bassi, supra note 6 at 405–06, 417–18.
14. Id. at 406. The Colorado Water Trust was formed in 2001 to support Colorado’s instream flow program by promoting voluntary, market-based efforts to restore stream flows in Colorado’s rivers. The Water Trust has been instrumental in facilitating and streamlining the acquisition of water rights from willing partners for use by the CWCB. See https://coloradowatertrust.org.
15. CRS § 37-92-102(3).
16. See generally CRS §§ 37-83-105, 37-92-102(8), 37-92-102(4.5).
17. The Colorado Water Plan was adopted by the CWCB in 2023 as a framework for decision-making to address water challenges and build resiliency in the state. The 2023 Water Plan is an update to the first iteration of the plan released in 2015. See https://cwcb.colorado.gov/colorado-water-plan.
18. See St. Jude Co., 351 P. 3d at 449 (in its use of water for instream flows, the CWCB has a “‘statutory fiduciary duty’ to the people . . . to both protect the environment and appropriate only the minimum amount of water necessary to do so . . . .”).
19. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Water Plan (2023), https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/CWCB/0/edoc/219188/Colorado_WaterPlan_2023_Digital.pdf.
20. See id. at 217–19, 231, 233 (“All areas of the Water Plan are interconnected, and projects need to consider multi-purpose, multi-benefit solutions.”).
21. See id. at 217 (“Multi-purpose projects better address water supply challenges across municipal, agricultural, environmental, and recreation sectors as they occur.”).
22. See id. at 181, 204–07 (stream health and related environmental benefits can enhance municipal supply or improve the quality of life in urban areas).
23. See Decree, In re Application for Water Rts. of the Colo. Water Conservation Bd. on Behalf of the State of Colo. and Water Rts. of the City of Boulder, No. 90CW193 (Colo. Water Div. 1, Dec. 20, 1993).
24. Id. See Bassi, supra note 6 at 405–07.
25. Decree, supra note 23.
26. See id.
27. Bassi, supra note 6 at 408–09.
28. City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan: Vol. 2—Detailed Plan 2-1, 2-3, 3-77, 5-20 (Apr. 2009) (discussing previous planning efforts and priorities regarding instream flows), https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/7670/download?inline.
29. Id. at 3.71, 5-21 to 5-33, 7-3. See also Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: 2020 Mid-Term Update 31, 62 (adopted 2021), https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/3350/download?inline.
30. See Decree, In re Application for Water Rts. of City of Lafayette, City of Boulder, and Colo. Water Conservation Bd. in Boulder Cnty., No. 17CW3212 (Colo. Water Div. 1, Feb. 11, 2021). The author represented the City of Boulder in Case No. 17CW3212 and was involved in prosecuting the case and negotiating the underlying agreement with CWCB.
31. Denver Water’s enlargement of Gross Reservoir is the subject of pending litigation.
32. The target flows and target reaches are based on previously collected data and analysis by Colorado Parks and Wildlife using the R2Cross method, which supported CWCB’s previous instream flow appropriations.
33. See id. CRS §§ 37-92-102(3), 37-87-102(4).
34. The cities of Fort Collins and Greeley were instrumental in getting HB 20-1037 passed to authorize the CWBC to use water rights previously decreed for augmentation uses for instream flows. Castle, “To Boost Poudre River Flows, Cities, Conservationists Craft New Plan From Old Playbook,” Water Education Colorado (Jul. 3, 2019), https://watereducationcolorado.org/fresh-water-news/to-boost-poudre-river-flows-cities-conservationists-craft-new-plan-from-old-playbook. See also HB 1037, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2020), https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb20-1037.
35. See Boissevain, “Poudre Flows: Collaboration to Protect the Cache la Poudre River,” Colorado Water Trust (Oct. 29, 2024), https://coloradowatertrust.org/collaboration-to-protect-the-cache-la-poudre-river.
36. City of Fort Collins, “Poudre Flows,” https://www.fcgov.com/poudreflows.
37. Id.
38. See Application, In re Application for Water Rts. of Cache La Poudre Water Users Ass’n, City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley, Colo. Water Tr., N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., City of Thornton and Colo. Water Conservation Bd. in Larimer and Weld Cntys., No. 21CW3056 (Colo. Water Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2021).
39. See “Poudre Flows,” supra note 36.
Can beavers help heal burn scars after wildfires? #Colorado researchers built their own dams to find out — The #Denver Post
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
December 30, 2025
High in the mountains west of Fort Collins, teams of scientists and engineers are pretending to be beavers.
They may not be swimming or chewing trees, but researchers with the U.S. Forest Service and Colorado State University are building [beaver dam analogs] in burn scars to study how wetlands created by the dams impact ecosystem restoration and water quality after wildfires. The research led by Tim Fegel is some of the first of its kind, he said. Scientists have studied how meadow and wetland restoration affects wildlife habitat, but there’s been little exploration of how wetlands created by beaver dams could change water quality post-wildfire, said Fegel, a biogeochemistry lab manager with the Forest Service who is leading the project.
“It’s kind of a brave new world for us with this type of work,” said Fegel, who is also a doctoral candidate at Colorado State University.
Wildfires destabilize soils and make them less capable of absorbing rain and snowmelt, resulting in higher runoffs and increased flood probability. High volumes of water, combined with a lack of vegetation roots to hold soil in place, mean that more sediment and debris travel downstream, impacting water quality and water treatment systems.
Five years ago, the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome wildfires ripped through Colorado’s northern mountains, charring more than 620 square miles across watersheds that provide water for hundreds of thousands of people who live along the Front Range. That’s where Fegel and other researchers think the [beaver dam analogs] can help. Fegel hopes the work will provide land managers and water utilities with more data and, potentially, another water-quality tool. The team installed beaver-style dams across the Cache la Poudre and Willow Creek watersheds — both burned in the 2020 wildfires — to help slow water flow and instead spread the water over a floodplain. Engineers designed the dams, which are generally made of large logs hammered into the earth with branches and other material.
2 Northern #Colorado communities back away from #NISP, but project is ‘pressing on’ — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Erin Udell). Here’s an excerpt:
October 24, 2025
Key Points
- Eaton and Evans recently announced they are backing away from the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, due to rising costs.
- The news comes months after Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, NISP’s largest participant, announced its hopes to sell its 20% share in the project.
- Despite some growing reluctance, Northern Water plans to move forward with the full project.
Eaton and Evans recently notified Northern Water they will not be participating in the interim agreement or water allotment contract for its Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, next year. Eaton Mayor Scott Moser notified Northern Water in a Sept. 2 letter. Evans Mayor Mark Clark’s letter was dated Oct. 7. Both communities, which cited NISP’s rising project costs in their decision, would entertain offers to sell their NISP shares, Evans and Eaton staff told the Coloradoan on Oct. 21. The project’s largest participant, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, notified Northern Water of its interest in selling its 20% share in NISP back in July, the water district’s General Manager Chris Pletcher told the Coloradoan at thetime...
Over the years, the project has grown in both scope and price. As NISP’s once conceptual designs met reality, the scale of its reservoirs, pipelines and pump stations increased and the relocation of U.S. Highway 287 to accommodate Glade Reservoir proved to be “more complex and expensive than originally planned,” according to a staff presentation to Evans City Council on Oct. 7.
Efforts underway to return greenback cutthroat trout to headwaters of #Colorado Rivers: Native species to be restocked after brook trout are poisoned away — Sky-Hi News
Click the link to read the article on the Sky-Hi News website (Izzy Wagner). Here’s an excerpt:
September 9, 2025
13 years ago, Colorado’s state fish could only be found in a single stream in the entire state. Today, a coalition of agencies and experts are working to change that. The Poudre Headwaters Project is a 10 to 12-year effort led by Rocky Mountain National Park and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, among other organizations, to restore the greenback cutthroat trout to its native waters — about 40 miles of streams in parts of Rocky Mountain National Park and the Arapaho National Forest…
For decades, the National Park Service and state fisheries stocked millions of fish, mostly brook trout, in the native waters of the greenbacks. But once brook trout have established themselves in a stream, they will outcompete greenbacks for food and habitat, Clatterbuck said. Restoring native greenbacks requires killing off the non-native brook trout that have long threatened their survival. To kill the fish, crews must apply the pesticide rotenone to streams with invasive brook trout and other non-natives. Rotenone is a dangerous chemical in high concentrations, but it has been widely used by fisheries for decades and is carefully managed when applied to streams…The pesticide specifically targets aquatic species, making it the ideal treatment method for fish removal. Consuming rotenone-treated fish is unlikely to poison a mammal, Clatterbuck said…
Once the areas are confirmed to be free of non-native trout, biologists will reintroduce the native greenback cutthroat trout to its original habitat in the headwaters of the Cache la Poudre River, according to park officials…Colorado State University Professor Robert Behnke reported that once brook trout gained access to streams, greenback cutthroat trout were virtually gone within five years. In the 1960s, Behnke spearheaded efforts to restore greenback cutthroat trout to streams of their native range east of the Continental Divide. Since then, fisheries have worked to build fish barriers, often in the form of small dams, near the downstream ends of headwater streams to protect native fish while applying chemicals to kill off brook trout upstream. However, none of these projects have been able to prevent non-native trout invasion long term. Clatterbuck is hopeful that with time and collaboration, this new restoration project will build a metapopulation, or a network of connected subpopulations that can strengthen the species’ genetic diversity and resilience.
Save The Poudre won’t try to stop #Thornton from finishing water pipeline — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
August 18, 2025
Key Points
- Save The Poudre will not appeal a judge’s ruling allowing Thornton’s pipeline project to proceed.
- The environmental advocacy group focused on the Poudre River contends Colorado water law, created more than 100 years ago, is not in line with public values today.
- Save The Poudre urges Thornton to take a more active role in protecting and restoring the Poudre River
The environmental advocacy group that seeks to protect the Poudre River says it will not appeal a judge’s ruling that allowed the project to proceed. The project is set to bring water from the Poudre to Thornton via a pipeline running through Larimer, Weld and Adams counties.,Larimer County commissioners, and the planning commission before them, approved the pipeline permit in 2024. Then Save The Poudre sued, saying the board of commissioners exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion when it granted the permit…
In announcing the decision not to appeal the judge’s ruling, Save The Poudre Executive Director Gary Wockner said Colorado’s water law gives agencies the right to drain rivers, and it doesn’t seem like a wise use of resources to appeal when a challenge would likely fail…
Todd Barnes, communications director for the city of Thornton, noted the deadline to appeal is still ahead, on Aug. 21. He said Thornton doesn’t plan to issue a statement about the development as of now…Thornton and Northern Water have planned to co-locate a few miles of their pipelines to reduce disruption. But Barnes said Thornton has heard nothing concrete from NISP. Regardless, he said, the city will follow through with all of the requirements of its permit, which includes co-location.
Here’s the statement from Save the Poudre:
This week in history, Larimer County experienced 2 of its worst floods — The #FortCollins Coloradoan
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
July 29, 2025
- Heavy rainfall in late July in Colorado’s past caused two of the state’s worst floods, the Spring Creek Flood and the Big Thompson Flood.
- The 1997 Spring Creek Flood resulted in five deaths and over $200 million in damages in Fort Collins.
- The 1976 Big Thompson Flood led to 144 fatalities and $35 million in damages.
Twenty-eight years ago this week, 14 inches of rain fell on Fort Collins in just over a day, overwhelming the Spring Creek and leading to the deaths of five people.
And 49 years ago this week, more than a foot of rain fell on the Big Thompson River west of Loveland in about four hours, creating a wall of water that swept away and killed 144 people. It’s not a coincidence that both events happened in the same week of July, though they were years apart. It’s flash-flood season in Colorado, and three of the state’s worst floods occurred from mid-July through mid-September, which is also the state’s monsoon season.
‘We’re very proud of what we do’: #Colorado State University students help test dam safety on Halligan Reservoir model — Alex Hager (KUNC.org) #PoudreRiver
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
July 15, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West produced by KUNC and supported by the Walton Family Foundation.
If you’re going to build a new reservoir, you better be dam sure it’s safe.
Engineers at Colorado State University are doing exactly that by running tests on a giant model of a dam that will soon be built near Fort Collins. In an airy warehouse at CSU’s foothills campus, they’re sending water through a 24:1 scale mockup of the dam that will hold back an expanded Halligan Reservoir.
“It just gives us assurances on so many different levels that our design is sound, that it is going to be constructable, and that it is going to perform when it’s built, as expected,” said Darren Parkin, Halligan Water Supply Project Manager with the City of Fort Collins.
The new dam will be built to survive a one-in-ten-million year precipitation event — or 72 inches of rain — which is required to get building permits. For comparison, the devastating Spring Creek flood of 1997 was caused by 14.5 inches of rain.
Running that test, even on a dam that’s a fraction of the size of the real one, requires a huge pulse of water. It tumbles and whooshes through the manmade river with so much force that it’s hard to hear the person standing next to you.
When engineering students switch on the model, a large tank fills behind the dam. First, it spills down the stairstep-like face of the structure with a gentle trickle. Before long, it’s hitting the base as roiling whitewater. That’s exactly where most of this team’s research has been focused.
They built a series of “baffles” to slow that water down and prevent it from bashing the dam and eroding its base. They are essentially large blocks that change the speed and direction of water cascading over the dam. The engineers working on the dam say they were able to figure out precisely the best place to put those baffles, how many to install, and how far apart they should be because they were running tests on this model instead of a computer program.
“We can easily change things in a physical model,” said Jeff Ellis, who manages the hydraulics lab where the model is housed. “We can move things by an inch and just keep on retesting, and it’s really optimizing performance.”
The City of Fort Collins is nearing construction on the dam, which will enable them to expand Halligan Reservoir’s storage capacity. City officials say that it’s necessary to supply water to the growing city in the future. Work on the new dam, about 25 miles northwest of Fort Collins, is expected to start in early 2027 and finish in late 2029 or early 2030.
Ellis said the project serves another function, too. It’s giving engineering students a new kind of experience.
“It’s super rewarding,” he said. “A lot of time in class, you’re doing a lot of theoretical work, it’s not hands-on. Where this, they’re actually doing design and they’re helping solve these real world problems.”
Students helped build the intricate model, which is shaped exactly like the area around Halligan Reservoir, and they operate the data-gathering equipment that helps engineers form conclusions from their testing. Catherine Lambert, an undergraduate senior studying Environmental Engineering, said the experience was fun and exciting, but would also help prepare her for a career.
“It’s really cool to see all of our hard work actually translate into the real world,” she said, “We’re very proud of what we do here.”
Judge’s ruling keeps #Thornton water pipeline project moving forward — The #FortCollins Coloradan #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
July 7, 2025
Key Points
- A Larimer County judge ruled in favor of Larimer County commissioners, upholding their approval of a permit for Thornton’s 10-mile pipeline project.
- Save The Poudre, an environmental group, sued the county, arguing the commissioners didn’t properly consider the ‘Poudre River option.’
- Save The Poudre is considering an appeal, while Thornton says it continues to focus on providing water to its residents.
The city of Thornton is the true winner in a recent court ruling focused on the pipeline it’s planning to build in Larimer County to bring more water to its residents. The lawsuit was filed a year ago by Save The Poudre, an environmental advocacy group. Its target was the Larimer County commissioners, who had approved a permit for construction of the pipeline.
On July 3, Larimer County District Court Judge Michelle Brinegar ruled that commissioners were justified in their decision to approve the application for 10 miles of pipeline through the county…In its lawsuit, Save The Poudre asked the judge to vacate the board’s decision to approve the pipeline. The nonprofit alleged that commissioners didn’t adequately follow the county’s standards for these kinds of applications. Specifically, Save The Poudre contends that commissioners should have required Thornton to present a plan for the so-called Poudre River option, which would have conveyed the water through the Poudre River downstream of Thornton’s current diversion point…But commissioners concluded that while they could encourage the Poudre River option, they couldn’t require it. Brinegar sided with commissioners, saying they can’t compel Thornton to present all possible alternatives, only those that are reasonable.
Project Managers to Investigate Uranium Mitigation Strategies at Chimney Hollow reservoir site — Northern #Colorado Water Conservancy District
Click the link to read the release on the Northern Water website:
June 11, 2025
Chimney Hollow Reservoir Project managers are investigating strategies to mitigate the presence of mineralized uranium that is anticipated to be present in the first fill of the reservoir.
Mineralized uranium was detected in water samples taken from behind the cofferdam at the site following a series of major precipitation events in summer 2023. Further testing through 2024 identified the source of the minerals as being the granitic rock being quarried on the west side of the reservoir for placement in the rockfill shell of the asphalt-core dam. The low-level uranium minerals detected were not anticipated to be the result of leached material at the site.
During dam testing and first fill of the reservoir starting later this summer and continuing through 2027, no releases of water from Chimney Hollow Reservoir are expected. Ongoing monitoring of water quality at the reservoir will help managers develop a mitigation strategy that could include treatment and dilution with the significant sources of other water present in the infrastructure nearby.
As more information becomes available, Northern Water will share it with project participants, partner agencies and the public.
Opinion: Protecting Northeastern #Colorado’s Water Supply Requires Cooperation, Transparency — Brad Wind (Northern Water) #NISP #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the column on the Northern Water website (Brad Wind):
May 20, 2025
You might have read recently about how the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, is contributing $100 million to a fund for projects to improve the Cache la Poudre River in northeastern Colorado. That funding is part of an agreement between the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, known as Northern Water, and the nonprofit group Save the Poudre that will conclude a federal lawsuit against the project.
It’s an outcome that both sides can accept because of the importance of both the Poudre River and a much-needed water supply to communities throughout the region.
The agreement should catch the attention of Denver metro-area water providers that are looking to export existing irrigation water supplies out of northeastern Colorado to serve their future customers.
For background, NISP was conceived in the 1990s and early 2000s to provide water to the emerging communities of the northern Front Range. The project will consist of two off-channel reservoirs, one located northwest of Fort Collins and one north of Greeley. It also anticipates exchanges of water with nearby farmers eliminating the dry-up of some agricultural land in the future.
Throughout the lengthy permitting process for NISP, the public has had many opportunities to offer comments and concerns to federal, state and local officials. Some of the concerns were incorporated into mitigation and improvement requirements associated with the project, and all written comments were addressed specifically in the final Environmental Impact Statement produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The $100 million settlement of the federal litigation identifies even more improvements that can be made in the region beyond those required by permitting agencies.
Unfortunately, actions by certain Denver metro-area water providers that anticipate removing water from northeastern Colorado do not undergo such robust scrutiny. Oftentimes, advocates for water resources in the region learn about potential water transfers only when an item appears on a meeting agenda of a metro-area water provider. By then it is too late to consider the regional economic, environmental and social impacts that such a change could produce.
Frequently, these water deals are brokered by third parties who quietly accumulate water and land assets to present them behind closed doors in neat and tidy packages to thirsty cities. There are few, if any, opportunities to discuss how these water transfers will impact local communities in northeastern Colorado or how these impacts could be mitigated by those who seek to move water to the Denver metro area.
The half-million residents who receive water from NISP participants are going to pay billions of dollars to develop water resources for their communities while addressing concerns in the Poudre River watershed. At the same time Denver metro communities are working to undercut the existing supplies that previous northeastern Colorado residents have invested in and relied upon for decades.
Water providers in the Denver area need to be part of the long-term solution to how our northeastern Colorado communities remain vibrant, not distant parties to single point-in-time transactions that provide a perpetual benefit to communities beyond the horizon.
If native water supplies must depart for the Denver metro area from northeastern Colorado, it is appropriate that the new water user should not just pay for the costs to acquire water but also offset the impacts to northeastern Colorado’s degraded quality of life, and diminished regional economy.
All of our futures are diminished by the loss of water from our region. Public processes and mitigation can lessen, to a degree, the perpetual impacts such a loss will endure.
Northern #Colorado will soon have new reservoirs, but the cost to build them has skyrocketed — Alex Hager (KUNC.org) #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 15, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
There’s a stretch of highway in Larimer County where prairie grasses sway with each passing vehicle. Cars, horse trailers and semi trucks zip through the valley on their way between Fort Collins and Laramie. Soon, it’ll be under more than 200 feet of water.
It’s the planned site of Glade Reservoir, the cornerstone of a massive new water storage system designed to meet the demands of fast-growing towns and cities in Northern Colorado. After more than two decades of permitting, planning and environmental lawsuits, it’s closer than ever to breaking ground.
But along the way, some things changed. Over the years, costs to build the reservoir system — and reroute seven miles of U.S. Highway 287 — have ballooned. Price estimates for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, often referred to as NISP, went from $400 million to $2.2 billion. Because of that, some of the towns that signed up to use its water are cutting back on their involvement before the reservoir system stores a single drop.
Northern Water, the agency building NISP, has projected confidence that it will still get built as planned. The long road from idea to construction, and the things that have changed along the way, can tell us a lot about how Northern Colorado uses water, and how much it costs to keep taps flowing.
Rising costs
When it was first pitched, in the early 2000s, NISP garnered support as a way to make sure small towns with fast-growing populations could host new housing developments without going dry.
For a tiny town like Severance, that was an attractive proposition. Just 11 years ago, about midway through the NISP planning process, the town had a population of about 3,000. That’s when Nicholas Wharton took the job as town manager. Since then, he’s overseen the installation of the town’s first stoplight, the from-scratch development of its own police department and a homebuilding boom that has nearly quadrupled Severance’s population.
Signing on to NISP, he said, was a way to make sure Severance had enough water for all that growth.
“I think for smaller towns,” he said, “It was a great idea back when it was affordable to us.”
Since then, Severance has cut back on the amount of water it will store in NISP, and the amount it will pay to be a part of the project. At one point, the town held 2,000 shares of the project. In 2024, it sold off 1,500 of those shares. Wharton said the town council might try to sell off even more.
And Severance isn’t alone.
Due West, in Eaton, town officials also got cold feet. They were one of four NISP shareholders to offload a portion of their involvement in the new reservoir project on the same day in July 2024.
For years, the water agencies that were part of NISP were mostly focused on paperwork — making sure the project had the permits it needed to get built. Then, there was a lawsuit from environmentalists standing in the way. But after NISP’s proponents were mostly seeing green lights on permits and decided to settle a major lawsuit, the focus shifted to money.
“I think the question for us now is, how do we afford this?,” said Wesley Lavanchy, Eaton’s town administrator. “Moving forward, how much can we afford? It’s like chocolate cake. You like it, it tastes great, but you can’t eat the whole thing.”
Ultimately, Eaton decided to sell off more than half of its NISP shares.
“I suspect that more entities would have been able to hold their commitment had the permitting process not drug on so long, the cost escalated, the litigation kind of wrapped things up,” Lavanchy said.
Cheaper alternatives
While the cost to build NISP has gone up, the cost of other water sources has gone down. Eaton and Severance said it’s getting easier to afford shares of the Colorado-Big Thompson project, which was a big motivator in their pullback from NISP.
That project, referred to as CBT, pipes water from the Colorado River across the continental divide. It flows underneath Rocky Mountain National Park and into major reservoirs along the Northern Front Range, such as Horsetooth Reservoir near Fort Collins and Carter Lake outside of Loveland.
Water from the Colorado-Big Thompson project is managed by Northern Water, the same agency building and operating NISP.
For years, the CBT system was the main way for growing cities in Larimer and Weld Counties to get water for residential development. Typically, farms have sold their portion of CBT water to cities, towns, or developers. Occasionally, they are taken to auction, where cities bid against one another for water stored in those big reservoirs.
The cost of that water skyrocketed between 2010 and 2022. Estimated prices, adjusted for inflation, went from less than $20,000 per share, to around $100,000 per share, according to data from the consulting firm Westwater research. Since 2022, that soaring rise has leveled out.
“We believe that’s largely driven by a softening in the home construction sector,” said Adam Jokerst, a Fort Collins-based regional director for Westwater. “A lot of CBT purchases are by municipalities and developers who dedicate them to municipalities. And when new home construction slows, we see less demand for those shares.”
How did NISP get so expensive?
Northern Water said the price to build NISP has been climbing for about 15 years. Brad Wind, the agency’s general manager, cited inflation and rising interest rates as major drivers. He doesn’t, however, expect that to stop or significantly change the reservoir project.
“It’s an expensive project,” Wind said. “We and the participants advancing the project like it was envisioned.”
The lengthy process to get the project’s two reservoirs — Glade, and a smaller one called Galeton reservoir — from concept to construction gave time for the winds of economic change to shift direction. It’s not uncommon for a massive dam project like NISP to take more than fifteen years to attain a laundry list of environmental permits.
The project also faced opposition from local governments and nonprofits. At one point, Fort Collins voted to oppose the project. The most significant roadblock came from the environmental nonprofit Save the Poudre.
The group rallied local support and took legal action to try and stop NISP. At a 2015 event, Save the Poudre director Gary Wockner told a crowd of supporters that he would “fight to stop the project for as long as it takes.”
In late February, Wockner’s group settled for $100 million dollars. Northern Water will pay that sum into a trust over the course of the next two decades, and the money will be used to fund river improvement projects. In the intervening time, though, the price tag to build NISP likely grew significantly.
New Northern Colorado reservoirs moving ahead after settlement of NISP lawsuit — Alex Hager, March 5, 2025.
Wind said Northern plans to hire a contractor that could find ways to bring down the price by changing construction methods, but doesn’t expect “substantial reductions” to building costs, especially with rising prices of imported construction materials.
Over the years, the towns and water agencies that wanted to use NISP signed periodic agreements to stay part of the project. Now, time is ticking for those participants to sign a binding contract.
Eaton’s Lavanchy said that upcoming contract made his town take a harder look at their water needs, and whether those needs would be satisfied by NISP.
“We’re not dating anymore,” he said, “We’re getting married, and there’s no way out. Divorce is not an option. So it’s like, ‘Let’s be smart and think about, what are these obligations going to run us?’”
‘Demand continues to increase’
Even as some entities cut back on their financial ties to NISP, the project still has momentum.
For one, those towns and water agencies looking to sell their shares found a willing buyer. Eaton, Severance, Fort Lupton and the Left Hand Water District all sold their shares to the Fort Collins Loveland Water District.
The Fort Collins Loveland Water District, which serves an area roughly between Harmony Road and State Route 34, declined to be interviewed for this story.
Second, NISP has a total of 15 participants, and many of them are still on board for the same amount of water they signed up for years ago.
“No matter what,” Severance’s Wharton said, “In one way, you’ll see those 15 probably still continue to be a part of it no matter what, because everybody does realize how precious that water is and how this will be one of the last [big reservoirs.] I don’t think anybody’s discouraged.”
Even the towns that reduced the amount of water they’ll pay to use from NISP are keeping some. Severance and Eaton said they want to make sure they’re getting water from a diverse group of sources, especially with climate change and political bickering threatening their main source of water — the Colorado River via the CBT.
Ultimately, the fast-growing region served by Northern Water — from Boulder County to Fort Collins, and east to Fort Lupton — will keep needing water for a future that will likely see plenty of new home construction.
“It doesn’t appear that folks are shying away from moving to Northern Colorado,” Brad Wind said. “Either from within our state or from outside of our state, so the demand continues to increase for a high quality water supply, which NISP will produce.”
$100 million settlement allows #Colorado reservoir projects to move forward, ending decades of dispute — The #Denver Post #NISP
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
March 5, 2025
Two new bodies of water in northern Front Range will boost water supplies for 15 communities
Plans for a $2 billion water supply project in northern Colorado will move forward after the communities supporting it agreed to pump $100 million into improving the health of the Cache la Poudre River — a settlement ending decades of dispute over the water infrastructure plans. Leaders from the Northern Integrated Supply Project and the nonprofit environmental group Save the Poudre finalized the settlement on Friday, clearing the way for two new reservoirs. The deal will funnel $100 million over 20 years into a fund to sustain 50 miles of the river from the mouth of the Poudre Canyon, northwest of Fort Collins, to the river’s confluence with the South Platte. The Poudre River Improvement Fund will pay for projects to enhance the river’s flows, water quality, ecosystem and recreational opportunities. The settlement ends Save the Poudre’s 2024 lawsuit alleging the Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider the environmental impacts of the Northern Integrated Supply Project when it issued a Clean Water Act permit for its construction. Environmentalists with the group have opposed the project for decades because it would drain the river and damage its ecosystems…
Northern Water, the utility that’s spearheading the project, and other water suppliers have pursued the water infrastructure improvements since 1980, stating they are critical to meeting the needs of the growing region. When complete, the Northern Integrated Supply Project will include Glade Reservoir northwest of Fort Collins, Galeton Reservoir northeast of Greeley, 50 miles of buried water pipelines and five pump plants. The project will send more than 40,000 acre-feet of water annually to the participating water suppliers in Boulder, Weld and Larimer counties — enough water for about 80,000 households.
“This is a milestone day for the communities participating in the project,” Northern Water General Manager Brad Wind said in a news release. “The settlement agreement will close the permitting process for the project, open the door to constructing a project that will deliver much-needed water supplies to vibrant communities, and allow for dozens of large-scale riverine investments in and along the Poudre River.”
Construction of Glade Reservoir is expected to begin in 2026. It will hold about 170,000 acre-feet of water from the Poudre River — a capacity slightly larger than that of Horsetooth Reservoir, according to Northern Water’s release. Construction of 45,600-acre-foot Galeton Reservoir will begin after the first reservoir is complete, and it will store water from the South Platte. An acre-foot of water is enough to support two Colorado households for a year. The project will support water supplies for 15 towns and water districts in northern Colorado, including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, the Left Hand Water District, Fort Morgan and Erie.
Peace on the #PoudreRiver: $100M dam settlement has everyone basking in the rarity of the moment — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News) #NISP
Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):
March 20, 2025
Fort Morgan has never fully owned its water supplies. The small farm town on the Eastern Plains has always leased its water from whomever had some to spare.
But with the late February settlement of a lawsuit that will allow construction of the $2 billion Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, to move forward, Fort Morgan’s 10,564 residents will rest easier, knowing that for the first time, they will own the water that flows from their taps, according to City Manager Brent Nation.
“It has been our intention all along to own our water,” Nation said. “With this settlement, we can finally move forward. It’s a good thing for us.”
Fifteen water districts and cities in northern Colorado have banded together to build the massive project, which will take water from the Cache la Poudre River and create two dams and reservoirs and a sprawling pipeline system.
Participants include Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Erie, Fort Morgan, Left Hand Water District, Central Weld County Water District, Windsor, Frederick, Lafayette, Morgan County Quality Water District, Firestone, Dacono, Evans, Fort Lupton, Severance and Eaton.
When completed, sometime after 2030, according to Northern Water, which is NISP’s sponsor, it will deliver 40,000 acre-feet of water annually to some 80,000 families. One acre-foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons, enough to serve two to four urban households each year.
But before then, and for years to come, the settlement will begin reshaping and restoring the Poudre.
Why the fuss?
Concern over the river has been rising for years.
According to Save the Poudre, nearly 400,000 acre-feet of water flow out of Poudre Canyon, but some 300,000 acre-feet are taken out by farmers and others almost immediately, leaving the river shallow, stressed and over heated as it flows more than 100 miles to its confluence with the South Platte River east of Greeley.
According to the settlement agreement, the $100 million will pay to move water diversion points farther downstream, leaving more water in the river as it flows east, rather than taking the water out higher up and reducing its flows.
Water-sharing arrangements between cities and farmers will be written to enhance recreation and stream improvements. New fish and boat passages will be installed around existing dams on the river. A new network to track the health of the river, its temperature and water quality, will also be added…
New dams and reservoirs must go through extensive permitting and environmental reviews to win approval from federal and state regulators. It took NISP about 15 years to win its final permit. That permit already includes requirements that will help the river, according to Northern spokesperson Jeff Stahla.
Under the federal permit, for instance, one-third of the total water delivered by the project must be delivered at specific volumes to boost stream flows in the winter and in the summer to aid fish and cool water temperatures, Stahla said.
Help delivered through the new settlement will come in addition to the federal and state requirements.
“It’s going to make a significant difference to the Poudre,” Northern Water General Manager Brad Wind said.
The settlement has also taken a lot of the heat out of the rooms where water planners and environmentalists…fought for more than a decade…
Dan Luecke is a well-known hydrologist and environmentalist who led the successful fight to stop Two Forks dam southwest of Denver in the 1980s. That too was a long, tortured battle, which largely ended when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with backing from the White House, rejected the proposal in 1990. There was no financial settlement then, Luecke said. But the $100 million Poudre agreement, though not as large as others in the American West, such as the $450 million Klamath River settlement, is noteworthy.
“$100 million is a pretty substantial number. It’s impressive in my mind,” Luecke said. “And the complexity of it, that they have to pump water in these reservoirs and use long pipelines to get the water back out to the urban areas. … It’s monumental.” (Luecke is a board member of Water Education Colorado, which founded Fresh Water News.)
The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which serves parts of both cities, is the largest participant in the NISP project, and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars for its share of the project and the settlement. And that’s OK with Stephen Smith, a member of the district’s board.
The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which serves parts of both cities, is the largest participant in the NISP project, and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars for its share of the project and the settlement. And that’s OK with Stephen Smith, a member of the district’s board.
“I feel comfortable with that,” Smith said, adding that he was speaking as a private individual, not a board member. “This money is going to go into the Poudre. If the money were going to buy off Save The Poudre, that would be a negative to me, but to have this six-member committee and to have an opportunity to put $100 million into the river, I consider that to be outstanding, I couldn’t be happier.”
New Northern #Colorado reservoirs moving ahead after settlement of #NISP lawsuit — Alex Hager (KUNC.org) #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
March 5, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
A massive new reservoir project in Northern Colorado is closer to reality after its architects settled a lawsuit with an environmental group seeking to block construction. The Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, will go ahead sooner than expected after a lawsuit settlement. Northern Water will pay $100 million into a trust after Save the Poudre, a nonprofit, agreed to drop its lawsuit. That money will fund river improvement projects.
The controversial water project, which will cost around $2 billion to build, has been tied up in planning and permitting for more than two decades. Advocates for the new reservoirs say it’s an important way to make sure fast-growing communities in Larimer and Weld counties have enough water for new homes and residents. Opponents worry it will take water out of a Cache la Poudre River that is already taxed by diversions for cities and farms.
…the settlement money will go into a new “Poudre River Improvement Fund.”
[…]
The fund can be used for “ecological, habitat, and recreational improvements,” including the potential creation of a “Poudre River Water Trail” from Gateway Park in Poudre Canyon to Eastman Park in Windsor. The fund will be managed by a six-person committee, three of whom will be appointed by Save the Poudre, and three by the NISP enterprise…
NISP would supply 15 different water providers along the northern Front Range through two reservoirs and a system of pipelines and pumps. Northern Water, the agency that would build and operate NISP, projects that it will provide water to nearly 500,000 people by 2050.
Water from the system would flow to a diverse group of towns and cities north of Denver. Small, fast-growing towns such as Erie and Windsor stand to receive some of the largest water allocations from NISP. The list also includes the Fort Collins Loveland Water District, the Left Hand Water District, which is just north of Boulder, and Fort Morgan on the eastern plains.
“These are communities that have identified the need for housing as something that will increase the quality of life,” said Jeff Stahla, a spokesman for Northern Water. “So this is an important time for us as residents to realize that we can help to solve some of the problems and some of the the challenges that we’re seeing out there on the horizon as more people choose to live here.”
Stahla said construction is expected to take off in 2026, with some pipes being laid in the summer and fall of this year. If Save the Poudre’s lawsuit was still in place, he said, construction would have begun in “2027 or even beyond.” Glade Reservoir, the centerpiece of NISP’s water storage system, would flood a valley northwest of Fort Collins that is currently home to a stretch of U.S. Highway 287 connecting Fort Collins and Laramie, Wyo. That section of road would be rebuilt further East.
Stahla said Northern Water’s permit includes requirements to mitigate environmental impacts caused by the new reservoirs. He alluded to the fact that the river is already connected to a number of large reservoirs and its water is piped and pumped far away from its original course.
“The Poudre River has really been a working river for 150 years now,” he said. “What NISP is planning to do certainly is not the only impacts to the river that have been occurring or will occur.”
…Stahla…suggested work on diversion structures, which redirect the river’s water towards farms and water treatment plants. Stahla suggested they could be modernized… and moved further downstream to allow more water to flow through certain sections of the river.
Northern Water may be nearing settlement of lawsuit filed to stop $2 billion reservoir project — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News) #NISP #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):
February 13, 2025
More than a year after an environmental group sued to stop a $2 billion northern Colorado water project, whispers of a settlement are being heard as the case winds its way through U.S. District Court in Denver.
Last January, Save The Poudre sued to block the Northern Integrated Supply Project, a two-reservoir development designed to serve tens of thousands of people in northern Colorado. The suit alleged that the Army Corps of Engineers had not adequately weighed the environmental impacts and less harmful ecological alternatives to the project…
Northern Water, which operates the federally owned Colorado-Big Thompson Project for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is overseeing the permitting and construction of NISP. The agency also declined to comment on any potential settlement. Northern Water serves more than 1 million Front Range residents and hundreds of growers in the South Platte River Basin.
“We’re still moving forward with what we need to do on the litigation,” Northern spokesman Jeff Stahla said.
Northern Water’s board discussed the litigation in a confidential executive session last week at a study retreat and it is scheduled to discuss it in another private executive session Feb. 13 at its formal board meeting, according to the agenda.
Sources told Fresh Water News and The Colorado Sun that those discussions are related to the potential multimillion-dollar settlement.
Key developments this past year
In October, a federal judge delivered a favorable ruling to Wockner’s Save the Colorado on a case involving Denver Water’s Gross Reservoir expansion project. Now [envisonmental groups] are seeking an injunction to force Denver Water to stop construction of the dam, which began in 2022.
Raising the Boulder County dam by 131 feet will allow Denver Water to capture more water from the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River on the Western Slope. In its ruling, the federal court said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had failed to consider the impact of climate change on the flows in the Colorado River.
What impact that ruling may have on the NISP case isn’t clear, but [the environmental group that sued Denver Water] said they believe it will give his organization more leverage to push for changes in NISP.
In addition, the City of Fort Collins has dropped its formal opposition to NISP. And Stahla said Northern has continued to push forward with key parts of the development, including the design work needed to relocate a 7-mile stretch of U.S. 287 northwest of Fort Collins.
Fort Collins Mayor Jeni Arndt said the city changed its stance because most of its environmental concerns had been met through the 21-year federal permitting process.
“The EPA had signed off, and the Corps of Engineers had signed off,” she said. “It was obvious that this was not going to be another Two Forks,” referring to a massive dam proposed in the 1970s by Denver Water on the South Platte River near Deckers. It was rejected by the EPA due to environmental concerns.
Arndt said the city also planned to use a later review process, known as a 1041 review, to address other environmental concerns that might arise.
If NISP is ultimately built, and most believe it will be, it will provide water for 15 fast-growing communities and water districts along the Interstate 25 corridor, including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Fort Morgan, Lafayette and Windsor.
The largest participant in the giant project is the Fort Collins-Loveland District. Board member Stephen Smith said he believes NISP will move forward one way or another and that it is critical to serving the water-short region.
“NISP is going to get built and it will provide water to Fort Collins by 2033,” he said.
Larimer County Sets Public Meetings for 1041 Permit Application — City of #FortCollins
Click the link to read the release on the City of Fort Collins website:
In 2024, the City of Fort Collins applied for a 1041 permit from Larimer County. As a part of the permit process, two public hearings will take place with the county’s Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
The meetings are scheduled at the Larimer County offices at 200 W. Oak St. in Fort Collins at the following times:
- Planning Commission: February 19, 2025 at 6 p.m.
- Board of County Commissioners: March 24, 2025 at 6:30 p.m.
The Planning Commission holds its hearing to provide a permit recommendation to the County Commissioners. The County Commissioners hold a hearing to make a final decision on the permit application.
The Halligan Project requires a 1041 permit from Larimer County because it includes the enlargement of a reservoir resulting in a surface area at high water line in excess of 50 acres. The permit process looks at all aspects of the project. To view the application, visit the county’s portal by clicking the button below.
If you have questions about the Halligan Project, you can email halligan@fcgov.com. If you want to submit comments to the county about the 1041 permit application, you can visit publicinput.com/halligan This link opens in a new browser tab.
Also from the City of Fort Collins via email:
| Information Session on Larimer County Permit Application As someone who is interested in the Halligan Water Supply Project, we are reaching out to inform you about recent developments. In 2024, the City of Fort Collins submitted an application for a 1041 permit from Larimer County. The City, acting through Fort Collins Utilities, is proceeding with this permitting process now as the project is moving through phases of design and closer to construction. The permit process looks at all aspects of the project. To view the application, visit the county’s website by clicking this link. To increase awareness, the City is hosting an Information Session on Feb. 12, 2025 from 6-7:30 p.m. at the Livermore Community Hall. City staff will be on hand to highlight elements of the application and answer questions. While this won’t be part of the official public comment process with Larimer County, we encourage you to engage directly with us. To RSVP, click the button below. Light refreshments will be provided. |
Water rates are going up 30% for residents in #FortCollins-#Loveland Water District — The Fort Collins Coloradoan
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
November 26, 2024
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%.
- Fees for new irrigation taps will increase 33%.
Poudre Flows: Collaboration to Protect the Cache la #PoudreRiver — #Colorado Water Trust
Click the link to read the blog post on the Colorado Water Trust website (Josh Boissevain):
October 29, 2024
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.”
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.
“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.
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 BoardFOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Josh Boissevain
Staff Attorney, Colorado Water Trust
(720) 579-2897 ext. 6
JBoissevain@coloradowatertrust.org
Appeals court rejects lawsuit, says Northern Integrated Supply Project can move forward — #Colorado Public Radio #NISP
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Public Radio website (Ishan Thakore). Here’s an excerpt:
October 8, 2024
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.
From Coors to Leprino, #Colorado companies dial down water use as water shortages loom — Fresh Water News
Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Emily Payne):
September 5, 2024
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.
A reputational imperative
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
“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.
#Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment approves higher capacity of safe drinking water for 150,000 residents in Northern Colorado: Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Plant expands from 60 to 68 million gallons per day — North Weld County Water District
Click the link to read the release on the North Weld County Water District website:
September 17, 2024
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:
Save The Poudre sues over #Thornton pipeline, extending 6-year saga — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver #ColoradoRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
July 12, 2024
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.
#Thornton gets green light from Larimer County for long-sought water pipeline segment: City’s proposal faced widespread pushback from county residents who urged Thornton to keep its water in the #PoudreRiver — The #Denver Post #SouthPlatteRiver
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.”
It’s do-or-die time for a water pipeline #Thornton says it needs to keep home construction alive: Larimer County’s commissioners set to decide “critical vote” on permit for $500 million project — The #Denver Post #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
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.
Missed the public hearing for Thornton’s 1041 water pipeline application (April 22, 2024)? Here’s a recap — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Ignacio Calderon). Here’s an excerpt:
April 22, 2024
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.
Record Demand for #Colorado Water Conservation Board Water Plan Grant Funding — @CWCB_DNR
From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Katie Weeman):
March 13, 2024 (Denver, CO) – The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) approved 52 Water Plan Grant applications today, which will distribute $17.4 million to fund critical projects to manage and conserve water, improve agriculture, spark collaborative partnerships, and much more. This funding cycle, CWCB received a record 70 applications requesting $25.6 million—$8.2 million more than is currently available.
“Water is on the top of many Coloradans’ minds. And the projects this program funds are critical to meet and mitigate our state’s most critical water challenges,” said Lauren Ris, CWCB Director. “We received significantly more applications than we had funding for this cycle of Water Plan Grants, showing just how much demand there is for this important funding, and how critical it is that we continue to fuel this effort.”
Every year, the Water Plan Grant Program provides millions of dollars of funding for projects in five key categories: Water Storage & Supply, Conservation & Land Use, Engagement & Innovation, Agricultural Projects, and Watershed Health & Recreation. Water Plan Grants support the Colorado Water Plan, and funded projects are wide-ranging and impactful to the state, focusing on enhancing water infrastructure, restoring ecosystems, supporting education and community collaboration, boosting water conservation and efficiency, guiding resilient land use planning, and more.
During this fiscal year, the CWCB awarded 83 grants totaling $25.2 million. CWCB’s Water Plan Grants run on two application cycles: the December application deadline receives final Board approval during the March Board Meeting, and the July deadline receives votes in September. On March 13, 2024, the Board voted to approve December’s 34-project cohort.
This cycle’s project applications are diverse in scope and location. A few examples include:
- South Platte River Basin Salinity Study (Agricultural, $464,361): Colorado State University will conduct a comprehensive study on salinization across seven regions in the South Platte River Basin, to understand the severity and variability of salinity in water and land resources.
- Denver One Water Plan Implementation Phase 2 (Conservation & Land Use, $200,000): Mile High Flood District will continue Phase 2 of Denver’s One Water Plan, which promotes coordination and collaboration among various city departments, organizations, and agencies in charge of managing all aspects of the urban water cycle.
- Watershed PenPal Program (Engagement & Innovation, $136,947): Roaring Fork Conservancy will connect communities across the Roaring Fork Valley and Front Range, fostering understanding of water challenges through discussion, letter writing, and shared experiences.
- Park Creek Reservoir Expansion (Water Storage & Supply, $1,750,000): The North Poudre Irrigation Company will expand the Park Creek Reservoir, increasing water storage capacity by 3,010 acre-feet to benefit agricultural use and water management.
- South Boulder Creek Watershed Restoration Phase 3 (Watershed Health & Recreation, $1,000,000): Colorado Trout Unlimited will build upon previous phases of this project to support final design and permitting for multiple in-stream diversion structures in South Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado.
Looking forward, the CWCB hopes to continue and advance the Water Plan Grant program for decades to come. Projects funded and supported through this program address water-related challenges by harnessing the latest research, tapping into community engagement, and developing innovative solutions that allow water partners, agencies, and Coloradans to work together.
In the last two weeks, #snowpack gains were 137 percent of average at our West Slope stations and 99 percent of average at our East Slope stations — @Northern_Water
January 29, 2024
The West Slope stations are now at 96 percent and East Slope stations are at 93 percent of median snowpack for this date.
Save the Poudre is suing to stop NISP project that would provide water to 15 communities — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatte #River
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
Environmental group Save The Poudre has filed a lawsuit to try and stop the Northern Integrated Supply Project from going forward to construct two reservoirs and supply water to 15 communities…In the lawsuit, filed Thursday, Save The Poudre says the diversion of water from the Poudre River would cause severe damage to the river, including its aquatic life, the Poudre River Whitewater Park in Fort Collins and the riparian corridor…The lawsuit also alleges that in approving the permit, the Army Corps violated both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act because it didn’t adequately consider alternatives and didn’t choose the least environmentally damaging alternative, respectively…
NISP would divert water from the Poudre and South Platte rivers to store in two new reservoirs: Glade Reservoir north of Fort Collins and the smaller Galeton Reservoir east of Ault. Communities that would be served by the project include the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and others in Weld and Boulder counties.
#Greeley Water survey, workshops to shape new #conservation program — The Greeley Tribune #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the article on The Greeley Tribune website (Chris Bolin). Here’s an excerpt:
January 23, 2024
The city of Greeley launched a multi-language survey to gather thoughts on designing a new water conservation program to fit everyone’s needs, according to a city news release. City officials will also host a pair of community workshops to engage with residents and bridge the gap between the city and its water users.
“We want our conservation programs to serve all water users in our growing and diverse community,” Water Conservation Specialist Rita Jokerst said in the release. “And we’re excited to use this survey to hear from as many residents as possible.”
Residents can enter to win one of three $100 gift cards by filling out the survey at greeleygov.com/LILAC or by attending one of the two come-and-go community workshops. The first will be hosted from 4-7 p.m. Jan. 23 at the Greeley Recreation Center, 651 10th Ave. The second will take place from 5:30-7:30 p.m.Feb. 21 at the LINC Library, 501 8th Ave. Greeley Water Efficiency Resource Coordinator Margarita Padilla said she is excited about the survey and looks forward to engaging with the community…
For more information on the survey or workshop details, go to greeleygov.com/LILAC.
If you thought #FortCollins’ warm December was odd, you’re right. Here’s how weird it was — The Fort Collins Coloradoan
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Miles Blumhardt). Here’s an excerpt:
Fort Collins had a very dry and warm December 2023
- The city received no measurable snowfall in December, which is the first time that happened since 2002. Before 2002, it happened only three other times, the last of which was in 1935.
- The city received 0.14 inches of precipitation, which fell as rain. It was the driest December since 2018.
- The average temperature was 37.3 degrees, which was the warmest for December since 1980.
- December reached above 60 degrees five times, including the high of 65 degrees on Dec. 6 and the last balmy day of 62 degrees on Dec. 21.
- It never got colder than 15 degrees. That happened on Christmas night and was the highest minimum temperature for the month since the beginning of city weather record-keeping in 1889. Compare that to December 2022, when we dropped to minus 17 degrees, the coldest temperature recorded of any month since the 1990s.
Despite a dry December, 2023 was a wet one for Fort Collins
- 2023 was the fourth-wettest year on record, ending with 24.36 inches of precipitation, which was 153% of our 1991-2020 normal of 15.88 inches.
- The last wetter year was in 1997, the year of the Spring Creek Flood, when we received 25.23 inches.
- The city’s record for precipitation in a calendar year is 28.28 inches in 1961.
#Greeley water utility rates to increase by an average of $7.84 per month in 2024 — The Greeley Tribune
Click the link to read the article on The Greeley Tribune website (Trevor Reid):
Most Greeley residents’ average monthly utility bill for water, sewer and stormwater services will increase by about $7.84 starting Jan. 1.
The city’s Water and Sewer Board approved new water utility rates for 2024 to support ongoing investments needed to continue providing safe, reliable and great-tasting water, the city announced in a news release.
The city explained the increases with the following breakdown:
- $2.53 for water, to support projects for water supply and storage and help fund the location and removal of water service lines that contain lead;
- $2.80 for sewer, to ensure compliance with environmental regulations for wastewater treatment;
- $2.51 for stormwater, to upgrade storm drains to prevent flooding and protect local rivers.
The estimated increase covers an average-sized house and yard. Factors affecting customers’ individual bills include weather, property size and type of watering.
#Wellington faces ‘hard decisions’ as it raises water rates, looks to future — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #SouthPlatteRiver #PourdreRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Pat Ferrier). Here’s an excerpt:
On Tuesday, the town trustees approved a 5% annual rate hike for 2024-2028 that would cost the average ratepayer and extra $5.37 per month in winter and $12.45 in summer, when more water is used to water lawns. New rates will go into effect Jan. 1. Trustees also approved an increase in capital investment fees paid by developers from $10,437 for water and $9,742 for wastewater per single-family home to $10,959 and $10,229, respectively. The 2024 base water rate will go from $49.71 to $52.20 and the usage rate will go from $11.70 to $12.29 for the use of 4,000 to 7,000 gallons.
This is not a new problem for Wellington, which raised water rates and impact fees in 2020 to pay for an expansion of its water and wastewater treatment plants, imposed water restrictions and limited new residential building permits until the expansions are complete. Once the water and wastewater treatment plant expansions are completed, they should accommodate additional growth for 20 to 30 years, which would generate more building and tap fees, allowing the water and wastewater funds to show a profit.
Currently, however, the water fund will be in a $593,000 hole in 2026 and the sewer fund $700,000 short…Trustees also approved transferring the maximum amount from the general fund to the water and wastewater enterprise funds to reduce the impact to residents. Enterprise funds may only receive up to 10% of the revenue received in the fund from taxpayer transfers through the general fund under the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, known as TABOR. The total transfer will reduce the general fund by $935,000 in 2023 and an estimated $1.06 million in 2024.
#Thornton Water Project update
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
The city says the new application is unique because Thornton asked community members about what was most important when it comes to site selection and used that information to determine the preferred route…The application is not yet available from the Larimer County Planning Division, but the city of Thornton has posted some information and a map of the preferred route on a project website. The city also sent the Coloradoan its executive summary for the application…
Thornton says the new proposed route through the county is about 10 miles long, 16 miles shorter than what was first proposed in 2018. A pump station would be moved two miles north of where it was proposed to land owned by Water Supply and Storage Company…The new proposed placement affects 20 outside property owners, according to Thornton, whereas the last project crossed 40 properties, according to Todd Barnes, communications director for Thornton…The plan incorporates other changes the city proposed after commissioners told the city to go back to the drawing board in late 2018, like locating the pipeline along County Road 56 instead of through Douglas Road and aligning part of it with the proposed pipeline for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, a separate water project…Thornton says the new application provides precise locations for the pipeline and its parts so residents “can have a clear understanding of potential impacts from the project.”
[…]
In the new application, Thornton contends any concerns about how the project affects river levels is an issue outside of the county’s authority and is under the jurisdiction of a water court. The city also asserts that because of the court ruling, Larimer County may not consider Thornton’s potential use of eminent domain and “may not require (or criticize Thornton for not including) inclusion of concept of putting water ‘down the river.’ “
Thornton Water Project update
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (John Aguilar). Here’s an excerpt:
As Thornton filed its latest application for a water pipe permit with Larimer County on Monday, officials had hope that they would face less resistance this time…A no vote [from the Larimer County Commissioners] would jeopardize long-term growth plans in Thornton, Colorado’s sixth-largest city, for years to come by hampering the ability to access water it bought the rights for decades ago.
“Though it has been frustrating all these years, I firmly believe this is a better project with all the community feedback,” said Brett Henry, executive director of utilities and infrastructure for the city of Thornton. “It’s more clear about what to expect. There are less unknowns.”
[…]
Thornton says the pipe’s new proposed alignment through Larimer County holds several advantages over a route the county rejected in early 2019. It would take 16 fewer miles of pipe in the county than the original route called for, and the project’s western terminus would avoid a number of neighborhoods that had raised concerns around construction disruption. The city is also willing to move a proposed pump station well apart from homes. The station would be used to divert the water shares Thornton owns in the Poudre to a collection of reservoirs northwest of Fort Collins. The pipe would then traverse 22 properties in Larimer County before crossing into Weld County and turning south. City spokesman Todd Barnes said Thornton already has begun discussions with most of the landholders about obtaining easements for the pipe.
A final environmental report for FortCollins’ Halligan Reservoir expansion is out — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Rebecca Powell). Here’s an excerpt:
A final environmental impact statement for Fort Collins’ proposed Halligan Reservoir expansion is out, and now the public has about a month to weigh in on it. The Halligan Reservoir project north of Fort Collins would expand the reservoir from 6,400 acre-feet to 14,600 acre-feet to help the city meet its projected water demands through 2065. The reservoir stores water from the Poudre River, which makes up half of Fort Collins Utilities’ water supply.
“The project will provide added space to store Utilities’ water rights, enabling a more robust, resilient, and reliable water supply for Utilities’ current and future customers,” according to a news release from Fort Collins Utilities.
The project would require excavation and would discharge dredged or fill material into the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River and adjacent wetlands, so it requires approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the federal Clean Water Act. Since a draft environmental impact study, or EIS, came out in 2019, the city has modified its plans to address some challenges in meeting guidelines for dam safety and construction. Rather than raising the height of the current dam by about 25 feet, it now plans to build a replacement dam that is 26 feet higher than the current dam. It would be located about 200 feet downstream. The existing dam, which is more than 110 years old, would be either partially or fully removed.
#Greeley #water officials declare adequate water year — The Greeley Tribune #runoff
Click the link to read the article on The Greeley Tribune website (Trevor Reid). Here’s an excerpt:
Greeley residents can continue watering their lawns, gardens and outdoor landscapes under normal watering rules through Oct. 31, thanks to the declaration of an adequate water year by the city’s Water and Sewer Board this past month. Above-average snowpack and low temperatures in the high mountains have helped the mountains maintain the snowpack before it melts and feeds the rivers. Recent rainstorms have caused river flows to increase, according to a city news release. The city’s water resources confirmed the city’s reservoirs are either full or filling, with Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson runoff peaking in early June…
Given the adequate water year, the city will also continue its water rental program, renting excess water to farmers and ranchers. Excess water may be rented out so long as the target storage volume of 21,300 acre-feet is maintained. Depending on snowmelt and river conditions, the city may rent out additional water after the initial April allocation…The city averages 6.41 inches of precipitation each year through May 21, according to a city news release. As of earlier this week, the city received 8.03 inches of rainfall — 1.6 inches above average.
National Park Foundation awards $26,800 to Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area for youth education — The #Greeley Tribune #PoudreRiver
Click the link to read the article on The Greeley Tribune website (Trevor Reid). Here’s an excerpt:
More than 3,500 students are expected to get out of the classroom and into the Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area after the area received a grant from the National Park Foundation.
The foundation, the nonprofit partner of the National Park Service, awarded a $26,800 Open OutDoors for Kids grant to the national heritage area as part of the foundation’s Youth Engagement and Education Initiative.
The funding will support the heritage area’s Learning in Our Watershed program, providing scholarships to public, charter, home and online schools for field trips to locations throughout the heritage area. Scholarships are available for all grades, but fourth-grade classrooms from Title I schools receive priority.
On-site field trips for the program include the Poudre Learning Center, the Environmental Learning Center, Centennial Village Museum, the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, the Windsor History Museum and Study Outdoors Learn Outdoors. Learning in Our Watershed has initiatives for learners of all ages.
Poudre School District investigating high copper levels found in new #Wellington school’s #water — The #FortCollins Coloradoan
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Erin Odell). Here’s an excerpt:
Editor’s note: Rice Elementary School became the second Wellington school to find elevated copper levels in some of its drinking water sources over PSD’s winter break, according to a district email sent to the school’s staff and families Wednesday. The Coloradoan will continue its reporting on this development.
Poudre School District is investigating the cause of issues with Wellington Middle-High School’s drinking water after two science classes at the school found high levels of copper in it late last year. Following the class tests — which showed levels more than double the Environmental Protection Agency’s action level for copper in drinking water at two water bottle filling stations — PSD took its own water samples from around the school Dec. 22, later confirming through a third-party lab that copper levels in several fixtures and bottle filling stations exceeded the EPA’s threshold, according to a district email to the school’s staff and parents Tuesday [January 3, 2023]…
The Town of Wellington also took samples of its own around the same time, ultimately ruling out the town’s water distribution lines as the cause for the elevated copper levels, the town and PSD both said. While PSD hasn’t yet confirmed what’s causing the elevated copper levels, the general contractor who built Wellington Middle-High School believes the issue could be tied to the newly constructed building’s water softener equipment, according to the district.
15 Northern Colorado communities win key federal #water project OK as legal battle looms — @WaterEdCO #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Allen Best):
Fifteen towns, cities and water districts in northern Colorado hope to begin building two dams and other infrastructure in 2025 to deliver enough water to meet needs for a quarter-million people, many of them along the fast-growing Interstate 25 corridor.
Northern Water, the agency overseeing what’s known as the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP), hailed federal approval of a critical permit last month as a milestone. “This action is the culmination of nearly 20 years of study, project design and refinement to develop water resources well into the 21st century,” said Brad Wind, general manager of Northern Water. Wind said that NISP will enable the 15 project members, including Windsor, Erie and Fort Morgan, to grow without buying farmland, then drying it up and using its water for growth.
The environmental group, Save the Poudre, hopes to dash those plans. The nonprofit says it will file a lawsuit in an attempt to block the $2 billion NISP. To succeed, the group will have to overcome precedent. It failed to block Chimney Hollow, the dam that Northern Water is constructing as part of a separate project, in the foothills west of Berthoud whose construction began in 2022 after a three-year court case.
“We have a much stronger case against NISP because the project would drain a dramatic amount of water out of the Poudre River, which would negatively impact the river’s ecology, its habitat, and its jurisdictional wetlands — protected by the Clean Water Act — all the way through Fort Collins and downstream,” said Gary Wockner, director of Save The Poudre.
This new court challenge was set up by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announcement Dec. 9 that it was issuing a crucial permit under the Clean Water Act. Directors of Northern Water, the overarching agency for the participating jurisdictions, are scheduled on Thursday, Jan. 5, to take up whether to accept the terms of the permit. Staff members have advised them to do so.
The impetus for NISP can be traced to the early 1980s when Northern Water began drawing up plans to dam the Poudre River in the foothills near Fort Collins. Federal agencies balked at Denver’s plans for a similar project on the South Platte River at Two Forks, in the foothills southwest of Denver. Northern shelved its initial plan. But after the scorching drought that began in 2002, Northern developed plans for NISP, which it submitted to federal agencies in 2004.
Two reservoirs are central to NISP. Glade Park, an off-channel reservoir, would be built north of La Porte, bounded by the Dakota hogbacks and a dam that would cross today’s Highway 287. It would have a capacity of 170,000 acre-feet, slightly larger than the 157,000 acre-feet of Horsetooth Reservoir. Northern’s water rights are relatively junior, dating from the 1980s and would only generate water in spring months during high runoff years.
The project promises delivery via pipeline of 40,000 acre-feet of high-quality water annually to the 11 mostly smaller towns and cities and the 4 water districts. Erie is buying the largest amount of water from the new project, claiming 6,500 acre-feet. An acre-foot equals 326,000 gallons.
The second storage pool, Galeton Reservoir, at 45,000 acre-feet, would impound water northeast of Greeley. Unlike the water from Glade, which is to be strictly dedicated to domestic use, Galeton would hold water that will be delivered to farms in Weld County that otherwise would have received water from the Poudre River. This will be done via a water-rights swap with two ditches north of Greeley. Those agreements have not been finalized.
Preservation of agricultural land, costs of water, and water quality figure prominently in the talking points both for — and, in some cases, against — the project.
Northern and its project participants argue that NISP will allow them to grow without drying up farms. It can do so, they say, by delivering the water at a lower cost.
The federal environmental impact statement’s no-action alternative found that population growth would occur regardless of whether a federal permit was issued, said Jeff Stahla, the public information officer for Northern Water. That analysis found that in the absence of NISP, the 15 cities and water districts would look to buy water rights currently devoted to agriculture, ultimately taking 64,000 acres — or 100 square miles — out of production.
The 15 utilities will be able to get NISP’s new water at $40,000 per acre-foot, substantially below current market rates for other regional water sources such as the Colorado-Big Thompson Project shares. Those shares, which constitute seven-tenths of an acre-foot, have been selling for about $75,000.
In some cases, expanding cities will take farmland out of production — and presumably gain access to the water, but not always.
“We do not want to dry up northern Colorado,” says John Thornhill, Windsor’s director of community development.
Thornhill said that Windsor, a town of 42,000 with its 20th Century sugar beet factory still standing, is participating in NISP to improve the resiliency of its water portfolio as it prepares for another 10,000 to 15,000 residents in the next 10 to 15 years.
“The town of Windsor has just as much interest in having a clean, healthy river as anybody else does,” he says. “[The Poudre River] goes right through our town.”
Fort Collins is not participating in the project. In a 2020 resolution, it said it would oppose the proposal or any variant that failed to “address the City’s fundamental concerns about the quality of its water supply and the effects on the Cache la Poudre River through the city.”
Water quality will be at the heart of Save the Poudre’s lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers’ 404 permit. The group’s Wockner says the diversion to Glade Reservoir will reduce peak flows in the Poudre, a river already suffering from E. coli and other pollutants, by up to 40%. “The water quality in the river will worsen because as you take out the peak flows what is left is dirty water,” he says.
Also at issue, says Wockner, will be the impacts to Fort Collins’ wastewater treatment. With reduced flows downstream from its two treatment plants, those plants would have to be upgraded.
On the flip side, Fort Morgan got involved partly because of Glade Reservoir’s higher water quality, according to City Manager Brent Nation.
The city of 12,000 historically relied upon aquifer water heavily laden with minerals for its domestic supply. As the aquifer became increasingly tainted by chemicals used in agricultural production, the city, in the late 1990s, began importing water through an 80-mile pipeline from Carter Lake, a reservoir that stores imported Colorado River water southwest of Loveland.
To use aquifer water for its new population growth Fort Morgan would need to upgrade its water treatment system to use reverse osmosis. That’s a more expensive treatment that also produces a problem of brine disposal.
Both Fort Morgan and Windsor have started working on land-use regulations that will restrict high-quality water for domestic use, at least in some subdivisions, leaving lower-quality water for landscaping.
If NISP as proposed survives Save the Poudre’s legal challenge, it may still need a 1041 permit from Fort Collins. Those regulations have not yet been adopted, however.
Allen Best grew up in eastern Colorado, where both sets of grandparents were farmers. Best writes about the energy transition in Colorado and beyond at BigPivots.com.
Congratulations to Northern Water — The Buzz @FloydCiruli #NISP #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver
Click the link to read the post on The Buzz website (Floyd Ciruli):
The NISP project in the North Front Range has just received its critical permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The project, which will cost $2 billion and take years to complete, will provide water to a host of cities and agricultural water districts in Larimer, Weld, Morgan, and Boulder counties.
The review by Colorado and federal environmental agencies took 20 years and added millions in additional cost to the project in scientific study and mitigation, including sending more water down the Poudre River through Fort Collins to maintain flows above what currently exist. It also adds major recreational opportunities and flatwater fishing.
Ciruli Associates provided public relations and public opinion research to the project managers to assist in the regulatory compliance.
After years of opposition and delay, some adversaries now threaten lawsuits, their success after these long environmental reviews has been limited. Most recently, they filed lawsuits to stop the Windy Gap project on the western slope and Gross Reservoir in Boulder County and failed in both.
Fortunately, the region’s water leadership maintained a steady and determined commitment to achieving the project’s approval.
READ MORE: https://www.northernwater.org/Home/NewsArticle/3d7f713d-6df9-4549-bb87-37629b707b66
#NISP won federal permit to proceed. Here’s what it means for the $2 billion #water project — The #FortCollins Coloradoan #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver #CRWUA2022
Click the link to read the article on the Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Sady Swanson). Here’s an excerpt:
The planned $2 billion Northern Integrated Supply Project received a federal Clean Water Act Section 404 Record of Decision from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Friday, Northern Water Conservancy District — the group leading the project — announced in a news release, calling this “a major milestone” for the project.This is the final large-scale permit needed for the project to move forward, Northern Water spokesperson Jeff Stahla told the Coloradoan.
“This action is the culmination of nearly 20 years of study, project design and refinement to develop water resources well into the 21st century,” Northern Water General Manager Brad Wind said in the news release. “This Project will also allow participating communities to serve their customers without targeting water now used on the region’s farms.”
NISP will divert water from the Poudre and South Platte rivers to store in two new reservoirs — Glade Reservoir north of Fort Collins and the smaller Galeton Reservoir east of Ault — to supply water for 15 growing North Front Range communities and water suppliers, including the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and others in Weld and Boulder counties.,.Northern Water is still in the design phase for NISP, and Stahla said construction could begin in late 2024 or early 2025 and should be operational four years after that, based on the timeline for the Chimney Hollow Reservoir.
Northern Integrated Supply Project Achieves Major Milestone from Federal Agency — @Northern_Water #PoudreRiver #SouthPlatteRiver #NISP
From email from Northern Water (Jeff Stahla):
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a federal Clean Water Act Section 404 Record of Decision for the Northern Integrated Supply Project. This is a major milestone for NISP, as it reflects the lead federal regulatory agency’s review and approval of the Project.
The Corps’ approval was based on a lengthy and rigorous scientific analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and a host of other environmental laws, including the federal Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, State Water Quality compliance certification, and State Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan requirements.
The Corps has concluded that the Project’s 40,000 acre-foot yield will meet a substantial amount of the 15 Northern Front Range participants’ future water need and that NISP is the least environmentally impactful means of satisfying that need. The Corps considered a range of other potential alternative approaches, including the adverse impacts to the region if no federal action was taken.
“This action is the culmination of nearly 20 years of study, project design and refinement to develop water resources well into the 21st century,” said Northern Water General Manager Brad Wind. “This Project will also allow participating communities to serve their customers without targeting water now used on the region’s farms.”
Through the federal permitting process, the Project was refined to further avoid and minimize environmental impacts and provide mitigation and enhancements to river-related resources. NISP’s operations will send more water down the Poudre River and through downtown Fort Collins in most months of the year, providing additional flows through the city in late summer, fall and winter than currently exist. NISP will also offer significant new flatwater recreation opportunities to everyone.
NISP includes Glade Reservoir, Galeton Reservoir, and associated project infrastructure to deliver high-quality water to more than 250,000 Northeastern Colorado residents.
Participants in the Project include the Town of Erie, Town of Windsor, City of Fort Morgan, Town of Frederick, City of Evans, City of Fort Lupton, Town of Eaton, Town of Severance, City of Lafayette, Town of Firestone, and City of Dacono, as well as the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Left Hand Water District, Central Weld County Water District, and the Morgan County Quality Water District.
Learn more about NISP at www.NISPwater.org.
#Wellington residents remain frustrated over high #water bills as town plays catch-up — The #FortCollins Coloradoan
Click the link to read the article on The Fort Collins Coloradoan website (Bethany Osborn). Here’s an excerpt:
Wellington’s Board of Trustees is now playing catch-up. During its regular meeting on Oct. 25, Wellington’s board heard several options on how the town plans to decrease water rates for residents and distribute the cost of the new treatment plants more equitably across all classes of users. While residents could see some decrease in their monthly water costs, the town still has some of the highest water bills in the region. Some residents say they don’t think the problem will go away until the town stops prioritizing growth over updating the existing infrastructure…
Currently, Wellington residents pay a base rate of $66 and anywhere between $4.56 to $7.72 per 1,000 gallons used, depending on how many thousands of gallons of water they use per month. The average household in Wellington uses about 4,000 gallons of water during winter months and 10,000 gallons of water in the summer, said Meagan Smith, Wellington’s deputy director of public works. Under current water rates, the average resident is paying anywhere from $85 to $112 per month for just their water usage depending on the time of year. For Fort Collins Utilities customers, similar bills would be about $30 to $47. In January 2021, Wellington raised the base rate from about $31 to $66, leaving residents to make significant changes in order to cover their bills…
While nothing is official until the board votes, which will likely happen later this month, members indicated during the Oct. 25 meeting they would support an option for residents that would have a tiered base rate, dependent on the size of the residential tap, that includes a capital charge — the fee to cover new infrastructure and what made base rates so high in the first place — and a minimum of 3,000 gallons of “essential use.” Previous base rates didn’t include any sort of essential use. According to a rate study the town conducted, roughly half or water bills in Wellington use 3,000 gallons or less per month.