The Colorado River District is hosting a ‘State of the River’ meeting in Granby May 12

From email from the Colorado River District (Martha Moore):

The Colorado River District and Grand County are hosting the annual Grand County “State of the River” public meeting on Tues., May 11th from 7:00-8:30 p.m. at the Mountain Parks Electric Community Center, 321 West Agate, Granby.

Learn about:

* how this year’s snowpack will translate into stream flows,
* Grand Lake water quality issues, and
* critical negotiations affecting the Fraser and Colorado Rivers.

Will Grandma be able to float the Fraser? Will Junior be fishing his favorite fishing hole come August? Which reservoir should Aunt Mille head to for the best boating? And what’s up with all that brown dust on our white snow?

These and more pertinent questions will be answered at the Grand County “State of the River” meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 11th at Mountain Parks Electric Community Room, 321 W. Agate Ave. (Hwy 40), Granby.

Forecasted stream flows, anticipated reservoir operations, water required for endangered fish and projected long-term county water supply and demands will be the main subjects at this annual public meeting sponsored by the Colorado River District and Grand County.

For more information, please contact Martha Moore at (970) 945-8522, ext. 226, or e-mail edinfo@crwcd.org

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Interbasin Compact Committee water transfer meeting recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“We’ve been given a pop quiz,” Chips Barry, former director of Denver Water told the Interbasin Compact Committee. “If the reaction to Denver’s [Moffat Collection System Project] and Northern’s [Northern Integrated Supply Project] proposals are any indication, the IBCC has not fixed anything yet. We’ve got a ways to go.”[…]

Now, Denver faces the same sort of opposition to the enlargement that it experienced with Two Forks, even though it has done more than it was asked on the other two points. “We don’t oppose (Gross Reservoir enlargement),” said Drew Peternell, of Western Resource Advocates, who attended the IBCC meeting. “We want to see more documentation for conservation and reuse to make sure everything that can be done is being done.”

Barry, however, said the Gross Reservoir enlargement has every aspect the IBCC has talked about, with increased water and cash payments for Grand County concerns on the Western Slope and environmental flows on Boulder Creek in the South Platte. “We’ve done everything that we’ve been talking about,” Barry said. Barry acknowledged that basin roundtables and the IBCC have served to make Denver aware of concerns in the state, but said if the IBCC is going to succeed, it needs to address wider concerns. “If we take care of agriculture and recreation, what’s left?” Barry said. “There needs to be an economic test for the area from which the water was moved.”[…]

Other members of the IBCC see more sharing of water as the best solution for preserving agriculture while meeting the needs of cities. The roundtable’s central task Thursday was to begin talking about how “fairness” in water transfers can be measured. The IBCC began last year looking at factoring agricultural demands in with municipal demands to determine the future of the state…

While it was suggested that the amount of irrigated acreage could be a standard, [Jeris] Danielson suggested more profitable crops could be grown — cantaloupes and peppers rather than alfalfa and corn, for example — allowing water to become an additional “crop.”

Peter Nichols, a water lawyer appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to the IBCC, said there has to be more bargaining in the process. “There has to be a willingness to give up something to get something,” Nichols said. He cited the example of the Palo Verde Irrigation District in Blythe, Calif., which he visited with a group of farmers in 2007 as a step in forming the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch. The Metro District paid more for the water than it was worth to lease from farmers as a way of mitigating economic impacts. “As a result, Blythe is thriving,” Nichols said…

IBCC Director Alex Davis also answered concerns raised by state Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, about how the IBCC is dealing with the question of water transfer mitigation. Pace said his legislation on empowering conservancy districts to work out mitigation plans was killed because some claimed the IBCC was already doing the work. “Mitigation is a narrow question that applies to the basin of origin. We need to meet all of the environmental and economic needs of each basin,” Davis said. “If we’re successful, we’ll answer those questions.”

More IBCC — Basin Roundtables coverage here.

Denver Water Board of Commissioners names James Lochhead to replace Chips Barry

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Denver Water has reached across the Continental Divide to select Glenwood Springs attorney Jim Lochhead as its next manager and chief executive officer. He replaces Chips Barry, who will be retiring at the end of May after 20 years on the job. Lochhead’s hiring is another signal of increasing cooperation between Denver and the Western Slope over water issues, and it is being well-received by the Colorado River Water Conservation District. “It’s a tremendous selection on the part of the Denver Water board,” district spokesman Jim Pokrandt said…

Lochhead said, “I’m looking forward to kind of bringing that broader perspective to Denver Water and not only advocating for Denver Water but also hopefully bringing an understanding of the Western Slope and the state and the West and some of the issues and challenges that we face,” he said. He said today’s world is more interdependent, and it’s important to find ways for entities to work through a lot of common challenges. “Denver Water holds the key to a lot of that as the premier water utility in Colorado,” he said…

Gov. Bill Ritter praised Lochhead’s hiring in a news release. “In the West, water issues touch every part of our life and having a leader like Jim will benefit the whole state. Jim’s leadership and experience dealing with water issues makes him a perfect fit for this position,” Ritter said.

More coverage from the Vail Daily (Julie Sutor):

Lochhead is currently a lead shareholder at law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, where he has negotiated many complex transactions regarding water and other natural resources in the Rocky Mountain West. He has a bachelor’s degree in environmental biology and a law degree from the University of Colorado…

Denver Water obtains much of its water supply by pumping the precious resource from the Colorado River Basin across the Continental Divide to growing Front Range cities and suburbs. Those transbasin water diversions have often been a source of tension between West Slope and Front Range communities…

“By selecting a current West Slope resident to head its agency, Denver Water chose a leader who understands the statewide repercussions of Denver Water’s decisions. [Western Resource Advocates] looks forward to working with Mr. Lochhead as Denver Water continues to improve its conservation programs, water supply planning, and role as a leader to help resolve water issues statewide,” [Western Resource Advocates water program director Bart Miller] added.

More Denver Water coverage here.

Moffat County Collection System Project: Boulder County wants deeper study of impacts

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Laura Snider):

The document outlining the purpose and impacts of the proposed Gross Reservoir expansion is “inadequate,” and fails to consider the big picture, according to Boulder County’s Board of Commissioners…

“We were surprised by how many things there were that the EIS did not adequately address,” Commissioner Will Toor said. “Fundamentally, in terms of purpose and need, I think that the EIS gives remarkably short shrift to water conservation. We’ve seen in the efforts of the last several years since the drought that there’s an awful lot of potential for significant reduction of per capita water use.” The commissioners also expressed specific concerns over taking more water from the Fraser River and the fact that the EIS does not take into account the cumulative effects of other proposed projects seeking to divert water from the Colorado River watershed. And closer to home, the commissioners are concerned about the flooding of hundreds of acres of high-quality forestland, and the impact of construction trucks on county roads. “We are hopeful that the federal agencies will really require a full explanation of these issues and an adequate analysis,” Toor said, “and if the project does move forward, adequate mitigation.”

Western Resource Advocates, based in Boulder, also expressed concern that the need for the project wasn’t adequately explained and that Denver Water hasn’t fully explored its conservation options. Denver Water does plan to meet half of the water shortfall it projects in 2030 with water conservation measures, and it has a strategy to reduce overall water use in its service area by 22 percent — compared to water use before the 2002 drought — by 2016.

“Denver Water has done a great job of what they’re doing with conservation,” said Drew Beckwith, water policy analyst for Western Resource Advocates in Boulder. “They have a pretty holistic conservation program, but what they’re missing is an outdoor landscape retrofit program for the residential sector.” These types of programs in other arid regions often offer “cash for grass” to incentivize people to plant drought-tolerant native plants in their yards instead of lawns. And in Denver, where 62 percent of residential water goes to outdoor use, that kind of program could make a big difference, Beckwith said. “Conservation is the cheapest, it’s the fastest and it’s the smartest water-supply strategy,” he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency also weighed in on the EIS last week, giving the document an “EO-2 rating,” which means the agency has environmental objections based on “insufficient information.”

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Denver Water’s Travis Bray tells forum in Summit County, ‘In dry years, we take smidge’

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

In addition to increasing diversions from the Fraser River, in Grand County, Denver Water would also take between 4,000 and 5,000 acre feet of additional water from Dillon Reservoir each year, equal to about 2 percent of the Blue’s annual flow at its confluence with the Colorado River near Kremmling. Denver Water project manager Travis Bray said that, without the project, Denver Water would have to take even more water from Dillon Reservoir in the future as demand for water grows on the Front Range. Currently, Denver Water’s collection system is unbalanced, with 90 percent going through the southern branches of the system (including Dillon Reservoir, the Roberts Tunnel and the South Platte), and only 10 percent in the northern collection system (including the Moffat Tunnel).

The Blue River Watershed Group hosted a public forum on the project Tuesday evening that turned into a classic trans-divide showdown. County and town officials advocated for more Front Range conservation, while Denver Water staffers gave a detailed explanation of their plan to export more West Slope water across the Continental Divide, and also outlined their conservation efforts. Bray said increased diversions from the Blue River Basin would mainly happen in wet years during peak spring flows, shaving some water off the top of the hydrograph when it’s least noticeable. “In dry years, we take smidge,” he said. “It puts water in storage to use during a drought.”[…]

Summit County Commissioner Karn Stiegelmeier said the draft study has some serious flaws…

“What happens in May to September is the main concern. That’s our primary recreation season,” she said, adding that the draft study failed to address potential climate change impacts and also didn’t take into account any of the possible outcomes of a wild and scenic river planning process currently under way…

Similar concerns were repeated by Erica Stock, an outreach coordinator with Colorado Trout Unlimited.
The fisheries conservation group has specific ecological concerns related to lower flows, including warmer water that harms fish and higher concentrations of toxic metals. All those issues need to be addressed in the environmental study, she said. “We need minimum flows, flushing flows, adaptive management and monitoring. If we see the river is starting to collapse, we need to stop doing what we’re doing,” she concluded.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Blue River Watershed Group to host forum March 9

From email from the Colorado Watershed Assembly:

The Forum will be Tuesday, March 9th at 6:00pm at the Frisco Senior Center.They will have local speakers and a letter writing workshop for the public comment submissions (which are due March 16th). The whole event will be broadcast live on Mountain Public Radio. For a list of speakers and presenters and an agenda for the event, visit Summit County Water Forum.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Colorado River District and the Northwest Council of Governments kick off program to educate Front Range residents about their impact on western slope streamflow

From the Summit Daily News (Julie Sutor):

“It’s the same water. Conserve it!” the billboard reads, across images of lawn sprinklers, a snowy mountain and a woman taking a shower. The billboard is the first tactic in a new campaign by local governments in northwest Colorado to remind Front Range water users of their impacts to the state’s western rivers…

The new campaign, a collaborative effort by the Colorado River Water Conservation District and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, hopes to make the connection for folks. More billboards and signs at bus stops will pop up throughout the Denver-metro area in coming months. All the promotional efforts will direct people to a website, www.itsthesamewater.com, or a smartphone page where they can learn about where water comes from, the impacts of diversions and how to conserve.

More transmountain/transbasin diversions coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: U.S. Representative Jared Polis, while not taking a stand yet, is expressing ‘increasing concern’

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Laura Snider):

“(Polis) is not taking a position on the Gross Reservoir expansion yet,” said Andy Schultheiss, district director for the Democratic congressman’s Boulder office. “But we’ve been studying the issue for quite some time now, and we’re increasingly concerned. … We’re going to pursue this in the next couple of weeks.” Schultheiss gave his comments at a public meeting in Nederland on Tuesday night that was organized by state Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, to discuss the reservoir project. Half a dozen staffers from Denver Water were on hand for two hours to answer questions from the more than 40 residents who attended the meeting…

Schultheiss is concerned about the quality of the draft environmental impact statement prepared for the project, which he called “a piece of junk.” He also said alternatives to meeting Denver’s water demands need to be more fully explored…

“It seems to me that what needs to happen here is that we need to slow down and take another look at the big picture of water supply on the Front Range,” he said…

Levy also has concerns about the project, including whether stricter conservation measures can be put into place before more water is diverted from the already depleted Fraser River — a tributary of the Colorado River — across the continental divide in Grand County. “I don’t feel that they’ve adequately justified the need for the project,” she said.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Boulder and Lafayette city councils approve IGA over water in expanded Gross Reservoir

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Larry Qulling):

At the last Boulder City Council, meeting the Boulder and Lafayette city councils unanimously approved motions to implement Inter-governmental Agreements (IGA) between their cities and the Denver Water Board for a 5,000 acre foot environmental pool as part of the Moffat Expansion Project. What should not be lost from the council meeting is a keystone event which can provide in-stream flows for South Boulder Creek that have been missing for over 50 years. These two council votes culminate the planning and collaboration of nearly 10 years of effort. Two IGAs were approved which allow for the creation and operation of an environmental pool for South Boulder Creek as part of the Gross Reservoir expansion. Per the agreement, Lafayette will contribute the most water to the pool as part of their existing South Boulder Creek water rights portfolio. Boulder will also contribute to the pool through exchange of CBT leased rights into the pool. The agreement specifically states Denver Water cannot participate in nor have access to the environmental pool. Both Boulder and Lafayette will manage the pool to achieve targeted minimum flow October through April of as high as 7cfs to South Boulder Road. Lower minimum flow targets as planned below South Boulder Road all the way through the confluence to Middle Boulder Creek. The complete IGA package can be viewed at the City of Boulder Web site.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Grand County Commissioners present Grand County Stream Management Plan to Denver Water Board

From the Sky-Hi Daily News (Tonya Bina):

Commissioners, the county manager and their water experts attended a Denver Water Board meeting on Wednesday to officially present the Stream Management Plan to the utility’s board members. Their team of water consultants has been checking the methodology behind the Grand County-initiated plan since the start, but some board members have only a vague knowledge about Grand County’s direction, according to Grand County Commissioner James Newberry. “I thought it went well,” said Newberry on Thursday. “The Stream Management Plan was well-received.”[…]

From the use of widely-accepted practices studying 80 miles of river system including seven tributaries in Grand County, the draft report of the Stream Management Plan paints a sobering picture of the area’s rivers. It shows that adult trout habitat is in short supply. Late-summer flows on the rivers are too low, causing late-summer water temperatures to frequently exceed state standards. Rapid flow changes near dams are problematic. And, the rivers suffer from too much sediment (most severe on the upper Fraser). Flushing flows — high-magnitude flows that flush sediment, bring needed oxygen to spawning beds and carry away waste— are too low and infrequent on some reaches, and control structures in the system create barriers for fish to pass. “There is a high PH on the Fraser upstream of Ranch Creek, we don’t know why but we’re monitoring it,” Wesche said of some key findings in the study, adding that a stretch of the Fraser River was flagged for pollutants from leaked discharge at the Moffat Tunnel’s west portal.

Target flows, or flows needed for stream health during winter and summer, as well as flushing flows, are specifically identified in the draft stream plan to mark what is needed to improve river health. There is also a working list of restoration projects, such as channel bar improvements, improved spawning habitat at Ranch Creek, culvert enlargements and implementation of sediment ponds on the upper Fraser.

The “million-dollar question,” however, centers on phase three of the plan, according to county officials who at Wednesday’s meeting with Denver aimed to get a nod of agreement that the city water providers were willing to work with Grand County in recognition that the plan is a valid testament of river health. Denver Water is “comfortable working within that science,” as long as the plan is used as a “guidance” document and not used in “some sort of regulatory fashion,” said Denver Water’s Director of Planning Dave Little on Thursday. “Science is subjective,” he said. “Some think that putting the word ‘science’ on it means it’s absolute, but there is a lot of personal judgment and personal opinion involved in interpreting data.”

Denver Water has not objected to the county’s approach in using the stream management plan as a basis for negotiating ways to manage impacts to the river system. “We’ve agreed not to argue the science but to concentrate on providing solutions for the impacts,” Little said, adding that the Denver Water Board is behind using the plan on “how to best apply limited resources to get the best value from a stream-health point.”[…]

While phase one of the plan included inventory and review of stream data and phase two presents scientifically-based recommendations of stream flow, phase three will take the involvement of Denver Water and the Northern Water Conservancy District, the Division of Wildlife and others to ensure coordination of diversions, reservoir releases and restoration of river reaches actually happen. Grand County officials call it “sharing the risk.” For part of phase three of the plan, they are also sharing the cost. Denver Water and Northern each put in $100,000 to help pay for the study.

As part of Denver and county negotiations in regard to the Moffat Firming project, a list of enhancements to river health has been offered by Denver Water, and how those items fit into the findings of the stream management plan are still being talked about among stakeholders.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Denver Water extends public comment period to March 17

From the Vail Daily (Julie Sutor):

The proposed Moffat Project would expand Gross Reservoir near Boulder by as much as 72,000 acre-feet…

The additional water in Gross Reservoir would be diverted from the Fraser River and Williams Fork River basins in Grand County, as well as South Boulder Creek. The project would also impact water bodies in Summit County, including Dillon Reservoir and the Blue River. “In the lead alternative, they’ll remove 4,800 acre feet of water from the Blue,” said Steve Swanson, executive director of the nonprofit Blue River Watershed Group. “Some people say that’s not a lot of water. But for the Blue River, especially during a dry season, it’s a lot of water, and it can translate to a lot of different impacts.” Even during wet months, water diversions can have negative impacts on river basins. High flows create a flushing effect that removes sediment that builds up in the river bed, and such flushing is critical for fish populations. Furthermore, rafting along the Blue River depends on early-season high flows…

Denver Water says it will experience a shortfall in its supply of 34,000 acre-feet per year by 2030. The agency says it will address 16,000 acre-feet of the shortfall through water conservation measures, leaving an annual shortage of 18,000 acre-feet…

The Blue River Watershed Group will hold a public forum on the proposal in advance of the comment deadline. Water experts and representatives from local agencies and nonprofit organizations will discuss the project and its impacts for members of the public interested in learning more and weighing in on the proposal. The forum will take place at 6 p.m., March 4 at the Summit County Community and Senior Center near the County Commons.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Colorado Water Congress 52nd Annual Convention: Eric Wilkinson — ‘I guess one word strikes me, storage’

Here’s a recap of the session, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“Averages are not a real tool for development,” [Eric Wilkinson, director of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District] said. “These numbers need to be used for planning purposes and for compact compliance discussions. I guess one word strikes me: storage.”

Wilkinson, whose northern district is trying to get approval for building two new reservoirs and firming yield from current import diversions, explained that storage is the best way for Colorado to balance the unknowns of nature. Water users need to be ready for both wet and dry scenarios, Wilkinson said. “If there’s nothing left (of the compact entitlement), a curtailment would hurt us,” he said. “If there’s water to be developed, we’ll push to get water development.”

If enough water is stored in wet years, it is easier to make it through the droughts, he said. “We need to have our eyes wide open,” Wilkinson added. “Colorado owes it to itself to explore all opportunities to use the Colorado River, but we don’t want to get ourselves into a hole.”[…]

The CWCB this week also agreed to enter into a basinwide study with the other six states in the Colorado River Compact (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming). That study will use the information Colorado has spent the past two years gathering. At the same time, the state will be applying parts of the study to its other water planning efforts from decision support models to floodplain mapping. The study itself will enter another phase that will look at the potential for changing uses or climate conditions, Gimbel said. “We will get more information as we are planning for the future,” Gimbel said. “We also need to look at storage strategically and use it for our advantage.”

More coverage of the availability study from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Colorado Water Conservation Board Tuesday reviewed Phase I of Colorado River Availability study, and learned there are more questions than answers when it comes to things like climate change, future demand and changed uses of water. The report will be released for public review in February. “The Colorado River is one of the most important sources of water supply for the state,” said Jennifer Gimbel, executive director of the CWCB. “Colorado needs solid information in order to make smart decisions about future water development.”

The assessment, funded by $1 million from the state Legislature in 2007, is the most comprehensive to date on Colorado River supplies. It will be used within nearly every other water planning effort in Colorado. “This study rolls into every hallway at the CWCB,” Gimbel said…

All models show the Colorado River basin will be warmer, with more precipitation in winter and less in summer. Growing seasons will be longer, and runoff earlier, meaning a net gain in agricultural water use and more draw-down on reservoirs, said Ben Harding, a CWCB engineering consultant. “One dry year is not going to do us in. We got through 1977 and 2002,” Harding said. “The sequence of years is important.”[…]

The models are drawn from both historical data from 1950-2005 and extrapolations using tree rings to look at conditions back to 1500. Looking ahead, engineers selected five models out of more than 100 available data sets to project what would happen in 2040 and 2070. Some of the models actually show increases in water availability, but all anticipate that increased demand by agriculture — which uses 85 percent of water — would soak up any gain. The 500-year trend surprisingly indicates that the past 50 years were wetter than average, because of unusual clusters of wet years in the 1980s and 1990s. There were also greater extremes in the types of wet and dry years. Models for the future shuffled both types of years to forecast various scenarios. The difference between 2040 and 2070 would not be as great as originally thought, Harding explained…

It is also unclear whether the assessment opens or closes any doors for transmountain water increases, either through existing projects or new proposals. Nearly 500,000 acre-feet annually comes across the Continental Divide to serve needs in the Arkansas and South Platte river basins. Cities are looking for future supplies. At the same time, water is used on the Western Slope to serve the needs of endangered species, and more could be needed for growth and energy development. “It’s a good first step,” said Eric Kuhn, executive director of the Colorado River Conservation District. “It’s pretty clear that there is probably a limit to what we can do. From the river district’s perspective, our approach will be wait and see.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Grand County: What are the tradeoffs with respect to the Moffat Collection System Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project?

Folks in Grand County know their water law pretty well. 150 or so showed up to a briefing on the Moffat Collection System Project last Tuesday at Silver Creek. Here’s a report from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. It’s a long article so click through and read the whole thing. Here are a few exerpts:

“What the EIS is proposing to do is take the flows off of the rising level of the hydrograph, and in our wettest times of the year, what our enhancements are proposing to do is to give us water back when our flows are the lowest. Is that an acceptable trade?” she asked.

“There’s skepticism out there, there’s a feeling out there that Grand County has this back-room deal going on,” said Grand County Commissioner James Newberry at the start of the meeting. “And the more I thought about this, yeah. We do. We really do. It’s a separate negotiating process.”

On its team, the county has assembled water attorneys, engineers, NEPA and Clean Water Act specialists and a professional negotiator to aid in deals and to advise on what to ask for. The county has spent some $2.8 million on water protection since 2003.

In the past year alone, county representatives have attended 65 meetings with the Northern Water Conservancy District, Denver Water and West Slope partners regarding water issues, according to county officials. “We’re going to be much better off than before the project happened,” Newberrry said, optimistically. But success is not guaranteed, at which point the county is prepared to litigate. “And even that is not a guarantee,” he said.

The county has stated it has better legal footing against the Northern Colorado Municipal Subdistrict’s Windy Gap Firming Project — concurrently being proposed — than it does Denver’s…

“We already have a river that is on the brink,” said Mely Whiting, senior attorney for Trout Unlimited. “Is this incremental 20 percent going to push us over the brink?” It’s a question that has been subjected to modeling, charting and graphing in countless studies.

But Jon Ewert, Division of Wildlife area biologist, said even with the most esteemed modeling, biology is really unpredictable. “There are cascading effects that can take years, if not decades to unfold,” he said. Both Denver Water and Northern have endorsed the science behind the [Grand County] Stream Management Plan (pdf), county officials say, although those water users may not agree on the implementation of it…

Attorney Mely Whiting of Trout Unlimited stressed along with county officials that any allowance for Denver to take more water from the river should be tied to a “reopener clause,” in which stakeholders would revisit the project if degradation of the river reached beyond what was predicted in the NEPA process.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Breckenridge Corps of Engineers hearing recap

From the Summit Daily News (Julie Sutor):

The Army Corps of Engineers held a hearing Thursday night on Denver Water’s proposal to divert more Colorado River Basin water through the Moffat Tunnel in Grand County and then store it in an expanded Gross Reservoir, just southwest of Boulder…

Summit County Commissioner Karn Stiegelmeier said the Army Corps analysis of the project and its various alternatives contains “serious flaws.” “A number of reasonable and obvious alternatives that do not have impacts on the Blue River and the West Slope were not considered,” Stiegelmeier said. “Conservation, re-use and other storage can meet the need for 18,000 acre-feet.”[…]

The additional water in the Moffat Project would be come from the Fraser River and Williams Fork River basins in Grand County, as well as water from the South Boulder Creek basin. Streamflow in the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers and the South Boulder Creek would be decreased by the Moffat Project only during wet and average years during the runoff months, primarily May, June and July…

The project would impact water bodies in Summit County, including Dillon Reservoir and the Blue River. Summit County Board of County Commissioners expressed concern over a decreased number of days that flows would be optimal for boating and impacts to fish and wildlife. “There is no discussion of tourism, or businesses that rely on tourism and no socioeconomic impact implications,” Frisco town manager Michael Penny said about the Army Corps analyses. Penny also faulted the agency for not considering the project’s impacts as they relate to the pine beetle epidemic, climate change, waste-water treatment plants and air quality. “With reservoir levels being drawn down during summer months, the (analyses) should have better evaluated air quality implications,” Penny said. “As we saw in 2002, a newly exposed shoreline produces a considerable amount of dust. This dust not only has air-quality implications, but also threatens water-quality in Dillon Reservoir.”

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Breckenridge: Moffat Collection System Project hearing today

From the Summit Daily News:

An open house will precede the public hearing, from 4-6 p.m., to allow the public to review information and ask questions of resource specialists concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that has been prepared on the project. The public hearing begins at 6 p.m. and include a brief formal presentation of the project, followed by the opportunity for individuals to testify. The open house is at the Beaver Run Conference Center, Peak 17 Conference Room, 620 Village Road (at the base of Peak 9).

More Moffat Collection System coverage here.

Transmountain diversions: Moving water from the rainy side of Colorado

Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office

Here’s a look at some of the history behind transmountain diversions, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. Be sure to click though and read the whole thing. Here are some excerpts from the article:

“I expect that these waters in the mountains, instead of being a menace to the people upon the plains, will be their source of strength and their source of wealth,” William Jennings Bryan told an international water conference in Pueblo in 1910. The problem then, as it is now, is that the water just wasn’t there.

A semi-arid region where the average annual rainfall is less than 20 inches was not readily recognized as an agricultural mecca. In most years as it does now, water came in a rush when snow melted in spring, during summer monsoons and in many years would stop late in the growing season, when many crops were ready for harvest. In the worst years, no water came at all. “Nature gave Colorado two valuable resources: an abundance of water and vast tracts of fertile and arable land,” said the late Harold Christy, a CF&I water engineer who helped form the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “She gave us these great assets but did not logically locate them practical use. She left the job of consolidation to the hand of man.” The solution was to move water from one side of the mountains to the other and store it for when it was needed. The state Legislature began looking at ways to do that as early as 1889. The 50-year span from 1920-70 would mark an era of projects designed to fulfill that vision in Eastern Colorado.

At first, moving water across mountains mostly involved digging ditches across mountain passes. The earliest effort still running is the Grand Ditch, completed in the 1890s, in what is now Rocky Mountain National Park. Many other ditches were dug by farmers looking for a way to make water available throughout the growing season. As the cities have grown, they have acquired many of those systems after irrigators found them expensive to maintain. Pueblo, for instance, acquired the Ewing, Wurtz and Columbine ditches in Lake County in the early 1950s to cope with water shortages at the time.

Engineers also were already toying with tunnels in the early 1900s. An early large tunnel project devoted solely to water was the Gunnison-Uncompahgre Tunnel completed in 1909, which was built by the Bureau of Reclamation to move water from one sub-basin of the Colorado River to another, and later transferred to a local district. Similarly, the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel, completed in 1911, brought water from the North Platte into the South Platte basin in Northern Colorado. Rail tunnels, like the Carlton Tunnel near Leadville that later became the diversion tunnel for the Busk-Ivanhoe system, or Denver’s Moffat Tunnel, were later used as ways to move water.

More transmountain/transbasin coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Can the west and east slope find common ground?

Drew Peternell, Director of Colorado Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project has penned a call to negotiation and common sense in today’s Denver Post. Click through and read the whole thing. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Trout Unlimited, a sportsmen’s group committed to preserving Colorado’s rivers and fisheries, can accept a Moffat project if Denver agrees to responsible measures to protect western Colorado. That means, at a minimum, guaranteeing healthy year-round stream flows in the Fraser, Williams Fork and upper Colorado Rivers. That also means improving Denver’s track record on water conservation. Denver has implemented some meaningful conservation measures, but there is much more it can do — such as offering incentives for households to replace water-thirsty turf with drought-tolerant landscaping…

What’s at issue in the Moffat plan is our willingness on the Front Range to accept a modest tradeoff to preserve Colorado’s magnificent outdoor resources. With smart resource management, we have enough water to sustain both our home places and our wild places — we don’t need to choose between the two. If it respects diverse needs, Denver Water can find pragmatic water supply solutions that work for everyone, on both sides of the Divide.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Meanwhile here’s a look at transmountain diversions from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The diversions vary in size from the very small, like the Larkspur Ditch that brings Upper Gunnison River water to the Arkansas River basin, to the very large – the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Many were developed as primarily agricultural diversions that are turning into municipal projects. The C-BT Project, fed by the Alva B. Adams Tunnel, was four-fifths agricultural when it started more than 70 years ago. Today, about two-thirds of the project’s yield provides water for northern Colorado’s growing cities.

Here’s a look at the current state of planning for growth and consumption, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The ditches and tunnels that already cross the mountains have a long history of dispute. Water planners are starting to worry about what could happen if those systems fail. Those who live in the areas where the water is taken from on the West Slope want to make sure the water is used wisely on the Front Range. And the Front Range is looking to slake its thirst with even more pipelines from the West.

More transmountain/transbasin diversions coverage here.

Drought readiness is one of the reasons that Denver Water wants to move more water to their northern system, hence the enlargement of Gross Reservoir by raising the dam 125 feet or so. Colorado River Basin firm yield is expected to keep dropping as it has in recents years as a result of climate change. Here’s a look at statewide planning for climate change from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

You may not think climate change is real. As for water planners, they believe.

Climate change already had become a staple of water discussions by October 2008, when Gov. Bill Ritter convened a special meeting on the topic. “At no time has our water been threatened so much by drought, climate change and population growth,” Ritter said at the time. “As we assess the impact of climate change, water absolutely has to be a part of the discussion.”

More climate change coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Denver Water agrees to comment period extension until March 1

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

• All comments on the Draft FERC Hydropower License Amendment Application must be submitted in writing to Denver Water through the Denver Water Web site or by e-mail, mail or fax by: March 1, 2010.

Denver Water Fax: (303) 628-6852, Attn: Brian Gogas Email: moffatproject@denverwater.org

Mail Code 415 Web site: www.denverwater.org/moffat

1600 West 12th Avenue, Denver, CO 80204

• All comments on the Moffat Collection System Project Draft EIS and Section 404 permit application must be submitted in writing to the U.S. Army Corps by e-mail, mail or fax by: March 1, 2010.

Scott Franklin, Moffat EIS Project Mgr. Fax: (303) 979-0602

Corps Denver Regulatory Office Email: moffat.eis@usace.army.mil

9307 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Website: www.nwo.usace.mil/html/od-tl/eis-info.htm

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Denver Water: Corps Moffat Collection System Project Boulder public hearing recap

From Colorado Trout Unlimited (David Nickum):

[One citizen, Derek Turner] also noted that the EIS indicates that Denver will completely divert 100% of the flow from eight different streams in Grand County, and called for at least SOME protection of those resources.

Numerous residents of the Magnolia and Coal Creek Canyon areas – which would be impacted by the proposed multi-year constructon of the enlarged dam for Gross Reservoir – raised concerns about effects on the community, including heavy construction traffic on small rural roads, noise, and development of numerous quarries.

Several individuals highlighted the need to look beyond large engineering solutions for water supply and to instead look at options for conservation and water marketing opportunities including further leases of agricultural water. One witness emphasized that the rationale for the project was not based on basic water supply needs, but rather was based on the reliability standard – in other words, how severe of a drought should supplies provide for without the need for customers to go under restrictions (such as those that were used in the 2002 drought)? He noted that Denver planned to have far more water (and rarer need for restrictions) than did the City of Boulder, and suggested that the entire project supply might be unnecessary if Denver simply adjusted its planning expectations on this point…

Overall, the evening included a wide range of concerns expressed by citizens coming from a variety of different perspectives. There were no major supporters/champions for the project who spoke during the public hearing.

More coverage from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

… the plan requires federal approval, and at public hearings, opponents concerned about environmental harm have argued that Denver must rely more on using less water — not pump more from the mountains. “We need a paradigm shift. We need to start living within our means,” said Steve Paul, president of a Grand Lake homeowners group on the Western Slope and one of dozens who have testified before federal engineers.

Denver Water officials counter that their 1.3 million customers already have been cutting consumption — currently 87 gallons a day per person — by about 18 percent a year since 2005. They say nearly half the annual water-supply shortfall they project by 2030 — 34,000 acre-feet — will be met through further cuts. “We’re doing everything we can with conservation,” supply project manager Travis Bray said…

The battle promises to intensify in coming months as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a federal agency that oversees water projects, reviews public testimony and Denver’s submissions. Denver has not managed to push through a project on this scale since construction of Dillon Reservoir in 1963. The Environmental Protection Agency’s 1990 veto of Denver’s proposed $1 billion Two Forks Dam still looms in water-authority boardrooms. That project, backed by developers and opposed by environmentalists, also was aimed at preventing shortages.

Denver already owns rights to the water it would divert from the upper Colorado River basin — from the Blue River in Summit County and from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers and dozens of streams in Grand County. But Trout Unlimited sportsmen’s advocates said that stream flows there already are dangerously low, threatening aquatic life, with algae increasing and once-clear Grand Lake turning cloudy. Boulder-area residents warned of harm to wildlife and lifestyle disruptions during construction to raise the dam and clear trees in expanding Gross Reservoir.

Some 350 advocates and community leaders have attended hearings in Boulder, Denver and Granby. The Army Corps of Engineers is now accepting public comments.

Learning how to live on less water “is a reality we’re going to have to face,” said Becky Long, water-caucus coordinator for the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “So why keep putting it off? . . . While Denver deserves credit for what they’ve done on conservation, we have a lot farther to go.”

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Granby EIS hearing well attended by opponents

In recent years the conflict between Grand County residents and Denver Water has been held in check by continued open communication and the water utility’s being sensitive to riparian and instream flow needs. The old animosity didn’t take much provocation to bubble back up to the surface however. Here’s a report about Wednesday’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public hearing at Silver Creek, from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:

[Fraser resident Kirk Klancke] took the podium Wednesday night at the Inn at SilverCreek in Granby where official comments on the draft EIS were being taken and outlined the dire need for flushing flows for first-aid treatment of the Fraser River and a plea for more time to review the 2000-page draft “environmental impact statement” document…

“If we don’t draw the line here, where are we going to draw it?” asked Mara Kohler of Kremmling. “How can we protect the rivers that sustain us, if we don’t sustain them?”

“There needs to be a massive education campaign in the Front Range and Denver,” said Randy Piper of Fraser during his three minutes, “educating them as to the dire circumstances we have. Tourism is a tremendous revenue-generator in this state. The people who come here don’t come to Denver to take long hot showers and run barefoot through the lawns. They come here to the mountains. The bottom line is: We need to conserve, not take more.”

Comments were directed to the meeting facilitator, Scott Franklin of the Denver division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency checking the methodology and modeling of Denver’s draft environmental impact statement in conformance with National Environmental Protection Agency protocol. The Corps’ objective, according to Franklin’s statements, is to keep in check “the national concern and protection of limited resources balanced against detriments.”[…]

“This project makes no mention of the horrendous degradation of the William’s Fork River,” commented Ray Miller of Grand Lake, a 30-year resident and former ranger. “And the Colorado River is over-allocated. This profound alteration of this watershed has been institutionalized so long, East Slope interests have come to (view) it as a given. It’s been going on so long, they’ve lost sight of how ecologically viable this watershed is in its natural state … The benefits of diversion pale in comparison to the benefits of sustaining this ecological system.”

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Corps Denver hearing recap

The Fraser River of the 21st century is much different from the river that former President Eisenhower used to fish back in the day. Low flows due to transmountain diversions have diminished the fishery there.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held a hearing last night in Denver for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project which would divert additional water from the Fraser watershed. Residents, planners and politicians (many from Grand County) showed up to be heard. A majority of the speakers asked for the comment period to be extended 45 days.

Speakers for the most part voiced opposition to the proposed Denver Water expansion of Gross Reservoir and the increased diversions to fill the new space. The hope is to raise the dam 125 feet or so to get another 18,000 acre-feet of firm yield on the north side of their service area. They also hope to build a new reservoir on Leyden Creek.

“It breaks my heart to see a natural environment disappear while the east slope creates an environment that belongs east of the Mississippi River,” said Fraser resident Kirk Klanke during the hearing.

He also voiced support for an extension of the comment period. The EIS is a couple of thousand pages and many of the speakers said that they’ve not had enough time to probe the proposed workings.

Canton O’Donnell wants the Corps to evaluate the Moffat project in conjunction with the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project. Windy Gap is the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s plan to increase municipal supply for the Front Range using the Colorado-Big Thompson project to transport water stored downstream of Granby Reservoir. One speaker asked the Corps to hold off on issuing permits for either the Windy Gap Firming Project or the Moffat Collection System Project until Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District come up with their plan to coordinate the two projects to minimize impacts to the headwaters area.

“If your house is on fire and you have two bedrooms you’d want the fire department to take care of both,” said 4th generation Grand County rancher and county commissioner Gary Bumgarner in support of consolidating the environmental impact statements for both projects.

“This is a very bad project for many reasons,” said Grand Lake Mayor, Judy Burke, while reminding the Corps that pumping warmer water upstream to Grand Lake is causing algae blooms in the lake.

The Colorado-Big Thompson project moves water from Granby Reservoir, through Shadow Mountain Reservoir and into Grand Lake for transport under the Continental Divide through the Adams Tunnel. The Windy Gap Firming Project would increase the volume of water pumped up to the Adams tunnel so presumably the lake clarity problem will increase along with lowered water quality.

Whitewater enthusiasts oppose the drowning of the reach of South Boulder Creek just above Gross Reservoir. One commenter called it a, “Premier whitewater run.”

Interested parties have one more chance to speak publicly on the project next week in Keystone. Here’s the release from Denver Water with details about the hearings.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Denver Water: Moffat Collection System Project may benefit streamflows in South Boulder Creek

From The Denver Post (Charlie Meyers):

The South Boulder Creek situation involves a similar difficulty to maintain flows below the reservoir during those cold months when water generation is diminished and fish mortality occurs. Again, flow control by Denver Water is at the heart of the issue. The water provider currently agrees to maintain flows at seven cubic feet per second — provided this small watershed can produce even that minuscule amount. Help may be on the way in a Denver Water plan to boost West Slope diversion through the Moffat Tunnel, boosting storage in Gross Reservoir. A companion arrangement would allow the water suppliers for the cities of Boulder and Lafayette to utilize storage in the reservoir.

The potential to use this to enhance winter flows has caught the attention of Trout Unlimited, which long has sought a solution to the South Boulder Creek puzzle. “If we can use this increased storage to boost flows in the creek,” this would be something we could support,” said Drew Peternell, director of TU’s Western Water Project. But Peternell’s concern also extends to a larger matter, which is a Denver Water push to acquire more water from the upper Fraser River basin, then deliver it through the Continental Divide via its Moffat Tunnel complex.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Denver Water: Public hearing in Summit County for proposed Moffat Collection System Project

Update:

Here’s the release from Denver Water. There are four meetings starting Tuesday in Boulder:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold four Public Hearings on the Draft EIS. At each location, Denver Water will hold an Open House from 4 to 6 p.m. The Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.:

Tues., Dec. 1 — Boulder Country Club, 7350 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, CO 80301
Wed., Dec. 2 — Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446
Thurs., Dec. 3 — Doubletree Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207
Tues., Dec. 8 — Keystone Conference Center, 0633 Tennis Club Road, Keystone, CO 80435

From the Summit Daily News (Bob Berwyn):

As described in a draft environmental study, the Moffat Collection System project in Grand County would also have impacts on flows on the Blue River. Flows in the Blue River at its confluence with the Colorado River could be cut by as much as 4,800 acre feet annually, about 2 percent of the river’s flow, according to figures released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the draft study. Denver Water project manager Travis Bray said those figures apply when at full build-out of Denver Water’s existing system, and with the Moffat Tunnel on-line. Under the new configuration of diversions that would result from the Moffat Tunnel project, Denver Water would take between 4,000 and 5,000 acre feet of additional water from Dillon Reservoir each year. Bray said the draft study shows there would only be a negligible long-term impact to boating and no impact to fisheries in the Blue River…

Although 2 percent doesn’t sound like much, peak flows are important for the river’s ecosystem, said Becky Long, water caucus organizer with the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “If the project goes forward, the Blue River would see reduced flows in the summer months during wet and average years,” she said. The peak flows in wet years help flush sediment out of the river, create new habitat and support rafting and kayaking, she said.

The main focus of the project is on increased diversions from the Fraser River, but conservation groups are concerned about overall effects on the entire Upper Colorado ecosystem. They advocated for the Summit County hearing when the draft study was released a few weeks ago. Long said the Corps was responding to requests from Summit County residents by scheduling the local hearing…

Conservation groups have identified several broad environmental goals that should be included in the project’s mitigation plan, including:

— Adequate baseline flows in the Fraser throughout the year to sustain fisheries and recreation.

— Sustained peak flows at key times of the year to mimic a natural flow regime and ensure the health and resilience of the river.

— Aggressive urban water conservation and efficiency measures to save more water, such as incentives for homeowners to replace Kentucky bluegrass with drought-tolerant landscaping. More than half of residential water use goes to watering lawns.

— Ongoing monitoring of the river’s health and a mitigation plan with the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions…

A summary of the draft environmental impact statement is online at: https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-tl/eis/moffat.deis.vol1.exec-summary.pdf (pdf)

Here’s the public meeting information:

What: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hearing
When: December 8 —Open House: 4 p.m.; public hearing begins at 6 p.m.
Where: Keystone Conference Center (0633 Tennis Club Road, Keystone)

More Denver Water coverage here.

Public comment sought on Moffat Project

Here’s the release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney):

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project, which proposes to enlarge Gross Reservoir north of Boulder.

Denver Water is proposing the project to help resolve three major water supply challenges it is facing:

1. the risk of a near-term water supply shortfall;
2. the risk of running out of water in the north end of its system during a single dry year;
3. and a serious imbalance in its water collection system, in which about 80 percent of the supply exists on the south side of the system.

The project is part of Denver Water’s multi-pronged water strategy to increase supply and decrease demand by implementing an aggressive conservation plan, completing and expanding its recycled water distribution system and developing additional water supply.

“Our customers have done an excellent job of conserving water, and we have been completing our recycled water system,” said David Little, director of planning. “These strategies are helping extend our supplies into the future. It is imperative, however, that we develop additional supply to correct the imbalance in our system and secure water for our future. We believe the best solution is to produce new water supply by expanding an existing reservoir instead of building a new reservoir.”

The Moffat Collection System Project proposes raising Gross Dam by approximately 125 feet. Gross Reservoir is fed by tributaries of the Colorado River and South Boulder Creek, and feeds the north side of Denver Water’s system. If approved, the Moffat Project would produce 18,000 acre-feet of new supply — enough water for roughly 45,000 households annually.

“We have been working with interest groups and local agencies to develop plans to offset environmental impacts of the Moffat Project and to provide significant environmental enhancements for the communities affected by the project,” said Little. “Denver Water is committed to encouraging wise use of the water we serve and to using our facilities and resources to enhance the environment in the watersheds we use.”

Denver Water, Grand County, the cities of Boulder and Lafayette, environmental groups and others still are discussing the proposed environmental enhancements, which go far beyond what the Corps requires for mitigating impacts caused by the Moffat Collection System Project. These enhancements will benefit tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand County and South Boulder Creek in Boulder County, among other locations.

The enhancements offered by Denver Water include:

– up to 2,000 acre-feet of additional water for augmenting streamflow in Grand County;
– $2 million for improving water quality in Grand County;
– $2 million for stream modifications to improve aquatic habitat in Grand County; and
– a partnership with Boulder and Lafayette to provide 5,000 acre-feet of storage space in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to improve aquatic habitat in South Boulder Creek.

Denver Water is encouraging public participation in the two federal regulatory processes occurring for the Moffat Collection System Project. The two processes are:

An amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Gross Reservoir hydropower license<br.
An application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Draft EIS and Draft FERC Hydropower License Amendment were published Friday, Oct. 30. Each document has a 90-day comment period ending Jan. 28, 2010.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold three Public Hearings on the Draft EIS. At each location, Denver Water will hold an Open House from 4 to 6 p.m. The Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.:

Tues., Dec. 1 — Boulder Country Club, 7350 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, CO 80301
Wed., Dec. 2 — Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446
Thurs., Dec. 3 — Doubletree Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207

See more information on how to comment on the Draft EIS and Draft FERC Amendment.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Conservation organizations warn against Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project’s ecological effects on the Fraser River and Upper Colorado River

Here’s a release from Colorado Trout Unlimited:

Trout Unlimited, the Colorado Environmental Coalition and a broad group of conservation organizations warned today that a proposal to divert more water from a tributary of the upper Colorado River poses a serious risk to the ecological health of the river system.

“Multiple water diversions have pushed the Fraser River to the brink of collapse,” said Kirk Klancke, President of the Colorado Headwaters Chapter of TU, based in Grand County. “This is a river on life support.”

At present, Denver Water’s Moffat Tunnel and other diversions take about 60 percent of the Fraser’s stream flow. The Moffat pipeline carries most of it under the Continental Divide to supply water for the Denver metro area. Under a proposed expansion of the Moffat tunnel pipeline, Denver would take even more of the river’s native flows.

In 2005, the Fraser was listed as one of the most endangered rivers in America by American Rivers, a national conservation group.

The statement from TU and the Colorado Environmental Coalition came in response to the Friday release of the draft environmental impact statement for the Moffat Tunnel proposal—the first step in a public review of the project by the Army Corps of Engineers.

“We are looking forward to digging deeper into the DEIS, and are hopeful that we can have a substantive conversation with Denver Water in the coming months about how we can ensure our resources are protected,” said Becky Long of Colorado Environmental Coalition.

Looking ahead, the conservation groups identified several broad environmental goals that should be included in the project’s mitigation plan, including:

–Adequate baseline flows in the Fraser throughout the year to sustain fisheries and recreation.

–Sustained peak flows at key times of the year to mimic a natural flow regime and ensure the health and resilience of the river ecosystem.

–Aggressive urban water conservation and efficiency measures to save more water, such as incentives for homeowners to replace Kentucky bluegrass with drought-tolerant landscaping. More than half of residential water use goes to watering lawns.

–Ongoing monitoring of the river’s health and a mitigation plan with the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions.

“We have already met with Denver Water’s staff, and they seem open to discussing some of these concepts,” said Mely Whiting, Legal Counsel for TU’s Colorado Water Project. “We hope the Denver Water Board seizes this opportunity to create a legacy, where water development and environmental protections can go hand in hand.”

“Front Range residents must recognize the connection between our water use and the health of our rivers and streams, fisheries and wildlife habitat,” said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “We can’t continue to take and take from these rivers without accounting for our impacts. The glass is not even half full—it’s almost drained dry.”

Contact:
Mely Whiting, (720) 470-4758
David Nickum, (303) 440-2937, x 101
Kirk Klancke, (970) 531-2199
Becky Long, (303) 405-6714

More coverage from the Sky-Hi Daily News (Tonya Bina):

…the public is invited to comment on the project starting Friday, Oct. 30, when The Denver Water Moffat Collection System Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement is planned to be released. Similar to the recent process of the Windy Gap Firming Project, the public will be able to comment on the Moffat document for 90 days, until Jan. 28, 2010.

In essence, Denver Water has identified a shortfall in supply beginning in 2016. According to its statements, Denver Water plans to address about 16,000 acre-feet through “additional conservation,” leaving Denver Water with a remaining annual shortage of 18,000 acre-feet. Denver Water maintains that unless it expands one of its existing reservoirs — particularly the one near Golden, which sits 340 feet above the South Boulder Creek streambed — it may be forced to shut down one of its three treatment plants in the future and would not meet the water demands of Arvada, Wesminster, and the water company that services Lakewood, Wheat Ridge and eastern Jefferson County, among others.

But securing more of its prior-claimed water means additional water would be carried from the Fraser River basin and Williams Fork River basin in Grand County through the Moffat Tunnel…

The Moffat water project became a catalyst for various West Slope water users — including river districts, water districts, counties and irrigators — to start serious water negotiations with Denver Water, to “settle a number of outstanding issues with Denver,” Underbrink Curran said…

Public meetings on the draft environmental impact statement are set for 4 p.m. (open house) and 6 p.m. (public comments) on Dec. 1, Dec. 2 and Dec. 3 in Grand County, Denver and Boulder to allow interested parties to ask questions and make a comment. The meetings will end when all participants have had the chance to make their comments. Of the five alternatives listed in the draft environmental impact statement, Denver Water prefers the Moffat Collection System Project, the alternative that details enlarging the existing Gross Reservoir by 72,000 acre-feet.

More Denver Water Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Denver Water: Moffat Collection System and the proposed expansion of Gross Reservoir

Say hello to the shiny new Denver Water website. I’m most excited about the RSS feed for their news page. You Coyote Gulch readers know I crave Colorado water news. 🙂

At any rate check out the new part of the website for the expansion Gross Reservoir, part of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System. They write:

If approved, the project would produce 18,000 acre-feet of new supply by expanding an existing reservoir rather than building a new one. The current dam height would increase from 340 feet to approximately 465 feet. The proposed project would increase Gross Reservoir from its current storage capacity of 41,811 acre-feet to approximately 114,000 acre-feet – an increase of 72,000 acre-feet. (Denver Water has determined four acre-feet of storage are needed for every one acre-foot of supply.)

Because Gross Reservoir was originally designed to be this larger size, other facilities, such as the Moffat Tunnel and South Boulder Canal, do not need to be modified and no additional water rights are needed. The additional water would be carried through the existing Moffat Tunnel from the Fraser River basin and Williams Fork River basin in Grand County, as well as from South Boulder Creek basin. Streamflow in the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers and South Boulder Creek would only be decreased by this project during wet and average years during the runoff months.

Denver Water officials anticipate that the Corps of Engineers draft environmental impact statement for the project will be released in the next few weeks.

More Denver Water coverage here and here.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: