HomeMy WebLinkAbout830977.tiff CACHE LA POUDRE HEARING
12/29/83
CHUCK CARLSON: Good evening. We're glad to see you
come here this evening. We 're basically going to have a
hearing here for Hank Brown' s information and also Senator
Armstrong and the rest of the representatives here in the
State of Colorado on the fact of designating the Poudre
River wild and scenic or not. And we here in Weld County
felt and let the senators and house people know, like Hank
Brown, that Weld County had not been, had not had any input
in the thing and had not been notified to be able to have
input in the wild and scenic designation of the Poudre River
and this County is where 75-80% of the water in the Poudre
River system is used. And it affects us very, very
definitely. So I talked to Hank Brown and Hank said that he
wanted input from us and also Armstrong' s office wanted
input from us on the designation of whether it be wild and
scenic or not. So first of all this evening, I 'm going to
introduce the people that are up here. Let' s start with the
lady here, Jackie Johnson. She' s a commissioner here in
Weld County. And Gene Brantner is also another commissioner
here in Weld County. Frances Bee is on the Board that Hank
appointed, and Darrell Zimmerman is a native of Weld County
830977
-1-
IS ao0Oe≥
and he ' s on the Board sitting in for Larry Simpson from
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. So we ' re
going to hold this hearing and first of all , I 'm going to
call on Ed Nesslegrave from the Forest Service and he asked
for a blackboard. We got a blackboard there and he' s going
to draw in basically the Poudre River and he' ll draw in the
segments that are listed and explain what their program is
and how it' s going to be presented and then we' ll get into
the meat of the thing from everybody here also and I have
quite a few listed here and we' d like to have you keep it as
close to five minutes, five to ten minutes as possible if
you can. I think that if you have your report concise and
put together, I think you can cover most of the area within
that time. So to start off with, we ' ll call on Ed
Nesslegrave from the Forestry Department and have him give
us an input of what their proposal is and what they have and
their ideas and then we ' ll go from there.
ED NESSLEGRAVE: Thank you. It' s a pleasure for me to
be here to represent the Forestry. I 'd like to give you a
little background on the wild and scenic river study that' s
been conducted to date. Congress asked that the wild and
scenic river status of the Poudre be evaluated back in 1976 .
The study team was formed jointly by the Forest Service and
the State of Colorado and a number of other Federal and
State agencies under the umbrella leadership of the
Department of Natural Resources on the State side and the
-2-
Forest Service on the Federal side. They completed a draft
of environmental impact statement that was released in 1980 ,
that evaluated the Poudre and found that it was eligible for
a wild and scenic river designation and made some
recommendations as to how the river should be designated.
Following a 90-day public comment period, the team went to
work on preparation of a final environmental impact
statement and study report. That was completed about two
years ago and has not been released to the public and within
the last six months , work has been completed on an addendum
to the final environmental impact statement and study
report. That has not been released to the public. The
reason that those reports have not been released is because
when the Congress asks for an environmental impact statement
from the Executive branch, the Forest Service in this case,
the executive branch is in essence doing staff work for the
Congress and it' s the senior staff officer of the Executive
branch, or the President, who has the opportunity to release
that document. While we would be anxious to have our
recommendations available to the public, at this time they
have not been released by the President and released means
basically transmitting the documents to the Congress and to
the Environmental Protection Agency. So in terms of our
recommendation, I can only talk firmly to the recommendation
that we put forth in 1980 . I can talk a little bit about
some of the changes that we made in terms of the analysis
-3-
that we did, but I won ' t be able to talk to you about the
changes that we made in the recommendation. 83 miles of
study corridor are examined in the case of the Poudre. And
I 'm going to draw a schematic. When the Congress asked that
the river be studied, they confused the study team a little
bit because they asked that the river be studied from the
South fork and the North fork to their confluence and then
down river to the forest boundary. For those who are
somewhat students of the Poudre River, they know that the
North fork and the South fork don' t ever come together which
makes it a little hard to study that way. The North fork
kind of comes down this way. So Congress said, all right,
study the South fork which would be this fork and the main
stem, which would be over here. Both of these forks
originate in Rocky Mountain National Park. You've driven
over Trail Ridge Road, you've seen Poudre Lake which is the
head waters of the main stem. The Poudre starts as a small
trickle going over Trail Ridge and down through the forest
canyon. Icefield Pass is where the South fork begins. It
runs down along the Pingree Park campus of Colorado State
University and joins the main stem down here. We segmented
the river basically into eight segments. Segment one
extends about to the community of Poudre Park from the
beginning of the study area which is a little bit west of
the mouth of the canyon by about two miles. Segment two,
from Poudre Park to where the South fork comes in. Segment
-4-
three up to just about Rustic. Along segment four, extends
all the way up to where Colorado Highway 14 ceases to
parallel the Cache la Poudre. It goes on up to Joe Wright
Reservoir, Joe Wright Creek. Segment five, this portion
that runs up into Rocky Mountain National Park and is
completely encased in Commanche Wilderness and Rocky
Mountain National Park. The park boundary comes through
about here on this part. Segment six in this area which is
entirely within the Cache la Poudre Wilderness, a small but
rather remote and inaccessible wilderness in the Poudre
Canyon. Segment seven, up to Rocky Mountain National Park' s
boundary again and then segment eight at the bottom which is
all within Rocky Mountain National Park. Now the creation
of this little segment eight was made in our final and
addendum studies to reflect the change in the forest and
park boundary that was made with the passage of the 1980
Colorado Wilderness Bill which designated as wilderness this
chunk of segment five, this chunk, the entire segment six.
So what did the study team find when they applied the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act and Legislations to the river and
conducted their study. They found that overall, the River
met the basic criteria for designation in that it was
free-flowing and had remarkably outstanding characteristics
among them the scenic characteristics , recreational
characteristics, wildlife habitat characteristics, other
values that met the law' s requirements of being outstanding
-5-
or remarkable. The individual segments were analyzed to see
where they would grade out in the three levels of
designation; wild, scenic , and recreational. The easiest
way to tell you about the differentiation between these
three type of segments is to think of a road system. Where
you have no roads at all an area is eligible for wild
designation, very similar to wilderness designation. Where
you have roads that cross a river system, then it' s eligible
usually for not much higher than scenic designation. And
where you have roads that parallel a river it' s eligible for
not higher than recreational designation. So when you think
of the Poudre Canyon, this entire stretch of segments one
through four is paralleled by Highway 14 and could be
designated anything higher than recreational. These
segments, five and, pardon me, this segment five both in
National Forest and Rocky Mountain National Park management
could be designated wild because there are no roads in there
already. This segment six could be designated wild; there
are no roads there. This little segment seven could be
designated recreational because the Pingree Park road winds
back around and parallels from here on up. And this bottom
segment could in fact be designated wild because there are
no roads, again, within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain
National Park. That' s some of the thinking that went into
the evaluation of the Poudre River by the study team. The
recommendation that so far is our only official released
-6-
recommendation is that that was contained in the draft which
(inaudible) suggested recreational river designation from
here, down to here, wild designations here and here, and
recreational designation here, with no designation in the
first segment. That recommendation was made because of the
predominance of private property in the first segment and
the existence of some low dams and diversion works that
while they did not make the segment ineligible, were there
nonetheless. So that' s the basic recommendation that was
shown in the 1980 document. I want to talk with you just a
little bit about what that designation would mean if it were
to be effective and what the impacts would be on some of the
resources , some of the resource users, and if there are any
questions you have, I ' ll try to answer them briefly so that
you can begin to present your views for the benefit of the
group. Congress , in establishing the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, basically said that it has been in the planning and
wisdom of Congress , the policy to conduct water resource
developments on certain rivers and we would like to
establish a parallel policy that says we want to preserve
and protect certain other rivers. The basic purpose for a
wild and scenic river designation is to preserve and protect
the river and its remarkably outstanding characteristics
that caused it to be designated in the first place. Among
the things that occur, within these three segment breakdowns
there are increasing levels of development that are allowed
-7-
if the river is designated, starting with wild, which is the
most restricted, and that is very much like a wilderness
area; scenic, which allows more development along the shore
lines, residences, commercial facilities, roads, bridges may
cross the river, even railroads may cross the river and in
recreational segments rather thorough development along the
shore lines, roads , railroads even may parallel the river.
And that kind of gives you a feel again for how the
management takes place within those segments. Major water
resource development projects would be precluded or
prohibited in any designated segment of a wild and scenic
river regardless of its level of designation. What kinds of
developments would be allowed is difficult to say because
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a rather broad act. It' s
interpreted differently by different people, but it does
allow for low dams and diversion works so where the breakoff
is, in terms of what would or wouldn' t be allowed in terms
of water development it' s difficult to pinpoint. But a
major water storage facility with companion hydro-power
would certainly not be the kind of feature that would be
envisioned as consistent with preservation with wild and
scenic river designation. Private property impacts are
minimal from designation. The only authority that a
designated river carries with it that is not currently
enjoyed by Federal Land manager is the authority to condemn
for scenic easements. What does that mean? Scenic easement
-8-
is the control and development of property, something that
in some cases have been purchased by the government in the
event of a threat to preservation of remarkably outstanding
values. An example of how that might be used, although this
is a very hypothetical example, is that if someone wanted to
build a 25 story condominium on the banks of a designated
river and it was on private property, it might be in the
best interests of preserving the scenic values of that river
to obtain a scenic easement on the property so that
structure would not be developed. The likelihood of using
that kind of mechanism is somewhat remote given the present
zoning the County of Larimer has in force in the Poudre
Canyon already. But, that' s the one legal power that comes
with designation that is not already available to land
managers in that area. Recreation use goes up on designated
rivers, usually 15% across the board. That tends to be a
one time increase. Mineral rights in wild areas are not
affected at all. In scenic and recreational areas it is
subject to the 1892 general mining laws. I 'm sorry, I
misspoke. In wild areas the mineral activity is subject
only to valid existing rights. Additional entry into a
designated wild segment is prohibited. Timber activities,
agriculture may continue in scenic and in recreational
areas. Mechanized activities cannot continue in wild areas.
Opportunities to expand a highway could be confined in even
a recreationally designated segment because you would not
-9-
want that highway to expand either into the river channel or
to significantly degrade the visual values present in the
designated canyon. We talked a little bit about designation
and what' s actually affected is a one-half mile corridor
that extends a quarter of a mile on either side of the
river. And that is the defined area of a wild and scenic
river. Therefore there are a number of activities that can
occur outside that corridor that will not be affected by
wild and scenic river designation. One of the questions
that has been asked at a number of the public meetings and
by Congressman Brown' s committee is what this wild and
scenic river designation will do to affect off channel
storage of water. Some of that is hard to say. Because it
depends how much water is being taken out and where it' s
being taken out. It' s conceivable that off channel storage
would not be affected if minimum withdrawals were made but
if large withdrawals were conceived, then the designation
would probably preclude that. One of the things that
happens if a river is designated is that the leading Federal
Land Management Agency and all affected agencies get
together and produce a management plan. That plan tends to
determine how these individual resource activities are
affected, what is permitted, what isn't permitted, and the
way legislation is written, tends to have a lot to do with
what happens. There are wild and scenic rivers that have
been designated in the United States, at one end of the
-10-
spectrum, perhaps , looking at the middle fork of the Salmon
River which is 105 miles of all wild river is aimed all
within a 2 . 5 million acre wilderness. It is about as pure
and pristine an experience as you' ll find. And at the other
end of the spectrum there is 53 miles of recreational river
in South Dakota that begins at (inaudible) Dam and runs
downstream for 53 miles from a major water storage project
there. So the law is broad. There are a variety of
experiences with it and since 1968 , when it was passed by
the Congress, you don' t have the ability to say with
definition what absolutely can or cannot be accomplished.
Just because you have a variety of experiences already in
existence, already agreed to by the Congress and put into
law in terms of designating wild and scenic rivers. The Act
and the accompanying regulations presuppose that the
management of the designated stretch of river for a
designated river will be consistent with the traditional
uses, traditional management, traditional lifestyles and
associations of that river. Private enclaves remain in
private of ownership. Anytime you have more than 50% of the
study area that' s already public land there is no right of
condemnation available for fee title, that is the case of
the Poudre. The Office of Management and Budget for the
last three administrations has been singularly disinterested
in having Federal Land Management Agencies purchase more
lands So the Act is not used as a lever to convert privately
-11-
owned land to publicly owned. Its purpose is to preserve
and protect rivers and associated rivering systems a quarter
of a mile to either side. Are there any questions that I
can answer for you, Mr. Carlson, or the group?
CHUCK CARLSON: Not from us , is there any questions out
there that somebody, yes, you got one back there.
QUESTION: Sir, would you cover the land area that' s
personal (inaudible) particular agency, for example.
ED NESSELGRAVE: On your ownership packets?
QUESTION: Yes.
ED NESSELGRAVE: OK, I ' ll have to do this from memory.
Of the total 83 miles studied, 80 , let' s see, about 74% of
the corridor is in Federal ownership, public lands , either
administered by the Parks Service or the Forest Service.
All of segment 5 is in public ownership, administered by the
Forest Service or the Parks Service, 100% of that. About
35% of this segment is owned by the Forest Service. The
balance, almost split, but not quite, 20% by the State, and
the remainder is in private ownership. There are
(inaudible) ponds up here, a proposed water development site
known as Idlewild begins about here, so ownership here
breaks out about 1/3 Federal, 20% State and the rest is in
private ownership.
QUESTION: Would you summarize that for all the
segments?
-12-
ED NESSELGRAVE: Yes, that' s what I 'm gonna do, but
don't hold my feet to the fire because I (inaudible) .
Sorry, I didn' t bring an exact breakdown. The ownership in
this segment that' s all in the Rocky Mountain National Park
is 100% Federal, and this segment, 7 , we have the Pingree
Park campus of CSU which is a State ownership, and you have
a variety of private ownership, about 700 acres as I recall ,
and that breaks out about 1/3 , 1/3 , 1/3 . This segment is
all in Federal ownership except for two small pieces which
are lands owned, I believe, by the City of Ft. Collins. I
think a chunk of that' s owned by the City of Greeley. And
those are lands that those two governmental entities have
been dealing with the Forest Service for about the last
10-15 years as exchange properties for potential reservoir
site on the South Fork about here called the Rockwell
Reservoir Site. This segment is about 78% Federal
ownership, this segment is nearly 100% Federal ownership,
there is 80 acres in it that is privately held (inaudible)
case of the canyon that' s the initial walk of paradise.
This bottom segment is held about 1/3 Federal , about 1/3 by
the City of Ft. Collins, and about 1/3 private ownership.
When you add them all together you get about 70% Federal
ownership. Sir.
QUESTION: Am I correct in understanding you, then,
that where there is only Federal ownership is the only place
you can have wild and scenic river designation?
-13-
ED NESSELGRAVE: No, I hope I did not convey that
impression.
QUESTION: All right, then if it' s private land, you
can designate it?
ED NESSELGRAVE: Yes.
QUESTION: And then what, you condemn the private
ownership then?
ED NESSELGRAVE: No. As I was trying to point out, let
me try to clarify that. The Act has within it provisions
that, in certain cases, allow for the condemnation of
privately held lands. But whenever more than 50% of a
corridor is in Federal ownership, that cannot be done. In
the case of the Poudre, private lands cannot be condemned.
If someone wishes to donate, if someone wishes to enter into
an exchange, or if there is a willing seller, willing buyer
agreement that' s developed, that is permissible. But there
is no use of condemnation to acquire fee title eligible with
any of the privately held lands in the Poudre System.
QUESTION: But you can have the designation along
private ownership?
ED NESSELGRAVE: Yes.
QUESTION: But then what does this do to the private
owners?
ED NESSELGRAVE: I guess it depends a little bit on
one' s perspective. It probably takes away the right for
them to go to 25 story condominiums next to the river.
-14-
Because if that would happen, there may be either zoning
ordinances or other remedies that would be used by virtue of
designation to prevent that. But that might already be an
impossible task. The basic private property impacts are to
maintain the land development pattern and its existing
system. If there are lodges and geysers and cabins that' s
certainly permissible in recreational segments.
QUESTION: You could build a 24 story condominium?
ED NESSELGRAVE: Well I , you know, I don' t want to
split hairs, I think the notion is that the Act' s purpose is
to preserve certain values, among them scenic values, and if
it were determined that a 25 story condominium were a scenic
addition to the Canyon, then perhaps it would be
permissible. But it might not.
QUESTION: In other words, you could limit his
potential to develop his own land.
ED NESSELGRAVE: If his development were inconsistent
with the purposes and the values that caused the river to be
designated in the first place, yes.
QUESTION: And who would make that decision?
ED NESSELGRAVE: That would probably be made by the
administering Land Management Agency in conjunction with
that management plan that they worked out with local and
municipal governments. In the case of the Poudre, the
zonings already in place that would not allow a 25 , or even
24 , story condominium. There' s another question here. Sir.
-15-
QUESTION: If you designate it as wild and there ' s some
private property in there, how about putting roads to get
into it, if there wasn' t roads (inaudible) .
ED NESSELGRAVE: The only place where there is private
property within any eligible wild segments are these two
little parcels in segment 6 . And, as I indicated, their
purpose is as exchange material for other property for the
Rockwell Reservoir Site, there is no desire to (inaudible) .
There are no roads now, and there is no desire for access
to. All the rest of the lands that are recommended for wild
are 100% publicly owned. Sir?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) what you' re talking about, what
about putting a dam in there to do a flood control? You' re
going to be against it, am I right?
ED NESSELGRAVE: I 'm not saying I 'm going to be against
it, the regulations and the law would be against it. If it
were a major structure that were to be sited within that 1/2
mile corridor, 1/4 mile on either side. Yes.
QUESTION: In other words, if a person gets flooded out
down below, (inaudible) if you take this and put in
wildlife, are you taking the responsibility of paying for
damages then?
ED NESSELGRAVE: I don ' t believe so.
QUESTION: Why not? If you won' t let the State or
Federals put a dam in there to protect the water rights of
-16-
the irrigation farmers or nothing, but yet you won' t do your
share of the paying?
ED NESSELGRAVE: The Act says,
QUESTION: Well, then (inaudible) .
ED NESSELGRAVE: Perhaps. I 'm trying to explain to you
what it says. Sir?
QUESTION: Do I understand something you said that
basically the Federal Government then will be taking over
the management of the Poudre from the mouth on up basically,
is that correct? Or is this a method of getting through the
reserve by water clause that Congress has declared
(inaudible) ?
ED NESSELGRAVE: No, I don' t think so, let me put that
to rest. The Act is very clear that wild and scenic river
designation does not supersede State water rights. It does
not
QUESTION: You said, excuse me, you said that we
couldn' t take the water out. So that would supersede State
water rights. What about putting extra water in? Do you
decide in your good judgment, when you' re feds, I 'm not
talking about you generically.
ED NESSELGRAVE: I appreciate your (inaudible) .
QUESTION: You keep putting water in. Then can you
tell us when you can put water in, because you' ll decide
ED NESSELGRAVE: When I said that a Federal management
agency would manage the river I meant in a recreational
-17-
context. Management of the water resource in terms of
meeting the call for water needs , of meeting existing
appropriation commitments would not be under Federal permit.
Now, if someone wanted to take water out of the river to
meet an existing commitment, I don' t think there would be a
problem with that. What I was trying to explain was , say
that there was a place, just hypothetically, to put some off
channel storage here, and someone designed a site that would
be capable of holding 200 , 000 acre feet of water, similar to
the kind of sites we' re talking about at Idlewild, at
Elkhorn, and at Greg Mountain, for example. They would have
difficulty under the terms of the Act, if this segment were
designated, taking that much water out of the river without
affecting the scenic values, the recreational values and
perhaps other values within that segment, if it were
designated. That' s what I was trying to convey about taking
water out.
QUESTION: That would supersede, then, the State law,
cause State law says that if you have water rights you can
take it out and store it. (inaudible) what I 'm saying is
that the Federal government is (inaudible) never turned
around to maintain high flows or low flows or whatever.
ED NESSELGRAVE: The law says that they don' t have the
opportunity to stipulate flow regimes. Again, it' s a broad
law, if people interpret. . .
-18-
AUDIENCE: I would guess that' s the whole problem the
people in this room are having, it' s such a broad law, that
whoever want to interpret it, they always have to be on our
hands and knees to Washington. (Inaudible) .
ED NESSELGRAVE: Yes?
AUDIENCE: If you designated any of the main stem of
the Poudre as wild and scenic and, my ditch company has
Longdraw, would that regulate any of the flow that we could
turn out of Longdraw?
ED NESSELGRAVE: The Act says no. The Act says,
specifically, that designating the (inaudible) below in a
non-designated segment or building structures above or below
a designated segment is consistent with the purposes of the
Act. It would not regulate the flow, or releases from
Longdraw.
AUDIENCE: Well , what I meant is the volumetric flow of
(inaudible) .
ED NESSELGRAVE: I understand.
AUDIENCE: If you know there was a flood above
Longdraw, which I doubt you'd ever have, (inaudible) massive
release in there to hold your dam?
ED NESSELGRAVE: I don' t think that the law would
negate your right to do that.
AUDIENCE: Okay, would you clarify that. So long as it
doesn' t diminish fish and wildlife or scenic values of the
-19-
potential area, so it could, in fact, do what the gentleman
said.
ED NESSELGRAVE: It might, I don' t know. We can
(inaudible) way beyond any of our farsighted capabilities to
fathom this issue, I think. We can and I don' t know. I
would think that that would be acceptable, but that' s just
my impression from reading the law and regulations. There
are, perhaps other people in the room that might disagree
with that. I can' t speak with finality to it, nor can
anyone else in this room, because it would be conceivable
that, if legislation were to be written, it could be written
into the legislation to say that emergency flood releases
will be permissible and under no circumstances will
designation affect flood control releases. So, that could
be written in, I don ' t know.
AUDIENCE: Well, the thing I 'm getting at is we've got
the reservoir up there, we've got the investment. We want a
written guarantee before anything is done up there. We've
got the investment, we don' t want to be made your ifs.
ED NESSELGRAVE: Well, I imagine that legislation you
can look to as being the form of a written guarantee.
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay, that' s fine Ed, I really
appreciate you coming and explaining this to us because I
think everybody out here needed to know what we 've got
sitting before us and the importance of it, and I really
appreciate Ed' s taking the time and explaining this to us
-20-
because we need to know. So, we' re going to go ahead and
get into everybody having some input in it. First of all I
have Art Andersen. Before you get started, Art, I thought
maybe I would say one thing. Just as a little kid growing
up in this community, I heard a lot of discussions on water
and one day I heard one definition of water and the
importance of it here in Weld County, and I thought it would
be kind of nice to pass that on. The guy says, "Well you
can mess around with my wife, you can kick my dog, and you
can kill my cat, but you mess around with my water and I ' ll
kill you! " That' s just about the way the feeling was in
this area and it' s been pretty touchy that way and I think
that that ought to be forwarded on to these people to let
them know how necessary our water is to our part of the
Country. OK, Art.
ART ANDERSEN: I think most of, is this thing live?
CHUCK CARLSON: Yep, it' s supposed to be, is it live?
OK.
ART ANDERSEN: I think most of you know me, but just in
case you don' t, I 'm A.L. Andersen, Jr. and I live 51 miles
northeast of Ault. I have farmed there for 38 years. My
father broke part of the farm out in 1914 . For the past 20
years I have worked extensively in both water and surface,
both underground and surface water matters. The thing that
I want to bring out to you that I don' t think that many of
you get, is I want to equate you to what the quantitative
-21-
loss of 625 ,000 acre feet of water on the Poudre could do if
it had been stored. This was a loss on the Poudre River in
1983 . This volume of water would supply the City of Greeley
for 18 years, or Ft. Collins for 16 years at their present
use rate. Put another way, this is enough water to supply
both cities for 8 years and all was completely wasted this
past year. Again, this volume of water would have supplied
Water Supply and Storage Ditch, the Eaton Ditch, #2 Ditch,
for 311 years of funs based on a 10 year average of what they
have run. Now the Water Supply' s ditch is 2 miles north of
Ault on 85 , the Eaton Ditch is a mile south of Ault on 85
and #2 goes through Lucerne, so you know those ditches.
These ditches supply some of the ditch water used in Larimer
County and they also supply 85% of the ditch water used
north of Greeley in Weld County. Going to a nine year
average of the loss of water on the Poudre, we find that it
has been 185 , 000 acre feet. Using the 185 ,000 acre feet
average loss per year, would figure each year' s loss would
supply the cities of Greeley and Ft. Collins with 2' years
of water. Once again, this 185 ,000 acre foot loss per year
is sufficient to run the three previously mentioned ditches
their regular runs each year. So this would supply, the
loss in one year would supply 85% of the ditch water run in
Weld County north of Greeley, cause that' s all under the
Poudre. Based on the most recent price on Big Thompson I
have seen, which is the City of Evans paying $1 , 100 per
-22-
unit, it would cost $286 ,000 ,000 to volumetrically purchase
this 185 ,000 acre feet average loss for nine years from the
Poudre River. I spoke with Jack Nightsey, Poudre River
Commissioner and he stated that if he had had Gray Mountain
Dam alone and had been allowed to store 300 ,000 acre feet,
now that' s half the loss this year, of this year' s runoff,
in it while releasing 2 ,000 second feet he could have
prevented all flooding along the Poudre in 1983 . And right
there at the Ranch Wholesale, where the water was running
probably at its best, we' re guessing that it probably got
10 ,000 second feet. This flooding of the Poudre in Weld
County alone cost over $1 ,000 ,000 . The latest figures I 've
seen is it cost the County $1 ,000 ,000 , possibly $1 ,000 ,000
for those out of the County, I mean private owners, and some
of the losses for the County was a quarter of a million
dollars at the Windsor Bridge, the County spent $30 ,000
getting the water through Greeley, it cost Ellis and Capp
$10 ,000 , and I talked to Carl Barnett, it cost the D & J
Packing Company $25 ,000 . Now the last two are private
enterprises. This was their dollar cost. They don' t know
the cost on the loss of business. I didn' t get a chance to
talk to Winograd' s or some of the others, and I imagine
Winograd' s loss was much greater than anyone else' s. The
total loss of water in the Platte at Julesburg, in 1983 , was
2 ,100 ,000 acre feet. So you can see that 30% of this loss
was due to the Poudre. Nebraska has projects completed, and
-23-
more under way, to use this extra water that they' re
getting. So if we do not, very soon, put this water to
beneficial use, even though we have a water compact with
Nebraska, we will lose the water and we cannot afford to do
that. The way I look at this is , Colorado law says the
first to put it to beneficial use gets it. If we' re letting
it go to Nebraska and they put it to beneficial use, we want
it back, we go to Court, who do you think is going to win?
I don' t know, but it looks like to me we would lose. And
contrary to the Tudor engineering report, which, I believe,
said they could develop about 12 ,000-14 ,000 acre feet of new
water, I believe that is in the vicinity of around 50 ,000
acre feet or more if you will take the last ten years, and
take a ten year average and make this average up to date. I
haven' t gotten the figures from Jack Nightsey to give them
to you exactly, but I know it' s in that neighborhood. I
think the Tudoor report that most people are looking at took
one of the low sections of the runoff on the Poudre, I don ' t
know whether it was intentional because they did it, because
those that didn' t want this, any projects like Gray Mountain
or Idlewild, or whether it was just accidental. But I don' t
believe you can afford to let this water go to waste. We
can at present, but I 'm looking down 10 , 15 , maybe 50 years
in the future, and it' s going to be needed here. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: We have Chris Green. Not here.
Richard Boettcher. OK.
-24-
RICHARD BOETTCHER: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick
Boettcher. I 'm a past member of the Greeley City Council,
and I 'm a member of the Greeley Water-Sewer Board, and a
businessman in Greeley. I 've lived in Greeley since 1948 .
I attended the meeting in Ft. Collins a couple of weeks ago
and was amazed to see Ft. Collins residents, many of them,
supporting the wild river concept. I did a lot of thinking
about that and it bothered me when I came home from that
meeting, but I 'm convinced, too, that people can live so
close to the mountains that they don' t really see the
mountains. You know we live out here in Greeley, and we can
look over and we really see the mountains. Many times you
live too close to the trees, you don' t see the forest. And
I think that' s been the history of Weld County and the
pioneers and the people living out here. They didn' t have
lots of water, they didn' t have a lot of trees, they didn' t
have things until they got water. I think that the people
living close to the hills always have that in their back
yard. You know the City of Greeley had water meters and I
think they still do in Ft. Collins that people actually
bought water from the City of Greeley. We have storage in
the mountains because of our forefathers that thought enough
about this, (inaudible) so they have always been thinking,
as you people are tonight, you' re concerned. I was amazed
that the meeting would be even in Ft. Collins, it should
have been out here. This is where the water is really being
-25-
used, this is where the concern really is. What I 'd like to
do is relate with you a trip I had up the Poudre River about
a year and a half ago to two years, I 'm not sure of the
time, with a gentleman many of you know or knew. A very
intelligent and concerned Ft. Collins resident. This man' s
name was Dugan Wilkinson. Dugan, many of you know,
CHUCK CARLSON: Just a minute, Dick, we' re going to
change the tape.
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay.
RICHARD BOETTCHER: I didn' t if Dugan too many years,
but that I really came to admire this person as a person
that had been around for a long time, understood water, and
was the Water Commissioner, or the river commissioner for
many years. He graduated (inaudible) the Colorado State
University and spent most of his life working in water
engineering for the State of Colorado. He was an
outstanding person. Well , this trip that our water board
took with Dugan, turned out to be the last trip he ever took
up the Poudre, the river that he loved so much. It was
something to be able to go on that trip with him and have
him really explain the Poudre and the beauty of the Poudre
and everything that went along with it. So I know of his
great love, and others, of about the scenic beauty and
points of interest and all of this that we heard about. He
pointed out to us, he had a great emphasis, he pointed to
our Board, on capturing the water that was leaving the
-26-
state, leaving the Poudre, coming down to Greeley flooding,
and was doing this every year, and he a couple of maps with
a couple of reservoirs up there one called the Gray
Mountain, I think there was an Idlewild. I 'm telling how
that this was going to be needed? Some day this is going to
be needed. He kind of compared this with Grand Lake. Any
of you been up around Grand Lake? How beautiful it is. You
talk about recreation. It was more than just some tubes
coming down the river and a few with fishing poles or
boating. (Inaudible) along the side for recreation. It' s
scenic, it' s beautiful. He could see this type of thing up
the Poudre. When you've got a river, you've got a bank on
each side and that' s pretty much it for people to enjoy. He
did point this out and I could see it. Where the City of
Greeley has a reservoir up there would be flooded. It would
expand into a greater area. But the greatest need really
was, he said, for the people that are living here today.
That registered in my mind. He said not for the people that
are coming tomorrow. The people that are here today are the
ones that need Gray Mountain. I didn' t quite understand
what he meant until it really dawned on me that, sure, those
people coming to our area are going to come. They' re coming
and you can' t stop them, the Forest Service can' t stop them
or no one else. Those people are coming. They' re going to
be coming year, after year, after year. They' re going to
need water. They' re going to get water. Where are they
-27-
going to get it? A lot of it will probably come from the
farms. People that are presently getting water because
people will probably have priorities. Even the people
living here will have less water, or they will pay more for
their water. As thousands of more people congregate in our
area. So, this will be needed. Economically feasible
today, maybe not, probably not. But down the road, yes, it
probably will be. Many of us here can recall 1977 , I
believe, was the year that we were really wondering if we
were going to have enough water to drink. Well, the people
in control of the water, Bill Farr and the others, said,
"You' re going to get all the water you need this year, all
of it. We are going to have a full crop, not a half crop,
and a full crop. Now, if there isn' t any snow in the hills ,
come winter, you may not plant anything next year. Like
what happened? We got, I guess water, we got snow just
before it was too late. The next year we had water. But we
can' t count on that, as we go down the road. Few more
thousand of people, two or three bad years in a row, no snow
in the hills, and we will have many problems. Well, I 've
felt very fortunate to have met a man like Dugan Wilkinson
and I only wish he could have been here tonight. He died of
cancer shortly after that trip, a few months later. But, I
felt that I had to pass on the information, I was able to
gain from this person. I can' t really for the life of me
figure out why all of a sudden (inaudible) , and the forestry
-28-
gentlemen said that this has been an order from Congress , in
studying this. But, just doesn' t seem to me that it has to
be done now. That it is not that important, and we are
going to shut off the opportunities that we would have to
store water and to save plotting, and this, for things to
come down the road. It is not needed at this time. If
seventy-five percent or seventy-four percent of the land up
there is privately owned by the government, and it' s all
zoned by Larimer County, I don' t know why in the world we
have to designate much more. You do have control. Fish and
Wildlife has control, Forest Department has control, Larimer
County has control. So it' s not any need that I can see to
designate the Poudre as wild and scenic. The Poudre is a
beautiful area. It can continue to be and it can continue
to be beautiful with our water projects, and let' s not close
out our last option for the last water Greeley has that' s
coming that Poudre.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you Dick. Chris Green.
CHRIS GREEN: Mr. Carlson, I respectfully ask to be put
at the bottom of the list (inaudible) and their concerns.
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay, I ' ll pick you up at a little
later on. Elmer Roth.
ELMER ROTH: I ' ll pass for now.
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay. Gordon Lacy.
-29-
GORDON LACY: Mr. Chairman, I think my remarks would be
repetition of the last two gentlemen, so I don' t think it
would be necessary to speak at this time.
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay. Thank you Gordon. Mrs. George
Jurgens. Mrs. Jurgens.
MRS. JURGENS : I think I ' ll pass at this time.
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay, Dorothy, did you want to speak?
DOROTHY HAMLET: It' s true that part of, I 'm Dorothy
Hamlet from Gill. It' s true that there is already land up
there for wildlife and so forth. But the farmers of 1983
were flooded out. Not only the farmers, but the City of
Greeley. And I don' t think, at this time, this should be
allowed because of all the damage that has been done. We
need dams, and we need this water stored for these people
for the future. Maybe they don' t think so right now, I do.
I think we need those dams and I think we need to hold it
back. The damage wouldn' t have been extensive like it has
been if there was dams and and hold it back and let it at a
slow pace out, which they didn' t do, and I think too much of
the land is to the government and not for the people pay the
taxes and other things. They put out the money. I think
they' re entitled to the water and, I think they should give
it and I think it should be, down the road, looked at a lot
harder than they' re doing. And a lot of the government
money is put out for tests like this, instead of building
dams to help the farmers that produce the food for the
-30-
people of the United States. And I think we should take a
hard look at this and look at it hard. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Reynold Herbst.
REYNOLD HERBST: Mr. Chairman, my name is Reynold
Herbst. I farm about seven or eight miles northwest of
Greeley. The Poudre River is a boundary west of me, on the
north side of me. Our speaker from the Forest Service said
something about private owners donating land. I donated
thousands and thousands of tons of my land this year. The
Poudre River went directly through my place for six weeks
straight, and I have gullies and holes that you wouldn' t
believe. It would take at least thirty to fifty thousand
dollars to put my farm back into shape. And without Federal
aid, I will not be able to do it. And I have contacted the
Federal Government, they do not have any money for the
Poudre River. They told me if Governor Lamm would have
designated this area as a disaster, they would have had the
money set aside for us. I , like Mr. Andersen said, spoke
also Jack Nightsey, our (inaudible) commissioner, and Jack
told me, he said, if we would have had that dam up that
river, he said, you wouldn' t have lost one acre of ground.
If I don' t get some Federal aid, I will have at least 75
acres of good, productive land that I will not even be able
to farm this year. Because the river bank is completely
gone and with a mere 1500 feet of water, it' s going to go
right through my place again. I think that we should be
-31-
taking a hard look, the people in Weld and Larimer County,
at this situation and press for these dams up the Poudre
River. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Reynold. I want to tell
anybody up here, if you have any questions, well be sure to
ask them at any time. I agree with you Reynold. At the
time that the Poudre was its highest, why, the Army Corps of
Engineers was here with the helicopter and they flew us over
your place and I know the problems you had. You had water
all over. I understand that. Roy Johnson.
ROY JOHNSON: (inaudible) figured the same as Art
Andersen did and Dick Boettcher.
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay Roy. Thank you. Greg Llafet.
GREG LLAFET: Mr. Chairman, my name is Gre4 Llafet and
I 'm here representing the North Colorado Water Conservancy
District. Just for some background, most of you know that
the Northern District is the contacting agency for the
Colorado Big Thompson Project and we have been delivering an
average of about 225 thousand acre feet of water from the
western slope over to the eastern slope in an average year
and that our municipal subdistrict is the contracting agency
for the Windy Gap project. I think that tonight the
position of the Water Conservancy District is patently
obvious . We will reach, I ' ll do a conclusion in a second,
but first I would like to answer one question that kind of
originated in the back of the room, and then talk about one
-32-
issue that we' re concerned about at the Conservancy
District. I think that this one question concerned whether
or not the designation of the Poudre River could foreclose
the meaningful water development and water management
planning for the Poudre Basin. There is little likelihood
that any additional water is going to come across the
mountains after we're done with Windy Gap. I think we have
to take that as a given, I think the new Fish and Wildlife
Service management recommendations are going to prevent us
from doing that plus the hydrology of the Colorado River.
So we have to do that as a given that we don' t have much
more capability of bringing Colorado River water over to
northeastern Colorado. The Denver Water Board has that
opportunity. I don't think that we do. We feel that the
designation of the Poudre River as a wild and scenic river
under the Federal law will most likely constitute an
irretrievable commitment of the Basin' s water resources to
the one use, and one use only, and that' s recreational.
Now, theoretically, Congress could rescind or modify this
wild and scenic river designation. It' s going to be one
piece of legislation affecting only the Poudre River. Now,
as Ed mentioned earlier, the Forest Service might approve
certain water development projects on the river, despite
such a designation. However, we feel that the likelihood of
either happening in reality is very remote. Once a
designation is made the Federal permitting process and
-33-
political concerns can be expected to result in opposition
to water management policies. Now, if you doubt me, go ask
the City of Colorado Springs. They wanted to build a Home
Stake II project, which is in the Holy Cross Wilderness
area. They thought that they had protected themselves when
the Holy Cross Wilderness areas, and the rivers in that area
fell under the Act. But once the Act was passed, once they
wanted to build the Home Stake diversions, it all started
all over again. So we' re not sure that any guarantees are
sufficient for the water users in this area. It is unlikely
that further water development could occur on tributaries
located either above a designated segment of the river, or
that diversions above or from the designated segment could
even occur at all. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prevents
any and I quote, "direct or adverse effect" on the values
for which the river was designated. Now, I ' ll quote again,
"Future construction of improvements, diversions,
straightening, rip-rapping, and other modifications of the
water way or adjacent lands would not be permitted, except
in instances where such developments would not have a direct
and adverse affect on the values for which that river was
included in the national system as determined by the
secretary charged with the administration of the area. " Now
that' s from the legislation. So I think that answers one of
the questions that originated in the back of the room, what
can happen. Now (inaudible) in Section 404 of the Clean
-34-
Water Act are significant environmental protection statutes
which apply to all water development projects. But the Wild
and Scenic River Act is unique, in that the entire remaining
water volume of the stream is presumed to be necessary for
preservation of the wild, scenic and recreational values
which were in place at the time of the designation. That' s
what separates. That' s what makes it so unique. So as we
consider the designation process I hope we' ll keep that in
mind. Now, for the sake of brevity, I 'd just like to
address another issue, and that is something that we have
all heard about and that' s a basin-wide study of the Greeley
basin and the area south of Greeley. Now we've all heard of
Tudor study which, while providing useful data concerning
several possible water developments sites, was not a
comprehensive study. And we shouldn' t use it as a basis for
concluding that further water development of the Poudre is
impossible or impractical. What we' re proposing is a water
conservancy district to the Colorado Water Resources and
Power Development Board is the funding of a basin-wide study
of the Poudre. One is now ongoing of the water resource
needs and the ways that we can meet those needs in the
future in the St. Vrain. Now we had the St. Vrain, and the
we had the Poudre, and the Denver Water Board and the Army
Corps of Engineers is completing a system-wide EIS above
Brighton, we could tie these all together and develop a
master plan for the rational water development of what we
-35-
have left under these (inaudible) . That' s the least of our
worries right now. Their Fish and Wildlife Service draft
recommendation to protect the whooping cranes at Overton,
Nebraska, are going to be a problem too. We 've go to start
somewhere. This is what the Conservancy District is asking,
that we do not proceed with the designation at this time.
That we go ahead with the basin wide analysis which is not
just another study of dam sites, but a study of needs,
population projections, everything that we've got to know
before we can make any decisions. And while these
diversions could take place if we' re going to be able to
have a compromise type of water development program. So
that would be our request for the committee and our
recommendation to Hank and we appreciate the chance to come
before the panel.
CHUCK CARLSON: Chris Green.
CHRIS GREEN: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Chris
Green. To give you some background, my family heritage is
in the Poudre. My family owns Kinnickkinnick, up the
Poudre. And I can see what your needs are, being that my
family has come from a farming family, and how precious
water is. I 'd like to urge Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Brown to
help Mr. Reagan get off his saddle and release this
information that is needed. I think it would have a little
bit of a difference in determining already settled opinions .
It may change a couple, it may put some light on a few
-36-
subjects, it may not. But still, to withhold this
information I think is unnecessary, and I know that
bureaucracy does tie things up, but, in this case , we don' t
have all day and all year, and years to come before it gets
untied. First of all, I 've talked to several people about
damming the Poudre. One was a gentleman I met this last
fall by the name of Jim Loomis. And he was very informative
on what could be done as an alternative. He explained to me
that the studies that were made were necessary for the
safety of those downstream. It' s necessary to know if so
many acre feet are going to hold in that dam, because of the
way the rock is put together. That' s why we have these
research and study projects. It' s also been determined
through a twenty-year study, I believe the benefit of the
cost ratio that comes down to all of us, and I can
understand the need of having this dam paid for with the
idea of putting a hydro-power at the top of it to help pay
for the cost that will be involved. Unfortunately it' s not
cost effective, and according to Jim Loomis and what I have
read, it would be most cost effective to scoop out the
present dams that we have on the plains, which would be a
lot cheaper and would be able to be funded a lot easier than
damming the Poudre up right now. We could, in that long
run, catch the water that we ' re missing. It would hold it
temporarily until we could come to a compromise with the
Northern Conservation District. This would allow us enough
-37-
time to come up with a feasible plan for all this area.
Just like planting crops, it takes a lot of time and effort
to see how you' re going to nurture it, it will take time for
this, and I know that we need action now, because of the
flooding and all. This year is already too late, we're
going to have flooding. It' s quite obvious we' re going to
have flooding just on the low plains area. The mountains
haven' t received that much snow. And so most of the
flooding will be coming down from the plain. Those are just
a couple of things. I wanted to stress that in funding
this, it' s going to difficult and time consuming. The cost
is going to come down. The hydro-power system would be a
good idea, but it' s not feasible as being a way to fund this
project, and I would urge somebody to come up with an idea
how they' re going to fund this project. Is it going to be
related to farmers, or not? I understand Weld County has ,
and is the third richest county in the nation right now. I
also understand that the problem with the gentleman that
lost a lot of land and it not being federally designated as
a destruction area. I can understand that, and believe me,
I 've been in straits not quite as his, but almost as
devastating. Right now, we need better water management, as
we all know, but it' s going to take time. We need water
storage, as the Northern Conservation District gentleman
gave us a good idea. Got to realize that the hydro-power
feature is more cost negative at the State level than it did
-38-
without it. So there' s not going to be any way to help pay
for this, and it' s not bad for people to want to have the
users of this power to help pay for the cost. I don' t think
that' s unrealistic at all. But the opportunity is in our
own back yard. With the holding ponds that we have we could
create more , it would be something short-lived, and with
help that would be available now, whereas this other
project' s going to take years , because now we have to think
what we can do in our own backyards. So I have to agree
that the opportunity that Larimer County has right now, with
Anheuser Busch is something else to look out. I don' t
understand the full context. I 've just been in (inaudible)
about a year and I 'm still learning a lot about it. But the
Larimer County has got a responsibility to itself too,
outside of Greeley, and there were comments made that they
had done something about damming the Poudre this year. We
could have caught a lot of water that would have fed a lot
of people, and I 'm not objecting to having to eat first
before you can build. But please understand that we have
this opportunity and maybe we really should look at it. I 'm
not against you, I 'm for you. I 'm just hoping that you
realize that it' s going to take such measures as working
other alternatives. And maybe with our legislation, and
maybe with the help of President Reagan to realize our
problem through Hank Brown and Mr. Armstrong, we could get
-39-
something done a little bit quicker, because a great deal of
our crops go to help feed him and his family. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Robert Tigges.
UNKNOWN: Chuck, just let me say something. That study
by the Water Conservation Board, if it' s similar to the St.
Vrain study, and we full anticipate that it would be, would
consider all the costs, alternatives, would consider how the
project would be paid for and would consider all types of
water conservation methods including conservation and all
the other types of
UNKNOWN: (Inaudible)
UNKNOWN: Absolutely.
CHUCK CARLSON: Bob Tigges .
BOB TIGGES: Mr. Chairman, I 'm Robert Tigges. I have
the good fortune to farm right across the river from Reynold
Herbst. And the reason I say this is when the bank went out
on his farm why that was like pulling the plug out of the
bathtub and it lowered the water on my side and I did not
receive too much damage. But there is a lot of bars in the
river that going to have to be pushed out, and that is a
pretty expensive operation. I found out three years ago.
But it will have to be. The whole river needs this work
done. It needs these bars pushed out, the banks stabilized.
For four miles on that river it has been taken care of by
the landowners, Kodak and anybody. If they wanted it done
they had to do it themselves. The damages to the farms, the
-40-
damages to the highways, the bridges and roads, that' s all
taken care of by tax dollars . But that' s your dollars and
my dollars pays these taxes. The other thing, I hate to
lose control on the river. Maybe we don' t have much control
right now, but it looks to me like we'd be giving away
control down the years and when the people are here after
we' re gone, they're going to need more water. The problem
is that we still have irrigation farms, we' re going to have
to have irrigation water. I can see where we can develop
water on the Poudre and we can have water for both sides of
the road. It will also take tax dollars. But it will be
dollars, I think well spent, because you alleviate the
problems on your roads and your bridges and the farms that
are taking tax dollars to rebuild. I certainly am not in
favor, I 'm sure you can see, of designating this as a scenic
and wildlife river. I can say it is very scenic. I can
certainly appreciate the recreation habit, but I can
certainly say that it was a mighty wild river for six weeks
this last spring. I think, and I do not have the figures,
but I would just say that three out of every ten years we
have this problem along the Poudre. I 've lived on that farm
since 1935 and roughly that has eleven floods we have had.
I 'd certainly want to commend Art Andersen on the figures he
has compiled on the amount of water that we are losing every
year that' s going to the Gulf of Mexico and it' s certainly
not doing much good down there. So in behalf of the Whitney
-41-
Irrigation Company and myself I 'd like to say that I am not
in favor of designating the Poudre as a wild and scenic
river. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Dave Stookesberry.
DAVE STOOKESBERRY: I 'm Dave Stookesberry and I 'd like
to read a brief statement on behalf of the Greeley Area
Chamber of Commerce. "The Greeley Area Chamber of Commerce
Board of Directors, having met on this December 19 , 1983 ,
hereby state that any designation of wild and scenic or any
change in the use of the Cache La Poudre River is not at
this time advisable, appropriate, desirable, justifiable, or
in the best interests of any of the communities involved.
That' s the end of our statement. I just briefly from a
personal side want to speak to one issue of the flood . I
had the misfortune of our family business being flooded out
in 1965 down in Denver and I found out at that time what a
terrible thing a flood could be because as bad as the flood
was this last year, I know that it can be much much worse
and people have the impression that a flood is water going
over the banks and getting basements wet. I think that the
destructiveness of a flood is so important, that people
really need to consider, the Congress really needs to
consider this aspect alone being one of the most important
reasons to not designate the river in this way.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thanks Dave. Bob Winter.
-42-
BOB WINTER: I 'm Bob Winter and I farm in the Windsor
area. And we've all heard about how much water the Poudre
has got and in 1977 the Eaton Ditch Company didn' t run one
day of river water. That hasn' t been too many years ago,
okay, and we 're asking for some dams up the rivers, to help
us alleviate that situation. I farm four hundred acres with
one hundred and thirty days of water. Now that' s stretching
your water a long ways. So I just, I can' t see, of all the
testimonies that have been given here and Miss Green here
has (inaudible) agreed with us a hundred percent if we ' re
going to do something we need to do it, think about it, and
do it right. That she agree with us that now is not the
time to establish a wild and scenic river. We need to do
research, we need to plan carefully. Other states are
already doing their planning. Nebraska is doing some
planning. Today we learned that Arizona has got a
reclamation project underway and in a few weeks or a few
months why they' re going to take the water they' re entitled
to and California is going to be short. Where are they
going to come to? Right here in Colorado. We' re the
source: Those mountains up there are the greatest aquifer
(inaudible) on this country. All the water that' s from the
mountains, east and west slope, goes from our mountains. I
can' t understand for the life of me how anyone including
Congress or anybody else can take away an asset so vital to
a community and to a section of the country. Because I know
-43-
I 've been short of water and I can appreciate when you have
to rent water and to make the water stretch. Here' s a
blessing in disguise, we can put this (inaudible) water up
here. We can stop the floods, we can do just so much with
the reclamation project. I just think that it behooves us
all to look and consider all the alternatives and I would
think that Congress would want to spend there money more
wisely rather then recreation first. Let' s put agriculture
back where it belongs and recreation can come second or
third because we've got all this recreation, it' s just like
the Dillon Dam. When I was a young child going through,
when they put the Dillon Dam in we drove on the bottom of
that -- what' s a beautiful lake up there now. There' s
beautiful homes around that lake and probably more of you've
been up there than I have, but it' s a wonderful place to be
and I think that everybody can benefit. Recreation,
agriculture, we ' re all to will well benefit from not making
this a wild and scenic river, and as far as I 'm concerned,
it' ll be more scenic and more recreation once we get the
thing dammed up the way it needs to be done in an orderly
fashion. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Vic Kline.
VICTOR KLINE: My name is Victor Kline and again I, you
know last time I talked to you fellas I was an expert
because I was better than 35 miles from home. Just kind of
have to be a layman. I don' t see all of that river in its
-44-
scenic form but I do know whether the Poudre hits the
Platte, (inaudible) so when you fellas talk about having
water, we've got your water out of the Poudre, we've got
some Platte water, so we see a lot of water. All I 'd like
to bring up a little bit about is that, when we talk about
the government agencies or the Government, the State and the
Federal and cities owning this land or the bondage right now
along the river they practically control it so they're not
going to let you put a dam or an off site storage anywhere
on theirs and if they did they sure wanted it and I don' t
see why it has to be designated scenic and wildlife. I have
a little bone of contention with the Federal Government and
anyhow on the State, they were down there on the river and
they rented a little land along there from somebody and
turned it over to the duck hunters. They put signs up, they
did a good job of putting the signs up, but they didn' t put
it on the boundary line, so they didn' t take time out to go
find out where the boundaries were, they came over on top of
us, you know, and they said on the other side' s private, but
they didn' t say it was private on the other side there, too.
So, they don' t do all of their work just quite right.
Another thing they do is, last year we had a lot of water.
The Chatfield Dam was built for flood control. If you
remember, the flood of 65 ' went through Denver and everybody
was in favor of the flood control dam. They put a flood
control dam in and they was suppose to have a little pool of
-45-
recreation water. They got that built so big in there, and
the thing that bothers me is you can go and call it one
thing and if they get if foot in the door it just esculator
and they never stop. Chatfield was supposed to be a flood
control dam and it should of worked, it sure would of worked
last year, but they had it too full before it started and
about the time we get the biggest water coming down in
there, they turn the water out of the Chatfield on top of
the flood that was already in there. I went to these
hearings that they had, and they' re all tied to this and
that and everything else, and one person controls it until
you get such and such a foot height, and then somebody else
has the control, and when they got too much water why
nobody' s got any control at all and it comes downs the top
of us . We 've got pasture down there we have to be pay taxes
on. I had to go and rent pasture outside of the area this
year to put the cattle in so that didn' t do any good. The
fences are all out. It' s just not in very good shape, but I
knew it was going to do that, I guess, when it went up
there. I know over in Ft. Collins somebody brought up and
said that, you know like in Greeley when the river left the
banks that if anybody that builds any type of a business in
a flood plain, well they ought to be flooded out. I wonder,
when you talk about flood plain, I wonder what you would
call Monforts Packing Plant up there. That' s right square
in the flood plain. You know it' s right on the Poudre
-46-
River, it' s just a bank, that' s holding it there. Had you
have eroded, instead of going on Reeyn it'd have gone on
Tigges you know, it' d have been on Monfort. There is a
couple thousand people works up there you know. It tells me
that maybe some of that old flood plain isn't too bad of a
place to put property. They' re paying taxes on that old
flood stuff, you know. They paid a lot of taxes on it. A
lot of people make a living off of it. So I don' t think
that that kind of a statement was too good. I know over
there, there was so much testimony came in, and oh you think
you have a crowd, you ought to have gone over there.
Couldn't even, the aisles were full , they sat (inaudible)
everywhere, and I know a couple of the girls got up and one
of them said she really don' t know what she was there for
but she was told to go ahead an put in her two bits worth so
she did, and I thought she did. But what I saw over there,
these people that are in there fighting this thing for a
scenic deal, they' re the ones that are only there for just a
little bit of time, they're going to college or they belong
going to some Sierra Club, or Audibon or something else, and
I have nothing against them, but I have against them if
they' re bothering me and they all have this one thing that
they think overnight that they've got to have their
controls, but it just takes a very short time. These people
move away. They're four thousand miles away from what they
was over there protesting about and we've still got the
-47-
problems . You know it was here before, and it is going to
be here. If the people ahead of us had not of put in dams,
you wouldn' t have very much trouble in here, there wouldn' t
be no people living in here, there wouldn't be any water in
here for them to live on. Every city you look at, you take
everyone of then, if they didn' t have storage they wouldn' t
have any water. They talk about, you know, you get water,
you and drill wells and this and that, well, out in the
Eastern Colorado, where they had the big influx of farms and
sprinklers here in the last ten, fifteen, or twenty years,
their water is just about depleted, the Ogallala aquifers
are down so low now that starting in Texas and coming back,
they' re shutting down, they' re going to dryland or they' re
going to a the crop that they only aeriate a few times.
We' re going to need this water, we've got to store it. I
said once before, anytime you store water as high as you can
everybody, whether it' s city people or whoever it is,
recreation there' s or what ever you want with it, they' re
all going to get another chance to use it. But if store the
water, just like you can go down here anywhere from Kersey
to the State Line and you go out in their sand (inaudible)
hills you can find enough places up there to put half of the
Pacific Ocean, but you' re going to have to pump it back a
long ways to make it look scenic up above. I 've never seen
a reservoir that hasn't been just inundated with boats and
fishermen and everything else, so I think they' re getting
-48-
the recreation, I don' t think there is any problem there.
Scenic, I think they've got more to see then they had
before, again I say that I can remember the Poudre years
back. We had an old model "T" . In that time, I guess it
was an old model "T" now, but it was a new one to us. It
had more power in reverse then you had in low so when we get
to about half of those hills up there, we had to back up and
everybody else had to push. So we got to the top of them,
but now you can drive from one end of it to the other and
you can see it all. So I think we've got the scenic. I
think we've got the wildlife, what, how many people when you
cut it off to cars and everything else? I don' t mean to go
put roads in everywhere, but when you cut it off, how many
people can put a pack on their back and go up there and do
what they're doing? You know we talk about the pollution of
the rivers, it wasn' t the irrigation water that' s polluted
it. I can remember when we went up there years ago, we
drank that water along the river, but the longer people
started to camp along the side and everything else, you
better boil her now. So it wasn't the farming that' s
polluted the river nor taken the water away, it was people.
So I just, any time the farmers have used water, they've
made it available to thousands and thousands of people all
over and I think we should take and look at that and again I
say that, just like Chatfield, they had a little dam in
there. Cherry Creek, the same way. Cherry Creek, when they
-49-
put it on it' s Corps of Engineers, on stream, storage, five
thousand acre foot of permanent dam in there for recreation.
They brought it up for fifteen thousand acre feet, so the
don' t have any place to put some storage. They need it all
for boating. So on the flood, so then when they get a
little flood, why, oh, the Chatfield, they was taking out
their picnic tables, so they couldn't do that, they had to
it turn down the river. That' s why we have the rivers like
we have and I don't always trust the Federal Government and
their actions, you know, they get an awful lot of people and
they change a lot of administrations. You don' t have
everything in there the same as it was when you started.
And you sign the deal and just like I say, if you get your
foot in the door and they' ll go on forever. I don' t want to
belabor any more, but I do hope that we get to keep it with
the forth sights that we've had in the past, develop it when
you need it to the best advantage, and you couldn't develop
anything anywhere, the environmentalist, the water control
and everything else beyond, it will be right when you get it
in so I say that just, let' s do like we've done in the past,
with good thinking when we get there. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you Dave. E.V. Richardson.
E.V. RICHARDSON: I 'm Everett Richardson and I 'm
speaking on the behalf of Water Supply and Storage Company
of Ft. Collins, Larimer County, Weld County. Since just a
few of my students here in the room,probably know me and the
-50-
rest of you (inaudible) people don' t, I ' ll give a little
background. I know Hank Brown doesn' t know me, so I ' ll try
to help him out too. I 'm a Professor of Civil (inaudible)
Engineering at the Colorado State University. I 'm a member
of the Ft. Collins Water Board, have been since 1969 .
CHUCK CARLSON: Okay.
E.V. RICHARDSON: As a member of the Poudre River
Advisory Board for the Tudor study which was financed by the
State of Colorado, administered by the Colorado Conservation
Board. I own stock in the North Poudre Irrigation Company.
I 'm a director of the Egupt Water Use and Management
Project, which is a project of U.S. aid to teach the
Egyptians how to irrigate more wisely. I 've been a
consultant to FAO, the World Bank, AID, on irrigation and
sediment projects. I ' ll talk to you about sediment one of
these days. I ' ll just say one thing about sediment, it is
not feasibly to rake and dig it out and move it. It' s just
too costly. And if it wasn't that way, we would have dug
out the Yellow Dam, the dam on the dam on the Yellow River,
we would have dug out the Tarvela Dam and we would have dug
out the Washack Dam in India and there' s many other places.
There' s lots of dams that are full of sediment, we'd even be
digging it out up here on the little dam on the North
Platte. It' s just not economically feasible to dig it out.
The other thing I ' ll say about sediment is that basically
our plain reservoirs, because they are off-channel
-51-
reservoirs, have lost very little storage because of
sediment. If you really got in and look at it you' d find
out that they've lost very little storage. They just don' t
have much storage to begin with. Let' s see, what else, oh I
graduated with Dugan Wilkinson. He was a good personal
friend. We worked on water, Ft. Collins water board
together, and I 'm an engineer for Water Supply and Storage.
I do not like to say I 'm a consultant for Water Supply and
Storage because that' s a guy that' s 35 miles away. I say
I 'm an engineer, in other words I helped them design some of
the structures I helped them design their spillways and
things like this, so it' s real engineering. I was asked
specifically by Harvey Johnson, President of Water Supply
and Storage, to speak to you and to Hank Johnson, to our
Senator, about this wild and scenic river designation. He' s
sorry he can' t be here, he'd like to be here, and I think he
would have some very good words of wisdom. Now what is
Water Supply and Storage? Water Supply and Storage serves
270 farm families in Larimer and Weld County. They irrigate
over 53 ,000 acres, of which 75% is in Weld County, 25% is in
Larimer County. It' s a very valuable company. There' s six
hundred shares in that company and the price of those shares
have been fluctuating from $160 ,000 to $190 , 000 a share. So
if you think of the value that' s represented by that
company. Here we have the Federal government coming along
and saying, "Well, we may not tell you what to do it but
-52-
we' re not sure, we've got a law here that' s kind of vague" .
Here we 've got 600 shares, lets say $150 ,000 a share, that
are going to be fluctuated and their value can be
determined, possibly by some bureaucrat in Washington.
Water Supply and Storage is over 100 years old. Has
the oldest water right on the Colorado River. First
trans-mountain diversion. We wouldn't have water in the
Poudre River if it wasn' t for Water Supply and Storage.
You've got Chambers Lake, you've got Long Draw. They've
raised Long Draw. The Federal government helped them raise
it. It' s a bargain. Why do we have water in the Poudre
River in the late fall? We've been talking about floods ,
let' s talk about the other end of this spectrum. We
wouldn' t have water. Fishermen be damned, because it
wouldn' t be there if it wasn' t for these companies that put
their storage into it. The farmers of Water Supply and
Storage over the years have worked very hard to improve
their system, to make sure that there was water. In the
30 ' s they went up there on the Grand Ditch. That' s that
ditch you see when you go over the Rocky Mountain National
Park, Trail Ridge, and look across and you think it' s a
highway, well that' s Grand Ditch. Doesn't bother me to see
that, it looks just like a nice grade. They would go up
there with gunny sacks in the 30 ' s and stuff them in the
cracks to get a little bit of water to come across Poudre
Pass to get in the Poudre so they could have water to farm
-53-
with. You want to turn this over to bureaucrats in
Washington D.C. ? People have sweat at this. Well ,
obviously I 've already given away what I feel about this.
Water Supply and Storage and I , personally, are opposed to
designation of the main stem of the Poudre in recreation,
and we want to be very careful of any of the wild and scenic
designations that are done. The Poudre is scenic and it can
be very wild but it also can be very tame. The designation
that is proposed takes the control of the river from the
local people and puts it into Washington. And we, in the
State of Colorado have been fighting this, we've been
fighting this in the western states for years. I 'm not just
10 years, I 'm talking 100 years. We've been fighting the
reserve clause. I 'm not one to go into a lot of detail
about the reserve clause, but basically that was the Federal
government says all the water that comes from the mountains
is ours. And Congress, in its wisdom, has already said no,
it belongs to the State. And the Federal bureaucrats come
back and says no, it' s ours. Congress passed a law that
says, by God, it does belong to States. Now they' re coming
back and they're going to try another little thing going on
to get in there so the Federal government can get into the
management. They have a role in the management, but they
sure don ' t have to be in the driver' s seat.
I would like to add a little bit. Basically, in this
area, agriculture doesn' t need additional water, they just
-54-
need to preserve the agriculture we have. We need to keep
the cities supplied with water. And if the cities can' t get
the water, can't put the storage in it, then they're going
to take it from agriculture. They're not just going to take
it from the agriculture that they encroach on, that' s what
we do to Ft. Collins, but they' re going to go out and grab
other water. And I think the people have a right to come
and live here, I think that we need to have industry that we
like, Kodak, Anheuser Busch. I personally think Anheuser
Busch is a good clean industry, has a good tax base, and
very few people, what more could you want? You get a
Hewlett Packard, and I like Hewlett Packard, a very small
tax base but a hell of a lot of people. So, when you' re
thinking about it, when we're talking about water for
agriculture, we ' re trying to preserve agriculture and trying
to preserve the way of life we have here. But if
agriculture' s got the water they need, unless we want to
expand out, but the cities are growing and they will grow
and man said it very well, he said you can' t fence the
people out. Commissioner, when he came here to talk to me,
he said there' s only one State we can save in the Union,
that' s Montana, but we ' ll have to build a fence around it.
Colorado' s already gone, you can't build a fence around it.
The people are coming and they are going to continue to
come. Either that or we send our kids away. We want our
kids to stay here, we want them to work, then we have to
-55-
(inaudible) . So we just need to have control of our
destiny.
As a member of the Ft. Collins Water Board, for over 12
years that I was on it, and even prior to that, the Water
Board had a policy of developing new water rather than
taking from agriculture. Only the land that the city had
occupied were we taking the water from, we required those
developers to furnish that water to us. We developed the
Michigan Ditch. While I 'm on the subject of the Ft. Collins
Water Board, the Water Board recommended to City Council
against designation of the main stem of the Poudre as wild
and scenic or recreation. The Board, and I as a member of
the Board, felt strongly that this designation of recreation
of the main stem would be a great mistake for the City of
Ft. Collins and for the people in this area.
I 'm really not an advocate of large dams, but neither
am I against large dams. The thing that I don' t understand
is why we want to designate wild and scenic and recreation
when we don' t know what in the hell we 're doing. We have
not had a drought study, we do not know how much water we
need, we haven't had a real indepth drought study to see how
much over year storage we need. I told the Tudor people
that. We didn' t have the money to do the drought study. We
have not had a good flood study. We don' t know the damages
on that. And then we had the economist, and God save us
from them, (inaudible) I 've seen them do more damage all
-56-
over the world than anything else. They' ll let people
starve because, you know, the irrigation project is not
economical. So when you get down to it, it' s to how you
manipulate the discount rate. As Governor Lamm pointed out,
they didn' t manipulate the discount rate when they built the
subway for Washington D.C. and you and I are still paying
for every person that rides on the D.C. subway. Go ride it
sometime, it' s a nice subway. I 'm not against it, I think
it keeps, makes Washington a better place and everything
else. But let' s not talk about subsidies and things like
this, water versus this, or the amount of money we gave to
New York City. Lamm talks about these things too, you know.
But I think I 'd better bring it to a close. But I 'd just
like to close and say, and repeat, the Water Supply and
Storage Irrigation Company and I , as their spokesman, and I
as an individual, and I , who has spent 45 years of my life
in irrigated agriculture as a farmer, as an engineer, and a
farm boy, are opposed to the designation of recreation for
the main stem and very careful analysis of wild and scenic
for the other parts of the Poudre River. Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Chuck, I have a question, just a minute,
while we have your capability here. Both at the Ft. Collins
hearing and at this hearing, I 've heard the comment made
that all you have to do is make the plains reservoirs a
little bit bigger and we can store all this water in the
plains reservoirs. As a hydraulic engineer with some 40
-57-
years of experience, would you comment on that possibility,
the engineering feasibility of that.
E.V. RICHARDSON: It' s not possible. There' s not that
many storage spaces and the cost is not there. And for
flood control off site storage just does not work for flood
control. For flood control you've got to have it on the
main stem. Now, whether we need flood control or whether we
don't, that has to be a study and it hasn' t been done on
that.
AUDIENCE: What about creating new storage places on
the plains, right now at this time.
E.V. RICHARDSON: There just are not basically that
number of sites that are available on the plains.
AUDIENCE: Has there been a study done on this?
E.V. RICHARDSON: Tudor looked at one of the better
sites and came up and said no, because of the cost of the
dam was so prohibitive. But you'd need pretty high, you' d
need a large area. The other thing about it, is we move
water around very well in Colorado, but we do need some high
mountain storage if we're going to trap the water where we
can use it the best.
AUDIENCE: OK, Thank you. I guess we have another
question.
CHUCK CARLSON: Art.
ART ANDERSEN: Chuck, there' s one thing I think ought
to be brought out that hasn' t brought out here; in all these
-58-
surveys we've had, Tudor and everything, you correct me if
I 'm wrong, Francis, never was a dollar of credit given to
flood control.
FRANCIS BEE: No, it hasn't been studied.
ART: Then they say it' s non-feasible. They don' t give
any credit to us.
CHUCK CARLSON: OK. Thank you, Art. Next one I have
on the list is Gordon Johnson.
GORDON JOHNSON: I 'm Gordon Johnson. I have been asked
to more or less represent the Water Supply and Storage Ditch
Board tonight, and speak in behalf of the stockholders and
particularly point out that Mr. Richardson speaks with
authority, he has done a lot of research for the ditch
company. He knows what he is talking about, and the Ditch
Board sanctions what he has said 100% . There is a couple of
things that I might add to that, that Arte Johnson has said
that is a real concern to him. One is that as we see the
water purchased, and there ' s only one place that the cities
can get water for growth in this northern Colorado area, and
that' s from the water that has been developed years ago by
the agricultural interests and brought over, either by
trans-mountain diversion or by river rights, and stored and
made available. The cities can buy this water. They are
buying this water. Greeley owns a substantial amount, Ft.
Collins owns some. All of the cities and municipalities own
quite a bit. But, the farmer cannot compete with the city
-59-
because that' s the urban people have the money and they will
buy the water. As this occurs and as we see the urban
growth progressing very rapidly, we' re going to see a
lessening of water in the ditch systems, in the reservoirs ,
and this is a deep concern to all water boards. I 'm sure
many of you gentlemen out here sit on boards of your own.
And there is no way that we're going to answer this growth
factor and not shut out everyone in the future, without
continuing to do some development of water that we have. It
was inferred tonight, also, that there is no major
development on the Poudre, I have heard differently, there
are some trans-mountain diversion rights that are not
developed completely, and I think that is a concern of the
Water Supply and Storage, they are looking at that; there
are old rights that are 50 or years more in age, they can be
developed, there is some trans-mountain water available and,
as you all know, that is the kind of water that we really
can use over here. It will not be developed very
effectively if we have too much Federal intervention, I 'm
sure. And so, there is things that these ditch companies
can do. The Water Supply is deeply concerned, they are very
much against the designation at this time. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Gordon. Norman Brown.
NORMAN BROWN: I 'm Norman Brown, President of the Weld
County Agricultural Council, and I 'm here tonight to speak
for the Council in the fact that three years ago we endorsed
-60-
the concept that Representative Walt Younglund from Weld
County, when he took the Legislation that was enable the
first stage studies on the Poudre River. The Council has
always considered water as probably our most precious
resource in the State. It is also one of our most scarce
resources. When you are in a very arid, low rainfall area
such as we are, the water and the water useage that
agriculture has to look at is one of primary importance.
The place of storage is important, too, because the higher
up the mountain that you can store that water, the more
re-use, the more swap, trading off of things that can be
done with that water. It makes it much more flexible. I
think very realistically, we have, as agriculture, we have
to look at the fact that it' s coming down more to re-use of
water rather than original use as some of the speakers have
previously stated here. I don' t have too much more to add,
except just a few things that I have observed. I 've went
up, I 've known the Poudre River since 1935 , moved here from
southern Colorado when I was 14 years old. My wife and I
have tramped all over those mountains up and down the
Poudre. I like to climb, and I 've noticed one thing: Lake
Zimmerman up there is a pretty little spot, you used to be
able to drive up to it, and it wasn' t bad. Two years ago we
went up there, the people that were parked down at the
bottom, you could walk up there, they had to carry their
lunches in. That place was littered up. This is what we' re
-61-
talking about when we get into wild and scenic. Just the
other day in the news there was an area of Longs Peak that
had to be closed off because it got loved to death. The
Ouray Wilderness area is the same way, and I think that lots
of times this works to the detriment of an area when you do
go in and start shutting it off, the useage becomes much
greater. I am also rather perplexed, when you look at the
upper head waters of the Poudre River and the fact that I
see dams all over the top of that river, there is a
diversion tunnel from the Laramie River over going into the
Poudre, I think the flow of that river is kept up late in
the season by these dams and the water coming down the
river. And as some of the others have said, this government
can control and useage, I 'm not sure what would happen. I
do want to add one more thing, the, when Horsetooth was put
in there was a lot of argument whether it was needed or
whether it wasn' t. When I 've worked with the North Weld
Water District when it was started, we brought Horsetooth
water, I believe, for $60 an acre foot and I think
(inaudible) is sitting over here and I believe he can verify
that, and you couldn' t give it away. Look at the price of
it now. And as people come in we' re going to need all that
water. Just as sure of all of us are here, in another 10-15
years you' re going to need every bit of water you can have.
I think the good Lord gave us the Earth and we' re stewards
of what we have. And He gave it to us to use, wisely. And
-62-
I think that if you put this water to use for everybody, and
use what we have, then that' s wise use of it. And when you
lock it up, that' s very unwise use. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Bill Hargett.
BILL HARGETT: Mr. Chairman, I 'd like to yield part of
my time to Pete Morrell.
CHUCK CARLSON: Pete.
PETE MORRELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two
resolutions that I 'd like to pass on to put into the record.
One of these resolutions , the one by the City Council, was
put into the record in Ft. Collins at the hearing they had
over there. I won' t read the Water Board' s resolution, but
it recommends the Council resolutions, and they both say
about the same thing. So with your permission, I 'd like to
read the resolution passed by the City Council, Resolution
#60-1983 .
"A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE WILD AND SCENIC DESIGNATION
OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE
EVALUATION OF A POTENTIAL CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER RESOURCES.
WHEREAS, the citizens of Greeley and Weld County are
greatly dependent upon adequate water supply, and
WHEREAS, the Cache la Poudre River is primary a source
of both domestic and agriculture water for the City of
Greeley and the Weld County area,
WHEREAS, the future growth, development, and prosperity
of our City and County will be dependent upon the proper
-63-
management of our existing water resources, and the
development of those additional water resources necessary to
meet the needs of future generations, and
WHEREAS , the Congress of the United States has been
asked to adopt legislation to designate a large portion of
the Cache la Poudre River as Wild and Scenic, and
WHEREAS , such a designation by the Congress at this
time would be premature and without the benefit of the
additional study and continued efforts by all concerned to
develop the maximum potential of the Cache la Poudre River
resources and provide for the continued protection of the
Poudre Canyon environment.
NOW IT THEREFORE BE RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Greeley, that:
1 . A wild and scenic designation of portions of the
Cache la Poudre River at this time does not represent the
best interests of the City of Greeley;
2 . The City Manager of the City of Greeley and his
staff is hereby authorized to oppose the wild and scenic
designation at this time;
3 . The City of Greeley joins with and supports the
request of the Colorado Water Conservancy Board and other
interested parties, for a basin-wide feasibility study of
the Cache la Poudre River; and
4 . The United States Representative, the Honorable
Hank Brown and members of his special advisory committee on
-64-
the Wild and Scenic designation of the Cache la Poudre River
are urged to oppose any and all legislative efforts in favor
of such designation, until such time as the planning and
evaluation of potential Cache la Poudre River resources is
completed. "
And this was approved on the 6th day of December, 1983 .
I ' ll just leave these with you. Resolution from the Greeley
City of Greeley Water Board and the City Council.
CHUCK CARLSON: OK, thank you, Pete.
PETE MORRELL: Thank you very much.
BILL HARGETT: Mr. Chairman, I 'm Bill Hargett, the
Director of the City of Greeley Water and Sewer Department.
I would like to read into the record the testimony that I
offered at the December 8th public hearing in Ft. Collins.
And also, I appreciate the opportunity to offer additional
testimony. If you attended, and some of you did attend the
meeting over there, and in listening to the testimony
tonight, I think there are many varied interests, special
interests in some case, interests are both public and
private. I think there are representatives through various
Federal and State agencies, through local governments, the
cities and counties, and more than 20 major irrigation and
reservoir companies, and of course, many private landowners.
This, in itself, may represent some competing concerns with
regards to the effect of a Wild and Scenic designation on
the Poudre. I believe there is at least one point of mutual
-65-
agreement among all these interests, and that is, that the
Poudre has remarkable qualities and that it should be
preserved and managed. And I might add, to the interests
and benefit of all.
The City of Greeley at this time opposes the Wild and
Scenic designation from the standpoint that we believe
proposed designation is premature, and without the benefit
of the study needed to address many critical issues and
questions with respect to the water resources needs in the
basin. I think it' s been pointed out tonight that the issue
is really not the present but the future. And Greeley
opposes the designation at this time.
The water resources needs of the basins has yet to be
determined, and would seem to me to be a prerequisite to any
action which would effect, and/or restrict, such a
determination. Questions such as how will we meet these
needs once they are determined? What are the future water
and power demands? What is the future of more than a
million acres of irrigated land in the basin? What is the
condition of the existing plains reservoirs? And there are
just many other questions that we haven't been given answers
to. I think the Forest Service ' s study report is just one
of several studies that are required in order to develop a
sound plan for the management of the Poudre resources. As
example of that, it' s been mentioned tonight is the flood
-66-
plain management studies that are being conducted and the
overall management of the river.
I , along with Mr. Richardson and Mr. Horack who' s here
and I think one or two other people, was please to serve as
a member of the Advisory Committee on the Cache la Poudre
study project. And I don' t want to go into any detail on
that, other than to emphasize, and you might recall, that
this was just a reconnaissance level study. There was no
significant detail involved in that study. It was, if fact,
limited by the geographical scope of the work. And, it was
felt that there was considerable useful information
developed, but there were no definite conclusions that could
be reached, given the level of study and the geographical
limitations. There was a wide range of opinions expressed
on that study, but the fact that many questions remains
unanswered seem to be agreed to by almost everyone. Those
questions still remain unanswered. And our position is that
a basin-wide study should be completed and answers to the
questions should be developed, before initiation of
legislation, as is being considered. I think it' s also very
interesting that a number of agencies which supported that
position, that a basin-wide study be conducted, are also
some agencies that are now proposing this designation.
Which really appears to me to be a conflict in the position
that they' re taking. It' s unfortunate that, it appears that
the issues have really polarized to the dam builders on one
-67-
hand, and on the other side of the fence we got those who
were opposed to reservoir construction. I don' t think we
really know at this point in time that a reservoir is
actually needed. And if it is, how big it' s to be, whether
it' s to be beyond the Canyon or be a plains reservoir. I do
personally believe that there is adequate protection for the
private interests, to insure that their land will not be
condemned or inundated should a dam be deemed necessary, on
much the same basis as any other Colorado property owner.
Since the December 8th hearing I 've had the opportunity
to reflect on the many issues raised and I 'm sure those in
attendance at that meeting have also had that opportunity.
Quite frankly, I 'm really more deeply concerned after that
first hearing, that the proposed designation is being
considered without the benefit of knowing the water
resources needs of the basin, and exactly what a Wild and
Scenic designation means. This would seem to me to be,
again, a prerequisite to any action that' s going to affect
that. One question that continues to cause me some concern,
and a number of others that I 've discussed this with, is
what is the reason for the big push, or for the proposed
designation. It almost seems like that the designation at
this time is an emergency type thing, and that if the
river ' s not designated Wild and Scenic that the scenic ,
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife values of the
Poudre will cease to exist. I think it was real interesting
-68-
and one of the reasons I had asked Ed earlier to give me the
percentages, that is 74% of the area proposed for
designation is under Federal ownership. There' s about
another 10% that' s owned and controlled by the State of
Colorado and a few municipal interests. That' s 84% of the
total area. The rest is in private ownership. And one of
the alternatives proposed for the designations is that the
private properties be excluded. Whether or not that
happens , I don't know. But if that be the case, I think
it' s fair to say that 100% of the area being considered for
Wild and Scenic designation is already controlled by the
Federal and State government. Why, then, the designation?
I 'm having a lot of concern and have not been able to get an
answer to that, and quite frankly the only conclusion that
we've been able to draw from this, again, is from this
polarization of those who would oppose the potential of a
high mountain reservoir. And the fact that the Wild and
Scenic designation would require, literally an Act of
Congress, to develop the Poudre River resources. We don ' t
know what that is at this point. Our entire position is
that additional studies should be completed. I think when
these questions are answered and they come back in the
affirmative that all of these concerns have been satisfied,
then, you know, I think we could take a position in support
of it. And so, what we' re asking is that it be opposed at
-69-
this time until the additional studies and information can
be developed. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Bill.
GENE BRANTNER: Bill, I 've got some questions. I 've
got a question for you. I guess this year that you
experienced some problems with the Greeley Water coming out
of a lake, now, I guess there was contributing factors,
there was some water released upon top of, it was creating
odors, had some discoloration and stuff to it. Would it be
cheaper and use less chemicals if your storage was higher in
the mountains, rather than on the plains where you do have a
susceptible, you are susceptible to chemicals coming into
your lake from your irrigation. You have seep water, you
have the alkaline water, you have all of these factors.
Don' t you end up with a healthier, easier to treat water in
a higher storage than on the plains?
BILL HARGETT: Most definitely.
CHUCK CARLSON: Any other questions? Thank you, Bill.
Steve Abrams.
STEVE ABRAMS: I don' t have anything to add, thank you,
to what Dave Stookesberry already stated (inaudible) . Thank
you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Steve. Jack Holman.
JACK HOLMAN: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack Holman, I 'm
representing the Ogilvy Irrigation and Land Company, and I 'm
on the Board of Directors. We' re the last ditch company
-70-
that takes out of the Poudre before it dumps into the
Platte. So we get all the fluctuation, the ups and downs of
what the Poudre can do. Just to give an illustration of why
we feel that there needs to be more storage up the Poudre
someplace to have better control of the water level in the
Poudre during high water and low water. The flood that came
through this Spring completely washed out the dam structure
of the Ogilvy Irrigation Company just east of Greeley. Not
only the dam structure but also the headgate structure. We
feel that before we ' re through it will probably cost us in
the neighborhood of $200 ,000 to repair that over a period of
time. We had spent approximately $50 ,000 this summer just
to be able to get water after the dam structure had washed
out. At the time the flood was coming through, the dam
structure held up pretty good until the last day of the
highest water, after that point it went down. But we
watched the water go over, and I think the figures were
brought up here a while ago of over 600 ,000 acre feet of
water that went through there, and we could stand there and
watch it, and we knew that if there was only some way to
control that, that we could save that for at least later on
in the irrigation season. Well, it did turn out to be that
way because two months later, in order to get enough water
to supply the ditch company members, we had to put two by
sixes across the river and use plastic to plug the holes in
order to get enough water to finish off the irrigation
-71-
season. So that just gives you an indication of the
fluctuation that we do get down at the end, and this is the
reason that we say there needs to be more storage, better
control of that water, for not only flood reasons, but also
for dry or later season irrigation. So there must, there
has to be, some way to control it. And the only way that
can be done is with dams some places up the Poudre and up
into the higher mountains. Granted, there are probably some
areas of the Poudre that could be designated Wild or Scenic,
but if there is any possibility at all of building a dam in
any one of those areas, we want that possibility left open.
We don' t want to shut the door to those possibilities .
Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: I think if there was 600 , 000 acre feet
that went by, I think Jack watched 400 , 000 of them, because
he was there every day, so was I. I have one more here,
Walt, did you want to say a few things?
WALT YOUNGLUND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and
gentlemen. I 've been asked many times recently by a
reporter why I 've taken the interest in water that I have.
And that' s a little difficult to answer, but I try to ask
myself that same question. I don' t own a water right, I
live about half way between the North Platte and the South
Platte, still in this county, in an area that' s been so dry
that the year that Noah floated his ark we only got a half
inch that year. And I thought an irrigation shovel was to
-72-
dig post holes and to pry frozen cow manure lose from the
barn door with for many, many years. But about 25 years
ago, I got very active in the Cattlemen' s Association and
the Farm Bureau, and was on the Farm Bureau' s water, was on
their policy development, and I guess I took an interest,
and the thing that, I think, has propelled me into taking
the interest that I have is because I grew up in an area
where if you had a gallon a minute that a windmill would
produce, it was a heck of a lot of water. And I grew up in
a family of 8 , and I hope nobody laughs, but we generally
took a bath on Saturday night in a round tub with water that
we had hauled from a windmill a long ways off. And then my
mother scrubbed the floor with that water after 8 kids had
bathed in it. And I 've never forgot those days . I 've also
seen poverty. I put a hitch in the United States Navy and I
was on the garbage detail once a week and took our trash
ashore and saw people there waiting to take what we hauled
ashore in that dump. And I tell you, there was no problem
with what happened to the disposal of it. Because our waste
was those natives gain. They used everything that we threw
away. And I lived in those kind of conditions for years.
I think we' re holding this hearing at the wrong time,
Mr. Chairman. I think we should have held this hearing in
1939 or maybe 1958 . And had we had those hearings then or
had those conditions in the 30 ' s or in the 50 ' s, or had
those conditions now when we we're holding all those
-73-
hearings on the feasibility study over in Ft. Collins, I
believe the testimony would have been considerably
different. Because one of these days we' re going to have a
drought, as sure as God made little green apples, of the
magnitude of one of those droughts in the 30 ' s or the 50 ' s ,
and let' s pray that it' s no worse than those. But this
State cannot afford more than about a 11 to a 2 year drought
at the most, our reservoirs are emptied, and we ' ll have
utter havoc here. Most of the people that continue to move
here do not understand the powder keg that we ' re sitting on
if we run out of water.
I think we must develop our resources. We've got to
develop our water. In the next few years, I think we' re 20
to 25 years late. Bob Winter mentioned the project in
Arizona. That' s the Central Arizona Project, Arizona was
awarded that water in 1922 . California has kept them from
using it all of that time, 1 .2 million acre feet of water.
Three weeks from tomorrow, I will lead a delegation that a
request to the Bureau of Reclamation in a helicopter, nearly
300 miles of that aqueduct. I will fly from east of Phoenix
to Lake Havisew, weather permitting, so that the Bureau of
Reclamation will explain to this group that I 'm heading, of
the impact that Arizona is going to have when they start
slurping that 1 . 2 million acre feet of water, and they will
start that withdrawal in 1985 , and there will be an impact
hit California that' s going to shake the entire United
-74-
States and the United States Congress. And where is
California going to go to get that water that Arizona is
going to steal from them that they' re now stealing from us.
And as long as California and the other lower basin states
can prevent us from our development, it' s just naturally
going to run down there. And all of the lower basin states
and the State of
(CHANGE TAPE)
WALT YOUNGLUND: I will point this out, because here is
a situation that' s going to take place over 1 ,000 miles from
here, that' s going to effect everybody in the State. And
most of the people do not understand, and don' t realize,
what is going to happen, not only when that occurs , but also
in the event that we have a prolonged drought which we are
long, long overdue for. And then God help us if we ever
have a 40 year drought that drove the Mesa Verde Indians out
of this State and the Indians out of the Salt River Valley
in the 13th Century. But if we can just visualize the
drought, that I grew up in the 30 ' s, again in the 50 ' s, with
the demands that we have on water. You see, we have never
had the kind of demands on water in this State that would we
had any kind of a major drought. Now, it has been mentioned
about all we need to do is go out there and dig out those
plains reservoirs , which have served this State very ably
for nearly a Century. Many of those have outlived their
usefulness. They are full of mud, they are very impractical
-75-
due to the excessive evaporation. They are so far down that
we do not have the exchange of water, dams should be built
high up the River so as that we can use and re-use that
water and also obtain recharge all the way down. And it' s
always, I 've always wondered, when our forefathers who had
the wisdom to build those dams, and the reason that they
built those dams, instead of on river storage was that was
all they could do in those days with the equipment that they
had to use, and they did very well with them. But would we
have even had those dams if they would have had the
environmental pressures against dam building that we have
today, or would those old boys just have drowned the
rascals. I 've often wondered that.
Anyway, I think that it behooves us now, as Greg
mentioned, to continue with a full basin-wide study. Now,
when I carried the legislation to get the four feasibility
studies , 2 on the east slope, 2 on the west, and the 2 on
the east was the Hardin and the Poudre River Project, to get
those feasibility studies under way, the only reason, I
totally agreed that we should have a full basin-wide study
and its tributaries, we just didn' t have that kind of money.
It' s going to take a lot of money. But I think that we
should postpone scenic river designation until after we 've
had a full river basin study. And I still believe that we
can still have both. We can still build dams on the Poudre.
What is necessary to control the river, flood control, have
-76-
hydro-electric power at the same time, and still have scenic
river, I still say that we can do both.
I would just like to mention that when I went to the
General Assembly 15 years ago there was literally war
between the Municipal League, the domestic water users, and
agriculture. And I was right in the middle of it. And that
peaked in 1975 when Thorton sewed the Farmer' s Reservoir and
Irrigation Company. We did win that round. And now I hope
that I get a little credit for being instrumental in trying
to make peace between the municipalities and agriculture,
and I think it' s brought out here tonight. Now, we've got
to make peace between the environmentalists. And,
incidentally, the environmentalists was on our side then, in
that fight, and if, so we've got to somehow or other work
together. Because, I ' ll tell you one thing, California is
just sitting down there laughing their head off. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Walt, I would like to, since you're
going to the Arizona project, can you name the dollar bill
attached to that?
WALT YOUNGLUND: Can I name the cost of it? It hasn' t,
it' s in the billions.
CHUCK CARLSON: It' s $4 billion, so far.
WALT YOUNGLUND: And it' s not totally been completed
yet, they've had some strikes, it has added to it, but they
are on-line. I was down there two weeks ago and met with
CAP and started this. I 'm, incidentally, they've asked for
-77-
me to bring a total of 5 or 6 people down there of, about 4
legislators and about 2 major water users in the State, and
so that we can fully grasp it and understand it, and I have
had one of those trips when it was earlier in construction.
But, they are on-line. They gave me a news release the
other day from the CAP that they are on-line and that in
1985 they will start taking that water out. But it is, I
think in excess of $4 billion, but the total figures won't
be known for a few years yet, when they get the Tucson Lake
built. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: I agree. Thank you, Walt. I think
that that just ought to be a note of how precious water is
when you really need it. And Phoenix and the Arizona people
decided that they had to have water in order to continue
growth and continue their agriculture, as well as their City
water supply. And that is a really an extensive project,
and
WALT YOUNGLUND: Chuck, can I interrupt you slightly
there? The main purpose of the CAP is the fact that
Arizona' s ground water is fast being depleted, and when they
started those wells around Phoenix about 80 years ago some
of those were flowing wells about 50 foot deep, then they
went to 100 then 500 then 1 ,000 , some of them are 1 ,700 , the
Earth started falling in now, and so most of that water will
be going to replace that ground water that' s being
extracted. And, hopefully, someday they will be able to
-78-
start some of that replenishment back. But most of the CAP
water will be going out of Colorado will be going to replace
groundwater, so they will not have to continue to withdraw.
CHUCK CARLSON: I agree with you, Walt, and I just
wanted to stress to the people how important water is when
you really need it, and there is no limit to what you have
to do. Does anybody else want to make any comments, we've
got a few more minutes. Art.
ART ANDERSEN: I went over to the meeting as proxy for
you when you went to Colorado Springs, Senator, former
Senator Fred Anderson brought out an important point. There
is a certain area on the western slope that has been
designated as wetlands. And in order to dig a basin and in
in that area, you have to get a dredge, a formal (inaudible)
dredge and fill permit, either from Omaha or Washington,
D.C. Now that' s for if you just want to put a basin on your
own land. So this just shows you what the bureaucracy can
do to the industry. Now, if you think you get Wild and
Scenic on the Poudre and then try to get it back off, you
can take a look at it.
CHUCK CARLSON: OK, anybody else?
GENE BRANTNER: Chuck, I 'd like to put in, go ahead.
UNKNOWN: All right, I ' ll be the last one, it' s getting
late. I ' d just like to put forth another position from the
Conservancy District to ask, and it was something that Fred
Anderson came up with, and I know Walt has talked to him
-79-
about it. We think that there can be a State-wide
resolution of this problem. We don' t think that it has to
come down from the Federal government. We don' t think that
it has to be managed by the Secretary of Agriculture or
somebody else in the Federal hierarchy, we think that under
the Federal , I 'm sorry, under the State-wide Minimum
Streamflow Act, we can protect the environment of that basin
to a reasonable degree. By filing, or having the Water
Conservation Board, file for the minimum stream flows. So I
think what we're going to do, you' re all paying taxes to us
to represent you, and we' re trying to find a compromise that
can work for all of us. And so what we' re trying to do in
the next legislative session is to get some State action to
supplant Federal action under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. That' s what we' ll be doing as your water
representatives and, you guys have all been so good in
staying here so late, I 'm going to read you one paragraph of
the Board Resolution that we have that I 've got to enter
into the record here, too.
"That Federal designation of the Poudre as a Wild and
Scenic river would be tantamount to giving the United States
invaluable water rights, without any compensation for lost
water development opportunities, contrary to Colorado water
principles and common sense. " Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Greg. I would like to have
that so we can put that in with.
-80-
UNKNOWN: Mike Fitzsimmons, did you get a copy of that
from us?
CHUCK CARLSON: OK. You had a comment?
GENE BRANTNER: First of all, I ' d like to thank
everybody for coming out on a real cold and wintry night.
I ' ll be very short, it' s running late. But I did want to
get my two cents in. I , too, am very concerned about this
Poudre. I have a 10 year old son. I was born and raised
here, and I would hope that I could offer him some of the
same opportunities that I had as far as the hunting and
fishing. I can remember going up the Poudre when it was a
dirt road all the way. I don' t go quite clear back to the
Model T days, but we 've seen changes. We 've seen dams ,
we've seen improvements to make life better. I can
remember, and it hasn' t been that long ago, when they were
raising really a whole lot of stink about that road going up
the Thompson, how it was going to ruin the scenic values of
the Thompson when they improved that road after the ' 76
flood. I go up that now, and I think I enjoy the Canyon
more. So I think that we can improve, make our life better,
and still have these things that we enjoy as far as Wild and
Scenic. And to see this designated prematurely, I think is
totally wrong. I think that my son, when he grows up, could
enjoy those reservoirs up the Poudre. I think that it would
enhance that. If he wanted to canoe down that river, I
think with dams that water would be controlled where it
-81-
would be a more even flow year round. And so, I think that
we have got to really look at these things. And I get a
little disturbed when we say we've got to study, study,
study. I 'm not sure if we couldn' t have some dams up there
with about as much money as we've spent on a lot of these
studies. I realize we need the studies for, so that we do
things right for the future. But I would still like to see
maybe some action done up there. I heard a report last
night that at the Berthoud Pass they took a test of the
snowfall up there, it' s 200% above normal for this time of
year. And I 'm sure that the mountains all over are going to
be the same. And so I guess we 're looking forward to some
more flooding this year. And I sure hate to see that, and
so anything that would deter the development of the dams up
there for irrigation, for recreation, for domestic use, I 'd
be totally against. And thank you again for coming out.
CHUCK CARLSON: OK. Francis, have you got any
statement?
FRANCIS: I think it' s been said tonight.
CHUCK CARLSON: OK. Darrell, any more?
DARRELL: It' s been said, thank you, Chuck.
CHUCK CARLSON: Jackie?
JACKIE JOHNSON: I think this crowd would lynch me if
anybody else said anymore, I think enough' s been said.
CHUCK CARLSON: OK. Yes , Sharon.
-82-
SHARON LINHART: If I may, I 'm Sharon Linhart. I work
for Congressman Brown, I 'm his aid here in Weld County.
Congressman Brown also has his water legislative aid here,
Mike Fitzsimmons. Mike , would you stand up. And he asked
me to apologize, Congressman Brown asked me to apologize to
all of you for his inability to be here with you tonight,
but he does thank you for coming, and thank you to the
County Commissioners for hosting this very informative
event. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Sharon. I have just a
couple of things, and the thing here that came out that
bothers me a little bit. And that' s making a statement that
the cost of hydro-electric power was prohibitive.
Hydro-electric power is the cheapest source of energy and
the cleanest source of energy anything that come up with.
And, I think basically, the reason the hydro-electric power
was entered into the Tudor study because the PRPA up there,
they were worried about selling their power. So, in order
to sell their power they've got to talk something down. And
that' s being very biased, but that' s the way I feel . And
another thing that also really bothers me, is everybody
points to agriculture as a big bad guy in a lot of ways.
But in the way I see it, agriculturalists are the best, are
more environmentally minded than anybody, and more
conservation minded than anybody in the United States. They
provide a natural green belt around any city that is
-83-
unexcelled within anywhere else you go. And as long as you
have a good form of agriculture , along with a nice towns as
we have in Weld County, I just don' t think it can be beat.
And I just don' t like to see either one of them be taken
away. And you mess around with the water and you're going
to lose one or the other. And I think that' s why we' re all
here tonight. And I , too, really appreciate you all coming
out tonight. We purposely held this meeting at this time
because we knew that, we felt that we could get people who
were really concerned about water and how the effects are to
the people in this area. And they just weren' t coming here
on a professor' s assignment to make their statement. And
that' s probably why we're holding it at this time, and it
looks like it' s done it' s job. And I really appreciate
that. Art?
ART ANDERSEN: Chuck, you know, when we were over at
the other meeting, I say the opposition asked for a vote, so
I ' ll leave it up to you.
CHUCK CARLSON: I don't need a vote, Art, the
opposition, the opposition that we had walked out the door,
so, do you want a vote now?
ART ANDERSEN: We've got, say 100% over here, where we
were 40-60 over there and I 'd just like to show it.
CHUCK CARLSON: Well, I think.
ART ANDERSEN: (Inaudible) but I 'd just like to show
that for what it was.
-84-
CHUCK CARLSON: Art, I think that was very elementary,
Art. I think that it was all uncalled for. I think we' re
holding this meeting in a very businesslike manner tonight,
and I really appreciate all of you people being that way and
being congenial to everybody and I think Sharon' s here and I
think she pretty well knows what' s going on. That' s what
she' s sitting here for and we appreciate that. And thank
you all for coming. Appreciate it.
-85-
Hello