HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021375.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT FOR COLORADO BIG THOMPSON OPERATIONS
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) Project provides a dependable supply of
raw water to many of Weld County's residents and agricultural operators, and
WHEREAS, the CBT Project is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC)
and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) in a manner which
maximizes yield, minimizes risk, and maximizes operational flexibility, and
WHEREAS, two programs, policies or practices of the CBT Project, the "non-charge"
program and the failure of the CBT Project to use its East Slope water storage decrees, are
currently being criticized by the Colorado Water Conservancy District (CRWCD) as being illegal
and contrary to Senate Document 80, the Blue River Decree, the Endangered Species Act, and
the "15 Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion," and
WHEREAS, CRWCD's criticism was summarized in two October 6, 2000, letters, one
addressed to the BUREC and one to the Colorado State Engineer's Office (SEO), and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2002, the CRWCD Board of Directors authorized legal action
against the BUREC and NCWCD to force those entities to end the "non-charge" program and
to begin fully utilizing the East Slope water storage decrees, and
WHEREAS, the Board is convinced the "non-charge" program is being correctly used to
prevent wasteful spills of water, through careful coordination of"non-charge"water releases by
the SEO to ensure the water will be diverted and used on the East Slope of Colorado and not
flow out of the State unused, and
WHEREAS, the Board is also satisfied that the CBT Project's current operations to
divert water under junior East Slope Decrees as much as feasible allow the capture of East
Slope water to the extent practicable, without threatening the dependability of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that the Board agrees with, and fully supports, the positions stated in
the written responses by the BUREC and the SEO, dated October 12, 2001, and March 8,
2001, respectively, to the NCWCD letter of October 6, 2000.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Board that the Board believes that the CRWCD's
criticisms and allegations are unwarranted and that any legal actions filed by CRWCD should
be vigorously contested by the BUREC.
C A9C�JCD Gib B+.r-to,W -P-a-0--&-a"-)2002-1375
BC0032
RE: SUPPORT FOR CBT OPERATIONS
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 29th day of May, A.D., 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Jl1`
ATTEST: iite# I C+�r" E 1L4\
0 . '% Glen ad, Chair n
Weld County Clerk to th •a , .vu , 6\p/
-Y i
""t David E. Lo , Pro-Tem
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Bo!�i� N �� Qt.,.✓ G
M. J..',eile
APP ED AS TO FORM: _ � N•
illiam H. Jerke n
i ty A mey 1---m &•
►'ul \\� V
Robert D. Masden
Date of signature: 4/4
2002-1375
BC0032
S
LETTERS TO COMMISSIONER—KEY POINTS
1. Prefer to have letters signed by Mayor, City Council, President,Chairman
of the Board,General Manager, etc.
2. Agreement with Reclamation's position in October 12,2001, letter to
Colorado River Water Conservation District. -
/ No reason to change position.Operators are authorized and justified.
/ Continue to support Reclamation in this regard,
/ Colorado-Big Thompson(C-BT)Project is operated prudently and
efficiently.
3. Stress importance of C-BT Project to your entity.
/ Your significant historic reliance on C-nT.
/ Have developed water system and management plans based in part
on C-BT water.
/ It is essential to have future certainty of water supply.
2z z /3�S
ZO 'd L069£990L6 'ON Xdd 6H-00M0N lid Z£:E0 NON ZO-£I-AEill
7 -y
COLORADO RIVER WATER
•
CONSERVATION DISTRICT•
• Protecting Western Colorado Water Since 1937
October 6,2000
•
Maryanne C.Bach
Regional Director,Great Plains Region
U.S.Bureau of Reclamation
P.O.Box 36900
• Billings,MT 59107-5900 •
•
Brian Person .
Area Manager,Eastern Colorado Area
U.S.Bureau of Reclamation
11056 West County Road 18E
Loveland,CO 80537-9711
Re: Colorado-Big Thompson Project Operations
Dear Ms.Bach and Mr.Person:
As you know, the operation of the Colorado Big Thompson ("CBT")Project,
with its significant diversions of water from the Upper Colorado River Basin, has
been of great concern to the Colorado River Water Conservation District ("River
District")and its predecessors since the inception of the CUT Project in the 11930s.
�s.
Recently, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service("FWS") completed a Section•? a 2
)
consultation on Bureau of Reclamation ("Reclamation") projects on the Colorado
•
River upstream of Grand Junction affecting the endangered Colorado pikeminnow,
humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker which resulted in what is commonly
referred to as the 15 Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion. This PBO
addresses the depletion impacts of five Reclamation water projects and inter-related
and inter-dependent non-Reclamation water projects. •
•
The current operation of the CBT Project facilities includes some diversion of
•
water from Colorado's,Western Slope to the Eastern Slope not contemplated and not
allowed by the authorizing legislation for the Project and violates the contractual
obligations of Reclamation. In addition, these diversions are not in compliance with
•
SUITE 4204.201 CENTENNIAL STREET
P.O.BOX 1120/GLENWOOD SPRINGS.COLORADO 81602
(970)9454522•FAX(970)9454799•www.awedAov
El 'd L0698990L8 'ON Xdd OH-00M0N Wd 9£:80 HOW Z0-CI-AUIU
•
•
Maryanne C.Bach •
Brian Person
October 6,2000
Page 2
the 1922 Colorado River Compact requirement that water be withheld in Colorado
only for"domestic and agricultural uses." The CBT Project must be re-operated to
come into compliance with the 15 Mile Reach PBO and Recovery Program
requirements. Violations of the Colorado River Compact must terminate. This letter
is intended to explain the River District's specific concerns and to initiate Thither
discussion between Reclamation and the River District concerning the appropriate
operation of the CDT Project.
BACKGROUND FACTS
A brief review of the salient provisions of Senate Document 80 will serve as
background for the ensuing discussion. As you know, certain provisions of Senate
Document 80 have been incorporated into the decree confirming water rights in the
Colorado and Blue Rivers for the CDT Project in Case Nos. 2782, 5016 and 5017,
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (the"Blue River Decree"). The
Blue Rivet Decree confirms that the USA must operate the CBT Project and all of its
units in conformity with the portion of Senate Document 80 entitled "Manner of
Operation of Project Facilities and Auxiliary Features." The 1978 Supplemental
Judgment add Dgfree'in the•same cases further specified that the Bureau of
Reclamation is a trustee responsible for the protection of West Slope interests in its
operation of the CBT Project. The 1978 decree also held that the River District and
other West Slope parties to the proceeding are proper representatives of the West
•
Slope beneficiaries of the CBT Project.
• The pertinent provisions of Senate Document 80 are as follows:
1. The CDT Project contemplates the maximum conservation and use of
the waters of the Colorado River. Page 2.
2. The CDT Project must be operated to maintain conditions of river flow
for the benefit of domestic and sanitary uses of this water. Paragraph 5, page 3.
3. The operation, maintenance, and use of the CBT Project is subject to
the Colorado River Compact. Paragraph i, page 4.
4_ The CBT Project shall be operated to ensure an adequate supply of
water for irrigation, for sanitationpurposes, for the preservation of scenic
ki 'd L069£990L6 'ON Xdd 9N-0ONON lid 9E:£0 NON Z0-8I-ABi4
M1
Maryanne C.Bach
Brian Person •
October 6,2000
Page 3
attractions, and for the preservation of fish life. The determination of the need for
and the amount and times of release of water from Granby Reservoir to accomplish
these purposes shall be made by the Secretary of the Interior, whose findings shall be
final. Paragraph 1, page 5.
5. The CBT Project was intended as a source of"supplemental" water
supply for irrigated lands in northeastern Colorado. Pages 7-9,
6. The usual demand for supplemental irrigation water begins July 1 to 15
and extends to September 15 to 30. The outlets of the reservoirs are planned to
deliver this supplemental water from the reservoirs in 60 to 15 days. Page 22.
1. There is an average of 16,000 acre'feettof surplus water in the Big
Thompson drainage available for storage in•the Eastern Slope components of the
CBT system, mainly in May and June. In order to utilize this water, it is necessary
to reserve capacity in the reservoirs on the Eastern Slope (Horsetooth Reservoir and
Carter Lake)until toward the latter part 'of June, Snowfall will be known well in
advance so that operations of the several parts,of the system can be adjusted to take
care of this water and hold back an equal amount in Granby Reservoir. Page 23.
The Blue River Decree was approved by Congress in 1956 as part of the
Colorado River Storage Project Act, 43 U.S.C. 620j. Both the Colorado Supreme
Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit have recognized that the
obligations imposed on the United States by Senate Document 80 are in the nature of
a contract and affirmed the duty of the United States as trustee to take all necessary
steps to protect the Western Slope interests. U.S. v. Northern Colora'o Water
Conservancy District, 608 F.2d 422, 430 (10 Cir. 1979); Supplemental Judgment
and Decree dated February 8, 1978 in Case Nos. 2782, 5016, and 5017, U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated
September 20, 1956 in Case No. 2182, U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado; lawsNo n o Water Conservancy District. 276 P.2d 992,
1012 (Colo. 1954).
NON-CHARGE (FREE WATER) PROGRAM
The Northern Colorado Water Conservatrey District ("$orthern District")
operates what it refers to as a"non-charge" program for the delivery of water to
51 'd L0692990L6 'ON Xifd 8H-OONON Nd LE;EO NOW ZO-£1-Atilt
•
Maryanne C.Bach '
Brian Person
October 6,2000
Page 4
Eastern Slope residents. Under this program, Colorado River water which would
otherwise spill front Granby Reservoir is diverted through the Adams Tunnel and
delivered through CBT Project distribution facilities to the South Platte River Basin
for use by any water user within the Northern District's boundaries at no charge.
Northern District officials have stated that the purpose of the non-charge program is
to "spread" the benefits of the CBT Project to water users without Northern District
allotment contracts who nevertheless support the Project through taxes.
The River District's engineering consultant, Helton & Williamsen, has
reviewed the non-charge deliveries of water to the Big Thompson River from the
period 1983 to 1998. Total non-charge water deliveries during that time period
avenged over 37,800 acre feet per year, with an annual maximum of over 128,000
acre (cot. Of this amount, an-average of 8,700 acre feet per year, and amaximum of
47,000 acre feet, was delivered to the Big Thompson River. The River District's
investigation of the non-charge program has revealed that non-charge water is being
delivered to the Big Thompson River at times when native supplies arc sufficient to
meet diversion needs, Helton & Williamsen'a investigation revealed that
approximately 40% of all non-charge water delivered to the Big Thompson River
was not diverted for consumptive uses within Colorado. Helton &Williamsen
believe that similar conclusions can be made concerning the non-charge deliveries to
the Cache La Poudre and St. Vrain Rivers.
The diversion of the water from the Western Slope for the non-charge
program in the absence of a demand or need for that water on the Eastern Slope, or
the use of this water in lieu of other available supplies,violates the express CBT
Project purposes and is wasteful. Such water spreading is under attack west-wide
and is even more concerning when a transmountain diversion is involved that is
removing water needed from endangered fish species in the basin of origin. The
operation of the non-charge program may also violate Reclamation's agency-wide
goals for the tiered pricing of surplus water to encourage conservation. .
The use of the non-charge program water solely for power purposes does not
validate its diversion from the Colorado River Basin. Power production is only a
secondary purpose of the CBT Project pursuant to Article 16 of the Repayment
Contract No. 9-07-70-W0020. Power production cannot be justified as an
instigating reason for West Slope diversions in the absence of need for supplemental
irrigation water.
91 'd L06929901.6 'ON Mid OH-OONON Wd L£:£0 NON ZO-£1-MN
Maryanne C.Bach
Brian Person
October 6,2000
Page 5
The continuance of the non-charge program is also a violation of the 1922 and
1948 Colorado River Compacts, in direct contravention of the requirement of Senate
Document 80 that the CST Project be operated in conformance with such Compacts.
Article Ego) of the 1922 Colorado River Compact provides that Upper Basin States
including Colorado may not withhold water which cannot reasonably be applied to
domestic and agricultural uses. The term "domestic use includes the use of water
for household, stock, municipal, mining, milling, industrial and other like purposes,
but expressly excludes the generation of electrical power. Article 1V(b) of the 1922
Compact provides that although water of the Colorado River may be impounded and
used for the generation of electrical power, such impounding and use shall be
subservient to the use and consumption of such water for agricultural and domestic
purposes.
Article III of the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact allocates to the
various states quantities of consumptive use," and expressly provides in Article
II1(b)(2) that"beneficial use is the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to
use." Thus, this diversion of-water from the Colorado River Basin pursuant to the
non-charge program without domestic or agricultural consumptive use on the East
Slope is also a violation of the 1948 Compact.
The non-charge program deprives the Colorado River Basin of native water at
the same time it would otherwise be enhancing spring peak flows in the 15 Mile
Reath, needed for the recovery of the endangered fish. Water is diverted under the
non-charge program in advance of the spring peak and evacuates space in Granby
Reservoir, This available space in Granby then fills during the peak runoff season
when the reservoir would otherwise be spilling and contributing to spring peak
flows.
Upper Colorado River Basin water users are being asked to operate projects
to enhance spring peak flows in the I S Mile Reach pursuant to the Programmatic
Biological Opinion dated December 1999, The 15 Mile Reach PBO has a specific
requirement to enhance spring peak flows during years when the daily peak flow is
within the range of 12,900 cfs to 26,600 cfs. Allowing the unnecessary and illegal
reduction of natural spring peak flows through the non-charge program undermines
the West Slope's willingness to participate in a cooperative solution to the
permanent peak flow problem and threatens the continuation of the Recovery
LI 'd L0698990L6 'ON Rd ON-OOMON Wd L£;£0 NOW ZO-£I-AUW
•
Maryamte C.Bach
Brian Person
October 6,2000 •
Page 6
Program as a reasonable and prudent alternative for Upper Colorado River Basin
depletions.
•
UTILIZATION OF EAST SLOPE WATER RIGHTS
CDT operations have also been altered from that contemplated in Senate
Document 80 by the failure to utilize the CBT Project's East Slope water rights to
Fill Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake. The CBT Project is being operated in a
manner that sends West Slope water to the East Slope through the Adams Tunnel to
fill Horsetooth and Carter at the end of March or early April. Because these
reservoirs are almost completely filled early in the year with Colorado River Basin
water, there is insufficient space in the reservoirs when the CBT Project East Slope
decrees would allow diversion of native water for storage.
As described above, Senate Document 80 authorized and required a manner of •
operation of the CBT Project that would "reserve capacity" in the East Slope
reservoirs until the "latter part of June." Utilization of forecasts based on snowfall
was intended to allow the CBT Project operators to determine the amount of
capacity in the East Slope reservoirs to be reserved in order to fully make use of the
available East Slope native water. A corresponding amount of water would be "held
back" in Granby Reservoir.
Senate Document SO estimated that approximately 16,000 acre feet per year
would be derived from these East Slope sources. A point flow study by Helton &
Williamsen has calculated the amount of Big Thompson River water available for
storage by the CBT Project at a level remarkably similar to the original estimates.
The Helton&Williamsen point flow study showed that an,average of close to
22,000 acre feet of native Big Thompson water could have been diverted at the
Olympus and Dille diversions and integrated into the Project water supply (based on
a 1983.1998 study period). Of this total amount, approximately 18,000 acre feet
was available during May and June. The failure to utilize this in-basin available
water results in unauthorized and unnecessary diversions of West Slope water by the
COT Project.
The Helton& Williamsen report includes an operational scenario that shows
full use of the CBT Project East Slope water rights can be accomplished while
meeting all historic Project water demands. Helton & Williamson also conclude that
9I 'd L069£990L6 'ON Xdd OH-CONON Wd 88:£0 NOW 7A-81-Alill
•
4
•
Maryanne C.Bach •
Brian Person
October 6,2000 •
Page 7
through utilization of available snowpack and runoff forecast data, mote
sophisticated operating scenarios arc possible and will achieve similar results.
Helton&Williamsen conclude that Adams Tunnel diversions from the
Western Slope could be reduced by an average of over 13,600 acre feet per year
through utilization of the East Slope storage decrees. More importantly, an average
of 18,000 acre feet of peak flow enhancement flow is possible in the PBO target
years(12,900 cfs to 26,600 cfs). If the non-charge program was eliminated, the
Adams Tunnel diversions could be reduced by an average of up to 50,000 acre feet
per year, with a corresponding increase in peak flows In the target years of over
70,000 acre feet. This beneficial result can be achieved without any adverse affect
on CBT Project contract water supplies. Because this method of operation is
required by the CBT Project's authorizing legislation, Senate Document 80, and
Reclamation's obligations to assist in the recovery of the endangered fish species, it
is incumbent on Reclamation to implement it as soon as possible.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OBLIGATIONS
All of these unauthorized diversions have a real impact on the Colorado River
fish listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). The River
District's engineering consultant has estimated the impact of the non-charge program
and the failure to utilize the East Slope water rights as was contemplated in Senate
Document 80, and the amounts are substantial. There is real and significant
detrimental impact to flows in the IS Mile Reach, and downstream critical habitat
below the 15 Mile Reach, during the spring runoff period. Operation of CBT in this
manner not only breaches Senate Document 80 as discussed above, but is also
inconsistent with Reclamation's responsibility to conduct its operations in a manner
that furthers the purposes of the ESA. Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA prohibit
Reclamation from allowing excessive or wasteful exports of water from the Upper
Colorado River Basin which would harm or jeopardize the listed fish or adversely
modify or destroy designated critical habitat.
Reclamation is clearly the owner of the CBT Project facilities pursuant to
Articles 8 and 37 of the repayment contract for the Project. As acknowledged by
Reclamation in the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow litigation, Reclamation's ESA
obligations as holder of title to project facilities is much broader than if the facilities
were owned by others, even extending to the imposition of bypass requirements for
81 'd L08929901.6 'ON Mid OH-OOfON Wd 9E:E0 NOW ZO-EI-AUW
•
Maryanne C.Bach
Brian Person
October 6,2000
Page S
otherwise authorized diversions if necessary to meet the needs of the endangered
species.
Ia thisWe;hotreVerritin tB geeessary to previously entered
contracts in order to allow Reclamation to comply with its ESA obligations. The
discontinuance of the non-charge program and the required utilization of the CBT
East Slope storage decrees do not contravene any of Reclamation's contractual
obligations and, in fact, are required by its Senate Document SO contract and its
Section 7 duties. As demonstrated above and through the attached materials, these
results can be achieved and native water allowed to remain in the Colorado River
Basin for the benefit Of the endangered fish without impairing CBT Project supplies
for contract allottees. , . •• •
If Reclamation does not cause tote CDT Project to contribute meaningflrlly to
the PB•0 spring p lath ltittadd'ht reguiterfl4S, itt a y9jy anal F141‘F141‘tbat,the
endangered species,recovery will be seriously delayed
layed or defeated, resulting in failure
of the December 1999 PBO. Because Reclamation has a vested interest in the •
success of the Recovery Program (including the attainment of the flow components
of the Recovery Action Plan), as well as an obligation under Section 7 of the ESA to
participate in it, consideration of the Senate Document 80 requirements for operation
of the CBT Project as described above should be given the highest priority.
The River District is particularly concerned at this point in time with the •
continuation of unauthorized spring peak diversions from the West Slope in the
absence of demonstrated need for supplemental irrigation or domestic water by CDT
Project contract allottees. Unused non-charge water is now contributing substantial
amounts to the South Platte River-flows . In addition, the allure to utilize the Big
Thompson native water for filling Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake results in
mord unused South Platte River water during the spring peak period, further
contributing to the Platte River flows. Both of these actions are contributing to
artificially.hitih flows tower down OA the Platte River at a time when PWS,
Reclamation; and,f#.e Cara affected states are establishing baseline conditions which
will be used to identify, implement, and evaluate recovery measures for listed Platte.
River species.
The River District has expressed its very serious concerns about the operation
of the CBT Project, and documented them in writing, on several occasions in the
OZ 'd L089E990L6 'ON WA DH-OOMON Wd BE:20 NOW 30-21-Mil
4
Maryanne C.Bach
Brian Person
October 6,2000
Page 9
past. I wrote to the Northern District over a year ago describing in detail the River
District's primary areas of objection. The River District has also pointed out on
numerous occasions to the Management Committee of the Coordinated Facilities
Operations Study, Phase 2 (CFOPS), which includes Reclamation representatives,
that re-operation of the CBT Project can meet the goals of the CFOPS process
without impacting water deliveries. No action has been taken to address the points
raised. In order for the River District to flulfill its statutory mandate to preserve for
western Colorado the use and development of the water resources of the Colorado
River, stronger measures are now required.
We would like to discuss these issues in further detail and offer to meet with
. representatives of Reclamation, USFWS; the Northern District, and the State of
Colorado to accomplish this objective in a fair and open process. In summary,
however, we believe that Reclamation must do the following in order to fulfill its
responsibilities under Senate Document 80, the Blue River Decree, the Endangered
Species Act and the PBO:
1. Prohibit diversions from the Western Slope in advance of, or in the
absence of, a demonstrated need for,supplemeetal irrigation or domestic water by
CBT contract allottees. In other words, eliminate the Northern District's "non-
charge program."
2. Require utilization of the East Slope storage decrees for Horsetooth
Reservoir and Caner Lake and the manner of operation contemplated by Senate
Document 80. The enclosed operation study is intended to provide a specific
method of operation that is practical and immediately implementable.
3. Develop and implement a Platte River Recovery Program which does
not rely on an illegal and inefficient operation of the CBT Project.
4. Expand the scope of the Helton&Williamsen report by conducting an
independent evaluation of other CB?Project operations which may further refine the
results. Specifically,Reclamation should examine the impact of the CUT carryover
program on its ESA obligations to Colorado River fish species.
•
IZ 'd L089£990L6 'ON Aid OH-OOMON lid 68:80 NOW ZO-81-Adll
w.w......w.��-
Colorado River Water Conservation District
cc: Board 61Directors, Colorado'River Water Conservation District
Hal D. Simpson
Ken Salazar
• Greg Walther
Dan McAuliffe '
Charles Calhoun
Ralph Morgenweck
vgric Wilkinson
Duane Helton
Bennett Raley
Stanley W. Cazier
Loyal B.Leavenworth
• David C.Raiford
Peter C.Houtsma
Anne J. Castle
•
•
•
•
ZZ 'd L069£990L6 'ON Rd ON-OOMON Wd 6£:£0 NOW ZO-EI-AdW
STATE OF COLORADO
ofi.OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division d Water Resources
Department orNahunlResources tt_ %'
1313 5hennen Sweet Room 310
Derinr,Colorado 110003
r 1303)) 3511 MN o+ws
FM:1303)$4330! MN O Can
bfipipruda.occo.asrdetaukhYn March 8.2001
1 is ei 3k.pon,Pe
'Sr rwww
Mr,R.Eric Kuhn
Secretary 1 General Manager
Colorado River Water Conservation District
201 Centennial Street,Suite
204
G enWPOdCO 81602, .•
Dear Eric . •
Pam replying to your letter of October 6,2000 concerning the adminisiration of transmoimtain
dserslons(TMQ)by this office with respect to statutory requirements as related to three ND projects:
Colorado-Big Thompson Project(CDT)system,the Twin Lakes system,and the Vidier Tunnel
ttrystern. Your,letter also expresses your concern that water is being delivered out-of-slate in violation of
the export statute,.C1(9.37.81.101._ . . ... , • .._. _ . • - . • • . . .
. .
• .In'response to your letter,ere have had two meetings to disaiss your concern and 1T�nt to
you and those with you information on how we)iave administered the thre6TMD projects: _12
meetings mstaff in on October the Diivisionl1,2000 and Januery 1 office who administer2water right1. Ins and reservoir relea
ses es including TAD s
with mypractices and communication procedures with the Northem.Colorado Water;
water. W e reviewed°�P
Conservancy District for the administration of
of non-charge water. As a result of ihesa.meetngs,.l wantto
• review where I believe we are in response yourletter.
•
I will begin with your concern about the violation of the export statute. While I cannot speak for
while
le have
I do not E beliEngineer,
that wh a has been exported August out-of-state in violation of the statutes
whte I have been State Engineer.which dates back to August of 1992. We administer and account for
the water delivered to a river basin by measuring the water delivered into the basin and then
adniirdstering this water to a point of delivery or accounting for it as an augmentation source in the •
stream.
We and the Attorney General do not interpret CRS 37-83-103 to requke1his agency to tad(the
TMD water to the point of consumptive use. It would t may utildifficizelt to native account cl lbw, TMD water storage,
the
point of consumptive use within en litigation system
end TAD water all at one time. We may be able to better eccount for this in the future using the South
Platte DSS when and if it is completed.
do Water Conservancy District(NCVVD)operation of the'non-
Ch With respect part the theC Northern t%ocoordinated tie•pr�xn
charge'f>ro9rem as of the GAT Pr�Jed,we halls in the 1911tYs Carefully.ward
releases to make sure that Memnon-charge'write`released wouldie diveifedin Colorado and not flow
• testate. We discussed the administration of the"non-charge"water program with Dick Stenzel,e administration of the charges -
water the 11�s with the at the eseniior water g commissioners on he12. He reviewed bPoudre, Big Thompson, t.V and
II 'd L089£990L6 '0N Rd OH—OOMON Ild 9£:£0 NOW 30-£I-AN
It R. Eric Kuhn Page 2 '
Mardi 8.2001
•
South Platte Rivers. All four of these individuals were responsible for determining that'non-charge"
water would be diverted at a ditch or canal drying up the stream and not passing water downstream. AI
four have confirmed that'non.tharge water was only allowed to be released if a ditch oceans!was
drying the stream. Unfortunately.our previous diversion records on the Big Thompson.St.Vrain and •
Poudre do not include a record of the management This
situation
wum will o South longer Platte Wr In the future
since
we now have an improved water rights
Management System,similar to CWRAT In CROSS. We will now be able to record the calling water right
on Tributaries to the South Platte River mainstem.
•
I also believe that it was beneficial for Duane Helton to meet with Dick Stenzel and his staff to
understand how we have administered the•non-charge'program. In particular,Duane gained a better
understanding of the operation of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson River systems.
With respect to the Wier Tunnel water,we administer it based upon weekly communication from •
the Vidler Company Informing us of the amount of water being imported based upon the gaged flaw and •
for whom it Is being delivered. An amount above the deliveries is included for transit loss. We currently
do not have the staff resources to do more than the above,but we have requested In this year's budget
an addiionel engineer to properly account for the various complex water decrees on Clear Creek. This
engineer would greatly improve our accounting of the Vidler Tunnel water that is used in various plans for
•
Finally,with respect to the Twin lakes system ND water,we administer It from the tunnel to
Twin Lakes Reservoir and from Twin Lakes Reservoir to the point of delivery. We are not aware of any
exchange of this water to Turquoise Reservoir,wear*Colorado Springs Utility and Twin Lakes
Company based on the letters I have received-from them. if you have any information to support this
allegation,lNvould appreciate receiving It.
In conclusion,you have raised legitimate concerns about our accounting and recording of TMD
that will result in a revision in our record keeping. We do,however,believe we have properly
administered INS TMD water in a manner to not result in a violation of the export statute.
If you would like to meet again to discuss this in decal with me,t would be most willing to do so.
Sincerely,
•
list A. 2-4• • •
•
Hai D.Simpson
State Engineer •
cc Greg Welcher,Executive Director.iN Ft
Ken Salazar,Attorney General
• Rod Kuttarich,Director,CWCB
Eric Wilkinson,kinson,NCWCD
Brian Person,Area Manager;USSR
Duane Helton,Helton and Willamsen
Dick Stenzel, DMY. Erg. •
Steve Witte, Div. Erg.
•
ZI 'd L069E990L8 '0N WA OH-OOMOH Ild 9£:E0 NON Z0-£I-ANN
•
s 7-4,4. United States Department o£the Interior •
I. �1;: BUREA REcti rAl7ON
.,i.__ a'� aim Phia kiln
P.O.hn3000 RECENEp '
1 -"-4--../
-.".1E 1, sips,Main.SP)074900 t�
041 2 : .
EC-1000
OCT 12 2001 Original File Copy •
•
R Erie Kohn,General hisser .
Colorado niverwnerconserv�ioaD>�id ,
201 Central Street,Suite 204
PO Box 1120 •
tilenwood•Springs,CO 31602 • '
• Subject: colorsdo-Big Thompson Project Operations .
Dear W.Kuhn:
This letter concludes our responses to the issues raised in your letter of October 6,2000,as well
as in additional correspondence from the Colorado River Water Conservation District(River
District)and your legal representative,HOUaod&Hart.
•
As evidenced by this Region's coordination with the'Upper Colorado Region,sedum*we hate '
reiterated in our ongoing meetings with you,the Bureau of Reclamation(Reclamation)takes your
concerns regarding the operations tithe colorado-B%Thompson Project PET Project)very
seriously. In$gbt ofyour allegations,we brie eateatively reviewed our operations and legal
authorities To more frilly understand the issues involved,sod as we have kept you ietbrmed,we
also have had d'isconions with the State of Colorado's Office of the State Engineer
Mate
Engines Office),theNor kern Colorado Water Consonant y District),
River
the U.S.rah sod Wild M Service(Service). Given the profbuod ramithations of the
Distriict's allegations,it has been netxaaayfir onrreview to be extensive end thus lengthy.
. We presented our technical review of C-AT Project operations on Angst 2g'2001,tb*,River .
District We bets that meeting with Reclamation's Eastern Colorado sod Western Colorado
Area Offices,the Service,and the River District was helpful in ioaeaing everyone's
tmderdaniing of ter Project operations.
The C.BTProject operations are prudent and consistem with governing legal authorities. The
ear Poled la oPenattilinrid conthe nItindives of rowdadelag AS dlinintling*,and
matriallatie oPontionatileta coaster* ate Dot aced SO sa weg as the repayment
the Northern District,g °,I°
cantColorado
River c the act,united ed S�Diet However,as discussed in more
Colorado Rives ire ore some will work to improve GET Project
detail blow,there are areas where Reclamation
•
typtxafions•
£0 'd L089E990L8 114 WA 88-OOMON Rd £E:EO NOW ZO-E1-ABW
•
ry
•
Reclamation also proposes the Simi"dot: {� rtR.
valiant*contort of the Cooi&paled Irac es W cater X a tCPOPS)
• docked in the Colorado River Programmatic Biological Opinioo. This,in eoordimtioal With
other ray Via*,may
help atrgmemtbe snownielt peak in the 15-mmle.oach oftho
Colorado Rivet
Belts in GBT Project Operation
As we explained at the August 2e meeting,Reclamation has the primary responstY for
schedoEng the movement of water from the Went Slope collection system to East Slope terminal
rennin and the Big Thompson River. Acclamation also operates and mairgam+certain multi-
purpose fa itia and the power Dries. In addition Reclamation forecasts Wows and
develops operating plans using forecasted*lows and projected demands.
Theflortbern District projects monthly demands based on the forecasted East Slope water needs.
They also operate and maintain under an opponent with Reclamation,noa-povacr> p
and catain m ld-purpose lSc litre. TheNortheam District determines the method of d1Mrr%ution
of water to codusen and makes water available Nor defray kora the CDT Project.
I early,the Colorado Division of Wain!.Resources(through the State Pointer's Office) •
addinidera water rights,including ens umg water is diverted forbenelidai use.
The leon•CYarge Program
Meted Compact Violations and BesteficialUE
The River Distilet and Roland&East ban madets the icos with you and tom your letter of
e
listp
September
It 1,o2001,understands*that
andnumber the Colorado State 1bz;oOctober 6,2�Ietter to Reclamation
andra r a 200 of he letter
to letains State
in both The Statelegioaer provided a written
and your October 6y 2000y the State Ermyae�respoese toy=onMarek ti,2001,is edition to meeting with both the River Disnict and
Reda>ntiou Webtiievet e.Sate s letter reach,the hicto raked b7theRiver
District mad its Sept counsel regarding alleged compact violations sad related concerns regaxdisg
beneficial me ofnon-charge water in Colorado.
The River District's concerns regarding alleged*latl°05 of the 1962 and 1name in Colorado.
o River
Compacts torn on whether the noo•dutge water bas ben pot to beae&fa1
• Except in rare mstauoa,Reclamadon deers to state lbr enktre ent of beneiltial use
retptirements. Iscamaleg to the StainEniketeS March 1,2001,letter,*KO the 1990's the State
Ms we*=anted the non•ceary water releases to ensure the water would be&voted*
Colorado and not flow out of the State rased. Nvn•chergswatgr is Messed teen the C-M
1140 streem, # 8s Ste*Ofran
'
all►s' 0141 ottal* ' .
edthed rate OSthe use of no water meets the same standard of beneficial toe
as other water under the laws ofthe State of Colorado,
2
60 'd L0692990L6 'ON Xdd ON-OOMON Wd ££:£0 NON ZO-£I-AdN
•
tate ' uetas Office bas aekaowiodied that their previous diversbn records cc the
Bhe
ig Shompson,St Vain,and thePooudre Riven are not complete, the&tateEngint
bas 14014 it will at steps Bag to more closely accountfor water diverted under the non-charge
including recording the ditch/canal drying n the stream While the specific changes are
within the discretion of the State Engineer and his stall,Reclamation bat indicated to them we
support such steps
The RiverDistrict end its legal representatives allege that C-BT Project diversions from West
Slops to East Slope,and East Slope operations,are not continent with Senate Document 80.
etabonsofcertain1 of Senate Document No.80,
Such allegationsCongress
are based on "Synopsis
Project,Plan of
75a Congress V'Session titled"Synopsis of Report on Colorado-Big Thompson
Development and Constt thonEstimatePreparedbytheBureauofiteclamatioo,Departmentof
tyro Interior(Senate Document 80).
•
Thea finding of bulkily by the Secretary of the Interior and
app oved byProjectPuri authorized ny 21,1937. In 1937,Congest appropriated monies for
approvtdbythePres3dentonDaar�Der T'iate.80 Senate
the won of tier C-BT Project described in Senate Document ,
Document 80 generally is recognized as the authorising document for the C-LIT Project
Reclamation has administered the provisions of Senate Document 80 since at least 1938. We
view Senate Document SO as meting in two hate. The part titled"Manna of Operation of
ProFeatures"("Manner of Operation")was Included in the Blue River
Decrees
ddage sadtindcanl ,
�Reclamation considers Ws portion of Senate Damson 80 to bs mandatory.Thelamps •
provides protection fOt the sights and interests of the West Slope of
Colorof Suchrotections come from Great Mountain Reservoir and are largely
es C-BT
independent
ojelvo. of thesions opt on Slf ope to
East Slope,
e, system are consistent with
the one of
Rom West SiopeofsSenate anent 80.
thb"lidamtr Of O'per�tinel'to�
of the supporting twat,
The seaport part ofSante Est Dates of 80 r do-Bigthe oP� Piojece(Final Report). This
"Fend Repay onPlans sir FstimNes ofCdoradQ Colorado-Big 1ho>oPsa°
part Inctda descriptions of the need for water In the South Platte Basin,the availability of
..
surplus water lathe Colorado River,and the fsci5ha and*ennui td
car Project lxuP°reg
tbe
Weittwprett>>tt part of Scott Doomed wit
t
on haw to achieve fit that contemplated,Ct � cabs have
ithastmeture d3tifda n t e synopsis of theFinal Report
generally followed the operational guidance in
Lastly,Senate Document 80 does not stipulate any pattianar method of allocation of the water
divested to the East Slope.
3
SO 'd L089E990L8 'ON )(VA OH-OONON Ltd E£:£0 NOW ZO—E1—Adis
•
•
water delivered under theNotthan District's non-charge water program,
The C-DTallotment out u al water as provided in Senate Document 80.
� or other � Rtppis�1ei
The widely used definition of supplemental wata is water delivered to users that already have
another source of water,but for whom the other source is not adequate to provide a lb9 supply of
water to the lands. This interpretation is consistent with Senate Document 80 and the repayment
contras between the United States and the Northern District.
Redamatiea Lahr
Your legal mauves have stated the non-charge program does not comply with certain
provisions of Redahnation law. We do not agreew ith this assertion Section the Section
Reclamationapplicable to the non-charge rge
1912 is not
220 only apliestReform Act of aPne available from the CDT Project that is
not only shuns to water in Then of ordinary qua°tiin_exeets of ordimnv wsaidea
not already undo contract. The non-cbar8s pageant'�er>� the
and co
anise,thee Warren Act does not apply to the nowrbage water program. Vonthstgsyaw is
Wwl1 V. A� not sooty.
� a l CYI. ,
When applying the early statutes of Reclamation law,such as those enacted in 1 and The 191'
the history and nature of Reclamation • .
ij emphasis
o to h pro ra considerationfbrIt water supplies Sur publics lands that in.
to
supplies
jbr itial
Redamatoadevelop
turn isetothe opened was The were to ant into agreements&r�y
tars was be opened
States aed for a repayment ma as well as the operation and maintenance
with the United of�the yarn,Reclamation law evolved to the point,
costs ed'tbe water amply development. &strict%
where contracts Oa repayment were entered Into with entities,such as irrigation
organized under state law. Where the United States has entered into a repayment contact with
an entity such as an kdgadon district,there is no prodigal of Reclamation law that directly
•
maims an entity to ester to contracts with its meta. Those 1 of early statutes were
intended to apply to ageemeS dressy between Om Mitred States and the end water user canoe
reasonably be intapreted to require contacts between an entity and its users. '
We would also like to point out the prhntry flee oEtbe Mamma seams oithe early
statutes was to asnre theihhited States recovered the costa of constructing opnafins mod
nobbling the irriptioft halides. In the case of the Cal Project,an esetva a0000at Leis been
established with sufficient lands to guarantee repayment of theNortha n District's cal
repeyment obigationu The NortberaDistrict's fetal construction repayment hmea1me to
scheduled for fiscal yen 2002.
4
•
90 'd L0892990L6 'ON kid 0H-OOMON Nd b2:20 NON Z0-EI-ANN
Technica4 Review of car Project Operations
The October 6,2000,letter alleges thb C-BT Project has been operated in a manner that is
inconsistent with Senate Document 80 by failing to use the C-BT Project's East Slope water
rights. The letter states Senate Document 80 contemplated the use of snowmelt runoff forecasts
to determine the amount of space that should be reserved.
As stated above,the C-BT Project is operated to maximize yield,minimize risk,and rnaudauzo
operational flexibility. These objectives are manifested in a number of operational considerations.
minimize the risk of shortages during extended dry pa*oda,and
Moentt emi o pc' downstream flooding,Lake E r mud bep�'ly
pminimize'iinethe risk a potentially ize damaging
positioned eyeryyear to oaa�dinize the capture of spfing rumff&om the West Slope:"flue regnirea
the diversion ofwater to the East Slopes early in th'e year,Particularly when Lake GlabbY
carryover storage is high. •
Further operational considerations include maim aan9n8
flexiibility to meet C-BT Project demands.
Capacity constraints of the Adams Tunnel l`uwt'diversion of water froth the West e C-BT
550 cfs.while>C-B&T Project demands have exceeded 2,50 dh. Lt addition,many
of the Project's facilttict ua 45 tb ti(!years old,an4marntelliince adages no raguacd.For these reasons
it beImperative that theEast SlopeMrl
os Conte be high in the spring to allavl for demands
to be and is aE yfa3'�'�T�s is particularly true is the" �Cazter Lake_ By able of its
�
is unique ss essabilityential to ptavrdc water •to DOM the norther and southern lands under the C-BT Project,it
is essential that Carter Lake bo nearly full early in the spring.
While these operational considerations argue for filling East Slope reservoirs early in the spring,
leaving little or no storage space available,Reclamation has operated so as to capture East Slope
ors of West Slope water through the
water to the extent practicable. In; .snst r
Adams Tunnel Ins been curtailed to w for capture of East Slope water. Reel ti gem genially
reserves storage space in East Slope reservoirs to allow for capture of East Slope
when the C-BT Project comes into priority: This reservation of storage space,however,is
compromised when nerescary to satisfjr ono or more of the objectives of minimizing risk,
maximizing yield,and/or mzdmlzing operational flexibility.
While Reclamation does reserve s arcese its East Slope reservoirs an au%e of e
priority avatar,itdoes not typically reserve sufficient space P
wet ran. Ibis primarily is due to the various system capacity constraints,in particular the
550 cfs capacity of the Adams Tunnelmentioned above. Reclamation can only prudently reserve
through the
East Slope reservoir storage space to the extent it can be made up by
Adams Tunnel shouldEast Slope priority water not materialize,or to the extent East Slope
priority water can be accurately forecasted
March and April snowpack data and l ammned average precipitation for the runoff period aroused
to forecast reservoir inflow. Because of the very junior nature of the C-BT Project East Slops
water rights,the April to July inflow to Lake Estes must reach approximately 120 percent of
average for more than 5,000 acre-feet of East Slope water rights to be in priority. This type of
5
1.0 'd L069E990L6 'ON X8d OH-00M0N Wd VE:80 NOW 30-EI-1,NW
the result of well above-normal late season precipitation However,
very year generally inflows do not reliably account for heavy late season
Reeharpotion's Match and April forecasted
predpimtioa Currently,existing technology does not allow for more precise fotecastin& e
season precipitation. Unless new technology is developed,substantially improving
late season .
tbrocad capability,it is not prudent to rely upon these forecasts to mate additional East Slope
storage space available. Also.when the C-BT Project East Slope water rights arc in priority to
store,demands are substantially lower than projected. Thus,less water is released and therefbre
less space made available for East Slope storage than was projected would be available.
It Is our secstandang tom the August 28a meeting and previous discussions that your toadied
concerns regardingBe t Slope operations and many ofyour means regarding the non-cares
program haste=addressed by Reclamation and the State Engineer's Office. We hope this
letter answers the River District's rankling concerns with our operations and the non-charge
flans-
Aetioua Taken and Planned to Improve Operatbas
As mentioned above and during our meeting,Reclamation wiI Implement to C HT
Project operations such as improved comnimication and coordination as follows and other steps
s Office and have agreed to communicate and
c olnaasi Woh closelyve wi than State Wien
Engi encsdindinn neer's :�*,e water
000rdieete mere withtheat. We bt8e+re kigtaeed
seasonannt and ., for the C-BT Prof We also bailee e.4 ant e
the ' amps onit a water shed,which traymilt in
to rattail=exits-a r,.alphas often prponty water. In addition,a suggested in yaw
September 21,2001,letter,we will donna**prior year's storage ofEast Slope water and
steps to improve forecasting in the Annual OperatiogPlan.
Is the nmoffBn nut ,VOW to a the accuracy of our*recasts and to mots
effisn vely use them in planing operations. We Wend to pursue new methods for better
predctiog late aceson precipiladon and to increase the existing data collection network In out- •
year budgets wewin make nay effort to assn'e there are Rinds for
additional bad sites on
both the Halt and West Slopes and for the installation of weighing buckets , he data
ameokitive precipitation at several sites within the Big Thompson River
obtained from these addiitioml sites will allow us to canine*monitor snowpack and
precipitation ecnditiom thereby permitting qua opaaticeal response to charigi*conditions.
•
C.wdirated EacllMks Water Availability Study flan l •
Daring the August 28"needs,we projected tnkoial iofansation reprdto6 West Slope
operations, Reclamation also proposed theretw ofsemempthe spills tan Granby Reeesvoit
to add to the spring peak Sows for the 1 he Colorado River be examind within
from Granby Reservoir and rem et
• the context of MPS. You expressed Interest in releases
analysis in addition to that which we proposed.
•
•
90 'd L069E990L8 'ON XEi. OH-Q0N0N Wd FE:SO NOW 30-SI-A W
•
As you bow,the rmal,ProgrammatieBiologjcal Opinion for Bureau
tion of Recovery Program Actions
erations
and Dep per C, and Pending River(PM)bn the Upper Other River Above the Conte with tbe Recovery armism River
desuibathe
Colorado in the MO,
intentof OOPS itutiated under'the Colorado River fealties and operation can be
the Went of the study is to assess water mamma peak? Anotherstated that cat is to '
provide
add to na3benefit fiswater up habitat , Y during year for spring peak flow enhancement,
provide hour edition! npr j about 20,000 acresing roj Y to incur signer costa" Any
" ..without d�8 project raid or causing project sponsors would be evaluated
ad&tional analysis of potential scenarios to change West Slope operations
against the parameters set tiic the COOPS Study In the PBO.
As2S* we antiapato that rcisming of pre-empdve releases
an /or ad itiona thereleases
t enwill increase the aelthood of inundation downstream of
and/or ltescrval renders Sum storage Ramifications of any such ipimdadon must also be
tkaobygpavvirwder certain circumstances.
past ofaoy analysis. We appreciate your agreement to ork with u f structures and e 1 capacity
s to ponce an in-depth
examination of the inundation Lam Both the proximity
need to be analyzed. We would appreciate being Included in moons you have with the
Colorado Water Conservation Board,or others,on this issue.
In your September 214 Jena and in our meeting,you focused on the concept elvish as it relates
tReclamation out in the meeting any analysis of risk is
s the also mAp Raizedrisk is only one of three factors we consider in opera the
subjective. We have also emphasized
C BT Project. .
You and Duane Helton have also'requested a copy of the Ades from our presentation at the .
August 2S'meeting as well as related data. We would like to proceed by setting up a meeting
with the CROPS group to present our technical information Thereafter wo will provide the slides
and related datato than.with a=TY to You•
In summary,CDT Project operations are prudent and consistent with govaaiog legal authorities.
We hope through this letter,our presentation,and the ongoing discussion our two orgseiztiowts
ban had,the River District better understands that the CBT Project Lilting operated
appropriately and that CFOPS can now proceed with evaluating the remaining
oject
alternatives.
Sincerely,
Bark. .
Regional
'7
80 'd L089£990L8 'ON KVA 9H-OOMON Hd 98:20 HON ZO-£1-AUN
cc .
Holland&lisrt Mr.AlanMartahuo
Attm Ms.Anne Castle State of Colorado
PO Box 8749 • Division of Water Resources,Division 5
Denver CO 802014749 pO Box 396
Glenwood Springs CO 81602 •
Ma.Carol DeA»ge6sWesta 0 Mr.Randy Seabo]m
7Bo euodioa CO 81506-0340 603440 rado Area Office Colorado Water ConsemtionBoard
GrY andjwi 1313 Sherman Street,Room 711
Drava CO 80203
U.S.Department&the bled** Mr.Bob McCue
Office tithe Regional Solicitor U.S.Fish&Wildltle Service
•
755 Suite 361
LakewoodStreet Sake 151
755 Parks,Parfet I$awood CO 80215
Lwo CO 80225
Mr.Bum Paso* Mr.Leo Carbon
Enka Cokrado Ara Office U.S.piste&Widish Stroke _
MR 755 Padre,Snits 361
11156weatt: Road _ _.
1 OOar Lakewood CO 8021$
Loveland CO 80537-9711 _ .
Mr.Brie Wdkbswn Brown&Caldwell '
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Attar:Mr'Leo Esc!
District
1697 Cok Blvd,Suile200
PO O Baa:679 Guides CO 80401
Lovdand CO 80539 •
Mr.John Chaffin
Mr.11a1 Simpson V.S.Depertuteot 0ftheteserlor
Office tithe State Bag;noer Office of the Sie d Solicitor
1313 Sfwman Street.Roos 818 316 N 26th Street,Room 3005
Dawer CO 8010'3.2271 BM.MT 59107
McDktStared Mr,Rick Gold •
E4v ofCff Wedo' Human of Reobunitios .
1 Wpm R�oSOMMos
D10 trwatSrlts200 a,Divistoo 125 South Stale Stred,Room6107
Cleft
9th Sued,63ke200 Salt Lake�y Ur 84138.1102
Caleehsy CO 80631
8
L
Ol 'd L0698980L6 'ON Xdd OH-QONON Nd 98:80 NON ZO—i1—Adel
Hello