HomeMy WebLinkAbout20001162.tiff Dave Miller
P. O. Box 567
Palmer Lake, CO 80133
(719) 481-2002, Fax (719) 481-3452
March 31,2000
Honorable Bill Owens �/
Governor, State of Colorado �I` �. c>
State Capitol 1 d, (1)t"b j4 4\4;Denver, Colorado 80203 State Legislators \ i \t?' y
Stale Capitol \/v d'_ i �y V
Denver, Colorado 80203 4t'
Subject: Reversal of Colorado's Fatally-Flawed California Water Strategy
Dear Governor Owens and Legislators:
The enclosed paper describes a Colorado water policy crisis that is threatening Colorado's near and
long-term water future. This crisis is rapidly coming to a head in the landmark Union Park High
Reservoir Case pending in Colorado Supreme Court. It may be the most important state rights vs.
federal control case in the history of Western Water Law.
In view of the strategic value of Colorado's unused share of the Colorado River, and the overdue
need to plan, protect, develop, and use these federally-threatened waters. I strongly recommend
immediate Executive and Legislative Branch reviews and resolutions to reverse Colorado's support
for federal positions in the Union Park Case.
It would be tragic if Colorado were to permanently foreclose its invaluable high altitude storage
opportunity before this innovative concept is seriously considered and evaluated by local, state and
federal officials.
In addition, I strongly recommend approval of about $100,000 in this year's CWCB Construction
Fund for a preliminary cost-benefit comparison of Colorado's reasonable options for solving its
growing flood. drought, growth, and environmental problems for both sides of the Divide.
Thank you for considering this emergency citizen request, in behalf of Colorado's current and
future generations.
Sily
er
ar_2 � /�yJ��
Dave Miller
Water Planner
end: 1. Paper titled Colorado's Fatally-Flawed California Water Strategy, dated 3-31-00
2. Chronicle and Pilot article, dated March 10, 2000
cc: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members
n
-(1)'‘0
iC 2000-1162
March 31, 2000
Colorado's Fatally-Flawed California Water Strategy
Coloradans generally agree that water is their state's most important natural resource.
They would be shocked to learn state officials are vigorously supporting new federal water policies
in Colorado Supreme Court that would benefit California at Colorado's expense. Unfortunately,
that is exactly what is happening. All Coloradans should be concerned.
Colorado's self-inflicted water policy crisis is rapidly coming to a head with its Union Park High
Reservoir Case pending in Colorado Supreme Court. This landmark state rights vs. federal control
case started in 1986. It is currently on appeal from Gunnison Water Court for the second time.
Oral arguments have been heard, and a decision is expected within a few months. The water futures
of Colorado and all headwater states hang in the balance.
Although the legal details are too convoluted for this commentary, the bottom line is easy to
understand. In short, Colorado is supporting new Bureau of Reclamation claims that would give
federal hydropower and reservoir refill rights priority over Colorado's right to store interstate
entitlements at high altitude for beneficial needs of both slopes.
Under Colorado's Constitution, the right to appropriate unallocated state waters for beneficial
purposes "shall not be denied". However, in the Union Park Case, state and federal officials have
been collaborating with a 10-year local scheme to prevent the export of any surplus Gunnison water
for East Slope needs. The uncompromising battle slogan of Gunnison County activists is "Not One
Drop Over the Hill".
All Coloradans should realize there is a serious imbalance between Colorado's water-short and
surplus river basins. About 90% of Colorado's people are on the East Slope. About 90% of
Colorado's outflows to down river states are via the Colorado River and its West Slope tributaries.
Average outflows from Colorado's Gunnison Branch of the Colorado River are 350% higher than
the combined outflows of Colorado's water-short South Platte and Arkansas River Basins. The
Gunnison Basin is by far Colorado's largest and wettest untapped water source. In reality, the
Gunnison is largely Colorado's water future.
Union Park is an advanced Two Forks size reservoir, designed to be the world's most cost-effective,
environment-enhancing, water conservation project. During heavy runoff years, its hi..ech
reversible pump-generators will divert a small portion of Colorado's wasted snowmelt into Union
Park's unique off-river, Upper Gunnison site at 10,000 feet altitude. These conserved Gunnison
floodwaters will then be available to greatly expand water use and reuse opportunities throughout
Colorado's Gunnison, Colorado, South Platte, and Arkansas River Basins during multi-year
droughts.
EPA's Two Forks Study confirmed 60,000 acre-feet from Union Park's gravity siphon to the South
Platte River could increase the safe-yield of Denver's existing reservoirs by 111,000 acre-feet.
Union Park's return flows from Front Range cities will automatically reverse the dry-up of
Colorado's East Slope farms. Colorado's Kansas Suit and Platte River endangered species problems
will be solved, with no additional costs. Fish, wildlife and recreation values will be unprecedented.
About 1/3 of Union Park's 900,000 acre-feet capacity will be used as compensatory storage to
regulate West Slope rivers during floods and droughts. Gunnison and Colorado River flows will be
guaranteed at higher levels than currently experienced during long droughts. Union Park's Phase I
and II construction costs will require 20-year bonds, totaling about $750 million. However.
these initial costs are insignificant when compared to the multiple benefits for multiple river basins
during the new millennium. In contrast, traditional low altitude river dams fill with silt, increase
regional evaporation losses, concentrate pollutants, and harm river ecosystems.
No other water supply option can compare with the environmental and economic advantages of
high, off-river reservoirs, such as Union Park. It would be a state tragedy of the highest order if
Colorado were to lose its overlooked high storage potential to misguided federal policies in
Colorado Supreme Court. High storage is the answer for current and future Western water needs.
All federal reservoirs throughout the Colorado River System were authorized by Congress to help
western states develop and use their respective 1922 Colorado River Compact entitlements. To
date, Colorado is using only about 2 million acre-feet of its 3 million acre-feet allotment. A million
acre-feet can supply five million people. Federal river data shows Colorado is actually losing more
of its Colorado River entitlements than before the 1950s. California is currently using up to 1.1
million acre-feet over its allocation. California acts, while Colorado fights itself in court.
Meanwhile, Colorado's federalized water policies are forcing Front Range cities to consider high-
risk, high-cost alternatives such as, groundwater recharge, farm dry-up, and waste water reuse.
Southern California water planners are smiling, as they expedite two off-river reservoirs, which can
store additional Colorado River water. Union Park should have been built in the 1990s!
Regrettably, the marathon Union Park Case may soon make Colorado's growing losses to
California a permanent condition. For the first time, the Bureau is claiming its Aspinalt Unit (Blue
Mesa Reservoir) hydropower operation is senior to Colorado's right to store entitled water at high
altitude for both slopes. Ironically, Colorado's largest reservoir, which Representative Wayne
Aspinall justified to Congress, is now being used to flush Colorado's water future to California.
Compounding this travesty, Colorado's Upper Gunnison River District recently gave its 1986
Taylor Park Reservoir Refill Decree to the Bureau of Reclamation. State officials were not aware
of this clandestine giveaway of Colorado's most storable headwaters. Although the Refill Decree's
stated purpose is to enhance the Taylor River fishery, its obvious real purpose is to flush Upper
Gunnison floodwaters down river. As a result, there is inadequate water available for high storage
under Union Park's original 1982 Hydropower and River Regulation Decree. The "optimum"
Taylor River flows used to justify this federal Refill Decree are grossly excessive, unsustainable.
and damaging for fish growth and safe fishing. This may be the first case in the history of Western
Water Law where a bogus junior right destroys a valid senior right.
Incredibly, Colorado's governor-appointed Colorado Water Conversation Board quietly withdrew
from the landmark Union Park Case in 1990. CWCl3's primary legislative mandate is to "help plan,
protect, and develop Colorado's interstate waters for future generations". Fortunately, CWCB's
recent appointees appear determined to achieve these goals with fresh ideas to solve Colorado's
growing interstate losses and imbalances between river basins.
Hopefully, there is still time in the Union Park Case for Colorado's elected leaders to call for an
immediate CWCB review and reversal of Colorado's ally-flawed California Water Strategy.
Dave M er, Water Planner
P. O. Box 567,Palmer Lake, CO 80133
(719) 481-2003, Fax (719) 481-3452
IV1Al2C1-1 10] 2-OOO "ye'`� ` �_._ VOL. 41 NO. 1U 50 CENTS
1II y
::...:"'''...
. .� (
% . .,: ,± 'LOT
www.crestedbullechronicle.com
C 12 L S 'I' C U B U 'I' 'I' I? �,. C O L. O K A U O
The end of local transmountain diversion? cn
High court puts _ _
~o `''o' w o cg ,
m a°i m o• atrs ° o a' >, c .., o v �, v vi ai a' .. v 0 ". 'o „°, `v (5, n. E rp° o
Union Park to x0v ° ° 0 � ._ a OG 9 � � 0 � °
o c .13 O O..f. .0 flU
is ; °H
3 c y 7 sa' ca, o $ > .y
it the fial test Ly ° 3v L 3a3x oc = s ° a o � o � o � � � .= -
(n -- ° o • E v e -02 .1-4 - O .c o x �' u � .b c c , u o o o U — c
o Q (...) .-a •o n -• O 3
� .� � f; " o .oc6o u3 .5 ;~`ems in a >, as a, iV ro > r� `' V c
y > s r � 3 c va y � 3 ccc .m w c3 .. ` > >. 00a. Y c a
a 6 ar O O a h c cu ° o a' m o o ] 3 O _ c Cn d a, —.
° m c O 3 v c ? ° I ) E ° 9 N E -c y o n ❑ —.. ge cC r°j La.` N ca r--
-?, r. v. c x vC c o .O v - 4 y m c y, ,y 2 tot
it
by Will Sands b y c L 3 y, ,. N v m o v - w s > vac, ° v m e o • c o -c -o o .- .2 o -0 3 0
puttai .. Z r O , c ❑ L E 2 t w 'O
Efforts to pipe local water over the Continental — O -n >,-o , o r v •v s i m ° J ° 00 °1 u °' E o 3 .: �' m °q
v L v 3 v ar 4 .. N C ° v -Pi.
o v o
Divide and into Front Range homes went before m ii .. v o c in x u o m c ¢ — m _ v o e o v ° _ z a o a O >
the highest court m Colorado last week On v " '^ o . 2 31 w . .E ' t' + .i°. a' - m v '4 .E to O V ° Cp " ° -
b E ❑ Q,,j m ., c , v ¢ . . Q2' E u ° E — a.._ �, t s 3 a.L �Uo U
Wednesday,March I,the Colorado Supreme Court v c O -Ip o v u '�, ° o o ° v 'a - � � m °' i° o a.' - ea -
heard arguments for anti against the Union Park ` v ar a _ c s = a q ,E .e y ,c, :: >. e "' e o r. d S ri 3 - d d - 3 E •e =-
proposal, _ L c cn w v h 3 r, 2 .c. ° C .it a' o m V •
a, - cn o o .o � d w ci.LE
3
positive outcomeand thearties are endopfng for a }}^�ii n 0 o v �,3 o o c w
a' o c' O p° ,° . $ x.a'F - C ar p rot a o > v m 'o F5, a`r m
P project's �i 3 E •,� m y o =v 'o o '9 -c _ c. m _ m ° E E i-▪ Z se u w -o .. e . 3 o c a"i > •n
Conceived in 1982 by the Natural Energy ,_ — o m o ( > ° '� u B. E m . ° d ° i, ° U o.a v O v :K m N a r)i ,E r 7, 2 u
Resources Company(NECO), the Union Park pro- , cu ,, ,,, ... ,• - — 3 > '^ a o ,.- o wry: ,, w a _CO -e — 3 E o E o 7, '- a Z
ject proposes to draw 60,000 acre-feet of water !�i w : -o Rd 50 n 3 ' o "a in, E c x Q 0 v 12 -o t s s o 3 O +r 0 o P-' v (n v •h a v m z
from the Upper Gunnison Basin annual) !� o m `n ° 'z' ° R' v 3t, v -•-• 0 ° c o v c 2 m e a e _ 'o > "' w 0.c OM
PP Y C V o c T„. ...„, .. c y w v v a .9<:? ° v . ° .. o .o 'o O 0 ,a o —,74 :a ,� . E, tt a
Courtesy of a pipeline,water would be siphoned O .,, o o a ,_, •, ° ,.0_0 ° g x .v 3 ¢ - °' i° s_ a ; ro rot �` = •c `c o
from the East and Taylor Rivers,as well as Copper, •1� 5 .vc y cc- as ce , i cc u n d ;° s o-Ewa:
"3 s s a ° o V % s e a, m y e c P '� a' "'
Brush,Cement,and Spring Creeks and transported = F" .w. o c m T m` .8`a. 3 m A o a c m o 2 ,c c ^▪ z
,t-,Q. a�i 3 E E y o e o 8 ¢
to a giant reservoir near Taylor Park. This water o e 'c o m x a, b v O , .'9 aJ 811 L. n w cE € ° y ° e v
would then be piped over the divide to serve the 3 `o z a m m m o Cn .'_' ¢ E il, s s .2 F.. 3 G,22 E w co ai ,fa o > O .+_. E u
growing water needs of Denver's suburbs. 'ayi 3 " 7 Ep " o = F.,
NECO sold the project to Arapahoe County in o i'« Q ie • a _ iy a
1983,and it has been deadlocked in a heated legal z t 'u d .5: o o V at
debate ever since. Water Court Judge Robert
Brown has twice ruled that there is not sufficient
water locally to serve the ambitious project,and in Supreme Court lasted exactly one hour. Proponent and. Explaining Colorado's stance in the case; Salazar
both cases, Union Park drew a long list of opposers, opposers were given 30 minutes apiece to make their added,:"We've„very actively opposed.Union Park...Our
including the State of Colorado, the United States, the arguments and answer questions from justices. :The interest in the case is to make sure.the State of Colorado's
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Colorado Attorney General's Office largely handled priority system isiobserved,That means that there has to
Gunnison County. Courtesy of an Arapahoe County arguments for the opposers, and Attorney General Ken be a recognition of existing water rights.The UniorrPark
appeal, Union Park and the opposers had their day Salazar said that the case against Union Park went well. project would like to divert water out of priority." ` -
before the Colorado Supreme Court on March 1. "I think the arguments went very well based on the Salazar also noted that it has been a pleasure work-
Unlike the legal marathons that surrounded Union line of questions asked by two justices,"Salazar said. "it ing with Inc opposers, largely because of a unified local
Park in the past, the oral arguments before the Colorado seemed l hev understood the central issue in the case." front. —continued on page]]
. .512,4
l,fi.; k S ,S1i' /-47n
..":-.. 7,10.45;1:Y' " u
: UNHY}IXLIMEs
I
U iYv 1 1}]1 1 1 1 i,l ?>>.�..;;, ! E
Il Idl (;f]
1 II,,,, 11 ,IIJI„.,I 1, IL,I, I II, I ,1,1 II 3�-,4
r °t "' '�i' dtr. l U gS,
101 iiLl.: 1...„ .\ee s,µ rr'�^a ,. g rtld L,m F,VOt
. te.Offieial N'ewspaperof Giutncsor County,for 121 year; Tiii RS J1.-1., Lic't ,:_$). ?1M0
Western Slope water won't be ,
'fruit: for Front Range growth' N gyp; er ` f
ectot- -' /g%fter ,Dish,cTs-
❑ River District says no us," said Mahieue Zanelell, Gunnison Co maty commis- 1� q T , ,
sinner and representative to the CRWCD. "One-hen- z erni� r0/1 S/�9�u�'a
d rat Iwo It-llw usnd acre (met sounds a lot like Union /Y /�
to transmountain raids 7 r $Gv7_
Park it mssonu on the front Range will do anything Coxii/CTS /'r' '
except concentrate on all that water that they hrve." ��� AAA'
���1_�----,5. 7
l' PAUL WAYNE FOREMAN h Union l'ark project would call for a 9001100 acre-
TwitsSiAlI'WirlttsR loot headwaters reservoir (about the size of Blue Mesa 7-4.
y- �/
--- — Reservoir) to be located approximately 28 miles north- i7` is COs!-S,5ft-$`// k"'' /h
1 he Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water east of Gunnison and to the south of Ta for Pari:.Ara a- r/ f 'e
/7/—
Conservation District maintained in a unanimously hoc hoped to diver) up to 100,000 acre-feet of water perms � 1'�'A/]� ' �jfR
adopted policy statement released March 16 that nearly year through the Continental Divide to the Front Ra nge. C'J/d/'Aet- S
400 CUd acre feet of water enough for 2 million addi Union Park would be fed from a far-flung system of Ara /Ps'
Iiennl residents - are available Iv quench Front Range collection pipelines tapping Lottis, Spring, Brush, /Wits( without any new transmountain diversions such Cement and lixas creeks and the Fast and Taylor rivers. /VA fir,- 'SDU/-�
as the Union Park project. A ruling on Union l'ark is expected from the Colorado /e4e1e its" ullr enJ T(
'Diu statement asserted that despite exploding Su prenhe Court sometime this year,
growth, the bunt Range interests have no current or ')lie CWP boasts a membership including Adams uNfrite CUT ILA ,'T/S-(3-
growth, need to divert West Slope water eastward. County, Arapahoe County, Aurora, Colorado Springs,
The CRWCD statement was offered in part as a See CRWCD on page 7
response to the formation of the Colorado Water Part-
nership (CWI'),also announced on Maids W.
"This is a dramatic statement,but not all that differ- CRWCD -
ent,not all that in your face than what we have been say-
ing to the Front Range," Chris Trees, CRWCD external coi itl1lUed Roil) page 1 •
affairs spokesperson, told the Times Monday. "This is Elbert County, 1'il Paso County, water needs." all other water sources • ndud-
not all expression of 'not one more drop,' but rather a Lafayette and Northglenn- The goals of the South Metro ing reuse, conservation, mote
statement of'not one more unnecessary drop.' Notably absent are Denver Water Study are consistent with efficient operation of reservoirs,
"What we are saying is, we are not Ilhe low-hanging and Douglas County, which the mission of the CRWCD. sharing among water districts,
fruit for Front Range growth." along with the Douglas County Its mission statement sets as a in-basin transfers and used
The CWI',a consortium of Front Range counties and Water Resource Authority and pi Unary goal the pious tiun of huge Front Range groundwater
municipalities, declared its goal - securing reliable the CRWCD, will conduct the existing water uses while pie- supplies - are exhausted has
sources of West Slope water to keep the Front Range cco- South Motor Water Study serving future economic oppor- been the policy of the CRWCD,
nomic engine in thigh gear. (SMWS). tunities within the Colorado said Trees.
Arapahoe County Commissioner Marie Mackenzie, Douglas County explained its River Basin,of which the Chinni- "'Iisis recognition anvays has
all outspoken advocate of additional transmounta In rationale for staying out of the son River is a part.The CRWCD been thine implicitly but this is
diversions, is spearheading the CWP. Mackenzie is cif CWP in a March 14 letter to policy statement appears to be in an explicit statement of that,"
culating a letter "personally ask(ing) you to join the Mackenzie written by Douglas recognition of trends established said. "Western Colorado has
CWP," which seeks support for proposed legislation to County Commissioner James during the 1980s and '90s. a grown an economy 'hat is at
fund a study of new projects that could yield up to Sullivan-In it he pointed out that steady decline in agricultural least partly ieliont oil adequate
120,000 acre feet of West Slope water. the South Metro Water Study's use of water as the dollar value streamflows and hea'Iha liver
Presently, more than 500,000 acre feet are piped goal is to discover which water of the state's recreation industry systems. It's not only the West-
through the Continental Divide to Front Range water strategics will meet near and climbed steadily. ern Slope that benefits hut all of
users, lung ter in Frunl Range water "It's interesting that the River Coloradc. We are du play-
Mackenzie's 120,000 acre feet had a familiar ring to it, needs in ways that delay and District has comprehended the ground of Last Slope.'
Recently that figure was identified as the amount of minimize the need for addition- changes ongoing in Colorado,"
mainstem Colorado River water available in excess of al importsofwater Iron,IlieCol- Z.anetell said. "II is very impor- IVOTe Me.'" F¢ler al
what is needed to sustain the mainstem's endangered omdo River Basii,. lint to note that fur the first time -ANj sTi e.lad,
Cr es
fish recovery program. It is in the upper range of the "Douglas County,as a parlic- the CRWCD has made it i
yield expected from Arapalioe's Union Park project. .p yAre Fiishi;Ai Lr�' S
h ant and financial backer of the absolute) clear that before any _�,��
"The Colorado Water Partnership directly threatens South Metro Water Study, other diversions take place, we -✓7✓re al O4,W
_ a. believes that joining the CaVI have instream needs economic CO l Ad w /S0.v
Wore 7�r ,e- V/1`Ai S/A"-- WATef would be counter to what we re n cis, and moue nmenlai /Onclae //
/ AS.$✓es trying to accomplish with the needs. �1✓Z r$.o CO/of:A °
�4,�O1 rc. c �O� study Sullivan said. "... "The importance of that to 'ildrA e
nle�s Ff,
Ara /Arfe% /7gore� gem County has move) in Western Colorado and all of Cel- ��
another direction with regard to uradu must be respected-" go ]`O dareTec I its
b7 /10�0 rA CL S pO�/�'CA/ developing a consensus-based Implicitly, opposition to Yoram
Cam/ ���fff / / solution to meeting Colorado's trmsmountain diversion until h✓M/1N /t'J� 'V'4
/e�Aclers ,4id fied/A. EU✓iloJ/1e✓!S vJ
wiz a/a/oes 01iff
n/eco r-+1/1e,J ).'um.
Hello