HomeMy WebLinkAbout981157.tiff Allen D. (Dave) Miller
P.O. Box 567
Palmer Lake,Colorado 80133
(719)481-2003 • FAX(719)481-3452
May 1, 1998
MEMO For: Colorado Legislators
SUBJECT: Colorado Water Policy
The enclosed public comment letter on the new interstate agreement to manage the Platte River
raises some vital Colorado water policy questions that warrant legislative and public scrutiny:
1) Why is Colorado the only western state without an open public planning process to formulate
and prioritize statewide water policies and programs?
2) Why is Colorado the only western state that relies on confrontational water courts within
each river basin to make the critical statewide, inter-basin water decisions?
3) Why do Front Range consumers pay the highest average tap fees and water rates in the West,
while Colorado's high mountain snow-melt provides most of the region's renewable water
from Nebraska to California?
4) Why does the old western saying, "Whiskey's for drinkin, water's for fighten," still apply for
management of Colorado's water resources?
5) Why did Colorado abandon its urgent Colorado Alliance plans of Governors Love and
Vanderhoof for state construction of West slope reservoirs, to save Colorado's threatened
Colorado River entitlements for long-term drought and growth needs of both slopes?
6) Why is Colorado currently cooperating with Federal rule changes on the Colorado River that
will permanently flush the entitled wet year runoff of headwater states to less efficient storage
in low altitude states?
7) Why is Colorado agreeing with Federal claims in Colorado water court that would prevent
development of Headwater Storage to expand regional water supplies for droughts and
growth?
8) Why does Colorado need about 70% of the nation's water lawyers?
Thank you for considering these basic state water policy questions, and the enclosed letter on how
Headwater Storage can enhance Platte, Arkansas, and Colorado River environments. These
seldom discussed state issues surely warrant some in-depth public exposure and legislative debate
for current and future generations. n
end: Comment letter on Platte River Agreement and Headwater Storage, April 27, 1998.
981157
Allen D. (Dave) Miller
P.O. Box 567
Palmer Lake,Colorado 80133
(719)481-2003 • FAX(719)481-3452
April 27, 1998
Mr. Curt Brown, Study Manager, and
Platte River Governance Committee
Platte River EIS Office
P.O. Box 25007, PL-100
Denver, Colorado 20225-007
Subject: Headwater Storage — The Overlooked Regional Solution for
Platte River Basin Endangered Species
Dear Mr. Brown and Committee Members:
Platte River Agreement Oversight - The Colorado/Nebraska/Wyoming/Interior Agreement
to resolve Platte River Basin endangered species issues is fatally flawed under the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). It is flawed,because it ignores and conflicts with
regional Headwater Storage solutions that are essential for expanding and improving
Western water supplies for future human and environmental needs. (See enclosed U.S. Water
News Editorial on the Western Need for Headwater Storage.)
Overlooked Regional Factors:
1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that extensive water diversions from
the Platte River have seriously reduced suitable habitats for several endangered species
within the basin. This habitat reduction occurs primarily during drought years.
2. Colorado and Wyoming have extensive Colorado River Compact entitlements that are
not being stored during heavy snow-melt years, to satisfy growing Colorado, Platte,
and Arkansas River Basin needs during the critical multi-year drought cycles.
3. A regional headwater storage capability is urgently required to expand and improve
water supplies for Western cities, farms, and river environments during long droughts.
4. Recent Federal rule changes for managing the Colorado River are permanently
destroying the region's invaluable headwater storage potential for drought protection
and growth. These landmark changes include: (a)the Native Fish Recovery Program,
(b) claims in Colorado water court that Federal hydropower rights preempt state rights
to construct headwater storage, and (c)the double draining of a high altitude Federal
reservoir for recreation purposes.
5. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) completed Blue Mesa Reservoir(Colorado's
largest) in 1963 to help Colorado develop its surplus Colorado River Compact
entitlements for droughts and growth. Ironically, Blue Mesa's Federal hydropower
rights are now being used to block construction of a 900,000 acre feet (AF) headwater
CiO ifs
reservoir near the Continental Divide in a natural glacier-carved, off-river site. This
proposed facility could efficiently store wet year flood waters, for later gravity release
to Colorado, Platte, and Arkansas River environments during multi-year droughts.
Experience has shown Blue Mesa Reservoir is not efficient for droughts and growth, as
originally envisioned by Congress. Its altitude is too low to serve Platte and Arkansas
River Basin needs. It is located in Colorado's wettest untapped area, where
consumptive water needs are shrinking from irrigation declines. It also must release as
much as it fills during normal runoff years. Although Blue Mesa can store one million
AF, it currently has contracts to serve only a few local users with 187 AF per year, at
$55 per AF.
6. If a small fraction of the wet year flood waters above Blue Mesa Reservoir were
diverted into the proposed headwater storage site, this facility could increase the
values of these surplus Colorado waters to about $10,000 per AF for Platte and
Arkansas River Basin drought and growth needs. When the additional flood control,
drought protection, power, recreation, water quality, and multiple reuse benefits are
considered, this new billion dollar headwater facility could be worth $20 to $40 billion
for Western river basins between Nebraska, Kansas, and California. That is an
extraordinary investment opportunity, considering most traditional Western reservoirs
were built with benefit-cost ratios of 2 to 1.
7. USBR recently acquired unprecedented legal rights to fill and drain its Taylor Park
Reservoir, above Blue Mesa, 2 times in any given water year. The stated purpose is to
improve recreational fishing and rafting in the Taylor River below Taylor Park Dam.
However, an inquiry would quickly show the decreed Federal target flows are: (a)
excessive for safe fishing and rafting; (b) detrimental to fish growth; and (c)
unsustainable, except during heavy snow-melt years.
The enclosed Taylor River Runoff Graph clearly shows the optimal flow objectives
cited in the Federal refill decree are 300 to 500% higher than the reasonable fish flow
minimums set by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Federal flows are also
about double the minimum and maximum flows stipulated in the earlier Union Park
and Rocky Point hydropower decrees. This Federal refill decree is a multi-billion
dollar travesty, because some of the region's most valuable headwaters are now not
legally storable at high altitude for the drought and growth needs of the Platte,
Arkansas, and Colorado River Basins.
8. The new Federal program to recover Colorado River native fish has similar adverse
impacts on the region's invaluable headwater storage potential. This program assumes
that spring flood waters must flow freely down river as"Mother Nature intended."
However, short-duration flushing from headwater reservoirs could also satisfy the
needs of native fish, without sacrificing the water expansion and water quality benefits
of headwater storage. The entire Colorado River Native Fish Recovery Program is
flawed under NEPA, because the region's multi-billion dollar headwater storage
opportunity costs for the Platte, Arkansas, and Colorado River Basins were not
considered in the environmental impact studies.
98// x'7
Proposed Actions to Solve Platte and Regional Water Issues - The current single-basin
Platte River Agreement should be held in abeyance pending an assessment of the economic
and environmental benefits that could be realized from the region's overlooked and
threatened headwater storage alternatives. This assessment, should recognize that the Platte
Agreement and NEPA oversights were the result of mistaken assumptions that cooperative
headwater storage projects are not politically feasible for enhancing regional water supplies
in the arid West.
In lieu of pursuing the current Platte Agreement, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas,
and Interior should soon initiate a high priority Headwater Storage Program to efficiently
save and enhance the overburdened Platte and Arkansas River Basin environments for
current and future generations. This program should be based on realistic long-term
assumptions that headwater reservoirs can and will eventually replace those traditional
Western reservoirs that are filling with silt, harming river ecosystems, concentrating
pollutants, and causing unnecessary evaporation losses. The current fragmented approach
to Western water management should be recognized as a recipe for water scarcity, higher
user costs, institutional gridlock, and environmental degregration. All Western states would
soon benefit from this new Headwater Storage initiative and direction for expanding and
improving regional water supplies.
Thank you for considering these public comments on the urgent Western need for
Headwater Storage. Geographic boundaries, institutional inertia, and obsolete views must
not thwart the wise development and use of Western waters during the 2P' Century.
;rely, k
Dave Miller
Independent Water Planner
end: 1. U.S. Water News Editorial on Western Need for Headwater Storage, April 1998.
2. Annual Runoff Comparisons for Taylor River Below Taylor Park Dam
cc: Congressional Natural Resources Committees
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior
Benjamin Nelson, Governor, State of Nebraska
Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming
Roy Romer, Governor, State of Colorado
Joan Finney, Governor, State of Kansas
Terry Johnson, Governor, State of New Mexico
Mike Leavitt, Governor, State of Utah
Robert Miller, Governor, State of Nevada
Jane Hull, Governor, State of Arizona
Pete Wilson, Governor, State of California
Denise Fort, Chair, Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission
D. Craig Bell, Executive Director, Western States Water Council
Richard Newpher, Executive Director, American Farm Bureau Federation
5-7
C // '\\
o //. A\ I
o /// AVM o
g - �// \\A
o r // \\\ III Z
LID
a '/'%//// /%/ \\\'\\\\
0_ J r� /// / N//a$ '/ V\ •
c <oo A I I
>- a //// E\/a°%/\\\ a \ o < U)
/\ (1)//c4-- ,/,..\\N./ A v f6 A I 8r I
LL ///, >+v" v I y I io I I
/0 3 �O ///7O// E § /�Ay U V » \ V q
O 0 Z //// // E l /�v E E y I N E
W ///113//112/ �A \ o 0 3
M ////,FY//m_ //\\N\2\m2 \ E
I I � � CO/////o/SEE /� ',�, p vEE y 7I
LL Q //, a / , a `a. o
///// 5/78.0 .7//, �\ A 0 3
-J Z /////V / // \\ C V___ I I E
Z u z ///��//,mac / / A\ ' vg
0
g Q /. E. // \\ j v
Qw ///////i// vv , vvvv I II
w c� //////V/// v VvyAVM i I m
CC < / /i//// \\
/% \ \\
I z > / \\ .
D o /,A\
z W H ///\\\\ ! g
z w o '%/�\V`
Q O w //7/ \\
0 ///\\\ I I LL
v) ' //n \
\
.� //// \\
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
in
It) 't � P7 N N r O
CIN003S 2l3d 1333 0I8l0
w
/e 000'LEE'I NV300 0IINV1LV OFIVMO11SV3 CU-6) 0
J
mlit oo
ac 43 ti
alit )
m
ow a
t o4aw cal
zg4
0 0 +)
o ��fa t ^� � 0o0 H
P4 4.4
N N O N° ro
a
co it o •.i f- a
0 < y 0 wmoiw n0
is O 6 ° uro, , w to
Tm ;6 m o o ro o F-
- c o um cu u
°w 5 % w m tik oW
.---
zIz
°� N pr4 pp
ogroq
dy E.
r�T zro .� ro O
/ �
d
Q en
1\veer
a
c,4 cosC p
N p O
H P4 m m p N
C Z .. m pO g. ' Z ^
Crl co
r. N O O a
m 7 O to C CSR N Q cs
O v7 N (V C \ m W O
�o� NroLNr103 Q. N z i g
m 2 2
Q ^ 8 a e 2 z °
c in e' 0
Q z N ` ? 0 a ¢ 8 a
F� 4J oe y ; co Ra
3dbH0 0 2
O.
I, ..1 Q it �gy 8
Z ^ O _ U]
OI�f ``V mN p (A °
UV �mN ! r[f j W< Wm
aN g6g z o w3LLbld ON m WN O NOO
en
c xg cogo' % a
CJ 4:)111
, Ali mQ0 co N0 l� :1;14t,
m v
o I`
U O N O o
ot
Erl b ...%.414 N Y N
Le? Q C Z /
C m C N O P ' J y —r
O n p �' 0 n �d `4
H d N c 8 30 Ol o _� N V
h hCIDIc s�� m - N,GaE . .�aave-t3� srad�rab rove m
O Z. \ N l3 m N g u c
in Q 3 § P2 CO Im N L
m G.
e `s S Si n 0 O p N a d
r _ - C.
m DOLORES J z c
} V ` 1
O + a w
o
o.
0 p N N m y
O. O m v
m
N CO co n co
m L a
c 2 t.
a G
h
u
le 000"PIP 6 NV00013l0Vd OtIVMOi iS3M q 1c7 ... :r:
Mlen D. (Dave) Miller
P.O. Boa 567 n
Palmer Lake,Colorado 80133
(719)481-2003 • FAX(719)481-3452
Via Fax 303-730-7903 May 18, 1998
Board of County Commissioners
Arapahoe County Colorado
5334 S. Prince Street
Littleton, Colorado 80166-0001
Subject: Union Park Headwater Storage Project
Dear Commissioners:
As originator of the Union Park Project and the Western Headwater Storage Strategy, I am
writing to explain why Arapahoe County should strengthen its farsighted 10 year program to
develop Union Park.
Headwater Storage—Union Park is designed to be the world's first true headwater storage
project. This lead project opens a new water management era that can expand clean water and
power supplies for the Western Region during the 21"Century. (See enclosed U.S. Water News
Editorial dated April 1998.)
Limited Local View vs. Broad Regional View— Since acquiring the Union Park development
rights in 1988, Arapahoe County has viewed this project as a long-term renewable water supply
for its areas that are currently dependent on uncertain ground water and other systems. Under
this limited, stand-alone scenario, an assured 100,000 acre feet of new trans-mountain water
would have a current market value of approximately one billion dollars for the county. However,
if Arapahoe would adopt a broader regional outlook, the drought protection and multiple reuse
benefits for the entire Gunnison, Colorado, Platte, and Arkansas River Basins, could be worth 20
to 40 billion dollars. These unprecedented regional values could be readily verified with the
existing construction cost studies, coupled with a preliminary regional study of the potential
multiple benefits. Local, state, and regional stakeholders would then have the cost-benefit
perspectives needed to make informed decisions on Union Park.
Location, Size, Flexibility—The key to Union Park's unprecedented regional potential is its
900,000 acre feet of storage in a natural off-river site at 10,000 feet altitude in Colorado's wettest
untapped river basin. Union Park may be the world's only reservoir site that can efficiently store
enough snow-melt during heavy run off years to protect four major river environments during a
major drought. A reservoir smaller than 900,000 acre feet could not provide the clean water and
power supplies that are urgently needed throughout the Gunnison, Colorado, Platte, and Arkansas
River Basins during the critical drought cycles.
About 300,000 acre feet of Union Park's carry-over storage is needed to guarantee near-normal
stream flows for the basin of origin during the worst multi-year drought conditions. The
remaining 600,000 acre feet is necessary to guarantee an average annual 100,000 acre feet for
Arapahoe County and its participating Front Range water providers.
Computer modeling by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Two Forks Project confirmed
that an average 60,000 acre feet from Union Park could increase the safe annual yield of existing
Metro Denver reservoirs by 111,000 acre feet. These initial multiplier effects would also further
expand water supplies for Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas stakeholders (including endangered
species), as the increased return flows from Front Range cities are used and reused throughout the
Platte and Arkansas River Basins. Gunnison and Colorado River Basin stakeholders would
experience these same compounding benefits, as clean snow-melt from Union Park would be used
and reused throughout these river systems during multi-year droughts. In addition, there would
be major fish, hydropower, and recreation benefits throughout the region from Nebraska to
Southern California.
Colorado Water Facts—90% of waters that flow out of Colorado are from West Slope river
basins that have 10% of the state's population. The region's Platte and Arkansas River Basins are
viable today, only because of the Big Thompson, Dillon, Homestake, and Fry-Ark Trans-
mountain Projects that were built by farsighted leaders during the 1950s and 60s. Colorado's
Gunnison Branch of the Colorado River is by far the region's largest remaining untapped water
source. Most of Colorado's growing Colorado River Compact losses are from the Gunnison
Riven Gunnison Basin consumptive needs are decreasing, because of the steady switch from an
irrigated farming economy. Union Park will save and use about 6% of the Gunnison River's total
outflow for the region's water-short Platte and Arkansas River Basin needs. Gunnison water
interests are hard pressed to find any beneficial uses for their growing water surplus. (See
enclosed newspaper articles dated May 15, 1998.)
Alternatives to Headwater Storage—The most popular current proposals to satisfy Colorado's
Front Range water needs involve high volume pumping of existing wet year runoff into
underground storage. In theory, these existing East Slope waters would than be readily available
for pumping and delivery when needed during extended droughts. However, Front Range ground
water recharge proposals are seriously flawed for the following fundamental reasons:
• Well pumping, water processing, and maintenance costs will escalate substantially over
time;
• Additional East Slope surface storage would still be required, because surface waters can
not be processed and pumped into wells fast enough to handle peak runoff flows;
• While some Front Range water providers are preoccupied with costly ground water
recharge and long-distance pumping options, Colorado is rapidly losing its invaluable
Colorado River Compact entitlements to federal rule changes and down river growth
areas;
• Headwater reservoirs have major long-term economic and environmental advantages over
all other alternatives;
• The drought insurance and growth benefits from Headwater Storage would be nearly free,
forever, after the 20 year construction bonds are retired.
Opposition to Union Park—There are several unfortunate reasons why some local, state, and
federal entities are opposing Arapahoe County's Union Park Project:
• The unprecedented regional benefits of Union Park have never been documented for
consideration by Western water resource managers, who are unfamiliar with the
9kii57
innovative Headwater Storage vision for the region's water future;
• Federal agencies have recently implemented conflicting hydropower, fish, and recreation
policies on the Colorado River that are designed to flush wet year runoff out of the
potential headwater storage sites of Upper-Basin states;
• Local, state, and federal officials have created artificial legal barriers against the export of
any water from the region's largest untapped river basin;
• Colorado is the only Western state that does not have a statewide water planning process
to build public consensus behind those water projects that are urgently needed for future
generations;
• Colorado's water planning vacuum promotes inefficient, conflicting systems;
• Colorado's costly water court system requires about 70% of the nation's water lawyers
and several trips to the State Supreme Court to formulate and decide critical state water
policy issues.
Aurora's Political Opposition to Union Park—The City of Aurora is trying to politically sabotage
Union Park, while it pursues various ground water recharge and long distance pumping
alternatives.
Why should Aurora citizens be saddled with inefficient systems and escalating water costs, when
their city could join in a cooperative headwater storage project that would provide low-cost, high
quality drought supplies for future Front Range and regional needs? Colorado's Big Thompson
and Dillon Projects are good examples of what can be done when all stakeholders work together
on efficient storage projects for the region's common good. Land use controls, political
boundaries, and institutional inertia should not be barriers to wise development of the region's
water infrastructure.
Union Park Challenge—I respectfully challenge any person or entity to identify an existing or
planned water project that can match the long-term economic and environmental benefits of
Union Park Headwater Storage Project. Arapahoe County can proceed with confidence it has the
world's finest water project.
Thank you for considering these comments.
cerely, sie�J /
Dave Miller
Independent Water Planner
ends: 1. U.S. Water News Editorial on Headwater Storage, April 1998.
2. Gunnison Country Times Articles, May 15, 1998.
cc: Colorado legislators
local, state, and federal water resource entities
g8//5-17
m o y_ c.. 0E s. r. b e ui >... C C C o d N C. o.c R >, Um)
—D .n C >, 3 y e , y0 .0a 0„ OR .a" R E 'a N a. a...a m cn cn m ..N. na,0
p N, c'--, y w m ,7+ y .�:N r;o0 . a a„ c _0 to L E C a — a , , 0 ,_ °x'
�` 3 ° m m Fi R R .tea �" U 7 ° > .0 N O m R O O L N > m +a
7 0 N N m u, °� m R N R .a .a C m C i. m R m
IM • WPive N . o o m a "" .n � ° t. n R Rv ' .- � sm N
�l ° a�ioytto ccavR, ccac.ta`i•a .°'., -aa c, I-. O. > call_ a
CV., i>. 0. 0..n rC `" o m U L .a C,° R OC °) O ._N. 9.) Nti) -C 04.0 m ng N M
w y rR.. y .t.• ^ a) al a)ht y oa 3 4-)
3 to"O.p ti N K 7 w
m g w in y F. y y R y CD,° ryi, N CO Q' -4- '° ^ R C m "°'
WC")° ac r• a v -" Q.) " t.
c3m C ^ 'o " N 3 c � o C C 3 .
O 0 — a o m It. 3 c � 0a'N° � .= c r>. '° d '5 d= u a'NA a,.c .c o
-" .,a Con 0 3 .ma N m >, ca - - y „2.3)
.a m " w E 2 CU C 0-0 ay .-
5 '15 y m CD4-D o
c ca0 .nRooa.ao0 , - yyR � -J. - y , 3c 'Co5
.0 O a> 3 0 y -o N C C i' R N N u^ +� N O. °5 C Cc aD
R d y = .°a 7.a 6 o cma .dy 0. Int, o ac "' r. as w •c a, 3
° > .- m N O C ^ 'C C V N m.0 O aa)i O.i N 0 3 m ha o CO 0 0.
'mil � ° _aR � .n 'Ty .a m ° "N F ^ r- m c a Ry � m
}y Fac o ..a 3y 0 co' n > c., ° .^ c &..-- 3 +°.. `" 0 ° a> t tra OOC 01
fffigC \j y � 7tir� 3Rcd •o3ayy ° cRy � cRaio � .� ^ y '36 r�
rn
al ^ om^a,6md06 t".0 0aCDt, r,. 334, '") Nsy3Rv + o
,omomv;y ° a"iocEEO o° ma; ,' alm >, 002 c
cl. S >> g,CaweDo� ` � ua, a°° .c. mu .c4 � ' omc�a � °y' omcm3
0E- 7 y ro.y M .9 ^C m .N2. ttt?m yu°i tLO. 0 Cy ci) d �°, tom, ai i ,b R o q
ID ;iat a at c^ c > 00 "o c m ^ oc � O .ty .C
> 0O 3 ami .C C .7 R .a 0 L c55, •s` 3'O N aa,, 7 F g), N d R 4. 4D E R C m et
c CJ7 . >> o ^n° ° CD 3 DD ym„ F at
.'c.., y a .cc 0a „,L I •j o 22 = C o IN. °;^cJ y
(11 p O al a ro L.y. ^0 .c aJA YO" N R S] to ." 0,c ' G' a.O R B °
>, N N CD i-
y y tm. _y w ^° C gym' �'� C E ° 'm' .°a 3 > w
N R L' R ._ ° u. O' R N ^y^_ R.� ^ .' N m „m .a c x O 0 m .' 0.
0 3 y �c6 cCa .°Ja r. N +' R .' .O.. R "�. w C N C woo +S R t- .p R 0.
..4,
T1 R .C R .�_,n0 R l N y o N •- m CD.o C .., m•a U a CD ca .'La a,
I t
.,:a
.ma y. .' x > 'L1 R 7 •^la � R > 3 'O °> ^i ' a.°a C^ °) :C 'c7 c.
R R .° m W p go' .E R N C .�3 E. 'o o N .a N y
R E ° ^ m m ca O C ^ ^ 4. CO R °. C .5 a' o •X o C ca
. 1111 3:c c. a ,L va.- 5 FE a oDI 3 o ,..amNa3
`NINi F.0c3ay, `ao •_ � ,' th tuoccac- mocC .2.nomE boo
- 'L aa It)
k m Ex ^ m ov o - c o •E ao� ',.c ° C j>" R II?. 5 °
-' Rom ._ R � .a'° m03 m .D - 066 .' r. 3 � 3
id c N - ' m y . r o '" > E O m m N ° 3 R a
t Pit c.. -o 2 v 0 ,_ R ''-0 0 .. 3 $-•o �'ca 3 CcmD 0 o u 7 rm. ro a) °
d 0 .mi R > m .L o m 'D a C Malt)N 'LJ a, •^ .C m y R F.
( �l EEm R R 7 '� 7 3 .' R Z e r. 0 ° aim' .m> R � o •L .0, .'
W 3140 7^ L m .y-aL R 4N. 1 iin w as .,6' wJ] CD z >C m CD 0 a.0n 'E- y FN„ 0
° R N N m •4az 6-i •- m F. R CC.: N C a N R a .'.� .F. m N
.,. N >' m 3 > .a 0> r. m .ma '�-,' R 'a m :.Li) .00 i. y >t
a°i Tit"
R - ^O
Sr
O y o 0 o N .�^ C y^ m .° O. > 0 C r^ R N ° ��°, m e 3 b
�� ny 1° yL'C .O al � L 7 wC m R.C aI- ce ° C� Q.= R EC
t., L s^"� ate V*0. 3 L o F O i°. +' N V, ..a ,.. ° .' Q 3.L N N 4. 'C m N N m C y ai
CD ui > N 'd c'~" R.C ,L v c° 'b C o cy.tn d F a. .y. ~o F. •y.cc-Q o .N 0
C- .cc 0R c, CD � � y0 .0 ,o'., m F a 0 ° d '. N ^^ nO
.C O N ui n R •.. CD 2 "" a CD ° E N .� a .n C
L tya L .m' u O >° •C m xr rttt m 4' V93 °i d ° L F. f. N O m •O R m F. C ..
- C j-2
m y'O y _ ; ter_ �i .L 4.40.—
y c.)
y N .ma >, 00 h> 0,'y Ea
F>^. ,ma
E O F. I. m R
a O ^, o� r. o .ma rm. 0 r^ '0 ,.C F. Ca a�'i a.•3 � � w rm. aci c m'°,o
•� ,;✓,r. R CDC CL - 0) -CV
N 3 c 'nn C ^'C w a tip' C .R-1 R CDC w ^ c. m •c, 4Ri cyi .m.. m
4': C Con ,c^, •3 3 ° a d 3y c,-.. CR•• .'La ��p a`i �is aR. 3 _ C .a 7 0 to
° m
c c 0 ° o as.0 N R m E N E' � y E,� .nno- 0 C a' F.
aw ^ o f i- w e >, ,- O c m. o E m .n R � a E o ca R R v`' 'b . aci o
a a) '6 ° ° E 0 u m m .a ED.N' N 0 .a .' a. w 0 O 0DNL 'LCDm c ., 0 .n
00 *ea R " ., oA .L g o C O N .' E N N 3 oc0 o c .a in N
O0 .Ctil-r , :• _` N �c0 3 .0a CZ m.E y 0 0 d 'cC . C m E 0 . = .°a .' •�Ti ca 'w et i
^c ta . AyHa,,. ZV! }m, ° ^ R , to- -'_ a°i E Do.C s-im c4- ❑m N R F •^ �:, CD R'n m
`^� Ry c .° CC3 u R m ^R m C E •C..Dy to '' L >, E .mi m +0+ C CI).C C ^ c 6D
,t _ y� -* ' •- �"• N ^ R en c 2 0If3 c C c., CC > .m~.,- d,L C - �lc 3 aGi °ow m i' c aa) '°y ^a
R dyy E g o- R -' ° m ac, 8y � c R '3 , mA o c;),a, c,Crl O E
c„ �c y m t2)
y O m ° ui m y ❑ N 0 C1 y ❑ ti- y .° N lc
>
' N.C y � N .' m N C L e°j 44- ° L .G) °:Dr y.0 21 a,in o'a m
J C0 4-) ca N ; aa) m C m .� m — c �y m � q m m S o
4J 1 m .. u Ca R � p, m C � 4.C CZ 0.a y w, F. R .- � •a .'La m ° 111 A >m> c a p a c..
100
a,. CC car/3 r• E 3 d R E .O O 4. .' ... ° CD 3 CD.' CD .' m L c�a,D m p
CS {� F-IC "" G 0.y 3 .'T'. 'Li. m y •> 'a, = a, o ,: C .— t •Ca) O R^° F ^ N4. o c O co
® 690�/ o e... 0 m m y 0 C ,L' ,L i.. 0, m Lam,, 0 7 .a r 7 e ay ° R 0.
j r 0 ' c 0..C;))..0 C1)"5 aN^° c, E-° .?' c.° E u O 3 E E
sr
50(1
•
•
a
1 ' 1,_;.`f c E t a . . .. ,
dap p..,,. I _s .: : ,. tr.,. ,, :.:.. • ,.,,,_:•:,..• „,•,,, ,,,,
, „ ,. ., .. , „.......,.,4 ... — ,.A t, th. . S
n. .iris- ow'IK.'ta-r3--^,` a •-c...--;�' s NEE
Vol. 119 No,26 9r
The Official Newspaper of Gunnison County for 119 years Funny,.Has li, 1998
Page 14• Friday,May 15,1998•Gunnison Country Times
WET's water proposals go 1 -for-4
PAUL WAYNE FOREMAN become part of the aquifer. direct flows for recreation,fish eral Project),both forwarded by Bureau of Reclamation reaffir-
TIMES STAFF WRITER During the three to five months and wildlife habitat improve- former water board member 'nation of its long-standing pol-
while the runoff subsides, ment,and sedimentation con- Butch Clark, icy disallowing the use of Blue
Several innovative ideas for- stream augmentation occurs trot Water leasing,according to Mesa for water storage by any
warded by the all-volunteer through aquiferseepage. Bratton confirmed WET's Clark,could net the district$6 party other than the bureau,
Watershed Evaluation Team "We think this idea runs assertion that courts have million per year.GULP called Bratton explained.
(WET) received a legal once- contrary to law," Bratton said. upheld creating kayak chutes for piping Blue Mesa water to John McClow, UGRWCD
over by Upper Gunnison River "Storage or to store means by a and improving stream habitat serve potential users from co-counsel,pointed out a simi-
Water Conservancy District dam or in aquifers by unnatural as a way of utilizing water Crested Butte Mountain Resort lar denial prevented Arapahoe
attorney Dick Bratton. means(such as water injection rights. County and Dave Miller from
R Amax while water protecting
WET, comprised of Lynn wells). WET also had proposed junior domestic water right utilizing the Taylor Reservoir Cudlip, Bruce Bartleson,Jim "Naturally stored and using Blue Mesa to store water holders from downstream calls for storage. A successful chal-
Milski, Ralph Clark Jr.,George released water will not be con- ror leasing downstream to Cali- by senior decrees during lenge of the BOR position
Sibley,Scottie Willey, Marty sidered by the court." fornia, Arizona or Nevada,as droughts. would weaken the district's
and Pat Moore and Jed Wallace, WET had recommended well as a local project dubbed Both ideas have been ren- case against Arapahoe and
called for the enhancement of alteration of natural stream GULP(Gunnison Ultimate Lat- dered improbable by a recent Miller.
beaver ponds and wetlands in channels and bankside features
stream headwaters to hold back on the Gunnison River down- Upper Gunnison
spring runoff, allowing it to stream of McCabe Lane to' continued from 1
page water rights n o the Dekm sites in the discount-
The district's conditional alleged water represented by Creek drainage were discount-
Search continues thes1957 amtepa rights arey!
part the district's conditional ed.
the same package of rights decrees, but the priority date "A 1985 report looked at 70
awarded to the Aspinwall Unit, would be 1998 or later. sites," Klein noted. "All had
for water •
r • including Blue Mesa Reservoir. The effect of Brown's recent hydrology problems (insuffi-
■ ■ ojects w
Approximately 88,000 acre- Union Park ruling,that at most tient a callable a ter), and
�+ al feet of storage capacity and 15,000 acre-feet of unappropri- many had geologic problems
1,560-cubic-foot per second pled water exists in the basin, (rock formations unsuitable for
❑ River board Gunnison River back to its stream flow rights in the East excluding conditional water dam construction or incapable
north channel. Most presented River, Cochetopa and Ohio rights,remains unclear. of holding reservoir water)."
must use or lose significant economic,environ- creek drainages are at stake. A popular proposal to build The possibility of enlarging
mental or legal challenges or Kathleen Klein, UGRWCD a diversion structure upstream one of the existing Dome Lake
conditional rights
utilized minor shares of the dis- manager, pointed out that the from the Neversink Camp- reservoirs in the upper
trio's holdings. ground to move a portion of Cochetopa will be explored.
PAUL WAYNE FOREMAN R conditional 88,000 ttranslates
slateso
Nevertheless,lasts, vt a public Sight at most e-fet otas to the Gunnisonnorth rnmo's flow backYet even if each of the
TIMES STAFF WRITER hearing held last November sit- 30,W0-40,0IX1 acre-feet of avail- to its northernmost channel Cochetopa, East River and
izens made clear they expect able water. was considered and rejected. Ohio Creek reservoirs were
The future of lard d'- the district to do what it can to "In the 1950s when the
tional water rights held by theThe oal - d dn feasible, a small a they could
R keen its water age flowing Bureau of sitheGReclamation sized al scenarios,
none dam-building wh s store district's only a ,with ithn ef
Upper Gunn'son rb district through Front Range faucets or the projects in the Gunnison scenarios,none of which comes the rights, the
is uncertain as the search fora to thirsty downstream states. Basin and elsewhere, it did so close to utilizing the district's non-jurisdictional reservoirs as
way to use and thus keep water The UGRWCD has less than according to topography, not
within the basin continued atconditional to the board's rds. In ial follow- a wild card.
a year e identify and work kion ar t on water Times
availability,"nWednesday.
sKlay.n up si the of possible re 27 r air Several upper Tom -
the board's meeting Tuesday. continue engineering on a told the Times on Wednesday. cussion reservoir Creek sites are capable of star-
Upper Gunnison River project or projects to prove dill- "For instance,they identified a locations,every East River site ing 15,000-20,000 acre-feet for
Water Conservancy District gence- meaning the district is 30,000-acre-foot reservoir site was dismissed and in the Ohio domestic, irrigation, fishery
directors reviewed projects proceeding toward putting its up the Cochetopa Valley,but Creek drainage, a Carbon enhancement, ensuring
ranging from human- and idle conditional rights to use- the creek only flows 30,000 Creek location was rejected. instream flows and providing
beaver-built dams to the resur- before Judge Robert Brown's acre-feet a ear."
Y Klein will continue investigat-ad nyd protection,wr Klein n If
a
section of a controversial pro- water court bench in 1999. If Brown finds the district ing sites on Pass Creek and any one were chosen, a
posal to redirect the flow of the See Upper Gunnison on page 14 has failed to demonstrate dili- CunninghamGulch.
the Upper Gunnison'sNon-jurisdictional
R upper Gnfeasibility study d of the
gence, PP Non-m rller tan reser- upper Gunnison and ted in
Uncom-
rights could be dismissed. voirs -smaller than 100 acre- cohere basins completed in
According to John McClow, feet with dams less than 10 feet 1989 could be counted toward
water board attorney, in that high-also are under consider- proving diligence.
instance the rights would dis- ation.These mini-reservoirs are Downsides range from
appear. cheaper to build and easier to inundating the town of Sar-
"The dominant water right permit owing to a far smaller gents to relocation of Highway
is the Aspinall right which can risk to life and property 50 for several miles. Former
put a call on the river,"he said through dam failure. Upper Gunnison manager
Wednesday. "Those are the Board President Mark Schu- Tyler Martineau estimated the
rights that caused Judge Brown macher suggested private cost of construction at$36.4
to rule that the river is over- landowners could construct a million. The directors asked
appropriated but the district's non-jurisdictional reservoir Klein to continue studying this
conditional rights have the using the district's rights option.
same 1957 priority date. through a yet-to-be defined "If we back out of one of
"Keeping the rights has transferal process. these multi-purpose reservoirs,
value because Aspinall cannot "If there is interest,we need we're going to give up a lot of
place a call against them." to hear about it,"he said. "If our water rights,"Schumacher
Outside entities such as we don't use these rights, we said. .
Arapahoe County could file a are going to lose them." Ci G/i-
Hello