New Supply

New Projects Fuel Front Range Growth

Overview:

In Colorado, “new supply” almost always refers to new transmountain diversions from west of the Continental Divide to the Front Range.

• New projects mean new people, and vice versa. New supplies of 100,000 acre-feet provide enough water for 750,000 new residents if they use 120 gallons per person per day.

• Colorado water planners are considering at least ten new projects that combined could transport 1.1 million additional acre-feet from the Western Slope to the Front Range. That is enough water to support 8 million new residents using 120 gallons per person per day, nearly tripling Colorado’s population.

• The Front Range receives 500,000 acre-feet on average from the Western Slope each year.

• The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation stated in 2012 that there is no more water available to develop in the Colorado River, predicting a 3.2 million acre-foot shortfall by 2050.

• While it is unlikely all of these projects will be built, two have already received most of the required permits (the Moffat Tunnel and Windy Gap expansion projects on the Fraser and Upper Colorado Rivers). A third, the Southern Delivery System in Colorado Springs, is now operating.

• Using less water through municipal conservation is cheaper than every one of these projects. The bigger projects are priced at several billion dollars.

• In addition to the new supply projects described below, nearly 100 additional water projects are slated for development in the roundtable basin implementation plans (labeled Identified Projects and Processes, or IPPs).

• Neither The 2015 Water Plan nor the various roundtable basin implementation plans describe any of the new supply projects described here in any significant detail.

The room was tense when Mark Hermundstad, a Grand Junction water attorney who was representing Mesa County at the Colorado River Basin Roundtable, asked whether the Front Range would give up the right to purchase Western Slope irrigation rights if they built another dam on the Western Slope.

“No,” said Eric Kuhn, who was then the general manager of the Colorado River District and a governor-appointee to the IBCC.

“Eric Wilkinson of Northern Water and Jim Lochhead of Denver Water would not agree to this,” Kuhn said. “They won’t give up the right to purchase Western Slope water, nor will Tri-State.”

Tri-State Generation and Power Association owns coal mines, water rights totaling 145 cubic feet per second, and nearly 20,000 acre-feet of storage to operate two massive coal-fired electrical generating plants in Hayden near Craig, Colorado.[1]

“The east slope wants to protect east slope agriculture at the expense of Western Slope agriculture,” Kuhn continued. “Denver Water also reserved the right to purchase Western Slope water rights to make up for any water they lose through a compact call in the 2013 Colorado River Cooperative Agreement if Lake Powell keeps dropping.”[2]

The Colorado basin roundtable was debating whether to sign onto the Seven-Point Conceptual Framework, a controversial document that was the Interbasin Compact Committee’s (IBCC) most tangible achievement after ten years of meetings. The Framework describes conditions that the Front Range must meet so the Western Slope will agree to another transmountain diversion. For years the Colorado basin roundtable has had a position of “not one more drop,” emphasizing that a transmountain diversion to the Front Range should be a last resort option, which it calls “the last tool out of the box.”[3]

Transmountain diversions are a topic that no one wants to acknowledge, yet they have dominated the IBCC and hovered like a cloud at nearly every basin roundtable meeting on both sides of the divide for twelve years. The 2015 Water Plan ducked them entirely , however.

Colorado is obligated to deliver over 10 million acre-feet of water to nine states and Mexico every year. Is there any left to divert to the Front Range? Yes, but only by drying up Western Slope agriculture.

The projects described here are called “new supplies” because they each involve significant infrastructure that results in still-larger large diversions from Colorado’s largest rivers. By hiding them behind obscure names like “Northern Integrated Supply Project” (NISP) or the “Preferred Option Storage Plan,” (PSOP) water providers discourage outside scrutiny and keep citizens from wading into this discussion. But the concepts are simple—they entail building new reservoirs or enlarging existing dams to store more water, or constructing pipelines to transport more water.

Like the project names, the names of the players are also difficult to sort out. If an organization includes the terms “conservation,” “conservancy,” or “district,” or if the project title is incomprehensible, its mission is probably securing more water for increased population growth. If its name includes words like “watershed,” “healthy,” or “friends,” it probably is a nonprofit or citizen group that opposes a water project. But beware, and look behind the name. “Stewardship” is another loaded term—for example, the Colorado Water Congress’s “stewardship committee” is targeted specifically at defeating a public trust doctrine initiative should one ever be placed in front of the voters.[4]

New supply proponents claim that if we do not capture the water , it will be wasted, traveling downstream to benefit California, Arizona, or Nevada, or to Nebraska in the case of the South Platte, or to New Mexico and Texas in the case of the Rio Grande.

But Colorado already consumes more than its share of the Upper Colorado Basin Compact—we consume 55-58% while our designated share is 51.75%. Colorado is well into a “ten-year penalty box,” meaning Colorado alone must cut back consumption if a compact call is made under the 1922 Colorado River Compact to deliver more water to Lake Powell.[5]

Water buffaloes say that is only because New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are not using their full share of Colorado River water. We cannot know if holding back 50,000 or 300,000 more acre-feet each year now will haunt us in ten years. We know that Colorado has experienced droughts spanning decades and even centuries in the past. Most scientists studying this say the future will be warmer and snow packs will be lower.

Eric Kuhn, former manager of the Colorado River District, has said it is already happening. Snowpack in the Rockies was higher than normal from 2012 through 2017 , but Powell and Mead reservoirs didn’t rise. They’re hovering right at the edge where states will have to cut back their because there isn’t enough to go around.[6]

Some on the Western Slope, including Kuhn, believe that another transmountain diversion is less and less likely with each passing year, due to both the current drought and the warming climate. They see little harm in agreeing to the seven-point framework, the “protections” the Front Range must agree to before taking more from the Western Slope, since the likelihood that a major transmountain diversion gets built is declining year by year.

Let the new supply fanatics on the IBCC “keep drinking the Kool-Aid,” as several Western Slope IBCC members cynically share.

But skeptics believe the seven-point framework are too vague to be meaningful. I fear they will be held against the Western Slope as the drumbeat for more Western Slope water grows. The seven points are voluntary—Front Range water providers aren’t obligated to follow them. While we were debating them, Northern Water obtained approvals to divert 30,000 more acre-feet at Windy Gap and Denver Water negotiated the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement to take 18,000 more acre-feet from the Fraser River through the Moffatt Tunnel. Together, these new diversions will increase annual diversions from the upper Colorado River to 80% of its average annual flow. That’s about four times more than what experts consider healthy!

Denver Water eliminated Western Slope opposition to its Moffat Firming project in the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA), but the agreement goes way further than this. It is a bewildering 51-page document with twenty attachments, addressing all of Denver Water’s century-old expansion plans for Western Slope water. The seventeen Western Slope governments and water providers that signed it can never again challenge these development rights. It could affect Colorado water development for decades or centuries to come. Instead of settling once and for all Denver’s plans to take water from the Western Slope, it paves the way for Denver’s continued water project expansion plans, with some concessions.

Table 5.1 A table by Ransford, breaking down the CRCA

Figure 5.1, Fixed table by Ransford detailing new supply projects[20]

Homestake II

Homestake II is a second reservoir planned for Homestake Creek, a tributary to the Eagle River near Redcliff. It would provide another 20,000 acre-feet to Colorado Springs and Aurora, and 10,000 acre-feet for multiple Western Slope entities including Vail Resorts, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, and the Colorado River District.[21] In dry years, firm yield drops by about half, to 12,500 acre-feet for Colorado Springs and Aurora, and to 4,000 acre-feet for Western Slope entities. “Firm yield” refers to water supplies that are certain, such as water held back in a dam above the “dead pool” level.

The plan is to divert water from Homestake Creek and its tributaries near Camp Hale below Tennessee Pass and to store it in Eagle Park Reservoir just west of the Climax molybdenum mine, or in the potential Whitney Creek Reservoir, from where water would be pumped up to Homestake Reservoir and the tunnel leading to the east slope.[22]

Figure 5.2 Map by Boyles of Homestake II project

Homestake II will drown 12 to 93 acres of wetlands depending on how big the resulting reservoir is, and it will require a lot of energy to pump water 1,090’ up to Homestake Reservoir. The firm yield would provide enough water for 30,000 more residents in the Eagle River Valley on the Western Slope and 135,000 more in Colorado Springs and Aurora, assuming each resident uses 120 gallons each day.[23]

In 2010, water providers including the Colorado River District, whose original purpose was to keep water on the Western Slope, signed the Eagle River MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). It resolved 15 years of litigation between Aurora and Eagle River valley entities, and quietly kept Homestake II moving forward. Learning from their 1988 defeat when Eagle County commissioners used 1041 powers to stop Homestake II, Colorado Springs and Aurora now agree that Homestake II should provide water for Eagle Valley water providers as well—former opponents are being bought off to gain their assent. In 2014 Aurora appropriated $60,000 to pay consultants to keep its conditional water rights in Homestake II alive.[24]

Surprisingly, John Currier, now the former chief engineer at the Colorado River District, briefed the Colorado River District board in early 2017 that there was insufficient demand for the water that the Colorado River District now has for sale, calling into question the need for a new Whitney Creek Reservoir.

More Fraser River Water Into Moffat Tunnel

Denver Water now diverts 60% of the Fraser River’s annual flow through the Moffat Tunnel to Gross Reservoir above Boulder, and it is planning [BG16] to take up to 15% more.[25] Denver Water captures 26 separate tributaries in the Fraser River Valley on the north side of Berthoud Pass before they make it to the Fraser River, effectively girdling the river. This water is then diverted through ditches to the Moffat diversion pipe that runs alongside the train tunnel, visible from the Winter Park ski slopes .[26] The Moffat pipe built in 1937 can divert 100,000 acre-feet a year, but Denver Water typically only diverts about half that amount. Denver Water hopes to increase its annual diversion by another 18,000 acre-feet, enough water for 45,000 more Front Range homes or 134,000 more residents.[27]

“The Fraser River is the river in Colorado that is the most heavily depleted,” said Drew Peternell of Trout Unlimited. “It's just really beat up. They take water off the peak, rather than drying the river completely,” Peternell said. "Eventually, all these projects start to add up and you get a flat line and then you're not going to have a healthy, functioning ecosystem.” [28]

Figure 5.3 Color photo, by TBD, of Jim Creek

Jim Creek, one of the tributaries captured below Berthoud pass.[29] Denver Water says increased Fraser River diversions will actually improve the river ecosystem because up to 2,500 acre-feet will be released when the rivers “really need it.”

Figure 5.4 Color photo, by TBD, of pipe in Grand County

Gross Reservoir

To store the extra water, Denver Water is increasing the height of Gross Reservoir from 340 to 471 feet, which will triple its capacity from 44,000 acre-feet to 117,000 acre-feet. [30] This will double Gross Reservoir’s footprint from 418 to 818 acres, drowning another square mile of national forest. The Gross Reservoir expansion would set aside 5,000 acre-feet of storage for water that is already owned by Boulder and Lafayette, allowing them to release the water when South Boulder Creek is low, guaranteeing it will not run dry.[31]

Figure 5.5 Photo illustration by TBD of Gross Reservoir expansion area

Gross Reservoir’s footprint will nearly double in size.[32]

The reservoir expansion will nearly double the reservoir footprint. The bathtub ring around the lake will likely be more pronounced, as a larger reservoir is likely to fluctuate more in volume, especially in the face of a warming climate.

Denver Water claims this project is necessary to bolster the northern half of its service area, which receives only 20% of the water that Denver diverts from the Western Slope. The remaining 80% comes from the South Platte River through its southern collection system, stored in Antero, Eleven Mile, Cheesman, Strontia Springs, and Chatfield Reservoirs, and from the Blue River via Dillon Reservoir.

Despite taking 18,000 more acre-feet from the Fraser River, Denver Water claims that the Colorado River will actually be better off.[33] That is because Denver will stop diverting water when stream temperatures reach 70oF on the Fraser or 74.8oF on the Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir. For comparison, the average year-round surface ocean temperature in Baja California ranges from 73 to 75oF as one moves south through the Gulf of California. The town of Fraser, Colorado, is 9,100 feet above sea level, almost 2 miles higher than the Gulf of Colorado.

For the first time since it began diverting water in 1937, Denver Water is willing to leave water behind if necessary to keep the Fraser River from collapsing. It has also committed to spending $12 million on stream enhancements from 2015-2021, provided it receives approval for the project. It amounts to less than 1% of the $1.2 billion revenue that Denver Water will collect from customers over those years.[34] It is also less than 3% of the estimated $340 million cost of the Gross Reservoir expansion.

Figure 5.6 Map by TBD (Boyles?) of Moffat Tunnel and Windy Gap projects

Windy Gap Expansion

The Windy Gap firming project will divert 30,000 more acre-feet from the Colorado River just below its confluence with the Fraser River below Granby. That’s enough water for 223,000 more people on the Front Range. Once water is “firmed,” it becomes what water insiders call “wet water.”

Cities that will receive water from the Windy Gap expansion include Broomfield, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, Erie, Evans, Loveland, Fort Lupton, Berthoud (served by the Little Thompson Water District), and Dacono, Firestone, and Fredrick served by the Central Weld County Water District.[35] These water providers are expected to serve about 825,000 residents by 2050, up from 250,000 in 2015.[36]

The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in Greeley, known as Northern Water, will operate the project using its existing infrastructure . Windy Gap Reservoir, the small dam 2 miles west of Granby along Highway 40, was built in 1985. It is the last on-channel dam built on the Colorado River. It stops  the entire Colorado River in a shallow reservoir where whirling disease thrives in the mud and slack water held back by the dam.[37] As part of its environmental mitigation, Northern has agreed to re-route the Colorado River around Windy Gap Reservoir, another reason the Colorado River is called the most engineered river in the world.

The Windy Gap and Moffat Tunnel diversions will increase total diversions to 80% of the Colorado River’s average annual flow. Scientists at the Nature Conservancy report that riparian health is damaged when as little as 10 to 20% of annual flow is diverted.[38] How can air-breathing humans relate to this? Diverting 70% of a river flow could be like living permanently at the top of Mt. Everest, known to climbers as the death zone because each breath captures only 1/3 the oxygen compared to sea level.[39]

The Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife has noted significant declines in trout size and numbers compared to historic norms in the Colorado River near Parshall. Trout Unlimited maintains that flushing flows—high flows that flush sediments caught in the riverbed—are particularly needed on the upper Colorado River to maintain river health. The group also recommends that no water be diverted from the river once temperatures reach 64°F. Both the Windy Gap and Moffat Tunnel expansions will make these problems worse. Colorado Parks and Wildlife plans to address this problem by narrowing the river and building rock jetties out into it to engineer a waterway with a productive fishery.

Figure 5.7 Color photo of Windy Gap dam

The parasite that causes whirling disease thrives in the slack water behind the dam across the Colorado River at Windy Gap.[40]

Figure 5.8 Aerial view of Windy Gap Reservoir

The Colorado River flows into a box with concrete borders at Windy Gap. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District proposes routing the Colorado River, which can be seen meandering into the box at the top of the photo, around the right side of the dam.

Windy Gap Reservoir and the pump to lift the water to Granby are already in place. To “firm up” this water, Northern needs more reservoirs on the Front Range to store it. It is building Chimney Hollow Reservoir, located near Carter Lake west of Loveland, to store 90,000 acre-feet.[41] The Colorado-Big Thompson project entitles Northern to divert additional water from the Colorado River, but Northern Water can’t until it has a place to store and “firm up” the water. Chimney Hollow Reservoir solves that problem.[42]

At the July 24, 2017 Colorado basin roundtable meeting, it was quietly announced that the Army Corps of Engineers had issued favorable rulings for both Gross Reservoir and Chimney Hollow Reservoir, the last two requirements holding up these projects. Neither announcement raised a single question from the audience. Chris Treese, who was the director of legislative affairs for the River District at the time, said Denver Water should be commended because it was already practicing environmental mitigation on the Fraser River in advance of when it had to.

The NISP Project

Figure 5.9 Map by Boyles of the NISP project

Northern Water plans to capture the Poudre River’s peak flows in the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP.[43] According to the water utility, “NISP will store excess water currently leaving the state in years of abundance.”[44] In other words, NISP would capture the Poudre’s peak runoff in high flow years, nearly doubling its annual average diversion from the Poudre River. The Poudre typically peaks at 900 cfs in Fort Collins every June, but NISP would reduce this by nearly half.[45] The project involves constructing two reservoirs, the 170,000 acre-foot Glade Reservoir, and 45,000 acre-foot Galeton Reservoir about 30 miles east of Fort Collins.

Glade Reservoir will be located north of Fort Collins near Ted’s Place where Highway 14 heads up the Poudre River to Cameron Pass. It will be larger than neighboring Horsetooth Reservoir, flooding 7 miles of Highway 287 and re-routing it further east. Northern Water says Glade Reservoir will provide a recreational amenity to Northern Colorado, that is, more boating and fishing. But since it is in a relatively flat valley, its long receding shorelines will turn into mud flats when lake levels drop. The shallow depth would likely result in algal blooms and poor water quality common to Front Range reservoirs.

“NISP will not dry up the Poudre,” former Northern Water manager Eric Wilkinson said at a NISP rally in Berthoud on July 2, 2015. Wilkinson says that Glade Reservoir will guarantee 50 cfs down the Poudre in the summer, and 25 cfs flows in the winter. Former U.S. Senator Cory Gardner, a Republican from Weld County, said it would capture water that otherwise flows to Nebraska, preventing the loss of water that Colorado could otherwise use. But Gary Wockner, executive director of Save the Poudre, said it would “turn the Poudre into a muddy, stinking ditch through Fort Collins.”[46]

Galeton Reservoir will be filled with water pumped up from the South Platte River. It will be released to farmers lower on the South Platte who now rely on Poudre River water for their irrigation needs. That will allow more water to be stored in Glade Reservoir. Greeley also plans to expand Seaman Reservoir and Ft. Collins plans to expand Halligan Reservoir on the North Fork of the Poudre River, from 11,400 acre-feet currently to 67,625 acre-feet in the combined reservoirs, a six-fold increase.[47]

Fourteen Front Range municipalities support the NISP project, since it would provide enough water for 100,000 new homes and nearly 300,000 new residents. The table below includes Ft. Collins’ proposal to expand Halligan Reservoir and Greeley’s proposal to expand Seaman Reservoir. Technically, they are not part of NISP, but they are included here to indicate planned water supply expansion in the Northeast corner of Colorado.

Table 5.2 NISP participants

The World’s Largest Water Park: The Green Mountain Reservoir Pumpback

Rube Goldberg would be impressed with the Green Mountain and Wolcott pumpbacks, a scheme to pump Colorado River water up to a reservoir above Wolcott and then to pump water back up from Green Mountain Reservoir to Dillon Reservoir in pipes alongside the Blue River. This would keep the same slug of water perpetually recirculating in the Blue River between Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs, all so Denver can send more water from Dillon Reservoir to Denver.[48]

Figure 5.10 Map by Boyles of the Wolcott and Green Mountain pumpbacks

When Congress authorized the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) project in 1937 to send water from the Colorado River east through Grand Lake to Weld County, Green Mountain Reservoir was built on the Blue River to assure late summer flows to Grand Junction farmers. Denver Water built Dillon Reservoir higher up on the Blue River in the 1960s. Dillon Reservoir can store 252,678 acre-feet, five times the water it typically sends through the Roberts Tunnel to the north fork of the South Platte River near Grant on Highway 285. Dams typically release about one-third of the amount stored, which means Dillon Reservoir has excess capacity. If Green Mountain Reservoir could release less, Denver Water figures that more water could be sent through the Roberts Tunnel to Denver.

Denver Water claimed its water right was superior to Green Mountain Reservoir since it first planned to build Dillon Reservoir as early as 1914, claiming a conditional water as of that date. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, holding that sending an engineer on a road trip in the 1920s to look around was not enough to perfect Denver’s conditional water right (that might well be enough today given the minimal due diligence standards now required by water court). The 1954 Colorado Supreme Court decision, known as the Blue River Decree that we’ve seen before, means that Denver has to release water from Dillon Reservoir to Green Mountain Reservoir so it can then be released to Grand Junction farmers downstream.[49]

According to Denver, there’s a nifty solution, and it requires two pumpbacks. Like it sounds, a “pumpback” involves pumping water back up to the place where it originated. The first involves pumping water up from the Colorado River near State Bridge south along Highway 131 to a new reservoir on Alkali Creek. This water can then be released into the Eagle River near Wolcott where it will join the Colorado River near Dotsero, replacing the late summer irrigation water that Green Mountain Reservoir now provides. Another hugely energy-intensive pump on the Blue River will pump water from Green Mountain Reservoir back up to Dillon Reservoir, continuously, so that in effect the same pool of water keeps running down the Blue River between Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs.

Dan Birch, formerly with the River District, said this will actually enhance recreation in Summit County since it will increase the Blue River’s flow, which gets so low that it is rarely kayaked even though it is one of the easier and more scenic rivers in the state.[50] This is another illustration of a “multi-purpose” project. But it would also increase the mineral content of Dillon Reservoir, since phosphorous levels gradually increase as the water recirculates between the two reservoirs. The price tag for this project is $600 million.

The real casualty, again, is the Colorado River since less water will be released down the Blue River from Green Mountain Reservoir. The Blue River joins the Colorado River at Kremmling, so less water will flow down the Colorado River for the next eighty miles until it joins the Eagle River at Dotsero. Former Trout Unlimited vice president Ken Neubecker, expressed concern about further de-watering that section of the Colorado River. Flows would get so low, he says, that “You won't need a bridge to get across the river.”

Raising Pueblo and Turquoise Reservoirs

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District hopes to enlarge Pueblo Reservoir by 54,000 acre-feet and Turquoise Reservoir by 19,000 acre-feet by adding 12 feet to the height of each dam.[51] The reservoirs are part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, or Fry-Ark, authorized by President Kennedy in 1962 to divert water from the Fryingpan River to the Arkansas River near Leadville for use by farmers in the Lower Arkansas basin on the Front Range.

Figure 5.11 Photo by BGS of Turquoise Reservoir

Turquoise Reservoir sits on the east side of Hagerman Pass, with the Fryingpan drainage on the other side of the divide. The snowy peak on the horizon is iconic Mt. Sopris above Carbondale. PSOP is beguilingly simple—increase Turquoise and Pueblo Reservoirs by 12’ so that another 73,000 acre-feet can be diverted from the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan drainages to the East slope.

Fry-Ark is a misnomer because the project also diverts water from the Roaring Fork River, Hunter Creek and its tributaries, Midway and No Name creeks. In all, sixteen diversion structures on the Western Slope divert water into 19 tunnels that stretch for 29 miles.[52] Water is initially stored in Turquoise Reservoir five miles west of Leadville or in Twin Lakes below Independence Pass before it is released down the Arkansas River to Pueblo.

The Southeastern District believes additional storage space is needed to meet the projected 2025 storage demand. Ten participants including Colorado Springs and Pueblo have agreed to pay the planning and development costs for the reservoir enlargement.[53] They have committed to pay for 58,125 additional acre-feet of storage space, with costs determined by the amount of storage space each participant has signed up for in the enlarged reservoirs. The first step is a feasibility study , which Congress must authorize since the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates the Fry-Ark Project.

Cities on the Arkansas River have lobbied Congress for decades to authorize the reservoir expansions, but Pitkin County has opposed it.

Figure 5.12 Map by Boyles? Of Colorado Spring water delivery system

Figure 5.13 Map of Fry-Ark Project

This map shows the 3 main storage reservoirs for the Fry-Ark project. Ruedi Reservoir on the left was built to protect Western Slope water interests, and particularly agriculture. Turquoise Reservoir in the middle receives water diverted from the Fryingpan River above Basalt, and Homestake and Cross Creeks above Minturn. The water is then piped to the Mt. Elbert Forebay at the bottom, where it then drops down to the power plant next to Twin Lakes, generating power in the process.

The Bureau of Reclamation’s Complicated Water Politics

The Bureau of Reclamation was created in 1902 to “reclaim the West” with irrigation projects. The Bureau built over 340 dams that are at least 50’ high or store at least 25,000 acre-feet, all west of the 100th Meridian. Sixty-two are located in Colorado.[54] BuRec built and operates the largest dams in the West, including Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River and Hoover and Glen Canyon dams on the Colorado River.

In Colorado, BuRec built the two largest reservoirs in the state, Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River and Granby Reservoir on the Colorado. It also built the collection and distribution systems for C-BT and Fry-Ark, the two most extensive transmountain diversions in Colorado, administered, respectively, by Northern and Southeastern.  

Today BuRec has a $1.1 billion budget and 5,344 employees, delivering irrigation water to one of every five farmers in the West. [55] It’s also the second largest power producer in the West.[56] Each year it receives $900 million from the sale of power but since spends only $440 million operating its facilities, so power sales actually turn a profit for BuRec.[57] As the drumbeat to remove dams grows each year, particularly the four dams on the Snake River that have destroyed a productive salmon fishery for decades, dam opponents must account for the lost power revenue if the dams are removed. Power sales fund many programs in the West, including endangered fish recovery efforts, and every recipient of these funds must be dealt with.

The Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming face a Colorado River Compact call if Lake Powell fails to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet each year to Lake Mead on a ten-year rolling average, but declining power revenue will likely precipitate a crisis well before deliveries drop below an average of 7.5 million acre-feet. Dam operators will not permit Lake Powell to fall below the level needed to generate power (3,490 feet above sea level). They prefer to keep lake levels at 3,525’ since that much “head,” the vertical height of water above the power turbines, is needed to properly operate the turbines.

“Demand management” is water-speak for cutting back consumption, and that can only realistically occur if farmers cut back on irrigation. At first the Upper Basin states agreed that Colorado would have to reduce consumption by 100,000 acre-feet, meaning that Colorado farmers would reduce irrigation consumption by the same amount. That target doubled twice between 2013 and 2015 to 400,000 acre-feet according to Louis Meyer, formerly of the Colorado basin roundtable. Demand management practiced on that scale could result in drying up 20-30% of irrigated agriculture on Colorado’s Western Slope.[58]

BuRec controls Green Mountain Reservoir on the Blue River, Ruedi Reservoir on the Fryingpan River, Granby Reservoir on the Colorado River, and the three reservoirs known as the Aspinall Unit on the Gunnison River, including Blue Mesa Reservoir. It also controls Navajo Reservoir on the San Juan River in New Mexico, and Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge reservoirs on the Green River. In short, BuRec controls the dam releases that both fill and empty Lake Powell.

BuRec has always been intensely political, with Eastern politicians initially criticizing irrigation projects in the arid West as “get-rich” boondoggles for land speculators. Rather than touting irrigation benefits, dam proponents instead diverted Congress’ attention to the benefits of power generation. When Congress authorized the Boulder Canyon Project to build Hoover Dam In 1928, the spigot opened for a fifty-year stream of appropriations to BuRec from the general fund of the United States. The Animas-La Plata project near Durango was the last major BuRec project, funded just as the nation’s dam building spree was nearing its end.

In the first iteration of its basin implementation plan, the Arkansas basin roundtable identified PSOP as its most important IPP project to continue its population growth. In 2009, Aurora and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District sent letters to Colorado’s congressional delegation requesting that Congress appropriate funds to study PSOP. Senator Mark Udall refused to move forward without consensus from all members of the Colorado congressional delegation, as well as the agreement of all stakeholders.[59] Those stakeholders include Pitkin County, which has always opposed PSOP, and BuRec.

Any additional water that is diverted to the Front Range in a PSOP expansion (or any other new transmountain diversion) will no longer flow to Lake Powell. If BuRec expands Turquoise and Pueblo Reservoirs, that ultimately means that Lake Powell power revenue could decline, yet another wrinkle in the tangled web that is water in the West.

Southern Delivery System: Water from Pueblo to Colorado Springs

The newest supply project currently under construction in Colorado is the Southern Delivery System, a pipeline to deliver up to 52,000 acre-feet from Pueblo Reservoir to Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security and Pueblo West. That’s enough water for over 100,000 new homes or 315,000 additional residents. Mark Pifher of Colorado Springs Utilities directed the $880 million project, which began delivering water in 2016. In the next ten years two additional reservoirs will be built as the region grows into the new supplies.[60]

Like farmers, cities feel the pressure to use it or lose it.

“Undeveloped water rights are like $100 bills blowing down the street—someone will grab them and use them for their own benefit,” a 2014 Colorado Springs Business Journal article touting the Southern Delivery System said.[61]

 “This will be our last pipeline,” according to Colorado Springs Utility’s late water resources manager Gary Bostrom . “We will never be able to develop a new water delivery system. When SDS is finished, that’s it.”

Yes, but what about Colorado Springs Utilities’ conditional water rights to divert 20,000 more acre-feet from the Roaring Fork River to Twin Lakes, and 10,000 more acre-feet in the Eagle River MOU?

The Western Slope has heard that refrain many times before.

Figure 5.14 Map of Southern Delivery System

By 2045 Colorado Springs developers plan to surpass Denver and become the state’s largest city.

Colorado Springs City Engineer Edwin W. Sawyer said in 1901, “It seems to me that nothing except the lack of water can stop the growth of a city so desirable for residence as this. Our people are becoming aroused to the need of securing at once all the available reservoir sites and water rights.”[62]

Colorado Springs’ water supply network is just as extensive as Denver Water’s, as the map below attests.

It is a partner in two new supply projects discussed above, Homestake II in the Eagle River drainage, and PSOP in the Fryingpan River drainage. Whether or not these are built, Colorado Spring’s ultimate water source will be drying up more and more agriculture, both on the Front Range and Western Slope.

Flaming Gorge Pipeline to Denver

Fort Collins entrepreneur Aaron Million was crusading to build a 550-mile pipeline in 2014 from Flaming Gorge Reservoir on the Green River east along Interstate 80 through Wyoming and then south along Interstate 25 to the Front Range.

Million said it would deliver up to 250,000 acre-feet a year as far south as Pueblo.[63] That’s enough water for 2.8 million people assuming they use a responsible 120 gallons per day and reuse half of it. Million applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a license after the Army Corps of Engineers panned the project in 2011.[64] He also requested a $150,000 grant from the CWCB in July 2014 to study the project.

Figure 5.15 Map of three big potential pumpback projects

Caption: The Flaming Gorge pipeline would carry water 550 miles from Wyoming to Colorado. [65]

The CWCB had previously studied the Flaming Gorge pipeline, concluding it was premature to support it until first determining whether there is enough unused water in the Colorado River to support it. If no more water is available, which seemed more and more likely as Lakes Mead and Powell dropped to 40% full in 2015, spending $9 billion on the Flaming Gorge pipeline was unjustified. When it tried to determine this in 2009, the CWCB could not reach consensus, concluding that zero to 900,000 acre-feet was potentially available. Colorado River District general manager Eric Kuhn, as knowledgeable on this subject as anyone in Colorado, says the zero-to-900,000 acre-foot range is likely legitimate, attesting to the wide range of river flows that the river is likely to experience in any given year.

Flaming Gorge Reservoir is formed by a large dam on the Green River. The Green drains the west side of the spectacular Wind River Range in Wyoming before flowing through the northwest corner of Colorado in Dinosaur National Park and into the Colorado River in Canyonlands National Park. 

As the largest tributary to the Colorado, the Green supplies much of the 82.5 million acre-feet that the Upper Basin states are required to deliver to Lake Powell every ten years.[66] If Colorado withdraws 250,000 acre-feet a year from Flaming Gorge Reservoir, that totals 2.5 million acre-feet every 10 years, or 3.3% of the Upper Basin’s total delivery obligation.

The Flaming Gorge diversion to Colorado could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, causing Arizona and the other Lower Basin states to make a compact call on the river. That would shut down not only the Flaming Gorge pipeline but many more senior water rights as well, since water rights get called out one by one until enough water flows into Lake Powell to meet the call.

The Colorado River District believed that if the Flaming Gorge project had proceeded, it would have likely that no further diversions could be made from the Colorado River.

“It will be game over for the Western Slope,” says Jim Pokrandt, who at the time was communication director for the Colorado River District and chair of the Colorado roundtable.

Experts at Western Resource Advocates think this is the most expensive new supply option on the table , with a projected price tag of $7 to $9 billion. At that price, water costs $32,000 per acre-foot. If only 150,000 acre-feet are delivered, the cost jumps to more than $53,000 per acre-foot.[67]

Further complicating matters, the proposed Flaming Gorge project will also likely require the buy-in of Wyoming and Utah.

I asked Dennis Strong, who directed the Utah Division of Water Resources until retiring in 2013, whether Utah supported Colorado’s Flaming Gorge water grab.[68] He said, yes, as long as Colorado did not object to Utah’s proposal to pump 100,000 acre-feet from Lake Powell to St. George, Utah. Residents near Flaming Gorge feel differently, since Western Resource Advocates estimates that withdrawing 250,000 acre-feet annually from Flaming Gorge Reservoir could lower the recreation quality and cost $30 to $40 million in lost tourism revenue.[69]

Figure 5.16 Color photo of Flaming Gorge Reservoir

Flaming Gorge’s thriving recreation and rafting industries would suffer if 250,000 acre-feet were delivered to Denver every year.[70]

Strong also stated that if Utah residents could conserve more and reduce use by 25%, that would provide 75% of the water Utah estimates it needs to keep growing. Conservation—people using less—is by far the cheapest “new supply,” since it requires far less infrastructure.

The Flaming Gorge Pipeline raises the specter of a compact call because it is so big—250,000 acre-feet is nearly as much water as Denver Water currently provides annually to 1.3 million people.

But every one of these new supply projects, and especially the larger ones, increases the chances of a compact call.

Yampa Pumpback

Colorado is also eyeing the Yampa River for a major transmountain diversion, this one for 300,000 acre-feet per year. That’s enough water for 3.3 million additional residents.

The Yampa River starts in the Flat Tops, runs through Steamboat Springs, and joins the Green River in Dinosaur National Park about 90 miles downstream from Flaming Gorge Reservoir.

Northern Water says this will basically solve the South Platte Basin’s 400,000 acre-feet municipal water shortage projected for 2030. Northern Colorado touts the Yampa Pumpback as a way to prevent the South Platte Basin from losing 335 more square miles of farmland (216,000 acres).

Figure 5.17 map of Yampa Pumpback

The Yampa pipeline would span 250 miles and pass beneath three mountain ranges, requiring 45 to 70 miles of tunnels.[71] “Northern is committed to searching for ways to prevent more and more farms from being dried up while at the same time providing benefits for the state as a whole. We believe this study shows real promise, and the project definitely warrants further consideration,” said Eric Wilkinson, Northern Colorado’s former general manager.

Northern Colorado claims the project merits support because spring flows on the Yampa, which can exceed 20,000 cfs, could be put to beneficial use rather than flowing unused into Utah.

Northern says it would never divert more than 2,000 cfs, nor would it take water when the Yampa drops to 1,000 cfs or less.[72] For comparison, the Colorado River along Interstate 70 in Shoshone Canyon above Glenwood Springs typically flows 1,450 cfs all year except during higher spring runoffs.

The water would be stored in a 500,000 acre-foot off-channel reservoir located off the Yampa River in a nearby basin. The reservoir would likely lose at least 20,000 acre-feet to evaporation each year.[73] Some water would be available for Yampa irrigators, but most would be pumped to the Front Range where a new 75,000 acre-foot reservoir would be built to store it. Northern estimates it would cost $3.9 billion.[74]

Three different pipeline routes have been suggested, differing primarily in the degree to which they disturb national forest lands and generate the inevitable permitting controversies.

As with the Flaming Gorge pipeline, the Colorado River District is concerned that this project is so large that no further diversions could be made to benefit the Western Slope. The only Western Slope beneficiaries would be a handful of Yampa Basin irrigators. The tunnels would transport 500 cfs with three lifts of nearly 1,000 vertical feet each requiring nearly 300,000 horsepower.[75] The energy requirements would be enormous.

The Big Straw

In 1988 and again in 2000, Colorado considered building a pipeline from the Utah border to Denver along Interstate 70 to transport 280,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water to Denver.[76]

Dubbed the “Big Straw,” voters turned down the $2 billion referendum proposed in 2003 to build it. That was only a year after the 2002 drought, the worst in 500 years. The advantage of the Big Straw is that it would not take water from the Colorado River until it nearly reached the Utah border, thus protecting river flows upstream in Colorado.

Figure 5.18 Map of Big Straw pumpback plan

Like nearly every other new supply project, the Big Straw has not come up in Colorado River basin roundtable meetings. In 2002, journalist Allen Best wrote “Regardless of the opposition—past or present—the Big Straw is very much alive.”

Butch Clark, an environmental planner in Gunnison, developed the Big Straw concept almost in jest, partly as an alternative to three transmountain diversion alternatives being developed to deliver water from the Gunnison Basin to the Front Range. He hoped to convince water planners that conservation was a better and cheaper alternative. Ironically, Front Range water providers and politicians desiring a faster solution than conservation took Butch Clark’s proposal seriously.

“Everybody seems to think this is some kind of environmental panacea," said Brent Uilenberg of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, "but in fact, it has some potentially disastrous consequences."

The Denver Post reported in 2003 that while the Big Straw was feasible, it would cost as much as $15 billion, or over $50,000 an acre-foot in capital construction costs alone. Three days later, the Post reported it would cost every household in the state $7,350 to build the Big Straw project, and at least double every resident’s present monthly water bills just to operate it. 

So, while talk of the Big Straw has fallen to the wayside, it is included here because it is no different in principle than Aaron Million’s proposal to divert 250,000 acre-feet from Flaming Gorge Reservoir to Denver, or Northern Colorado’s plan to tunnel through three mountain ranges and divert 300,000 acre-feet from the Yampa River to Fort Collins.

These seem outlandish, and yet they are brought to the negotiating table with a straight face. They are also far smaller than the California State Water Project, which delivers 2.4 million acre-feet each year from the Central Valley to Southern California.[77]

At the July 28, 2014 Colorado River Basin Roundtable meeting, Dave Merritt, former Chief Engineer of the Colorado River District , said that Colorado was entitled to develop 700,000 more acre-feet of the Colorado River.[78] The state currently uses about 2.4 million acre-feet annually but is entitled to use at least 3.1 million acre-feet under the terms of the Compact. In theory, he’s correct since that’s what the 1922 Colorado River Compact says.

But is there actual water there to support it?

The Bureau of Reclamation does not believe so. Its 2013 water availability study suggests the Colorado River will be over-appropriated by 3.2 million acre-feet by 2050, and that Colorado will have to reduce its water use by 300,000 acre-feet between now and then. If they are correct and we develop the Big Straw, the Flaming Gorge pipeline, or the Yampa Pumpback, we would have to reduce our use by as much as 600,000 acre-feet by 2050. Tell that to the two million residents who will have built homes relying on the Big Straw or the Flaming Gorge or Yampa Pumpbacks. It is a recipe for disaster—or the wholesale dryup of Western Slope agriculture .

Back in 2002, officials in Governor Owens’ administration admitted an ulterior motive in promoting the Big Straw—they wanted to ensure that Colorado used its full allotment of Colorado River water so that California did not get it instead. It still makes good political fodder .

The 1922 Colorado River Compact was a political document. Although it was written in the midst of two of the wettest decades in history, it is naïve to think the engineers and politicians were unaware that 1900-1922 were wetter years than normal. They knew. No one is suggesting that with hotter temperatures there will be more water to develop from the Colorado River. The bigger the project, the bigger the risk, and the harder it will be to honor a compact call.

Putting it all together, these projects are enough to grow Colorado from 5 to 17 million people, at a cost of $30 billion or more.[79] If they seem too outlandish to ever happen, why worry? Why not let the water buffalos keep drinking the Kool-Aid? But by holding out hope for another major Western Slope diversion, we ignore the real issues. The threat of another transmountain diversion justifies wasteful water use since uptight residents on the Western Slope tell me it will otherwise go to the Front Range. And on the Front Range, the promise of another transmountain diversion allows planners to avoid the harder issues of using less water or containing runaway population growth.

Figure 5.19 Map of three big pumpback project

Notes

[1] For a map of Colorado’s 15 coal-burning power plants, see https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1TumKhY_tHju2y2wia0mNO4ersto&hl=en&ll=38.581147892204896%2C-105.49114389621445&z=7, downloaded August 11, 2017.

[2] Colorado Basin roundtable minutes July 27, 2015. Denver Water retains the right to purchase Western Slope irrigation water rights in Section VII.C., pg. 42, of the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement.“ See, “Colorado River Cooperative Agreement: Path to a Secure Water Future,” Denver Water, https://www.denverwater.org/sites/default/files/colorado-river-cooperative-agreement.pdf.

[3] “Colorado Basin Whitepaper,” 2013, page 6; “Colorado basin implementation plan,” Apr. 17, 2015, pg. 17.

[4] Colorado Water Congress Water Stewardship Committee, downloaded Nov. 19, 2017, http://www.cowatercongress.org/water-stewardship.html.

[5] Colorado has consumed about 2 more million acre-feet than its permitted share in the 10-year running total compared the other 3 Upper Basin States. Under the 1948 Upper Colorado River Compact, Colorado must cut back its use by 2 million acre before the other states must reduce their consumption.

[6] Colorado River District 2017 annual Report, pg. 11.

[7] Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) section IV.J., pg. 32. Environmentalists including Mely Whiting of Trout Unlimited support the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement since Denver Water agrees that it will adapt its river diversions and add up to 1,000 acre-feet into the Fraser River to combat low flows or high water temperatures. “We’re not going to be diverting water all the time. We won’t divert water in critically dry years, and we’ll only divert water during spring runoff. At other times of year, we’ll put water back into the river and improve conditions,” said Jim Lochhead, Denver Water’s CEO and manager. This is the first time Denver Water has agreed to even consider the impacts its diversions are having on the river. Skeptics point out that Denver Water is still taking 18,000 more acre-feet from the river (and over 70,000 acre-feet annually), far more than the 1,000 acre-feet it is adding back to the upper Fraser River. Berwyn, B., “Sides agree to innovative Fraser River deal to help slake Denver Water thirst,” Mar 5, 2014, The Colorado Independent, http://www.coloradoindependent.com/146345/sides-agree-to-innovative-fraser-river-deal-to-help-slake-denver-water-thirst.

[8] CRCA section III. E, pgs. 19-27. The quoted language regarding environmental flows is in section III. E. 10, pg. 22.

[9] Denver Water’s 1,648,486 acre-feet of conditional water rights re described in the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, section VII.A, pg. 43, and listed in Attachment T.

[10] CRCA section III. B., pgs. 12-16. Denver Water also agrees to release 50 cfs from Dillon Reservoir unless it has restricted lawn watering in Denver. Berwyn, B., “Summit County to benefit from deal with Denver Water,” Apr. 30, 2011, Summit County Voice, http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/04/30/summit-county-to-benefit-from-deal-with-denver-water/.

[11] CRCA section VI, pgs. 33-41.

[12] CRCA section III. F and G, pg. 27.

[13] CRCA section IV. B, pg. 28.

[14] CRCA section I. B. 1, pg. 1.

[15] Quote demand based portfolio tool calculation.

[16] CRCA section VII, “Abstention Provisions,” part a, pg. 47.

[17] Several provisions anticipate the Wolcott Pumpback will go forward: Denver Water can change its point of diversion for the Piney River to Statebridge, the source of water to fill Wolcott Reservoir (CRCA section IV. K, pg. 33); Denver Water can pursue the Wolcott Pumpback as long as the Eagle Board of County Commissioners agrees (section III. D, pg. 18); Western Slope entities cannot object if Denver Water attempts to perfect its 350,000 acre-foot Wolcott Reservoir conditional storage right (section VII. A, pg. 43); Western Slope entities must agree to the Green Mountain Reservoir protocol, which "mak[es] as much water as possible available for upstream use by cities, without impairing the fill of Green Mountain Reservoir" (section V, pg. 33); Denver Water can store 400,000 af of Blue River water on the East slope (section IV. B, pg. 28).

[18] Abstention Provisions provide that Denver Water and any Front Range municipalities that receive water from Denver Water must refrain from seeking permits for additional Western Slope diversions for 25 years (until September 26, 2038). If Denver Water receives all required permits to expand Gross Reservoir within 20 years, this is pushed back 10 years until September 26 2048. If Denver Water does not initiate the NEPA permitting process by Sep. 26, 2023, the abstention provisions expire earlier on September 26, 2028.

[19] CRCA section VII. B, pg. 43.

[20] This table is at C:\Users\Ken Ransford\Dropbox\Colorado's Water Future\Chapter 5 - New Supplies\[New Supply - Table with 10 biggest projects.xlsx]Use in New Supply Chapter.

[21] The 13 Eagle River participants including Vail Resorts, Climax Mining Company, Eagle County, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, the Upper Eagle Water & Sanitation District, and the Eagle River Basin communities of Vail, Minturn, Avon, Edwards, Eagle, Gypsum, and Red Cliff. Treese, C., “Eagle River Assembly,” July 1, 2005, Colorado River District, http://rlch.org/stories/eagle-river-assembly.

[22] “Eagle River MOU project investigations memo,” Apr. 8, 2014, Colorado River District, http://www.coloradoriverdistrict.org/conservepress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015_2Q_ERMOU_Update.pdf, highlighted version at c:\kbr\New Supply - Homestake Reservoir # 2 Eagle River MOU Colo River District Memo 1-8-2014.pdf. This map is at Chapter 0 - Housekeeping/2017.12.11_MapsFromMorgan_PDFandJPEG/ NewSupplyMaps12.11.17/ EagleRiverHomestake_5.13.15.

[23] The Colorado River District estimates the project will yield 3,000 to 5,000 AF to the Eagle River Valley, and 10,000 to 15,000 AF to Colorado Springs and Aurora. Assuming per capita daily use of 120 gallons per person per day, taking the midpoint of these numbers yields enough water for 29,758 in the Eagle River Valley and 92,994 people in Aurora and Colorado Springs. By reusing 50% of its share, Front Range providers can boost the number of people served by 50% to 133,911.

[24] Aurora awarded $60,000 on April 14, 2014, to Grand River Consulting, an engineering firm in Glenwood Springs, to continue due diligence to keep the Homestake water rights in force; see “City of Aurora Council Agenda Commentary,” Apr. 14, 2014 Council Meeting, Page 56, https://www.auroragov.org/cs/groups/public/documents/document/019074.pdf.

[25] Klancke, K., “Surprise, we agree with Denver Water,”, July 22,2014, Colorado Trout Unlimited, http://www.coheadwaters.org/ConservationScience/MoffatFirmingWindyGapProjects.aspx.

[26] For a nostalgic trip on Colorado’s Western Slope rail lines including the Moffat Tunnel and Colorado River valley, see an entertaining trip blog at “Colorado and the D&RGW Craig Line,” http://www.vtwi.org/COTrip/COTrip.html.

[27] “Denver Water,” Wikipedia, last modified July 30, 2015.

[28] Snider, L., “Public input sought on Gross Reservoir expansion,” Nov. 30, 2009, Boulder Daily Camera, http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_13885451?source=rss.

[29] Berwyn, B., “Colorado River battle shaping up,” Aug. 12, 2010, Summit County Citizens Voice, http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/08/12/colorado-river-battle-shaping-up/. Photo is at http://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/jimcreek2.jpg.

[30] Rice, M., “Final Environmental Impact Statement – Moffat Collection System Project,” June 9, 2014, available at t:\swsi\New Supply - Moffat FEIS American River Comments 2014-06-09.pdf.

[31] Snider, footnote 24.

[32] http://www.mudbugco.com/flyfish/images/large_gross/newgross.jpg

[33] “Denver Water is preparing a major construction project, one that will provide more water to customers while improving the Colorado River and the environment surrounding the planned expansion.” See, “Planned Gross Reservoir Expansion,” Denver Water, downloaded Sep. 25, 2015, http://www.denverwater.org/supplyplanning/watersupplyprojects/moffat/.

[34] Denver Water collected $242 million from customers in 2013, down from $280 million in 2012. It will collect $1.2 billion from 2015 to 2021 assuming it collects $240 million a year. See, “Denver Water’s 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,” pg. II-19, http://www.denverwater.org/docs/assets/63FF0223-0ACA-A877-7B4D0892FD5E1317/2013_annual_report.pdf.

[35] “Windy Gap Firming Project,” Colorado Trout Unlimited, downloaded Sep. 25, 2015, http://www.coloradotu.org/windy-gap/.

[36] “Windy Gap Firming Gains Grand County Commission’s Approval,” Dec 4, 2012, http://www.northernwater.org/docs/News_Releases/WindyGapFirmingGains_ReleaseDec42012.pdf.

[37] Id at footnote 31, “Windy Gap Firming Project,” Colorado Trout Unlimited.

[38] Richter, B., Davis, M., Apse, C., Konrad, C., “A Presumptive Standard for Environmental Flow Protection,” October 2012, pg. 1318, River Research and Applications, Vol 28:8, pages 1312–1321, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1511/abstract.

[39] “Oxygen at Altitude, How much oxygen will there be at Mount Everest?,” Valerio Massimo Everest Expedition 2009, downloaded Sep. 25, 2015, http://www.vmeverest09.com/oxygen-at-altitude/.

[40] http://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/windy_gap_reservoir2.jpg

[41] See the map at “Proposed Chimney Hollow Facilities,” Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, http://www.northernwater.org/docs/WindyGapFirming/ChimHollOperatMap.pdf.

[42] Fleming, P., “Laws, Compacts and Agreements for Meeting Future Water Needs, Western Slope/East slope Agreements,” Feb. 10, 2014, Slide 29, Colorado River District, Colo. Mesa Univ, http://www.coloradomesa.edu/watercenter/documents/PeterFleming-WSlopeESlopeAgreements2-10-14.pdf

[43] This map is at Chapter 0 - Housekeeping/2017.12.11_MapsFromMorgan_PDFandJPEG/ NewSupplyMaps12.11.17/ NISPGladepark5.15.15.

[44] “NISP in the News,” Northern Water NISP Overview, downloaded July 27, 2014, http://www.northernwater.org/WaterProjects/NISP.aspx.

[45] “Preliminary identification of Potential Impacts of Glade Reservoir on the Cache La Poudre river,” April 2008, Final Report prepared for the City of Fort Collins by Ayers Associates, Section 6.3, pg. 23, http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/pdf/ayres_preliminary_report.pdf.

[46] Finley, B., “Leaders rally for NISP water to ‘Get it done,’” July 3, 2015, Denver Post.

[47] “New reservoir storage for Northern Colorado?,” Coyote Gulch reporting from the Greeley Tribune, Sep. 16, 2007, http://radio-weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradoWater/2007/09/16.html.

[48] This map is at Chapter 0 - Housekeeping/2017.12.11_MapsFromMorgan_PDFandJPEG/ NewSupplyMaps12.11.17/ Wollcott_5.19.15.

[49] Sibley, G., Water Wranglers, a 75 Year History of the Colorado River District, Colorado River District 2012, 133-147.

[50] Berwyn, B., “Study: Green Mountain Reservoir pumpback feasible,” Mar, 20, 2007, Summit Daily News, http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070327/NEWS/103270072.

[51] “Enlargement,” Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, downloaded Sep. 25, 2015, https://www.secwcd.org/content/enlargement.

[52] “Project Facilities,” Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, downloaded Sep. 25, 2015, https://www.secwcd.org/content/fryingpan-arkansas-project-facilities.

[53] The ten participants include the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Crowley County, Colorado Springs Utilities, City of Florence, City of La Junta, Otero County, Town of Poncha Springs, Pueblo West Metro District, Salida, and the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. See “Participants” under “Enlargement,” https://www.secwcd.org/content/enlargement.  

[54] “List of United States Bureau of Reclamation dams,” Wikipedia, last modified Sep. 6, 2015.

[55] “Bureau of Reclamation Quick Facts,” downloaded May 10, 2015, http://www.usbr.gov/facts.html.

[56] “Bureau of Reclamation - About Us,” last updated July 8, 2015, http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/.

 “United States Bureau of Reclamation,” Wikipedia, last modified June 24, 2015.

[57] After several hours searching the internet, the author gave up trying to determine how much revenue is received from the sale of power at specific dams such as Glen Canyon Dam at Lake Powell. That information is closely guarded. The Congressional Budget Office studied whether the federal government should be in the business of selling power in 1997, concluding that while the private sector could garner more revenue if the hydro-electric dams in the US were privatized, this would come at the cost of higher electricity prices to consumers; O’Neill, J., “Should The Federal Government Sell Electricity?,” Nov. 1997, pg. xi-xvii, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/105th-congress-1997-1998/reports/electric.pdf. BuRec revenue of $900 million is reported at “The History of Hydropower Development in the United States,” Bureau of Reclamation, last updated July 1, 2015, http://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/history.html. Expenditures of $440 million to produce power are reported at “Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for the Bureau of Reclamation,” Feb. 12, 2015, http://home.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/114/fy16budreq_bor_021215.cfm. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) receives about $1.45 billion from power sales every year; “Department of Energy

FY 2015 Congressional Budget Request, Power Marketing Administrations, pg. 110, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/Volume%206%20PMA.pdf. The 2014 annual report for WAPA reports $932 million from power sales and $425 million from transmission sales; “Powering the Future, 2014 Annual Report Western Area Power Administration,” pg. 24; https://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/Publications/Pages/publications.aspx.

[58] This calculation assumes that Colorado consumes 2 to 2.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water, including 500,000 sent to the Front Range through transmountain diversions. After subtracting an estimated 100,000 acre-feet of water consumed by municipal and industrial users on the Western Slope, that leaves 1.4 to 1.8 million acre-feet consumed by Western Slope agriculture. A demand management reduction by farmers of 400,000 acre-feet would reduce irrigated acreage by 22 to 28%.

[59] Woodka, C., “Pueblo County sends letter to Senator Udall requesting a seat at the table with regard to new storage legislation,” Dec. 8, 2010, The Pueblo Chieftain, https://coyotegulch.wordpress.com/category/colorado-water/arkansas-basin/preferred-storage-options-plan/.

[60] “Southern Delivery System Fact Sheet,” Updated Aug. 1, 2012, http://www.sdswater.org/Portals/0/docs/factsheets/SDS_fact_sheet_8-1-12.pdf.

[61] “SDS: There is no Plan B,” June 29, 2014, Colorado Springs Business Journal, http://www.csbj.com/2014/05/23/sds-plan-b/.

[62] “The Southern Delivery System: SDS Drives the Efficiency and Reliability of Our Water System,” April 2014, SDS Water for Generations, http://www.sdswater.org/Portals/0/docs/factsheets/SDS%20White%20Paper%20Updated%20May%202014.pdf.

[63] “Billion dollar baby: Why the Flaming Gorge pipeline is bad for the West,” July 27, 2014, Red Lodge Clearing House, http://www.rlch.org/blog/2011/13/9/billion-dollar-baby-why-flaming-gorge-pipeline-bad-west.

[64] Magill, B., “Flaming Gorge pipeline hydroelectric generation project environmental review terminated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last Thursday,” July 19, 2011, the Fort Collins Coloradoan, https://coyotegulch.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/energy-policy-hydroelectric-flaming-gorge-pipeline-hydroelectric-generation-project-environmental-review-terminated-by-the-u-s-army-corps-of-engineers-last-thursday/.

[65] This map is at Chapter 0 - Housekeeping/2017.12.11_MapsFromMorgan_PDFandJPEG/ NewSupplyMaps12.11.17/ BigThreePipelineProjects_5.13.15.

[66] The Upper Basin States are obligated to deliver 75 million acre-feet every 10 years to the Lower Basin States, and 7.5 million acre-feet every 10 years to satisfy its 50% share of Mexico deliveries, for 82.5 million acre-feet total. CWCB representatives are unwilling to concede that the Upper Basin States must deliver 7.5 maf to Mexico every 10 years, claiming that the Lower Basin States should meet this obligation since they are using more than their 7.5 million acre-foot share of the Colorado River.

[67] “Economic and Financial Impacts of the Proposed Flaming Gorge Pipeline,” Sep. 6, 2011, Table 25, pg. 49, Final Report by Honey Creek Resources, Inc., for Western Resource Advocates, http://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/impacts-proposed-flaming-gorge-pipeline/.

[68] Strong made these remarks when he served on a panel along with representatives from New Mexico and Colorado discussing the Colorado River Compact at Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction on November 9, 2012.

[69] See footnote 59, Economic and Financial Impacts of the Proposed Flaming Gorge Pipeline, September 6, 2011, Table 10, pg. 17, http://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/impacts-proposed-flaming-gorge-pipeline/.

[70] http://www.flaminggorgecountry.com/Fishing. The photo is from http://www.flaminggorgecountry.com/media/uploads/images/IMG_0843.JPG.

[71] This map was published by Aspen Journalism at https://aspenjournalism.org/colorado-water-the-south-platte-basin-calls-for-more-western-slope-water/.

[72] Porter, S., “Northern water district eyes Yampa diversion,” Jan. 19, 2007, http://bizwest.com/northern-water-district-eyes-yampa-diversion/. See also, “Multi-Basin Water Supply Investigation,” 2006, Executive Summary, pg. 17, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/States/YampaProjectExecSummary.pdf; “Yampa River Pumpback,” Friends of the Yampa, downloaded Sep. 25, 2015, http://friendsoftheyampa.com/resources/yampa-river-pumpback/.

[73] The off-channel reservoir is likely to be about 6,000 acres in size, nearly 10 square miles. The USGS estimates that a reservoir near Maybell would lose about 35 inches per year of evaporation; see Figure 1-7, Average annual lake evaporation map of Colorado, pg. 9, Ground Water Atlas of Colorado, 2003, Colorado Geological Survey, Division of Minerals and Geology, Department of Natural Resources.

[74] “Multi-Basin Water Supply Investigation,” 2006, Executive Summary, Table ES-6, pg. 21.

[75] “Multi-Basin Water Supply Investigation,” 2006, Executive Summary, Table ES-4, pg. 18.

[76] Best, A., “Drought unearths a water dinosaur, Colorado's Front Range reaches for a share of the Colorado River,” Sep. 16, 2002, High Country News, http://www.hcn.org/issues/234/13372.

[77] The California State Water Project accounts for one-third of the electricity consumed by 23 million residents in Southern California. It is the largest electricity consumer in the state. It is also estimated to add $400 billion annually to California’s economy. It barely passed by 174,000 votes out of 5.8 million cast in 1960. The massive project involves 21 dams and over 700 miles of canals. See “California State Water Project,” Wikipedia, last modified on July 5, 2015.

[78] Kuhn, E., “The Colorado River, The Story of a Quest for Certainty on a Diminishing River,” May 8, 2007, pg. 5, http://www.coloradoriverdistrict.org/conservepress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kuhn_paper_Quest_for-Certainty_Diminishing_River.pdf. Kuhn discusses the debate and SWSI assumptions about how much Colorado River water is left to Colorado to develop in this informative book.

[79] Figure assumes people use 120 gallons per person per day and reuse 50%.

[80] This table is at C:\Users\Ken Ransford\Dropbox\Colorado's Water Future\Chapter 5 - New Supplies\[New Supply - Table with 10 biggest projects.xlsx]Use in New Supply Chapter.

[81] Berwyn, B., “Colorado River battle shaping up,” Aug. 12, 2010, Summit County Citizens Voice, http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/08/12/colorado-river-battle-shaping-up/. Photo is at http://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/jimcreek2.jpg.

[82] http://www.mudbugco.com/flyfish/images/large_gross/newgross.jpg

[83] http://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/windy_gap_reservoir2.jpg

[84] This map is at Chapter 0 - Housekeeping/2017.12.11_MapsFromMorgan_PDFandJPEG/ NewSupplyMaps12.11.17/ BigThreePipelineProjects_5.13.15.

[85] http://www.flaminggorgecountry.com/Fishing. The photo is from http://www.flaminggorgecountry.com/media/uploads/images/IMG_0843.JPG.

[86] This map is available at http://aspenjournalism.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/12/Yampa-pipeline-800x528.jpg