Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
SUMMIT COUNTY - Flows in the Upper Colorado have inched up, just days after ranchers and conservation groups sounded the alarm about low water levels in the state's namesake river.
Colorado Division of Wildlife biologists said last week that the low flows could stress trout populations, and some ranchers in the area voluntarily curtailed irrigation in order to keep some water in the river.
At issue is the stretch of water between Granby and the confluence with the Blue River. Diversions to the Front Range via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and Moffat Tunnel left only a trickle for the West Slope.
Relief came from Denver Water, which upped releases from Williams Fork Reservoir earlier this month.
"I think that helped a lot," said Mely Whiting, an attorney for Trout Unlimited's Western Water Project. "Denver needs to be acknowledged for stepping up here," she said.
By Sept. 12, state-set instream flows were being met in most sections of the river, other than the reach between Windy Gap and Williams Fork reservoirs, according to Jeff Baesler, a senior resource expert with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB).
Along that stretch, the Colorado was flowing at 70 cfs, well short of the 90 cfs deemed necessary to protect aquatic resources.
The CWCB has had a "call" on that section of the river for several weeks now in an effort to meet those instream flows, Baesler said. As a result of the CWCB's action, the State Engineer's Office curtailed water use by the Middle Park Conservancy District, helping boost flows in the river.
Concerned Grand County residents last week criticized the CWCB for not doing enough to protect the fishery, but Baesler said that, based on the priority of the state's water rights, the agency has done all it can. At the same time, Baesler said he is still scrutinizing various water decrees and the complex stipulations associated with water rights to try and find a few more acre feet.
"The instream flow right is a junior right that obviously does not call out the Colorado-Big Thompson or the Moffat Tunnel rights and there are very few other water rights that are diverting right now ... and fewer that would be junior to the instream flow rights," said Neal Misbach, state water commissioner for the Upper Colorado basin. "I'm still looking, though, and getting every acre foot from local augmentation ponds that I can legally ask for. If nothing else, the call is obviously creating public awareness and notifying people that we are serious about these flows," Misbach said.
Protection boosted
Baesler said that, in general, the CWCB has been building a strong record of protecting the state's instream flow rights.
"Each year we have been placing progressively more calls based on the seniority of many of our rights and an aggressive monitoring program," Baesler said.
Through a scientific process, the state tries to determine how much water is needed in a given stream to provide reasonable protection for environmental values. Then the CWCB tries to acquire water rights to maintain those flows.
The CWCB has been beefing up enforcement in recent years with a state-of-the-art low-flow warning system, using a network of about 700 real-time stream gauges throughout Colorado that are operated by either the USGS or the Division of Water Resources.
"Where we have both an instream flow right and a real-time satellite gauge, we are alerted to those situations where the flow drops below the decreed instream flow amount," Baesler said. "Some of the gages that we monitor are capable of sending alerts every 15 minutes," Baesler explained, adding that several of the department's staffers are on call 24 hours a day.
"Individuals (who) say that we don't make a concerted effort to protect the state's rights are simply misinformed," Baesler said, responding to suggestions that the CWCB didn't do enough to maintain flows in the Upper Colorado last week.
When the CWCB is alerted to a low flow, staffers immediately begin working with the State Engineer's Office to determine whether the state-held instream flow rights are senior to other rights in the stream.
"In some cases we receive immediate relief and in others it takes some time to evaluate numerous stipulated settlements that we may have with other water users.
Getting worse?
But the root of the problem in the upper mainstem of the Colorado lies in the significant diversions to the Front Range, Whiting said. As a result of those diversions, water is barely trickling out Lake Granby into the Colorado River, at a measly 20 cfs.
Congressional authorization of the Bureau of Reclamation project mandates that the diversion should leave enough water in the river for fish and irrigators.
"Operation of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project is causing serious problems in the upper Colorado River," Whiting wrote in a Sept. 12 letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior, asking for more flows out of Lake Granby into the river.
In her letter, Whiting explained to Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Mark Limbaugh that senior irrigators in that upper Colorado Basin voluntarily curtailed their diversions to maintain some river flows. Had they fully exercised their water rights, it would have dried up the river completely, according to Meling's letter.
Meling said the outcome unfairly places the burden of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project on the ranchers and is contrary to a Senate document that spells out parameters for operating that diversion project.
Under existing guidance, the Colorado-Big Thompson project can divert all but 20 cfs of the Colorado's flow into storage in Lake Granby for diversion to the Front Range. Whiting wants the Interior Department to revisit a 1961 rule that sets those flows.
According to Whiting, the rule was "adopted without a public process or a public analysis of fishery and irrigation needs," and without any analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the diversions combined with operation of other water projects.
The situation could deteriorate with two planned projects that would divert an additional 48,000 acre-feet through the Moffat and Adams tunnels.
"From our perspective, there are these two looming environmental impact studies out there," said Shanna Koenig, co-director of the Northwest Colorado Council of Government's water quality and quantity committee (QQ). "What are the impacts going to be of taking more water out of Grand County if there's already a problem?" Koening asked.
The projects under consideration are the "firming" of Denver Water's rights to an additional 18,000 acre feet through the Moffat Tunnel, as well as an additional 30,000 acre feet from Windy Gap Reservoir through the Adams Tunnel. Both projects would likely involve construction of an additional reservoir east of the Continental Divide.
Whiting said it's clear that the Front Range needs the water, and that Trout Unlimited doesn't oppose increased diversions per se.
"We want to make sure all reasonable conservation measures are adopted and we want to make sure we're not damaging the river," she said.
<i>Bob Berwyn can be reached at (970) 331-5996, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.</i>
Colorado Division of Wildlife biologists said last week that the low flows could stress trout populations, and some ranchers in the area voluntarily curtailed irrigation in order to keep some water in the river.
At issue is the stretch of water between Granby and the confluence with the Blue River. Diversions to the Front Range via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and Moffat Tunnel left only a trickle for the West Slope.
Relief came from Denver Water, which upped releases from Williams Fork Reservoir earlier this month.
"I think that helped a lot," said Mely Whiting, an attorney for Trout Unlimited's Western Water Project. "Denver needs to be acknowledged for stepping up here," she said.
By Sept. 12, state-set instream flows were being met in most sections of the river, other than the reach between Windy Gap and Williams Fork reservoirs, according to Jeff Baesler, a senior resource expert with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB).
Along that stretch, the Colorado was flowing at 70 cfs, well short of the 90 cfs deemed necessary to protect aquatic resources.
The CWCB has had a "call" on that section of the river for several weeks now in an effort to meet those instream flows, Baesler said. As a result of the CWCB's action, the State Engineer's Office curtailed water use by the Middle Park Conservancy District, helping boost flows in the river.
Concerned Grand County residents last week criticized the CWCB for not doing enough to protect the fishery, but Baesler said that, based on the priority of the state's water rights, the agency has done all it can. At the same time, Baesler said he is still scrutinizing various water decrees and the complex stipulations associated with water rights to try and find a few more acre feet.
"The instream flow right is a junior right that obviously does not call out the Colorado-Big Thompson or the Moffat Tunnel rights and there are very few other water rights that are diverting right now ... and fewer that would be junior to the instream flow rights," said Neal Misbach, state water commissioner for the Upper Colorado basin. "I'm still looking, though, and getting every acre foot from local augmentation ponds that I can legally ask for. If nothing else, the call is obviously creating public awareness and notifying people that we are serious about these flows," Misbach said.
Protection boosted
Baesler said that, in general, the CWCB has been building a strong record of protecting the state's instream flow rights.
"Each year we have been placing progressively more calls based on the seniority of many of our rights and an aggressive monitoring program," Baesler said.
Through a scientific process, the state tries to determine how much water is needed in a given stream to provide reasonable protection for environmental values. Then the CWCB tries to acquire water rights to maintain those flows.
The CWCB has been beefing up enforcement in recent years with a state-of-the-art low-flow warning system, using a network of about 700 real-time stream gauges throughout Colorado that are operated by either the USGS or the Division of Water Resources.
"Where we have both an instream flow right and a real-time satellite gauge, we are alerted to those situations where the flow drops below the decreed instream flow amount," Baesler said. "Some of the gages that we monitor are capable of sending alerts every 15 minutes," Baesler explained, adding that several of the department's staffers are on call 24 hours a day.
"Individuals (who) say that we don't make a concerted effort to protect the state's rights are simply misinformed," Baesler said, responding to suggestions that the CWCB didn't do enough to maintain flows in the Upper Colorado last week.
When the CWCB is alerted to a low flow, staffers immediately begin working with the State Engineer's Office to determine whether the state-held instream flow rights are senior to other rights in the stream.
"In some cases we receive immediate relief and in others it takes some time to evaluate numerous stipulated settlements that we may have with other water users.
Getting worse?
But the root of the problem in the upper mainstem of the Colorado lies in the significant diversions to the Front Range, Whiting said. As a result of those diversions, water is barely trickling out Lake Granby into the Colorado River, at a measly 20 cfs.
Congressional authorization of the Bureau of Reclamation project mandates that the diversion should leave enough water in the river for fish and irrigators.
"Operation of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project is causing serious problems in the upper Colorado River," Whiting wrote in a Sept. 12 letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior, asking for more flows out of Lake Granby into the river.
In her letter, Whiting explained to Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Mark Limbaugh that senior irrigators in that upper Colorado Basin voluntarily curtailed their diversions to maintain some river flows. Had they fully exercised their water rights, it would have dried up the river completely, according to Meling's letter.
Meling said the outcome unfairly places the burden of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project on the ranchers and is contrary to a Senate document that spells out parameters for operating that diversion project.
Under existing guidance, the Colorado-Big Thompson project can divert all but 20 cfs of the Colorado's flow into storage in Lake Granby for diversion to the Front Range. Whiting wants the Interior Department to revisit a 1961 rule that sets those flows.
According to Whiting, the rule was "adopted without a public process or a public analysis of fishery and irrigation needs," and without any analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the diversions combined with operation of other water projects.
The situation could deteriorate with two planned projects that would divert an additional 48,000 acre-feet through the Moffat and Adams tunnels.
"From our perspective, there are these two looming environmental impact studies out there," said Shanna Koenig, co-director of the Northwest Colorado Council of Government's water quality and quantity committee (QQ). "What are the impacts going to be of taking more water out of Grand County if there's already a problem?" Koening asked.
The projects under consideration are the "firming" of Denver Water's rights to an additional 18,000 acre feet through the Moffat Tunnel, as well as an additional 30,000 acre feet from Windy Gap Reservoir through the Adams Tunnel. Both projects would likely involve construction of an additional reservoir east of the Continental Divide.
Whiting said it's clear that the Front Range needs the water, and that Trout Unlimited doesn't oppose increased diversions per se.
"We want to make sure all reasonable conservation measures are adopted and we want to make sure we're not damaging the river," she said.
<i>Bob Berwyn can be reached at (970) 331-5996, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.</i>
