Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
Green Mountain Reservoir shot from above the Williams Fork range. There's an effort to potentially hand over control of the reservoir to Front Range interests, but talks are still preliminary.
SUMMIT COUNTY - For decades, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has governed operation of Green Mountain Reservoir. But recent talks between that federal agency and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District have sent waves of concern rippling along the West Slope.
Those talks concern a tentative plan to turn over some aspects of the reservoir's operation to the Front Range water provider. And that doesn't sit well with West Slope interests, who want to be sure that a non-biased party is in charge, as required by federal documents governing operation of Green Mountain and the rest of the Colorado-Big Thompson project.
When push comes to shove in a dry year, the West Slope simply doesn't want the Front Range to have its hand on the faucet, an attitude that is rooted in part on a decades-long history of suspicion and mistrust between the two sides.
It's a subtle question of who has their hand on the valves, said Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
"Are they going to be federal employees, or Northern employees, or contractors?" Kuhn asked. Even if the Bureau of Reclamation maintains control over water scheduling decisions, day-to-day operational decisions can still have a potential impact on water deliveries to the West Slope, he said.
Those talks concern a tentative plan to turn over some aspects of the reservoir's operation to the Front Range water provider. And that doesn't sit well with West Slope interests, who want to be sure that a non-biased party is in charge, as required by federal documents governing operation of Green Mountain and the rest of the Colorado-Big Thompson project.
When push comes to shove in a dry year, the West Slope simply doesn't want the Front Range to have its hand on the faucet, an attitude that is rooted in part on a decades-long history of suspicion and mistrust between the two sides.
It's a subtle question of who has their hand on the valves, said Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
"Are they going to be federal employees, or Northern employees, or contractors?" Kuhn asked. Even if the Bureau of Reclamation maintains control over water scheduling decisions, day-to-day operational decisions can still have a potential impact on water deliveries to the West Slope, he said.
Crucial storage
Green Mountain Reservoir is a crucial link in the complex system of pipelines and buckets that distributes Colorado River water to both sides of the Divide. impoundment enables West Slope interests to use water out of priority, and provides basin-of-origin mitigation for transbasin diversions associated with the Colorado-Big Thompson project.
For example, when the senior Shoshone power plant call is on downstream, stored water in Green Mountain enables ranchers, municipalities and subdivisions in Summit County to continue diverting water even though their rights are junior to Shoshone.
"We rely on the Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) to be an honest broker," said Grand County manager Lurline Underbrink Curran. "We're just not that excited about losing control of Green Mountain," Underbrink Curran said. The Bureau of Reclamation holds some balance as to when Green Mountain Reservoir fills. West Slope interests want to be sure those decisions are made equitably by an unprejudiced agency, she said.
Her concerns are understandable. Grand County's water supply is already under pressure from an unrelated Denver Water proposal to increase diversions to the Front Range. And Summit County also relies on Green Mountain storage for a variety of reasons. Giving a Front Range utility the keys to the reservoir could be something like letting the fox guard the henhouse, Underbrink Curran said.
Unfounded fears?
Green Mountain Reservoir is a crucial link in the complex system of pipelines and buckets that distributes Colorado River water to both sides of the Divide. impoundment enables West Slope interests to use water out of priority, and provides basin-of-origin mitigation for transbasin diversions associated with the Colorado-Big Thompson project.
For example, when the senior Shoshone power plant call is on downstream, stored water in Green Mountain enables ranchers, municipalities and subdivisions in Summit County to continue diverting water even though their rights are junior to Shoshone.
"We rely on the Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) to be an honest broker," said Grand County manager Lurline Underbrink Curran. "We're just not that excited about losing control of Green Mountain," Underbrink Curran said. The Bureau of Reclamation holds some balance as to when Green Mountain Reservoir fills. West Slope interests want to be sure those decisions are made equitably by an unprejudiced agency, she said.
Her concerns are understandable. Grand County's water supply is already under pressure from an unrelated Denver Water proposal to increase diversions to the Front Range. And Summit County also relies on Green Mountain storage for a variety of reasons. Giving a Front Range utility the keys to the reservoir could be something like letting the fox guard the henhouse, Underbrink Curran said.
Unfounded fears?
But those fears may be unfounded, said BuRec area manager Fred Ore. At this point, the discussions are still in the early stages, and more importantly, the federal agency has no intention of relinquishing its overall authority over the project .
"In no scenario would they (the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy) take over responsibility for water management," Ore said. "That responsibility will remain with the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, because they understand the sensitivity of it," Ore said.
The current talks are rooted in a long-running effort by the Bureau of Reclamation to streamline its operations. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy has already taken over operations and maintenance of some significant West Slope water facilities, including Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir, as well as some of the associated pumping facilities, Ore said. The idea is to cut costs and deliver water more efficiently.
Feasibility study
"This is just a study to see if it's feasible," Ore said. "Operations would still have to follow over-arching guidelines," he added, referring to Senate Document 80, which outlines the requirements for non-biased management of the Colorado-Big Thompson project, including Green Mountain Reservoir.
Right now the talks are focused on putting together a work plan, followed by a business plan, hopefully delivered by the end of the year. The idea is to cut federal government expenses and to deliver water to end-users more efficiently and at less cost to taxpayers.
"In no scenario would they (the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy) take over responsibility for water management," Ore said. "That responsibility will remain with the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, because they understand the sensitivity of it," Ore said.
The current talks are rooted in a long-running effort by the Bureau of Reclamation to streamline its operations. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy has already taken over operations and maintenance of some significant West Slope water facilities, including Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir, as well as some of the associated pumping facilities, Ore said. The idea is to cut costs and deliver water more efficiently.
Feasibility study
"This is just a study to see if it's feasible," Ore said. "Operations would still have to follow over-arching guidelines," he added, referring to Senate Document 80, which outlines the requirements for non-biased management of the Colorado-Big Thompson project, including Green Mountain Reservoir.
Right now the talks are focused on putting together a work plan, followed by a business plan, hopefully delivered by the end of the year. The idea is to cut federal government expenses and to deliver water to end-users more efficiently and at less cost to taxpayers.
"At least a couple of times the concept of some sort of transfer has arisen," Ore said. "Most of those considerations focused on a title transfer. But now the talks are centered around transferring operations and maintenance only," he said.
"The West Slope has indicated that they are interested in what's going on, and we're trying our best to include them," Ore concluded.
But in a late-August letter from the Colorado Basin Roundtable to Colorado's Congressional delegation, West Slope interests said they are not formally represented in the talks.
"We believe that key Congressional laws and Federal court decisions are being neglected in this formal planning process ... We are particularly opposed to the proposed transfer of power production and operations responsibilities of Green Mountain Reservoir to a party which does not meet the Senate Document 80 definition of an 'unprejudiced agency,'" the West Slope stakeholders wrote.
"We hope you will keep in mind the competing basin demands for this resource and assist in providing more local input on its daily operations," the letter concluded.
Bob Berwyn can be reached at (970) 331-5996, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.
"The West Slope has indicated that they are interested in what's going on, and we're trying our best to include them," Ore concluded.
But in a late-August letter from the Colorado Basin Roundtable to Colorado's Congressional delegation, West Slope interests said they are not formally represented in the talks.
"We believe that key Congressional laws and Federal court decisions are being neglected in this formal planning process ... We are particularly opposed to the proposed transfer of power production and operations responsibilities of Green Mountain Reservoir to a party which does not meet the Senate Document 80 definition of an 'unprejudiced agency,'" the West Slope stakeholders wrote.
"We hope you will keep in mind the competing basin demands for this resource and assist in providing more local input on its daily operations," the letter concluded.
Bob Berwyn can be reached at (970) 331-5996, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.
