Officials: ‘Not 1 more drop’ to Front Range

Colorado should import water to meet burgeoning Front Range demands — and lessen the pressure on the Western Slope to slake that thirst, Grand Valley water officials suggest.

Managers of 10 Grand Valley water agencies and municipalities are preparing to ask their bosses to insist that bringing water into the state — which would be known as augmentation — is a needed step in the development of a statewide water plan.

The problem, the water managers have concluded, is that there simply isn’t enough water in the state to meet the demands of growth, particularly on the Front Range, and the demands of millions of downstream Colorado River water users in Arizona, California and Nevada.

“Reallocation of state water resources is not going to do the job,” Larry Clever, general manager of Ute Water Conservancy District, said.

Managers of the agencies sat down together to draft a Grand Valley response to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a statewide water plan, and they began the process as a “not-one-more-drop club,” Clever said, in reference to any further diversion of water from the Western Slope over the mountains to the east.

So any additional drops will have to come from elsewhere, Max Schmidt, general manager of the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, said.

“Our problem is that we’re the cheapest source of good clean water to the Eastern Slope, and there’s no other way around it,” Schmidt said.

“We need to find outside water. Actually, we do not. They do.”

The concerns by Grand Valley water managers center on the possibility that the lower basin states will place a call on the Colorado River under the 1922 compact governing the river.

“Every time that (the East Slope) takes water from the West Slope, that enhances the chance of a compact call,” that in theory would hit hardest on the Eastern Slope, Schmidt said.

Hickenlooper in May directed the drafting of a statewide water plan, to be complete by December 2014.

The proposed position acknowledges that the Colorado Water Conservation Board estimates that there could be as many as 800,000 acre feet of water available for diversion and storage, but notes there is “considerable doubt” that additional development won’t result in a compact call.

The Grand Valley response would set out nine goals that such a plan would have to include, one of them being “implementation of a long-term, regional water-augmentation plan.”

Other goals include protecting the “cornerstones of our economy,” agriculture, resource extraction, recreation and tourism; preparation for the possibility of a compact call; protecting the health and quality of the state’s river basins; and preparing for the effects of climate change.

Other goals include protecting and promoting the area’s agricultural heritage; preserving local control of planning for development; ensuring federal agencies operate within state water law; and ensuring that upstream diversions protect and maintain water quality for downstream users.

Ultimately, “it is imperative for state officials to engage officials from the federal government and other basin states in developing, implementing and paying for an augmentation plan” that will benefit all the states dependent on the Colorado River, the proposed position says.

Colorado’s water plan should include importing water to meet burgeoning East Slope demands — and lessen the pressure on the West Slope to slake that thirst, Grand Valley water officials suggest.

Managers of 10 Grand Valley water agencies and municipalities are preparing to ask their bosses to insist that bringing water into the state — which would be known as augmentation — is a needed step in the development of a statewide water plan.

The problem is, the water managers have concluded, there simply isn’t enough water in the state to meet the demands of growth, particularly on the Front Range, and the demands of millions of downstream Colorado River water users in Arizona, California and Nevada.

“Reallocation of state water resources is not going to do the job,” Larry Clever, general manager of Ute Water Conservancy District, said.

Managers of the agencies sat down together to draft a Grand Valley response to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a statewide water plan and began the process as a “not-one-more-drop club,” Clever said of any more diversions from the West Slope over the mountains to the east.

So any new drops will have to come from elsewhere, Max Schmidt, general manager of the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, said.

“Our problem is that we’re the cheapest source of good clean water to the Eastern Slope and there’s no other way around it,” Schmidt said.

“We need to find outside water. Actually we do not. They do.”

The concerns by Grand Valley water managers center on the possibility that the lower basin states will place a call on the Colorado River under the 1922 compact governing the river.

“Every time that (the East Slope) takes water from the West Slope, that enhances the chance of a compact call,” that in theory would hit hardest on the Eastern Slope, Schmidt said.

Hickenlooper in May directed the drafting of a statewide water plan, to be complete by December 2014.

The proposed position acknowledges that the Colorado Water Conservation Board estimates that there could be as many as 800,000 acre feet of water available for diversion and storage, but notes there is “considerable doubt” that additional development won’t result in a compact call.

The Grand Valley response would set out nine goals that such a plan would have to include, one of them being “implementation of a long-term, regional water-augmentation plan.”

Other goals include protecting the “cornerstones of our economy,” agriculture, resource extraction, recreation and tourism; preparation for the possibility of a compact call; protecting the health and quality of the state’s river basins; and preparing for the effects of climate change.

Other goals include protecting and promoting the area’s agricultural heritage; preserving local control of planning for development; ensuring federal agencies operate within state water law; and ensuring that upstream diversions protect and maintain water quality for downstream users.

Ultimately, “it is imperative for state officials to engage officials from the federal government and other basin states in developing, implementing and paying for an augmentation plan” that will benefit all the states dependent on the Colorado River, the proposed position says.

The proposed position will go before the governing boards of Fruita, Grand Junction and Palisade, as well as Clifton Water District, Grand Valley Irrigation Co., Grand Valley Water Users Association, Mesa County Irrigation District, Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, Palisade Irrigation District, and Ute Water.

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

As Gary Harmon comprehensively chronicled in Monday’s Daily Sentinel – “Officials:  ‘Not 1 more drop’ to Front Range” – our intra-state “water war” is heating-up again.

In response to Governor Hickenlooper’s timely call for a “statewide water plan” by the end of 2014, Grand Valley water managers – rightfully wary of succumbing to the impending practical necessity of “reallocating” some water from the Western to the Eastern Slope – drafted a resolution (for eventual endorsement by local governments) specifying nine goals which that plan should properly address, including “implementation of a long-term water-augmentation plan”.

Of course, as the drafters know, augmenting Colorado’s available water supplies by draining its similarly dry neighbors is at best problematic.  However, the recent and ongoing controversy over the Keystone-XL Pipeline suggests another potential source.

While all Great Lakes states have statutorily prohibited interstate export of fresh water, and while Canada seems equally unwilling, Alaska has long sought to financially profit from its virtually limitless supplies of fresh water.

In the early 1990s, the Southwest’s “sustained severe drought” prompted proposals – and enthusiastic Alaskan support—for an under-sea water pipeline from Alaska to northern California.  That theoretically beneficial “science fiction” project was abandoned in 1994, when its costs (independent of environmental impacts) were estimated at $150 billion.

Meanwhile, since then, the existing overland XL-Keystone Pipeline was constructed for only $5.2 billion, with its pending expansion slated to cost another $7+ billion.  Peanuts?

Thus, Western Slope water managers might “augment” their resolution by asking the Governor to request a federal feasibility study of a trans-Canada pipeline to carry water from Alaska to the upper reaches of the Flaming George Reservoir (and then beyond).

Because such a pipeline would benefit the entire Colorado River Compact basin, its costs could be shared even more equitably than the Compact’s current allocation of the River.











THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy