Minutes Dec 2007 CBRT

• Basin Roundtable: Colorado
• Title: Colorado basin December 07 Minutes
• Date: 12/17/2007
• Basin Roundtables - Doc Type: Minutes

Phase 3: Enlarge the reservoirs. The cost of enlarging Pueblo Reservoir by 75,000 AF is
$750 million, or $10,000 per AF. This will be paid for by the participating entities that own
the additional water to be stored.
d. Re-use existin.~ water. Broderick stated that most of the additional water to be stored would
not be diverted from the Western Slope, but would be pumped back upstream to reservoirs
for re-use of prior diversions. Under Colorado water law, any water diverted to the East
Slope can be used to extinction. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is
paying for an Environmental Impact Statement, and Broderick stated that any PSOP project
would be NEPA compliant.
Out-of-District water is first released. Broderick claimed that no Fry-Ark Project water is
being used outside of Fry-Ark district boundaries. Aurora is outside the Fry-Ark basin and
District, and it would use the increased reservoir capacity to store non-Fry-Ark-District
water. Westcliffe also has a contract to store non-Fry-Ark Project water in Fry-Ark
reservoirs. Non-Fry-Ark Project water would spill from Fry-Ark Project reservoirs before
Fry-Ark Project water would spill.
f. Warren Act requirements. According to Chris Treese, the Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District explained to the Colorado Water District Conservation Board that it
wanted to enlarge the Fry-Ark Project reservoirs in order to store non-Fry-ark Project water
that could then be reused to extinction. The CRWCD previously negotiated section 12 of the
Warren Act to require that excess storage capacity could not be used to increase diversions of
non-Fry-Ark Project water from the Colorado River Basin to another basin unless:
i. The diversion is part of an existing decree;
ii. The diversion is Eagle County water whose diversion was earlier contemplated in
a written agreement;
iii. The diversion is the subject of a fiiture inter-governmental agreement to be
negotiated; or
iv. The diversion provides an alternate water supply to augment the diverted water.
g. Will more water be diverted to the Eastern Slope? Phil Overeynder stated that Aspen's fear
is that with a larger East Slope bucket, larger East Slope diversions could occur. Broderick
replied that PSOP would not enlarge East Slope facilities, but that instead it would permit the
East Slope to frilly utilize its existing decrees. Mike McHugh stated that the additional yield
from the enlarged reservoirs comes from reuse of reusable sources of water, and not from
increased West Slope diversions.
h. Pitlan County concerns. Rachel Richards stated that the PSOP beneficiaries are all on the
Front Range. Historically, the Western Slope was a beneficiary of the Fry-Ark Project, but
now it cannot get a seat at the PSOP negotiating table. She's concerned that a simple
legislative change could permit non-Fry-Ark Project water to be used outside the Fry-Ark
district. The 1959 Fry-Ark Project agreement mandated minimum flows in the Roaring Fork
River, and these requirements have not been met. The preamble to that act states that both
existing and potential Western Colorado water uses should be protected, and that recreation
values should be protected.
Rachel Richards claimed that stretches of the Roaring Fork River dry up periodically . Steve
Miller of the CWCB stated that he didn't tlui~lc there's ever been a violation of instream
I:AInterbasin Compact Coimnittee~Basin Roundtables\Colorado~Minutes~Ivlumtes Dec 2007 CBKT.doc 4 4~2,