Laserfiche WebLink
is put to beneficial use within district boundaries. Denver's suburbs, especially, covet Northern <br />water, and the district has set itself against water raiders from outside entities. <br />Colorado Nexus: Mountain Reservoirs on the Poudre River <br />Mountain storage reservoirs at higher elevations are highly valued because they afford the <br />maximum delivery options by gravity flow, deeper narrow canyons permit smaller dams, less <br />water surface exposure per unit volume and cooler temperatures reduce evaporation losses as <br />compared to plains reservoirs. These advantages have made mountain sites prime candidates for <br />reservoir construction, and most such mountain sites in the West were located on federal land, <br />especially federal forest land. Many dams, reservoirs, canals, and pipelines have been constructed <br />on U.S. Forest Service land-some placed there well before creation of the U.S. Forest Service-- <br />and operate under permits granted by the U.S. Forest Service (Blumm 1994). <br />In 1991, six special use permits expired for reservoirs on the upper Poudre river, the <br />biggest tributary to the South Platte. These facilities were owned by four Front Range cities, one <br />irrigation mutual company, and the Public Service Company of Colorado, now known as Excel <br />Energy, and were located on the Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest. In anticipation of <br />obtaining renewal for permits that had last been granted before the environmental legislation of <br />the early 1970's, it quickly became apparent to the reservoir operators that the Forest Service <br />would consult with the FWS as required under the terms of the ESA. During the course of the <br />permit renewal process, the Forest Service sought to impose "by-pass flow" regulations on the <br />reservoir operators to advance the environmental agendas of the agency. All of this threatened to <br />reduce yields of the projects, and Colorado water constituencies created a firestorm of protest in <br />Colorado and eventually in Washington D.C. (Lockhead 2000). Then, in June of 1994, the FWS <br />issued its biological opinion that concluded that any Forest Service renewal of the six mountain <br />reservoir permits would jeopardize the existence of the whooping crane, least tern, piping plover, <br />in Nebraska critical habitat, and also pallid sturgeon further downstream on the lower Platte. <br />The Forest Service at that point only had a total of seven permits under consideration for <br />renewal on the Front Range, but the agency was contemplating that over a hundred would be <br />coming up for review within a a few years after the turn of the new century. The situation was <br />quickly becoming impossible for all parties. There was only one reasonable option. The water <br />users of the Platte basin would have to work collaboratively with the FWS to do collectively what <br />could not be individually accomplished-i.e., create a reasonable and prudent alternative that could <br />serve the needs of listed species in central Nebraska and provide regulatory certainty for water <br />users serving the needs of millions of citizens in the three basin states. <br />22