7940

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7940
• Author: Pitts, T.
• Title: Conflict Resolution
• USFW Year: 1988
• USFW - Doc Type: Endangered Species Protecion and Water Development in the Upper Colorado River Basin, The Colorado Water Congress Special Project on Threatened and Endangered Species
• Copyright Material: YES

_ ,..... ... 4
Fin n in r m n Thr
a c Wate Pro ect Develo a is ou
~ J p.
r Resource Mana em nt d Exchan. es
Wate s e an
g
by Richard Eric .Kuhn
BACKGROUND government.
1: Without some form of subsidy, the largest potential West
Colorado River Water Conservation District Slope user, the irrigator, simply cannot afford the high cost of
The Colorado River Water Conservation District (River Dis- new project water. The annual water costs necessary to finance
trict) was created in 1937 by the Colorado General Assembly: ;~~ the construction of new West Slope storage reservoirs are many
The authorizing legislation gives the River District broad statu- - - ---- -..-. n' ` Y times what the irrigator can afford to pay.
tory authority for the development and construction of the water _ 2. There are no easy ways for entities, other than the federal
resources of the Colorado River within the State of Colorado. ~ government, to subsidize the irrigation user. The Colorado state
The River District encompasses all or parts of 15 Colorado '""` budget is limited. Using state tax funds to provide significant
counties west of the Continental Divide and north of the San `* subsidies is not a political priority of the state. A few of the
Juan Mountains. The River District is governed by a Board of ~ ~ River District's planned projects have the potential to generate
15 members. The Board members are appointed by the county ~ .,~, hydroelectric revenues but the revenues are not sufficient to
commissioners from each of the 15 counties. The River District --'~
subsidize the project to the extent that is necessary to make
Board employs afull-time technical, Iegai and administrative ,, irrigation water affordable.
staff to carry out its functions. - 3. There is water available in the existing Ruedi and Green
The River District covers an area of approximately 29,000 .,, Mountain reservoirs for municipal- and industrial use at very.'
' square miles or 28% of the State of Colorado. This area includes reasonable prices. Municipalities or industrial users downstream
the headwaters of the Colorado River and four of its major '~` of these reservoirs have little incentive to participate, in the:.
tributary streams, the Yampa, White, Roaring Fork and Gunni- ""~ - financing of new reservoirs while this .inexpensive water source
son risers. The geographic region makes up a major portion of is available for their rise. ,
what is referred to as the "West Slope" of Colorado. 4. There are no easy ways-for the recreation benefiuaries`
As a re ion the West Slo a is s arsel o ulated. In 1980, ='
g ~ P P Y P P f~ of a project to participate in the financing of new. projects:
the population of the State of Colorado was 2,889,000. Of this, Direct users can be charged a user fee, but the secondarti ben- .
280,000 resided on the West Slope and 221,000 in the 15 West ~ eficiaries, such as businesses in adjacent communities, must
Slope counties comprising the River District. vancy districts, Colorado law does not require specific miti_:~ii~m be taxed: ' '
The economy of the West Slope is dominated by the recreation for transmountain diversions built by municipalities. Mitigation "
industry, but minerals extraction and agriculture remain impor- for these projects, such as Denver's Dillon Reservoir!Roberts Use of Available Resources as Funding Mechanisms
tant contributors to both the region's economy and heritage. Tunnel has been limited to site-specific environmental or con-
Lands within the River District boundaries contain large oil struation impacts. The concept of using existing resources to finance future
shale reserves. In the last 20 years, the recreation industry has emerged as River District projects began as a strategic move by West Slope
Historically, the role of the River District was to encourage a major force in shaping the direction of Colorado and River members of the Roundtable and its offshoot committee, tfie
~~ West Slope Water Advisory Council, to minimize the impacts'
water development in three basic arenas. First, the River District District water policies. Many of Colorado's major ski resorts of transmountain diversions:
was and i~ still active in federal and state litigation involving are located within the boundaries of the River District. The In the early 1970's, the Deaver Water Board filed for water
`
water policy matters. The second historic function was to adjudi- West Slope recreation economy al"so includes hunting and fish-
cate and maintain water rights for use on the West Slope. Many ing, camping, flatwater and river-based recreation and the use rights for several new transmountain diversion projects.
These
of these rights were adjudicated with the understanding that the of resort communities for second homes, conventions, and con- .Projects, the East Gore Canal, the Eagle-Piney Project,
and the
rights would be used in Bureau of Reclamation projects. The certs. Eagle-Colorado Project, were all designated to divert large
third historic function was to lobby for and influence federal.' The recreation industry has placed new demands on the man- amounts of water from environmentally sensitive regions of
the
and state policies to authorize and appropriate funds for the agement of existing and the development of future water pro- headwaters of the Colorado River. These projects were vehe-
construction of federal projects on the West Slope, jects. The recreation demands include full reservoirs during the mently opposed by residents of the West Slope. The River
g,,,8 r^ ~ e ,,...„._____..___, ~_Lo„~e,~ r;,,pr fl,,,,,~ ,a,,,.;„g k},P rotor w~mmor District opposed the filings in the Colorado Water Court.
° In the late. 147o~z,, ~h~ ' r4ae...,i ~_~~~~ ~~ ~»~ of In the spring of 1983, the West S1opeV~aterAdvisory Council `
alites forced a redirection of the Riy~l ntstrict~~ntstoric roles: for river-based recreation, and managed flows to optimize
lrehe realities were that the traditional Reclamation projects that fisheries. proposed, through the Roundtable, that Denver build an alterna-
had for decades been the basis forWest Slope water development The development associated with the recreation economy tive to its planned East Gore, Eagle-Piney, and Eagle-Colorado
were no longer economically justified. The appropriation of often occurs in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Com- Projects. The alternative project proposed was called the Green
federal funds for Reclamation projects by Congress no longer pared with downstream irrigation uses, the water demands to Mountain Pumpback Project. -
had the political support that made the projects of the 50's and support the municipal and snowmaking demands of resorts such The concepts of the Green Mountain Pumpback Project were
i 60's possible. Additionally, application of federal laws protect- as Vail, Keystone, and Winter Park are very small. However, as follows:
ing the environment raised the cost and complexities of building these resorts are located on small, high mountain streams. These L' Denver would build a reservoir or reservoirs to replace
` -
new projects. small streams have very limited capacities to meet the snowmak- existing functions of Green Mountain Reservoir.
In the early 1980's, the River District Board established an ing and municipal demands in late fall of dry years, when the 2. Denver would then build a pumping system and pipeline
1 organizational objective to develop financing mechanisms for demand is the greatest, to assimilate and carry away sewage to pump Green Mountain Reservoir water back to Dillon Rese~--
1+ future projects that would not rely on appropriations from Con- effluent, while at the same time maintaining pristine aquatic volt for delivery to the Denver metropolitan area through
the
gress. and wetlands habitats expected by the visitors to the resorts Roberts Tunnel.
and necessary for the resorts' own economic survival. 3. Because the Green Mountain Pumpback Project would
West Slope Water Issues The situation is seriously aggravated by transmountain diver- Provide about the same amoupt of water as Dcmer's claimed
Water issues on the West Slope have been dominated by the lion projects. Because of geography, both the transmountain Projects, but at a much lower capital cost, Denver would have '
controversies created by the diversion of water from the head- diversions used to supply water to Front Range residents and an economic incentive to participate.
waters of the Colorado River across the Continental Divide to the mountain resorts most used. by these same residents are 4. The proposal included the concept of shared savings. The
t the South Platte and Arkansas River Basins (Front Range). The located in the same watersheds. West Slope would receive 50% of the savings between the cost
`." first small transmountain diversions were built before the turn At the same time the historic River District objective of of Denver's claimed projects and the Green Mountain
of the century, Since the 1930's, transmountain diversions have encouraging water development through the traditional federal Pumpback. The West Slope would use its share of the savings
been a major source of new water for the agriculture and munic- Reclamation project was failing, the threat of increased trans- for future project development.
ipal uses east of the Continental Divide. The Bureau of Recla- .mountain diversions to support growth on Colorado's Front The proposal for the Green Mountain Pumpback Project was
mation built .two major transmountain diversion projects, the Range was becoming more real. The period of the mid-1970's met with caution by all parties. Denver and the River District
Colorado-Big Thompson Project and the Fryingpan-Arkansas through the early 1980's was a time of high growth on the Front made a joint application to the Colorado Water Resources and
Project. The major municipal transmountain diversion projects Range. To, meet this growth, Denver and other Front Range power Development Authority for a detailed, technical study
are Denver's MoffatThnnel and Dillon Reservoir/RobertsTunnel communities planned the construction of large, new, and con- of the Pumpback proposal. The study was started in the summer
systems and the Homestake Project built by the cities of Aurora troversial transmountain diversion projects. of 1985 and was completed in the spring of 19,87. The. study
ana Calorarlo Springs. The latest major transmountain diversion In the fall a€ 1481, Governor RicharYl Lamm formed the showed the project to be technically and hydrologically feasible;.
and economically. competitive.
to be completed is the Windy Gap Project. The Windy Gap Governor's Metropolitan Water Roundtable (Roundtable). The
Project, completed in 1985, uses the facilities of the Colorado- purpose of the Roundtable was to provide a forum for commu-
Big Thompson .Project to deliver municipal water to five cities pity leaders representing Front Range cities, the West Slope, The Exchange Financing Model
and the Platte River Power Authority on the Front Range north the environmental community, and others to discuss and hope- The West Slope Water Advisory Council proposal for the
s of Denver. fully reach consensus solutions to the future raw water supply Green Mountain Pumpback Project did more than provide the '
Under Colorado law, transmountain diversion projects built problems facing the metropolitan Denver area. basis for a political settlement to historic transmountain diver-
` by conservancy districts require mitigation measures to protect River District staff members and board members actively sion issues. The proposal provided a model for the non-federal
the present and future water users in the basin of origin. To participated in the Roundtable process and used the Roundtable financing of future West Slope projects by the River District.
satisfy this mitigation requirement, a major portion of the water and its associated committees as a vehicle for public participa- The elements of the financing model contained within
the
stored in Green Mountain Reservoir, a component of the Col- tion in shaping its new policies designed to finance future pro- Green Mountain proposal are similar to those being proposed
orado-Big Thompson Project, and Ruedi Reservoir, a compo- jects and meet the water demands of its residents in the future or used in other water marketing concepts.
nent of the F m an-Arkansas Pro•ect, is available to West 1. Green Mountain Reservoir is in a geographic location to
r1'° gP ) post-Bureau of Reclamation era.
Slope water users. In the .case. of the Windy Gap Project, which provide water to the. metropolitan Denver area.
was built as a conservancy district subdistrict, the Project spon- 2. The capital cost of developing new water for the metropoli-
sors made a cash settlement of $10.2 million to the River FINANCING MODEL tan Denver area is relatively high, $5,000 per acre-foot or more.
District. The River District is using these funds to construct 3. Projects with relatively moderate costs are available to
Fundamental Financing Problems re lace the existin functions of Green Mountain Reservoir.
the Rock Creek Reservoir Project. P g
The River District faced a number of basic problems in de-
Unlike transmountain diversion projects sponsored by conser- veloping a financing strategy that no longer relied on the federal Continued on page 7