7777

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7777
• Author: Ward, R. C.
• Title: Proceedings 1993 Colorado Water Convention, Front Range Water Alternatives and Transfer of Water from One Area of the State to Another, January 4-5, 1993, Denver, Colorado.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

addressed. That was beyond the scope of the study.
was in draft form only. It was only rather recently
it would be distributed, and you've got it warts and
some rather embarrassing and somewhat humorous typos
which I am sure we will correct.

At this point it
that I heard that
all. There are
here and there,

We began on it in late 1991 but had an interruption due to a
serious illness of mine, and then began again in 1992, and then
submitted a draft to the DNR and the Water Conservation Board in
September of 1992. One thing that was frustrating, entertaining and
almost assuring during that time was that a number of ideas that we
thought of as great new ideas that were included in this report began
to be implemented out there among various water providers as we were
in the process of developing this report. We couldn't keep up with a
lot of the ideas that were being suggested in the report. In fact,
the report has no new ideas in it. If there is a new idea in the
report, it is the idea that we can take all these interesting concepts
for gathering water -- new structural projects, water conservation,
exchanges, reuse agreements, first-use agreements, water sharing,
cooperative operation, coordinated operation of reservoirs -- and lump
them together into a system that operates more efficiently overall and
provides more yield to the Front Range -- more resiliency and more
flexibility at a lower cost.

The report itself began with some initial sections describing the
status of current water supply planning in the Front Range, prospects
for the future, and the interest and potential role of the state. It
also included a standard listing of the goals that should be addressed
whenever you are involved in water supply planning; that is,
additional water supply, cost efficiency, flexibility with respect to
timing, resiliency against drought or facilities failure,
environmental protection, etc.

The next portion of the report covered a survey of water supply
options that are available to the Front Range. The report is some 33
pages long -- I won't get into detail -- but I want to just summarize
them briefly for you.

First, there are new, major water supply projects, and Two Forks
was probably the paramount example of such projects. Other projects
have been explored and remain under consideration by various providers
and are potentially viable, if not in the near-term then in the long-
term. A smaller Two Forks, for example; possibly enlargement of
Cheesman Dam owned by Denver: Clear Creek Reservoir, which was
examined by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development
Authority; the Union Park project or some configuration thereof in the
Gunnison basin; the Green Mountain pump-back project, something all
have discussed between Denver and West Slope interests in the Colorado
basin; even possibly the Poudre project considered by Northern as a
potential supply that could be of use to the Front Range.

All of these projects have several problematical aspects. Number
one, they're very expensive, and in post-Amendment One that is going
to be an additional burden that they will have to bear. Number two,
they involve a host of environmental impacts and socio-economic
impacts that we're all aware of here. Third, they currently bear the

28