Analysis of Colorado-Big Thompson Project Operation With Respect to East Slope Diversions and Non-Charge Deliveries

Home Browse Search

• • • • • Mr. Hal D. Simpson, Colorado State Engineer October 6, 2000 Page 3 36) to Water Division 1 (District 7) in amounts that far exceed the identified augmentation plan requirements or direct flow contract deliveries, with no accounting for the excess water. As you know, as the result of the need to address endangered species recovery requirements in the Colorado River Basin, West Slope water users are being required to tighten their operations and contribute divertible supplies to recovery efforts. There are increasing pressures on Colorado to deliver water to downstream states for compact and environmental purposes, and the State of Colorado is involved in establishing "baseline" conditions for recovery efforts in the Platte River basin. Further, the recently completed MW SI report and other studies identify the reuse of transmountain effluent (through exchanges, non - potable reuse projects, indirect and direct potable reuse projects, etc.) as a major source of municipal water for Front Range growth. Therefore, a complete and accurate accounting of transmountain diversions, deliveries of TMD water for consumptive use only, and reuse of transmountain - generated effluent and return flows is essential. In summary, the River District believes that the State Engineer and Division Engineers have the clear responsibility (codified in C.R.S. §§ 37 -80 -102, -104, and - 105; § 37 -81 -102; § 37 -83 -103; § 37 -84 -108; § 37 -87 -103; §§ 37 -92 -501 and -502) to closely track and fully account for the diversion and beneficial consumptive use of transmountain water in the importing basin, and to prevent the delivery of Colorado River water to the East Slope for undecreed purposes, for non - consumptive uses, or to states not party to the Colorado River Compact such as Nebraska. The River District has expressed its very serious concerns about the operation of the CBT Project, and documented them in writing, on several occasions in the past. I wrote to the NCWCD over a year ago describing in detail the River District's primary areas of objection. The River District has also pointed out on numerous occasions to the Management Committee of the Coordinated Facilities Operations Study, Phase 2 ( CFOPS), which includes Reclamation representatives, that re- operation of the CBT Project can meet the goals of the CFOPS process without impacting water deliveries. No action has been taken to address the points raised. In order for the River District to fulfill its statutory mandate to preserve for western Colorado the use and development of the water resources of the Colorado River, stronger measures are now required.