Category: Transmountain Diversions

A guide to future negotiations on a new TMD goes from “the seven points of light” to a “draft conceptual agreement” to “Colorado’s Conceptual Framework”

Those opposed to new diversions tend to support the framework. Those who see them as necessary reject the framework’s restrictions.

The dissing of summer lawns lawns: comments on the Colorado Water Plan reveal differing views about urban grass, and the use of Western Slope water to grow it.

Repairs have been made to Grizzly Reservoir, but Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. is facing questions in water court about its historic diversions under Independence Pass.

The framework finds that a new project should not increase the likelihood of a call from California for more water under the Colorado Compact, or preclude future growth on the West Slope, among other principles.

State and local officials met in Rifle to discuss a “conceptual framework” that could shape the terms under which more water could be moved from the West Slope to the Front Range.

More context has been added to “the seven points,” or the “draft conceptual framework,” on how to negotiate a future potential transmountain diversion in Colorado.

At the core of the South Platte plan are potential new transmountain diversion or pumpback projects on the Green, Gunnison, Yampa, Colorado, Blue and Eagle rivers.

Pitkin County and Aurora disagree on how a transmountain water right should be calculated, and a judge, steeped in water law, questioned how Aurora managed its water right.

Some 300 members of the state’s river basin roundtables came to near unanimous consensus on March 12 regarding a “draft conceptual framework” to guide discussions of a potential new transmountain diversion in Colorado.