Water managers from the Colorado River District met with Pitkin County Commissioners Tuesday to talk about shared goals and points of contention around keeping more water in Western Slope rivers.
Representatives from the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District attended a work session with commissioners to explain how a deal with a Front Range diverter keeps more flow in the Roaring Fork, and about their plan to purchase the water rights tied to the Shoshone hydroplant in Glenwood Canyon.
Brendon Langenhuizen, director of technical advocacy with the River District, explained that through a River District agreement with the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., about 500 acre-feet of water contaminated by acid rock drainage did not flow down Lincoln Creek and the Roaring Fork, but instead went through the Twin Lakes Tunnel to the Front Range. This complicated, circular movement of water was a win-win for all the parties, Langenhuizen said.
Typically, when irrigators in the Grand Valley downstream place what’s known as the Cameo call, Twin Lakes, which has junior water rights, must shut off. Pitkin County officials and residents like to see Cameo come on because it means more water flowing west.
But this year because of planned maintenance on Grizzly Reservoir, Twin Lakes couldn’t release that water for Cameo out of the dam. After an alarming day in July when a slug of water from the bottom of the reservoir contaminated with aluminum and iron turned Aspen’s waterways orange, Roaring Fork valley entities didn’t want more of the contaminated water anyway. So Twin Lakes sent the Lincoln Creek water through the tunnel, and the River District released water out of Wolford Reservoir to satisfy the Cameo call. The River District gets to bank that 500 acre-feet that would have flowed downstream this year and decide when it’s released from Grizzly Reservoir over the next couple of years.
“We are really excited to be able to work with Pitkin County and other local constituents on when that water should be released and when it will have the most impact on the river,” Langenhuizen said. “We thought it was a great outcome to that situation… that can mitigate some of the water quality concerns and still get that yield in future years back.”
The water needs to be released from Grizzly to benefit the Roaring Fork over the next three years, with no more than 300 acre-feet in a single year.
According to River District General Manager Andy Mueller, the value of the 500 acre-feet of water the district released from Wolford was around $200,000.
“This was something that we felt made a lot of sense to contribute to the community,” Mueller said.
The River District’s water contribution may have been part of a peace offering to Pitkin County, with whom they have disagreed in years past. Some of the mistrust between the two local governments can be traced to water rights owned by the River District that would have kept alive huge reservoirs on the Crystal River near Redstone. The district eventually abandoned those rights, but not without first being challenged in water court by Pitkin County. Pitkin County also opposed the widely supported River District 2020 tax increase — ballot measure 7a — which funds water projects across the district’s 15-county area.
Mueller acknowledged that the two governments have not always gotten along. But he said the River District and the county are better when they work together and that he is committed to finding other ways to improve the health of the upper Roaring Fork.
“What you just said is really encouraging,” said Commissioner Kelly McNicholas-Kury. “One of the things I had hoped we would cover today… is what your vision of your commitment to the Roaring Fork is and what you see as a healthy river for the upper Roaring Fork. I think it would help us understand how clearly our alliance is on that.”
Shoshone rights
Where the River District stands on the health of the Roaring Fork is relevant to another important water discussion: the River District’s plan to purchase the Shoshone water rights.
The district has raised about $55 million so far and is asking the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for $40 million toward the $98.5 million purchase from Xcel Energy. The deal will require cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and changing the hydropower water right to an instream flow water right.
The River District’s Shoshone permanency campaign says the purchase will keep water flowing west to benefit downstream recreation, irrigators, cities and endangered fish. But Pitkin County officials said Tuesday they want more detail, especially on the way a Shoshone call could interact with a Cameo call. Pitkin County has expressed concerns that the deal could harm the Roaring Fork River because of the interaction between the Shoshone and Cameo calls, both of which have the ability to command the flow of the Colorado River and its tributaries. There is a concern that the River District’s ownership of the Shoshone rights could reduce the duration or frequency of the Cameo call.
“I think we need to be really careful and maybe have some kind of commitment or agreement between us that we’re going to make sure there is no injury to the existing water flow on the Roaring Fork,” said Commissioner Patti Clapper. “And if there’s a possibility, we need to hopefully come up with some kind of agreed-upon mitigation efforts.”
The River District has said its goal is to preserve — and not expand — the current flows at Shoshone.
Commissioner Francie Jacober asked River District officials to address in a future white paper summary four issues: Why would so much water go across the Continental Divide to the Front Range if the Shoshone water rights were abandoned; what are the specific numbers Roaring Fork flows could be diminished by; the days that Cameo is likely to affect the Roaring Fork; and a sense of what a water court is likely to approve for an instream flow water right based on Shoshone’s historic use.
Mueller said the River District has engineering studies and data on all four questions and that they are happy to work with Pitkin County’s attorneys and engineers to reach an agreement on numbers, potential impacts and solutions.
“We’re happy to do that and you have our commitment to continue to work with you on that,” he said.
This story ran in Dec. 11 edition of The Aspen Times.
