Grand Lake users differ on priorities.

Thursday, July 19, 2007  Sky-Hi News
by Tonya Bina

Grand Lake is not a top concern. In essence, that’s what Nicole Seltzer, public liaison of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s water quality program, told members of the Greater Grand Lake Shoreline Association, the group spearheading an effort to improve water quality in Grand Lake.

Although Grand Lake itself is less clear than it once was, it is clear that those who depend on its water have conflicting priorities. Northern has committed to studying water quality and has engaged with various agencies, municipalities and water districts to address problems in its water delivery system, but none of its studies single
out Grand Lake.

Among Northern’s priorities are a Colorado-Big Thompson Nutrient Project, a two-phased study, the results of which are estimated to take another two to three years, analyzing the causes of nutrient- related problems within the entire three-lakes system — considered both a “West Slope and Front Range problem,” Seltzer said. The study’s aim is to answer why there is a problem.

“Although people may be frustrated with the pace, we are working toward solutions that you want to see in place,” Seltzer told shoreline property owners Saturday. “It just takes a long time.” Northern is also pumping its resources into a Horsetooth Reservoir water quality study.

“Our geographic scope is very large,” Seltzer said, adding that Northern receives different pressures from the Front Range. “We are moving forward with the most important work . . . the greatest work for the greatest amount of people.”

But Greater Grand Lake Shoreline Association President John Stahl pointed out that the original architect of the Colorado-Big Thompson system back in the ‘30s envisioned  “clarity” of Shadow Mountain reservoir and Grand Lake, and that the U.S. Senate outlined in its 1937 appropriation of funds to start the C-BT project a mandate for the system: “It must be operated in such a manner as to . . . preserve the fishing and recreational facilities and the scenic attractions of Grand Lake, the Colorado River and Rocky Mountain National Park.”

“The Senate made no mention of Horsetooth, Carter, Flatitron or Boulder reservoirs,” Stahl said.

Likewise, another Grand Lake resident Richard McQueary stood up and reiterated that Grand Lake is not part of a “man-made” water delivery system, saying that Northern and the Bureau of Reclamation are sacrificing a once pristine   lake   for     mass    benefit    while tolerating its detriment, meanwhile offering little or no intent to rectify their mess.

“Don’t make us wait while you figure out how to fix your system,” McQueary said. Shoreline owners would rather see pumped water bypass Shadow Mountain and Grand lakes.

Through the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, the Northern Water Conservancy District provides water to about 400,000 people from as far north as Fort Collins to as south as Broomfield, about 1.6 million acres.

Essentially, the source of that water is the Colorado River fed by mountain runoff coming from rugged territory that is Rocky Mountain National Park and the river’s largest outlet, Grand Lake (deemed to be its headwaters).

And Grand Lake, a natural lake that was thrown in as part of an artificial water diversion system, has been subject to degradation due to reservoir water being pumped through it at an unnatural rate and direction. Studies have shown during pumping, it takes just 18
days for the entire volume of Shadow Mountain Reservoir to empty into Grand Lake, affecting the natural lake’s top 30 feet of depth.

Empowered by some scientific proof, the Grand Lake group convinced Grand County to begin the arduous process of presenting Grand Lake’s case to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment’s Water Quality Control Division to create a clarity standard for the lake. If successful, it would be the first such standard set for a natural lake in Colorado.

An encouraging presentation at the shoreline association meeting was by Dr. John Reuter, associate director of the Tahoe Environmental Research Center of the University of California at Davis, who showed the Grand Lake group that it is possible to improve the quality of a water body in the face of multiple stakeholder groups and government agencies.

The Lake Tahoe effort, which included two states, five counties and various conflicting groups from industrial to environmental, achieved a 20-year plan for restoring the lake’s water quality to its 1960’s condition. “Although it’s challenging to get arms around a fairly difficult issue, when people care, solutions can be found,” Reuter said. In Tahoe, the notion that economy and environment “cannot be separated out” was key in moving toward a common direction. And, the application of science and sufficient data was also paramount, Reuter said. He advised Grand Lake and Grand County to collect further data and use water-quality modeling and analysis as a guide to solid solutions.

A 2003 computer model that could be of service in analyzing effects to Grand Lake, paid for by such stakeholders as Grand County, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and Northern, could help, but Northern has seized the model to aid in its Environmental Impact Statement for the Windy Gap Firming Project.

The firming project would allow the district to take more water from Grand County through the C-BT project. It would deliver a firm annual yield of up to 30,000 acre-feet of water by 2010, all of which would travel through Grand Lake.

The 2003 model is being used in areas that might conflict with Grand Lake efforts, and a Northern consultant has resisted letting others use the model for such parallel projects.

The Hydrosphere Resource Consultant who developed the model, Jean Marie Boyer, works for the firm hired by Northern, and is providing information on behalf of Northern to aid in the Environmental Impact Study.

“We’re not comfortable with the position we’re in right now,” said Jeff Drager, Northern’s water quality team project manager about the district’s perceived lack of cooperation on this matter. “But that’s where we’re at.”

For upcoming state water quality standards hearings, those on behalf of Grand Lake hope to use the same model to show what the natural flow and condition of Grand Lake and Shadow Mountain water would be without C-BT pumping.

Rather than commissioning the Tahoe research center to make a new model, which could lead to dueling models during future state hearings, groups for Grand Lake are planning to pursue access to the C-BT model.

After all, they reason, Grand County helped to pay for its development.