|
Part one: The
last drop
By
Jerd Smith and Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
October 2, 2004
Two
weekends a month, Angela Burdick and Bruce Rindahl flee metro
Denver's grime and noise to seek refuge in Colorado's lush high
country.
For this
couple, and tens of thousands of other Coloradans, the lure of
sunshine and a day under sail or on the ski slopes - all less than
100 miles from home - is simply too strong to resist.
But the
very ingredient that makes their mountain retreat so magical - the
cold clear water that purrs through rock-and-log-strewn streams - is
under siege, threatening the high country that is Colorado's
postcard to the world.
Already,
the Front Range takes vast amounts of water from the counties that
are home to Winter Park, Keystone, Vail and Aspen.
But now
Front Range utilities are reaching for the last of the extensive
water claims staked out decades ago in Grand, Summit, Eagle and
Pitkin counties. The utilities, including Denver Water, need more to
satisfy the demands of ever-growing cities stretching from Fort
Collins to Colorado Springs.
Unless
new deals are struck between the Front Range and Western Slope,
portions of the Fraser, the Blue, the Eagle and the Roaring Fork
rivers - the waterways that give birth to the mighty Colorado River
- could be mere trickles, or even go dry, for significant periods of
the year. The results: stressed fish, stranded kayakers and mountain
towns with polluted water and growth caps because they lack
sufficient water supplies.
"I think
we've all been guilty of believing the water supplies are endless,
and they really aren't," said Burdick, a real estate agent keen to
the irony of living in an urban area that depends on water from her
cherished mountain getaway.
More and
more, mountain residents will be forced to compete with the Front
Range for the last trickles of Western Slope headwaters.
New
studies predict that Grand and Summit counties will run short of
water in 25 years. And officials in Eagle and Pitkin counties also
foresee problems with water quantity and quality if Front Range
utilities draw more from the Eagle and Roaring Fork rivers.
All this
threatens the streams that have thrilled rafters, attracted anglers,
made snow for skiers and fueled the economic boom brought by the
second homes peppering Colorado's resort towns.
These
fast-growing regions need more water for themselves, but the bigger
drain comes from cities such as Denver, Colorado Springs and Fort
Collins as they look for ways to satisfy the thirst of a projected 2
million new Front Range residents by 2030.
Thanks to
a five-year drought, Western Slope locals see the cruel twist:
mountain towns that spend winter knee-deep in snow must take steps
to slow growth or limit water use because the Front Range has first
dibs on most of the resource.
Even when
the drought eases and the state returns to years of average
precipitation, headwater communities could find themselves
water-starved.
"It's a
hard reality, but the water is owned by these cities, and they are
going to bring it over," said Rindahl, a water engineer and Front
Range resident who has spent much of the past 20 years seeking
refuge in Colorado's high country.
The
impacts are expected to be severe:
•
In Grand County, water taps are being rationed because Winter Park
doesn't have enough water for development. At the same time, Denver
Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District are
hoping to pull enough additional water from Grand County for a total
of 80,000 homes.
•
In Summit County over the next 12 to 24 years, Denver plans to boost
by 77 percent the amount of water it collects from the Blue River.
That will cause water levels to fluctuate dramatically at Dillon
Reservoir, a recreation spot cherished by boaters and water skiers.
•
In Pitkin County, portions of the Roaring Fork in a popular
riverside park in Aspen could go dry if Colorado Springs, Pueblo and
Arkansas Valley farmers succeed in diverting more water through the
Twin Lakes Tunnel.
•
In Eagle County, Aurora and Colorado Springs plan to nearly double
the amount of water they're taking from the Eagle River. At the same
time, Eagle County hopes to partner with Denver to build a major
reservoir that would benefit the county and the Front Range.
Why the
push for high country water? Why not tap the vast amounts of
Colorado water used for farming? Or recycle more treated wastewater
and drink it, instead of just irrigating parks and golf courses with
it? Why not emphasize greater conservation?
Experts
and utilities consider all those as potential sources for satisfying
some of the expected new demand.
But it's
the crisp, clear headwaters of the mountain counties that everyone
covets.
"The
fight up there is over the good water," said David Robbins, a Denver
water attorney who can be found most weekends in his Summit County
home.
That
"good water" from the mountaintops is so named because it's
comparatively clean, requires little treatment and lies close to
vast water collection systems owned and operated by the cities.
"The
headwaters are the most valuable (supplies) we have," said Neil
Grigg, a water historian, author and Colorado State University
engineering professor. "It doesn't make sense to de-water them too
much.
"Economically, they're valuable because they're high up, and their
diversion points are close by. Ecologically, they're important
because they help sustain the whole ecosystem of the Colorado River.
"We've
reached a critical balancing point," Grigg said. "(As a state) we're
going to have to make some tough decisions."
Prospecting for water
In
Colorado, there is an intimate connection between the water that
city dwellers consume and the state's hallmark snow-covered
mountains, where 80 percent of the state's drinking water is
derived.
Diverting
water from the once-remote mountain counties began in the last
decades of the 1800s, when surveyors and water prospectors hiked the
Never Summer Range in Grand County, the Ten Mile in Summit, the Holy
Cross in Eagle and the Collegiate Peaks in Pitkin.
Back
then, when fewer than 500,000 people populated the state, it was
unlikely anyone envisioned that Colorado would one day be home to
more than 4.3 million people.
To early
water prospectors, the mountain streams' water supplies seemed
eternal, finding new life with each spring snowmelt. Front Range
cities drew freely on these supplies and made legal claims for more
in the future - with few angry locals or environmental laws standing
in their way.
The
picture is much different now. With Colorado's population expected
to reach 7 million by 2030, the limits of these once-bountiful
streams are being tested, the last drop of their supplies in sight.
Increasingly, the water that keeps trout streams cool and clear,
allows kayak courses to roar through Vail and Breckenridge, and
fuels thousands of acres of snowmaking at ski resorts will be
diverted to the Front Range.
"The
Front Range is killing us," said Lane Wyatt, a water specialist with
the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. "But in a way, they
are us."
Throughout the headwater counties, local officials are scrambling to
capture what little is left of available water supplies while
pressuring Front Range cities to share some here, store some there
and leave as much in the streams as possible.
At odds
are a $3 billion mountain tourist economy whose core asset is water
and an urban corridor with the political clout and the cash to
simply take the water if compromises can't be made - even if taking
it damages the wild places and weekend playgrounds that draw many to
Colorado in the first place.
"People
on the Front Range think water starts at their kitchen tap," said
Scott Hummer, the top water cop on the Blue River. "But they're
wrong. It ends there. Sometimes I just want to tell them, 'It's the
same water.'"
Exploding mountain growth
It isn't
simply Front Range growth testing these clear waters.
The
counties' own populations have doubled in the past 50 years and are
projected to double again by 2030, according to Colorado's state
demographer.
Water
demand for skiing and recreation is also straining supplies.
Making
one acre of snow for a ski slope, for instance, requires 326,000
gallons of water a year, according to Vail Associates. That's enough
to supply up to two Denver homes for a year.
Keeping
the Vail kayak course afloat for 12 hours requires 130.4 million
gallons of water, enough to keep about 800 homes in lawn water and
showers for a year.
By 2030
each of the headwater counties will need about twice as much water
as they use now, according to new data from the $2.7 million
Statewide Water Supply Initiative. Many mountain communities are
just beginning to realize how little water they really own, thanks
to water deals made decades ago.
Those
early mass water claims - perfectly legal under Colorado water law -
mean that nearly half of the natural flows in these rivers'
headwaters are already moving to Front Range cities, according to
the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
By 2030
that number will rise significantly.
In Summit
County's Blue River, for instance, about 25 percent of the
headwaters are diverted. That figure will rise to about 50 percent
as Denver delivers new supplies through Dillon Reservoir and the
Roberts Tunnel.
In Grand
County, the Fraser River loses more than 60 percent of its flows to
Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
which serves Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, Lafayette, Broomfield
and part of Boulder.
In 25
years, more than 80 percent of the Fraser's flows will come to the
Front Range, according to new studies.
"There's
reason for alarm at this point," said Grand County Commissioner
James Newberry.
In
response, environmental coalitions are re-forming, anticipating new
battles for water project permits. Citizen groups hold monthly water
education sessions in the Eagle Public Library at Avon.
Heated
negotiations are under way almost weekly as Denver, Aurora, Fort
Collins and Colorado Springs push to launch the last wave of
diversions while keeping their powerful Western Slope counterparts
happy.
This year
alone, Denver Water and the Northern water district are devoting
nearly $2 million to their high-country planning efforts.
"Our
interests and the interests of the Western Slope are never going to
be the same," said Ed Pokorney, director of planning at Denver
Water, Colorado's largest municipal water supplier. "And they
shouldn't be. They don't have to go to bed every night worrying
about supplying water to 1.2 million people (Denver Water's customer
base)."
The
pressure on both sides is so fierce that Denver and other utilities
- once used to taking the water with little interference - are
eyeing agreements to give up blocks of undeveloped water rights and
defer to local needs and environmental concerns. In exchange, the
utilities hope to get at least some water immediately while avoiding
the threat of lengthy legal action that could throttle their efforts
to meet customer demand.
New
coalitions
Partnerships deemed unthinkable even 15 years ago are beginning to
emerge. Vail Associates, for instance, is working with Aurora and
Denver to see whether maybe, just maybe, Eagle County and the Front
Range might share the costs and benefits of a planned reservoir at
Wolcott.
The
Northern water district - the state's largest mover of water from
west to east - argues that it's already given plenty to the West
Slope over the years in exchange for water, including $10 million in
the 1980s to help build a reservoir.
Even so,
Northern won't rule out giving up more to complete efforts at moving
another 30,000 acre-feet in the coming years. It already takes
230,000 acre-feet - enough for 460,000 homes.
"Have we
closed and locked the door for further discussion?" said Brian
Werner, spokesman for Northern. "No, we're willing to talk."
Denver
Water - historically the king on the state's water chess board -
also operates under a new mandate to cooperate. That change began
after the expensive defeat of its bitterly opposed Two Forks dam 15
years ago and continues with Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's focus
on regional solutions.
But it
isn't easy.
"We have
a lot of issues in dispute and in common with those counties," said
Denise Maes, a Denver Water Board member and past president. "I have
to figure out how to get (new supplies for Denver) without p------
the rest of the state off. It's daunting. But we are not going to
simply go get water and say, 'Hey, we love ya, but you're on your
own.' That's not what we're about, and that's not what we're going
to do."
Such
words don't deliver much comfort to Western Slope water officials
who have heard the language of compromise turn tough in
negotiations.
After a
long summer of meetings, Taylor Hawes, an attorney with the
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, said relationships had
been strained almost to the breaking point.
"I've
never seen it this tense."
About this series
•
Today: Front Range demand for water threatens rivers in counties
that are home to Winter Park, Vail, Breckenridge and Aspen.
•
Monday: Grand County already limits growth because of water
shortages. Now Front Range utilities want more of its water.
•
Tuesday: In Summit County, Dillon Reservoir will rise and fall
dramatically if Denver Water takes more of the Blue River.
•
Wednesday: Few Aspenites and other Pitkin County residents know
about plans to draw more of the Roaring Fork River.
•
Thursday: Eagle County, the home of Vail, is negotiating with the
Front Range on what could be a landmark water project.
smithj@RockyMountainNews.comor
303-892-5474 and
hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com
or 303-892-5048
|
Part two: Grand's last stand
Growth is taxing county's water supplies
By Todd
Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
October
4, 2004
GRAND
COUNTY — The mighty Colorado River is born here, delivered by the icy
tundra of Rocky Mountain National Park and the wind-hammered peaks
overlooking the Fraser Valley.
It nearly
dies here, too.
Dozens of
the river's tributaries abruptly stop cascading down the mountainsides,
captured by simple dirt or concrete ditches gouged into the steep
terrain. These remote structures send the water far away, through dark
tunnels and open canals heading east, leaving the Colorado's main stem
to wait in vain for a bounty that never comes.
It's been
that way for decades, as the parched cities, cornfields and corporations
of the northern Front Range drained Grand County of 60 percent of the
Colorado River's headwaters. Still, the river hung on.
Then, with
the new century, came drought, and strained streams fell to trickles.
Flows in Grand County's Fraser River, a tributary of the Colorado,
dropped this year to levels never before recorded, as Denver, desperate
to refill reservoirs, allowed even less to get by its mountain water
traps.
Now,
Colorado's two largest water utilities, pressured by relentless growth,
plan to take even more water from still-reeling Grand County.
They are
seeking new water diversions that will push as much as 80 percent of the
county's headwaters to the Front Range, precipitating a crisis in this
Western Slope community.
Denver
Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District want to firm
up unused water rights — legal claims staked out decades ago. The extra
water is crucial to meeting customer demand, they say.
Denver
Water says just one dry year could bring the utility dangerously close
to running out of water for customers on the north side of the metro
area — as it nearly did in the record-shattering drought year of 2002.
Meanwhile,
the Northern water district, which serves Greeley, Fort Collins,
Boulder, Broomfield and other towns, says it's under pressure to come up
with new supplies quickly.
"Some of
our participants needed this water yesterday," said Brian Werner, a
spokesman for Northern.
But both
utilities face a daunting hurdle: how to take the water from Grand
County without further damaging the delicate environment and the
region's economy, which is fueled by tourists who expect to play in the
very water the Front Range wants to take.
"If you
ruin the reason people like to live here and the reason people like to
come here, you're just shooting yourself in the foot," said Sarah
Clements, executive director of the Grand County Water Information
Network, a new organization tracking the region's many water challenges.
Grand
County is staring at a harsh irony: One of the most water-rich areas of
Colorado, home to popular ski areas and fresh mountain streams, faces a
shortage that could leave rivers, developers, fish, anglers and
wastewater treatment plants without the water they need.
Already,
poor snowfall in recent years and transmountain water transfers have
taken a sweeping toll.
In Winter
Park, water district officials have denied a developer's request to
double the density of his luxury housing project, from 250 to 500 units,
citing lack of water to supply it.
In the
Colorado River, near Kremmling, water levels dropped so low this summer
that intakes for irrigation pumps were left high and dry. Ranchers
couldn't water their fields, so the Northern water district had to build
small dams in the riverbed to raise water levels.
Treating
wastewater has grown costlier because streams have less water to dilute
the effluent discharged into them. Without more thorough treatment, the
sewage would contaminate the streams.
Hazards to
fish and other aquatic life have increased because low flows and shallow
water have raised stream temperatures. Low flows have also cut access to
river habitat for fish, which need diverse environments to feed, rest
and reproduce.
Residents
also complain that sediment is filling scenic Grand Lake, Colorado's
largest natural lake. They argue that Northern's system for moving water
to the Front Range is pulling the sediment into the lake — a claim
Northern questions.
A recent
study of Grand County and neighboring Summit County concluded that
neither has enough water for predicted growth if Denver and Northern
take what they want, and the study didn't consider a severe drought. It
relied on data from 1947 to 1991, taking into account two drought
periods — neither as bad as 2002.
"The
participants of the study realize that the current 2002-03 drought may
present conditions even more severe than past droughts," the study said.
Should the
utilities succeed in taking more water, locals throughout Grand County
fear they would end up with, in effect, a permanent state of drought —
anemic, insufficient streams even in years with average snowmelt and
rainfall.
And if
real drought persists or returns, which history says is inevitable, they
fear the effects could be far worse.
"This
(drought-like condition) is going to be an every-year deal," said Bill
Thompson, 53, a rancher near Kremmling since he was a youngster.
"The
Colorado River has never been this low before in my life. There's just
too much water going east."
Cursed by
a blessing
In a way,
Grand County is a victim of the gifts Mother Nature bestowed upon it.
Grand is
home to the headwaters of the famed Colorado River — the river that
begins as a million melting snowflakes and goes on to roar through the
Grand Canyon and bring water to five other arid Western states. This
headwater county also loses more water to the Front Range than any other
county in the state.
By an
accident of geography, Grand County backs up to the Continental Divide
in a way convenient to the most populous stretch of Colorado, book ended
by Denver on the south and Fort Collins on the north.
Most of
the dozens of towns and hundreds of farms in between derive a portion of
their water from Grand County. The water arrives via ditches, tunnels
and pipelines that travel across or have been bored through the mountain
peaks separating West Slope from East Slope.
In what
appears to the naked eye as a gravity-defying feat, these conveyances
seem to move water uphill. When water should be flowing west, toward the
Colorado River, it flows east instead.
Credit
skillful engineers who designed the century-old ditches to start high in
the west and end lower in the east, employing techniques dating to the
aqueducts of Rome. Later, more sophisticated technology allowed tunnels
and pipelines to transfer more water.
On
average, all these diversions move a whopping 305,000 acre-feet per year
from the Fraser, Colorado and Williams Fork rivers — all headwaters of
the Colorado's main stem.
That's
more water than resides in Denver Water's gargantuan Dillon Reservoir in
Summit County. The diversions amount to 60 percent of the water that
would otherwise flow through most of Grand County, according to the
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
But Denver
and Northern want more.
Denver
wants to pipe an average of 10,000 additional acre-feet a year — enough
for up to 20,000 households annually — through the Moffat Tunnel to meet
what it describes as growing demand. The move also will take pressure
off its southern delivery system, which carries 80 percent of the
utility's supply.
Northern
wants to bring an average of 30,000 acre-feet more through the Adams
Tunnel each year to "firm up" existing water rights connected to its
Windy Gap project. That system, completed in the mid-1980s, collects
water from the confluence of the Fraser and Colorado rivers and pipes it
to Lake Granby.
Most water
rights held by Front Range interests were claimed decades ago — long
before environmental concerns might have put the brakes on or required
leaving more water in the streams.
Even the
U.S. Forest Service, which was alive and well in the 1920s and '30s,
didn't raise a finger to stop Denver from capturing water with a
100-mile ditch and pipe system that rims the Fraser Valley.
And there
was hardly a local constituency to protest.
"Nobody
expected the second-home buyers and the skiers back then," said Bruce
Hutchins, manager of Grand County Water and Sanitation District No. 1,
the largest water provider in the Fraser Valley, supplying the
equivalent of 2,500 single-family homes.
But making
use of those long-held water rights won't be so simple today.
Denver
Water and Northern will need federal environmental permits.
And
counties have more protections against water grabs than they once had.
A 1974
state law says water utilities, even when they have water rights, can't
lay down a massive project without locals getting a say in how and where
it's built.
Denver and
Northern, however, don't appear to need any more construction in Grand
County to take additional water. Both can store it in new or expanded
reservoirs on the Front Range. That takes away Grand County's best tool
for combating or controlling the projects.
"Obviously," said Grand County Commissioner James Newberry, "we're going
to have to fight for our water."
Just an
expression
Newberry,
though, is speaking metaphorically.
Denver
Water and Northern are desperate to avoid a legal fight. Wrangling in
court could tie up their water rights for years, perhaps a decade — with
no guarantee of the outcome.
"The
easiest thing to do is fight," said Dave Little, Denver Water's manager
of resource planning. But, "once you're in a court battle, there's no
cooperation."
And Grand
County officials have no stomach — or money — to take on Denver Water or
Northern.
"We can't
fight Denver," said Thompson, the Kremmling rancher. "They've got 25
lawyers on staff."
Instead,
all parties seem willing to cooperate.
"We're
trying to make this work for all of us," Newberry said.
Crafting
compromise is crucial.
The
planned diversions would leave Grand County's towns and water districts
with a combined shortfall of up to 2,300 acre-feet annually once the
counties are built out in the coming decades, though planners have no
firm estimate of when that will be.
That 2,300
acre-feet shortage relates only to expected needs of homes and
businesses. It doesn't include a predicted shortfall of about 8,000
acre-feet needed for streams to support fish and recreation. That water,
like the water needed for development, could all be swallowed by Front
Range transfers.
And those
figures don't take into account the kind of shortages that could occur
in an extremely dry year such as 2002.
Meanwhile,
Grand County continues to boom. The county is among Colorado's fastest
growing, with 12,884 permanent residents as of the 2000 Census, up
nearly 5,000 from 1990. It had an average annual growth rate of 4
percent over the past decade.
Western
Slope water officials say mountain counties may face stark choices
between stream flows for fish or water for more condos and homes —
choices some water districts already are facing in Grand County.
"We could
probably figure out a way to serve the people at full build-out, but
there wouldn't be any water in the stream, and no outdoor water use,"
Hutchins said.
The study
of water needs in Grand and Summit counties, called the Upper Colorado
River Basin Study, or UpCo, found many areas of potential water
shortfall if Denver and Northern follow through on their plans.
Among
them:
•
Stream flows in the Fraser River above the town of Fraser would be at or
below the minimum levels recommended by the Colorado Water Conservation
Board during the winter and often during summer. The minimums are needed
for the health of fish, wildlife and the stream ecosystem.
•
Stream flows in the same stretch of river would often be too low for
wastewater from the Grand County Water and Sanitation District No. 1 to
comply with health standards.
•
Flows in the Fraser River below Fraser would often be below the
recommended minimum levels for fish and wildlife for October through
January.
•
Flows in the Colorado River below its confluence with the Fraser River
would fall below minimum levels for fish and kayakers during some summer
months. The stream would drop below minimum flows for August through
March.
People who
make their living off recreation — fishing suppliers and rafting guides,
for example — say they're alarmed by the prospect of yet more water
moving east.
"It could
threaten the industry," said Art Krizman, owner of Raven Adventures,
based in Hot Sulphur Springs in central Grand County.
Krizman
said reduced flows in the Colorado already lengthen trips because the
river moves slower with less water in the channel. A trip that once took
five hours now takes six or seven hours.
"It's
still a fun, beautiful place," Krizman said, "but nothing like we used
to see just a few years ago."
Krizman
acknowledges drought is partly to blame, but he also points a finger at
the Front Range, where people "abuse water on green lawns, washing their
sidewalks and act like there is no drought."
Falling
water levels have also caught the attention of environmentalists with
the technical knowledge to challenge the movement of more Western Slope
water to the Front Range.
One group,
Trout Unlimited, has raised detailed objections to the projects and
submitted its concerns to the Army Corps of Engineers. The agency, in
consultation with dozens of other agencies and interests, must decide
whether to provide a federal permit for the work to go forward.
Among
Trout Unlimited's demands: a better explanation of why the water is
needed and whether both utilities can find other ways to address future
needs.
"We've
already got significant temperature issues below (the Fraser-Colorado
confluence) because of low flows," said Melinda Kassen, an attorney for
Trout Unlimited. "In this case, we're talking about exacerbating an
existing problem."
During the
2002 drought, Kassen said her organization talked to a rancher who took
water temperatures in the Colorado where he rents waterfront property
for fishing.
"He just
put his thermometer in the river, and it was 80 degrees. Trout can't
live in 80 degrees," Kassen said. "The potential for continued elevated
temperatures which will hammer the fishery is significant."
Almost a
solution
Both
Denver Water and Northern had originally proposed reservoirs for Grand
County that would solve certain problems for locals and the utilities.
Denver
Water had its eyes set on a site midway down the Fraser Valley to build
Ranch Valley Reservoir, a 25,000 acre-feet storage pond.
That reservoir could help both Denver and the Fraser Valley. Under one
plan, Denver — instead of capturing water on the mountainsides — would
let more water flow down the Fraser River for use in the valley. Then,
that water would collect in the Ranch Valley Reservoir.
When Denver needed it, water could be pumped from the reservoir into
Denver Water's collection system and sent to the Front Range.
Northern
had hoped to build 36,000 acre-feet Jasper Reservoir just west of Lake
Granby to store water from Windy Gap.
But both
proposals have run into trouble. Environmental surveys revealed both
sites contain rare peat-forming wetland areas called fens.
Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Fish and Wildlife Service, told the utilities to look somewhere else.
The news
came as a blow and has sent planners scurrying for other options, none
of which is likely to be as affordable or workable as their first
choices.
"Everything else is not as good," said Little of Denver Water. "It's
depressing."
Both
parties are intent on closing a deal, however, and are looking at other
possibilities.
Denver and
Grand County, for example, could work out an agreement in which Grand
County would pay to construct a Front Range reservoir. In wet years,
Denver Water could fill the reservoir. In dry years, Denver would draw
from the reservoir and take less from the Fraser Valley.
Northern
has an interest in building a large Front Range reservoir, Chimney
Hollow, near Carter Lake southwest of Loveland, to hold more than
100,000 acre-feet.
As for
helping to ease the blow in Grand County, Northern officials note that
they made all their concessions — or provided "mitigation," in the
parlance of water wonks — when the Windy Gap project was built in 1985.
At the
time, Northern pitched in $10 million toward Wolford Mountain Reservoir,
also in Grand County, so the Western Slope could store water in wet
years to supplement stream flows in dry years. Northern also provides
3,000 acre-feet of water annually to the Middle Park Water Conservancy
District, which supplies water to about 30 small utilities in Grand and
Summit counties.
Even so,
Northern is willing to consider other steps to preserve flows in the
region, said spokesman Brian Werner.
"We
haven't drawn a line in the sand and said, 'Nothing else,'" Werner said.
"What we hope is we can reach some middle ground. If we can do X, we'll
give you Y."
But before
any deal can get done, Denver and Northern need buy-in from water
interests throughout Grand County, as well as the Army Corps, the Bureau
of Reclamation and other state and federal agencies.
Grand
County locals are nervous. They know Denver and Northern probably have
good legal standing to take their water. Some are skeptical that
anything can be done to preserve water for the county known as the
birthplace of the Colorado River.
They point
to a Denver Water diversion high on the Fraser River. Early this summer,
an aging steel gate was directing almost the entire flow of the river
that day into a pipe that ultimately carried the river through Moffat
Tunnel to the Front Range.
The flow
left over — a single cubic foot per second, about the same amount
sprayed from a 1 3/4-inch firefighting hose — was all that stayed in the
river.
It was all
perfectly legal — the legacy of water rights claimed decades ago, long
before local objections and environmental concerns might have stopped
the virtual eradication of a mountain stream.
That
historical backdrop, and the sheer political power of two utilities that
serve a combined 2 million customers, has Grand County wondering just
how much water might be left for its future.
"We're
just guppies swimming in the tank with sharks," said Hutchins. "The only
reason they don't eat us is they don't even see us."
They also
know that this could be the last opportunity to negotiate whatever
benefits they can before the Front Range squeezes out the last drop of
the headwaters.
Lane
Wyatt, a water specialist with the Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments, agrees.
"Whether
it's the last drop, I don't know, but Grand County sees this as the last
chance to negotiate something with these guys."
hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5048. |