C O L O R A D O F O U N D AT I O N F O R W AT E R E D U C AT I O N | W I N T E R 2 0 1 5
S P E C I A L F E AT U R E
Colorado’s Water Plan
Why We Need It Now Plus…What it took to get the first draft of a state roadmap for water to the governor
To Do: Assess your water future and get involved in 2015 HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
1
The Colorado Foundation for Water Education would like to express its sincere gratitude to those who have shared their passion for Colorado’s most precious resource, and whose donations between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 (fiscal year 2014) have made CFWE’s work possible.
Thank you! Endowing Partners ($20K+) Colorado Water Conservation Board, Xcel Energy Foundation Headwaters ($5,000+) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Aurora Water, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment—Water Quality Control Division, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Denver Suburban Water District, Denver Water, MillerCoors, Noble Energy, Northern Water, Southwestern Water Conservation District, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Basin ($2,000+) AMCi Wireless, Board of Water Works of Pueblo, CDM Smith, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, City of Longmont, Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc., Douglas County, Drought Response Information Program, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Emily Griffith Technical College, Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., Nestle Waters North America, Patrick Miller Kropf Noto, P.C., Pioneer Natural Resources, Republican River Water Conservation District, Rio Grande Water Conservation District, South Metro Water Supply Authority, South Platte Water Related Activities Program, St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District, Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District, Ute Water Conservancy District Aquifer ($1,000+) Agrium, Inc., American Water Works Association - Rocky Mountain Section, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, City of Greeley Water Conservation, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Springs Utilities, The Consolidated Mutual Water Company, HDR Engineering, Inc., Hydro Resources, Lyons Gaddis Kahn Hall Jeffers Dworak & Grant, P.C., Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Mount Werner Water and Sanitation District, One World One Water Center at Metro State University, Alicia & Brandon Prescott, Regenesis Management Group, Gregg Ten Eyck & Corrin Campbell, The Nature Conservancy, Town of Monument, The Water Information Program, White & Jankowski, LLP, Wright Water Engineers River ($500+) Adaptive Resources, Inc., AMEC Foster Wheeler, Applegate Group, Barr Lake & Milton Reservoir Watershed Association, Bishop-Brogden Associates, Inc.,
Black & Veatch, Calm Water Control Company, Cherokee Metropolitan District, City of Greeley, City of Thornton, Collins Cockrel & Cole, Colorado Bar Association, Colorado Water Congress, Eagle Bend Metro District, Encana, George K. Baum & Company, Russell George Family, The Greenway Foundation, Headwaters Corporation, Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, Dan Luecke & Rosemary Wrzos, Alan Matlosz & Michelle Godfrey, Maynes Bradford Shipps & Sheftel, LLP, John & Heidi McClow, Porzak Browning & Bushong, LLP, Roggen Farmers Elevator Association, Stuart and Joanna Brown Charitable Fund, John Stulp, United Water and Sanitation District, Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, Weld County Farm Bureau, West Sage Water Consultants, Wright Family Foundation
Tributary ($250+) Anderson and Chapin, P.C., Annette Aring, Ayres Associates, Tom & Grace Cech, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, Central Nebraska Public Power and
Irrigation District, CH2M HILL, City of Fort Collins—Natural Areas Department, Colorado Corn, Colorado Livestock Association, Colorado Municipal League, Delta County, Doug Robotham, Dynotek, Evan Ela, Evans Group, LLC, GBSM, Les Gelvin, Grand County, Havey Productions, Taylor Hawes, Eric & Nilmini Hecox, Ryan Hemphill, Greg & Bobbie Hobbs, Kogovsek and Associates, Inc., Left Hand Water District, Legacy Land Trust, McGrane Water Engineering, LLC, Trina McGuire-Collier, Middle Park Water Conservancy District, Reed and Marla Morris, Mulhern MRE, Inc., North Sterling Irrigation District, North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District, William Paddock, Kent & Colleen Peppler, Petros and White, LLC, Pitkin County, Pitkin County Healthy Rivers Board, Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, Riverside Technology, Inc., Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Roxborough Water and Sanitation District, San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, Town of Silverthorne, Daniel Tyler, Vranesh and Raisch, LLP, Reagan Waskom, Robert Weaver, Western Resource Advocates, Wilson Water Group
Stream ($100+) Marlene Accardo, Tom Acre, Don Ament, Frank Anesi, Animas River Wetlands, LLC, David Bailey, Ken Baker, Chris Barba, Garald & Megan Barber, Bridget Barron,
John Bartholow, Amy Beatie, KC Becker, Richard Belt, Cheryl Benedict, Barbara Biggs, Gary Bostrom, Caroline Bradford, Ginny Brannon, Mark Bransom, Richard Bratton, Jen Brill, Donna Brosemer, Natalie Brower-Kirton, Carlee Brown, Matthew Brown, Rob Buirgy, Bill Caile, Mitchell Chambers, Ron Childs, Kelly Close, Nick Colglazier, Colorado Land Company, LLC, Colorado Water Savers, Amy Conklin, Stuart Corbridge, Lindsay Cox, Rita Crumpton, CU Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems, Casey Davenhill, Thomas Davinroy, Alexandra Davis, Dan DeLaughter, Delta Conservation District, Denver Polo Club, Inc., Jonathan Diebel, Kelly DiNatale, Todd Doherty, James Eklund, ELEMENT Water Consulting, Environmental Process Control, Dieter Erdmann, Fairfield and Woods, P.C., Farmers Grain Co., Stephen Fearn, Randy Fischer, Greg Fisher, Rick Fleharty, Patricia Flood, Fort Collins Utilities, Julia Gallucci, Thomas Gougeon, Lloyd Gronning, Frani Halperin, Debi Harmon, Harris Water Engineering, Inc., Edward Harvey, Harvey Economics, Sandra Haynes, Hockersmith & Mueller, P.C., Diane Hoppe, Greg & Dot Hoskin, Scott Hummer, Steven Jeffers, Greg Johnson, Pete Kasper, Katy Atkinson & Associates, Jerry Kenny, Kevin & Patti Kinnear, Bill Kluth, Katie Knoll, Dave Koop, Ramsey Kropf, Jojo La, Elizabeth Lane, Greg Larson, Lutin Curlee Family Partnership, Ltd., Ken Lykens, Steve Malers, Rick Marsicek, Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Tyler Martineau, Donald Martinusen, Ren Martyn, Chris Mathias, Murray McCaig, Jack McCormick, David McGimpsey, Dennis McGrane, Phil McKinley, Michael McLachlan, Mark McLean, Lisa McVicker, John & Susan Maus, Allen Mitchek, Kaylee Moore, Peter Nichols, Don Oatley, James Ogsbury, John Orr, Ian Paton, Chris Piper, Dan Platt, Allison Plute, Jim Pokrandt, John & Nancy Porter, Mary Presecan, Gabe Racz, Douglas Rademacher, Ken Ransford, Patricia Rettig, Robert Rich, Rachel Richards, Laurie Rink, Rio Grande Watershed Conservation and Education Initiative, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Larry Ross, Rick Sackbauer, Ralph Scanga, Kara Scheel, Gail Schwartz, Ward & Alyson Scott, Nicole Seltzer, Stephen Seltzer, Thomas Sharp, Mike Shimmin, Douglas Sinor, MaryLou Smith, Stephen Smith, Tod Smith, South Canon Ditch Company, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Heather Stauffer, Craig Steinmetz, Dick Stenzel, Angie Stoner, Dana Strongin, Britta Strother, Jamie Sudler, Summit County, Andrew Todd, Jean Townsend, Bill Trampe, Larry Traubel, Chris Treese, Carl Trick, Margaret Ulrich-Nims, Paul van der Heijde, Wayne Vanderschuere, Steve Vandiver, Russell Walker, Susan Walker, Ty Wattenberg, Brian Werner, Stephanie White, Troy Wineland, James Witwer, Fred Wolf, Dick Wolfe, Joe Tom Wood, Pat Yanchunas, Mickey Zeppelin
Individual ($50+) Mathew Accardo, Gerald Adams, Vic Ahlberg, Richard Alper, Chuck Anderson, Kenneth Anderson, Susan Andrews, Jim Aranci, Jeni Arndt, Jeffrey Arthur, Carl Bachhuber, Balcomb and Green, P.C., Jeffrey Bandy, Jill Baron, Jini Bates, William Battaglin, Bear Creek Water and Sanitation District, David Beaujon, Matt Becker, Drew Beckwith, Laura Belanger, Lauren Berent, David Berry, Mike Berry, Matthew Betz, Gail Binkly, Tillie Bishop, Courtney Black, Patricia Blakey, Linda Bledsoe, Bluewater Resources, Sharon Bokan, James Boynton, Gene Bradley, Norman Brooks, Kathleen Butler, Peter Butler, Michael Calhoun, Carollo Engineers, Josephine Carpenter, Robert Case, Castle Pines Metropolitan District, Gretchen Cerveny, Christiansen Corporate Resources, City of Aspen Water Department, Clay and Dodson, P.C., Michael Cohen, Debbie Cokes, Bill Coleman, Ted Collin, Kevin Collins, Colorado State University—CSURF Real Estate Office, Dave Colvin, Conejos Water Conservancy District, Theresa Conley, David Conner, Mike Connolly, Alice Conovitz, Jason Cooley, Neomi Cox, Pete Crabb, Crestone Baca Watershed Council, Chris Crosby, Kate Danzer, Lisa Darling, Brian Devine, William DeWolfe, Jody Dickson, Lucy Dipboye, Sarah Dominick, Matthew Downey, Ducks Unlimited, Heather Dutton, Eagle County Government, East Grand Water Quality Board, Rodney Eisenbraun, Lindsay Ellis, Marketa Elsner, Patrick Emery, Enercon Services, Inc., Lewis Entz, Environment, Inc., Robert Enzaldo, Brian Epstein, ERO Resources Corp., Megan Estep, Rick Everist, Joanne Fagan, Nathan Fey, Judy Firestien, Thomas Flanagan Jr., Jack Flowers, Catherine Flynn, J. R. Ford, Forsgren Associates, Inc., Ferris Frost, Kenny Funk, Pam Gardiner and Lyle Geurts, Jon George, Geo-Smith Engineering, LLC, Steve Glammeyer, William Goosmann, Marshall Gordon, David Graf, Pete Gunderson, Hillary Hamann, Wendy Hanophy, Duane Hanson, Paul Harms, Mike Hart, Bob Hastings, Kelly Heaney, Alan Heath, Sue Helm, William Hendrickson, Mark & Sara Hermundstad, High Line Canal Preservation Association, Jim Hokit, Constance Holland, Barbara Horn, Patricia Horoschak, Charles Howe, Joan Howerter, Tom Huber, Terry Huffington, Emily Hunt, Phyllis Hunt, Tom Huston, Eileen Hyatt, Hydros Consulting, Inc., James Hyre, John Imhoff, Ireland Stapleton Pryor and Pascoe, P.C., Jim Isgar, Julio Iturreria, Nancy Jackson, Jackson County Water Conservancy District, Glen Jammaron, Diane Johnson, John Justman, Julie Kallenberger, Judith Kleinman, Stan Kloberdanz, Wilbur Koger, Betty Konarski, Chris Kraft, Krage Manufacturing, LLC, Robert Krassa, Rod Kuharich, Lambert Realty, Rich Landreth, Dan Law, Charles Lawler, Katie Leone, Patricia Locke, Robert Longenbaugh, Lower Arkansas Water Management Association, James Luey, Zach Margolis, Joseph Martinez, Bryan McCarty, McCarty Land and Water Valuation, Doris McCormick, Charles McKay, Julie McKenna, Patricia Meakins, Mike Mechau, Joe Meigs, Mesa County, Minion Hydrologic, Erin Minks, Harold Miskel, Larry Morgan, David Nelson, Northgate, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Norton Appraisal Services, Inc., Chelsey Nutter, Jenelle Ortiz, Phyllis Ortman, Bill Owens, Dick Parachini, Sarah Parmar, James Patton, Jack Perrin, Bob Peters, Connie Peterson, Pikes Peak Library—Acquisitions, Matt Pocernich, Peter Pollock, Clare Pramuk, PS Systems, Inc., Kira Puntenney, Kim Raby, Pat Ratliff, Realtors Land Institute— Colorado Chapter, John Redifer, Gene Reetz, Chris Reichard, David Reinertsen, Melvin Rettig, Frank Riggle, Vicki Ripp, RiverRestoration, Ellen Roberts, Gary Roberts, Collin Robinson, Kathy Rosenkrans, Round Mountain Water and Sanitation District, Charles Rudolph, George Saum, Wayne Schieldt, Donald Schwindt, Stephanie Scott, Jeff Shoemaker, Karla Shriver, George Sibley, Jack Sibold, Kevin Sjursen, Zachary Smith, Laurel Stadjuhar, States West Water, Pavlos Stavropoulos, David Stiller, Gordon Stonington, Luci Stremme, Brian Sullivan, Carol Sullivan, Summit Global Management, Jack Taylor, Jim Taylor, Peter L. Taylor, Mick Todd, Town of Frederick, Town of Severance, Town of Windsor, Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Curran Trick, Meghan Trubee, TST Infrastructure, LLC, Ken Turnbull, Seth Turner, Howard & Lisa Tuthill, TZA Water Engineers, Inc., University of Denver Water Law Review, Laurian Unnevehr, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Cindy Vassios, Hayes Veeneman, John Verploegh, Tom Verquer, Jodi Villa, Marc Waage, Shelley Walchak, Chuck Wanner, Russell Waring, Water Center at Colorado Mesa University, Weld County Commissioners Office, Weld County Underground Water Users Association, Michael Welsh, West Greeley Conservation District, WestWater Engineering, Richard White, Jody Williams, Jim & Kay Willson, Geoff Withers, Connie Woodhouse, W-Y GW Management District, Kristina Wynne, Margot Zallen COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
CFWE
Mission in Motion
CREATING KNOWLEDGE
How Does Headwaters Rate? Through articles that are both compelling and accessible, CFWE strives to present balanced and accurate information on water resources in Headwaters magazine. Each year, we conduct a survey of our members and top supporters to see how well we’ve achieved our mission. The results for 2014, tallied in December, show a high degree of success, but we’ll continue to aim our sights even higher. We’re also listening to how people want to receive Headwaters content and will continue to provide a variety of options. This year, 100 percent of CFWE members rated Headwaters as “Very” or “Moderately” accurate and balanced, and 99 percent rated Headwaters “Very” or “Moderately” helpful in understanding water issues and tradeoffs in Colorado. While 93 percent prefer to read Headwaters in print, the rest are checking out our digital archive online.
Balance and Accuracy
Understanding Water Issues and Tradeoffs Somewhat helpful
Headwaters Magazine 2014 Readership Poll
Very Balanced
Moderately Balanced
Very helpful
Moderately helpful
New and Improved Water Law Guide CFWE’s ever-popular Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Law has been updated and will be available as of March 2015. The new 4th edition of this valuable desk reference explores the basics of Colorado water law, how it has developed over time, and how it is applied today. Call CFWE at 303-377-4433 or email Jennie at jennie@yourwatercolorado.org to pre-order at a discounted bulk rate of $7 per copy, in increments of 25, if you order before March 16. Individual copies will be available for $10.
Headwaters magazine isn’t our only news outlet. Find expanded coverage on the water issues you care about through: Connecting the Drops radio program on Rocky Mountain Community Radio stations— Tune in now or visit yourwatercolorado.org for past episodes. Your Water Colorado Blog—Read more about water news, events, and issues at blog.yourwatercolorado.org. HEADWATERS Pulse e-news—Subscribe now at yourwatercolorado.org.
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
1
CFWE
Mission in Motion
Water Educator Network GROWING CAPACITY
Calling All Water Educators! Participants on CFWE’s December 2014 Brewery Tour got an up-close look at efficient processes that protect the most important ingredient in beer, which is—you guessed it—water.
DEFINING VALUES
CFWE on Tour Get out of the office, and see the sites! In December 2014, CFWE made new friends as we quenched our thirst on our first Water for Brewing Tour. Participants gained an inside look at efficiencies in industrial water use and treatment with two Denver craft breweries, Strange and Diebolt, and discussed sustainability and community engagement with our title sponsor, MillerCoors, at its Golden plant. Join the dialogue to articulate the value of water in Colorado. Influence next season’s offerings by sending topic and site suggestions to CFWE staff, or join us on an upcoming tour: »» March 13 – Learn about the relationship between climate science and water resources at the National Ice Core Laboratory in Lakewood. »» June 2 & 4 – Pedal a bike along the South Platte River Trail to discover how entities are reclaiming and protecting urban waterways. »» June 11-12 – Gain an appreciation and understanding of the complexities and extent of water conservation and reuse along Colorado’s Front Range.
Through the Water Educator Network, CFWE aims to transform the field of water education into one where every student, citizen and community has a water educator working on its behalf. In this spirit, and as we reflect on the draft of Colorado’s Water Plan, CFWE will convene educators across Colorado on March 11 at the City Park Recreation Center in Westminster for a day of collaboration. Whether you work in schools, along a river, at the Capitol, or in the media, we want to include your specialties and programs on the meeting agenda so that all Network members and educators benefit from those resources. Find details or join CFWE’s Water Educator Network at yourwatercolorado.org/ water-educator-network. In 2014, 233 people joined CFWE on one of five tours we hosted, ranging from northwestern Colorado’s Yampa River Basin to the headwaters of the Arkansas River and sites of major transbasin diversions and on to the breweries and waterways of urban Denver. Our goal is for another 250 people to hop on a CFWE tour in 2015.
CULTIVATING PARTICIPATION
CFWE’s Annual Awards Gala in May Save the date for CFWE’s annual President’s Award Reception gala and fundraiser Friday, May 8 2015, at Space Gallery in Denver.
Theo Stroomer
Join CFWE on this special evening as we celebrate (and raise money for!) water education in Colorado while recognizing extraordinary individuals and organizations that have made a difference for water in our state. The President’s Award will be presented to a Coloradan who has shown dedication and made significant contributions to the field of water resources, is highly regarded among peers, and demonstrates a sincere commitment to supporting water education. The Emerging Leader Award will honor a young professional who has strengthened and improved water education throughout the state of Colorado. Tickets and sponsorship opportunities are now available. For more information, contact nicole@yourwatercolorado.org. Aurora Water’s Lisa Darling enjoys a laugh with other CFWE supporters at the 2014 President’s Award Reception. 2
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Colorado Foundation for Water Education Board Members Gregg Ten Eyck President Justice Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. Vice President Eric Hecox Secretary Alan Matlosz Treasurer Nick Colglazier Lindsay Cox Lisa Darling Steve Fearn Greg Johnson Scott Lorenz Dan Luecke Trina McGuire-Collier Kate McIntire Reed Morris Lauren Ris Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg Andrew Todd Chris Treese Rep. Ed Vigil Reagan Waskom
Staff Nicole Seltzer Executive Director
Kristin Maharg Director of Programs
Caitlin Coleman Content and Communications Specialist
Jennie Geurts Membership and Administration Coordinator
Jayla Poppleton
The Colorado Foundation for Water Education
exists to serve Colorado, particularly our members. Over the past few months, CFWE collected feedback from a wide array of partners to understand why they support us, what they value about our work, and how we can improve. The 2015 Members and Supporters Survey asked how valuable people find CFWE’s approach of providing balanced and accurate water education that presents diverse perspectives rather than taking positions on issues. This is the core of our mission and sets us apart from organizations that promote specific solutions or work with narrower interest groups. Yet, what CFWE’s staff and board view as our core strength is also sometimes given as a reason for not working with or financially supporting our work—our lack of activism can be a barrier. So I felt gratified with the positive survey responses, which included the following: Water issues are inherently complex and controversial. It is extremely important that a balanced, non-biased source of information exists to act as a counter-balance to all the self-interested sources of information that also exist. It is critical for there to be a "neutral" resource for information because of the polarity/emotionality that often accompanies water issues. This value should be guarded religiously and marketed. There are many perspectives on a given issue and it's important to provide them to allow people to both formulate their own opinion and better understand the perspective of others to assist in developing collaboration and cooperation. I also heard critical comments pointing to a lack of programming on Colorado’s West Slope and a tendency to “play it safe” when covering controversial topics. As staff plans our 2015-2016 activities, we will take this feedback into account. This annual check-in with our partners ensures that CFWE continues to be a trusted and valuable resource. CFWE is also in the midst of updating its strategic plan, which will set our goals and activities for the next three to five years. Interviews with almost 50 individuals informed the plan and helped us identify our niche, our organizational strengths, and how we can leverage them for greater impact. CFWE is the place where people gather to learn, connect with peers, and get the tools needed to advance the water conversation. Our work sets the bar for water education in Colorado, and we plan to work with partner organizations to strengthen the amount, quality and effectiveness of this important task throughout the state. Our reputation for fun, engaging and effective education helps us cross political and geographic boundaries to bring diverse stakeholders together. This adds new voices and breaks down silos. We can do more of this by widening our reach to community leaders who may not see themselves as water decision-makers, but in fact are. In the coming years, you will see several adjustments at CFWE. We plan to leverage our strengths of a dedicated and experienced staff, a broad base of support, stable funding and a high interest level in water issues to focus on the education needs of a wider audience. The makeup of our stakeholders will shift slightly; our educational content will expand to cover how water interacts with an array of public policy issues; and we will create more opportunities for involvement with our work. It has been a privilege to lead CFWE since 2007. In that time we’ve grown from two staff members to six, doubled the budget, more than quadrupled the number of people touched by our programs, and solidified our reputation as a high-functioning, effective organization. Yet there is much left to accomplish, and I am grateful for your ongoing support. Wishing you a happy and successful 2015,
Content Program Manager
Executive Director
Mission Statement The mission of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education is to promote better understanding of water resources through education and information. The Foundation does not take an advocacy position on any water issue. Acknowledgments The Colorado Foundation for Water Education thanks the people and organizations who provided review, comment and assistance in the development of this issue. 1750 Humboldt Suite 200 Denver, CO 80218 303-377-4433 • www.yourwatercolorado.org
Headwaters Magazine is published three times a year by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. Headwaters is designed to provide Colorado citizens with balanced and accurate information on a variety of subjects related to water resources. Copyright 2015 by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. ISSN: 1546-0584 Edited by Jayla Poppleton. Designed by Emmett Jordan. HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
3
Winter 2015
Contents
CWCB director James Eklund and water policy advisor John Stulp congratulate each other on successful delivery of the first draft of Colorado’s Water Plan to the governor in December 2014.
SPECIAL FEATURE Colorado’s Water Plan
by Nelson Harvey
8 Then
22 Now
31 Next
How severe drought, competing demands, changing demographics and a governor’s order culminated in the drafting of Colorado’s first comprehensive state water plan.
With a mere 18 months to pull it together, the first draft of the plan was delivered in late 2014...just how far did we get?
Even after the plan’s revision in 2015, much work remains to ensure success. Here’s a look at where we need to go further.
16 What’s Your Water Future? by Caitlin Coleman
COLORAD
O FOUND AT
ION FOR WAT E R E D U C AT I
SPEC
What’s in store is anyone’s best guess…trace multiple pathways to see how the state water plan is preparing to greet those question marks that dot the road ahead.
36 Getting in the Game
IAL F E AT
Colorado’s W
ON | WIN TER
2015
URE
ater Plan
Why We Need
It Now Plus…What it too k get the firs roadmap fortowat t draft of a sta te er to the govern or
by Caitlin Coleman
It’s your water. And this is your guide to seizing a don’t-miss opportunity to affect how it’s managed through Colorado’s Water Plan.
To Do: Assess
your water futu HEADWAT
re and get invo
ERS | WI NTER 201 5
lved in 2015 1
About the cover: Gov. John Hickenlooper accepts the 2014 draft water plan from James Eklund, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, at the Colorado state capitol in December. Photo by Kevin Moloney.
CONTRIBUTORS Nelson Harvey is a freelance print and radio journalist based in Denver who writes about food, agriculture, public health and the environment. He’s also the editor of Edible Aspen magazine. A lifelong Coloradan, Nelson is as curious as anyone about the state’s water future, and has enjoyed peering into the crystal ball for his Headwaters assignment in recent months. After writing this issue’s cover story, “Colorado’s Water Plan: THEN, NOW and NEXT,” he has a deep appreciation for the delicate balance struck by the plan’s authors. He doesn’t envy them. Find samples of Nelson’s work at NelsonHarvey.com. 4
Caitlin Coleman is a content and communications specialist for the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. In writing and researching this issue’s pullout feature, “Chart Your Water Future,” she was surprised and grateful for the opportunity to reflect on the uncertainty ahead. “It’s so important that we prepare for the likely future, and amazing that we use models to try and accurately predict changes into the future, but at the same time, astonishing to stop and think that anything is possible.”
Kevin Moloney, a professional photojournalist, Ph.D. candidate and photojournalism teacher, was charmed to photograph Peter Binney in the water treatment plant that bears his name for this issue of Headwaters. “It’s not often we get to meet the person with his or her name above the door of a major public infrastructure facility,” he says. Moloney, whose photography appears throughout this issue, is a Colorado native who has covered western water issues since 1996 for the New York Times and other publications throughout Europe and the United States. His work can be found at KevinMoloney.com.
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Ten Things To Do In This Issue:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Increase your water knowledge and analyze water’s influence on other issues with CFWE’s Water Fluency program (page 15). Stay relevant by tuning in to water news via radio, blog and email (page 1). Attend a basin roundtable meeting to get involved with water in your corner of Colorado (page 6). Tour the National Ice Core Laboratory and hear about Colorado’s climate at CFWE’s climate workshop (page 14). Chart Colorado’s water future to predict the state’s water supply needs in 2050 (page 16). Dig into the details by downloading the draft state water plan and regional Basin Implementation Plans (page 25). Study the basins’ water supply gaps and how their regional plans line up with the state’s goals (page 28). Consider how Colorado’s Water Plan could influence the existing structure of water management (page 32). Go for the gold and locate available funding in Colorado’s current water project “money pots” (page 34). Comment on the draft water plan by submitting your feedback, thoughts and priorities (page 35).
T
here’s something about getting things down on paper that helps you to focus your direction and priorities, to evaluate where you’re headed and why. Under the leadership of Governor John Hickenlooper and the Colorado General Assembly, as of December 2014 Coloradans have a draft state water plan outlining our collective priorities and plans for managing our most precious resource, looking out to 2050. The brunt of the effort of putting the plan on paper—344 pages worth—fell to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the nine basin roundtables that have spent the last decade laying the groundwork for what is now known as Colorado’s Water Plan. Those efforts have been long and hard, and culminated in a flurry of activity over the past year and a half. When the draft plan was delivered to the governor in December of last year, a celebration was held. A little weight was lifted. The holidays came and went. And then everyone dug back in. It’s important to understand that Colorado’s Water Plan is still a draft, a work in progress. And over the course of the coming months, it will continue to be scrutinized, adjusted and added to. The process is designed to encourage and facilitate this. It’s always a challenge to cover a moving target, but we believe the opportune moment for tackling this topic is now. We hope our coverage of the water plan’s historical, physical, legal, social and technical backdrop will spur and assist continued public involvement as the plan is finalized by December 2015, under the governor’s executive order. We want to provide the public with the information they need to conscientiously and effectively weigh in. After all, bridging regional differences and serving the many needs of Colorado’s people and its environment has always required civic engagement and diplomacy. Effectively engaging the many agencies, organizations, stakeholders and individual Coloradans, who all have a stake in the outcome, on the scale the water plan and roundtable process have done is unprecedented. Yet, that’s exactly what the legislature called for in its 2005 Water for the 21st Century Act, which helped us get to where we are today. There is still much that remains to be determined, including how to truly balance the differing regional and local priorities competing for the limited water available. Funding both the water supply projects and environmental measures set forth in the basin roundtables’ individual plans and the state water plan will be a challenge. And population projections, driving the plan’s municipal water demand equations, are not an exact science, but must be considered, as thoughtful planning is necessary to being prepared for even the lowest growth forecasts. Hence, a range of possibilities and probabilities resides at the heart of the draft plan to help guide the way forward as Colorado’s evolving future unfolds. Much of the work to procure, manage, conserve and supply water happens locally, and just as work on the plan hasn’t stood still, all those moving parts and pieces have continued to be in play as a statewide strategy is forged. At this juncture, there’s so much investment, so much momentum, and so much desire to establish shared vision and direction, the draft plan holds great promise for ensuring we move forward not just as individuals, but collectively and with intentionality, in such a way that we know where we’re going and why. Here’s to staying involved, to finding the most innovative solutions we can, and to working together toward the best version of Colorado’s water future.
n Jayla Poppleto Editor
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
5
Meet Your Local Basin Roundtable Since 2005, nine basin roundtables have represented Colorado’s eight major river basins and the Denver metro area in water planning. Hundreds of roundtable members have dedicated countless hours to assessing and preparing to meet local water needs. Their work is now embodied in the drafts of eight Basin Implementation Plans as well as Colorado’s Water Plan. Their service on behalf of Colorado’s water future stands to benefit every person who calls Colorado home—and even some who don’t, or at least don’t yet. To participate, or to comment on a specific basin plan, contact a roundtable below.
North Platte
Yampa/ White/ Green
South Platte Colorado
Metro
Gunnison Arkansas Rio Grande Southwest
Arkansas Basin Roundtable
Metro Roundtable
Chair Jim Broderick Contact jwb@secwcd.com Meetings Monthly on 2nd Wednesday, Pueblo
Colorado Basin Roundtable
Chair Mark Koleber Contact Mark.Koleber@cityofthornton.net Meetings Monthly on 2nd Wednesday, metro area
Chair Jim Pokrandt Contact jpokrandt@crwcd.org Meetings Monthly on 4th Monday, Glenwood Springs
Gunnison Basin Roundtable
Chair Michelle Pierce Contact michellepierce@centurytel.net Meetings Monthly on 1st Monday, Montrose
North Platte Basin Roundtable
Chair Kent Crowder Contact kentcrowder@aol.com Meetings Monthly on 4th Tuesday, Walden
Rio Grande Basin Roundtable
Chair Mike Gibson Contact slvwcdco1@qwestoffice.net Meetings Monthly on 2nd Tuesday, Alamosa
South Platte Basin Roundtable
Chair Joe Frank Contact jmfrank@lspwcd.org Meetings Monthly on 2nd Tuesday, Longmont
Southwest Basin Roundtable
Chair Mike Preston Contact mpreston@frontier.net Meetings Quarterly on 2nd Wednesday, Cortez or Durango
Yampa/White/Green Basin Roundtable
Chair Jon Hill Contact jhill@co.rio-blanco.co.us Meetings Bi-monthly on 2nd Wednesday, Craig
A special thank you to the following companies for supporting this issue of Headwaters and for your work on the roundtables’ Basin Implementation Plans:
6
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Where Water Wins What do you get when you combine an uncertain and oft-disconcerting water horizon with a host of dedicated staff and volunteers on a mission? A plan for managing Colorado’s liquid assets that covers everything from water sharing to watershed health, and everything in-between. Colorado’s Water Plan, yet a draft, may help move Colorado toward a water-smart future.
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
7
Colorado’s Water Plan, Then
How we got here
By Nelson Harvey Peter Binney remembers the precise moment when the bad news hit. It was the early summer of 2002, and Colorado was in the throes of the worst drought in more than a century. By fall, most Coloradans would feel the effects of the disaster: Crops would be scorched in fields from the South Platte Basin to the San Luis Valley, rafting and fishing guides on the Western Slope would lose income due to low flows, and water users in downtown Denver would see sharp rate hikes and usage restrictions. In June, though, Binney, with only a few months under his belt as the new director of Aurora Water, was still wondering how much Rocky Mountain snowmelt Aurora could count on to fill its reservoirs that year. He was on his way to Pueblo for a meeting when Aurora’s water supply manager called him with the answer. “It was a lightning bolt,” remembers Binney, who left Aurora Water in 2008 and is now head of sustainable infrastructure at the engineering firm Merrick and Co., a consultant to The Nature Conservancy on water reuse issues, and a member of the Metro Basin Roundtable. “I knew the number was going to be low, but I had no idea it would be lower than theoretically possible.” Aurora, Binney’s water manager said, was likely to get just 8,000 acre-feet of water for reservoir storage in 2002, compared to 70,000 acre-feet in a typical year. The city would be forced to dramatically draw down its reservoirs to survive the summer, and if the drought didn’t lift in 2003, Aurora could run out of water entirely. After the initial shock, Binney and his colleagues sprang into action. In the ensuing months they raised water rates, instituted outdoor watering restrictions, and lined up emergency water supplies. Mother nature granted a reprieve of her own on March 18, 2003, when she graced the Denver metro area with a whopping 30-plus inches of snow in a storm that put the region on the road to recovery. Still, the drought of 2002 had thoroughly shaken water managers by showing them—for the first time in recent memory—the true limits of their water supplies. “We realized that Aurora’s water portfolio was very vulnerable to weather conditions, and it didn’t have the capacity to weather the storm—or the lack of a storm,” Binney says. “The drought gave us an absolute display of what’s going to happen if Colorado’s water runs out. Call it the canary in the coal mine, if you will.” Streamflows in the greater Colorado River Basin could decline by as much as 5 to 35 percent by mid-century due to climate change. Source: Colorado River Research Group
8
Kevin Moloney (2)
“The drought gave us an absolute display of what’s going to happen if Colorado’s water runs out. Call it the canary in the coal mine, if you will.” —Peter Binney
Gov. John Hickenlooper took office in 2011 and ordered the drafting of a state water plan in 2013.
Battling shortage in a brave new world Water shortage is every utility manager’s nightmare, and it’s also a deep-seated fear for nature lovers, river rafters, farmers, business people, and anyone else whose lifestyle is floated by Colorado’s water supply. Actually running out of water would be an absolute catastrophe. On May 14, 2013, 11 years after Colorado’s flirtation with water supply disaster, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed an executive order calling for the creation of a Colorado state water plan. The plan would aim not only to keep such water shortage nightmares from becoming reality anywhere in the state, but also to map out the actions needed to protect the Colorado we know and love. Everything, it turns out, trickles back to water. Colorado’s Water Plan, which the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) handed in draft form to the governor on Dec. 10, 2014, is intended to demonstrate how Colorado can meet its future water supply needs while preserving the vibrant economy, viable agriculture, robust recreation and strong environment that prompt people to live here in the first place. Dauntingly, the plan must strike that balance while accounting for a growing list of threats to the state’s water supply balance sheet, from population growth to climate change. In the decade since the 2002 drought, reams of research have emerged pointing to a large and looming gap between Colorado’s present water
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Peter Binney directed Aurora Water between 2002 and 2009, as the utility battled through extended drought—and shored up for future episodes—with innovative solutions like the Prairie Waters state-of-the-art water reuse treatment plant. Binney recently visited with engineers at the plant, which opened in 2010 and bears his name. supply and future water demand. The State Demographer’s Office in Colorado predicts the state population will grow exponentially—from around 5.4 million people in 2014 to between 8.3 and 9.1 million by 2050—nearly doubling in some regions if the economy expands as expected. Many of the newcomers will likely live and work in the booming cities and towns of Colorado’s populous but dry eastern half, where nearly 90 percent of the state’s population now resides but only about 20 percent of its fresh water flows. If this rather breathtaking scenario plays out, the result could be a water supply gap of up to 500,000 acre-feet by 2050 that leaves the equivalent of some 2.5 million people’s water needs unmet or, rather, met in undesirable ways, reports the draft plan. Determining how to close that gap is among the Colorado Water Plan’s major goals, particularly since the default solution—buying up agricultural water rights and transferring them to municipal and industrial uses—threatens to hobble an industry that’s vital to Colorado’s economy, environment and culture. Farmers and ranchers today use about 86 percent of the water diverted from streams and aquifers in the state, as reported by Colorado’s Division of Water Resources, making agriculture a prime target for water transfers. Yet agricultural water use provides many benefits—it produces food, preserves open space and wildlife habitat, and supports one in 10 Colorado jobs. According to the CWCB, current “buy and dry” trends already threaten to permanently dry up 35 percent of the productive agricultural land in the South Platte Basin and 20 percent of such acreage in the Colorado Basin, an outcome few if any Coloradans want to see. Instead, the water plan focuses on creative ways of sharing agricultural
water between farms and cities, along with other water supply solutions, such as providing incentives for increased municipal water conservation and the construction of efficient, effective and innovative water infrastructure projects like the Prairie Waters project that Aurora built following its water supply scare in 2002. That $638 million project enables Aurora to reuse water it acquires from agricultural transfers and transbasin diversion pipelines that move water from the Western Slope, making that water go farther and boosting Aurora’s water supply by roughly 20 percent. “The 2002 drought was ground zero for everything the water plan is trying to address,” Binney says. “It told us that the traditional ways that the suburbs did water planning weren’t going to work anymore.” To Binney, Prairie Waters is a template for how the fast-growing Front Range suburbs should meet their water needs without compromising the myriad other values associated with the state’s water. In ordering a water plan, Hickenlooper’s advisors say the governor also hoped to change the tone of the conversation about water in Colorado from a technical discussion among water professionals to a broader look at preserving the water values Coloradans hold dear. To that end, the executive order isn’t studded with technical water terms. Instead, it identifies three overarching values that the plan should reflect: A productive economy that supports cities, agriculture, recreation and tourism; efficient and effective water infrastructure; and a strong natural environment including healthy watersheds, rivers and streams, and wildlife. “The governor and his chief of staff made a point of not writing inside-baseball terms that HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
no one except the water community is going to understand,” says James Eklund, director of the CWCB. “We wanted to relate to everyone from suburban dwellers to farmers, no matter what their touchstone to water was.”
Planning ahead to avoid reaching crisis mode Since Gov. Hickenlooper issued his executive order in May 2013, state officials working on the water plan have frequently addressed the question, “Why draft a water plan now when the gap threatening our water supply looms 35 years away?” For one, they say, the gap could actually surface much sooner in some parts of the state. Plus there’s the time required for planning, permitting and building water projects, which can span 10, 20, even 60 years. There’s also a third advantage to completing a plan now: Planning in advance of crisis tends to yield better results than scrambling once a disaster is already underway. Sean Cronin illustrates this point with a story. Cronin, executive director of the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District in Longmont, was deeply involved in recovery efforts after the devastating Front Range floods that destroyed homes, businesses and infrastructure across 17 eastern Colorado counties in September 2013. One of the towns hardest hit was Lyons, a small Boulder County burg formerly home to about 2,000 people, where roads, power lines and buildings were taken out when the St. Vrain River overflowed its banks. When the waters receded, crews used heavy equipment to channelize the St. Vrain River, a procedure that helped protect residents from the threat of further flooding during peak runoff the following spring but harmed fish and other 9
of unsustainable water use, with falling groundwater tables forcing cutbacks on pumping to irrigate farms and ranches in the Rio Grande and Republican basins, and numerous headwaters streams that feed the Colorado River mainstem running dry for parts of the year due to transbasin diversions to supply Eastern Slope demands. In the coming decades, population growth will likely put increasing pressure on the environmental and recreational water resources that so many Coloradans enjoy, while warmer temperatures brought on by climate change could increase crop water demand, reduce runoff, and make water planning more difficult by boosting the frequency
and intensity of floods, droughts and wildfires. According to a study called “Climate Change in Colorado,” commissioned by the CWCB and updated in 2014, Colorado’s average temperature has already risen by around 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 30 years. By mid-century, the study states, temperatures are expected to rise another 2.5 to 5 degrees relative to the 1971-2000 average, even if our rate of greenhouse gas emissions is relatively low. The impact of such temperature increases on precipitation is uncertain—some areas could see more while others get less—but most studies show that natural streamflows are more likely to decline than increase, particularly
U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Christopher DeWitt
wildlife by essentially sterilizing habitat. “From an environmental point of view, that was devastating,” Cronin says. “From a human life and property perspective it was absolutely the right thing to do. That’s planning in crisis. When you have no other options you have to do something. We’re going through this water planning exercise now so that in 30 or 40 years people don’t have to make decisions in crisis that only value human life and devalue ecosystems and recreation.” In the absence of an overarching and effective plan, the danger of a future water crisis is clear and present in Colorado. Already, various parts of the state are feeling the consequences
Decades of fire suppression, aging forests, beetle-kill and drought have made Colorado’s forests vulnerable to catastrophic fires like the Black Forest Fire that burned north of Colorado Springs in 2013. Charred hillsides and denuded forests wreak havoc on water supplies and infrastructure. To reduce risk, Colorado’s Water Plan includes a section on watershed health protection.
Serving producers through research, market development, outreach and many other efforts 127 22nd St. Greeley, CO 80631 970.351.8201 www.coloradocorn.com ... and follow us on Facebook and Twitter 10
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
in the southern half of the state. The CWCB study also found that Colorado’s peak spring runoff now takes place between one and four weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago. If that trend accelerates, it could become increasingly difficult for reservoir administrators to make the spring inflow last all the way through the lengthening summer and fall. If warmer temperatures do lead to more intense or frequent wildfires, the threat to water quality could be significant, since 80 percent of Colorado’s water flows through forested watersheds before reaching taps and irrigation ditches. To plan for that possibility, an entire section of the water plan is dedicated to watershed health. Section 7.1 recommends the creation of watershed groups like the Rio Grande Watershed Emergency Action Coordination Team (RWEACT), which was forged with the help of a $2.5 million CWCB grant during the 100,000acre West Fork Complex Fire that burned in southern Colorado during the summer of 2013. Since the fire, RWEACT has mapped flood risk in fire-damaged areas, improved storm forecasting and disaster preparedness, and modified forest management in the Rio Grande Basin. Travis Smith, a RWEACT co-founder, CWCB board member and the superintendent of the San Luis Valley Irrigation District, says he hopes the water plan leads to more funding for watershed management groups throughout the state. “The role of the state is to be a quick responder in bringing some money to seed some of these groups, before a disaster,” Smith says. “If a watershed has a group functioning before an event, they can interface with federal agencies and effectively deal with post-fire impacts.” Natural disasters aside, climate change could also affect Colorado’s average water supply and undermine the state’s ability to deliver water to downstream neighbors. Colorado is a headwaters state whose numerous river basins all ultimately empty into neighboring states, and whose waters are subject to nine interstate compacts and two Supreme Court decrees governing interstate water sharing. Those agreements mean Colorado only gets to consume on average about one-third of the water originating within its watersheds, leaving two-thirds to flow to downstream states. Development of Colorado’s share of interstate waters is nearing its limit—some water rights already go unfulfilled to meet compact requirements at the state line—resulting in the need to carefully manage water use and development. Other constraints on water supply include various agreements to protect endangered species now in place on rivers around the state.
The many tributaries to a state water plan The earliest form of water planning in Colorado was the prior appropriation doctrine, which endures today. The doctrine is encapsulated with
Continued on page 13 The water that stems from Colorado’s eight primary river basins averages 15 million acre- feet per year. Of that, Colorado consumes approximately 5.3 million acre-feet, and the other nearly 10 million acre-feet flows north, east, south and west through 18 downstream states and Mexico. Because some water is used more than once, Colorado’s diversions actually total closer to 15.3 million acre-feet. Source: Draft Colorado’s Water Plan
COLORADO’S WATER PLAN
How we got here 1937 Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) created by state legislature to “conserve, develop, protect and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations” 1988 Aurora and Colorado Springs’ Homestake II project permit denied by Eagle County Commissioners 1992 Denver Water and Colorado River District work out post-Two Forks collaboration on Wolford Mountain Reservoir 2003 CWCB launches Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), creating citizen roundtables in each basin to help identify water needs and planned projects 2005 H.B. 1177, the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act, passes, institutionalizing the SWSI basin roundtables and creating the 27-member Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) 2010 IBCC sends letter to Gov. Bill Ritter and Gov. John Hickenlooper warning that Colorado might not have enough water to meet future needs 2011 SWSI 2010 released, relying on regional water needs assessments completed by IBCC and basin roundtables and extending forecasts to 2050 May 14, 2013 Gov. John Hickenlooper issues executive order calling for Colorado’s Water Plan January 2014 First draft sections of Colorado’s Water Plan released May 15, 2014 S.B. 115 passes, creating an official role for the legislature in reviewing Colorado’s Water Plan, including public hearings to be held in each of the nine regions associated with the basin roundtables July 2014 Draft Basin Implementation Plans submitted to CWCB October 10, 2014 Public comment deadline for draft water plan sections December 10, 2014 Draft Colorado’s Water Plan submitted to Gov. John Hickenlooper
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
1976 Bill McDonald and Chips Barry begin preparing “The Colorado Water Study, Directions for the Future,” the start of a state water plan, but it’s ignored by Colorado 1990 EPA vetoes U.S. Army Corps’ issuance of Denver metro area’s Two Forks project permit 2002 The worst drought in more than a century hits, exposing Colorado’s vulnerabilities 2004 First SWSI report released, evaluating future Colorado water demands and planned projects by basin out to 2035 2006 SWSI 2 released, including technical work on conservation, agricultural transfers and environmental needs 2011 Each roundtable assembles a basin-specific report, supplementing and localizing SWSI 2010 May 2012 Denver Water and 42 West Slope entities adopt Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, which becomes effective Sept. 2013 with final signatures August 2013 IBCC agrees upon No and Low Regrets actions that would move state forward toward closing gap over next 10-15 years March and May 2014 Additional draft sections of Colorado’s Water Plan released June 24, 2014 The IBCC completes initial discussion of its Draft Conceptual Agreement related to future transmountain diversions September 2014 Additional draft sections of Colorado’s Water Plan released November 1, 2014 The S.B. 115 deadline for the legislature’s Water Resources Review Committee to submit comments on the draft plan
11
Other State Approaches to Water Planning By Jayla Poppleton In Texas, no water project can get a permit if it isn’t in the state water plan. In California, where an expressed goal of the state plan is to guide investments in water innovation and infrastructure, the plan essentially sets up for justifying—or not—ballot initiatives. Arizona’s plan, referred to as its strategic vision, is promoted as a comprehensive supply and demand analysis and framework to guide water planning efforts as far as 100 years out. New Mexico uses components
Water Planning in the U.S.A.
Comprehensive state water plan in place State water plan under development of its water plan—statements of water need from its 16 regional plans—to inform litigation and negotiations with Texas over the Rio Grande Compact. With the development of Colorado’s Water Plan, Colorado becomes one of the last western states to have a state plan for water, but it isn’t a replica of what anyone else has done. “Two years ago, Colorado Water Congress had a number of people in to represent what other state’s plans look like,” recalls John Stulp, special water policy advisor to Gov. John Hickenlooper. “The person from Texas told us, ‘Whatever you do, don’t copy ours. Make sure it’s a Colorado water plan. It needs to be done by Coloradans for your Colorado needs.’” The structures of American states’ water planning run the gamut from more top-down approaches, such as those in California and the Dakotas, to grassroots, locally driven processes that blow even Colorado out of the water—but don’t necessarily make them more effective—like that of Washington, where 34 watershed planning units contribute to the plan, compared with Colorado’s nine basin roundtables. The plans vary accordingly with each state’s water supply picture, past experience, and legal structure. In Colorado, where water rights are treated as private property rights, the grassroots process of state water planning that has been conducted through partnership with the basin roundtables is inherently needed. For other states, a more top-down approach works. Either way, there’s a balance to be struck between too much command and control and too much parochialism, where
individuals are building fences around their resources. Georgia, an example of eastern water planning, was experiencing water shortage and set out to create an implementable set of projects. Oklahoma, for its plan, set out to build technical tools that individual water providers could use to be successful in addressing their local water needs. Kansas does a little of both. It would seem there’s no wrong way to do water planning, as long as it’s clear what the plan’s objectives are. Experts say the plans that achieve the greatest success are those that can stay the course through political change, where their objectives stay true and outlive the administrations that go before them. That doesn’t mean state water plans don’t need the occasional shoe shining. Utah, now working on a second revision to its plan, is adding sections looking at funding needs for replacement of water infrastructure, addressing canal safety issues, and incorporating climate change’s forecasted impacts, says Todd Adams, deputy director of Utah’s Division of Water Resources. And New Mexico is working on an update to better incorporate its regional plans— which were all developed before the first state plan was legislatively mandated in 2003—by updating them for consistency and uniformity, says Angela Bordegaray, state and regional water planner for the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. State water planning in Texas has undergone many successive iterations since the first plan was put in place there in 1961. Texans in 2013 passed a ballot measure that re-appropriated approximately $2 billion from a state “rainy day fund” to a fund for implementing priority water projects articulated in the state water plan. “The projects also got some special treatment on interest rates and some grants
With the development of Colorado’s Water Plan, Colorado becomes one of the last western states to have a state plan for water, but it isn’t a replica of what anyone else has done.
12
for planning, but they had to comply with or be consistent with their regional plans as well as their state plan,” says Stulp, who suggests this may be a direction Colorado could head in future iterations of its plan, where projects having both regional support and consistent with the state plan could move along more quickly and receive help with at least a portion of the necessary financing. Addressing a funding gap for water is certainly one aim of Colorado’s Water Plan, which could help the state better focus its limited resources. Colorado’s plan should also serve as a roadmap for balancing diverse values and interests across the state, says April Montgomery, chair of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and programs director at the Telluride Foundation. Not only do the basin roundtables now have their own regional plans for moving forward, but, she says, “all the water-related state agencies also have a guide. And certainly for the CWCB, as the policy arm of the state, this really provides a work plan for us moving forward. If you look at all the different action steps, this could keep us busy for a long time.” q
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR) before becoming director of the CWCB from 1979 to 1990. McDonald, who is now a private consultant working for the state on Colorado’s Water Plan, says federal enthusiasm for water projects began to wane in the late 1970s and early ‘80s due to new federal environmental laws that made dams harder to build and cost-sharing arrangements that made project beneficiaries pay for a larger share of water projects. Between 1976 and 1979, McDonald and fellow DNR staffer Chips Barry, who later became manager of Denver Water until his death in 2010, took a stab at writing a Colorado water plan after a state legislator set aside money for it in the annual budget bill. Yet despite the document’s lofty aspirations— it aimed to take stock of the state’s water values and recent changes in water law while planning for future demands—politicians and the public mostly ignored it. “There had been no clamor for any kind of plan,” McDonald remembers. “Dick Lamm was the governor at the time, and he hadn’t asked for it. It caught everybody by surprise.” Today, McDonald believes, conditions are far riper for a state water plan to attract major public interest and input. Aside from the threats to water supply posed by climate change and drought, the flow of federal money for water projects has slowed to a trickle in recent decades, raising questions about how Colorado’s water providers will pay for major new infrastructure in the future. Population projections are more refined than they were in the 1970s, and the standard strategy for accommodating new growth, agricultural “buy and dry,” is raising more concern than ever. Finally, an increasingly broad cohort of Coloradans shares the values of the environmental movement that emerged in the 1960s, and the concept of protecting water in the stream for recreational or environmental purposes has much broader support than it did 40 years ago.
Thanks to the spread of such environmental values—and to environmental and land use laws passed in the 1970s at both the state and federal level—it has also become increasingly difficult in recent decades to build new water projects without first winning the support of both regulators and impacted communities. In the late 1980s, the cities of Denver, Colorado Springs and Aurora all saw plans for major water storage projects scrapped because of federal environmental concerns or local opposition. In 1988, the Eagle County Commissioners denied a permit for the Homestake II Reservoir project pursued by Aurora and Colorado Springs, while in 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency vetoed a permit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had issued for the Two Forks Reservoir project—put forth by Denver Water and a host of partners to store South Platte River water as well as transbasin diversion water from the Blue River on the Front Range—because of concerns about compliance with the Clean Water Act. The EPA’s denial of the Two Forks project highlighted the tough tradeoffs inherent in meeting new water needs. Had the project been approved, some argue, it could have played a significant role in closing the Denver metro area water gap now laid out in Colorado’s Water Plan. Instead, the Two Forks veto prompted Denver Water to cap the size of its service area, and it left some suburbs in the southern metro area in the lurch, since they’d been subsisting on non-renewable groundwater and counting on Two Forks. For all the short-term panic they caused on the Front Range, rejections like these ushered in an era of increased statewide collaboration on water issues. “[Front Range utilities] had to start paying attention to affected communities as a political force, and they had to demonstrate that they were going to use their water more efficiently than they had in the past,” says Dan Luecke, who helped lead the charge against Two Forks in the 1980s as
Denverjeffrey/Wikimedia Commons
the dictum “first in time, first in right,” and it gives anyone who puts unappropriated water to a “beneficial use” and obtains court approval a dated right to use that water. Water rights are treated as private property rights that can be bought and sold, provided a water court approves the transfer. Although primarily utilitarian, market-driven and not inherently strategic, prior appropriation provides valuable structure to govern water use and has proven flexible in accommodating new uses of water that the law deems “beneficial,” including water rights to provide for minimum streamflows and whitewater boating parks. With a legal framework in place, the other essential ingredient in developing Colorado’s water infrastructure was money, and in the early days much of it came from the federal government. Beginning in 1902, with the founding of the Bureau of Reclamation and its first Colorado irrigation project in the Uncompahgre Valley, and accelerating in the 1930s, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Public Works Administration pumped cash into water infrastructure projects to help western cities grow and create post-depression jobs, state and local officials in Colorado entered an era of collaboration with the federal government that would last into the 1970s. Along with funding many irrigation and storage projects on the Western Slope, federal money was the primary source of capital for the two largest of Colorado’s 27 transbasin diversion water projects, which today collectively pipe an average of more than 580,000 acre-feet of water per year from the headwaters of western Colorado rivers and streams to the cities and agriculturally productive plains of the Eastern Slope. In general, these projects have made the Front Range critically dependent on Western Slope water. “Water planning in those days was to go ask Uncle Sam to build it and pay for it,” jokes Bill McDonald, who worked on water issues at the
Municipal and industrial water use in Colorado currently totals approximately 600,000 acre-feet per year, while agricultural use, at 4.7 million acre-feet per year, is eight times that amount. Source: Draft Colorado’s Water Plan At the start of the 20th century, the Uncompahgre Valley, pictured here, became the first beneficiary in Colorado of the newly founded Bureau of Reclamation’s investment in water projects throughout the West—a form of de-facto water planning. The Uncompahgre Project included Taylor Park Reservoir and the Gunnison Tunnel.
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
13
disputes between the Front Range and the Western Slope over the need for new transbasin diversion projects to supply growing eastern cities, George proposed an Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) made up of roundtable members, gubernatorial appointees and select legislators. Much like the negotiators who hammered out the Colorado River Compact in 1922 and secured Colorado’s right to develop more slowly than California without forfeiting its water rights, George thought the IBCC could reach a deal granting the Eastern Slope enough water for its development needs over the next few decades while ensuring that the Western Slope would have the water it needed to support future growth. With the passage of House Bill 1177 in 2005, the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act, George’s vision for this bottom-up form of water planning became the law of the land, and since then the roundtables have held more than 850 meetings to catalogue their water needs and plan new projects. They’ve also received access to a special pot of funds, the Water Supply Reserve Account, which can be accessed to help local entities pay for scoping studies or to implement planned projects. The work of these groups, including the Basin Implementation Plans (BIPs) drafted by each roundtable in response to Gov. Hickenlooper’s 2013 executive order, forms the backbone of Colorado’s Water Plan. Back in 2010, armed with an updated SWSI plus five years of research by the roundtables and CWCB, the IBCC issued a starkly worded letter to outgoing Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and incoming Gov. Hickenlooper. In it, the group warned the two leaders that Colorado may not have enough water
to meet its future needs if current usage and management trends continue, and that Colorado’s water management status quo would eventually lead to massive “buy and dry” of agricultural land, more environmental harm to rivers and streams, inefficient land use decisions, and continued paralysis on permitting and building new water supply projects. Armed with the IBCC letter and years of work from the basin roundtables and state water agencies that showed a clear need for a new direction, Gov. Hickenlooper called for a statewide water plan. “When he issued the executive order, I think he was seeing the engagement of the roundtables and the IBCC and the conservation board and realizing they had been working at this for eight, going on nine years, and it was time to have a product,” says John Stulp, chair of the IBCC and special advisor to the governor on water policy. Although it hasn’t been easy to get to this point, Stulp says the draft water plan is a historic document that will help the state focus its limited resources as it prepares for the future and will also serve as an educational tool for Coloradans moving forward. “A lot has been accomplished and a lot of people have been involved,” says Stulp. “Chips Barry and Bill McDonald may have felt like outcasts back in the ‘70s, but they’ve got a lot of company today.” q Attend CFWE’s annual Climate and Colorado’s Water Future workshop in March 2015 at the National Ice Core Laboratory to learn more about climate science and what a changing climate means to Colorado. Visit yourwatercolorado.org to register.
Jeremy Papasso
the Rocky Mountain director for the Environmental Defense Fund and now serves on the board of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. “West Slope interests now have some leverage and influence they didn’t have before.” The drought of 2002 greatly boosted support for this new, more collaborative approach. Foreseeing an impending collision between drought, population growth and increasing public demand for so-called “nonconsumptive” uses of water like recreational and environmental flows, the CWCB in 2003 launched its first Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), a comprehensive assessment of water supply and demand and the status of local water planning around the state, completed with the input of local entities and interests. The first report was released in 2004 and would be periodically updated in the years that followed. Recognizing the value of the SWSI approach, that same year DNR director and former Western Slope legislator Russell George floated the idea of a grassroots water-planning network made up of nine roundtables, based in each of Colorado’s major river basins and the Denver Metro area. Although the SWSI study also convened basin roundtables to assess local water needs and plans, George’s idea was to ensure a broad spectrum of representation in the groups through more prescriptive membership. The new roundtables would be made up of volunteer representatives from industries, cities and counties, water conservancy and conservation districts, and the agricultural, environmental and recreational communities, and members would be charged with quantifying and planning for their basin’s future water needs. To resolve longstanding
Teller Lake No. 5, a recreational feature of Boulder County Parks and Open Space with a water right priority low on the totem pole, was reduced to 12 acres of hardened mud during the 2012 drought. 14
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
The Water Center at Colorado Mesa University promotes research, education and dialogue on the water issues facing the Upper Colorado River Basin. coloradomesa.edu/watercenter
At MillerCoors we have a long tradition of supporting the communities where we live and work. As part of our mission, MillerCoors is proud to support the Colorado Foundation for Water Education.
©2015 MILLERCOORS LLC, GOLDEN, CO AND MILWAUKEE, WI • SD159012
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
15
WHAT IS YOUR, AND COLORADO’S, WATER FUTURE? HOW WILL THE YEARS BETWEEN 2015 AND 2050 PLAY OUT? 16
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Step into the future— It begins now It’s 2015 and you are trying to live in the present. But you often think of the future and wonder about the experiences you dream of living—and all the unknowns. You’re working toward goals, but realize anything could happen. Your future depends, at least partially, on circumstances beyond your control. Similarly, as Colorado looks to meet its projected water demands, there are many question marks. How can we accurately foresee water needs and supply 35 or 50 years into the future when variables including population, economy, natural disasters, and social norms themselves are difficult to predict? According to Marc Waage, Denver Water’s manager of water resources planning, we can’t. “We can no longer assume that the past is what we’re going to see in the future,” he says. So we look to a variety of plausible futures that capture a range of uncertainty, then make plans to embrace tomorrow’s unknowns. This is what Colorado’s Water Plan’s adaptive water strategy is all about. Chapter 6.1 in the plan evaluates scenarios where the gap between municipal water supply and demand in Colorado could exceed 500,000 acre-feet by 2050, or as much as 2.5 million people would use in one year, if Colorado doesn’t act. The scenarios are based on a range in economic growth trends and population forecasts where Colorado reaches between 8.6 and 10 million people by 2050—that uncertainty alone could lead to completely different water futures. Couple that with the unpredictability of climate, and the multitude of unknowns seems overwhelming. Jacob Bornstein, program manager for the Water Supply Planning section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), says, “We need to be prepared for all these futures and find these common threads.” Whatever future Colorado faces in 2050, the Interbasin Compact Committee, which developed the water plan’s set of possible
scenarios with basin roundtable input, has agreed upon a series of “no and low regrets” actions we must implement in the next 10 to 15 years lest the continuation of current trends result in a Colorado that looks undesirably different from our state today. These are those common threads. Like a sound financial plan, future Coloradans will need a mixed portfolio of water sources to meet future water demand while maintaining the things Coloradans love about their state. No one portfolio element—conservation, a transmountain diversion, agricultural transfers, or the water supply projects providers are currently developing—can work alone to meet Colorado’s projected future water needs. “We need a combination of them in the right way, for the right types of scenarios, that balance these futures that we have no control over with the values we hold dear to keep Colorado, Colorado,” Bornstein says. No and low regrets actions are a starting place and include: implementing conservation strategies to save between 160,000 and 330,000 acre-feet of water each year; minimizing the “buy and dry” selling of water from agriculture to municipalities through alternative transfer methods; studying and preserving the option to build new transmountain diversion projects; building new storage projects; water for the environment, recreation and non-consumptive uses; and achieving an 80 percent success rate in implementing a set of about 80 projects that cities and water providers have planned to meet projected water demand.
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
17
CHART YOUR WATER FUTURE Choose between major factors that will affect Colorado’s water future—some that are outlined in the scenario planning section of Colorado’s Water Plan—although the actual future may not be so cut and dry. Depending on which scenario plays out, the draft plan calls out possible water supply portfolios that could meet demand. What's your future?
WILL COLORADO IMPLEMENT ALL “NO AND LOW REGRETS” ACTIONS?
NO
YES SUCCESS!
FAIL.
Citizens, decision makers and water managers take ownership over the agreed-upon actions. Colorado is successful in implementation.
We only succeed with half or fewer of the “no and low regrets” actions. Moving forward, add an additional level of urgency or severity to all measures required.
BUT…
DEMAND MATTERS.
A LOT POPULATION PROJECTIONS Elizabeth Garner, Colorado’s state demographer, says she applies birth and death rates to the current population’s age structure and reviews expected economic growth when predicting future population. If estimated future demand for workers exceeds natural population growth, then migration into Colorado will likely increase and further boost population. But those forecasts change each year. “So much is based on your current baseline,” Garner says. When she compares the 2040 forecasts she developed in 2006 and 2013, she sees a 5 percent difference— the result of the recession. “That’s not a lot when you’re looking out 40 years, but it could mean a lot to a water planner,” Garner says. Since 2006, Colorado has maintained a steady level of growth, adding around 75,000 people each year, but there’s no saying that rate will continue, or that the economy’s stability will sustain. “I can almost guarantee you that we’ll have another boom and bust because we’ve always had them,” Garner says. So what does that mean for water demand?
The past years haven’t been easy or stagnant. You’ve watched change happen. Water demand projections are based on population and economic forecasts, which the State Demographer’s Office updates every year.
Does water demand increase a lot or not so much?
18
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
NOT SO MUCH
SUPPLY REMAINS The climate hasn't warmed snowpack hasn’t decrease population is rising and the isn’t. The 2050 future is B
POPULATION LEAPS AHEAD. Colorado’s economy continues to flourish and people flock here to stay. Why wouldn’t they? With population on track to reach over 9 million Coloradans by 2050, demand soars. With high water demand and increasing aridity, Colorado is preparing for a future where there may not be enough water without building new storage or supply projects. Concerned, you sleuth for data and examine how climate change has played out, the status of groundwater availability, and the way Colorado has used and developed its water.
Is water supply high or low?
POPULATION GROWTH IS LESS THAN PROJECTED. A slow economy—good news for Colorado’s water, though not for employment. Colorado continues implementing no and low regrets actions, while demand increases slowly and steadily. You remind yourself that nothing stays the same—particularly over 35 years. Concerned, you sleuth for data and examine how climate change has played out, the status of groundwater availability, and the way Colorado has developed its water.
USUAL.
THERE ISN’T ENOUGH WATER!
HIGH LOW
CLIMATE AND WATER SUPPLY FORECASTS When predicting future supply, the Colorado Water Conservation Board looks at climate, groundwater, reservoir storage, and extreme weather. “There are a lot of unknowns. We don’t know if we’re going to have flood years or drought years; we don’t know if we’re going to have wildfires; more storage or less storage. So from the supply side there’s a lot of variability,” says Taryn Finnessy, CWCB climate change risk management specialist. Finnessy looks to a variety of different climate analyses, many of which are synthesized in a 2014 Climate Change in Colorado report the CWCB published in 2014 and include a 2011 Bureau of Reclamation report that projects probable decreases in runoff for the upper Colorado River Basin ranging from 6 to 20 percent by 2050. However, climate change could be more or less severe than those projections, and could affect demand as well as supply. Higher temperatures will mean thirstier forests, lawns and crops that require more water.
Water providers and users innovative by building stor using their systems. But po continued and water suppl Unless these trends revers need more water. We tackle based on our social values more likely to aggressively to build supply projects? W prioritize? In 2015, it’s hard values Coloradans will hold
Are social values tre or is society more ac consumptive resourc
PEOPLE HAVE THE WATER THEY
However, Colorado is econ and water managers strugg infrastructure; the 2050 fu ECONOMY.
IT’S HOT OUT THER
HIGH LOW
Temperature has increased as some models predicted i and there isn’t enough wate moderate but ongoing popu social values will determine challenge.
Are social values tren or is society more ac consumptive resourc
Is water supply high or low?
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
19
AINS CONSTANT. warmed much and ecreased significantly. Still, and the quantity of water ure is BUSINESS AS
Coloradans are more cooperative and eco-minded. Although population has exploded and climate change has reduced water availability, the state’s inventive mindset means the 2050 future is ADAPTIVE
TER!
INNOVATION.
GREEN
d users have grown more ng storage and flexibly s. But population growth has er supplies haven’t kept up. s reverse, Colorado will We tackle the challenge values. Are Coloradans essively conserve water or ects? What do Coloradans it’s hard to even guess the will hold dear in 2050.
CONSUMPTIVE SOCIAL S O OCIA VAL VALUES In 2013, 2013, BBC C Research rch aand Coonsulting su g com completedd a study fo for or thee CW CWCB ca called le “Public ub Opini Opinions, s, Attitudes, Att titudes, ud and nd Awar Awareness reness en s Reg R Regarding rding Wate ater in Colorado.” olo do Thee surv survey ey detected Coloradan Coloradans’ ol dans’ knowledge owle gaps, pe perceptions eptions aboutt mee meeting ng future water needs, and an nd values l s ab abo aboutt iimportant im mportant water ater er issues. es. One question questio uest sti n posedd to resp respondentss was what at sshould ld be done to address the most important p t water concerns, ncer and the he top answers sw w were: conserve, erv prio prioritize ze environmenta en environmental al needs,, and develop ne ev new projects j or rese reservoirs. servo
es trending “green” ore accepting of esource use?
Useful Us ul as this is data may be as a baseline,, it doe doesn’t help hel predict pre ct 2050 20 val values or politic politics—they’re tics cs th they’ y’re impossible iimpo mpos to foresee, fo ee,, ssays say Steve te Coffi Coffin,, pri pprincipal p l at GBSM, BSM, tthe he consulting ulting fifirm th that suggested ted the he CWC CWCB co conduct uct tthe puublic opinion surv publ survey. ey. “In a heartbeat, at ppublic lic perception ca perc can an cchange.” a ge
E THEY NEED.
is economically depressed s struggle to maintain 2050 future is WEAK
Coolorado ado ccan’t pred predict futur future values, lues, but ut it might ghtt be b aable to bu build uildd ooff eexistingg values, fill in knowledge w gee gaps gap andd influence influ ce th the futuree through t ed edu education on or aw wareness eness ca campaig campaigns. gns
Colorado is profiting from its natural resources, including oil, oil shale and water. But the water supply gap is troubling. With low supply, high demand, and a resource-intense mindset, the 2050 future is HOT GROWTH.
Green attitudes and progress on water conservation, higher housing densities, and low water use for energy development means the 2050 future is COOPERATIVE GROWTH.
THERE!
creased, but not as much dicted in 2015. Still, it’s dry ugh water to keep up with ng population growth. Our etermine how we tackle the
es trending “green” ore accepting of esource use?
2020
GREEN CONSUMPTIVE
{
Many things haven’t changed significantly since 2015—the 2050 future is BUSINESS AS USUAL.
Find out how you can influence the future at yourwatercolorado.org and by reading page 36 on "Getting in the Game."
CCOOLLOORRAADDOO FFOOUUNNDDAATTI IOONN FFOORR WWAATTEERR EEDDUUCCAATTI IOONN || YYOOUURRWWAATTEERRCCOOLLOORRAADDOO. .OORRGG
}
HOT GROWTH: The thriving economy fuels development, and regulations favor business over environmental protection. A warm climate draws the masses to relatively cool Colorado, and communities struggle to provide the services needed. Families seek low-density housing and rural and mountain living, resulting in rapid development of open lands. Climate change leads to environmental degradation, streamflow and water supply declines, and decreases in world food production, which causes a spike in food prices. Drought and flood events are extreme and frequent. Fossil fuel remains the dominant energy source, and Colorado’s energy production booms.
Additional water needed 1,060,000 Acre-feet
A high-demand, infrastructure-heavy portfolio requires success for all planned projects, a large new transmountain diversion, and high levels of conservation and ag transfers. ADAPTIVE INNOVATION: Together, Coloradans innovate solutions to address issues caused by a hot climate, including more frequent extreme weather events, higher irrigation demands, and declining streamflows. Strong investment in research leads to renewable energy advances and breakthrough efficiencies for natural resource use, including water. Relatively cool temperatures compared with surrounding states and a strong economy increase in-migration— population has grown faster than expected. High-density housing predominates, and with increased interest in buying food locally, Colorado loses less ag land than projected. A portfolio to meet these high demands requires success for all planned projects plus high levels of conservation and alternative ag transfers.
Additional water needed 930,000 Acre-feet
BUSINESS AS USUAL: The economy grows slowly with anticipated spikes and falls. Most Coloradans live in single-family homes. Social values and regulations are similar to that of 2015, and climate hasn’t deteriorated markedly. Still, streamflows and water supplies are stressed, and regulations cause uncertainty for water planning. Willingness to pay for environmental mitigation for new water development has slowly increased, as has water conservation. Agricultural water use declines as farmland adjacent to cities is lost to urbanization. Colorado hasn’t mitigated the impacts of ag water transfers, but efforts to do so continue. A mid-demand, balanced portfolio requires success of most planned projects, mid-level conservation, development of new supplies including a transmountain diversion, and permanent ag transfers.
Additional water needed 790,000 Acre-feet
COOPERATIVE GROWTH: Alliances form to integrate planning. Development is concentrated in cities and resort communities—this slows loss of agricultural land and reduces strain on natural resources. Coloradans embrace water and energy conservation. Water-saving technologies emerge and eco-tourism thrives. Demand for more water-efficient foods further reduces consumption. Moderate climatic warming results in increased water use, but this only reinforces environmental protections. Regulations are more restrictive, protecting streamflows and promoting efforts to re-operate water supply projects to reduce impacts. A portfolio to meet this mid-level demand increase assumes success of most planned projects and emphasizes water conservation more than ag transfers, with no new transmountain diversion.
Additional water needed 730,000 Acre-feet
WEAK ECONOMY: The national economy struggles and Colorado is no better off. Population is less than expected. The conversion of farmland to housing and the transfer of water out of agriculture is slow. Most sectors experience financial strife—it’s difficult to maintain water infrastructure. Values and regulations have changed little since 2015, and lack of coordination means planners face increasing uncertainty. Greenhouse gas emissions are less than projected, limiting climate change, but willingness to pay for environmental mitigation has declined in step with the economy. A portfolio to meet these modest increased demands assumes a lesser success rate for planned projects due to infrastructure costs, mid-level conservation, and minimal supply from ag transfers.
Additional water needed 620,000 Acre-feet
Water demand figures reflect new municipal and industrial water needs reported in the Statewide Water Supply Initiative 2010. H HE AE AD DWWA AT TE RE RS S | | WWI NI NT TE RE R 2 20 01 51 5
2 21 1
Colorado’s Water Plan, NOW
Where we landed at the close of 2014 By Nelson Harvey
iStock.com
Protecting and improving the health of watersheds and identifying streamflow levels needed to sustain environmental values for water are two aims of Colorado’s Water Plan.
22
of communications and education at the Colorado River District and chair of the Colorado Basin Roundtable. Moving forward, Pokrandt says, “We’ll have debates about how some of the plot lines should go, but we will all be reading from a common script.”
Jim Pokrandt
Jayla Poppleton (2)
One evening last fall, Becky Mitchell’s neighbor caught her in the driveway and posed a question that any concerned, curious and perhaps slightly nosy neighbor might ask: “You seem awfully busy, why have you been gone so much lately?” Mitchell, who is the head of water supply planning for the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), explained that she’d been supervising a team of 10 staffers charged with the rather Herculean task of assembling and drafting Colorado’s first official state water plan. The overarching goal: to bridge an anticipated and potentially catastrophic water gap of roughly 500,000 acre-feet, or 163 billion gallons, per year that could surface by mid-century if state demographers’ forecasts are borne out. Looking back on that driveway encounter, Mitchell believes she could have conveyed the importance of her work on a more personal level. “I could have said to my neighbor, who loves gardening, that hopefully in 25 years she’ll have the same Colorado she has now,” Mitchell says. “She’ll be able to keep working in her garden, rafting, skiing. To be honest, I’m hoping that my neighbor doesn’t even notice the impact of the water plan, because she lives in the same Colorado or better.” Water planning is nothing new. It’s a critical way to make sure our water-centric lifestyles endure, and it’s something many of Colorado’s irrigators, local governments, utilities and water districts have been doing in one form or another for more than a century. What’s new about Colorado’s Water Plan, though, is the way it weaves these disparate local concerns together into a statewide tapestry, providing a more complete vision of the state’s water future than we’ve seen before and articulating that future in terms of Coloradans’ water values. The plan’s broad goals—demonstrating how to close the projected water supply gap, preserving and improving the state’s environment, finding viable alternatives to agricultural buy and dry, protecting Colorado’s interstate compact entitlements, improving the water project permitting process, and re-aligning state water funding—are all designed to advance those water values and ensure Colorado remains a good place to run a business, raise a family, take a ski vacation or enjoy the natural beauty for decades to come. One basic service of the water plan has been to synthesize the vast trove of technical and political work that now underpins water management in Colorado, in order to identify both areas of broad statewide consensus between river basins and points of disagreement where more dialogue is essential. “The first draft is a great start—it doesn’t pretend to solve anything but lays out the difficult discussions ahead,” says Jim Pokrandt, head
“The first draft is a great start—it doesn’t pretend to solve anything but lays out the difficult discussions ahead.” —Jim Pokrandt Getting to draft No. 1 Writing that script has been a monumental task, not only on the part of the state’s nine basin roundtables, but also for Mitchell’s outfit at the CWCB. Between four and five staffers have dedicated themselves almost full-time to the plan for months, and CWCB director James Eklund says there’s no one in his 46-person agency that hasn’t somehow
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
complying with and managing the risk associated with interstate compacts. They all aim to increase storage, in part by pursuing multi-purpose projects, and the majority seek to reduce reductions in agricultural water shortages while also improving ag efficiencies. The most glaring disagreements arise where one basin’s BIP identifies water from another basin as a target for its own new supply. John McClow, general counsel for the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, CWCB board member, and member of the Gunnison Basin Roundtable, says he endorses the approach of focusing on consensus areas, particularly since the year and a half that the CWCB had to prepare the plan’s first draft wasn’t time enough to resolve all of Colorado’s water disagreements. In the months leading up to submission of the final draft, he believes the CWCB will “make every effort to bring those conflicting basins together and try to work out some solutions that can morph into a state policy.”
Divergence across basin plans On that front, there’s much work to be done. One significant point of divergence between the basin plans centers on the level of water conservation governments and water providers should strive for in the coming decades. For instance, the Colorado River Basin BIP calls for setting a “high” basin-wide conservation goal as defined by the CWCB, while the South Platte/Metro roundtables’ BIP mostly shies away from endorsing the CWCB goals except by supporting a “medium” level of conservation for the metro area. “The South Platte Basin already implements conservation at high levels compared to the rest of the state,” says Sean Cronin, executive director of the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District, explaining the position of the South Platte Basin Roundtable, which he chaired until recently. “In our BIP, we also tried to articulate that even though ‘high’ sounds better than ‘medium,’ which sounds better than ‘low,’ you could have just as great or greater results with a medium level of conservation and high market penetration [greater customer adoption] than with a high level of conservation and less market penetration.” Conservation targets can significantly affect future water management planning, as any meaningful reduction in demand will lessen the need for water providers to secure additional water supplies through other methods. (The draft water plan itself adopts a “medium” statewide conservation goal, which could provide up to 320,000 acre-feet per year, although the CWCB says only half that amount could safely be hedged against HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
Colorado Rep. J. Paul Brown takes the mic during a joint meeting of the four West Slope roundtables, who came together a week after the draft plan was released in December to establish greater consensus as the draft Basin Implementation Plans are revised.
The most glaring disagreements arise where one basin’s plan identifies water from another basin as a target for its own new supply.
Courtesy Northern Water
contributed to the effort. A wide range of other government agencies, from Colorado Parks and Wildlife to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Department of Local Affairs, have also lent staff to help author the plan’s 19 sections and 11 chapters. A large part of the job has been reviewing and synthesizing the thousands of public comments submitted so far. Central to the plan are the eight Basin Implementation Plans (BIPs) drafted by basin roundtable groups from around the state and integrated by CWCB staff into the document. The BIPs quantify water gaps looming in each basin with heretoforeunseen detail, forecasting future “consumptive” water needs like municipal, industrial and agricultural uses along with “nonconsumptive” needs like environmental and recreational flows. After cataloguing future needs, the BIPs then list “identified projects and processes,” or IPPs, intended to address needs in each basin, along with goals and measurable outcomes for tracking progress. The roundtables submitted drafts of their BIPs to the CWCB in July 2014, and revised drafts are due in April 2015, eight months before the first final draft of the water plan lands on the governor’s desk in late 2015. Many have been watching with anticipation, and perhaps a degree of skepticism, to see how the CWCB would integrate the BIPs into the state plan, particularly where those plans articulate conflicting visions for the future. “We speckled parts and pieces of the BIPs throughout the water plan,” says Mitchell. “We looked for similarities, we looked for differences, and we chose sections of them to weave into every chapter depending on the subject.” Most roundtable members say the CWCB has proven receptive to their comments on how the BIPs were incorporated in an early draft of the plan and eager to ensure that the overarching plan accurately reflects the views of each basin. “In dealing with the issues where there are a lot of disagreements, they are using specific quotes [from the BIPs] rather than trying to interpolate what the plans mean to say, and we appreciate that,” says Mike Preston, chair of the Southwest Basin Roundtable and general manager of the Dolores Water Conservancy District. In the plan’s first draft, Mitchell says, the CWCB opted to focus primarily on areas where the BIPs overlap, while also highlighting more contentious subjects that will continue to be negotiated between now and December of 2015, when the final plan is due. All the BIPs, for instance, focus on closing their municipal water supply gaps, in part by pursuing conservation and demand management, while also protecting wetlands, recreation and water quality, recovering endangered species, and
If Colorado met all the low or half the medium conservation levels identified by the Statewide Water Supply Initiative, through strategies like xeric landscaping to reduce outdoor watering, 170,000 acre-feet of water would be saved annually, enough to meet the needs of 1.1 million people or roughly 30 percent of those expected to move to Colorado by 2050. Source: SWSI 2010
23
THE FIRST DRAFT 4
WATER SUPPLY Where does Colorado’s water come from—and where is it concentrated? (Did you know portions of the state receive only seven inches of precipitation annually, while other areas average more than 60 inches?) This 17-page chapter covers groundwater, weather modification, water quality, water storage and more.
6
WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT FOR THE FUTURE Now you’re getting into the heart of the plan! These 159 pages explore tools for managing future water supply in Colorado, scenario planning, and strategies for meeting Colorado’s water gaps. This chapter also contains pieces of the eight Basin Implementation Plans, including summary charts comparing and summarizing each plan.
9
ALIGNMENT OF STATE RESOURCES AND POLICIES Here you find out how the plan’s aspirations may be actualized. These 57 pages cover the financing needs and recommended actions to realize the plan’s goals, including streamlined permitting and more cooperative water rights management. The chapter also explores the importance of outreach and education, and provides recommendations for additional funding to support such efforts.
A chapter-by-chapter rundown of what you’ll find
1
INTRODUCTION Start here. The 5-page introduction sets the scene, explaining the need for a state water plan and overviewing some of the plan’s goals, as well as providing an outline of Gov. John Hickenlooper’s executive order.
2
OUR LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING This 25-page chapter provides crucial background information to help readers understand Colorado water law, administration, interstate compacts, and governance structure, including how local, state and federal governance, planning and permitting interact.
5
WATER DEMAND BY SECTOR If you haven’t read the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), this chapter brings you up to speed in 16 pages. Learn about projected water supply demand for municipal, industrial, environmental and recreational water uses out to 2050. (See also our centerfold feature to explore how varying projections and outcomes affect demand.)
7
WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION Read this 29-page chapter to connect the dots between water quantity and quality, and to learn how factors beyond precipitation affect water availability, including the health of state watersheds and the impact of natural disasters. How can Coloradans work together to protect water supplies on all these fronts now and in the future?
10
LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS Still under development, you’ll have to check back for this chapter, which will include policy recommendations for the governor and Colorado General Assembly that arise from discussion of the draft plan and its revision by December 2015.
11
UPDATING COLORADO’S WATER PLAN The plan is considered a dynamic document that will need periodic updating to reflect changing conditions. Read here for a half page on current plans to update the water plan on an as-yet-undetermined cycle and a process for making revisions over the course of 2015.
24
3
OVERVIEW OF EACH BASIN Zoom in on each of Colorado’s unique river basins. Explore the landscape, values, challenges, overarching Basin Implementation Plan themes, goals and more in these 21 pages.
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
8
INTERBASIN PROJECTS AND AGREEMENTS In these 12 pages, you’ll find the plan’s goals for cooperative projects, with examples of past and current models of collaboration. This chapter also looks at efforts toward intrastate agreements within Colorado to protect and maximize use of the state’s compact entitlements, starting with the basin roundtables and IBCC and leading to the IBCC’s Draft Conceptual Agreement, which is considered less of an agreement and more a framework for future discussions.
Courtesy Mountain Whitewater Descents
the water gap.) This leads to what is perhaps the most glaring point of contention between the BIPs, and that is whether, when and how to build a new transmountain diversion project that would pipe Colorado River water to the Eastern Slope. The South Platte/Metro BIP identifies the development of “unappropriated Colorado River supplies” as essential to close its future water supply gap, which is projected to be 75 percent of the total gap statewide by 2050. The Arkansas Basin BIP also emphasizes the importance of keeping this water supply option available to meet future needs without sacrificing large swaths of productive farmland. Yet the Colorado Basin BIP states that such a project “should be prevented as damaging to our recreational economy, environment and agriculture,” and every other West Slope BIP is strongly apprehensive of the state or East Slope basins going that route. West Slope representatives, including the general manager of the Colorado River District, Eric Kuhn, who has been widely vocal on the subject of uncertainty regarding additional Colorado River development, believe a transmountain diversion could ultimately harm the state’s existing Colorado River users, including entities on the Front Range such as Denver, which currently relies on transmountain diversions from the Colorado River to supply half of its water. Beyond the state’s borders, some members of the Upper Colorado River Commission, the body that administers the Upper Colorado River Compact of 1948 between Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, are also concerned that further transfers of water out of the Colorado River Basin could increase the risk of the upper basin violating the 1922 Colorado River Compact. “It’s certainly something that’s being watched by our neighbors in the upper basin,” says McClow, who is also Colorado’s representative to the Upper Colorado River Commission. Although the water plan draft doesn’t take a formal position on a new transmountain diversion— and has garnered both support and criticism for that neutral stance—it includes a preliminary framework of factors that would likely need to be addressed for such a project to move forward. The
Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC), which includes two representatives from each basin roundtable, hammered out this list, referred to in the draft state plan as the “Draft Conceptual Agreement,” in the spring and summer of 2014. A breakthrough in the IBCC discussion came when Front Range water interests conceded that a project might not be able to divert every year, instead pulling water only in wet years to keep West Slope water uses intact. Some snowpack or flow-based triggers would establish when the project could begin diverting, although those remain undetermined. No roundtable has formally endorsed the conceptual agreement, now being termed simply a “framework for future discussion,” and West Slope roundtables argue that more water conservation, reuse and recycling in the South Platte Basin could entirely eliminate the need for such a project. The Colorado Basin BIP says a transmountain diversion should be the “last tool out of the toolbox,” while the other three West Slope BIPs argue for additional criteria or requirements Front Range entities would need to have met, such as exhausting all other water supply solutions, before such a project could be decreed or constructed. Front Range roundtables, meanwhile, see a new diversion as essential to prevent the widespread “buy and dry” of Eastern Slope agriculture. They maintain that enough unappropriated Colorado River water remains to supply some version of a project, and that actions toward such a project must be pursued sooner rather than later to be prepared to meet the gap.
P rivate and commercial boating on the Cache la Poudre River, pictured here, and dozens of other rivers, as well as fishing, skiing and other r ecreational pursuits comprise a $34.5 billion economy in Colorado. Many of these activities rely on streamflows, making recreation an important water supply need Colorado’s Water Plan seeks to protect.
“There is a demonstrated need for new water supply in the state, and there is no free lunch.” —Dave Little
Does the draft plan go far enough? How directly the revised 2015 version of Colorado’s Water Plan addresses tough conflicts for water sourcing like the transmountain diversion question will be the ultimate test of its value for many water managers. “I would like it if the plan hits the tradeoffs head on,” says Dave Little, director of planning for Denver Water. “There is a demonstrated need for new water supply in the state, and there is no free lunch, and I will be curious to see if the document has the courage to highlight ways that we can secure that new supply and the HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
Review the full drafts of Colorado’s Water Plan and Basin Implementation Plans to dig into the details. Find documents and resources at coloradowaterplan.com.
25
“To aggressively pursue the things that are agreed upon, that’s something the plan can help with.” —Mike Preston
tradeoffs involved with that. Because someone’s world is always being played in when you are meeting water needs.” At least in its first draft, some say, the water plan has done a decent job highlighting those tradeoffs that loom in the future. “Early on, the Colorado River District was concerned that the plan would tread lightly on the tough issues,” says Pokrandt. “But our voice was heard, and at this point in time the draft does a good job of pointing those interbasin differences out.” Others argue that merely calling out existing conflicts between basins does little to show how Coloradans can meet the full extent of future water needs. Yes, the plan identifies the consensus actions most agree the statewide water community must pursue in the near term no matter what, including moderate degrees of conservation, reuse, sharing of water supplies between ag and municipal uses, and implementing alreadyplanned projects, and then proposes funding and policy solutions that could further the implementation of these near-term goals. But for the state to be prepared for a future that could demand even higher levels of conservation, ag transfers, or even transmountain diversions while still protecting the diverse set of state values declared
by Gov. Hickenlooper’s executive order, some contend, will require that the water plan declare bolder, more decisive policy goals. “I really think that the governor believes he can craft a plan that makes everyone happy,” says Drew Beckwith, water policy manager for Western Resource Advocates, a Boulder-based environmental group. “This is an impressive effort, and we’re on the right path. But I think the current draft of the water plan is very milquetoast, it’s very gentle, it doesn’t strike any big policy initiatives, it doesn’t say yes to something.” To send Colorado off and running toward its water future once the plan is complete, Beckwith argues that Gov. Hickenlooper should use the plan to declare a water conservation goal that governments and water providers across the state could aspire to meet. “I’d like to see it be a high conservation goal, calling for water use reductions of one percent per year statewide,” Beckwith says. “I don’t think it has to be mandatory or statutory—I think as long as the governor says it, it becomes an aspirational goal, and merely having it out there as an official piece of language creates an environment in which no one wants to fail at meeting the goal.” Any list of goals that the state ultimately en-
Reaching Coloradans For Colorado’s Water Plan Colorado’s Water Plan is touted as a democratic, self-actualized document produced “by Coloradans, for Coloradans.” That ideal, of course, can only be reached with one key ingredient: Coloradans. Widespread participation ought to ensure the many different perspectives about what should—or should not—be included in the new state water plan are represented. Not only did producing the first draft of Colorado’s Water Plan rely on the work of many existing stakeholders, but public input, say the plan’s authors, has been and will remain essential to refining a water plan that reflects Colorado residents’ many values. Education and outreach efforts leading up to the first draft of Colorado’s Water Plan have been extensive to date. Some go back as far as 2005, before the plan was even conceived, when official mechanisms like the Public Education, Participation, and Outreach workgroup (PEPO) of the Interbasin Compact Committee were established solely to foster public engagement around the work of the state’s basin roundtables. Other efforts have been more recent, as the plan has moved—and continues moving—from conception to draft phase to finalization. The CWCB, the nine basin roundtables, the state legislature’s interim Water Resources Review Committee, the Colorado Foundation for Water Education, and a consortium of state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and regional and local entities have worked to inform citizens about how they could most effectively express their opinions about the plan. Given that it is notoriously difficult to infiltrate busy lives and spark participation among average citizens, the primary focus of outreach efforts began with key constituent and stakeholder groups, policy makers, media, roundtable members themselves, the broader water community, and, finally, the general public. “Getting the word out about the BIPs and Colorado's Water Plan couldn't have happened without all of the hard work and involvement at the grassroots level,” says Kate McIntire, education and public engagement coordinator for the CWCB, of the work that took place on multiple fronts, whether by the roundtables, PEPO group or other organizations. To date, the CWCB alone has met with more than 100 organizations, agencies and partners to solicit input. In its first 12 months, the coloradowaterplan.com website’s page views climbed to 18,500. As of October 26
By Justin Patrick
2014, when the public comment period closed for the plan’s first draft, more than 13,000 individual comments on the plan had been received by the CWCB, whether delivered via the website, by mail or email, or verbally at a meeting or hearing. Every comment was acknowledged and received a response. The roundtables, too, received hundreds of comments as they developed their Basin Implementation Plans. Using local newspapers, websites, social media, radio, videos, postcards and fliers, and email lists, the roundtables worked to reach a wide audience and encourage attendance at meetings. Numerous interest groups rallied the members of their organizations and communities to submit input. Business leaders from Protect the Flows, a coalition of 1,000 businesses whose tagline reads “The Business Voice of the Colorado River,” testified at legislative hearings held during summer 2014 and later at CWCB board meetings. “That’s a huge commitment for a businessperson,” says Molly Mugglestone, Protect the Flows co-director. “But we’re seeing that they really do have passion for this and they really do want this water plan draft to reflect their values.” Those hearings conducted by the state legislative interim Water Resources Review Committee on the water plan during summer 2014 also reached people who might not otherwise have been heard. Senate Bill 115 directed legislators on the committee to travel the state basin by basin soliciting public comment. “The intent was to give concerned citizens not necessarily directly involved a greater voice,” says former state Rep. Randy Fischer. Many of the meetings were well attended and resulted in pages of public comments. But others lacked strong attendance. “Despite our best efforts, my sense is the general public is underrepresented in the process,” Fischer says. That statement might relate to one criticism of the plan’s public input process that holding meetings, including most CWCB board meetings as well as some of the S.B. 115 hearings and roundtable engagement meetings, during the workday is inherently exclusive. “Are you really going to get someone who isn’t paid to work on water, or retired, to come out to these public meetings?” asks Theresa Conley, water advocate for Conservation Colorado. At the same time, she acknowledges the CWCB’s effort to create different forums to get people involved, including the website and other electronic communication, and believes some of the public’s lack of attendance is just “the nature of the beast”
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
dorses would have to satisfy many user groups besides the environmental community, including business groups and water providers. For instance, along with a conservation goal, the plan could set a goal for fully developing the state’s compact entitlements. “Going forward, the big umbrella decision that the state will have to make is whether or not to include bold goals and statements in the plan that will make some people happy and other people really upset,” says Eric Hecox, executive director of the South Metro Water Supply Authority, a group of 14 water providers south of Denver working to reduce their dependency on unsustainable groundwater withdrawals. “I don’t think we’ll get just a statewide conservation goal, or just a list of must-have water projects on that list. A package of bold goals would have to include something for everyone.”
Gaining momentum without overstepping bounds For the utilities, conservancy districts, farmers and others whose everyday work consists of lining up their water supply, the importance of what the water plan will do is likely matched by what it won’t do, and that includes advocating alternatives to
the prior appropriation doctrine, infringing on the status of water rights as private property, or banning the practice of agricultural buy and dry outright. Nor will the plan have any regulatory teeth or take the place of local water planning. “We are not here to dictate how things are done,” says Mitchell. “Hopefully local municipalities will see this as a guide. It will open lines of communication within their areas and can be used to aid their own planning.” Still, the plan’s final chapter, which remains to be fleshed out, will include recommendations for state legislators looking to make a difference in water policy by modifying existing statutes or passing new ones. And the CWCB, along with other state agencies, will use the plan in deciding how to spend limited funds on water projects, environmental restoration, or water quality improvement efforts. Finally, individual water providers will need to play a critical role in implementing the plan’s recommendations for closing the future water gap. Even after the December 2015 draft is final, the water plan is intended to evolve as climate, population and other conditions in the state shift in the coming years. Going forward, the plan will be updated on a regular schedule, and each update will
Jayla Poppleton
of engaging the public on a technical issue. Conservation Colorado built awareness and participation among its members through blogs, social media alerts, and water-focused events. Still, Conley says, “It’s a hard process to break into. We certainly had a lot of written public comments, but I have seen how difficult it is for some people to speak at meetings and to feel confident and competent with the process.” Despite the challenges, there is optimism that even more of the public will become involved now that the draft water plan has been submitted. “I think there will be a lot Theresa Conley serves as water advomore debate among concerned citicate for Conservation Colorado. zens,” says Fischer. “It’ll really give people something to react to.” Mike Gibson, chair of the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable, expressed similar sentiments: “There may be greater participation when individuals recognize that the anticipated changes…may impact their lifestyles and/or pocket book.” In the water plan, the CWCB suggests creation of a grant fund to expand education and outreach efforts well beyond December 2015, when the plan’s first iteration becomes final. After all, without a citizenry that understands and values water, it will be that much harder to build support for the plan’s implementation, yet water education is notoriously under-funded. “You have the infrastructure of educators and communications specialists who are ready and willing to go out and educate the masses. They don’t necessarily have the resources to do it,” says Kristin Maharg, director of programs at the Colorado Foundation for Water Education, who contributed to a section of the water plan on education and outreach. “If we could say at the state level, ‘this is a priority, here is a grant fund to help you do it,’ I think that is going to initiate a series of activities past 2015. This is just the beginning.” q
serve as a check on progress toward the plan’s original goals. Mitchell says revisions will likely involve gathering technical studies like the Statewide Water Supply Initiative, using them to update BIPs, and, finally, updating the water plan itself. In the meantime, many hope the draft plan helps to boost the momentum behind projects and policies that enjoy broad support in Colorado, while laying out concrete steps to continue assessing options for closing the gap and advancing the discussion on more divisive issues. Moving forward, for instance, Preston says he would like to see an objective inquiry led by the state into the cost per acre-foot of different alternatives to provide new water supply around Colorado. Such an analysis would provide a better backdrop for sound decision-making as tradeoffs are analyzed. “Identifying areas of alignment and figuring out how to aggressively pursue the things that are agreed upon, that’s something the plan can help with,” says Preston, citing as an example growing levels of support for multi-purpose storage reservoirs that provide agricultural, municipal and environmental benefits alike. “Where there are differences, the plan can help provide structure for future discussions to iron them out and work them through.” q
Racking Up Input As the first draft of Colorado’s Water Plan took shape, between September 2013 and October 10, 2014, the CWCB received and responded to more than 13,000 unique comments:
Email submissions
780
120
Webforms via coloradowaterplan.com
322
Typed letters
Handwritten comments
Form letters
164
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
121
11,800
Comments submitted by the legislature’s Water Resources Review Committee 27
How Close Are We?
When it comes to how Colorado can meet its municipal and industrial water supply gaps, we’re not all in 100 percent agreement. But we’re often closer than you might think. The first evolution of Colorado’s Water Plan incorporates drafts of eight regional water plans submitted by the state’s basin roundtables and uniquely geared toward meeting local water needs. The draft state water plan also adopts seven statewide goals developed by the Interbasin Compact Committee called no and low regrets actions, considered key first steps for satisfying the minimum level of water demand stemming
What We Need Each basin has a projected municipal and industrial water demand gap to fill, some larger than others, except for the North Platte. 2050 Muncipal & Industrial New Water Demand
Estimated Gap Between Supply and Demand
Demand Met By Planned Projects
from new growth forecasted for 2050. As a measure of the degree the roundtables’ draft Basin Implementation Plans are in synch with the state plan—and each other—we line them up against four no and low regrets targets that directly address municipal and industrial water supplies. The plans are undergoing revision at press time and will be resubmitted in April 2015.
How We Get There No and low regrets actions, as defined by the Interbasin Compact Committee, would have few or no disadvantages as first steps in meeting Colorado’s near-term water supply needs and would not impair future opportunities to meet water demands reaching the high end of the forecasted range. How closely do the basin plans follow these recommendations for closing the gap? No/Low Regrets Action: Limit traditional ag dry-up by supporting alternative transfer methods (ATMs) that allow water sharing between farms and cities, filling the gap by 50,000 acre-feet statewide. To what extent does each basin plan help fulfill the statewide target?
Gunnison 16-23 Rio Grande 7.7-13 North Platte 0.1-0.3 Circle size reflects the midpoint of the range for estimated 2050 M & I and self-supplied Industrial water demands for each river basin as reported in SWSI 2010, Appendix J. For a basin map, see page 6. 28
North Platte: No ATMs planned
Southwest 20-31
Rio Grande: No ATMs planned
Yampa/White 34-95
Gunnison: No ATMs planned, but research on potential ATMs underway
Colorado 65-110
0 Acre-Feet
Southwest: No ATMs planned
Arkansas 110-170
Yampa/White: Identified as important; no specific ATMs identified
SouthPlatte/Metro 340-505
Colorado: Identified concerns around ATMs (loss of income/ market share); no specific ATMs identified
Projected Demand (1000s of Acre-Feet)
South Platte/Metro: Key element in plan; no/low regrets says 44,000 acre-feet from ag, ideally ATMs, but BIP identifies 30,000 acre-feet ATMs plus 13-17,000 acre-feet ag dry-up
Arkansas: Potential for ATMs still being quantified; some ATMs in progress
30,000 Acre-Feet
Three other no/low regrets actions were not examined in this graphic: (1) Implement reuse strategies to recycle an additional 25,000 acre-feet of water; (2) Implement storage and infrastructure projects to maximize flexibility with an emphasis on multiple-use projects; and (3) Implement projects and methods that support environmental and recreational uses, especially those that support endangered species or local economies. Each of the basin plans proposes multi-purpose projects and projects to support environmental and recreational uses, but only the South Platte/Metro, Arkansas and Southwest include reuse strategies.
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
No/Low Regrets Action: Plan and preserve options for developing unallocated
waters, including possible new transmountain diversions, by adopting a statewide conceptual agreement under which a project or series of projects could be supported. With the “agreement” unresolved, the basin plans weigh in: Move forward in laying the groundwork for a transmountain diversion, or wait?
medium-level municipal conservation strategies and apply at least half of the water savings to closing the gap by 170,000 acre-feet. Do the basin plans follow suit?
WAIT
MOVE
South Platte/Metro, Arkansas
Long-term planning required. Need to start now to be ready to meet gap. There’s potentially unallocated water in Colorado River.
No/Low Regrets Action: Establish
Colorado
Sets high conservation targets, both in basin and across state; desire to be a statewide conservation leader
Yampa/White, Gunnison, Colorado, Southwest
Rio Grande, North Platte Neither would be affected by or intend to pursue transmountain diversions from the Colorado River.
Over-development of Colorado River too risky. Make criteria for implementing other strategies (conservation, reuse, land use, etc.) high enough to make transmountain diversion absolute last resort.
No Yes
Southwest Adopts high conservation goal based on indoor/outdoor use ratio; sets even higher standard as criteria for proponents of ag transfers or transmountain diversions
No/Low Regrets Action: Strive for an 80 percent success rate for projects
that are already planned to provide 350,000 acre-feet statewide—enough water for 2 million people. Do the success rates assumed by basin plans get us there? (Note: Supply gaps represented on the opposing page assume this degree of success; if not achieved, the gaps will be larger.)
South Platte/Metro Assumes 60 percent success rate based on uncertainty due to state/federal regulatory permitting
North Platte Accepts conservation standards with equitable statewide application; minimal local domestic use or conservation plans
Gunnison
Arkansas
Sets low-medium conservation goal but likely revising to high; seeks to employ water conservation and land use equitably statewide
Quantification in process, but assumes high IPP success rate
Colorado Long list of projects where 10 percent success rate would meet target; uncertainties around project viability
South Platte/Metro
Southwest Two new M&I reservoirs on list but focus is on delivery infrastructure from existing storage. Uncertain whether needs of all 9 sub-basins would be met.
Gunnison = No/Low regrets responsibility in increments equivalent to the needs of ~25,000 people
Sets low conservation goal but starting out at comparatively high efficiency levels; believes goal is not as important as penetration
Assumes moderate success; to strategically focus implementation, projects are divided in 3 tiers
Yampa/White
= Unmet portion of goal in increments equivalent to the needs of~25,000 people
Assumes high success rate; municipal shortages up to 10 percent remain with climate change
Yampa/White Supports, but unspecific in targets for in basin and doesn’t address statewide goal
Rio Grande
North Platte
Rio Grande Little discussion in plan itself; low municipal use in basin
North Platte
Rio Grande
Yampa/White
Gunnison
Southwest
Colorado
Already successful; no remaining gap
Arkansas
South Platte/Metro
Pursuing augmentation for groundwater use for municipal wells in tandem with agricultural
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
Arkansas In progress on conservation strategy
29
Colorado Water Conservation Board director James Eklund is responsible for overseeing development of Colorado’s Water Plan.
30
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Colorado’s Water Plan, Next Where we need to go further By Nelson Harvey When the final draft of Colorado’s Water Plan lands with a thump on the governor’s desk at the end of 2015—or, more likely, when it appears with a cheerful ping in his email inbox—it will be the product of what James Eklund, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), calls “the largest civic engagement project in Colorado.” That project, the statewide system of grassroots basin roundtables established by the 2005 Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act, has played a pivotal role in the creation of the water plan, but despite the hundreds of meetings held, thousands of hours worked, and tens of thousands of pages reviewed, the true test of the plan lies ahead. That test is whether state officials, roundtable members, lawmakers and water providers can successfully implement the plan, and whether they can leverage its findings and recommendations to stave off a statewide water supply reckoning in the decades to come. The alternative outcome involves the plan—which is, after all, a non-enforceable advisory document—dying a quiet death on the shelf of a government office. Such a fate seems unlikely given the outpouring of time and public input that has gone into the effort so far, but implementing it successfully will still require action and cooperation from all corners of the water community. What’s more, it could require improvements to the laws and regulations, planning and permitting processes, and funding mechanisms that affect building new water projects and conserving, sharing and reusing Colorado’s water.
Kevin Moloney
If it’s doable, do it. If not, legislate. Once completed, the water plan will be nothing less than a massive, multi-decade to-do list for basin roundtables, interest groups, state agencies and water providers alike. From the moment the final plan is submitted in late 2015 until the next time it’s updated, these groups will be busy building and implementing the projects and programs that the plan identifies, hopefully in a fashion consistent with the “No and Low Regrets” actions recommended to shrink the future water gap by the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC). Yet starting in early 2016, the Colorado state legislature will also weigh in on the future of the water plan. Chapter 10 of the plan, which is currently empty but serves as a placeholder to be developed in 2015, will be dedicated exclusively to legislative recommendations, providing lawmakers with a chance to make an informed difference by passing new water laws or funding new water projects. Although legislation could be an important outcome of the water plan, lawmakers have already begun to shape the plan’s contents. Under Senate Bill 115, passed and signed by the governor
in 2013, a group of lawmakers called the interim Water Resources Review Committee (WRRC) held public hearings on the plan during the initial drafting process and can continue to do so every time a new draft or significant amendment is released. During meetings the group held during the summer of 2014 in all eight of Colorado’s river basins and the Denver Metro area, more than 500 people attended and more than 160 submitted spoken or written comments on the water plan. The WRRC can also propose legislation based on the water plan-related input its members receive, and although the bills referred to the legislature for the 2015 session didn’t directly relate to the water plan, some cover similar ground. One bill, for instance, would promote rainwater harvesting projects that reduce demand on reservoirs, rivers and streams, while another would create a grant program for the management of invasive weeds like tamarisk that crowd riverbanks and consume large amounts of water. Former state Rep. Randy Fischer, a Fort Collins Democrat who co-chaired the 2014 WRRC public hearings along with former Snowmass Village Democratic Sen. Gail Schwartz, says several dominant themes emerged in the public comments legislators heard on the water plan. “We heard that there are tradeoffs to everything, and even though there is universal agreement that agricultural ‘buy and dry’ shouldn’t be the default mechanism for meeting future water demands, it’s not enough to simply say, ‘We want to prevent buy and dry,’” Fischer says. After all, as Colorado’s population grows and water’s price rises along with demand, it will likely become more and more difficult for farmers and ranchers to resist selling their water. That makes it vital for Colorado’s Water Plan to identify and encourage buy and dry alternatives like rotational fallowing, interruptible supply agreements and other alternative transfer methods (ATMs), which are based on the notion that many cities and towns only need extra water in very dry years, and thus could stand to lease instead of own agricultural water rights. “There was a great example given by a commenter in Steamboat, where he pointed out that the water it takes to grow 6,000 tons of hay could also supply around 5,000 households,” Fischer recalls. “The economic value of the output produced by 5,000 households is many times greater than the sale price of the hay. So how can the people raising hay possibly compete with those interested in their water supplies?” Fischer hopes the water plan will help show that they don’t have to by boosting state support for the most promising ATMs. The draft plan sets a goal of freeing up 50,000 acre-feet of municipal water supply per year from such arrangements, whether it be through rotational HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
Once completed, the water plan will be nothing less than a massive, multi-decade to-do list for basin roundtables, interest groups, state agencies and water providers alike.
Of Colorado’s approximately 3.1 million irrigated acres, between 500,000 and 700,000 could be dried up by 2050, largely due to urbanization and urban transfers. Source: SWSI 2010. 31
Influencing Colorado’s Water Planning DNA Water Providers and Other Project Proponents By developing more efficient permitting processes to advance solutions more quickly
Farmers and Irrigation Districts
Environmental and Watershed Groups
By establishing policies and funding to enhance water-sharing mechanisms and agricultural viability
Through funding for development of watershed master plans
Colorado’s Water Plan may have no legal or regulatory authority, but that’s not necessarily a roadblock. The purpose, its drafters say, is to establish a framework of support and coordination between the myriad planning and regulatory structures that make up the state’s water planning DNA. Here’s how the plan could affect those entities already active in overseeing Colorado water:
Diverse Stakeholders Through identification of funding sources, consolidation of application processes, and incentives for multi-purpose projects
Legislature
CDPHE Water Quality Control Division
By developing legislative recommendations to provide regulatory incentives, remove legal impediments, or open new opportunities
By establishing improved statewide focus on the nexus between water quality and quantity
Colorado Water Conservation Board By setting an action plan and establishing policy direction
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Through better coordination on permitting and partnerships to meet environmental and recreational needs Communities
Through increased understanding and awareness, sufficient water and protection of values
32
Colorado Division of Water Resources By informing policies and advancing creative solutions and increased efficiency
Water Educators Through funding to support extended outreach and educational activities that advance regional solutions
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
fallowing, deficit irrigation or other measures that could provide water as needed or, in some cases, consistently every year to cities while farmers temporarily use a little less. The CWCB has been funding research into ATMs for years and has awarded about a dozen grants for ATM pilot projects, although none of those are fully developed yet. Some state legislators have also jumped in to encourage the use of ATMs in the past, but despite all this government goodwill, the tools haven’t been widely implemented in Colorado. That’s partly because it’s expensive to win approval for ATM projects from a water court judge, the State Engineer or the CWCB. Another contributing factor is that irrigators fear entering into an ATM agreement, having their historical water use scrutinized, and potentially being forced to forfeit some of their water under what is perceived by many in Colorado to be a “use it or lose it” water law. Peter Nichols, a water attorney and partner at the Boulder firm Berg, Hill, Greenleaf and Ruscitti, believes there are several legal and administrative tweaks that legislators and state regulators could make to ease the financial burden of the ATM approval process. Nichols currently represents two Arkansas Valley agricultural water providers in their bid to lease water owned by irrigators on the Catlin Canal and relay it to municipalities near Rocky Ford in a rotational fallowing agreement. One major expense in planning such a project, he says, is hiring private engineers to determine whether it will harm other irrigators on the ditch. The state has a spreadsheet tool that can analyze this question relatively cheaply, and Nichols says mandating its use during the approval process could minimize expensive back-and-forth battles between water engineers and attorneys on each side. In addition, Nichols says there’s a need for a more precise definition of what it means to harm a downstream water user through an ATM project, and the state legislature could pass a bill defining that in order to minimize frivolous claims of injury by irrigators on the same ditch as a proposed ATM project. “People right now are being hyperprotective of their rights,” Nichols says. “The current law seems to think that anything an engineer can model could constitute injury.”
Honoring Colorado’s commitment to local control Even if the state is successful in closing the municipal water supply gap by 50,000 acre-feet through ATMs, there will be a long way to go. The least impactful solution, many argue, is to shrink the gap by improving demand management across the state. Maybe we just need to use less. It’s not that simple, however. One hurdle for the water plan when it comes to setting statewide goals for implementing solutions such as conservation is that Colorado’s water management system is largely predicated on the notion that local governments and special districts—rather than state bureaucrats—are better suited to address local challenges. In the coming years, a critical test of the water plan will be how well it navigates the balance between state and local control. That tension is likely to surface most prominently in discussions of whether future development projects—like the homes and apartment buildings that’ll house Colorado’s millions of new arrivals by 2050—should be required to embrace specific water conservation and efficiency targets. Given the extent of Colorado’s expected growth, many wa-
ter managers believe marrying land use and water planning will be essential to minimizing future water demand and the need for additional supply projects. But there’s some disagreement over whether these policies should be dictated locally or by the state, especially when decisions made in one region can have implications for another. “What seems to be missing from the discussion is the fact that if one basin is short of water and goes looking for it in another basin, that constrains the ability of the affected basin to develop for its own future,” says Barbara Green, an attorney for the Water Quality and Quantity Committee of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, which advocates for the interests of Colorado’s headwaters communities. If future land use policies on the booming Front Range don’t encourage water conservation, Green says, it will affect not only the landscape—and waterscape—of the Front Range, but also the economies of places like Otero County or Grand County where Front Range interests might go in search of water to meet their demands. The draft water plan doesn’t advocate mandatory statewide rules that would infringe upon local control, including the locally prized “1041 powers” enshrined in state law, but instead recommends things like expedited permitting or tax incentives for projects that incorporate water efficiency or density measures. In the same vein, another bill referred out of the state legislature’s Water Resources Review Committee for consideration during the 2015 legislative session would require the CWCB to offer free trainings to local planning and land use officials on water demand management and conservation. If those officials then proposed a water project and sought state funding to support it, state agencies could consider their water efficiency training in deciding whether to fund the project. Local governments already have a wide array of powers they can use to affect the timing, location, density and type of growth in their communities. For Green, the pressing question is whether they’ll have the political courage to use it in the future.
Building and funding better projects In piecing together Colorado’s future water puzzle, the construction of some new projects will be essential, whether they be for reusing water, improving irrigation diversion structures, laying pipes that enable water sharing, or building or enlarging reservoirs. Many water managers say improvements are needed to the project funding and permitting processes that will enable such projects to proceed in a timely manner. The draft water plan recommends several of these. On the funding front, Colorado has several sources of state money for water infrastructure that, in total, provide up to $560 million in loans and between $9 and $14 million in grants each year. There’s another $11 million or so in combined state, federal and private funding for environmental and recreational water projects. There’s also some additional, limited federal money. Yet the projected demand for public water project funding far exceeds the current supply. Along with the $17 to $19 billion in funding needed for municipal and industrial projects that water providers could build by 2050, another pot of money will be required for environmental projects like HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
stream restoration, which can cost anywhere from about $150,000 per stream mile all the way up to $500,000. To better quantify the need for stream restoration, the water plan recommends creating up to 90 watershed-level master plans, and just assembling those could cost $18 million. To help close the funding gap, the water plan offers several potential solutions. Existing caps on the Federal Mineral Lease and Severance Tax revenue that goes to fund water projects could be removed; the state itself could become a partner in some multi-purpose, multi-partner water projects; or water providers could enter into public/private partnerships to share the risk and reward of building new water projects with private companies. Another option is that the state or water providers could push for a voter-approved tax increase to fund water infrastructure. During the last major push for such funding, in 2003, Colorado voters flatly rejected a $2 billion water bond, even though it was put forth at a time when water needs would have been high on people’s minds following the 2002 drought. The water plan points out that any future request for a tax increase would require a more detailed explanation of the money’s intended uses, which wasn’t supplied at that time.
Will we permit a better way to permit? In addition to the issue of funding, many water managers say the time and expense now required to get state and federal permits—millions of dollars and more than 10 years, in some cases—makes it uncertain that planned projects will come online soon enough to meet projected water needs. “Anyone that deals with the need to do projects will always complain about the regulatory requirements,” says Jim Broderick, chair of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable and executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, who is currently shepherding the 130-mile-long Arkansas Valley Conduit from Pueblo to Lamar and a set of hydroelectric turbines planned for Pueblo Reservoir through the permitting process. “Sometimes that’s justified, sometimes it’s not justified. But people are certainly saying that the process should be quicker than what we’re seeing now.” The list of permits required to move forward with a major water project is lengthy. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issues discharge and water quality certifications under the federal Clean Water Act; Colorado Parks and Wildlife works with the CWCB to approve mitigation plans that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then ensures comply with the federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service or another federal agency takes the lead in issuing Clean Water Act Section 404 permits for fill and dredging in U.S. waters; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews the environmental analyses mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal law requiring a project be completed in a manner consistent with the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.” In a September 2014 poll of more than 500 Coloradans, 90 percent of respondents said keeping the state’s rivers and streams healthy and flowing should be an “extremely” or “very” important priority of Colorado’s Water Plan. Source: WaterForColorado.org 33
Locally, cities and counties make permitting decisions with what’s known as 1041 powers. Granted in 1974 with the passage of H.B. 1041, these powers have been used to negotiate a Windy Gap Project permit for Northern Water in Grand County and deny a permit for Colorado Springs and Aurora’s Homestake II Project in Eagle County. 34
groups including Western Resource Advocates, Conservation Colorado, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers and others submitted a letter with recommended criteria for state support, arguing that a project should only win state approval after its backer has achieved high levels of conservation in existing water uses, has plans to recycle all its legally reusable water, and has already explored other ways of firming, or boosting, the yield of existing projects, sharing infrastructure with other water providers, or sharing water with agricultural producers. The draft plan in Section 9.4 contains the conceptual framework of a process for moving a project through state assessment earlier in the permitting phases and, if criteria were satisfied, issuing state support. While the coalition’s recommendations may have influenced the conceptual framework, the factors currently listed for consideration in the draft plan don’t go as far. For instance, rather than requiring a project proponent have plans to recycle all its legally reusable water or achieve high conservation levels, the draft framework states that the proponent must demonstrate sustainability by providing “a conservation plan or plans aimed at reducing demands.” Other factors the draft plan lays out for fulfillment prior to state involvement: that a project proponent commit to mitigating or avoiding impacts to water quality as well as the agricultural community and to engaging in local government consultation and a stakeholder and public input process.
Protecting rivers, for real Recent polling data as well as comments submitted on the water plan to date reveal Coloradans’ strong commitment to protecting the state’s rivers. Colorado’s Water Plan, too, acknowledges the value of maintaining healthy rivers, but exactly how this is to be accomplished remains unclear. Even as the basin roundtables have identified projects or, in some cases, processes for moving water that help meet recreational and environmental needs by keeping water in streams, many conservation groups say details in the draft water
plan for protecting streamflows remain vague, and they’re calling for more specificity as the draft is revised. They also point out that the lack of adequate science surrounding biological values, which aren’t as easily quantified as municipal water use (multiply the number of people by average per capita daily use and add a percentage loss factor), means environmental needs could easily be shortchanged by other pressing demands. Nowhere does this possibility raise more red flags than with the potential new diversion and transfer of water from one river basin to another. Trout Unlimited, a conservation group with more than 10,000 members across Colorado, in September 2014 submitted to the CWCB a statement containing five core values, requesting their incorporation into the plan. The values, endorsed by 635 individuals and entities representing tens of thousands of Coloradans, include promoting “cooperation, not conflict” and “innovative management” along with opposing “new, large-scale, river-damaging transbasin diversions of water from the Colorado River to the Front Range.” Richard Van Gytenbeek, Colorado River Basin outreach coordinator for Trout Unlimited, says that statement is not an outright rejection of a transmountain diversion, but an expectation that Colorado’s Water Plan should “provide mechanisms that will accurately demonstrate that any plans for a transbasin diversion will not compromise the health of West Slope rivers and streams and the communities that depend on them.” To accomplish this, says Van Gytenbeek, the plan should identify funding sources for stream environmental assessments that define flushing, optimal and base flow regimes, while focusing increased attention on inbasin solutions such as conservation and reuse. “Ultimately, each basin must find ways to exist and thrive within the limits of their own water supplies,” he says. “Limited natural resources can only be stretched to a limit before they are compromised and degraded.” Beyond the transmountain diversion concern, many environmentalists support the water plan’s recommendation for more state funding for cre-
Current Water Project Money Pots The CWCB Water Project Loan Program lends out between $50 and $60 million per year using federal mineral lease revenues from oil and gas drilling and state severance tax proceeds, among other sources. The CWCB Water Supply Reserve Account makes between $5 and $10 million in annual grants from severance tax revenues. The Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority has a Water Revenue Bond Program that loans up to $500 million for individual water and wastewater projects, while other CWCB grant programs toward projects such as agricultural efficiency and alternative agricultural transfer methods total about $4 million. There’s another $11 million or so in combined state, federal and private funding for environmental and recreational water projects. There’s also some additional, but limited, federal money: The Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART grant program issues grants for projects that improve water efficiency, involve advanced water treatment techniques, or develop climate forecasting tools, while the agency’s Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program funds projects that make agriculture more efficient and boost water quality in the Colorado River. And the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund provides U.S. Treasury money toward projects important to Colorado, including the basin’s salinity program, endangered species recovery programs, and maintenance of Colorado River Storage Project facilities that help the upper basin states, which include Colorado, comply with the Colorado River Compact.
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
Kevin Moloney
Given the complexity of the process, opportunities for delay or confusion abound. Karen Hamilton, chief of the Aquatic Resource Protection and Accountability Unit in the EPA’s Region 8 office in Denver, says her agency is working on a tool to help water managers navigate the process that may ultimately be incorporated into a permitting handbook the CWCB has identified as an action step in the draft of Colorado’s Water Plan. “We describe the process, where we’ve seen people get hung up, and what our recommendations are for making those bumps a little smaller, if not making them go away,” says Hamilton. Among those recommendations: Water providers should coordinate early with federal agencies to understand what is going to be required during the permitting process, and they should use NEPA guidelines during the design phase to come up with the “least environmentally damaging” project from the start. The true intent of NEPA, Hamilton points out, is to be a planning, not a permitting, process. Complexity aside, another problem that utility managers often ascribe to the permitting process is a duplication of effort between state and federal agencies. “The biggest issue that we run into is that the federal and state processes are not well coordinated,” says Dave Little, director of planning for Denver Water. “You have a massive effort in scoping all the federal environmental documents, and the state gets involved later in the process and says, ‘Wait a minute, you forgot to study this!’” Becky Mitchell, section chief of Water Supply Planning for the CWCB, acknowledges room for improvement in the way the state and federal permitting processes intersect. “Currently, the state’s input on these projects doesn’t come along until later in the process, so you’re not getting any positive statements from the state until you’ve gone basically halfway through the NEPA process,” she says. “The water plan will examine whether there’s some way that the state can say up front, ‘This is a really important project,’ which ideally would expedite the federal permitting process.” Winning state endorsement, Mitchell says, probably won’t require that a project endures a whole new level of review, merely that state agencies get involved earlier and consider additional criteria during their evaluations. She says modifying the process this way also probably won’t require legislative approval. Some environmental groups have raised concerns about the idea of the state endorsing a specific water project, including the possibility that it could water down the federal environmental review process. “The idea of having these agencies work together to create a cohesive process makes sense,” says Ken Neubecker, the Colorado River Program director for the environmental group American Rivers, “as long as it doesn’t change the conclusions that they’re coming up with.” In March 2014, a coalition of environmental
Craig Mackey, pictured at Denver’s Confluence Park, works with Protect the Flows to ensure the Colorado River Basin can sustain symbiotic values that include business, recreation, the environment and quality of life. ative water-sharing techniques that benefit aquatic ecosystems, such as periodic “pulse flows” that mimic floods by overtopping riverbanks, clearing out sediment, and maintaining healthy riparian zones. Such flows could also be mandated as conditions of approval for future water projects, helping to blunt their environmental impacts. “A lot of water providers are happy to work with environmentalists on minimum streamflows, but when you start talking about things like riparian overbanking flows, they look at you like you’re crazy,” says Neubecker. “I’d like to see the water plan recognize the importance of the flows that are needed to maintain a healthy ecosystem, not just the ‘Disneyland’ flows necessary for rafting and fishing.”
Teaching Coloradans how water really works If local governments and utilities are going to win public support for new water projects, be they to meet environmental, agricultural, municipal or some combination of demands, they’ll have to ensure Coloradans are well educated about how the state’s water system works and what it takes to bring water to the kitchen faucet—or to keep it in the stream. Research points to an urgent need for more water education. In a 2013 survey by the firm BBC Research and Consulting, more than twothirds of Coloradans polled believed that Colorado does not have enough water for the next 40 years. As the draft water plan reports, the survey also found most people are unaware of the main uses of water in the state and are uncertain of how to best meet Colorado’s future water needs. The draft water plan suggests numerous ways to boost water education in Colorado, including using the basin roundtables to keep public engagement high after the plan is released and establishing a new outreach, education and public engagement grant fund administered by the CWCB. Among the state’s most urgent educational needs is making Front Range residents aware of
their dependence, through transbasin diversions, on the Colorado River on the opposite side of the Continental Divide, says John Stulp, special water policy advisor to Gov. John Hickenlooper. “We’re all tied together by the Colorado River Compact,” Stulp says. “And so that’s been part of the educational effort, to make people on the Front Range… realize that they’re tied into that compact every bit as much as people in the far reaches of the Western Slope are.” Another pressing need is to bring new voices into the Colorado water discussion, including parties—like much of the state’s business community—that have been largely absent in the past. “Water is not an extremely sexy subject, so it’s hard, but hopefully there will be a lot of good press and analysis [now that] the water plan is on the governor’s desk that will help raise awareness,” says Mizraim Cordero, director of the Colorado Competitive Council (C3), which lobbies the Colorado legislature on behalf of Colorado businesses and chambers of commerce. “In the meantime, the role of business groups like ours is to push the information and push the subject to businesses that are just busy doing what they do every day, solving problems [unrelated to water].” A final educational priority that should be considered is acquainting people with the true cost of water—which means accounting for everything from protecting source watersheds and waterways to building, operating and maintaining modern, efficient infrastructure such as water storage, pipelines, pumps and water treatment facilities. That’s according to Craig Mackey, codirector of Protect the Flows, a coalition of 1,100 businesses, from rafting companies to hotels, that depend on the flows of the Colorado River. The group advocates for water conservation as a first line of defense against pending water shortages and emphasizes the economic benefit of leaving water in the Colorado River. Building the water projects of the future, encouraging conservation and developing programs to share water between multiple users, Mackey says, will certainly require higher water rates. HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
According to the draft water plan, for example, water reuse will be an important way to stretch finite water resources across the state, and the Colorado, Arkansas and South Platte basins could be particularly reliant on reuse projects in the coming years. But some of the biggest barriers to reuse are the expenses associated with pumping water back upstream, treating it to meet water quality standards, and complying with regulations governing disposal of the brine waste produced as a byproduct of treatment. Some residents may be more willing to pick up the tab once they understand that reusing existing water supplies, where legally and technically feasible, can maximize use of the state’s waters while reducing the need to pursue other less favored options, such as transmountain diversions or permanent agricultural dry-up. For such an essential and heavily monitored resource, water is now amazingly cheap. As the draft water plan notes, just 1 percent of the average Colorado household’s income presently goes toward paying the water bill. We’ll spend $1.00 or more for 12 ounces of water at the grocery store, while we turn on the tap and get 1,000 gallons treated and delivered to our home for $3.00. “How do we prepare the business community and the citizenry for a world where water is going to cost more, and moving water is going to cost more?” Mackey asks. “I don’t expect the water plan to directly address water rates, but perhaps it can help people understand why water should be more expensive.” q Submit your feedback to make sure your thoughts and priorities are included in the water plan. Visit coloradowaterplan.com.
35
Getting in the Game By Caitlin Coleman
If you live in and love Colorado, then Colorado’s Water Plan applies to you.
A first draft was released in December, but that doesn’t mean it’s too late to offer your input, engage or re-engage, and get in the game. In fact, it’s more important than ever that Coloradans review the draft— in less than a year, the state’s first water plan will be finalized. “We want people to be reviewing the draft and submitting comments on what we missed or what we didn’t get right or other opportunities, partnerships, things like that,” says Kate McIntire, education and public engagement coordinator with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). Now is your chance to offer feedback, and you have an advantage—you aren’t starting from scratch, you can react to a draft. So how will you share your ideas, values, knowledge and thoughts? Here are a few recommendations and tools to help you get started.
Tips for making your voice heard Don’t wait until the last minute
If you’re writing substantive comments, the earlier you submit them, the more time and analysis they will receive. But don’t worry, all comments—as long as they’re received by September 17, 2015—will be considered and incorporated in the final water plan.
Be specific
General comments help your legislators and those writing the plan understand how many people are concerned about a particular issue. However, specific thoughts, particularly those based on the ideas presented in the draft, will more significantly influence the content of the final plan. The CWCB suggests framing your input by reading and reacting to or adding suggestions to the plan. The draft can be found on the water plan website at www. coloradowaterplan.com, under “Resources.”
Get involved locally
Work directly with your basin roundtable. “If you don’t know what’s going on in your basin, it’s hard to provide comments, so it’s important for people to interact with their roundtables,” McIntire says. Basin roundtables meet regularly, and the public is invited—and encouraged—to attend. Schedules and more can be found on the website.
36
Timeline for public input and drafts April 17, 2015 Final Basin Implementation Plans submitted to Colorado Water Conservation Board July 15, 2015 Second draft Colorado’s Water Plan released for public review Dec. 2015 Final 2015 Colorado’s Water Plan submitted to governor
COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION | YOURWATERCOLORADO.ORG
May 1, 2015 Public comment deadline for first draft Colorado’s Water Plan Sept. 17, 2015 Public comment deadline for second draft Colorado’s Water Plan 2016 and Beyond Implementation of Colorado’s Water Plan begins
Put in some face time
CWCB staff will take the plan on the road to continue reaching the unengaged; there is an opportunity for public input at each CWCB board meeting; and the state legislature’s Water Resources Review Committee will convene a public meeting in each basin before November 2015, a repeat of 2014’s summer meetings, to hear public input. None of those dates are set, but will be posted on the website calendar.
Know your elected officials
Do you have a relationship with your state senator and representative? Various websites, like commoncause. org, allow you to search by address to identify your elected officials. Get to know them and make sure they know what issues are important to you. “We [state legislators] represent our districts but we also represent the entire state of Colorado,” says state Sen. Ellen Roberts. “It’s really helpful if the public, anyone who’s interested in this issue, touches base.” Regardless of your political party, how you cast your vote, and how much prior knowledge you have about the water plan, Roberts suggests contacting your legislators to make sure they know that water, your basin, and Colorado’s Water Plan matter to you, their constituent.
What happened to the input received during summer 2014’s public hearings with the Water Resources Review Committee? The public was heard, says Sen. Roberts, and citizens educated their legislators. The Water Resources Review Committee submitted a letter detailing the themes of comments received by the committee for the CWCB’s use in drafting Colorado’s Water Plan, and, according to McIntire, many of those comments have already meaningfully shaped the draft plan. Perhaps these public meetings will also have a longer-lasting effect in building bridges between legislators and their constituents. “[Colorado’s Water Plan] is an aspirational document. It itself is not a law, but I would guess that there could be policy directives that may or may not come out of this,” Roberts says. “There are going to be some tough choices ahead in water in Colorado so we legislators are going to be asked to identify those choices and make some decisions.” And, adds Roberts, “I think our job is better done when we have more robust input from the people who live here.”
Collaborate
“There are going to be some tough choices ahead in water in Colorado so we legislators are going to be asked to identify those choices and make some decisions.” What happens to your input? —Sen. Ellen Roberts Whether you have a particular area of expertise or don’t feel that you have time to review Colorado’s Water Plan yourself, consider linking up with an interest group or organization that represents values similar to your own. There are many across the state, but some that have been particularly active in promoting or providing input on the plan’s development are Conservation Colorado, Protect the Flows, Trout Unlimited, the Colorado Ag Water Alliance, and the National Young Farmers Association. Your support will help their employees or volunteers comment in your stead, or your expertise and involvement could help round out their existing efforts to influence the plan’s balance of priorities.
When you submit written input, you shouldn’t be left wondering if it was ever received, and with this process you aren’t. All comments are assessed by CWCB staff, who categorize and personally respond to feedback. As of October 2014, the CWCB had received more than 13,000 unique comments to be considered in development of the 2014 draft plan. The CWCB’s responses to each comment include information on if and how the draft plan was altered as a result of that feedback. Then comments are catalogued and recommendations are filed to be presented to CWCB board members at their next meeting. The CWCB board reviews the staff’s recommendations, evaluates comments, and signs off on or recommends a new course of action—ensuring all comments are addressed and reviewed by multiple decision-makers. View records of input received at coloradowaterplan. com, under “Get Involved.”
Have a special interest?
Colorado’s Water Plan is illustrating the water needs of various valued sectors. The “Get Involved” section of coloradowaterplan.com offers guided instructions for how to provide specific input the CWCB is seeking for particular sections and topics within the draft water plan. Visit the website to learn more and contribute if you’re a member of the following interest groups: »» Agriculture »» Environment and Recreation »» Municipal and Local Government »» Business and Industry
HEADWATERS | WINTER 2015
37
NONPROFIT ORG U.S. POSTAGE PAID DENVER, CO PERMIT NO 178 1750 Humboldt St., Suite 200 Denver, CO 80218
Publication of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education’s Headwaters magazine is made possible by the generous support of sponsors and advertisers. We would like to extend our appreciation and thanks to the following sponsors for contributing financially to this issue:
Yo u r WaterC olorado.org