1. Regional Water Management
Goal: To ensure that solutions to water management issues meet both our consumptive needs for water and the need to keep water in our rivers and streams for instream uses.
Objectives:
A. Promote communication between the Colorado Basin Roundtable and Roaring Fork Watershed stakeholders on water availability/sustainability estimates and options for meeting Colorado’s future water needs.
B. Improve public education concerning federal and state water policies/programs affecting management of our rivers and streams (e.g., the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program).
C. Encourage collaboration among Roaring Fork Valley decision makers to achieve a unified, watershed position on federal and state water policies/programs affecting management of our rivers and streams (e.g., proposals for reoperation of the Fry-Ark Project, proposals for administration of a Compact Call).
D. Improve public education, communications, and collaboration concerning project proposals which would impact management of our rivers and streams (e.g., the Ruedi Pumpback).
E. Improve collaboration among Roaring Fork Valley decision makers to ensure that land use actions prevent or mitigate potential water impacts in other jurisdictions.
F. Foster communication between local land use planners and state water commissioners on projects of common interest (e.g., development approvals of micro-hydro facilities and ornamental ponds).
G. Promote state regulatory changes to require implementation of augmentation and substitute supply plans which most closely duplicate the natural hydrology of our streams and rivers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments from 10/1/09 public meeting in Glenwood Springs:
ReplyDelete1. Objective B, D, and E were determined most important. All speak to collaboration and communication between agencies and water decision makers.
2. Ruedi operations and Fry-Ark project has a tremendous impact on flows in lower section of watershed. Impacts in lower section of the valley by out of watershed projects are not understood by most people. Calls on the lower river (Colorado) can be beneficial to flows in the river. Need some type of graphical tool to illustrate connections. A game similar to Risk based on water could be a great tool to teach water management issues.
3. The importance to instream values (fishing, rafting, kayaking) – down stream water calls help to support these values.
4. Ruedi Water and Power Authority – can present their concerns from a unified voice of many jurisdictions. Unified positions could be a real benefit in the RF watershed influencing water management policies. We need to encourage unity of the 3 river district representatives from Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield Counties.
5. Need to improve lower RF riparian, instream flows.
6. Salt seeps are huge issue in lower RF – water quality issue that is natural and difficult to address.
7. Connection between land use and water use management. Integrating land and water management policy
8. Kathleen Curry’s development/water bill was discussed as an example of bringing land use and water use management policy together
9. Rethinking ornamental ponds was discussed.
10. Lining gravel pits for storage was discussed as it is popular in Denver.
Comments from a 10/15/09 Public Meeting in Aspen:
ReplyDelete1. Education and improving collaboration among decision makers (as reflected in multiple Objectives) was considered important and necessary to achieve the overall Goal stated above. Education and improved collaboration among decision makers are necessary to achieve the regulatory changes that are necessary to achieve the overall Goal (not just at the state level, but at the local and national levels as well). Our educational efforts need to expand beyond “easy” riparian issues; education must address complex water policy issues and transmountain diversions.
2. Consumptive use of water in Pitkin County has been identified by SWSI as very high. This makes it difficult to argue with the Front Range over its water use. Is this data accurate? Has SWSI’s analysis failed to correctly account for the way the City of Aspen tracks water usage? Do we need better gauging of water use to determine the accuracy of this assessment?
a. If the data is accurate, are there ways we can better price water to reflect its true value and decrease usage?
b. Could the high consumptive use figures be attributable to watering of large lawns? Snowmaking?
3. Scoping comments on the release of water from Ruedi Reservoir to satisfy 10,825 obligations will be taken in Carbondale on November 6th and 7th. Ruedi Reservoir is the Western Slope’s compensatory storage for the Fry-Ark Project. An argument has been raised that it is illegal for Ruedi Reservoir to be used for satisfaction of the 10,825 obligation of the Eastern Slope, and that 50% of the water should come from “Front Range sources”. We need to ensure that the 10,825 solution acknowledges the requirements of the Fry-Ark Operating Principles.
4. Maintaining the Shoshone Call should be a priority, as it delays the Cameo Call and the curtailment of Roaring Fork water uses.
5. We need to be cognizant of the conditional water rights that exist in connection with the Fry-Ark Project. How do we prevent these water rights from being perfected? The Front Range would find it difficult to initiate a new project (e.g., NEPA issues), but could use existing facilities to take more water from Western Colorado.
6. We need to use environmental laws (e.g., local 1041 powers, NEPA, the Fry-Ark Operating Principles) to our advantage. This includes enforcement of the Twin Lakes Exchange. As necessary, our community needs to invest in more gauging and data collection to buttress our case for watershed protection; this may also mean a greater need for support from hydrologists and attorneys.
7. We need better gauging in the watershed.
8. It is important that we do not lose the senior, downstream water rights associated with agricultural lands, as these very old water rights are responsible for calling out Twin Lakes’ diversions.
ReplyDelete9. There are a number of water development projects (e.g., Flaming Gorge) that warrant our continued attention/vigilance. We need to ensure that the Colorado River is not over appropriated.
10. We should consider creating a Roaring Fork Valley-wide “council of governments” on water issues. We need to discuss and present a “unified front” on water issues. We also need to use the Colorado Water Conservation District more effectively (recognizing that its interests are broader than just the Roaring Fork Watershed).
11. In the face of climate change, it may be appropriate to think about creating more water storage, especially in the Upper Roaring Fork. We might revisit the idea of enlarging Grizzly Reservoir. Conditional water rights also exist for Ashcroft Reservoir.
12. Consideration should be given to buying old ranches, with their senior water rights (including ranches on the Front Range which have water rights that could be used for water exchanges with Eastern Slope water providers).
13. There are pros and cons associated with development of the Basalt kayak park and the RICD that would be associated with it. These pros and cons need to be fully evaluated. Is it necessarily a good thing to “tie-up” so many of the water rights up-valley and preclude future development? Do the recreational/economic benefits for Basalt and the region offset the cost of “capping” upstream development?
14. Who is responsible for monitoring implementation of the Twin Lakes Exchange on behalf of the Western Slope? The attached photos were taken at the end of September and it did not look like the required amount of water (3 cfs) was passing over the weir at that time. Indeed, the Upper Roaring Fork was virtually dewatered and smelled like dead fish. Does Pitkin County plan to use some of the funds raised through its Healthy Rivers and Streams Initiative to address this situation? Have the City of Aspen and Pitkin County made any progress pursuing options for using these funds and existing water rights in the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork to get more flows in the Upper Roaring Fork during this typical end-of-season shortage period? The City and County were presented with some potential ideas in the report prepared by Grand River Consulting. Has any direct negotiation with Twin Lakes occurred putting those concepts on the table?
Comments from Dec 3, 2009 meeting with
ReplyDeleteGlenwood Springs City Council, River Commission, and Planning and Zoning Board.
Need to foster cooperation among municipalities (Shoshone Call important).
What can be done to encourage collaboration? RWAPA is a good place to start.