2. Surface Water
Goal: To protect the availability and sustainability of our surface water.
Objectives:
A. Improve our information on surface water availability and sustainability, particularly in areas subject to continued or increased diversions, or changes in land use.
B. Identify the optimum flows needed to meet our environmental and recreational needs, including the magnitude, timing, and duration of such flows.
C. Increase flows for stream reaches where Colorado Water Conservation Board instream flow rights are not being met on a consistent basis, or where flows have been significantly reduced from historical flows.
D. Assess flow alteration in stream reaches where flow data are lacking.
E. Identify stream reaches that are vulnerable to increased flow alteration and work to minimize future flow alteration.
F. Provide reliable, real time, and easily accessible information on streams flows, including high and low flows for the Roaring Fork and its major tributaries.
G. Reduce the impacts of drought on our surface waters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments from 8/20/09 Public Meeting (Surface & Groundwater were combined as Water Quantity).
ReplyDeleteA. Improve our information on surface water availability and sustainability, particularly in areas subject to continued or increased diversions, or changes in land use.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: The Preferred Storage Options Plan (PSOP) is being discussed again. If implemented, it would increase opportunities for reservoir storage and allow more water to be taken from the Western Slope – including the Upper Fryingpan. The Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) has been supportive of PSOP in the past. We need to ensure that the Roaring Fork Watershed’s interests are adequately represented on PSOP – including strong, informed representation on the PSOP issue by our Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield County CRWCD Board members.
B. Identify the optimum flows needed to meet our environmental and recreational needs, including the magnitude, timing, and duration of such flows.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: A number of non-consumptive needs studies have been done in other basins that we might use as a baseline/validation tool for the current Roaring Fork study; these studies should be evaluated before we spend additional money here. A Utah study was specifically mentioned.
C. Increase flows for stream reaches where Colorado Water Conservation Board instream flow rights are not being met on a consistent basis, or where flows have been significantly reduced from historical flows.
ReplyDeleteGroup Discussion/Recommended Actions: The HB-1280 process for supplementing instream flows can potentially be counterproductive. It is critical that the nuances of water rights administration be factored into any assessment of benefits from a donation of water rights. Every case is unique – and we have special issues as a headwaters community subject to transmountain diversions.
Pitkin County’s recent work with the Colorado Water Trust was cited as an example. Historic consumptive use is all the County will be able to donate from its Stapleton Ditch water rights at the airport – not the entire adjudication. Once donated, these senior instream flow water rights may actually enable junior transmountain diversion rights in the headwaters to operate for longer periods of time. Additionally, there may be a downside to stopping the irrigation of land just to put water in the stream. There are costs and benefits here that the County and the general public may not be fully educated about.
Under Colorado statute, CWCB needs measuring devices to enforce its instream rights. CWCB needs to be pressured to comply with state law – gauges are lacking for administration of instream rights in many stream reaches.
The public needs to be better informed about the important connection between stream gauges and stream flow maintenance.
D. Assess flow alteration in stream reaches where flow data are lacking.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: We should explore opportunities for training school kids on how to gather flow data where no gauges exist. They could serve as volunteer “stream flow teams”. This would be a good math exercise for them.
E. Identify stream reaches that are vulnerable to increased flow alteration and work to minimize future flow alteration.
ReplyDeleteGroup Discussion/Recommended Actions: We need to do a better job of maintaining timely and consistent communication between our land use planners and our local Water Commissioners. County planners should be notifying the Water Commissioners when ponds are being permitted/approved by the County. Water Commissioners should be signing off on development requiring diversions in order to reduce the number of illegal ponds/diversions.
We need to identify the potential impacts of 10,825 releases from Ruedi Reservoir on downstream flow levels. This is a high flow (as opposed to a low flow) issue. The Fryingpan experienced 500 cfs flows when the Shoshone plant went off-line. This presents scouring and other environmental issues. We need to have a “Roaring Fork Watershed voice” on the 10,825 issue.
We should consider buying the Shoshone power plant from Xcel Energy – this would enable us to control the calls on the river to a large extent.
We should investigate buying Ruedi Reservoir unallocated/uncontracted water.
We need to lobby CRWCD (through our Board members) to control Ruedi Reservoir releases.
We should consider promoting the Flaming Gorge to Front Range water diversion project (the “Big Straw” project). This project would keep the pressure off this basin – at least for a while.
Increasing the scope of the CWCB instream program would be valuable. CWCB should protect the natural hydrograph to enhance the environment.
We might explore creation of a Conservation District for the Roaring Fork Watershed (this would be a sub-district of the CRWCD).
F. Provide reliable, real time, and easily accessible information on streams flows, including high and low flows for the Roaring Fork and its major tributaries.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions:
G. Reduce the impacts of drought on our surface waters.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: We need to improve public education/outreach in this area. We must be able to hold the public’s attention on water issues in non-drought and non-flood years. We might consider having “shovel-ready” projects (specific drought or flood projects) on-the-shelf to maintain public interest in the issues after the drought/flood events have passed.
Comments from 9/10/09 Public Meeting:
ReplyDelete1. Objective B was identified as the most important Objective. It was suggested by some members of the group that hydroelectric power generation should be added to the list of “needs” in this Objective.
2. Objective C was identified as the second most important Objective.
3. The group identified a series of ways in which surface water availability and sustainability could be enhanced:
a. Modification of instream conditions/habitat improvement by: (i) channel modification, (ii) traditional storage solutions (thereby improving the timing of flows), (iii) investigating the introduction of beavers (to create dams and wetland areas), (iv) promoting the retention/growth of cottonwood stands (for stream shading – although cottonwoods also use a lot of water), and (v) revitalizing old wetlands.
b. Maintenance of irrigation and return flows (especially during the late summer months and fall). The fact that Pitkin County Open Space & Trails does not have the manpower/funding to regularly irrigate its conservation easements and, instead, is looking to “donate” water rights to CWCB for instream flows was identified as a concern. By losing land irrigation we lose late season flows and have more sheet runoff to our streams. It is preferable to maintain irrigation on the watershed’s conservation easements.
c. Better management of irrigation systems. Proper sprinkler systems can achieve >80% efficiency in water usage. However, Colorado water law doesn’t allow you to recapture the value of the water you “save” – so there is no incentive to do so. Additionally, large historical water usage/water rights bring added value to a property at resale. Potential solutions to this disincentive include: (i) changing Colorado water law (previously attempted and failed), or (ii) structuring an opportunity for the “saved water” to be donated to the CWCB for instream flow maintenance.
Comments from the 9/24/09 public meeting in Woody Creek:
ReplyDelete1. Objectives A, B, and C were determined to be the highest priorities.
2. Stream gauges where discussed as a possible necessity. From the water use perspective, stream gauges are not necessary because there are very few calls on the water in this section of the watershed. If a stream gauge was to be installed it should be installed below diversions. Another perspective shared was that gauges should be installed to enforce minimum stream flows.
3. Improving irrigating efficiencies was discussed as a priority. Sprinkler use is efficient for evaporative loss, but does not help to recharge the stream. Flood irrigation is not efficient, but does help to recharge the stream.
4. Private ponds were discussed to be used as storage reservoirs during low flows in the stream.
5. Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus was discussed in terms of Zeigler Reservoir. There should be more understanding of the needs of the build out of Base Village in Snowmass Village. Currently there is no requirement to use Zeigler to buffer Snowmass Village’s suck.
6. There was a suggestion to build reservoirs on Brush Creek if needed.
7. There was discussion about Sam’s Knob Reservoir. The Reservoir would provide storage on Snowmass Creek and water rights have been in place for many years, held by the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District. One of the conditions of the District’s acquisition of water from an enlarged Zeigler Reservoir is the relinquishment of the Sams Knob Reservoir water rights so that once the Zeigler Res. Enlargement is done there will be no future possibility of a new dam on Snowmass Creek.
Comments from 10/1/09 Public meeting in Glenwood Springs:
ReplyDelete1. Need more gauges, data and information – help to make better decisions within agencies.
2. More education is needed.
3. Identify groups which chose what optimizes flows – create some vehicles to help specific groups (recreational, environmental)
4. Financial aspects must be considered.
5. Data Gaps are a large issue.
6. C: Perception of need to divert when only a small amount of water is needed for beneficial use– use it or lose it – people need to understand that this is not as strict as the perception is.
7. Cloud seeding was discussed to increase rainfall/snowfall – has not been used in this area.
8. E: Atkinson Headgate on 4 mile; Glenwood Ditch on Cattle Creek
Comments from a 10/15/09 Public Meeting in Aspen:
ReplyDelete1. In connection with the watershed planning effort, we should look at applying the ecological sustainability modeling that has been done by the Nature Conservancy to our local conditions. This modeling would allow us to identify the fundamental values we want to sustain in our watershed.
2. We may want to consider the radical idea of adaptation of our rivers and streams to their modified flow regimes. This would mean recognizing that our rivers and streams have not adapted to the modifications in historical flows they are experiencing and taking steps to improve stream channels accordingly.
3. Increasing flows for stream reaches where CWCB instream flow rights are not being met on a consistent basis should be a high priority. Similarly, we need to protect those streams that have been able to sustain adequate stream flows from future in-basin, or out-of-basin diversions.
a. Monies from Pitkin County’s Healthy Rivers and Streams initiative could help here.
b. CWCB instream flows have been set at the minimum winter flows necessary to sustain a fish population and do not consider what healthy summer flows should be for streams. This is another reason to consider using the Nature Conservancy’s model locally.
c. Keep the “two-pass rule” for future transmountain diversions in mind; we are currently within this rule.
4. We need to make efficient use of our water supplies. Water reuse and water conservation is an important strategy for the Western Slope.
5. The natural water storage that results from the existence of healthy forest coverage needs to be recognized in the face of climate change. Maintaining our existing forests will minimize the effect of droughts. Beaver activity also results in excellent water storage; we should consider opportunities for introducing more beaver populations in the watershed.
6. We need to improve stream administration. To improve operations, we need real-time monitoring, and application of the data collected on an ongoing and consistent basis to determine the efficiency of our operations.
Comments from Dec 3, 2009 meeting with
ReplyDeleteGlenwood Springs City Council, River Commission, and Planning and Zoning Board.
Land Use decisions need to consider influence on water quantity. Perhaps land use decisions should be derived from water needs.
Need to change our attitude. Look at streamlining process for land owner who want to acquire storage water rights that can be delivered for municipal uses in time of need and to mitigate low stream flows.
Need to focus on public education opportunities. Example Boulder has a walkway underneath the river that gets people interested and then they become invested in the resource. RFC floats are a good way to get people out and experiencing the river.
Education-most land owners don’t take good inventory of their property and water rights. Abandoned water rights are an issue. Need to keep track of what has been filed on and what hasn’t.
No CWCB instream flow rights on RF or the tribs in this area. Even though new rights would be junior they are important to have.
Carbondale Whitewater Park, water rights may be important for the RF. Need to think more regionally and need to work together.