Roaring Fork Watershed Summit Notes - June 10, 2010

Group Five – Discussion Notes
Moderator: G. Moss Driscoll, Esq.

Group Members: Cliff Simonton, Eagle CountyJim Pokrandt, Colorado River Water Conservation DistrictTamra Allen, Garfield CountyRuss Arensman, City of GlenwoodKathleen McIntyre, U. of Michigan

Question: What are some of the connections between Representative Curry’s speech and your own individual involvement with water issues?
Cliff: Incorporation of water issues into Eagle County land-use planning process.
Tamra: Addressing water-related impacts from land-use during recent redrafting of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution (“ULUR”).
Jim: Explanation of the River District’s role and purpose; explanation of Fry-Ark conditional rights and the connection between the Fry-Ark Project and the Basalt Project.
Russ: Explanation of the development of Glenwood Springs whitewater park; construction of new city wastewater treatment facility.

Question: Given that we have two county planners in this group, how do you each view the connection between local land-use planning and regional or watershed-based water resource management?
Tamra: Explanation of the provisions in updated GarCo ULUR relating to House Bill 1041, relating to the development of major new water supply infrastructural projects.
Jim: Noting that while 1041 powers are important, particularly in terms of giving West Slope counties and municipalities veto authority over Front Range water supply development projects, watershed management is also clearly a matter of local land-use planning decisions, like required setbacks and issues relating to local water providers.
Cliff: Following up Jim’s comment by emphasizing that H.B. 1041 is still the key tool for local water management, given the “immense power” it gives to counties and municipalities. Cliff explained Eagle County’s role in defining 1041 powers, through the dispute over Aurora and Colorado Springs’ Homestake II Project. More recently, EagleCounty came to agreement with the cities for the development of the Homestake II water rights as part of a new groundwater project at Camp Hale. The Camp Hale project will benefit both East and West Slope water interests, providing water to in-basin sources under former decrees to the Wolcott and Piney reservoirs. The agreementbrokered over the Homestake II water rights therefore shows that 1041 powers continue to ensure that new Front Range water supply projects are mutually beneficial to West Slope water interests.
Russ: Returning to the issue of adequate local water supplies, Glenwood Springs recently broke ground on the city’s new wastewater treatment plant, after encountering funding issues. The new plant will be relocated from the existing plant’s current location, in part due to the potential developmental value of the property at the current plant site. The new location will be downstream on the Colorado River. One benefit of the new location is that it gives the city the option to eventually provide wastewater treatment services to West Glenwood, which currently receives wastewater treatment services through a local service district. Consolidation would provide better services toratepayers, help payoff the new plant’s loans, and help manage the city’s existing water supplies. The new plant will cost approximately $30 million, requiring the city to increase sewer rates by about 20 percent each year for at least this year and the following two. One reason for the higher costs is attributable to the energy demands that the new plant will have, primarily in the form of pumping requirements to get water over a slight elevation gain at the beginning of the new route to the new plant.Tamra: Noting the important role of small service districts that supply municipal water supplies to unincorporated areas like Aspen Glen and other subdivisions between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale.