Roaring Fork Watershed Summit Notes - June 10, 2010

Group Five Continued:

Question: How have local governments handled the new authority created in House Bill 1141 (2008), which requires local governments to determine that a proposed development with fifty or more units will have a sufficient water supply. In particular, how have local governments made the determination of adequacy?
Tamra: Explaining that for the most part, local governments simply defer to the determination of a licensed state engineer, given the practical and financial challenges for local governments to assuming new responsibilities.
Cliff: Noting the financial challenges local governments are currently facing, and contrasting the four counties in the watershed. Pitkin County, in particular, has the financial resources, not to mention political support, to implement expensive and innovating new programs, potentially like that related to H.B. 1141.

Question: To bring this discussion full-circle, the real question is how to harness the public resources within the watershed – whether they be financial, human, or even institutional – to ensure the lasting protection of local water resources?
Jim: Noting that the reality is that the State still has no official statewide water plan or policy, and that therefore the real question is how to put local water resources to use on the West Slope – but also noting the inherent uncertainty surrounding new, “junior” water rights. Part of this uncertainty is due to the uneven effects of the Cameo Call, which can result in increased demand on Ruedi Reservoir, while also cutting off the Twin Lakes Project. On the other hand, the Shoshone Call allows junior water rights in the RFW to remain in priority, despite the Cameo Call being in effect for other parts of the West Slope.

Question: Jim, will you discuss the role of the Shoshone Call in ensuring adequate flows at the City of Glenwood Springs’ new whitewater park, as well as some of the recent press surrounding the future of the plant’s operations?
Jim: The Shoshone Plant, which is just upstream of Glenwood, on the Colorado River, is the second major call on the river, and usually ensures over 1200 c.f.s. in the Colorado River. The effect of the call is to cut-off upstream diversions, while allowing for continued diversions in areas like the Roaring Fork Watershed. The Cameo Call also helps to meet downstream water demands, thus delaying the potential effect of the Cameo Call. Therefore, “without the Shoshone water right, Glenwood Springs would have no recreational whitewater industry.” Given the importance of the Cameo Call, one growing concern for local water management is the possibility of any changes to the current Shoshone Call regime. For example, Denver has many water rights in the Upper Colorado River Basin that are affected by the Shoshone Call, including undeveloped conditional rights that could potentially be perfected ifthe call regime were to be modified. Denver also happens to be one of Excel’s largest customers. Any such changes could, of course, affect junior water rights in the Roaring Fork Watershed. This type of proposal could also surface from a group of Front Range water providers, many of which stand to likewise potentially gain from changes to theShoshone Call regime.

Question: Russ, can you tell us about whether the Glenwood Springs has considered the possibility of filing for a recreational inchannel diversion water right for the city’s whitewater park, and if so, what the status is of this possibility?
Russ: Explaining that city council recognizes that it benefits both from the remaining high flows in the Roaring Fork River, as well as favorable operations on the Colorado, largely due to the Shoshone Call. The city council, also recognizes that the city is in a “unique position” to protect flows in the Roaring Fork Watershed, with the potentialfiling of an RICD right on for the city’s new whitewater park. Securing such a right, however, could cost as much as between fifty and one-hundred thousand dollars. So at this time, the city council’s official position is that it is “considering” filing for such a right. In addition, the city is “looking into” the possibility of adding additional parkfeatures upstream of the Colorado-Roaring Fork confluence.

Question: There has also been reports that Basalt and Carbondale are considering filing for RICD water rights on the Roaring Fork. Are there potential opportunities for a coordinated effort in developing such rights? What perhaps are some of theinstitutional and political barriers to making such a coordinated effort a reality?
Cliff: In addition to the financial differences between the various local governmental entities in the valley, there are also political differences, and even different value systems. Eagle County, for example, is very supportive of recreational uses of water – both in terms of skiing and whitewater rafting. Pitkin County os more focused on theenvironment; whereas Garfield and Gunnison counties both value their agricultural heritage. One example of the institutional differences that persist is the variations in authority between home-rule and non-home rule counties.