The High Country Report, High Country Citizens’ Alliance’s newsletter is produced semi-annually. You may read the text from individual articles from the most current newsletter by using one of the program area selections on the left, or you may view the entire Autumn 2009 Newsletter. If you'd like to read past issues of our newsletter, you'll find an online archive of them at this link.

2002 was the driest year on record in over 100 years of recordkeeping. The total amount of moisture that year was only 25% of average. Since then, we've only had 2 years of above average moisture. Drought is a pretty common occurrence in the Southwest. What is so unusual about this drought is how widespread it is. What is also widespread is the reaction and response to the drought.

Water users and providers responded by saying more water storage is needed in the form of big new dams, reservoirs and transmountain diversions. The environmental protection community responded by saying we need to conserve and improve efficiency of existing water supplies.

The state of Colorado commissioned a study to identify what our current developed supplies are and what our current and future water needs will be by 2050. A substantial gap in supply was identified. In 2005, the legislature adopted a comprehensive approach to assessing water needs on a basin-by-basin basis. High Country Citizens' Alliance, along with our allies, was able to require this assessment to not only include identifying municipal and agricultural needs, but also the flows needed to protect the environment and water-related recreation.



High Country Citizens' Alliance was asked to represent environmental interests in the Gunnison Basin on a committee called the Gunnison Basin Roundtable. The Needs Assessment Committee of that group systematically identified environmental attributes that are important to ecological integrity. We then identified where in the basin these attributes can be found. The next step is to identify what flow regime is needed to protect important ecological functions. To assist in this stage of analysis, the Colorado Water Conservation Board contracted with several Colorado State University professors to develop a computer model to evaluate the associated risk when different percentages of the natural flow are depleted. The Flow Evaluation Tool can be used to look at different important aspects of the natural hydrograph. The peak of the hydrograph (high flows) is needed to protect riparian vegetation. Shoulder flows are critical for both fish spawning and recreational boating, while minimum flows are needed to protect mature fish during the winter. The Flow Evaluation Tool (FET) is not intended to identify precise quantification of flow needs, but it does provide a range of flows. The FET can then be applied to the critical reaches identified in earlier evaluations.

The next phase of the Roundtable's assessment is to blend the science with social, cultural and political factors, striving to find a balance among competing needs. Some river segments are water-short because of optimistic perceptions of availability during wet cycles or the lack of understanding of environmental consequences of diverting too much from the native flows. In seeking solutions to future needs, we are hoping to find ways to provide multiple benefits of future water development projects. Can projects be designed and built to provide water supplies for human, agricultural, environmental and recreational needs? Can projects be built to restore degraded environments? Can we identify properly functioning ecosystems to discourage future degradation by recognizing protective and conservation strategies? This is the challenge we are facing with the uncertainties of growth pressures, climate change and variable drought conditions.

The Clean Water Act outlines a strategy to protect different uses of water. There are different requirements to protect aquatic life, recreational use, drinking water supply and agricultural uses. Where multiple uses occur, the most sensitive uses must be protected. The most sensitive kind of use is usually aquatic life.

Generally, Colorado's strategy for protecting aquatic life has been to document the variety and abundance of different species. It then sets limits on different constituent pollutants to assure that those fish species will continue to thrive. EPA has suggested that a better indicator of healthy streams is to broaden the examination of biological factors to include the macro-invertebrates (macros) in streams. Macros are the bugs found in the substrate (stream bottoms) which fish feed on. Colorado has been collecting data on bugs for the past decade to help with the transition to bio-monitoring as an indicator of aquatic health.

High Country Citizens' Alliance has been promoting the collection of macro data by both the Coal Creek Watershed Coalition and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District. The District has had a comprehensive water quality monitoring program throughout the Upper Gunnison Basin for over a decade, but only recently started doing bio-monitoring. Colorado hopes to begin using bio-criteria to protect classified uses of water after a hearing in June of 2010.

Another new set of parameters will also be adopted next summer. We have long known that too much algae in streams is not healthy for aquatic life. Algae is triggered by the presence of nitrogen and phosphorus in our streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. We have never had specific limitations on these nutrients. When high concentrations of nutrients are present in water, they trigger the growth of algae. Algae's life cycle is rather short. When it dies, it decays, drawing oxygen from the water. Oxygen-deprived water will not support either fish or macro-invertebrate populations.

A natural background level of nutrients can be found in surface water. Sources of excess nutrients come from wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater runoff and from excessive application of fertilizers being applied to residential landscaping, golf courses, and farms. Groundwater that feeds streams and rivers can carry excess nutrients from individual septic systems.

Colorado's Water Quality Control Division is still developing the models that will be used to characterize stream types and determine what expected conditions should be seen based on the stream types. High Country Citizens' Alliance will continue to participate in this process to assure that our local streams are properly assessed.

Since the 2005 Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) study was completed, Front Range water providers have insisted that the only way they can meet future water needs is to enlarge existing transmountain diversions and build new ones. The Front Range continues to pressure the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Intra Basin Compact Committee (IBCC) to begin technical studies on four concepts for a new transfer of water from the Western Slope. Before embarking on technical and feasibility studies, the CWCB wanted to refine the conclusions from the SWSI report that indicated a shortage of as much as 600,000 acre feet of water between existing water supplies and future needs through 2050, mostly on the Front Range.

In June 2009, the CWCB published a report updating population and municipal and industrial water use projections. The state demographers estimate that by 2030 Colorado's population could grow from 4.5 million to 7 million and by 2050 it could exceed 10 million. These are startling numbers if accurate.

There are other strategies being evaluated as an alternative to transmountain diversions. More effort could be put into increasing conservation and water use efficiency. Farmland on the Front Range, along with water rights, is already being bought by cities. The CWCB is funding alternatives to outright sale of farmland so the loss of these fertile lands is not permanent. A more efficient use of water collection and distribution systems is another way Front Range cities are helping to make existing supplies go further.

One of the biggest unknown water demands during the next few decades is whether oil shale will be developed in northwest Colorado and what technology would be used to extract it. If developed, oil shale alone could consume more water than might be available.

To get a better handle on understanding all of these uncertainties, the CWCB has embarked on a Colorado River Water Availability Study to determine how much water is left to be developed from Colorado's allocation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The Compact requires the Upper Basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico) to deliver over half of the annual yield of the river to Lower Basin states (California, Arizona and Nevada). Of what's left, Colorado is entitled to 51%. This varies from year to year and Lake Powell is used to absorb the variations. If Lake Powell were emptied due to prolonged drought and reduced flows caused by climate change, the Lower Basin states could require water use in the Upper Basin to be reduced. So the question is: can Colorado continue to develop more Colorado River supplies? How much and at what risk?

The current availability study is divided into two parts; one analyzing how much we have used in the past and the second how much we can expect to be available, taking into account variables such as climate change. This study includes water use in the Yampa, White, Colorado mainstem, Gunnison and San Juan Rivers. The study requires many complex calculations. Colorado has a very useful tool, developed over the past decade, to assist in this task. The Colorado Decision Support System calculates stream and river flows and all water right uses. We also expect the availability study to tell us where in the basin water will be available after considering non-consumptive uses such as instream flow rights, recreational and hydropower water rights. This computer model can be run using numerous assumptions.

I mentioned earlier that continued development of Colorado's allocation under the Compact has risks associated with it. These risks are based on the fact that Colorado uses the prior appropriation doctrine to administer water rights. Senior water rights (earlier appropriation dates) have a higher priority. Most of the senior rights are for agricultural uses. The more junior rights, including transmountain diversions, are used for municipal and industrial purposes. If there is not enough water to meet all uses, the junior rights lose their water first. A problem arises if we develop every last drop water we are allocated and shortages start to occur. How would we respond in these worst-case scenarios?

The Colorado River Water Conservation Board and the Southwest Water Conservation Board have been developing and promoting a concept of a water bank to reduce the level of disruption if water shortages begin to occur. The concept would be to have the holders of senior water rights agree, for a negotiated price, to forgo the use of their rights and allow junior users to continue to use water even if they are not in priority. This would allow cities to continue to serve their customers in times of severe and/or prolonged drought.

Which rights would end up in the bank? It is likely to be only those of farmers who grow annual crops. There would be the least amount of hardship for a farmer who has to plant crops every year. If an orchard or vineyard loses its water, it might take 5+ years to re-establish a fruit-bearing crop. The same is true for grass and alfalfa growers. Will a water bank catch on? We had better find out before any new transmountain diversion project is proposed because any such project would have very junior rights.

The consequences of a Compact call could be very disruptive. A new junior transmountain diversion could trigger a call sooner. Without a water bank in place, a call could force a major reallocation of water from agricultural to municipal uses to prevent cutting off water to our major cities. To avoid or delay this scenario, The Front Range should seek other solutions to their water supply quandary.