[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COLORADO: OPTIONS TO INCREASE WATER SUPPLY AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Friday, December 12, 2003, in Denver, Colorado
__________
Serial No. 108-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-927 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member
George Radanovich, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Jay Inslee, Washington
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska George Miller, California
Rick Renzi, Arizona Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Joe Baca, California
Devin Nunes, California Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, December 12, 2003........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Beauprez, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Tancredo, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Colorado...................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Binney, Peter D., P.E., Director of Utilities, City of
Aurora, Colorado........................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Foutz, Alan, President, Colorado Farm Bureau................. 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
Kassen, Melinda R., Esq., Director, Colorado Water Project,
Trout Unlimited............................................ 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Kuhn, Richard Eric, General Manager, Colorado River Water
Conservation District, and Member, CLUB 20 Water
Subcommittee............................................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Rivera, Hon. Lionel, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs,
Colorado................................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Rosenstein, Joel, Vice President, Coloradans for Water
Conservation and Development............................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Thurston, Hon. Randy, Vice President, City Council, Pueblo,
Colorado................................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Walcher, Greg, Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources.......................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Wells, Patricia L., General Counsel, Denver Board of Water
Commissioners, Denver, Colorado............................ 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Additional statement submitted for the record............ 69
Additional materials supplied:
Leak, Alan J., P.E., Centennial, Colorado, Letter submitted
for the record............................................. 86
Miller, Dave, Independent Water Planner, Letter and newspaper
articles submitted for the record.......................... 78
Western Resource Advocates, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 82
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ``COLORADO: OPTIONS TO INCREASE WATER SUPPLY
AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES''
----------
Friday, December 12, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Denver, Colorado
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
the Old Supreme Court Chambers of the Colorado State Chambers,
200 East Colfax Avenue, Denver, Colorado, Hon. Ken Calvert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Calvert and Tancredo.
Also Present: Representatives Udall of Colorado and
Beauprez.
Mr. Calvert. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting
to hear testimony on options to increase water supply and
improve efficiencies here in Colorado.
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Beauprez, the
Representative from the Seventh District of Colorado has
permission to sit on the dais and participate in this hearing.
So ordered.
Before we proceed with opening statements and testimony, I
will yield to Mr. Beauprez for some announcements, including
Presentation of the Colors and Pledge of Allegiance.
[Presentation of the Colors.]
Colonel Lucas will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Colonel Lucas is a fighter pilot Veteran of the Second World
War, served in the Pacific, a Veteran of the Korean War and a
Squadron Commander of the Vietnam War.
Colonel Lucas.
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Beauprez?
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
acknowledge the members of the Adams City Junior Officer
Training Corps, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, excuse me,
that were kind enough to present and post our colors this
morning.
Would everyone please join me in showing your appreciation.
[Applause.]
Mr. Chairman, I'll have more official or more formal
comments in a moment, but let me begin by thanking especially
you and Congressman Tancredo for convening this hearing on a
subject that is extremely important and timely to the State of
Colorado, one which we have grappled with most of my life and
I'm sure we'll continue to grapple with for some time coming,
but especially as Subcommittee Chairman, I thank you for coming
to Colorado. Obviously, it is a subject that is of interest to
a great many people, judging from the crowd we've got today. I
look forward to the testimony and yield back.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman and certainly it's great
to start this morning with young Marines. I represent Camp
Pendleton in California, so it's always great to see Marines
wherever I go and this is certainly a magnificent room to have
this hearing and this is a subject, of course, of great
interest to this Committee and to me personally. And throughout
this year, this Subcommittee has witnessed the drought's severe
impact on the West.
Every day we hear more stories about how Western community
leaders are faced with increasingly tough decisions on how to
provide adequate and reliable water supplies to their citizens,
while safeguarding the environment.
My home region of Southern California has been especially
hit by the drought--as has all the West. Our water supply has
decreased because of decreasing supplies. Although Colorado
probably doesn't like to be compared to California, your State
is also experiencing some of the same demand for water as
demand for water continues to grow.
Similarly to California, Colorado has one area, the Western
Slope with most of the water, and another area, the Front
Range, as I understand, with most of the population. Colorado's
population has grown by almost 1 million every decade for the
last 30 years, yet no new major storage for water has been
built to accommodate the projected and current demand for a
number of reasons. This, too, is an echo of my own experience
in my own State. As we all know, capturing and transporting
this water and paying for the associated infrastructure are not
easy tasks due to budget constraints and certainly differences
of opinion.
There is a tremendous lack of consensus on how to resolve
Colorado's water supply situation. The defeat recently of
Referendum A is a clear message that Colorado's water leaders
are divided and need to constructively discuss the best way to
move forward. Too often solutions are not found because there's
a lack of communication between key stakeholders.
The ones who end up paying the ultimate price for this lack
of construction discussion are the water consumers we are
trying to help. As a matter of fact, I have an old saying that
I know the Committee gets tired of me saying it is that from
that old movie, ``Field of Dreams,'' ``Build it and they will
come.'' Of course, we have a saying anywhere in the West,
``Don't build it and they come anyway.'' And so we need to
communicate because your constituents are the ones that pay the
price.
For these reasons my distinguished colleague, Bob Beauprez,
asked for this field hearing. As someone who knows firsthand
how intractable water issues can be, I certainly commend him
for his positive and proactive leadership and look forward to
working with him and the rest of the Colorado delegation on
these important issues.
Mr. Tancredo has been very actively involved in this on the
Committee and I would like to say--I know Scott McInnis is not
here today, but I came in the House with Scott a number of
years ago. We served in the last six terms together and he's
retiring this term and I wanted to say publicly my friendship
and affection for Scott. We will miss him in the House, but I
know that he's not going to disappear and he will be of service
to Colorado in many years to come.
I certainly hope that today's hearing will help foster
communication and bring about collaborative and commonsense
solutions for all of Colorado. Otherwise, if you don't come to
an agreement, then you'll just have to send all that unused
water down the river and we may find use for it.
With that, we're going to recognize our first panel. The
Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs,
Colorado, welcome. The Honorable Randy Thurston, Vice
President, Pueblo City Council, Pueblo, Colorado, welcome. Mr.
Greg Walcher, Executive Director, the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, and Mr. Peter Binney, Utilities Director,
Aurora, Colorado, welcome.
And before we get into that, we're going to have opening
statements. Excuse me, I ought to look at my script more
carefully.
And with that, I would recognize Mr. Tancredo for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Throughout this year, this Subcommittee has witnessed the drought's
severe impact on the West. Every day, we hear more stories about how
western community leaders are faced with increasingly tough decisions
on how to provide adequate and reliable water supplies to their
citizens while safeguarding the environment.
My home region of ever-growing Southern California has been
especially hit hard by the drought and the regulations that decrease
our water supplies. Although Colorado certainly does not like to be
compared to California, your state is also experiencing the same
pressures.
Very much like California, Colorado has one area with most of the
water and another area with most of the population. Colorado's
population has grown by almost 1 million every decade for the last 30
years, yet no new major storage has been built during the same time due
to a number of reasons. This, too, is an echo of California's water
problems. As we all know, capturing and transporting this water--and
paying for the associated infrastructure--are not easy tasks with
limited budgets and differences of opinion.
There is a tremendous lack of consensus on how to resolve
Colorado's water supply situation. The defeat of Referendum A is a
clear symbol that Colorado's water leaders are divided and need to
constructively discuss the best way to move forward.
Too often, solutions are not found because there is a lack of
communication between key stakeholders. The ones who end up paying the
ultimate price for this lack of constructive discussion are the water
consumers we are trying to help.
For these reasons, my distinguished colleague, Bob Beauprez, asked
for this field hearing. As one who knows firsthand how intractable
water issues can be, I commend him for his positive and pro-active
leadership and look forward to working with him and the rest of the
delegation on these important issues.
I sincerely hope that today's hearing will help foster
communication and bring about collaborative, commonsense solutions for
all of Colorado. Otherwise, you can keep on sending your unused
Colorado River apportionment down to California!
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say
certainly, first of all, welcome, and to tell you that it is a
courageous act for anyone to come to Colorado from California
to talk about water. So I am very pleased that you are here and
I commend you for that act of courage. And I do thank you very
much for having this hearing.
Mark Twain once said, ``In the west, whiskey is for
drinking, water is for fighting.'' And as most of us have seen
that old adage is as true now as it was then. Since Teddy
Roosevelt first envisioned the Bureau of Reclamation that would
make the ``Western deserts bloom'', the history of water in the
West has been one of struggle, triumph, conflict and it
continues even today.
Over the last several decades Colorado has become an
increasingly urbanized State with a more diversified economy.
We have seen our population double over the last two decades.
It is likely that we will see it double again in another 20
years. In fact, there are more people living along the front
range of Colorado today than were people in Colorado in the
entire state just 30 years ago.
While the face of Colorado has changed significantly, urban
water consumption continues to amount to just 5 percent of
overall consumption. And the same shortages that plagued
Colorado's cities 50 years ago, continue to do so today. In
fact, talk about irony. Today's Denver Post reports that on
this day in 1953, this was the comment in the Denver Post,
``Denver's progress in spurring residential development
depended on getting more water, officials said.'' This was
1953. The water storage projects that former Western Colorado
Congressman and Interior Committee Chairman Wayne Aspinall
built, like Glen Canyon Dam and Fryingpan-Arkansas, have served
the interior West well in coping with their water and power
needs. Unfortunately, our storage infrastructure is inadequate
to meet the demands of the future or to cope with the droughts
of today.
Most people agree that we need to build additional storage,
but the goal of enlarging existing reservoirs and building new
ones remains an elusive one. Such efforts have been stalled by
interstate water conflicts and the rhetoric of extreme
environmentalists. Federal environmental laws like the
Endangered Species Act have also played a role in inhibiting
new water storage and development of projects.
In the long run, Democrats and Republicans, Front Range
suburbanites, farmers and Western Slopers will have to work
cooperatively if we are to find a solution that benefits our
entire State. It also means that people who live in places like
Highlands Ranch, in my District, and in Aurora, will probably
continue to pay higher rates for their water and that
additional water will be transferred from agricultural uses to
municipal under leases or sales.
In short, it means Colorado water users will need to do
what we all learned to do in kindergarten, and that is, share.
Stretching current supplies whether by utilizing excess storage
capacity in existing reservoirs, improving conservation, using
more efficient irrigation and landscaping techniques,
eliminating invasive plants like tamarisk, improving Federal
laws, enlarging existing storage facilities and exploring the
concept to build new storage and delivery systems are all
avenues that need to be explored.
While it is clear that addressing these challenges to the
satisfaction of all parties will not happen overnight, it's
also clear that continued regional in-fighting and perpetual
inaction are recipes for a disaster and one that will affect
not just the thirsty, and often the scape-goated Front Range
cities, but the economy of the entire State.
So I hope this hearing will serve as a useful tool in
continuing the dialog and I really do look forward to hearing
from the participants today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tancredo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado
I would like to thank my colleague Chairman Calvert and Chairman
Pombo for holding this hearing.
Mark Twain once said, ``In the west, whiskey is for drinking, and
water is for fighting,'' and, as most of us have seen, that old adage
is as true now as it was then. Since Teddy Roosevelt first envisioned a
Bureau of Reclamation that would make the ``western deserts bloom,''
the history of water in the west has been one of struggle, triumph, and
conflict that continues today.
Over the last several decades, Colorado has become an increasingly
urbanized state with a more diversified economy. We have seen our
population double over the last two decades, and it is likely that we
will see it double again in another twenty years. In fact, there are
more people living along the Front Range of Colorado today than there
were in people in the entire State just thirty years ago.
While the face of Colorado has changed significantly, urban water
consumption continues to amount to just five percent of overall
consumption, and the same shortages that plagued Colorado cities fifty
years ago, continue to do so today. In fact, today's Denver Post
reports that. on this day in 1953, ``Denver's progress in spurring
residential development depended on getting more water, officials
said.''.
The water storage projects that former western Colorado Congressman
and Interior Committee Chairman Wayne Aspinall built--like Glen Canyon
Dam and Fryingpan-Arkansas--have served the interior west well in
coping with their water and power needs. Unfortunately, our storage
infrastructure is inadequate to meet the demands of the future, or to
cope with the droughts of today.
Most people agree that we need to build additional storage, but the
goal of enlarging existing reservoirs and building new ones remains an
elusive one. Such efforts have been stalled by intra-state water
conflicts, and the rhetoric of extreme environmentalists. Federal
environmental laws, like the endangered species act, have also played a
role in inhibiting new water storage and development projects.
In the long run, Democrats and Republicans, Front Range
suburbanites, farmers, and western slopers will all have to work
cooperatively if we are to find a solution that benefits our entire
state.
It also means that people who live in places like Highlands Ranch
and Aurora will probably continue to pay higher rates for their water,
and that additional water will be transferred from agricultural uses to
municipal under leases or sales. In short, it means Colorado water
users will need to do what we all learned to do in kindergarten: SHARE.
Stretching current supplies further by utilizing excess storage
capacity in existing reservoirs, improving conservation, using more
efficient irrigation and landscaping techniques, eliminating invasive
plants like Tamarisk, improving federal laws, enlarging existing
storage facilities, and exploring the concept of building new storage
and delivery systems, are all avenues that need to be explored.
While it is clear that addressing these challenges to the
satisfaction of all parties will not happen overnight, it is also clear
that continued regional infighting and perpetual inaction are recipes
for a disaster--and one that will affect not just the thirsty, and
often scapegoated Front Range cities, but the economy of the entire
state. I hope this hearing will serve as a useful tool in continuing
the dialogue, and I look forward to hearing from our panelists today.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Udall?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to join in
my current colleague's welcome directed toward you and I want
to thank you for holding the hearing today here on this
important matter. I also want to thank Congressman Beauprez for
seeking the hearing and it's always great to spend time with my
twin, Congressman Tancredo, and to be here with him.
We also want to thank the witnesses who are going to help
edify us so that we can learn more about what we can do,
particularly when you take into account the Federal role which
we will discuss here today as well as the state role in
providing for present and future water needs.
Water, as Congressman Tancredo just pointed out, has been
an important issue in Colorado since humans first settled here.
And Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that there are more
water attorneys in Colorado per capita than any other state in
the country including your home State of California. So it's no
surprise that not only is water the life blood of our
communities, it's also provided full employment for lawyers.
In all seriousness though, the prolonged drought that
Colorado has been experiencing has indeed raised the stakes in
our efforts to supply an already scarce resource to the many
demands placed on it. Since water issues have been so
contentious, it is essential that we work together to develop
collaborative solutions that are environmentally sound,
fiscally responsible and do not pit one community against
another. Because Referendum A, the proposed $2 billion water
project bonding initiative that failed this past November, did
not live up to those requirements, I opposed it. But now that
it has been defeated, it's even more important to renew and
reemphasize these essential principles in our continuing
efforts to address water supply needs, as well as consumption
policies and behaviors. Clearly, that discussion has already
begun and this hearing is another opportunity to continue it.
The focus for us now should be to identify and explore
options and opportunities to help develop our existing
resources and find ways to stretch the resources we already
have.
A number of proposals have been made before and after the
defeat of Referendum A. One of those is a potential new
reservoir near Wolcott in Eagle County. I'm encouraged by that
effort, as it is an example of the right way to approach such a
project: develop a process at the front end by bringing all the
interests together, East and West Slope, to sort through the
issues and then reach some consensus.
If and when that consensus is reached, then I believe the
financing is likely to follow; and without beating up on
Referendum A too much, I think that's why the referendum was a
particular flop because it put the last piece, the financing,
ahead of the identification and development of projects.
I do want to be clear too that I think our solution to our
water woes does not solely rest with new storage projects.
Clearly, new dams should be on the table, but there's much more
we can do with our existing infrastructure to capture more
water.
These ideas include expanding existing dams and reservoirs,
preparing many small dams so that they hold water to their
capacity, developing conjunctive use of surplus surface flows
with groundwater aquifers and, of course, greater conservation
measures.
We should also not overlook the needs of safety and
security of existing supply facilities, especially in these
times of terrorist threats. All of these things we can do right
now. The State has financing authority to help with this and
entities like the Denver Water Department have shown that
conservation efforts can and do work.
I hope to continue to work with all interests to explore
these and other options and ideas and suggestions that may be
offered here today at this hearing. I look forward to the
conversation and the exploration that will follow today's
hearing.
Again, Mr. Chairman, welcome to Colorado. It's great to
have you here.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Beauprez?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB BEAUPREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again thank you for
your willingness to hold and host this timely hearing today and
thanks to my good friends, Congressman Udall and Congressman
Tancredo, both members of your Subcommittee for participating
today and not only today, but for what they have done, what you
have done, to further the issue of water and the subject that
we're about today, improving not only our ability to store and
use it, but efficiencies of the same. And especially thanks to
all of the witnesses that are going to testify because you're
the real experts and we're here to learn and hear from you.
There's also a number of key Colorado leaders that,
although they're not present with us today, have strongly
committed themselves to advancing the water solutions here in
the Colorado in recent years. I want to acknowledge especially
the foresight and leadership of our Governor, Bill Owens; our
Attorney General, Ken Salazar, as well as you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, Congressman Scott McInnis, and also Joel Hefley, who
have contributed substantially to this issue for many years in
our State.
All of the support, sustainable, expanding, job-creating
economy, to facilitate that objective we must be willing to
provide the three basic infrastructure elements to that end:
transportation, energy and water, all in dependable,
predictable, affordable supply. In Colorado, we have to do some
work on all three of those, Mr. Chairman. Today, we'll focus on
water. And maybe it's the most critical of all three of those
for us.
In the past, we have typically adopted a very parochial
view regarding infrastructure, water infrastructure, kind of
any every man for himself view. I hope, however, that we
finally realize that if one part of the State suffers, then we
all are hurting.
If Douglas County has a problem, as they do, then we all
have a problem. If we dry up our farms, the whole State
suffers. Although Referendum A did not pass at the ballot box
on November 4th, it did succeed in terms of generating public
debate all across the State of Colorado about water policies,
so that part is good. Colorado citizens still expect its
leaders to do something about planning, developing and
utilizing water resources for our beautiful State.
I requested this field hearing by the Water Subcommittee
because it is imperative that we keep the momentum going in
Colorado's movement for solving our water issues.
Mr. Chairman, Colorado has experienced a lot of growth as
had already been recognized in recent years, largely because of
our beauty, climate and expanding economy, not unlike the
reasons many flock to your State of California. Between Mr.
Udall and Mr. Tancredo and myself, we represent a majority of
the regions of this State that are most heavily impacted by
growth.
Mr. Chairman, it was during the 1960s with leadership from
Congressman Wayne Aspinall, who I think you already cited, that
Colorado last undertook serious aggressive steps to address our
water needs about 40 years ago. Our population was less than 2
million then. Today, our population stands around 4.3 million
and according to our state demographer, by the Year 2025, we
might exceed 6.5 million.
While the population and demand for water swells, we still
have the same 3.4 million acres of farmland to irrigate and
agriculture remains a bedrock industry in this State. It
contributes 16 billion--with a B--to our state economy
annually. My constituents and all Coloradans know all too well
that today, not tomorrow, is when we need to reach consensus
about water storage, transfer and conservation for future
generations.
The need is obvious, but the solution continues to elude
us. Obvious to all is that we are a 100 percent source state,
no water flows into Colorado, only out. Further, each spring,
millions of acre feet of water beyond our compact agreements,
flows past our borders because we lack means to store and
distribute. During my lifetime in this State and I am a native,
the first 40 years I spent farming and the last 15 in an urban
environment, it seemed that three things you don't discuss
among friends were religion, politics and water. All three of
those were sure to start a fight and likely not to lead to a
resolution. We have to get beyond that.
Without utilizing wisely the water we have sourced here, we
endlessly pit urban interests against agriculture, east against
west, issues or District against that, but the only clear
result being Courts perpetually stuffed with water litigation,
ever escalating value on a limited supply of water rights that
we do have and bitter divisions of Coloradans against one
another as this inevitable winners and losers gets determined.
And really, we're all losers in the end.
This past time, we must find a solution for the good of the
State that involves winners and I believe it is very much
possible, not easy, but possible. Not to oversimplify a very
complex situation, but I believe our solution to the good of
all of Colorado must include the following four key principles:
first, conservation. We can always use water more efficiently
and more wisely.
Augmentation of existing storage is the second. There are
numerous examples of storage lakes that need dredging to remove
silt, dams that can be raised to increase capacity, and
aquifers that can be used as water banks.
Third, build new storage. Reservoirs are not inherently all
bad. I see the Mayor of Golden out here somewhere, there's
Chuck. Quinella Reservoir is being completed right now with
assistance from Congressmen Udall, Tancredo and myself and will
solve much of the City of Golden's challenge. We have to be
willing to look at solving storage needs, rather than simply
dismissing the possibility out of hand.
And last, transbasin transfers. Transbasin transfers. We
must be willing to do the hard work of moving water from where
it's generated to where it is needed while providing both
compensation and environmental protection for the basin of
origin.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to add that I requested this hearing
with some reluctance because I strongly believe that Colorado's
water solutions should be driven locally. I don't want any
misconception from this requested hearing that I suggest the
Federal government should drive this critical issue. Having
said that, however, I recognize that vast amounts of Federal
land are in our State, especially our mountains where most of
our water is generated and stored, so it's rather obvious that
the Federal government will have a role to play in Colorado's
water solution.
Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to work together with you, my
colleagues in the Colorado delegation, and other members of the
Water Subcommittee and state and local leaders, to deal with
the difficult issues that are before us, issues related to
water resources, project alternatives, funding methods,
planning and the environment.
Time has come for us in Colorado to focus on finding
solutions to our collective water needs, not just raising
objections to the challenges that we face. I welcome today's
testimony on the critically important issues regarding options
for increase in our water supply and improving our
efficiencies. I look very much forward to our panel of
witnesses. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beauprez follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bob Beauprez, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding this timely hearing on Colorado's
options for increasing its water supply and improving water-use
efficiencies. Thanks also to my friends, Ranking Subcommittee Member
Udall, Congresswoman DeGette, and Committee Member Tancredo for their
valued participation--both today and previously--in this issue so
critical to Colorado. Most importantly, I want to thank all of the
witnesses who will be testifying today. All of you are deeply
entrenched in water issues on a daily basis, and I know all of us look
forward to hearing your insights and opinions.
There are a number of key Colorado leaders that, although they are
not present with us, have strongly committed themselves to advancing
water solutions in recent years. I want to acknowledge the foresight
and leadership of Governor Bill Owens, Attorney General Ken Salazar, as
well as Congressmen Scott McInnis and Joel Hefley, who have contributed
substantially to this issue for years.
All of us support a sustainable, expanding, job-creating economy.
But to facilitate that objective we must be willing to provide the
three basic infrastructure elements--transportation, energy, and
water--all in dependable, predictable, and affordable supply. In
Colorado, we have work to do on all three fronts, but today we'll
concentrate on water.
In the past, we have typically adopted a very parochial view
regarding infrastructure--a kind of every-man-for-himself attitude. I
hope, however, that we finally realize that if one part of the state
suffers, we all hurt. If Douglas County has a problem, we all do. If we
dry up our farms, the whole state suffers.
Although Referendum A did not pass at the ballot box on November
4th, it did succeed in terms of generating public debate all across the
great State of Colorado about water policies. Colorado's citizens still
expect its leaders to do something about planning, developing, and
utilizing water resources for our beautiful state. I requested this
field hearing by the Water Subcommittee because it is imperative that
we keep the momentum going in Colorado's movement toward solving our
water issues.
Mr. Chairman, Colorado has experienced a lot of growth in recent
years, largely because of our beauty, climate, and expanding economy--
not unlike the reasons many flocked to your State of California.
Between Mr. Udall, Mr. Tancredo, and myself, we represent a majority of
the regions of Colorado most heavily impacted by increased growth, with
Congresswoman DeGette's district, Denver, the nexus of it all.
Mr. Chairman, it was during the 1960's with leadership from
Congressman Wayne Aspinall that Colorado last undertook serious,
aggressive steps to address our water needs. Our population was less
than 2 million. Today, the population of Colorado stands at around 4.3
million. According to the state demographer's office, by 2025 the
state's population may exceed 6.5 million. While the population and the
demand for water swells, we still have the same 3.4 million acres of
farm land to irrigate. Agriculture remains a bedrock industry in our
state contributing $16 billion to our economy annually. My constituents
and all Coloradoans know all too well that today--not tomorrow--is when
we need to reach consensus about water storage, transfer, and
conservation for future generations.
The need is obvious, but the solution continues to elude us.
Obvious to all is that we are a 100% source state; no water flows into
Colorado, only out. Further, each spring, millions of acre feet of
water beyond our compact agreements flows past our borders because we
lack the means to store and distribute it.
During my lifetime in this state--the first 40 years spent farming
and the last 15 in an urban environment--it seemed the three things you
didn't discuss among friends was religion, politics, and water. Any of
the three were sure to start a fight, but likely not lead to a
resolution. We have to get beyond that.
Without utilizing wisely the water we have sourced here, we
endlessly pit urban interests against agriculture, east against west,
this user district against that, with the only clear result being
courts perpetually stuffed with water litigation, ever escalating value
on the limited supply of water rights, and bitter divisions of
Coloradoans against one another as the inevitable winners and losers
are determined. And, really we all are losers in the end.
It is past time when we must find a solution for the good of the
state that involves winners and winners. And, I believe it is very much
possible.
Not to oversimplify a very complex situation, but I believe our
solution for the good of all of Colorado must include the following
four key principles:
Conservation: we can always use water more efficiently
and more wisely;
Augmentation of existing storage: there are numerous
examples of storage lakes that need dredging to remove silt, dams than
can be raised to increase capacity, and aquifers than can be used as
water banks;
Build new storage: reservoirs are not inherently all bad.
Golden is completing the Guenella Reservoir with assistance from
Congressmen Tancredo, Udall, and myself. We have to be willing to look
at solving storage needs, rather than dismissing any possibility; and
Lastly, Transbasin Transfers: We must be willing to do
the hard work of moving water from where it is generated to where it is
needed, while providing both compensation and environmental protection
for the basin of origin.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to add that I requested this hearing with
some reluctance because I strongly believe that Colorado's water
solutions must be driven locally. I do not want any misconception from
this requested hearing that I suggest the federal government should
drive this critical issue. However, recognizing the vast amounts of
federal land in our state, especially our mountains where most of our
water is generated and stored, I do feel there is an obvious role for
us to play in an eventual solution.
Mr. Chairman, I am ready to work together with you, my colleagues
in the Colorado delegation, other Members of the Water Subcommittee,
and state and local leaders to deal with difficult issues before us--
issues related to water resources, project alternatives, funding
methods, planning, and the environment. Time has come for us in
Colorado to focus on finding solutions to our collective water needs,
not just raising objections to the challenges we face.
I welcome today's testimony on the critically important issues
regarding options for increasing water supply and improving water-use
efficiencies. I am looking forward to hearing from the distinguished
panel of witnesses, and I am confident that this will be a very
informative hearing.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and
for his leadership on this issue.
And first, our witness is the Honorable Lionel Rivera, the
Mayor, City of Colorado Springs.
Welcome, sir, and you're recognized for 5 minutes. We have
a 5-minute rule and you may have been told about that. We try
to keep the testimony to 5 minutes so it will give us plenty of
time for questions.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LIONEL RIVERA, MAYOR,
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Mr. Rivera. Before I get started, Mr. Chairman, I want to
first thank you for coming to Colorado and hosting this very
important hearing on very important issues for our State and I
also would like to thank members of our delegation also for
being here today.
Over the years, and one more comment, I will be submitting
my comments, written comments for the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, all the comments, any
additional comments will be accepted into the record.
Mr. Rivera. Over the years, the cities and towns in this
State, as well as the agricultural community have developed a
wide and innovative series of projects to allow us to utilize
the water which we are entitled to consume under our compact
with neighboring states. The very nature of our water supply
requires us to continue to improve and increase the amount of
storage we have in order to carry the snow melt runoff from the
wet years to the dry years and from the runoff months to the
months with low stream flows.
Colorado Springs has appropriated and beneficially uses a
portion of Colorado's compact of apportioned water on the
Colorado River. Colorado Springs has developed and utilizes
local water supplies originating in the snow fields on Pikes
Peak and Colorado Springs has acquired water supplies on the
Arkansas mainstream.
In 1990, we began a water planning process to determine our
needs through the Year 2040. We found that although our
existing water supply decreased and may be adequate, there was
need for additional storage and delivery infrastructure. In
1996, the city adopted a plan of action which identified a
number of approaches for meeting our future water demands. As
part of this plan, Colorado Springs approached the Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District and indicated our need for
additional storage. The Southeastern District then conducted a
water and storage needs assessment on behalf of all district
members including Colorado Springs.
That study confirmed the need for additional storage
capacity in order to provide firm yield to municipal entities
and it analyzed a wide range of alternatives to meet that
demand, including storage of nonproject water and project space
and possible reservoir enlargements. Both storage of nonproject
water and possible enlargement of Pueblo Reservoir and
Turquoise Reservoir, rank very favorably in terms of cost,
operational effectiveness, and environmental socio-economic
factors.
Colorado Springs has committed to pay for and receive
approximately 50 percent of the additional storage capacity
available through storage of nonproject water and enlargements,
totally about 58,000 acre feet of storage, a critical component
in meeting our future water supply requirements. The
enlargement study is also a critical first step in future water
planning and development in the Arkansas River Valley.
Colorado Springs, the Southeast District, and the Pueblo
Board of Water Works, along with over 40 entities, participated
in this storage study process. We strongly supported and
encouraged this regional and cooperative approach to water
development.
Throughout the years, Colorado Springs has worked in close
cooperation with its neighbors in developing water supplies.
That cooperation has been evident with the City of Pueblo's
Board of Water Works and by that cooperation both cities have
been able to develop very reliable supplies for their citizens.
We hope to see a continuation of that cooperation and
Colorado Springs is willing to accommodate concerns that the
City of Pueblo has about flows for recreation through their
city, as well as efforts to protect a viable agricultural
economy in the Arkansas Valley east of Pueblo.
We in Colorado are focusing on the improvement and
expansion of existing storage facilities and the development of
the means to better utilize water already capable of being
stored. Colorado Springs believes that all the interest in
Colorado support the principle of safely enlarging existing
facilities, developing the means to better utilize the water
that is already stored.
We hope that when Congress returns from the holiday recess,
Congressman Hefley, joined by Congressman Beauprez and
Congressman Tancredo, will introduce legislation to permit the
improved use of the storage facilities of the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project, including Pueblo Reservoir and Turquoise
Reservoir. Colorado Springs supports that legislation which
will allow a preferred storage option plan to be developed.
That plan will make additional storage space available to the
cities and towns in the Arkansas Valley, as well as to the
agricultural community through more efficient use of existing
storage space.
In addition, we hope that Congress will authorize the
investigation of enlarging one or both of these facilities to
take advantage of additional supplies that can be developed.
This effort is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation Water
2025 effort to remove institutional barriers to allow storage
of nonproject water and project space.
We appreciate the Bureau of Reclamation's commitment to
this effort, but we need Congress to act by codifying the
Bureau's contracting authority on this project and to authorize
the enlargement study. For Colorado Springs to utilize the
waters that it has developed already, it is necessary to
construct a pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir to the city.
Colorado Springs with the communities of Fountain and
Security are pursuing a new pipeline, a southern delivery
system from Pueblo Reservoir to the Pikes Beak Region. Colorado
Springs is working with its neighbors and the Pueblo community
to secure the construction of that pipeline and we are
confident that with the long history of cooperation and good
will between the communities, that the development of the
Colorado Springs southern delivery system will be a reality.
We trust that Congress will be supportive in our efforts to
ensure that the Colorado Springs community has a stable and
adequate water supply, now and in the future.
If we are capable of managing the water supplies that are
apportioned to us by our various compacts, we will be able to
meet the challenges of additional population and future
droughts. However, that cannot occur without improved
management of existing storage and the development of
additional storage.
The most efficient way to ensure that additional storage
can be developed, is to enlarge existing facilities, rather
than confront the challenges of creating extensive new storage.
We would respectfully request that the Committee give
favorable consideration to any legislation proposed by Colorado
to permit the more efficient utilization of existing storage or
the enlargement of existing storage facilities. And those
conclude my comments and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivera follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor,
City of Colorado Springs. Colorado
On behalf of the City of Colorado Springs, we would like to express
our appreciation to the Subcommittee and you, Mr. Chairman, for taking
the time to visit Colorado to discuss the very pressing water resource
problems this State faces. As you know, Colorado sits at the top of all
of its rivers and must share their flow with all of its neighbors. In
addition, well over 70% of the total amount of water flowing in our
rivers occurs in just three short months and comes from the melting
snow in our mountains.
Colorado Springs is the second largest metropolitan area in the
State of Colorado and the home to a number of our military
installations, including the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, NORAD,
Peterson Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base and the newly created
Northern Command. All of these entities are served by Colorado Springs
Utilities, an enterprise of the City of Colorado Springs.
Colorado Springs has a history of providing reliable, cost-
effective utility services to our customers, including domestic,
commercial and industrial water supplies, despite our location in a
very arid part of the country.
We possess a very diverse water supply and delivery system, with
over 75% of its water coming from the Colorado River Basin through
transbasin diversion projects. The remainder is obtained from the Pikes
Peak watershed or from the Arkansas River itself via the Fountain
Valley Pipeline. The latter delivers our federal Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project water.
However, the recent drought has stressed our water supply and
delivery system. As we can all attest, it has forced all of us to
reevaluate our water supplies and delivery infrastructure. Colorado
Springs for several years has had an aggressive water conservation and
demand side management program. During the drought our residents were
able to reduce their consumption by 12% in 2002 and almost 20% this
year.
I also want to highlight our reuse system. We have one of the
largest wastewater reuse systems in the state and it has been in use
since the 1960's. We have a direct reuse/non-potable water system at
our Las Vegas Street Waste Water Treatment Plant that currently has a
capacity of up to 6 mgd, and we reuse about 3,000 acre feet (af) of
water per year on that system for irrigation. In addition, the water
that is delivered to the Air Force Academy and some of the water to
Fort Carson is also reused. We continually make improvements in those
systems recognizing it is a valuable component of our current and
future water supply. We are evaluating expanding our non-potable reuse
delivery system.
Over the years, the cities and towns in this State, as well as the
agricultural community, have developed a wide and innovative series of
projects to allow us to utilize the water, which we are entitled to
consume under our compacts with our neighboring states. But the very
nature of our water supply requires us to continue to improve and
increase the amount of storage we have in order to carry the snowmelt
runoff over from wet years to dry years and from the runoff months to
the months with low streamflows.
Colorado Springs has been a leader in developing innovative water
supplies relying upon a variety of sources to meet the needs of its
rapidly growing population. Colorado Springs has appropriated, and
beneficially uses, a portion of Colorado's Compact apportioned water on
the Colorado River; Colorado Springs has developed, and utilizes, local
water supplies originating in the snowfields on Pikes Peak, and
Colorado Springs has acquired water supplies on the Arkansas mainsteam.
In 1990, we began a water planning process to determine our needs
through the year 2040, based upon realistic growth projections. We
found that, though our existing water supply decrees may be adequate,
there was a need for additional storage and delivery infrastructure. In
1996, the City adopted a plan of action which identified a number of
approaches for meeting our future water demands, including water
conservation, existing system improvements, and a new Southern Delivery
System from Pueblo Reservoir, which is part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project.
As part of this action plan, Colorado Springs Utilities approached
the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and indicated our
need for additional storage. The Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District then conducted a water and storage needs
assessment on behalf of all District members, including Colorado
Springs. Colorado Springs Utilities fully supported this district-wide
effort. That study confirmed the need for additional storage capacity
in order to provide firm yield to municipal entities and it analyzed a
wide range of alternatives to meet that demand, including storage of
non-project water in project space and possible reservoir enlargements.
Both storage of non-project water and possible enlargement of
Pueblo Reservoir and Turquoise Reservoir ranked very favorably in terms
of cost, operational effectiveness and environmental/socioeconomic
factors. Colorado Springs has committed to pay for and receive
approximately 50% of the additional storage capacity available through
storage of non-project water and enlargements, totaling approximately
58,000 acre-feet of storage, a critical component in meeting our future
water supply requirements. The enlargement study is also a critical
first step in future water planning and development in the Arkansas
River Valley.
Colorado Springs and the Southeast District were not alone in
undertaking these planning efforts. Over 40 entities participated in
the storage study process, including the Upper Arkansas Water
Conservancy District, the City of Canon City, Arkansas River Outfitters
Association, Colorado Division of Wildlife, City of Florence and the
Pueblo Board of Water Works, the body responsible for providing water
service to the City of Pueblo, our neighbor to the immediate south. We
strongly supported and encouraged this regional and cooperative
approach to water development.
Throughout the years Colorado Springs has worked in close
cooperation with its neighbors in developing these water supplies. In
particular, that cooperation has been most evident with the City of
Pueblo's Board of Water Works and, by that cooperation, both Cities
have been able to develop very reliable supplies for their citizens. We
hope to see a continuation of the cooperation that has occurred for so
many years, and Colorado Springs is willing to accommodate concerns
that the City of Pueblo has about flows for recreation through the
City, as well as efforts to protect a viable agricultural economy in
the Arkansas Valley east of Pueblo.
I know the Committee is painfully aware that the opportunity to
build new storage on the rivers and streams in Colorado has been
significantly reduced by the competing pressures to protect the
environment and insure that Native species and riparian conditions are
not damaged or destroyed. As a result, we in Colorado are focusing on
the improvement and expansion of existing storage facilities and the
development of the means to better utilize the water already capable of
being stored. Colorado Springs hopes and believes that all of the
interests in Colorado support the principal of enlarging existing
facilities and developing the means to better utilize the waters
already stored.
We hope that when Congress returns from the holiday recess,
Congressman Hefley joined by Congressman Beauprez and Congressman
Tancredo will introduce legislation to permit the improved use of the
storage facilities of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project including Pueblo
Reservoir and Turquoise Reservoir. Colorado Springs supports that
legislation, which will allow a preferred storage option plan to be
developed. That plan will make additional storage space available to
the cities and towns in the Arkansas Valley, as well as to the
agricultural community through more efficient use of existing storage
space. In addition, we hope that Congress will authorize the
investigation of enlarging one or both of those facilities to take
advantage of additional supplies that can be developed.
This effort is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation's Water
2025 effort to remove institutional barriers to allow storage of non-
project water in project space. Optimizing the use of existing water
supply infrastructure makes both business sense and environmental
sense. We appreciate the Bureau of Reclamation's commitment to this
effort, but we need Congress to act by codifying the Bureau's
contracting authority on this project and to authorize the enlargement
study.
For Colorado Springs to utilize the water supplies that it has
developed already it is necessary to construct a pipeline from Pueblo
Reservoir to the City. Although there are already pipelines from the
Arkansas River near Buena Vista and from Pueblo Reservoir to the City,
those pipelines no longer meet the needs of the City of Colorado
Springs, and an additional infrastructure must be constructed. Colorado
Springs, along with the communities of Fountain and Security, are
pursuing a new pipeline, the Southern Delivery System from Pueblo
Reservoir to the Pikes Peak region. Colorado Springs is negotiating in
good faith with its neighbors and the Pueblo community to secure the
construction of that pipeline, and we are confident that with the long
history of cooperation and good will between the communities that the
development of the Colorado Springs Southern Delivery System will be a
reality. We trust that Congress will be supportive of our efforts to
insure that the Colorado Springs community has a stable and adequate
water supply both now and in the future.
To sum up, the State of Colorado has adequate water for its present
and future needs. If we are capable of managing the water supplies that
are apportioned to us by our various Compacts, we will be able to meet
the challenges of additional population and future droughts. However,
that cannot occur without improved management of existing storage and
the development of additional storage. The most efficient way to insure
that additional storage can be developed is to enlarge existing
facilities rather than confront the challenges of creating extensive
new storage. We would respectfully request that the Committee give
favorable consideration to any legislation proposed by Colorado to
permit the more efficient utilization of existing storage or the
enlargement of existing storage.
Again, we sincerely appreciate the Committee's willingness to take
time from your incredibly busy schedule to hold a field hearing here in
Colorado to hear from Colorado Springs and our friends and neighbors in
this fine State concerning our desperate need for more storage to meet
the challenges of the future.
Thank you very much.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. Next,
the Honorable Randy Thurston, Vice President of Pueblo City
Council.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RANDY THURSTON, VICE PRESIDENT,
PUEBLO CITY COUNCIL, PUEBLO, COLORADO
Mr. Thurston. Mr. Chairman, thank you and welcome to
Colorado.
As a representative from Pueblo, I am honored and pleased
to address the distinguished members of this Committee. We
welcome the opportunity to update the Committee on the advances
Pueblo has made in developing and utilizing water resources in
the region and to discuss the shared water concerns of our
constituents.
We, in southeastern Colorado, including the community of
Pueblo, recently reached a crossroads decision. Our choice was
either to continue to fight in Court, further depleting
resources, opportunities and expanding taxpayers' dollars in
Court battles, as well as understanding that there is no growth
during the periods of fighting and battles, or to unite and
reach consensus that benefits the needs of our citizens that
trust us to represent their interests.
Those benefits could include expanded water capacity in the
Pueblo Reservoir with a new concept of soft inflows. As long as
the enlargement is not there exclusively for future out of
transfers basin then we truly have a problem in southeastern
Colorado.
The guaranteed continuing flows in the Arkansas through the
region of the City of Pueblo, and the removal of the tamarack
trees along the Arkansas River, the simple fact that one of
those trees consumes 300 gallons a day of water is a major
issue that can solve a lot of the problems just in addressing
that.
The vehicle used by the Arkansas Basin stakeholders was the
creation of goals and principles signed in September of this
year. At least 90 percent of the population of the Basin is
represented by these stakeholders and we were very proud of
this document and what it means both now and in the future for
keeping the water basin, making water quality a priority,
instead of shoving it under the carpet for future generations
to clean up. As a foundation for continued communications and
solutions, the goals and principles have set direction for the
entire Arkansas Basin for its future.
We ask that state and Federal legislators support our
efforts and goals and principles during this time of
transition. I hope that as a parent that all the stakeholders
involved in developing these goals and principles have done
such by putting the larger interest of the region above their
own interest and have worked together to simply do what is
right to keep the Arkansas Basin in southeastern Colorado alive
and prosperous.
We want to cooperate with this Committee as a partner and
stakeholder in developing water solutions for this Basin, as
well as the entire State. It's in the same spirit of
cooperation we ask this Committee to respect and acknowledge
the issues and concerns of the citizens of southeastern
Colorado. These concerns include keeping the Arkansas Basin
alive, the Arkansas River alive, maintaining water quality and
ensuring the Arkansas Basin is not destroyed as a result of
ill-formed or insensitive decisions and should be based on
feedback from the most familiar and affected by the final
choices that will be made in the near future.
Pueblo and southeastern Colorado are pleased to participate
on the on-going discussions regarding the future of water
supplies in our State. The Pueblo City Council is optimistic
that these efforts will ultimately be a success and a win-win
result can soon be achieved.
As the governing municipality of the Pueblo Reservoir that
is dedicated to protecting and preserving the Arkansas River
Basin, we are a strong advocate of water storage, maintaining
water flows, improving water quality and maintaining a high
quality of life for our city's citizens. We come to the table
as partners to discuss and address the needs of the region,
determined to develop the solutions necessary to preserve
Colorado's heritage and future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thurston follows:]
Statement of Randy Thurston, Vice President,
City Council, Pueblo, Colorado
The severe drought conditions that struck Colorado and other
regions of the arid West in 2002 have made it clear that additional
water storage in the state, in combination with sensible growth
management, and increased water conservation and use efficiency, is
necessary to provide a reliable future water supply for the State's
increasing population and to meet competing demands for water. Regional
cooperation to identify and develop appropriate projects is required.
Reasonable mitigation of detrimental impacts will be necessary. In
southeastern Colorado, new efforts are being made on a regional basis,
to implement cooperative approaches to the complex issues and competing
interests implicated by new water storage projects. While it is too
early to determine whether these efforts will be successful, Pueblo
remains hopeful that through these and similar efforts, appropriate
balances can be struck to match the benefits of proposed water projects
with acceptable levels of local, environmental and other impacts.
I. PUEBLO/SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO
Pueblo is a community of approximately 105,000 people located on
the semi-arid plain in southeastern Colorado. Pueblo serves as the
medical, financial, retail and cultural center for 350,000 people from
the Continental Divide east to Kansas, and from the City of Fountain
south to the New Mexico border. Located at the confluence of the
Arkansas River and Fountain Creek, Pueblo has been an important trading
and population center for over 300 years. The Arkansas River has always
been an important part of the City, due to its prominent role in
commerce and industry, as a source of water for the community, and as
the peaceful riparian habitat enhancing the urban core of the City
adjacent to our City parks, river trails and nature center.
Water in Colorado is obviously a scarce and precious resource. In a
state where over 80% of the population is located on the eastern slope
of the Continental Divide and over 80% of the moisture is located on
the western slope of the Divide--getting the water to the people is
often a complicated and controversial task. Most of the moisture in
Colorado falls in the form of snow during the winter months. During the
warming days of spring, rivers and creeks quickly fill to capacity.
Storage of the peak spring runoff is crucial to the reliability of
water supplies in Colorado. Water storage can benefit municipal,
agricultural, and recreational interests, alike.
Pueblo and southeastern Colorado have been fortunate to benefit
from several Bureau of Reclamation storage and diversion projects.
These projects have brought water to thirsty Front Range communities
and farms, as well as providing needed water storage to the western
slope of Colorado. Before these projects, farmers working the fertile
soils in the region had water for the initial part of the growing
season, but not all of the growing season. The Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project, part of which is Pueblo Reservoir located less than 10 miles
upstream from Pueblo, was completed in 1975. Project facilities are
used for storage of both project and non-project water. In general, the
project brings surplus water from the western slope of Colorado to
southeastern Colorado. The project also includes western slope storage
facilities, such as Ruedi Reservoir.
11. ENLARGEMENT OF PUEBLO RESERVOIR
The recently proposed enlargement of Pueblo Reservoir well
illustrates the complexities and difficulties associated with new water
storage projects in Colorado. Even before the 2002 drought, Pueblo
Reservoir was the focus of efforts to increase water storage on the
Arkansas River. These efforts were, and continue to be, directed by the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and supported by the
Cities of Colorado Springs, Aurora, and other primarily municipal
interests. The Pueblo Board of Water Works also is a strong supporter
of the project. The Southeastern District anticipates that the Bureau
of Reclamation will also be a partner in this expansion effort.
While recognizing the value and need for additional water storage,
the Pueblo City Council has consistently voiced concerns with any
increase in the storage capacity of Pueblo Reservoir that results in
significant diminishment of the flow of the Arkansas River through the
City, located only a few miles below the dam. As a result, Pueblo
opposed (including in hearings held before this Subcommittee in March
2002) proposed federal legislation contemplating enlargement of water
storage space in Pueblo Reservoir, because the legislation did not
include enforceable mechanisms to protect reasonable minimum flows
through the City. Pueblo's concerns focused on the fact that, while the
lion's share of the benefits of the increased storage would accrue to
distantly located municipalities, the project's detrimental impacts
would most heavily burden Pueblo. These impacts include reductions in
flows that diminish the value of the River as an important and
irreplaceable amenity for the City and its residents, and impacts to
the City's on-going efforts in partnership with the Army Corps of
Engineers to restore riparian habitat and enhance river-related
recreation through Pueblo.
As a general matter, Pueblo agrees that increased utilization and
expansion of existing storage projects is preferable to the
construction of new projects. From a water supplier standpoint,
expansions can be accomplished more quickly, with less time and
resources expended on permitting efforts and at a lower cost per acre
foot of water storage than new projects.
Since Pueblo's testimony in 2002, several positive developments
have occurred. As an initial step, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, the
Southeastern District, and both the Lower and Upper Arkansas Valley
Water Conservancy Districts reached agreement on a set of common water-
related goals and principles that are intended to provide the general
framework for cooperative decisionmaking regarding Arkansas River
Valley water matters. These ``Arkansas River Water Preservation Goals
and Principles'' were finalized in September 2003. The City Councils of
Pueblo and Colorado Springs are working more closely together than ever
before on water issues, as a result, and Pueblo commends and recognizes
the new leadership in Colorado Springs that has facilitated this. While
Pueblo's on-going concerns with the proposed legislation relating to
Pueblo Reservoir have not yet been resolved, the Cities are working
hard to reach specific agreement on these and related issues that would
permit the legislation to go forward. The Pueblo City Council is
optimistic that these efforts will ultimately be successful and that a
``win-win'' result can soon be achieved.
Pueblo remains committed to pursuing an appropriate, cooperative
resolution of the issues that will allow for increased water storage
opportunities in Pueblo Reservoir to improve water supply reliability,
while protecting the interest of Pueblo and its residents in preserving
appropriate minimum flow levels in the Arkansas River through Pueblo.
Additional time is necessary, however, to allow the affected state
interests to develop an appropriate solution, and federal legislation
mandating specific actions in the advance of local agreement could
chill the new cooperation.
III. CONCLUSION
The proposed expansion of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project provides
an example of the complexities and difficulties associated with new
water storage projects in Colorado. Recognition of the competing uses
and values of water in an evolving Colorado and cooperation at the
regional and local levels is necessary for such projects to become a
reality. Federal action that would discourage such cooperation, or
which fails to recognize the necessity for a reasonable balance of the
various competing interests, will serve only to shift the focus of
discussion from problem-solving at the negotiating table, to the types
of legal and permitting wrangle that historically plagued projects like
Two Forks and Animas-La Plata.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Walcher, Executive Director of Colorado Department of
Natural Resources is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREG WALCHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Walcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being in Colorado and holding this hearing and for all of your
leadership on resource issues that matter so much in the United
States of the West. We appreciate you being here. And I'd
appreciate you starting out with pointing out some of the
similarities between our states and water and particularly in
the reality of the natural water being in one part of the State
and the population in another. That essentially ends the
similarities between our states and water as you probably know.
California has an unfortunate tendency to take our water and
send us its people and we wish it would stop both.
We have a serious issue in Colorado that the other
witnesses have already talked about and Congressmen Beauprez,
Tancredo and Udall mentioned as well. In Colorado, the issue is
always going to be about storage and conservation because in
this State, 80 percent of the water that we have comes in the
form of snow and so that means that in the natural situation
that in a span of about 2 months, it melts and leaves.
So in this State, we have to be able to either store that
water during the wet periods and use it during the dry periods
or we can't sustain life here. It also means that there will
always be discussion about the responsible use of that water to
make sure we're using it in the most efficient and effective
possible manner, so that all of the things that we can do to
create a really sincere movement toward better water
conservation in this State, we ought to be doing and we are
doing.
In terms of storage, it's a new era and new kind of debate
in our State than has been before because storage doesn't just
mean new reservoirs as others have already said. There are many
ways to store additional water. In Colorado, that means an on-
going effort to enlarge some existing reservoirs, either by
dredging out the bottom or enlarging the dams or both,
particularly in places where the politics were fought out years
ago and the reservoir is already there, that can be done.
It also means repair existing dams where the water level is
restricted and we have upwards of 100,000 acre feed of water
storage already built that we cannot take advantage of because
of restrictions on unsafe dams. We've made progress. We've
repaired more than 100,000 acre feed of dams already, so it's
an on-going effort, but it's a part of the storage that we need
as well.
We also are beginning to examine the prospects for
underground storage in Colorado which California has already
done to a large extent, and which we need to do as well. And
then finally, it means new storage in this State as well.
We're involved in the statewide water supply initiative
which is a year-and-a-half long process to do essentially what
Congressman Udall outlined, which is at the local level from
the ground up to identify with all of the different players at
the table the future water demands and needs for each basin and
to try and figure out solutions to supplying that. That's going
to result in an effort on the part of our State to build, I
suspect, dozens of small water storage facilities of one kind
or another, generally off the main stem of rivers and streams
where they can enhance the environment as well.
It's also enormously important to us, as part of our
responsibility to future generations that we do everything we
can to protect the sanctity of the interstate compacts that we
are a party to and we are especially grateful, in fact, for the
long-term positive working relationships we have developed with
many of the water leaders in California, leading toward the
publication of California's 4.4 Plan and the final signatures
on the quantification settlement agreement. We know that you
played a key role also in that, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate
your leadership there.
And finally, I want to mention one thing that gets in the
way in the discussion of water in Colorado very commonly and
that is the Endangered Species Act. I want to mention it
because I know from conversations we've had with Chairman Pombo
and others on the Full Committee that something that the
Resources Committee is struggling with. And it's a serious
issue because it complicates so many of the water discussions
in our State.
Public support for recovery and protection of endangered
species is overwhelming on its 30th anniversary, as you know.
But the debate so often has veered off of actually recovering
endangered species and into sort of sidebar issues about
controlling human activity.
Colorado has taken, as you probably know, a very different
approach to recovering species by actually recovering them in
the wild. We built the first state-owned native species
hatchery in America dedicated entirely to the production of
endangered fish and we have stocked back in the Colorado River
system hundreds of thousands of razorback suckers and bony-
tailed chubs and humpbacked chubs and Colorado pike minnow.
We're making huge progress in the recovery of the greenback cut
throat trout and boreal toads and other aquatic species so that
we can, in the end, get back to arguing about water for water's
sake which is recreation to us here in Colorado.
But there is something the Federal government could do to
help that process along and that is to do everything that you
can to insist that recovery goals be published on all of the
endangered species so we know where we're headed and we can
figure out where the light is at the end of the tunnel.
The Endangered Species Act does not require massive
rewrite. It doesn't require huge changes in thousand-page
bills, that if we had actual recovery goals for all of the
species like we now have on the Colorado River recovery
program, it would enable us to do a better job of recovering
species and dealing with water on the basis of the merits of
the water issues.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walcher follows:]
Statement of Greg Walcher, Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
I am Greg Walcher, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources.
Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to join you today to share with you
the State of Colorado's view on our water supplies and the efficient
use of this most precious resource. I thank you and your colleagues for
taking the time to visit our great State and to learn how we are
addressing issues related to water management.
With Colorado firmly in the grasp of an on-going drought, your
visit could not have been more timely. While late spring storms eased
the dramatic situation, the summer and fall brought continued harsh
conditions for water managers and policymakers. We still sit at the
heels of the worst drought on record.
Because Colorado is uniquely situated at the apex of eight major
water drainages, it has built its water conservation and supply
programs around these features. Our state is highly reliant on spring
runoff to fill our reservoirs, irrigate our fields, and bring water to
our thirsty metropolitan areas.
In order to meet the State's water needs, we must look to locally
driven solutions to this statewide issue. Clearly, we cannot assume
that West Slope water users will shoulder the entire burden created by
growth in other parts of the state. However, we must be willing to look
at novel answers to use and reuse of water currently in the system.
The State of Colorado, through the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, has started the process of working with local communities to
identify and develop their water needs. This program, called the
Statewide Water Supply Initiative, is the first comprehensive analysis
of locally based solutions to our statewide water issues. Unlike other
plans that have been offered, SWSI is built on the premise that a
coordinated effort, built upon local expertise, offers the best
opportunity to find new and different answers to the age-old question
of water use.
The project started in June of this year and is scheduled for
completion in November of 2004. During this time, my staff will have
held public meetings in each river basin, contacted hundreds of local
water authorities and reviewed thousands of documents in order to
provide a forum aimed at developing a common understanding of existing
water supplies, future water supply needs and demands throughout
Colorado and possible means of meeting those needs.
Because Colorado is so diverse in its water needs, it is clear that
the only way to address this statewide issue is to begin from the
bottom up. As a sidebar, I would like to thank Rick Brown of the
Colorado Water Conservation Board for his efforts guiding the SWSI
process.
Being a ``West-Sloper'' myself, I am sensitive to the needs of
Western Slope towns, farms and ranches. There is no question that the
time has come for a more comprehensive approach like the one being
offered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
While there is no question that Colorado must advance water storage
and delivery across the state, it is important to note that the federal
government holds a very important key to efficiently managing our
State's water resources.
The Endangered Species Act passed with the best of intentions three
decades ago. However, in the intervening years, the Act has been used
more and more as a tool to control and inhibit human activities as
opposed to securing the future of the species it was intended to
protect.
Colorado has taken a bold step in advancing species conservation on
the state level. We built and operate the first facility dedicated to
the conservation of threatened and endangered aquatic animals. This
facility, located in Alamosa, Colorado, is a testament to Colorado's
desire to move beyond the political squabbles that have historically
put a stranglehold on species conservation and to focus on recovering
threatened and endangered species.
In order to take the next step in our forward-looking program, the
federal government, through the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, must be willing to publish static and responsible recovery
goals. The Colorado River Program is an example of the State's ability
to step in on behalf of wildlife, here there are four endangered fish,
and make significant headway through the use of leadership and
cooperation. However, we cannot efficiently utilize our water resources
without a level of certainty on how threatened and endangered species
will be treated. Reasonable recovery goals responsive to the resource
will allow us to do that.
Mr. Chairman, all of this work will be for nothing if Colorado is
not able to protect its share of Colorado River water. Over the past
five years, I and my staff have worked with the Department of the
Interior and other Colorado River states to develop a framework under
which Colorado's share of the Colorado River would be better-protected.
With the signing of the QSA in October, the Colorado River basin states
appear to be on track to live within the Colorado River Compact
requirements. I am pleased that this peace has been secured and would
like to thank Secretary Norton and her staff for their hard work.
Earlier this month, the Colorado Water Conservation Board finished
a feasibility study aimed at determining whether Colorado can use its
share of the Colorado River in a way that is economically practical.
The feasibility study concluded that such a project is possible with
the right mix of users and the financial will to see it through. This
novel analysis is just the type of solution that allows us to put the
necessary tools on the table.
Colorado's water issues are not unique, but are shared across the
western United States. For the better part of four years, most of the
region has seen below normal precipitation. While we cannot dwell on
the impacts of the current drought, it is important to recognize that
we can plan better for the next time Mother Nature throws us a
curveball. For Colorado that means increased storage, in the form of
expanding existing reservoirs and building new ones, increased
efficient use of ground water sources and a sincere movement toward
water conservation. Certainly no single program can address the
management issues present in our state, but by protecting the water to
which we are entitled, and by using that resource wisely, Colorado can
protect our valued way of life and continue the State's economic
prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I thank you and your
colleagues for the opportunity to address you today and will answer
questions the committee might have.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Next is Mr. Peter Binney, the Utilities Director, Aurora,
Colorado. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETER BINNEY, UTILITIES DIRECTOR,
AURORA, COLORADO
Mr. Binney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aurora is a growing
municipality of nearly 300,000 people in the eastern Denver
metropolitan area. We operate the third largest municipal water
system in the State. Aurora is strategically located to be home
to more than 500,000 people in the next 25 years and
contributes significantly to the vitality and economic well-
being of the State of Colorado.
Aurora represents an important case study in how the State
of Colorado could potentially respond to the forecasted growth
of the Front Range population by 3,500,000 people over the next
60 years. The recently completed Big Straw Study has projected
that the Front Range corridor between Pueblo and Fort Collins,
including the Denver metropolitan area, will have to develop an
additional 784,000 acre feed to meet its municipal water needs
and as a water manager, a rule of thumb would suggest that that
will require 1.5 to 2 million acre feed of additional storage
beyond what we have at the moment.
Aurora is an important subset of those demands and will
develop new sources of water totaling approximately 85,000 acre
feed by the Year 2060. This represents a doubling of our
current water supply system. Many of these projects will have
to be completed in the next 10 to 25 years to provide an
adequate safe and reliable water supply to these growing
communities. Time is of the essence. These new water sources
must be developed in a cooperative, timely and systematic
manner while respecting the social, environmental and
institutional values that are embraced by all the citizens in
the State of Colorado.
The conundrum that we face lies in this forecasted growth
in population and resulting water demands along the Front
Range. Our existing infrastructure of reservoirs, pipes, pumps
and treatment plants are capable of meeting our near-term
needs. They are not, however, adequate for meeting these
forecasted demands and must be expanded significantly.
The State of Colorado does not have a ``Panacea Project''
that can miraculously be turned on to meet the needs we expect
to have in the Year 2060, let alone in the Year 2010. We do not
have untapped pots of water that provide an effective or easy
solution to our forecasted demands. We must therefore face the
hard decisions of changing the way we use water in the State
and recognize that we have to move beyond the ``Man over
Nature'' phase of the early 20th century. We are now in a
tradeoff phase of water management in the State of Colorado and
we have to reallocate our uses at this time. We will have to
bring water from remote geographic areas into the Front Range.
We must trade some of our established and appropriated uses of
water for those that will meet our needs in the future. And
these needs will not only be for the communities of Beulah,
Julesburg and Mr. Aurora. They also must include the
environmental and ecosystem protection that we embrace:
recreational, agricultural and other non-consumptive uses as
well.
The State of Colorado must accept that new water supplies
will move from the West Slope across the Continental Divide as
well as other river basins into the front range and that farms
and cities will work more cooperatively than they have in the
past, either through permanent transfers of agricultural water
or as we're doing in the Arkansas Basin on an interruptable
supply basis. The cities must accept that these projects will
be built in a cooperative and participative way and that
multiple benefits include mitigation and enhancement projects
will be a part of future water supply programs. These are
expected to significantly increase the cost to urban water
users. The economic vitality of the Front Range communities
should not be seen as a threat to other parts of the State or
to traditional water users, but rather as the opportunity to
effectively guide the State's decisions on water management and
policy.
The recent defeat of Referendum A illustrated the concern
that Coloradans have over the methods used by water providers
and private interests, as well as the state and Federal
agencies, in meeting these changing needs for water across the
State.
Unfortunately, the Referendum A debate again polarized
opinions and positions reminiscent of past water wars. I
believe that what did emerge though was a better understanding
that pragmatic and effective solutions need to be identified.
No ``blank checks'' will be written. Only then can the public
appreciate and make informed decisions on what the future
plumbing systems will look like, how they can be enlarged, how
they can be rehabilitated, and how they can be operated to
benefit other communities while also protecting our
environment. And all of this must happen in an economic and
timely manner.
I would suggest to you that engineers, hydrologists and
managers of the water systems across the State have a sound
appreciation of the technical solutions that could be
implemented in the next 60 years. In my written testimony, I
have identified many of the strategies that will be employed by
the City of Aurora to meet these growing needs.
I would also suggest to you that systems like Aurora's are
capable of financing the more than $1 billion in capital
improvements we have forecasted that we would need in the next
10 to 12 years. What exacerbates the implementation of this
program are governance, political, regulatory and institutional
issues. I'd also draw your attention to the de facto conflict
resolution process that water agencies must navigate to make
something happen.
While the cities and urban water needs cannot be satisfied
by riding roughshod over the needs of others, we collectively
do not benefit from guerilla warfare tactics, obstructionism
and an inability to make commitments to meet our future water
needs.
Our long-term solutions are in storing water in enlarged
and new reservoirs, in pumping water from geographically remote
areas or in changing the ways we use water currently in the
Arkansas and South Flat River Basins. Those changes and ways we
use water could come from transfers or leases of agricultural
water, reclamation of potable water from treated effluent,
conservation and demand management, conjunctive uses of surface
and ground waters or water system integration.
We, as a State, cannot accept the ``do nothing''
alternative and we must successfully enlarge our water supply
infrastructure needed for the future and do that in a manner
that is respectful of the needs of all responsible
stakeholders. To do otherwise is disingenuous. It wastes time
in chasing ``paper water'' or illusory solutions and sets the
State toward a position where it will deal with this need in a
time of crisis rather than solving it in a programmatic and
participative approach that can benefit the State as a whole.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Binney follows:]
Statement of Peter D. Binney, P.E., Director of Utilities,
City of Aurora, Colorado
INTRODUCTION
My name is Peter D. Binney. I am the Director of Utilities for the
City of Aurora, Colorado. Aurora is a growing municipality of nearly
300,000 people in the eastern Denver metropolitan area and operates the
third largest municipal water system in the State. Aurora is
strategically located to be home to more than 500,000 people in the
next 25 years and to contribute significantly to the vitality and
economic well-being of the State of Colorado.
Aurora represents an important case study in how the State of
Colorado could potentially respond to the forecasted growth of the
Front Range population by 3,500,000 people in the next 60 years. The
recently completed Colorado River Return Reconnaissance Study, 2003 has
projected that the Front Range Corridor between Pueblo and Fort
Collins, including the Aurora, Denver and Colorado Springs metropolitan
areas, must develop an additional 784,000 acre-feet of water in the
next six decades. Aurora is an important subset of those demands and
will develop new sources of water totaling approximately 85,000 acre-
feet by the year 2060. Many of these projects must be completed in the
next 10--25 years to provide an adequate, safe and reliable water
supply to these growing communities. These new water sources must be
developed in a cooperative, timely and systematic manner while
respecting the social, environmental and institutional values that are
embraced by all the citizens of Colorado.
The conundrum the State of Colorado is facing lies in this
forecasted growth in population and resulting water demands along the
Front Range. Our existing infrastructure of reservoirs, pipes, pumps
and treatment plants are capable of meeting our current, or near-term,
needs for water. They are not, however, adequate for meeting these
forecasted needs and must be expanded significantly.
The State of Colorado does not have a ``Panacea Project'' that can
miraculously be turned on to meet the needs we expect to have in the
Year 2060, let alone in the Year 2010. We do not have untapped pots of
water that provide an effective or easy solution to our forecasted
demands. We must therefore make the hard decisions of changing the way
we use water in the state and recognize we have moved beyond the ``Man
over Nature'' phase of the early 20th century and we are now in a phase
of reallocating or trading off the finite bucket of water we can use to
meet the State's water needs. We must bring water from remote
geographic areas, or we must trade some of our established and
appropriated uses of water for those that will meet our needs in the
future. These needs are not only municipal water uses across the State
from Beulah to Julesburg to Aurora. They also include needs for
environmental and ecosystem protection, recreational, agricultural and
other non-consumptive uses that our citizens may embrace.
The State of Colorado must accept that new water supplies will move
from the West Slope across the Continental Divide as well as other
river basins and either permanently, or on an interruptible basis, from
agricultural uses. The cities must accept that these projects will be
built in a cooperative and participative way and that multiple benefits
including mitigation and enhancement projects will be included. These
are expected to significantly increase the costs to urban water users.
The economic vitality of the Front Range communities should be seen not
as a threat to other parts of the State or to traditional water users
but rather as the opportunity to effectively guide the State's
decisions on water management and policy.
The recent defeat of Referendum A illustrated the concern that
Coloradoans have over the methods used by water providers and private
interests, as well as state and federal agencies, in meeting the
changing needs for water across the State. The Referendum A debate
again polarized opinions and positions reminiscent of past water wars.
I believe what did emerge though, was a better understanding that
pragmatic and effective solutions need to be identified. No ``blank
checks'' will be written. Only then can the public appreciate and make
informed decisions on what the future plumbing system will look like,
how it can be enlarged, and how it can be operated to benefit other
communities while also protecting our environment. And all of this has
to happen in an economic and timely manner.
I would suggest to you that the engineers, hydrologists and
managers of the water systems across the State have a sound
appreciation of the range of technical solutions that could be
implemented. In my written testimony, I have identified many of the
strategies that will be employed by the City of Aurora to meet its
identified needs. I would also suggest to you that systems like
Aurora's are capable of financing the more than one billion dollars in
capital improvements we have identified that need to be built in the
next 10--12 years. What exacerbates the implementation of this program
are governance, political, regulatory and institutional issues and the
de facto conflict resolution process that local water agencies must
navigate to make something happen.
While the cities and urban water needs cannot be satisfied by
riding roughshod over the needs of others, we collectively do not
benefit from guerilla warfare tactics, obstructionism and an inability
to make commitments to meet our future needs.
Our long-term solutions are in storing water in enlarged and new
reservoirs, in pumping water from geographically remote areas or in
changing the ways we use water currently in the Arkansas and South
Platte River basins. Those changes in ways we use water could come from
transfers or leases of agricultural water, reclamation of potable water
from treated effluent, conservation and demand management, conjunctive
uses of surface and ground waters or water system integration.
We, as a State, cannot accept the ``Do Nothing'' alternative and
must successfully enlarge the water supply infrastructure needed for
the future and do that in a manner that is respectful of the needs of
all responsible stakeholders. To do otherwise is disingenuous, it
wastes time in chasing ``paper water'' or illusory solutions and sets
the State towards a position where it will deal with this need in a
time of crisis rather than solving it in a programmatic and
participative approach that can benefit the State as a whole.
(Submitted written background material)
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLIES
As with many of the growing cities in the West, Aurora has been
developing its water supply systems since the early 1950's and must
develop its water supplies from the relatively junior water rights and
sources left after more than 100 years of water development by
agriculture and the older cities and industries. These available water
sources are typically less reliable during dry years (and therefore
require proportionately larger reservoirs to provide reliable sources
of water), are geographically remote from the cities, and require major
investments to develop. In fact, water rights in the South Platte River
basin with priority dates of later than 1876 are typically considered
unreliable for meeting municipal water demands without major reservoirs
being available to buffer hydrologic uncertainty.
In developing its water rights portfolio, the City of Aurora has
used many of the practices that will be representative of future water
programs. Key components of the City's Water System include:
75% of the City's water has been developed by
transferring senior agricultural water rights for municipal use;
approximately 50% of the City's water has been developed
by transferring water from the Arkansas and Colorado River basins into
the South Platte River basin;
approximately 80% of the City's water supplies result
from snowmelt between May 1 and July 31 and must be stored in
reservoirs for delivery to the City in other months or for carryover to
drier years;
the City currently uses close to 80% of its reusable
return flows through water trades, augmentation, irrigation of parks
and open spaces, exchanges and leases;
Aurora has developed and implemented an industry-leading
Water Conservation Program that has reduced municipal water demands by
more than 30% from Year 2000 levels, but that has come at a cost of
higher water rates and impacts on the environment in the City;
Aurora has entered into numerous Intergovernmental
Agreements or contracts with the federal government, counties, water
providers and water conservation districts to develop water by
efficiently using existing infrastructure and to mitigate the impacts
of Aurora's water developments;
Aurora has signed agreements with Arkansas Valley
interests that preclude future permanent transfers of agricultural
water for a 40-year period, significantly subsidize the cost to local
water users for reimbursement to the federal government for Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project, provide a reliable mechanism for dry-year leasing of
agricultural water without disrupting the agricultural economy and
makes substantial payments to the local water district to address in-
basin water needs;
Aurora is developing an Integrated Resource Plan for the
development of an additional 85,000 acre-feet per year of water. This
Plan to double the size of the Water System will emphasize the
development of water sources through cooperative programs with farms
and other parts of the State and will incrementally add onto the core
physical infrastructure built over the last 50 years; and
Aurora has identified close to one billion dollars in
infrastructure and water supply development needs in the next decade
and has instituted rate and tap fee increases to generate the necessary
funds from its current and future customers. New customers on the
Aurora Water System now pay 56% more for a tap than they did two years
ago and water rates have increased at 15% per year. These increases do
not include additional drought surcharges or burdensome tiered pricing
structures of nearly 400% for higher water users. No subsidies are
requested from the state or federal government and Aurora is prepared
to pay for its own programs, if needed.
Aurora is now planning the next phases of its long-term water
acquisition program.
IMPACTS OF ONGOING DROUGHT
The effects of the ongoing drought are still pronounced and
continue its adverse effects on cities, farmers and the environment.
Regional drought conditions are not ameliorating across the Western
United States and unless there is a substantial change in forecasted
weather patterns, the city will face its third year of highly
restrictive water uses in 2004. The City of Aurora's storage levels in
its reservoirs was reduced to 26% of capacity in the spring of 2003 but
will have recovered to 40% of capacity in the spring of 2004. A
seasonal minimum reservoir capacity of 60% is considered acceptable for
Aurora's municipal water system. This recovery in reservoir levels was
not a result of higher water flows in the streams but the product of
exceedingly high levels of water conservation, the purchase of water
rights, and very successful development of interruptible supplies
through short-term leases of agricultural and industrial water.
In 2003, Aurorans conserved aggressively and used 30% less water
than they did in Year 2000. A comprehensive Water Conservation and
Water Management Plan has guided our customers in all aspects of their
water use from toilet flushing practices to water glasses in
restaurants to limiting the sizes of lawns. Aurora's water customers
did also pay a marginal rate of $2,885 per acre-foot per year for
watering larger lawns in the City. This economic disparity between
water used for some agricultural uses at a rate of less than $100 per
acre-foot per year is one of the major paradoxes that Colorado's water
managers and policymakers will have to address.
Aurora also developed other water sources to increase the
robustness of its current water supply system and to aid in drought
recovery. The Cities of Thornton and Aurora negotiated the sale of
Thornton's Upper South Platte water rights to Aurora. This yields 7,146
acre-feet per year to Aurora while return flow obligations from Aurora
replace that water for Thornton's needs. Aurora paid more than
$51,000,000 through the sale of revenue bonds issued through the City's
Water Enterprise Fund. Additionally, Aurora, the Southeast Colorado
Water Conservancy District and Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy
District entered into long-term Intergovernmental Agreements that
should settle twenty years of often acrimonious and unproductive
dispute. Details of these agreements are described later but of
significance include the potential for periodic dry year leasing of
agricultural water rights that assist in drought recovery but do not
require permanent transfers from agricultural water uses.
This ongoing drought has rudely reminded all water users (including
recreationists and environmentalists) that we live in a semi-arid
climate and in a region that is periodically exposed to severe and
sustained drought conditions. The last century was one of the most
benign climatic periods we have seen in the last 2,000 years, so many
of our policies and presumptions about water and its reliability have
been formed in a time of surplus. It is not prudent, nor is it
responsible, to only construct new projects or adapt our emerging water
policies every few decades, as we have been prone to do. Inevitably,
our needs change or available capacity in existing infrastructure is
absorbed and we place ourselves behind the proverbial ``eight ball.''
The game of billiards is not often won if we have to rely on trick
shots too often.
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
The State has seen numerous proposals in recent decades to
structurally develop major new water projects. It has been estimated
that more than $100 million in engineering and legal fees has been
spent in the last decade alone on various proposals, but not one gallon
of water has been developed from most of these efforts. Something
critical has been missing from this approach to water supply planning.
The packaging or public/ institutional acceptability of the proposals
has been flawed in some fatal way.
The challenge as we reformat our approach for the future is to find
the balance between past and future water uses and different geographic
areas of the state that are either supply-rich or demand-rich.
Unfortunately, these attributes are often mutually exclusive and so
tradeoffs of current uses or physical delivery of new water supplies to
those areas with additional water needs will have to occur. Or, we will
have to implement elegant cooperative programs, whether the farms,
cities and environment, to establish a new, balanced and sustainable
equilibrium.
The bottom line for water managers and policymakers is that no one
strategy is likely to meet their future water needs so an integrated
approach that embraces demand management, new source development and
basin of origin mitigation and environmental protection will be
required. We do not believe these requirements should be codified but
rather result from negotiation between the parties with State
Government providing an arbitration (through Water Courts and
otherwise) or facilitation role. If those negotiations are
unsuccessful, no water project will proceed.
A component of future water sources will be met through more
efficient use of existing water rights or infrastructure as described
in the following section. Those efficiency strategies will be
supplemented by new source strategies that could include the following
approaches.
Unappropriated and Developable Junior Surface Water Rights
Hydrologists recognize that some water is available for development
at or near the points where our major rivers leave the State. It was
this recognition that led to the recently completed studies of the Big
Straw concept. Certainly, a technologist can plan massive pump back
systems from the Colorado River at the Utah State line, from the lower
Arkansas River downstream from La Junta and from the lower South Platte
River downstream from Julesburg. But the Big Straw report did start
quantifying the multi-billion dollar costs and major environmental
hurdles that are associated with these projects. The report does,
however, stimulate us to consider other more reasonable alternatives
including mid-basin reservoirs and re-operation or reallocation of
water supplies that are currently bypassing the emerging demand centers
on their way to downstream decreed water users. Rather than the heroic
home run hits of Stateline pump back systems it is certainly reasonable
to incorporate more modest proposals, such as Aurora's Camp Hale pump
back project or Colorado Springs' Southern Delivery System. It is also
reasonable to further evaluate the Green Mountain Pump back, Blue Mesa
Pump back and Reudi Pump back alternatives in long-range planning.
New Reservoir Storage
A fundamental component of all future water supply programs will be
the addition of new reservoir storage. The strategic location of new
reservoirs and operational interconnection with existing delivery
systems can capture wet year or high spring runoff flows, be used to
substitute water releases from existing reservoirs for downstream water
needs while allowing higher utility of those upper basin reservoirs for
future uses, enhance return flows for Interstate Compact and
environmental uses, and stage water deliveries so current delivery
systems can be used more efficiently.
Agricultural Water Rights
Aurora is currently participating in, and has plans to expand,
cooperative farm-city programs with willing agricultural water users as
a part of its long-term water management programs. When a willing
buyer-seller or lessor-lessee partnership can be developed, Aurora
invites discussion on identifying whether it is feasible to enter into
a relationship that would benefit both parties. We are willing to
discuss opportunities with the Colorado Farm Bureau, as well as ditch
companies or senior water rights holders, and to identify appropriate
terms of mitigation projects that would allow a water project to
proceed.
Agricultural water uses represent the largest consumer of water in
the State with over 14 million acre-feet of irrigation annually. Of the
State's overall water uses, 5.5 million acre-feet or 93% of the State's
total water consumption is used by agriculture. Under the hypothetical
assumption that all the Front Range's future consumptive water needs
(55% of 784,000 acre-feet or 430,000 acre-feet) were to be met by
transfers from agriculture, then the State would still have 5.1 million
acre-feet or 86% of the States' water available for irrigation.
Colorado will still predominantly be an agricultural water-using state.
It is possible that the effects of agricultural transfers will be
concentrated closer to the emerging demand centers so localized effects
of transfers will have to be carefully evaluated. It is unlikely that
the southwestern or northwestern areas of the State will be involved in
any future programs to meet the emerging water needs of the Front
Range.
Denver Basin Aquifers
These large non-tributary and non-renewable aquifers underlying
much of the Front Range are an important water resource that must be
managed and developed in an integrated and sustainable manner. Prior
overestimates of the aquifers' capacity have resulted in over pumping
and declines of water tables exceeding thirty feet per year. While more
than 99% of the theoretically recoverable water is still in the
aquifers, the cost of extracting that nonrenewable resource is
escalating and will require groundwater dependent users to develop
alternative sources or conjunctive use water systems. The costs of this
infrastructure will exceed one billion dollars and a reliable and
sustainable surface water source must still be identified and secured.
PROMOTING MORE EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER
RIGHTS
Past water development projects have essentially used all the
reliable yields in streams that flow to the Front Range. Any new water
development programs bringing water from other river basins will likely
have to be integrated into the infrastructure and operations of current
users including the Colorado Big Thompson Project, Denver Water,
Aurora, Colorado Springs and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. New water
projects could most likely deliver new water for interconnection to
these existing systems and then redistribute water along the Front
Range to individual customers. The physical reality of the State's
topography and past water development practices along the Continental
Divide must be considered by those who are responsible for planning and
implementing future solutions.
It is envisaged that an integrated water management plan meeting
the needs of the growing cities will include at least the following.
Water Conservation
A benefit of the ongoing severe drought conditions is the
development and broad implementation of highly restrictive water use
programs not seen in the Front Range since the 1950's drought. This
reminder that we live in a semi-arid climate has reinforced an ethic of
responsible water stewardship in Front Range cities that, while widely
practiced in the past, had not been codified to the extent now in
practice. It is expected that these benchmarks of water use will be a
part of water utility operations in the future. Certainly, the
literature describing effective water conservation programs will be
updated to reflect the beneficial performance of these programs in arid
climate areas.
This ethic of wise water stewardship in the cities results in
higher utility of the existing investments in water development and
also reduces the rate of increase in which new water supplies must be
developed.
Water Reclamation
The treatment of municipal sewage so it can be used for outdoor
irrigation or, with enhanced tertiary treatment, for indirect potable
use are expected to be important components for future water supply
plans for Front Range communities. There are many examples where non-
potable reclamation is occurring in Colorado Springs, Aurora, Denver
and the South Metro area. While the development of these programs are
an advantage to a particular community, they do reduce the return flows
to streams and so the environmental impacts and effects on downstream
water users who have relied on these discharges must be assessed
against the impacts on new source water development.
More Effective Use of Federal Projects
The City of Aurora has developed its water rights in the Arkansas
River basin in part through creative and beneficial operating
strategies that use the federal Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. While
Aurora is not a Project Participant and is not represented on the
governing body of that Project, annual payments made to the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation and to local agencies will represent nearly 50% of the
local cost reimbursement share when the federal debt is repaid.
Aurora's participation effectively halves the cost of local farmers,
the City of Colorado Springs and Pueblo and others for the benefits of
using this federal project.
Transferred agricultural water rights are exchanged upstream to an
existing point of diversion on the Arkansas River to the South Platte
River basin for delivery to the City. These exchanges are made only
when there is no adverse impact to Project participants and indeed a
10% premium in delivered water is made to other in-basin users for
every acre-foot of water delivered to Aurora. Additionally, Aurora will
pay $21 million to the local water district to allow local solutions to
local water problems.
Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Development
Many newer water utilities and districts have relied on the
groundwater resources underlying much of the Front Range in the Denver
Basin aquifers. The recently completed South Metro investigations have
identified the finite nature of those aquifers and estimated the cost
of developing sustainable water sources to supplement the use of
groundwater in a conjunctive use approach. The combination of surface
water and groundwater resources in a conjunctive use program will allow
efficient use of available local water supplies although one resource
will not be effective without the other.
Rehabilitated Storage Reservoirs
The State of Colorado has cataloged those reservoirs where storage
capacity is limited because of dam safety issues. Selective repairs to
these dams can be an important water supply component with typically
limited environmental impacts.
Water System Integration and Consolidation of Water Development
An economy-of-scale must be achieved before a significant water
development project becomes feasible. Many of Colorado's current water
systems are tied to local jurisdictions and individual cities or
districts still fiercely voice their independence and need for
autonomous control of their water systems. There will be little
progress made in solving the major water needs of these growing cities
until a new regional governance model is initiated. Denver Water
followed this model when they became the contract provider of water for
more than 50 suburban contracts. It was also the realization of this
factor that allowed other metropolitan areas, such as Tampa and Las
Vegas, to move beyond their previously balkanized, divisive and
ineffectual approaches to meeting growing urban water needs. It has
been proposed as a solution for the needs of the South Metro Denver
area as they respond to the major capital requirements of developing a
reliable and renewable water supply system to supplement their use of
diminishing groundwater supplies. It is also seen as a possible role
for Aurora as they develop their future water sources.
Appropriation Doctrine Identifies Standards of Developing New Water
Sources
The State of Colorado's Appropriation Doctrine codifies and
protects the property right nature of a water right and allows for the
transfer of existing water uses to the extent that no other senior
water rights holders are injured by that action. The State's Water
Courts and legal system are diligent in assuring that the
redistribution of water through this process does not cause injury and
protects other values including in-stream flows. Additional tests
applied by the Water Courts include the required demonstration that a
water right can and will be developed--this requires that the applicant
can secure all local, state and federal permits.
The numerous overlapping regulatory checks and balances as well as
the rigor of the financial markets minimizes, if not prevents, the
speculative or damaging impacts of future water projects. Indeed, there
are many who would suggest that this multi-layered oversight has
crippled the ability of sound and needed projects from proceeding and
not just preventing the infeasible or poorly considered projects from
happening.
CONCLUSIONS
The State of Colorado is forecasting a doubling of its population
in the next fifty years with much of that growth occurring in Front
Range cities between Pueblo and Fort Collins and not just the Aurora-
Denver metropolitan area. This population growth will require the
development of major new water infrastructure and require very
effective uses of water in the cities as water is delivered from other
river basins or transferred, temporarily or permanently, from current
water uses. This development and reallocation of the State's water must
occur in a respectful and collaborative manner that recognizes the
needs of all responsible stakeholders. But the result of this process
should be the structured and systematic development of the
infrastructure that will deliver water to the cities while ensuring
adequate water for other users across the state and for ecosystems and
the environment.
An integrated program should come from local water agencies as they
identify the infrastructure and operational needs of their water
systems. State and federal governments should work cooperatively with
the water agencies to facilitate the decisionmaking process and
represent the interests of all responsible stakeholders who may also
have an interest or concern about proposed projects.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. It's my privilege in chairing this
Committee, I go around the country and we discuss with many
different folks and regions about difficulties that we're
having with water, not just the Colorado River, obviously,
which is certainly very significant here in the West, but the
Rio Grande in the South and the Colombia in the Pacific
Northwest.
There's problems with water throughout the country,
especially in the West, but not just in the West. And one of
those issues, of course, is the Arkansas River and the
difficulties that Colorado and Kansas have had well over a 100
years in litigation and the rest that has been going on.
As a matter of fact, we've had some hearings in Washington
that Mr. Hefley and Mr. Moran have both attended--and Mr. Moran
from Kansas and Mr. Hefley, a great member of Congress from
your State of Colorado, are concerned about this issue of
enlarging Pueblo Reservoir. And I'm going to ask this question
for Mayor Rivera and Councilman Thurston, are you
communicating, as you move forward on the concept of enlarging
the reservoir and using, I'm sure, good science and engineering
and so forth to resolve these outstanding issues, are you
staying in contact with our friends from Kansas that apparently
are worried and share their worries with us, that the
enlargement may affect the Arkansas compact, and what's your
feeling?
Is it--will the enlargement of that reservoir in any way
affect the compact or the agreements that have been litigated
over the years? And I'll start with you, Mayor, and Councilman
Thurston.
Mr. Rivera. Well, Mr. Chairman, we've been in regular
contact with the Representatives from Kansas and no, we don't
believe that the enlargement of Pueblo Reservoir will impact
the compact agreements already settled to at all.
And in addition to our big dialog with Kansas, we have a
good dialog with our neighbors to the south. The reservoir is
in their city or close by. Water stored behind the dam is water
that was acquired by Colorado Springs that's good to go and
we're working with them cooperatively so we can have solution
that benefits both our communities.
Mr. Calvert. Councilman?
Mr. Thurston. I will echo Mayor Rivera's comments as far as
the situation with Kansas and feeling that it won't have a
negative impact and the fact that we're very pleased in Pueblo.
Our Council has been working with the Colorado Springs
Council. This is the first time probably in 40 years or beyond
that the two Councils have really sat down in earnest and
really said let's look at the region as a whole instead of what
our interests are and what their interests are. And taking the
responsible role of let's just do what's right.
Let's really look at southeastern Colorado where we're both
located as our responsibility as big brothers to find solutions
and have that cooperative working.
So again, I want to commend my friends in Colorado Springs
and their efforts to cooperate in that dialog with us.
Mr. Calvert. Great.
Mr. Walcher, you mentioned that Colorado is undertaking a
state water supply initiative. Will this water initiative
include movement of Western Slope water to Front Range?
Mr. Walcher. The statewide water supply initiative, Mr.
Chairman, is an analysis of all who have thought about water
storage proposals over the last few generations, which there
are literally hundreds of on the books, actually very few of
those involve any trans-mountain diversion, but there are
hundreds and hundreds of places, sites where from a geologic
point of view, have been identified as potential water storage
areas.
This project is an attempt to figure out, I guess, which of
those are more feasible in the modern world--which is to say
where there is an actual water right available, an actual
proponent and beneficiary of the water and, perhaps most
importantly, where there is public support for it. So at the
grass roots level, it's a series of dozens and dozens of
meetings in every single basin of the State with all of the
different players from both sides of the issues at the table
trying to figure out what the future demands are in that basin
and what the future potential storage sites are that they might
support and that are feasible. Once they get there, they will
have narrowed a list of 707 potential storage sites down to
some reasonable number that we can go to work on and it
involves new storage in every single basin of the State.
Mr. Calvert. Maybe I can ask this for the entire panel here
today because apparently I understand the emotion of moving
water from one region of the State to the next. I run into that
quite often. How do you propose to resolve Western Slope Front
Range trans-basin water issues? I mean I know this State has
been discussing it for some time, but I'd like Mr. Binney to
add to this discussion.
How would you propose that?
Mr. Binney. First off, I'd like to say that if the West
Slope is not a part of the Front Range solution, then we'll
have to meet our needs in either the Arkansas or the South
Platte Basin. I hope that we're thinking a little more broadly
than that and that we'll be able to look at all of the State's
resources.
Let me give you, as an example, a project that we're
involved in with Colorado Springs and with Western Slope
interests. This is a project where we're looking to develop
conditional water rights that we have in the Eagle Valley.
We reached an agreement with West Slope interests about 10
years ago that would leave a third of that project's water
supply for West Slope water needs rather than asserting our
legal rights that were available to Colorado Springs and to
Aurora.
We came to an agreement where a third was going to be an
accommodation where we would leave water in the West Slope to
meet recreational, municipal, in-stream needs while we were
moving ahead with trans-Basin diversions.
I think that's representative of the types of mitigation
projects that Front Range cities are prepared to undertake to
address some of these emotional and political needs that you're
suggesting.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Udall?
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. If I might, I'd like to
follow-up on the Pueblo-Colorado Springs discussion we're
having and hopefully leave a little bit of time to talk with
Mr. Binney about what I felt was very interesting in hearing
your testimony about the money you're prepared to bring to the
table over the long term.
You mentioned, both of you, in the end of your testimony
that you hope that the Congress will, number one, not get in
the way of what you're trying to accomplish, and number two,
that we would help you.
Could you elaborate just a little bit more, each of you, as
to what that would involve?
Mr. Rivera. Well, in Colorado and in Colorado Springs we
are very concerned about the doctrine of prior appropriation.
We think it's important to realize that there are state water
rights issues that really are dealt with on a local level and
while we want Federal legislation to at least study the
expansion of Pueblo Reservoir and Turquoise Reservoir, it comes
to the point where that legislation passes and there is an
expansion.
We really don't think there should be anything written in
the legislation that overrides state water rights and we think
that's critical. We need your help, but we don't want you
stepping on what we do here locally. That's very critical to
us.
Mr. Calvert. We've never heard that before.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. Vice President Thurston, do you have----
Mr. Thurston. We work very diligently on these goals and
principles and I would like to leave each one of you a copy of
that, so that you can see where we're going. And we're just
really saying that the Federal legislation be sensitive to
those goals and principles and it really is through the voice
of the people that these principles were generated and also in
understanding that the Arkansas Basin is over-appropriated.
Again, when we're looking at solutions, the solution is not
going to an over-appropriated basin, but again when we're
looking at the under-appropriation of the Colorado, we will put
all of our resources and energies behind how can the State fill
that situation without again taxing on to an over-appropriated
river basin which again if it's done inappropriately will make
a very dark hole for southeastern Colorado. So these goals and
principles are something I would like to share with all of you.
Mr. Calvert. Mayor and Vice President, it sounds to me like
there's perhaps some application to what you've been able to
accomplish in other arenas. As you move ahead, I think the
State is going to keep an eye on what you're doing and we may
be drawing on your expertise, assuming that this reaches a
positive conclusion, so I want to thank you for that.
You mention in here, Mayor, that you're hoping that
Congressmen Hefley and Tancredo and Beauprez will introduce
legislation as we return. Is Congressman McInnis a part of this
process as well and have you included him in these discussions?
Mr. Rivera. Well, we work very closely with our own
Congressman, Congressman Hefley, and we know that he is dealing
with Scott McInnis on a regular basis in trying to get him
involved in the process, but Congressman McInnis, of course, is
very interested in ensuring that Pueblo and Colorado Springs
come to an agreement on their own in terms of our southern
delivery system and thus ensuring that Pueblo has the water
that they need that flows through their city for recreation
uses and we're doing that. And so that the conversation is on-
going and I think we're getting very, very close to an
agreement where the entire congressional delegation can support
us.
Mr. Udall. Great. I look forward to being included in those
discussions as well. Both Congressman McInnis and I straddle
different basins, so we try and do all we can to balance those
competing needs and oftentimes have to look across both sides
of the divide, whether it's the Platte and the Colorado or the
Colorado and the Arkansas or the Rio Grande, so I think that's
important he's involved in those discussions.
Mr. Thurston. And Sue Smith from Scott McInnis' office is
here in the audience today as well, so we've been working very
closely with them.
Mr. Udall. If I might turn to Mr. Binney. Thank you again
for your testimony and the outline you provide us of what we
face, both opportunities and challenges. I was fascinated when
you pointed out that you think you can bring a billion in
capital to all these various needs. Are you approaching this
with the mindset that you don't need Federal support when it
comes to the dollars that might be necessary to do all the
various things that are being proposed?
Mr. Binney. No, certainly we would look to work with the
Federal delegation in many ways that you can help us out.
[Laughter.]
What we have done in the City of Aurora, we operate as an
enterprise fund. All of our funding comes from tap fees and
user fees and when we looked at the challenge that was ahead of
us, one way that you can obviously presume to move ahead is
through self-sufficiency. I talked to my Council last year
about this 10-year capital program. I outlined the alternatives
for them. They strongly suggested to me that I ought to look
inwards before I look outwards. We increased our tap fees by 56
percent last year and increased programmatically our user fees
by 15 percent and that's without any draft surcharges.
So we have put in place a financing program that would
allow us to meet our needs. Certainly, we will be in touch with
you to see if there are other ways that you can help, but we
have recently just done the first of a series of revenue bonds,
working with Wall Street. We have already spent 100 million
dollars of that and that has been funded through revenue bonds
that are pledged against revenues coming from the utility
itself.
Mr. Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has
been helpful to me.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Udall indicated
that we've heard some of these things before, especially about
not wanting the Federal government to override any decisions of
the local level. We certainly have. But I'll tell you something
else we've heard before, gentlemen, and that is we're close to
an agreement. We're working closely together. It's almost
there. We've been dancing this dance for a long, long time. And
frankly, I would like to get us a little closer to the
discussion of when we're going to end this dance and what it's
going to take to get us to the point where we have some
agreements down there. And I know, Mr. Binney, for instance,
Aurora has recently signed an agreement with the Southern
Colorado Water Conservancy District which should end--I know
that the purpose is to try to end this 20 years of acrimony and
the wars in the Arkansas Valley. And I also understand, as part
of this agreement that you will be paying, as you say, a great
deal of the cost, but will have actually no governmental
representation on how the decisions are made in the Basin.
So what else is necessary? What else do we have to do to
get this thing done, Mr. Binney?
Mr. Binney. We have been working very closely with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation to give us some more security in how we
operate our water rights in the Arkansas Valley. Previously,
everything was done on an annual if-and-when basis. We can only
use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project when there is excess storage
capacity available.
We have been working diligently with the Bureau of
Reclamation to see if we can't have in place a long-term
contract, a 40-year contract where we will have some of that
security that you're suggesting is important to our community.
We are a part of the Arkansas Valley fabric. Some people are
continuing to fight us there, but I think some of the security
that we have and one of the things that I think led to our
being able to negotiate disagreement with the Southeastern
District was recognizing that we're only going to be there,
under sufferance, but we're going to be there in a respectful
way. So I think we're a long way--I would like to see Aurora
become part of the discussions between Pueblo, the Pueblo City
Council and Colorado Springs though as we move forward and I
think once we've done that, they will see us not as the monster
as perhaps we are portrayed in the newspapers, but rather as a
constructive part of their community.
Mr. Tancredo. Well, let's talk about the way it's perceived
in the newspapers, Aurora, in particular and you're continually
identified as the primary cause of drying up the farmland in
rural areas like the Arkansas Valley and what kind of
mitigation does Aurora provide for these transfers, the
transfers of water from the basins and is there--are there
mitigation requirements in the law?
Mr. Binney. Yes. Within the decrees that we have with the
State of Colorado, when we move the consumptive use portion of
water off the lands, we have to leave water there for
revegetation and weed control. When people characterize what
we're doing as the decertification of southern Colorado that is
not correct. We have to put a stable grassland down on to that
land.
So part of it is preserving the environment when we move
water to the city. Part of it is that we are paying large
amounts of money, one to the Otero County. We have paid far
beyond what is required by law. With the agreement that we
entered into with the Southeast District, we not only are
paying a very large amount of the local cost reimbursement
share for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, basically we're
subsidizing Colorado Springs and Southeastern District as
they're paying off the Federal government for that project.
We also allocated in excess of $20 million that could be
used by the Southeast District to start addressing some of
these local water supply needs that are in the valley and that
are being affected by changes in the agricultural community.
Mr. Tancredo. Just how much water has been taken out of the
valley by Aurora as compared to let's say Colorado Springs or
Pueblo?
Mr. Binney. In the decade of the 1990s, we moved 4,000 acre
feeds out of the basin.
Mr. Tancredo. Four thousand acre feeds during the decade?
Mr. Binney. That was per year. We have water rights,
decreed water rights for 22,000 acre feeds and just for that in
context, the average annual flow coming out of Pueblo Reservoir
is in excess of 500,000 acre feeds. So once we have fully
developed the decrees that we have, we'll be affecting perhaps
4 percent of the flow coming out of Pueblo Reservoir.
Mr. Tancredo. I really do hope that his helps your--the
testimony here today, I hope this helps put Aurora in
perspective, Aurora's usage of that water and helps us move
toward some sort of collaborative arrangement.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions here for which I
will not have time, but I'd like to be able to offer them----
Mr. Calvert. Without objection. Questions will be entered
into the record and we would ask the Panel to answer those
questions and make it part of the permanent record.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just this one now
for Mr. Walcher and that is what's the Administration doing to
act as an honest broker in this whole thing? And is there an
initiative of any kind here in the State through your office,
through the government?
Mr. Walcher. Thanks for asking. Our primary function and it
is the statewide water supply initiative that we talked about
because we don't frankly believe that the State ought to
dictate to all the local basins in Colorado what their water
future is. That isn't the tradition of Colorado water law. The
tradition is that local people come up with local solutions to
local problems and so our role is to help enable and facilitate
that which is what that project is all about.
But I will say and this sort of goes to your previous
question too about the vigorous sort of argument that goes on
so long and how we're going to get to fixing it. We have an
advantage in this generation that hasn't existed in Colorado
for a very long time, that people ought to be focusing on. The
sad thing about Referendum A, of course, was how contentious it
became and because of that became kind of a distraction. But
the advantage we have now is the tremendous working
relationships that have developed among water leaders
throughout the State that have not existed in my lifetime.
And I can remember well, as you can too, no doubt, when the
Denver Water Board had to disguise people pretending to be
farmers when they went to buyout water rights because they were
so unpopular no farmer would talk to them.
We have evolved a long ways past that from a situation
where California and Colorado water leaders didn't talk to each
for three generations hardly. We've now got situations where
Aurora is making available water that it doesn't have to make
available during a time when we had 80,000 wells shut off in
the South Platte Basin.
We've got projects with the Colorado River District and the
Denver Water Board and Parker Water and Sanitation working
together to try and make something happen.
We've got relationships that I think haven't existed for a
long time in Colorado. Whether that comes naturally to us or
not isn't clear, but out of necessity, we have had to learn to
work together. I think that there's a very good chance that
we're going to see whether it's a project in Wolcott or where,
I'm not sure. But I think there's a very good chance that we're
going to see people come together and work on solutions that
will work for everyone and I think the State has a role to play
in facilitating that, not in dictating the outcome.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I would, for the record, correct
that Colorado water leaders and California water leaders did
talk to each other the last 30 years, we just couldn't put that
into the record.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Beauprez, you're recognized.
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, just--
I won't belabor the point any more than to recognize Mayor
Rivera and Vice President Thurston, I commend both of your
cities for working toward a reasonable commonsense solution to
what I think is a rather obvious challenge. And I think I'll
direct my questions during my time primarily to Mr. Binney and
perhaps Mr. Walcher.
Mr. Binney, you put forward what to me are some fairly
staggering numbers, based on the study you cite and I commend
you, frankly, for looking beyond 10 or 20 years, but 60 years I
think is your time frame. Seven hundred eighty-four thousand
acre feed of additional usage, which I think you said would
require a million-and-a-half to two million of additional
storage. Is that correct?
Mr. Binney. That's correct.
Mr. Beauprez. And to put it in context, am I correct, I'm
just pulling numbers out of my memory here, but is not Blue
Mesa something like 1.1 million acre feed of storage capacity,
is that----
Mr. Binney. I'm not sure of that, but Two Forks would have
been 1 million acre feeds.
Mr. Beauprez. I'd be glad to be corrected if I'm wrong, but
you're talking about a lot of storage?
Mr. Binney. That's correct. We'll need storage in different
basins as well as along the Front Range.
Mr. Beauprez. I would commend you at least first of all for
recognizing the magnitude of the challenge, of focusing on what
I alluded to in my opening comments of winners and winners, the
mitigation at least offers and considerations that you're
talking about, whether or not they end up being acceptable. I
think we've got to talk about that.
Where I would like to go with you and Mr. Walcher, Mr.
Walcher, you just mentioned a minute ago about the State's
role. My concern, Congressman Udall mentioned it in his opening
comments, and I think we all did in some way, shape or form,
how do we manage to bring all of the various interests
together, including agriculture and I would ask you, Mr.
Binney, would it be a fair statement that if we had adequate
storage in Colorado, we might not need to be looking at
agricultural water rights as aggressively as municipalities
have somewhat been forced to look at them?
Mr. Binney. I would be a strong advocate of a more balanced
approach of one versus the other. I think that to deliver this
784,000 acre feed that was identified by the State in using
Junior Unappropriated Waters, they're really--what you're doing
is you're looking at yourself to pump back projects like the
Big Straw Project or Blue Mesa Pump or has been proposed
pipelines from the lower part of the Arkansas Valley.
I think the State would be better served by a balance of
some of those projects, perhaps not as heroic as the one that
we just received a report on, but also considering setting up
farm-city relationships where I think Mr. Walcher recognized
that Aurora was delivering treated effluent for the benefit of
people who operate wells for agricultural purposes in the lower
part of the basin. And to me that should be a part of what
we're looking at as we move into the future.
Mr. Beauprez. Let me ask a real direct question and maybe
Mr. Walcher, you can respond first, if you like.
I am concerned governance and how we pull all these various
groups together to develop some sort of a statewide, not only a
plan, but how in the world does it function? How do we identify
the projects, how do we satisfy all the players, how do we keep
winners and winners at the table and still satisfy the long-
term water needs of the State of Colorado without a statewide
umbrella somehow?
Mr. Walcher. I don't think a statewide umbrella is
necessary to do that to tell you the truth.
Mr. Beauprez. Let me be even more direct because I'm
concerned that what we have done in the past with very local
control and I am a local control advocate, but without some
consideration of municipality to municipality, basin to basin,
user group to user group and getting all of those somehow to
collaborate, are we not perhaps continually setting ourselves
up for these endless wars?
Mr. Walcher. I don't think so. I think in the absence of
some sort of metro-wide water district or some kind of a
governance structure like that it means the table has to be
bigger and lots more people need to be there, but I don't think
it's necessarily impossible to do.
We have the ability under our current system for all the
local entities involved to get together and make solutions that
work for multiple entities and we have a lot of those in play
already as Peter has mentioned and as we've talked earlier.
There are lots of collaborative projects that people are
talking about now, even in the absence of some sort of
governance change that you're talking about.
It may be that the people in the suburbs might get together
and decide that a unified water district is a good way to go
and it might simplify things a bit if they do, but frankly, I
don't think it changes the type of issues that have to be
worked through to get to the solution whether the table has
four people at it or 40 people present. The issues aren't
really that different.
I think one of the biggest myths in Colorado water is the
concept of over-appropriated rivers. And I know that there are
more than 100 potential storage projects in the South Platte
Basin and the South Platte is an over-appropriated river by
that standard, meaning that every single drop in it is owned by
somebody. But we still have peak flows in wet years when all
the reservoirs are full and we still have lost hundreds of
thousands of acre feed of South Platte water to Nebraska
because we didn't have the room to store it.
So the need to get the storage there is what we ought to be
focused on and however many people need to be at that table to
get there. I think the State's role is to try and help identify
what the feasibility of it is and then the local folks, I
guess, can decide if they want to create some sort of different
governing structure, but if they don't, I still believe we can
get there.
Mr. Beauprez. Mr. Binney, can you respond quickly? I know
I'm probably running short on time.
Mr. Binney. I've been looking for that Holy Grail as well
and I think I found it in Las Vegas of all places. I asked Pat
Mulroy who has gone through something similar to what we've
gone through where the Las Vegas Valley was basically ready to
shut down development because of water supply issues. They came
together and they fought the Southern Nevada Water Authority
and they brought a certain level of harmony to the six major
water users in that valley.
Her homily was that they were able to solve their problem
when the availability of water was no longer a political issue.
I think there's some truth in that and I think as we search
through with the governance issues what they were able to do is
to turn it into a purely commercial transaction. If you wanted
the water in which they were bringing from Lake Mead and they
spent close to $3 billion for their solution, you ponied up and
you bought your part of that project.
So I think that there are some things that we should look
to our friends not only in California, but in Nevada, to find
some potential solutions for along the Front Range. We're a
victim of economies of scale and I don't think we're going to
solve our problems by doing a continuing series of very small
suboptimal projects.
I truly believe that we're going to build some very large
public works projects where there will be multiple
beneficiaries on both the basins of origin and on the Front
Range. And it's only when we realize that we've got to get to
that level of project that we're going to solve our needs.
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. I thank this panel for
your valuable testimony. Members of the Subcommittee may have
additional questions that we will submit to you in writing and
we would ask for your responses for the permanent record.
With that, thank you very much and you're excused.
I will now recognize the second panel of witnesses: Ms.
Melinda Kassen, Director, Colorado Water Project for Trout
Unlimited; Mr. Richard Kuhn, Club 20; Mr. Joel Rosenstein, Vice
President, Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development;
Mr. Alan Foutz, President, Colorado Farm Bureau; and Ms.
Patricia Wells, General Counsel, Denver Water, Denver Colorado.
Will you please come forward? For the panel again I'll
explain our 5 minute rule. We have a little light up here, and
hopefully you can see it. It's got a little green light, a
little yellow light which means hurry up, red light which means
stop. So we try to stay within the 5 minute rule so we can have
some questions and I can catch my plane.
[Laughter.]
So with that we'll first recognize Ms. Melinda Kassen.
You're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MELINDA KASSEN, DIRECTOR,
COLORADO WATER PROJECT, TROUT UNLIMITED
Ms. Kassen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members from
Colorado, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify. I've submitted written testimony for the record with a
host of suggestions regarding water supply strategies. I'll
focus this morning on just a few.
First, I want to agree with Congressman Beauprez' statement
on the facts version of this hearing agenda that Colorado's on-
going water problems only get worse if we fail to address them
in a meaningful way. I think the question that we all grapple
with is what is meaningful? Colorado must choose water supply
strategies for the future that are equitable and that are cost
effective.
The era of mega projects with devastating environmental
impacts and the era of massive Federal subsidies are both over.
The big straw is and will remain a pipe dream and I don't think
that Union Park is significantly better----
Mr. Calvert. No pun intended, right?
Ms. Kassen. Sorry?
Mr. Calvert. No pun intended, pipe dream?
Ms. Kassen. No pun intended. Fifteen billion dollars, and
the list goes on. But the same coalition of Coloradans who have
worked together for the past several decades to stop
destructive, risky and costly water projects and financing
schemes will continue to block big, new diversions from the
West Slope, the Rio Grande, and the Arkansas River to supply
areas of the Front Range that have failed to provide
sustainable water for their own futures.
The high quality of life that Colorado enjoys depends also
on maintaining and in some cases restoring recreational,
environmental and the aesthetic values of our rivers and
streams. That's one of the reasons that we all live here.
Our water future, thus, must rely on smart storage and
supply strategies that protect these values. The solutions and
most of them have already been discussed today, they're not
unknown. We have a road map.
On the supply front, we need to do at least three things:
conserve water and maximize all water users, efficiency of use
and re-use. Colorado has not tapped fully into conservation
programs. Most cities still don't have significant tiered block
rate structures. There are few incentives for leak detection
and repair and many places don't have rebates for changes in
landscaping and efficient appliances. I mean there are lots of
things that we can mine in terms of conservation.
Second, reclaiming and integrating existing infrastructure
and using temporary transfer programs like water leasing,
interruptable supplies and water banks to allow existing water
users the full use of water that's already developed, but
currently isn't captured by providers.
And finally, expanding storage incrementally, but only
after involving all of the parties to craft mitigation for
adverse ecological, social and economic impacts. At the same
time, we need to be mindful of stream protection and for that
there are also a couple of things that we need to do. We need
to lower barriers for existing water users who want to convert
their rights for in-stream protection.
We need to identify the funds to enable those sorts of
conversions. We need to make water management actions deliver
environmental benefit and I believe that that's possible in
terms of reoperation of projects and such. And we need to allow
Federal agencies to use their existing authorities and rights
to protect rivers.
Finally, there is some more research. We know a lot about
water, but there are also things we don't know. On the
environmental side, there isn't enough information about what
ecologically sustainable flows really means, what's necessary
to keep in the river and on the supply side, there could be
more information available about the capacity of and how to
recharge our groundwater resources.
With Federal and state--while the Federal and state
government can help, the lion's share of this work will happen
at the local level. The most important state role, I believe,
is to provide leadership to help the disparate interests agree
on smart solutions. For Congress, I would suggest that the most
important activities are to ensure that the Federal scientists
provide timely focused research and that Federal projects are
operated as models in terms of smart supplies, smart storage,
both on the conservation side and on the supply side as well as
demonstrating that you can operate in a way that is not
completely environmentally destructive.
The Federal role is not to weaken the Clean Water Act, as I
think you're going to hear later or the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you again for your time. I'd be happy to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kassen follows:]
Statement of Melinda R Kassen, Esq., Director,
Colorado Water Project, Trout Unlimited
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and members from Colorado,
good morning and thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony today
on the important topic of Colorado water supplies and water-use
efficiency.
Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited (TU) is a national, non-profit organization with
130,000 members, of whom over 8,000 belong to our Colorado Council.
Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore coldwater
fisheries and their watersheds. In 1998, TU established the Western
Water Project, which now has offices in five states in the inter-
mountain west. We participate, primarily at the state level, in
decisions affecting water quality and water allocation to ensure
healthy coldwater stream flows and foster meaningful public input into
these decisions.
My Background
I opened the Colorado Water Project office in 1998. My previous
experience in water matters dates back 20 years to the Office of the
Colorado Attorney General, where I represented the Water Quality
Control Division and Commission, the State Engineer and the Colorado
Water Conservation Board. I then worked at the Environmental Defense
Fund where I spent half of my time on water matters, including the
fight against Two Forks Dam and Reservoir. Prior to starting at TU, I
represented Kaiser-Hill, the contractor responsible for cleaning up the
former nuclear weapons facilities at Rocky Flats; in that capacity I
was involved in the renewal of the site's Clean Water Act discharge
permit. I have also taught Environmental and Administrative Law at the
University of Denver College of Law, and worked as counsel to the House
of Representatives Armed Services Committee. I last testified before
this Subcommittee in March 2002 regarding H.R. 3881, a bill involving
the proposed expansion of the Bureau of Reclamation's Fryingpan-
Arkansas project.
A Sustainable Strategy to Meet Colorado's Water Needs
In 2002, Colorado endured one of the worst droughts in its history.
A year later, many reservoirs have yet to refill. Colorado's population
growth is placing significant additional demands on our water
resources. Water policies at all levels of government need to encourage
sustainable supplies of good quality water for all Colorado residents
without excessive costs or environmental damage.
In January 2003, the conservation community released a report, What
the Drought Means for the Future of Water Management in Colorado. I
have attached copies of the Executive Summary to this testimony.
Written by water policy experts, the Report examines the hydrology of
the drought, its economic impact, and the responses of water suppliers.
The Drought Report suggests smart supply and smart storage principles
to guide future water management. I would like to focus on these
commonsense solutions to our common problems.
Smart supply alternatives can substantially increase the amount of
available water by using existing water supplies fully and efficiently.
For example:
Strengthen conservation and efficiency programs. While
this is primarily the province of local providers, state and federal
government agencies may be able to provide financial and technical
assistance. Just a few of the programs that have been demonstrated to
reduce urban water use are programmed to detect and fix system leaks,
rebates for re-landscaping and efficient appliances, and tiered block
rate structures.
Reclaim unusable space in existing reservoirs. Colorado's
State Engineer estimates that, due to safety restrictions on
reservoirs, as much as 250,000 acre feet of storage that currently
exists in the state is unusable. Fixing the problems would allow the
State Engineer to lift these restrictions, thereby recovering this
space for active storage. In addition, many of the state's older
reservoirs would be able to increase active storage capacity were they
dredged.
Expand the ability of water users to share supplies
through leasing, water banks and other arrangements. While Colorado has
an active water market, our court-based system has made it difficult to
move water around quickly and on a short-term basis. The State
Legislature enacted several bills in 2003 that begin to remedy this
situation, but more work is necessary before water users will truly be
able to share water easily in response to drought, or for other market-
driven reasons.
Integrate existing infrastructure in a way that allows
all water users within a geographic area to maximize their rights. The
Drought Report describes several examples where the ability to
integrate infrastructure would result in a direct increase in Front
Range water supplies. Later in this testimony, I give several examples
of how Front Range providers could use existing federal facilities to
supply water rather than build new diversions and storage.
Smart storage principles optimize already claimed water supplies to
increase useable supply. For example:
Use existing water supplies and usable return flows fully
and efficiently. Efficiency programs in Colorado's urban areas are
spotty, and Front Range water providers have been reluctant to reuse
water due to consumer sensitivities, despite water court decrees
directing this reuse, although Colorado Springs does reuse treated
effluent on city turf.
Expand existing diversion and storage capacities
incrementally to enhance providers' flexibility to respond to increased
needs as they appear. This is the strategy that Denver has successfully
pursued since EPA vetoed its enormous, proposed Two Forks Dam and
Reservoir project over a decade ago.
Involve all of the affected interests, not just the water
users, in crafting mitigation to eliminate or lessen environmental and
socioeconomic impacts. For example, because the market is now driving
water transfers from agriculture to municipal uses, participants should
structure such transfers, where possible, to maintain agriculture, and
under any circumstances to mitigate the adverse impacts to rural
communities. A successful example of where this has happened is in the
Upper Arkansas River Basin where the local water conservancy district
led a negotiation effort with the City of Aurora, basin water rights
holders and other basin interests, including rafting businesses and
Trout Unlimited's local chapter regarding Aurora's plan to take water
out of that basin.
Emphasize the most efficient utilization of existing
supplies to avoid the problems and inequities of new transbasin
projects. The most recent example is the Big Straw. Last month, the
Colorado Water Conservation Board released a reconnaissance-level study
that predicted the costs of this project could reach $15 billion. New
transbasin diversions, i.e. from the Colorado River to the growing
cities along the Front Range east of the Continental Divide,
particularly under junior priorities, are the most expensive option for
supplying Colorado's water needs. They are also the most
environmentally damaging. Why choose this approach when there are
faster, smarter and cheaper alternatives?
One of the lessons of the failed state bond referendum is that all
affected entities must be at the table in developing new water
supplies. Whether the project involves drying up agricultural land,
taking unappropriated water from areas that are themselves growing, or
depleting flows in rivers that support a recreation economy, the
politics of transbasin diversions demand that those who benefit from
such diversions minimize the adverse effects, mitigate those effects to
the extent possible and compensate for the remaining losses, even if
those loses are lost future opportunities for the exporting basin.
The Bureau of Reclamation can also play a role. The Bureau has
developed major water projects across Colorado, many of which serve
agricultural users. As is true elsewhere in the west, agriculture
consumes close to 90% of the water used in Colorado. Virtually all of
Colorado's growing water demand is municipal. Given that the state has
a mature water supply infrastructure, which stores and delivers 7.5 MAF
of water annually, this existing infrastructure must help satisfy
increased urban demands, as well as recreational and environmental
needs. The Bureau must pursue reoperation of its projects, or the
reallocation of water within these projects, to provide additional
urban supplies, while maintaining riparian and instream resources and
rural economies. In addition, Congress should take action, or encourage
the Bureau to act, to:
Streamline the processes required to allow cooperative
use of federal water infrastructure for water development and delivery.
Cooperative utilization of federally and locally owned water supply and
distribution infrastructure would greatly expand our ability to move
water up and down the Front Range and to water short areas on the west
slope. Without this cooperation, water users may be required to build
expensive and environmentally damaging new projects that would
otherwise be unnecessary. For example, if Denver could expand its north
end system at least in part via the Bureau's Colorado-Big Thompson
project and Windy Gap, wheeling the water through this system to the
northern suburbs Denver supplies, this would save additional pressure
on the already over-depleted Fraser and Williams Fork Rivers in the
Colorado Basin. Similar opportunities exist on the Arkansas River, with
the Bureau's Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, and other Bureau reservoirs in
that basin.
Pursue opportunities to increase conservation for Bureau
projects and activities. For example, the Bureau can modify existing
water supply and delivery infrastructure to reduce physical losses of
water within a system to create additional supplies. (Such supplies can
then increase out-of-stream deliveries and/or supplement environmental
flows.) The Bureau can also define what constitutes beneficial use for
water used from its projects, as well as what constitutes waste.
When evaluating existing infrastructure for modernization
or rehabilitation, consider the outright removal and replacement of
existing infrastructure with alternative means of supply, including
conservation.
Finally, everyone recognizes that environmental values are an
integral part of Colorado's quality of life and increasingly
recreation-based economy. We should recognize and develop state policy
that ensures that water projects do not have significant adverse
environmental effects. Where possible, we should restore the rivers and
streams that past water policies have left high and dry.
Protecting Rivers Given Drought & Growth
We value our rivers for their ecological, recreational and
aesthetic benefits. Already, too many of Colorado's rivers and streams
are dry at some times of the year. This is true even though water
drives Colorado's increasingly recreation-based tourism economy. At the
same time, there is increasing pressure to withdraw more water to
supply Colorado's growing population.
Not only has Colorado's water allocation system failed to protect
many rivers and streams for these ecological, recreational and
aesthetic benefits, but some of Colorado's water conflicts now exist
because the water allocation system that has served for 150 years to
deliver water to agriculture and cities, failed to provide adequate
protection for endangered and threatened species who rely on Colorado's
native water supplies. These species, like all aquatic life as well as
those other species who depend on aquatic life or habitat, need some
portion of the natural flow regime (i.e., high spring flows, trailing
off over the rest of the year) to survive. Yet, there is not enough
information available regarding how much of the natural hydrograph must
be preserved to sustain native and wild aquatic species as well as
riparian functions. Federal agencies could advance the science
regarding environmental flows.
We need to protect the environment that makes Colorado the special
place it is, even in the face of drought and growth. Trout Unlimited
hopes that Colorado can demonstrate to the rest of the West that growth
and conservation can proceed hand in hand. Here are a few ways we can
do so under existing laws:
Enforce against the wasteful use of water. Our courts and
Constitution impose on every water user a duty to use water in a wise
and efficient manner. Unfortunately, the prior appropriation system's
``use it or lose it'' imperative conflicts with Colorado's
constitutional ban against wasting water. Both the state and the Bureau
could do a better job of defining waste and limiting diversions to what
is necessary for beneficial use;
Allow federal agencies to help protect the state's
rivers. Federal agencies have some authority to protect Colorado
streams. Unfortunately, most Colorado water users object to the
agencies exercising their authority, even when the agencies are trying
to prevent streams crossing national parks, monuments and forests from
dry up or serious impairment;
Convert diversionary water rights to instream flow
protection. In some cases, the only way to restore dry streams is by
purchasing or leasing senior water rights and then putting that water
back into the stream. The Colorado Water Conservation Board currently
has the authority both to buy and seek donations of rights for
conversion. The Board should pursue these aggressively. There may also
be federal funds available for these purposes, for example, from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund or through some of the Farm Bill
accounts;
Continue to add to the Board's portfolio of instream flow
rights on streams that would benefit from this protection;
Enforce existing instream flow water rights to the
maximum extent under the law. The Board has no field personnel to
determine whether its rights are being satisfied;
Encourage both agricultural and municipal conservation to
stretch existing water supplies and thereby reduce the need for new
dams and diversions; and
Invest in better stream monitoring to enhance enforcement
of instream flow rights and provide data on stream health. This is
another place where the federal government could assist. Research to
quantify the flows that will sustain aquatic species has been quite
limited. Only within the last decade have articles appeared regarding
the importance of maintaining natural hydrographs both to maintain
instream and riparian systems and values. More is needed.
To protect the environment, Colorado must also develop new
strategies. Other western states have tried and proved effective all of
the following:
Add conservation requirements to decrees for new or
changed water right;
Create incentives for agricultural water salvage as
Oregon and Montana have done;
Condition new or changed water rights to minimize or
mitigate the adverse effects on water quality, fisheries and the
environment, as the laws of South Dakota, Oregon and Utah provide; and
Allow existing water rights holders to convert their
rights to instream protection, either temporarily or permanently, as is
allowed in California, Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, Montana and Oregon.
Finally, in addition to the scientific research mentioned above,
there are things federal agencies with land and water management duties
in Colorado can do to restore or sustain environmental flows:
Explicitly integrate environmental restoration into all
water management actions by approving future water development,
management changes, water supply contracts or transfers only if they
are designed and operated to provide a net environmental restoration
benefit; and
Evaluate the possibility of developing leasing
arrangements to provide environmental flows with only occasional
interruptions in times of extreme drought, such as the state program
instream flow donation agreement between the City of Boulder and the
Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Avoiding the Crises
In Water 2025, the Secretary of Interior identified the Front Range
as one of the West's ``red zones,'' at or near a water crisis.
Certainly, most of the region's large water suppliers are currently
undertaking projects to deliver more supplies to this fast-growing
region. The Cities of Denver, Aurora and Colorado Springs, along with
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which supplies both
agricultural and municipal users in the Ft. Collins-Greeley-Loveland
area, each have projects for which the NEPA scoping process just closed
public comment. There are additional projects that these suppliers are
discussing, including another small reservoir on the Eagle River, a
Colorado River tributary, which could benefit both the Front Range and
West Slope interests. Together, these projects may deliver close to
300,000 new acre feet of water, some of which will come from the
Colorado River Basin.
In recognition of the need to work more collaboratively on water
projects, many of these same Front Range water suppliers have engaged
with some of the west slope counties that would be the most affected as
a result of increased transbasin diversions to identify not only the
impacts of their projects, but also the water short areas within these
exporting counties. The Upper Colorado River Study (UPCO), five years
in the making, is a landmark effort to examine ways in which the water
transfers everyone knows are coming can be done in a manner that is the
least disruptive to local interests.
Unfortunately, not all of Colorado's water suppliers have engaged
in such far-sighted planning. In addition, some of Colorado's fastest-
growing counties have been relying on non-renewable ground water that
is proving not to be as long-lived as had been envisioned 20 years ago.
Thus, these localities, many of which are at the southern end of
Denver's metropolitan area, need help. One new study suggests that
``conjunctive use'' of water, i.e., using surface water directly and to
replenish ground water in wet years while pumping ground water to repay
surface water rights owners during dry years, may work to alleviate the
problems in the south metro area. Certainly, TU hopes that the on-going
negotiations regarding this approach succeed, given that the
alternatives, including new transbasin diversions, are likely to be
significantly more expensive and environmentally damaging.
To solve the problems facing the south metro Denver area, as well
as other areas around the west, additional federal research and
information programs monitoring both surface and ground water resources
would be helpful. While ground water development and management is
within state authority, federal research could help states and
localities better understand this resource, as well as how to
accomplish recharge and how to utilize water stored in federal projects
to do so. Given the apparent over-reliance on ground water in Denver's
southern metropolitan area, such additional research could provide
necessary information to water planners that might help them make
intelligent choices regarding supply options.
Lastly, another research arena for federal scientists is the likely
effects (if any) of climate change on Colorado's water supply. Federal
research on the impacts of climate change could help water managers
better understand how to plan for, and accommodate, changes in runoff
associated with predicted changes in climate. For example, most climate
change models predict a loss of runoff in Colorado that far exceeds the
state's unused increment of its compact entitlements and equitable
apportionment decrees. Validating these model estimates, as well as
explaining the system dynamics that might cause this result, would
provide important information to local water providers in Colorado and
around the West trying to plan for the future. Certainly, no one wants
new crises to arise due to failure to plan for an adequate water supply
in light of changes to expected supplies resulting from global warming.
Thank you for this opportunity to present my views. I would be
happy to answer questions.
______
[An attachment to Ms. Kassen's statement follows:]
WHAT THE CURRENT DROUGHT MEANS FOR THE FUTURE OF WATER MANAGEMENT IN
COLORADO
Daniel F. Luecke
John Morris
Lee Rozaklis, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc.
Robert Weaver, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc.
January 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For at least the last three years, Colorado has been in the grip of
a serious drought. In the public debate that has emerged from this
natural phenomenon, some elected officials and others have called for
more large dams. We believe that a review of the hydrology of the
state's rivers, the existing water supply infrastructure, and the
economic, financial, and environmental consequences of building large
new structures suggests that there are more effective and efficient
options. In this report, after describing the state of the Colorado
water economy and the value of water in various uses, we: 1) identify
the principles for assessing future management strategies and projects;
2) review the hydrologic and economic impacts of the drought; 3)
appraise the drought response of water managers; and 4) outline the
structural and non-structural options for meeting future demands.
Principles for Assessing Water Management Strategies and Projects
Colorado has a surprising abundance of water for a great variety of
purposes, despite relatively low and unevenly distributed precipitation
and a perception of water scarcity. This abundance is often obscured,
however, by the inefficient way in which water is managed and used.
Many, if not most, water management utilities are making significant
strides toward improving both their efficiency and system reliability.
Nonetheless, while individual users may be efficient from their point
of view, at higher levels, like watersheds, the potential for improved
efficiencies still exists.
Colorado's water economy has passed from its ``expansionary phase''
into what might be called its ``mature phase,'' in which: 1) water
users are linked by elaborate physical systems and are increasingly
interdependent economically; 2) new supply options are limited; 3)
costs of new supply are rapidly escalating; and 4) federal subsidies
have evaporated. Moreover, people now value free flowing streams for
their recreational and environmental worth. Applying a widely accepted
rule based on the principle that an efficient and fair public policy
decision is one that makes no entity worse off for the betterment of
another, present day water supply expansion decisions based on large
storage projects are almost always wasteful, inefficient, and unfair.
Thus, we recommend that, before considering new storage options, we
should:
Invest in conservation;
Foster cooperation between the two largest user groups--
cities and farmers;
1Restore and enlarge existing storage facilities; and
Use system linkages to distribute existing supplies more
efficiently.
We further recommend that future water supply management and
development efforts should adhere to five basic principles of what we
would characterize as ``smart storage'':
Make full and efficient use of existing water supplies
and usable return flows;
Expand water supplies incrementally to utilize existing
diversion and storage capacities better;
Recognizing that market forces now drive water
reallocation from agricultural to municipal uses, structure such
transfers, where possible, to maintain agriculture, but in all cases,
mitigate the adverse impacts to rural communities from these transfers;
Involve affected publics and fully address the inevitable
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of increasing water supplies;
and
Recognize the fundamental political and economic
inequities and the adverse environmental consequences of new transbasin
diversions and emphasize the most efficient utilization of existing
supplies to avoid new transbasin projects.
Hydrological Impacts of the Drought
The current drought, which began in 2000 and has continued to the
present, has been the most severe on record by several measures. Stream
flows in Colorado in 2002 have generally been the lowest in over 100
years and the tree ring data suggest that flows are probably the lowest
in 300 to 500 years. In terms of multiple year stream flow deficits,
the current drought is worse than the historic droughts of the 1950s
and 1970s. While this drought has not lasted as long as the drought of
the 1930s, it is not yet over and it has been more severe than any
three-year period of the 1930s.
Economic Impacts of the Drought
The total economic impact of the drought of 2002 is probably in
excess of $1 billion, or roughly 0.7% of the state's income, although
no one can yet know the precise losses. Losses occurred in several
economic sectors, but mostly in agriculture, and water-dependent
recreation and tourism. Federal programs and insurance mitigated some
losses. Municipal use, including landscaping, is the only sector where
more water supply development and/or measures to increase efficiency
could have prevented a large fraction of the losses incurred. As a
result, the preventable economic losses were about $250 million
overall, or 17% of the total loss. Given that even these ``avoidable''
losses will recur only with another major drought, probably not more
than once every half-century, programs to prevent these losses should
not cost more than $250 million and probably not even half that.
Managers' Responses to the Drought
Water managers' responses, though late in many cases, did have an
effect on customer behavior and did achieve some reduction in customer
demand. Initial efforts consisted of educational programs to encourage
efficiency and voluntary conservation programs, followed by mandatory
restrictions on outdoor water usage. Very few water providers adopted
pricing surcharges or placed any restrictions on the issuance of new
taps. Many providers invoked restrictions as a precautionary response
in recognition that the current drought might not be over.
Water savings achieved by municipal providers' drought response
measures varied; but, preliminary results suggest that, on average,
municipal water users will have reduced their normal demand by about
10% between May 1, 2002, and April 30, 2003. In most communities the
public response to efforts to reduce water use was positive.
Some providers also implemented measures to increase their supplies
and reduce their draw on storage reservoirs. These measures included
cooperative arrangements with farmers, invoking special drought clauses
to relax minimum bypass flows, drilling supplemental wells, trading
supplies between users, building facilities to allow better use of
existing water rights, and sharing the burden of shortages where the
State Engineer was willing to relax administration of the priority
system.
Agricultural water users employed a wide variety of strategies to
cope with the drought and irrigators were generally more adept than
cities at anticipating its onset. Responses included reductions in the
amount of acreage planted, changes in cropping mix from full season
crops (e.g. feed corn) to partial season crops (e.g. 1- or 2-cut hay
and corn for silage). Some farmers decided not to farm this year
(2002), and to lease their water supplies to cities instead and many
livestock owners sold off significant percentages of their herds in
expectation of high-priced and reduced feed supply.
Mechanisms to Meet Existing & Future Water Demands
Looking to the future and the assessment of storage augmentation in
managing Colorado's water needs, not all basins are created equal. Some
can be eliminated from consideration given current conditions either of
hydrology, adequacy of existing storage capacity, economics, project
proposals that are already well along (e.g., Animas/La Plata),
downstream delivery requirements (e.g., Rio Grande Compact), or some
combination of the above. The Rio Grande, the San Juan/Dolores, the
Yampa/White, and the North Platte fall into this category. In all of
these basins at least two of these factors are relevant. For these
reasons, the report concentrates on the question of storage in the
Colorado/Gunnison, the Arkansas, and the South Platte.
Reservoirs have been part of Colorado's water development strategy
since the late 1800s, in response to its highly variable stream flows.
Today, Colorado has more than 7.5 million acre-feet of reservoir
storage. About 25% of this capacity directly supports municipal water
uses and this fraction is steadily growing, mostly as cities acquire
agricultural water rights with their associated storage. In addition,
there is the natural storage provided by Colorado's principal
underground aquifers. The Denver Basin aquifers contain approximately
150 million acre-feet of recoverable groundwater and aquifers elsewhere
within the South Platte, Arkansas and Rio Grande basins contain over 15
million acre-feet.
The traditional purpose for building reservoirs has been to capture
excess runoff, which usually occurs relatively infrequently and in
large volumes. Consequently, traditional reservoirs are fairly large
and located directly in a stream channel. Apart from their well-
documented environmental impacts, such large on-stream reservoirs have
other major limitations. First, they are relatively costly to build and
cannot be built incrementally in response to gradually growing demands.
Rather, they must be fully paid for and constructed ``up front,'' which
increases their financial risk and diminishes their economic viability.
Second, as a basin becomes over-appropriated, additional runoff-capture
storage produces ever-diminishing returns in terms of water supply
yield, because unappropriated runoff occurs less frequently and storage
carry-over periods become longer. Third, evaporation losses compound
the diminishing yield problem, becoming a major limiting factor in
reservoirs' ability to provide relief both over extended drought
conditions and for severe droughts that occur every few decades or less
often. Finally, given the diminishing returns for new storage projects
that would be fully integrated into existing systems, storage-yield
ratios for projects designed to store wet-year water for drought
protection are approaching, if not exceeding, 5-to-1. This means that
for 100,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual supply, the reservoir
would have to store over 500,000 acre-feet and would cost well over one
billion dollars.
If reservoirs are built solely for drought protection, providing a
full measure of protection requires keeping these reservoirs almost
full until severe droughts are obviously underway. They cannot be used
to provide water to existing demands during non-drought periods or to
meet the demands of new growth. To do so compromises their drought
protection capacity.
Another consideration is that building reservoirs for drought
protection does not eliminate the need for municipal water
restrictions. Virtually all water providers that enacted watering
restrictions in 2002 had sufficient storage supplies to meet their
normal demands throughout the year. They enacted watering restrictions
as a precautionary measure, recognizing that there is no way of knowing
how long the current drought may last.
With these limitations in mind, we find that water providers are
increasingly developing ``smart storage''--smaller reservoirs designed
to optimize already-developed supplies rather than capture
unappropriated peak season runoff. Smart storage is now commonly
developed as a means for capturing and re-regulating reusable return
flows, increasing the yields of exchange rights and augmentation plans,
re-regulating the yields of changed irrigation rights to meet municipal
demand patterns, and increasing yields from existing water rights and
transbasin diversions. In some cases, existing traditional storage
capacity has been rededicated to smart storage purposes with resulting
increases in yields.
While recognizing the progress water providers are making in
developing smaller, off-channel projects, enlargements of existing
projects and underground aquifer storage, we think that three basic
elements constitute Colorado's water future: 1) conservation and demand
management; 2) municipal-agricultural cooperation; and 3) supply
integration, management, and development. In the three major basins we
have looked at carefully--the South Platte, the Arkansas, and the
Colorado--we believe that this combination of measures can meet growing
long-term urban demands.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentle lady.
And next, Mr. Richard Kuhn, Club 20.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD ERIC KUHN, GENERAL MANAGER, COLORADO RIVER
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, MEMBER, CLUB 20
Mr. Kuhn. Thank you, Chairman Calvert and Members of this
Committee from Colorado. For the record, my name is Richard
Eric Kuhn. I represent both Club 20 and the Colorado River
Water Conservation District. Both of those organizations
represent the Western Colorado or the Colorado River Watershed
within Colorado.
I want to call your attention or address three important
issues. First, I want to call your attention to what is called
the Colorado 64 Water Principles. Second, I want to emphasize
and perhaps second what Peter Binney and Greg Walcher said,
that although Colorado certainly faces tough challenges with
our water future, we're very busy as well. I don't want to
leave you with the impression that nothing is going on because
in my 23 years in this business, we've never been busier, more
innovative or looked at more cooperative projects than we are
doing today.
And then finally, just a real quick discussion of some new
challenges we face in the evolving Federal role.
Concerning the Colorado 64 Water Principles, this was
developed by Club 20, other organizations or regional
organizations such as Action 22, Progressive 15 and government
and business leaders within Colorado's urban Front Range. These
principles were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Colorado General
Assembly. And I think I want to point out as often the case
with many large civil works, the political and institutional
challenges are often much more challenging than the actual
engineering or the technical or even the financial issues. I
think that's true of dams, that's true of freeways. That's true
of a lot of things.
We see these Colorado 64 Principles as essentially a set of
behaviors that if you follow them, it's more likely to lead to
success, especially at the local level. The organization, the
River District that I represent voted against Referendum A by
87 or 88 to 12. There's a message there and that message is you
need to involve the locals. You have to address the local
concerns if you're going to use rural or western Colorado water
to help solve the Front Range water problems.
Current projects, there are a lot of them under
development. Many of them have been mentioned. Enlargement of
Elk Head Reservoir off the Colorado River Basin Project, the
Eagle River work including Wolcott, Colorado Springs
Substitution Agreement, the Douglas County Water Resources
Authority Study that's looking at conjunctive use, the Arkansas
River Basin Projects that we discussed. Some smaller ones that
we're involved with that are not just Front Range, enlargement
of existing Stagecoach, Animas-La Plata, Wolford Mountain
enlargement, Reuter-Hess, Gerry Creek, Statewide Water Supply
Study. So there are many of them.
New challenges. I want to address three things here. First,
within Colorado and I think this is very similar to the
experience in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, the ``easy to
build'' projects were built a long time ago. We're not talking
about those that are very simple any more.
If one were to walk along the Continental Divide from
Monarch Pass which is east of Gunnison, north 200 miles to near
Steamboat Springs and you were to look to the w`est, you would
find that the water in the watersheds is already spoken for and
in most cases it was spoken for 25 to 50 years ago. So if
you're going to use more additional Colorado River water,
you're going to go farther to the west, farther to the north,
farther to the south. And the Big Straw Project may seem like a
joke, but the reality is beginning in 2001, all of 2002 and in
most of 2003, you had to go all the way to Grand Junction to
find any free water. And by free water, I mean water that's not
appropriated and used by others in the Colorado River system.
Those were dry years. It's not true of wet years. There are
strategies that can make better use of the wet year water.
Second thing I want to mention real quickly is that I think
there's increasing concern among the water community that
there's a basic water supply paradigm out there that the last
50 years or so of hydrology can represent the future. And
there's increasing concern that that's no longer the case.
At a recent NWRA convention, Reclamation Commissioner Keys
made it clear that he believes there's something very
significant happening out there, but we're not smart enough to
know what it is and exactly how it's going to impact us, but as
a water community and the simplest water projects take 15 to 20
years to develop, we need to be very aware of what's going on
out there. And I see that science as very much a Federal role.
That affects California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
everyone.
When I talk about the Colorado River, I often point out you
don't have to look to global warming scenarios to be concerned.
In fact, I don't look to global warming. I look to the recent
history. Instead of going back 100 years where we have gauges,
go back 500 years when we can reconstruct with good confidence
those gauges and the flow of the Colorado is maybe 10 percent
less than what we think it is. And with that I will end my
testimony, only indicating that the Federal agencies can play a
very productive role, especially in science in cooperation with
local entities.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuhn follows:]
Statement of Richard Eric Kuhn, General Manager,
Colorado River Water Conservation District, Member, CLUB 20
I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Calvert, Congressman Beauprez
and the other members of the House Resources' Subcommittee for this
opportunity to share the views of the Colorado River Water Conservation
District and CLUB 20 on the important water issues facing the State of
Colorado.
For the record, my name is Richard Eric Kuhn. I am here
representing the Colorado River Water Conservation District (River
District) and the CLUB 20 Water Committee. I am employed by the River
District as the General Manager. I have been an employee of the River
District since 1981 and General Manager since 1996.
The Colorado River Water Conservation District is the principal
policy body for the Colorado River within Colorado. We are a political
subdivision of the State of Colorado, responsible for the conservation,
use, and development of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin
to which the State of Colorado is entitled under the 1922 and 1948
Colorado River compacts. The River District includes all or part of 15
counties in west-central and northwest Colorado.
CLUB 20 was founded in 1953. For over five decades, this
organization of businesses, local governments and individuals has been
the voice for western Colorado. A board of directors makes CLUB 20
policy, which includes voting membership for each of the 22 counties
and the Ute Nations in Colorado West.
For the benefit of the Committee, I would like to briefly address
three important water matters. First, I want to call your attention to
the Colorado 64 Water Principles. Second, I want to emphasize that the
Colorado water community is very busy. While Colorado certainly faces
tough challenges with meeting its future water needs, individual water
agencies within Colorado have probably never been as busy, innovative
or cooperative with their efforts to meet Colorado's future water
needs. Finally, I want to address some of the new challenges we face
and the evolving role of the Federal government on water issues.
``Colorado 64'' Water Principles
I want to call your attention to a set of principles developed
through a consensus process by CLUB 20, similar regional organizations,
such as Action 22 and Progressive 15, and government and business
leaders from Colorado's urban Front Range. The ten principles were
overwhelmingly endorsed by the Colorado General Assembly through its
adoption of House Joint Resolution 1019 this year.
As is often the case with development and construction of large
civil works, the political and institutional challenges associated with
water projects are often much more difficult to solve than the
technical challenges. In our view, these ten principles represent a
consensus list of ``behaviors'' that, if followed, will increase the
likelihood that new or expanded water projects can attain the necessary
public support, especially at the local level.
While these principles on their face appear straightforward and
simple, the devil, of course, is in the details of implementation.
Western Colorado and other rural Colorado residents are obviously very
concerned that the growing demand for water along the urban Front Range
corridor will take away our existing economic base, be it recreation or
agriculture, our quality of life and our future. The fact that many
Colorado counties outside the Front Range, be they in Western Colorado,
the San Luis Valley, or in the Arkansas River Valley, voted against the
recent Referendum A by margins of eight or nine to one is compelling
evidence that water solutions designed to meet the needs of the Front
Range at the expense of Colorado's rural areas are, in all likelihood,
a road map for failure. The ten principles presented in ``Colorado 64''
are, in our view, the road map toward success.
Current Projects Under Development
From an outsider's view, based on press reports addressing such
issues as the continuing drought in Colorado and the Western United
States, the problems with over reliance on groundwater use in the
Southern Metropolitan Denver Area and the recent controversy over
Referendum A, it may appear that not much is being done to address
Colorado's water needs. I believe that the reality is that nothing
could be further from the actual truth. Throughout Colorado, water
agencies are very busy with the development of new and innovative
projects designed to meet Colorado's future water needs. Further, in my
23 years of experience, I've never seen more cooperative projects or
cooperative efforts that are designed to develop cooperative or joint
projects.
The following is a list of some of the projects currently under
development that the West Slope is involved with:
1. The Enlargement of Elkhead Reservoir.
The River District, State of Colorado and the Upper Colorado River
Basin Endangered Species Recovery Program are working on a joint
project to enlarge the existing Elkhead Reservoir by about 12,000 acre
feet. Elkhead Reservoir is located on Elkhead Creek, a tributary to the
Yampa River near Craig. The remarkable aspect of this project is the
fact that the needs of endangered fish are being met through a
cooperative project where the Federal agencies are stepping up to the
plate and, through the Recovery Program, participating in a project
with broad local support.
2. Upper Colorado River Basin Project.
The River District, Denver Water, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, Grand County, Summit County, the Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments, Middle Park Water Conservancy District
and other local entities are working on a joint effort to examine local
water issues in the headwaters of the Colorado River in Grand and
Summit Counties (the UPCO Project).
This study has two general areas of focus, the Upper Blue River in
Summit County and the Fraser River Basin in Grand County. Denver Water
is currently in the process of seeking federal permits to ``firm up''
and enhance the yield of its North End or Moffat Tunnel Collection
System. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Municipal
Subdistrict is seeking federal permits to ``firm up'' the yield of the
Windy Gap Project. Both of these projects will further impact the
Colorado River Basin in Grand County, a region already heavily impacted
by existing transmountain diversions.
The goal of UPCO is to identify and address the local Grand County
water supply and environmental needs and develop projects or project
operational criteria to meet these needs as components of one or both
of the firming projects.
Within Summit County, the UPCO efforts are focused on meeting the
recreation and water supply needs of the communities surrounding Dillon
Reservoir, which includes four major Colorado ski areas.
3. The Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding.
Within the Eagle River watershed, the River District, Eagle County,
local water districts, Vail Resorts, Colorado Springs, Denver and
Aurora are working together to identify and implement joint projects.
Projects that can be supported by both the in-basin users and the out-
of-basin users. This effort is the direct result of the past failure of
Colorado Springs and Aurora to obtain local permits for the original
Homestake II Project.
4. Colorado Springs Substitution Agreement.
The River District, Colorado Springs, Denver Water, Summit County,
Breckenridge and others recently completed a small, but complicated,
agreement that firms up the yield of Colorado Springs' Upper Blue River
water rights in very dry years. In return, Colorado Springs provides a
small (250 acre feet) amount of water for uses on the Blue River above
Dillon Reservoir.
5. Douglas County Water Resources Authority Study.
The River District, Denver Water and the Douglas County Water
Resources Authority are jointly studying options to address the water
needs of the Southern Metropolitan Denver Area which is an area
currently relying on deep groundwater use. Options include the
development of a conjunctive-use project. This project would supplement
groundwater use with water available from the Platte and Blue Rivers in
wetter years.
6. Arkansas River Basin Projects.
While not a party to the Preferred Storage Option Project (PSOP)
sponsored by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the
River District is currently negotiating Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs)
with Colorado Springs and the Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Company so
that the River District Board of Directors can support, in concept, the
reoperation of Pueblo Reservoir and a feasibility study to enlarge
Pueblo Reservoir. The goal of the MOAs is to preserve the historic
compromises associated with the Congressional approval of the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
In addition to the above list, the following is a list of some of
the other Colorado projects under development:
1) Enlargement of the existing Stagecoach Reservoir (Upper
Yampa Water Conservancy District);
2) Animas-La Plata Project (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation);
3) Wolford Mountain Reservoir Enlargement (River District);
4) Colorado Springs Southern Delivery System (SDS);
5) Rueter-Hess Reservoir (Parker Water & Sanitation District);
6) Enlargement of Gerry Creek Reservoir (Ute Water Conservancy
District); and
7) Statewide Water Supply Initiative Study (Colorado Water
Conservation Board).
New Challenges
Finally, I want to take a few moments to comment on some of the new
challenges we face and make a few suggestions on the Federal role to
help local agencies address Colorado's water future.
First; within Colorado, the ``easy to build'' projects were built a
long time ago. If one were to walk along the Continental Divide from
Monarch Pass east of Gunnison to Muddy Pass, near Steamboat Springs,
(several hundred miles), all of the available water on the West Slope,
from the Divide, west for 25 to 50 miles has been appropriated and
developed, most, but not all, for transmountain uses. To develop
Colorado's unused Colorado River water, we either need to devise
projects that better manage existing supplies and use more wet year
water or go farther west. The recently completed ``Big Straw'' study by
the Colorado Water Conservation Board may seem like an extreme example
of this concept. The project proposes to pump water from the Colorado
River below Grand Junction to the Continental Divide. However, the
reality is that in all of 2001, all of 2002, and most of 2003, one
would have had to go all the way to Grand Junction to find any water
that was available for use for a new appropriator.
Second; there is increasing concern among the water community that
the basic water supply paradigm that the hydrology records of our
streams from the past 50 years or so can be used to ``predict''
hydrology into the future may be WRONG. In a business where even the
development of simple projects normally takes 15 to 20 years, climate
variability could add major new uncertainties and conflicts over water
supplies. At the recent NWRA convention, Reclamation Commissioner John
Keys made it clear that he believes something very significant may be
happening to our weather patterns, but we're not yet smart enough to
know exactly what or why. As a state that obtains most of its surface
supply from snowmelt, Colorado may be especially at risk to climate
change.
I often point out that one need not look to future global warming
scenarios to be concerned. My personal opinion is that there is
overwhelming evidence that the long-term average (500 year) flow of the
Colorado River system is as much as 10% less than the recent 90 year
gauge records and, unfortunately, if this is true, the recent dry years
which have drained Lake Powell to below 50% of capacity may be more the
``rule'' than the ``exception.''
Finally, I would urge the Water & Power Subcommittee members to
continue their role of examining and questioning the Federal government
role in addressing Western water issues. Clearly, the role of the
Federal agencies in water development has changed. In 1937, when the
River District was formed, Coloradans viewed the Federal government,
especially the Bureau of Reclamation, as essential to the development
and settlement of the West. Federal assistance was needed to fund and
build water projects that would provide reliable water supplies for
economies based on irrigated agriculture. The lynchpin of a reliable
water supply was then, and still is, upstream storage. However, the
reality of today is that in the initial press releases outlining the
Department of the Interior's Water 2025 initiative, the words ``new
water storage'' were not to be found.
Even though the days when Congressional appropriations were the
primary source of water projects are long gone, federal agencies still
have an important role. Almost every project needs Federal permits,
right-of-ways or contracts. I would hope that, in the spirit of the
2025 initiative, Federal agencies will become active partners in
working with local agencies to develop consensus-based solutions to
Colorado's water needs. The River District's Wolford Mountain Project
and Elkhead enlargement are good examples of a generally positive
partnership between Federal agencies and local water agencies.
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Kuhn's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Joel Rosenstein, Vice President of Coloradans for Water
Conservation and Development.
STATEMENT OF JOEL ROSENSTEIN, VICE PRESIDENT, COLORADANS FOR
WATER CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rosenstein. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House
Committee on Resources, thank you very much for the opportunity
to address your group. For the record, my name is Joel
Rosenstein. I am here on behalf of the Coloradans for Water
Conservation and Development (CWCD). I represent the Denver
Metro Chamber of Commerce. I'm on the CWCD's Board of
Directors. The Chamber represents about 3,000 businesses in the
Metro Denver area.
The CWCD is a recently formed nonprofit corporation that
promotes responsible conservation and the development of water
resources in the State of Colorado. The CWCD represents a broad
coalition of business and agricultural interests, many of which
are statewide organizations. Our members include the Chamber,
Colorado Concern, the Colorado Farm Bureau, National
Association of Industrial and Office Properties, Colorado
Apartment Association, the Colorado Association of Home
Builders, as well as a number of individuals supportive of our
primary objectives.
The severity of the recent drought on Colorado business and
agriculture and the need for a unified voice for water
development among business and agriculture interests prompted
these organizations to form a coalition that, in a very short
time, is shaping policy concerning conservation and the
development of the State's water resources.
Since 2002, I have chaired the Denver Metro Chamber of
Commerce's Water Task Force. This year our task force issued a
white paper entitled ``Water: What it Means to Business'' and I
brought with me copies and I'd be happy to share that with you.
In publishing the white paper, the Chamber sought to inform and
educate its membership and other interested parties about the
critical role of water in our State's economy.
The drought impacted nearly every industry and every region
of Colorado. Sixty-three of the 64 counties in Colorado
received a Federal Drought Disaster designation and for the
first time since its creation in 1981, the Colorado Drought
Mitigation Response Plan was fully activated.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources estimates the
economic loss to agriculture, tourism, and recreation at $1.1
million. Agriculture producers, especially dry land crop and
livestock producers suffered damages totaling more than $450
million. The green industries, which includes landscaping and
nurseries, estimate that the 2002 drought resulted in a loss of
15,000 jobs and $75 million in sales. The severe drought caused
many municipal water providers in the metro Denver area to
impose severe water restrictions which cause lawns, gardens,
fields and parks to brown and effected the ways children
practice and get involved with organized sports. Wildlife
habitat and riparian areas also suffered tremendously. For
residents of smaller towns such as Rocky Ford, Beulah, Victor,
Cripple Creek and Penrose, the water shortage forced entire
towns to have drinking water delivered by truck from other
locations.
If Colorado's economy is to remain strong and vibrant, we
must take immediate action to maximize our current water
resources and develop water resources on both sides of the
Continental Divide. Currently, Colorado Water Conservation
Board is conducting the Statewide Water Supply Initiative as we
talked about that some this morning. And it goes by the acronym
of SWSI and SWSI is identifying conservation projects and also
existing facilities in need of repair and expansion. And we're
going to be looking forward to working with the CWCB and other
groups involved with SWSI to make sure that it succeeds.
Each proposed water project will face the unique set of
challenges before its completion. All water projects face a
very daunting challenge in satisfying the multi-faceted
requirements of the various state and Federal agencies having
jurisdiction. In our view, the greatest obstacle for any water
storage project is securing the necessary Federal permits. An
applicant's efforts to secure such permits require significant
time and resources. It is important to note that new water
storage projects and the repair, rehabilitation and expansion
of existing water storage facilities are subject to the onerous
permitting process. Even continued operation of existing
facilities can become entangled in permitting disputes when
existing permits must be renewed.
There is no question that environmental impacts must be
assessed when a project is being considered. Environmental
Impact Statements required under NEPA are, in theory, an
excellent opportunity for project proponents and opponents to
assess the positive and negative impacts of a proposed project.
It is our understanding that NEPA was intended as a tool for
regulators, stakeholders and lawmakers to identify the
environmental issues that may arise from a water project.
The Environmental Impact Statement process, however, has
evolved in a way that too often does not meet the needs of our
citizenry, especially those relating to water development. The
process, too often, halts water development projects that are
both feasible and have sufficient financial backing.
We respectfully urge Congress to take immediate action to
streamline the Federal permitting process. We look to recent
actions by Congress where the permitting process has been
significantly simplified, if not altogether eliminated, for
actions deemed to be critical for the health and safety of our
citizens.
And for the sake of time, my testimony goes on and talks
about some actions that were recently taken by Congress and
some that weren't, including the recent energy bill and the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act as areas and ways to streamline
overly burdensome Federal permitting requirements. Improved
coordination among Federal agencies, stronger state roles in
the process and limits on appeals are constructive proposals
that could help streamline the process.
In addition, limiting the number of alternatives an agency
must consider, and expanding categorical exclusions from NEPA
to include repermitting, repairing or enlarging existing
facilities may merit further consideration.
Thank you very much for the time and the opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenstein follows:]
Statement of Joel Rosenstein, Vice President, Coloradans for Water
Conservation and Development, Representative, Denver Metro Chamber of
Commerce
Introduction and Background
Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee on Resources, my
name is Joel Rosenstein. I am here on behalf of Coloradans for Water
Conservation and Development (CWCD). I represent the Denver Metro
Chamber of Commerce on CWCD's board of directors. I was recently
elected vice president of CWCD.
The CWCD is a recently formed non-profit corporation that promotes
responsible conservation and the development of water resources in the
State of Colorado. The CWCD represents a broad coalition of business
and agricultural interests, many of which are statewide organizations.
Our charter members include the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce,
Colorado Concern, the Colorado Farm Bureau, National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties, Colorado Apartment Association, the
Colorado Association of Home Builders, as well as a number of
individuals supportive of our primary objectives.
The severity of the recent drought on Colorado business and
agriculture and the need for a unified voice for water development
among business and agriculture interests prompted these organizations
to form a coalition that, in a very short time, is shaping policy
concerning conservation and the development of the state's water
resources. In fact, we are beginning to work with public and private
entities to support the development of additional water projects.
In addition to my involvement with the CWCD, I am a real estate
attorney with the Denver law firm of Fisher, Sweetbaum & Levin. I
practice real estate, general corporate and some special district law.
Since 2002, I have chaired the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's Water
Task Force. This year, our task force issued a white paper entitled,
``Water: What it Means to Business.'' In researching and drafting the
white paper, I was involved in extensive interviews with stakeholders
representing an array of business and agricultural interests from
around the state. In publishing the white paper, the Denver Metro
Chamber of Commerce sought to inform and educate its membership and
other interested parties about the critical role of water in our
state's economy.
In researching and preparing this white paper, our committee found
that, notwithstanding water's centrality to a healthy, vibrant economy
in Colorado, the business community has typically been involved only on
the periphery of Colorado water policy discussions and debates. The
historic drought of 2002 (and, for some areas of the state, 2003) has
caused many Colorado business leaders and businesses to focus on the
management and development of Colorado's precious water resources.
2002 Drought Impacts
The drought impacted nearly every industry in every region in
Colorado. Sixty-three of the 64 counties in Colorado received a federal
drought disaster designation and, for the first time since its creation
in 1981, Colorado's Drought Mitigation and Response Plan was fully
activated. The Conservation and Drought Planning Division of the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources estimated the economic loss to
agriculture, tourism and recreation--three of Colorado's largest
industries--at $1.1 billion. Agricultural producers, especially dry
land crop and livestock producers, suffered damages totaling more than
$450 million. The green industries (landscaping and nursery industries)
estimate that the 2002 drought resulted in a loss of 15,000 jobs and
$75 million in sales.
The severe drought caused many municipal water providers in the
metropolitan Denver area to impose severe water use restrictions. These
restrictions caused lawns, gardens, fields and parks to brown. This, in
turn, forced many school-aged children to find other locations to
practice and engage in organized sports. For those unable to find a
suitable alternative, they had to do without. Wildlife habitat and
riparian areas also suffered tremendously. For residents of smaller
towns, such as Rocky Ford, Beulah, Victor, Cripple Creek and Penrose,
the water shortage forced entire towns to have drinking water
delivered, by truck, from other locations.
Water development and conservation: key elements in securing Colorado's
future
If Colorado's economy is to remain strong and vibrant, we must take
immediate action to maximize our current water resources and develop
water resources on both sides of the Continental Divide. Water
conservation measures must be tailored to preserve and sustain return
flows for downstream users and to facilitate the recharging of
underground aquifers. While conservation is a necessary component of
sound water management, conservation, alone, will not meet the growing
demands of our state. We must do more to store excess water during
times of peak run-off as permitted by our interstate compacts. The
storage of such water will benefit instream flows and recreational uses
as much as it does municipal, industrial and agricultural users.
Efforts are now underway at the state and local levels to identify
projects that are feasible and locally supported. One of the most
expedient ways to increase Colorado's capacity is to repair,
rehabilitate and restore our existing facilities. According to the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, we are unable to use more
than 100,000 acre feet of reservoir storage. Such facilities require
capital repairs before they can safely fill to full capacity. Just like
conservation, the rehabilitation of existing facilities is an important
part of managing our state's water resources. And, like conservation,
rehabilitation of existing facilities, alone, is not enough to meet our
future needs.
Currently, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is
conducting the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI). The CWCB will
issue a report in December 2004. SWSI will identify new local and
regional water storage projects with attendant local and regional
support. In addition, SWSI will also identify conservation projects and
initiatives and existing facilities in need of repair and/or expansion.
We look forward to working with the CWCB, local water conservation and
conservancy districts and municipalities in moving these projects
forward--projects that will meet our future water needs and temper the
severity of future droughts.
Federal permitting: A major obstacle to water development
Each proposed water project will face a unique set of challenges
before its completion. All water projects, however, face a very
daunting challenge in satisfying the multifaceted requirements of the
various state and federal agencies having jurisdiction. In our view,
the greatest obstacle for any water storage project is securing the
necessary federal permits. An applicant's efforts to secure such
permits require significant time and resources. It is important to note
that new water storage projects and the repair, rehabilitation and
expansion of existing water storage facilities are subject to the
onerous permitting process. Even continued operation of existing
facilities can become entangled in permitting disputes when existing
permits must be renewed.
There is no question that environmental impacts must be assessed
when a project is being considered. Environmental Impact Statements
(EIS) required under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are, in
theory, an excellent opportunity for project proponents and opponents
to assess the positive and negative impacts of a proposed project. It
is our understanding that the NEPA process was intended as a tool for
regulators, stake holders and lawmakers to identify the environmental
issues that may arise from a water project. It is our further
understanding that the environmental analyses to be conducted pursuant
to NEPA should result in a balancing act between the environment and
the diverse needs of our citizenry. This EIS process, however, has
evolved in a way that, too often, does not meet the needs of our
citizenry, especially those relating to water development. The process,
too often, halts water development projects that are both feasible and
have sufficient financial backing.
When Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, then acting as Attorney
General of the State of Colorado, testified before the full House
Resources Committee during a 1998 Oversight Hearing on NEPA, she drew a
grim picture of the burdensome nature of EIS process. Of the final EISs
filed in 1996, Norton stated, the longest had 1,638 pages of text,
while the average was 572 pages, including 204 pages of NEPA analysis.
In preparation of an EIS, a project proponent must expend significant
time and resources. Such are spent with no reasonable assurance that
the proposed water project will ultimately prevail or prevail on a
timetable that meets the growing demands of its proposed users. For
instance, the Parker Water and Sanitation District has spent
approximately 18 years and millions of dollars trying to permit its
off-channel reservoir, Reuter-Hess. Permitting and red tape can mire
down even the most environmentally benign water projects. Rancher John
Miller from Montezuma County spent $20,000 out of his own pocket on
permitting to clean out an irrigation ditch that predated the San Juan
National Forest.
We respectfully urge Congress to take immediate action to
streamline the federal permitting process. We look to recent actions by
Congress where the permitting process has been significantly
simplified, if not altogether eliminated, for actions deemed to be
critical for the health and safety of our citizens.
Models for future permitting reforms
Congress had considered permitting reforms before. The most recent
energy bill, the Chairman's CALFED bill, and the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 addressed ways to streamline overly burdensome
federal permitting requirements. Improved coordination among federal
agencies, stronger state roles in the process and limits on appeals are
constructive proposals that will help streamline the process. In
addition, limiting the number of alternatives an agency must consider,
and expanding categorical exclusions from NEPA to include repermitting,
repairing or enlarging existing facilities may merit consideration.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Act) provides one
model of federal permitting reform. The Act limits the number of
alternatives that must be considered when assessing environmental
impacts. Perhaps, just as important as examining the alternatives of
moving forward with a particular project or initiative, the Act
requires that the federal government consider the impact of not moving
forward. With respect to public land management, the cost of not moving
forward with forest management may be the increased risk of
catastrophic wildfires that ravage lands and habitat and endanger human
lives and homes. In the case of water development, the cost of not
moving forward is no less catastrophic: loss of critical riparian and
wildlife areas, impacts to drinking water supplies, soil erosion and
dust storms (which Colorado experienced in the 2002 drought), the
strain on existing water capacity, and the loss of the quality of life
that makes Colorado a very desirable place to live, work and raise a
family.
The Act also set forth a tiered approach to deal with federal
permitting. In the Act, there are specific federal activities, such as
those involving federal agency involvement in developing a community
wildfire protection plan, that are deemed not to constitute a federal
agency action under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
We acknowledge that it may not always be appropriate to exempt
completely a federal agency action from NEPA. In these instances, it
may be helpful to limit the scope and duration of the NEPA process. The
Act provides that certain federal activities, such as those involving
wildland-urban interface, do not require the Secretary of Interior ``to
study, develop or describe more than the proposed agency action and one
action alternative in the environmental impact statement prepared
pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.''
We believe that similar actions must be taken with respect to
federal laws, such as NEPA, that relate to the permitting of water
projects in Colorado. Earlier in my testimony, I referred to the
ongoing efforts of SWSI to identify existing storage facilities in need
of repair and rehabilitation and new water projects. We propose that
with respect to those projects in need of repair and rehabilitation, as
identified by SWSI, such should not be categorically subjected to a
NEPA or similar review process. And, in connection with new water
projects identified by SWSI, they should be subject to a less
burdensome federal permitting process whereby the proponent must only
submit one alternative in preparing the EIS.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, CWCD would be
happy to work with you on these, or other ideas, to help ensure future
generations have adequate water supplies.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Next, Mr. Alan Foutz, President, Colorado Farm Bureau is
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALAN FOUTZ, PRESIDENT,
COLORADO FARM BUREAU
Mr. Foutz. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
good morning. My name is Alan Foutz. I am President of Colorado
Farm Bureau. I currently farm about 1200 acres of wheat and
sunflowers and millet in the Akron area. I would ask that as
the winter gets worse that you feed your birds. That certainly
helps me out.
I appreciate the opportunity this morning to provide
comments to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, specially
regarding the status of Colorado's water supply and possible
ways to increase such supplies. I think it's interesting and
important to note that the Colorado Farm Bureau is the State's
largest farm organization and we do represent a majority of our
State's farmers and ranchers.
It's important, I think, to understand for the Subcommittee
the reason that agriculture finds it so important to be a part
of this Subcommittee hearing today. Of the approximately 6
million acre feed that are stored in the State, Colorado
agriculture has the rights to use 85 to 90 percent of that 6
million acre feed, and so in fact, we are probably the largest
stakeholder in terms of use of the water that is currently
stored in the State of Colorado.
Because of that and because of the increasing urban
population which is being accompanied by industrial growth,
that simply produces significant impacts for those of us in the
agricultural community.
Federal mandates for endangered species habitat, improved
water quality, those also simply increase demand on the water
that we currently store and while we understand that the
endangered species must be taken into account, we believe that
listing of species based on speculation rather than on sound
science often prohibits much of our needed water development.
We feel the same, sometimes of water quality and although
water quality is important to all of us, we need to understand
that as we begin to look at those mandates, there needs to be
some consideration about the use and where that goes and the
impacts that those Federal regulations do have on us.
Because of the huge impact that water has in the State of
Colorado, and on the agricultural industry, 2 years ago I put
together a Colorado Farm Bureau Task Force and the goal of that
task force was to provide an opportunity and a forum for all of
the water using entities to come together so that we could try
to begin to bring partnerships and form partnerships within the
water community so that we could come to some understanding and
some reasonable assurance that there was going to be water
available for agriculture.
Gentlemen, the losers in this discussion of water is
agriculture. The municipalities aren't going to lose. They have
the money to buy the water. Industrial use has the money to buy
the water. The only ones who have most of the water in this
state is agriculture and without increasing our supplies, the
loser in this argument is going to be the agricultural industry
in the State of Colorado. As you've heard, it is a huge
industry.
Mr. Chairman, Colorado Farm Bureau's member-driven policy
states that we recommend that our number one priority for
Colorado be the maximum beneficial utilization of Colorado
water under the present system for the State and that a
concerted program be initiated to build storage and water
facilities and improve existing structures.
Our policy also states that we recommend that the State of
Colorado take aggressive action in funding and development of
multiple water projects within the State with the objective of
retaining all of the Colorado water that's owned and that can
be used in any one of our numerous basins. That was the reason
why we supported very vigorously Referendum A.
Colorado Farm Bureau also believes that Colorado should,
and this is extremely important, protect the prior
appropriations system that's been the basis of our water
structure for a 150 years. We need to maintain that. It works
and we need to maintain that.
We need to make sure that we maintain our Colorado
interstate water compacts. We need to make sure that we
maintain our existing water rights systems so that we when
those people who own those water rights can utilize them on a
free market system, and I think some of these solutions to the
problem is really free market in some cases. There's going to
be some that might argue that, but I think that may be the
case.
We also need to be concerned about when we get to talking
about inter-basin transfer, that there is, in fact, some way to
help mitigate the movement of that water whether it's an
economic mitigation or whether it may be an environmental
mitigation, whatever that mitigation needs to be locally,
that's obviously something we need to do.
In order for the State of Colorado to meet the current and
future water demands, policymakers, users and managers should
strongly consider a mix of the several potential water
development opportunities that we have. I think the first thing
that we need to look at is the development of the
unappropriated waters that do leave the State and those numbers
have existed. We know there's somewhere between 450,000 acre
feed and a million and a half acre feed.
Second, we need to develop cooperative water resource
planning processes for local, regional and state agencies.
Third, we need to develop alternatives for further funding
of projects, whatever that might be, both private and public.
Fourth, we need to encourage conservation and carry our
programs to educate the public about conservation and the
impacts, both negative and positive that conservation has. And
fifth, we need to develop additional water supplies by
supporting large and small scale projects.
Mr. Chairman, the Colorado Farm Bureau is dedicated to
helping further the water programs in Colorado and in
furthering partnership so that we can move forward on this
issue in the State.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foutz follows:]
Statement of Dr. Alan Foutz, President, Colorado Farm Bureau
Good morning. My name is Alan Foutz. I am President of the Colorado
Farm Bureau and currently farm 1,200 acres of wheat, sunflowers and
millet in Akron. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to
the Subcommittee on Water and Power regarding the status of Colorado's
water supply and possible ways to increase such supplies. Colorado Farm
Bureau is the state's largest agriculture organization with over 28,000
members.
Today's widespread delivery facilities provide such easy access to
water that most people take it for granted, even in Colorado, a state
where water is considered the most precious natural resource. Like
other western states, Colorado's settlement and subsequent economic
progress was possible only by developing water resources from surface
waters and underground aquifers.
Colorado is one of only two states in the nation that depends
solely on precipitation for our water supply. Our state also supplies
water to many of our eastern and western neighbors. Drainage throughout
the state occurs through three separate systems, with all rivers
originating in the Colorado mountains. All drainage west of the
Continental Divide flows into the Colorado River, through Nevada and
Arizona, and eventually out to the Gulf of California. The major rivers
east of the Continental Divide are the North and South Platte,
Arkansas, and the Rio Grande. Drainage east of the Continental Divide
flows into the Gulf of Mexico by the South Platte and the Arkansas
rivers which are part of the Mississippi system. Water from the eastern
slope of the San Juan Mountains drains into the Gulf of Mexico by the
Rio Grande River.
Agriculture is the third largest industry in the state of Colorado,
with revenues reaching $16 billion. Agriculture uses 85% to 90% of
Colorado's water to produce food and fiber. Producing a typical lunch--
hamburger, french fries, and a soft drink--requires 1,500 gallons of
water. This includes the water needed to raise the potatoes, the grain
for the bun, the grain needed to feed the cattle, and the production of
the soda.
Water that is not consumed by crops returns to the river system
where it is picked up and used again and again before it leaves the
state. We estimate it is diverted, applied to beneficial use and a
portion returns to the stream for subsequent diversion seven times from
the headwaters of a major river in Colorado to the state line where it
fulfills our interstate compact obligation.
Surface water supplies, developed from natural streams, represent
the largest source of fresh water supplies. The eastern plains and
western plateau regions are semiarid, while the central mountains
collect abundant precipitation during the winter and snowmelt in early
spring. This water feeds four of the West's major river systems: the
South Platte, Arkansas, Rio Grande, and Colorado. Mining and
agricultural interests were the first to tap water resources from these
stream systems.
The increase in population accompanying industrial growth has
produced significant increases in the water demand by municipalities,
particularly those on the eastern front range. Continued population
growth, federal mandates for endangered species habitat and improved
water quality will increase future demands for water supplies. While we
understand that endangered species must be taken into account, we
believe that listing a species based on speculation rather than sound
science often prohibits much-needed water development.
Colorado is currently experiencing one of the worst droughts in our
state's history. Most people believe that we are in the third
consecutive year of a drought cycle in Colorado and that the state is
in the fifth year of below-average snow pack. Based on the available
information we have now, we are in the worst drought since 1977, with
some river basins below 10 percent of their normal water capacity. Some
estimates say that this is the worse drought in the last 350 years.
Typically runoff in Colorado equals 16 million acre feet. During
this drought, however, runoff is approximately 6.4 million acre feet.
Today, our reservoir capacity is less than 6.5 million acre feet. To
put this in perspective, one acre foot is equal to 325,851 gallons of
water or enough to fill a football field one foot deep.
Colorado farmers and ranchers depend on a reliable water supply to
produce the highest quality of food for U.S. consumers. According to
the Colorado Department of Agriculture, total water diversions in
Colorado were 21.9 million acre-feet, with irrigation withdrawals
accounting for 11.5 million acre-feet or 53% of all water diverted. The
value of crops produced in Colorado is around $1.3 billion with three-
fourths of this total value depending on irrigation. These crops form
the basis for Colorado's livestock industry, which produces $3.2
billion in sales.
Right now, this high standard and our way of life are in jeopardy
due to our lack of water and our inability to store the water we are
entitled to under our interstate compact agreements. Water conservation
practices are a way of life for farmers and ranchers in Colorado. We
inspect water systems before water begins to flow, clear ditches of
debris and make sure ditch banks are sturdy, check nozzles for leaks on
sprinkler systems, rotate grazing for adequate rest and regrowth,
maintain riparian buffers, filter strips and grassed waterways as
conservation buffers near streams, use conservation tillage to increase
soil moisture and reduce evaporation, and plant crops that withstand
dryness.
Water conservation practices, while important, will not satisfy
future water supply needs alone. We must store the water that is
rightfully ours instead of watching it flow freely from our state.
Colorado is entitled to more than 16 million acre feet per year but we
only store 6 million. Storage options range from constructing new
reservoirs to enhancing wastewater reclamation opportunities.
Colorado Farm Bureau's member-driven policy states that we
recommend that the number one priority for Colorado be the maximum
beneficial utilization of Colorado water under the present system for
the state, and a concerted program be initiated to build storage and
water facilities. Our policy also states that we recommend the State of
Colorado take aggressive action in funding and development of multiple
water projects within the state with the objective of retaining all the
Colorado-owned water that can be used by any basin within the state.
Colorado Farm Bureau also believes Colorado should protect the
prior appropriations system, Colorado interstate water compact
entitlements, existing water rights when interbasin water transfers
occur, and allow the free market system to work in the pricing of
water. In order for the State of Colorado to meet current and future
water demands, policymakers, users, and managers should strongly
consider a mix of several potential water development opportunities.
First, we must develop unappropriated supplies. At least 450,000-
1.5 million acre-feet have been identified as new developable surface
water supplies. Second, we must develop a cooperative water resource
planning process for local, regional, and state agencies. Third, we
need to develop alternatives for further funding, both private and
public, for water project development. Fourth, we must encourage
conservation and carry out programs to educate the public and water
user entities about the importance of water efficiency as well as the
importance of water resource development to our state's economy. Fifth,
we must develop additional water supplies by supporting large- and
small-scale water projects, wastewater reuse, and groundwater recharge
programs. Finally, we must enhance and expand statewide computer
databases and decision support systems to improve development and
management of existing supplies.
Water is fundamental to all life forms, affecting all ecosystems
and the various uses to which it is put. Often, these uses compete
quantitatively and qualitatively with one another. At the same time,
agriculture, industry, and rapidly expanding populations are increasing
the demand for this limited resource. As a state, our challenge is to
come together and build new water projects that will benefit every
corner of our state and protect the water we do have.
Colorado Farm Bureau looks forward to working with the Committee on
western water issues and developing a strategy to meet our demanding
water needs. Thank you.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Next, Ms. Patricia Wells, General Counsel, Denver Water,
Denver, Colorado.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA WELLS, GENERAL COUNSEL,
DENVER WATER, DENVER, COLORADO
Ms. Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Colorado Congressional Committee. Denver Water is the largest
municipal water supply in Colorado serving more than 1.2
million people. While we're drinking bottled water up here
today, I assure you that the water from the tap will be just as
good.
Mr. Calvert. I hope so because we're drinking the water
from the tap.
Ms. Wells. Even better.
Mr. Calvert. And for the record I would point out that the
water you're drinking is Arrowhead Water which is imported from
California.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Wells. Denver's water gets its supply from both the
South Platte and the Colorado River. I've described in my
written testimony the 1996 integrated resource plan what Denver
Water did to determine how we will meet our build out need of
475,000 acre feed and it's basically a tripartite approach, if
you want to call it that. First, conservation. Our plan calls
for 16,000 acre feed to be gained through conservation before
the Year 2030.
In addition, the recycling of water is a very important way
to increase supply. We have a $60 million recycling water
treatment plant that will go on-line this spring to supply
15,000 acre feed of water into our customers for nonpotable
uses and the third prong is new supply. We looked first at
refinements of our system. It's been around for a long time. We
have some ditch rights, for example, that we can convert to
municipal use.
We're looking at joint projects with our suburban neighbors
and also with our West Slope partners and we're also looking at
some new projects, for example, enlarging existing reservoirs,
perhaps building a new small reservoir to solve a problem that
we currently have on the north side of our system.
For the rest, the topic of this hearing was to be options
for increasing supply or improving water use efficiencies, so I
thought I would make some suggestions as to how, in fact,
Congress could help with both of those. For enhancing supply,
one thing that Congress could do is that right now the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund created by Congress that funds a lot
of local water supply projects is by regulation prohibited from
being used for reservoirs, reservoir rehabilitation or the
acquisition of water rights.
In Colorado, that's how we tend to enhance supply and those
projects are not available. This is only a regulatory
prohibition, not a statutory prohibition and Congress could
probably maybe fix that.
Second, water transfers are currently not subject to
regulation by discharge permits, NPDES discharge permits.
However, two Federal circuit courts have determined that they
would be. In Colorado, and all the western states, how we
create water supplies is by moving water. We do it through
ditches, tunnels, canals, millions and millions of facilities
that have never been subject to discharge permits.
Two cases have held that they must be. One of those cases
is currently going to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in
January. It's called the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians versus the
South Florida Water Management District. That case has great
import for all of us in the West. If we have to have a
discharge permit to move water through the Roberts Tunnel then
we have a problem. EPA could say you can't move--the issue is
the water in the Blue River is different than the water in the
Platte River and we move water from the Blue to the Platte.
It's different. And the Courts have determined that that is,
that difference is addition of pollutant, even though we're not
adding anything to the water by moving it.
So the issue in the case is as often is the case
congressional intent. So if Congress did not intend to regulate
all these ditches, dams, canals under the NPDES discharge
permits, you can probably maybe fix that as well. Third, the
Endangered Species Act is, in fact, a problem for existing
supplies as well as for new supplies. I do not think that the
Endangered Species Act should be weakened. I don't think the
public would stand for it. But I do think there are a couple of
things that you could do to adjust it.
First, which isn't an adjustment at all and that is to
provide money for recovery programs. So long as there are
recovery programs in place for the species, then projects can
go forward. That's happened on the Colorado with the four
endangered fish. We're still in the balance and whether that's
going to be true on the Platte for the birds in Nebraska, our
recycling plant could be in danger, if there is no recovery
program for the birds in Nebraska.
In addition to money, the minor adjustment would be for
Congress to change the timing of critical habitat designation
from within a few months after listing to the recovery program.
What happens now is critical habitat is supposed to be
designated concurrently or within a year after listing. At that
time, the Federal government, the Fish and Wildlife Service
doesn't know anything about the species or what they need. That
can only be done really in the context of recovery program
where you know what you're doing, you have goals and you set
about to do it.
A second item under the Endangered Species Act, which is
the subject of supplemental testimony I have provided at the
desk, is a decision yesterday that came down that has put into
question the ``No Surprises Policy'' currently available to
people who do habitat conservation plans. It's very important.
Three hundred seventy-nine habitat conservation plans covering
30 million acres are currently enjoying the ``No Surprises
Policy'' assurance and the Court has held that that was not
adopted properly.
My time is up and I can't get to what Congress could do to
help for re-use and conservation, but it is in my written
testimony.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wells follows:]
Statement of Patricia L. Wells, General Counsel,
Denver Board of Water Commissioners
INTRODUCTION
Denver Water is an agency of the City and County of Denver, the
largest municipal public utility in Colorado, serving water to over 1
million people, about one-quarter of the state's population. Because
Denver was one of the earliest communities in Colorado, and thanks to a
number of visionary leaders in the early 20th century, Denver Water
enjoys relatively senior water rights, and storage and transmission
facilities, that are the envy of water suppliers nationwide.
DENVER WATER'S APPROACH TO WATER SUPPLY
Denver Water completed an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in 1996
that identified an overall requirement of 100,000 more acre-feet of
firm yield in order to serve our combined service area to geographic
build-out. A more detailed description of the IRP and Denver Water's
resulting activities appears later in this testimony. Upon completion
of the IRP, the Denver Water Board determined to produce the increased
supply needed until 2030 through three basic approaches:
1. Conservation--Elements of conservation include the ``natural
replacement'' that occurs when older water fixtures are replaced with
newer, more efficient fixtures; incentive programs funded by Denver
Water; and regulatory programs implemented by both Denver Water and
general purpose governments. The IRP concluded that 16,000 acre-feet of
``supply'' could be created through conservation. (An average single
family residence in Denver Water's service area uses about .6 acre-foot
of water per year.)
2. Reuse or recycling--The IRP proposed that approximately 15,000
acre-feet of new supply be created by treating effluent from a
wastewater treatment plant to non-potable standards to be used for
irrigation and industrial purposes. For every acre-foot of recycled
water used, one less acre-foot of potable water needs to be stored,
treated and distributed. As a result of the IRP analysis, Denver
Water's recycled water plant was put on a fast track. The $60 million
treatment plant is nearly completed and will begin delivering water
next spring.
3. New supply--While new supply might be viewed as the traditional
solution to water needs, the IRP emphasized alternatives to Denver
Water's time-honored approach of unilateral construction of new
reservoirs. The IRP recommended system refinements, which could include
changing ditch irrigation rights to municipal use, conversion of park
irrigation from potable to non-potable water, and improvements in
distribution facilities, and joint-use cooperative projects developed
with partners. In addition, the plan contemplated new supply projects
that could include enlargement of existing reservoirs or construction
of relatively small new reservoirs.
With regard to Denver Water's water supply, or any other water
supply in Colorado, the truth discerned through the three-year IRP
process is that there is no silver bullet. No single approach, much
less a single project, can resolve the need for water supply.
Conservation is very important and can provide the least-cost supply,
but it is not a panacea. Certainly, any entity contemplating new supply
must first ensure that it has placed the maximum reasonable reliance on
conservation in order to minimize the costs of new supply and maximize
the acceptability of the project. Reuse of effluent is also important.
If the appropriate water rights exist, the supply of effluent is
dependable and relatively drought-proof. However, reuse of effluent
requires expensive treatment capacity and also results in lower flows
in streams to which the effluent is presently being discharged. New
supply in the form of reservoirs is also beneficial, but presents the
well-known tension between the environmental benefit of water left in
streams and the human benefit of water used for domestic purposes. All
three approaches should be included in efforts to enhance water supply.
OPTIONS TO INCREASE WATER SUPPLY
As discussed above, new supply projects are not the sole or even
the primary solution to water needs. However, when new supply is an
appropriate solution, there are several ways in which Congress could
improve the likelihood that viable projects will, in fact, be
implemented.
1. Remove regulatory limitations on the use of federal loan funds.
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, P. L. 104-182, created
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide financial
assistance to public water systems. Although the statute does not
require such a result, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300j-12 (a)(2), EPA
regulations do not permit the funds to be used to enhance water supply,
at least in the ways that supply is normally enhanced in the West.
While eligible projects are allowed to ``rehabilitate or develop water
sources,'' EPA specifically prohibits use of the funds for reservoirs,
dams, dam rehabilitation or water rights 40 C.F.R. Sec. 35.3520(e).
This regulatory limitation has caused problems for water projects in
Colorado; Congress could easily rectify this situation by means of
instructions to EPA.
2. Clarify that water transfers do not require NPDES discharge
permits. The judiciary has recently increased dramatically the scope of
the Clean Water Act's requirement that any addition of pollutants to
the nation's waters be subject to an NPDES permit issued by EPA.
Despite 30 years of contrary experience under the Clean Water Act, two
federal circuit courts have held that transfers and diversions of
natural, untreated water as part of water supply or water quality
systems are subject to regulation by means of NPDES permits. Catskill
Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. City of New York, 273
F.3d 481 (2nd Cir. 2001); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. South Florida
Water Management Dist., 280 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2002). It is almost
impossible to overstate the danger these cases pose to the operation of
water supply systems, both current systems and certainly any new supply
project. More than two million dams and countless other diversion
structures throughout the United States would become subject to permit
requirements that might well be impossible to satisfy. Fortunately, the
U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the cases in January. South Florida
Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, et al., No.
02-626. However, a decision would probably not be forthcoming for
several months, and judicial interpretation is not always predictable.
Since the issue in the litigation is whether Congress intended to
regulate water transfers diversions as point sources rather than non-
point sources, compare 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1362(12) with 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1314(f)(2)(F), Congress has the ability to clarify its intent and
provide definitive protection for the water supply systems on which the
nation depends.
3. Ensure that the Endangered Species Act does not prohibit water
supply projects. In the semi-arid West, the competition for water is
fierce, and the competitor with the trump card is the Endangered
Species Act. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines that
flows are needed by a threatened or endangered species, then water is
not available to be developed or stored for human needs. See Rio Grande
Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003)(holding that the
Bureau of Reclamation must reduce deliveries required by contracts that
pre-date the ESA to protect the minnow). The fundamental protections of
the ESA should remain in place. The ESA works to protect important
habitat and ecosystems, and the public supports its purpose. What would
be most useful to water suppliers is the development and implementation
of recovery programs for all species that have been listed. Where
recovery programs are in place, water development can occur. For
example, the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish
Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin, developed over many years,
has allowed existing and new depletions to the Colorado River to occur
without jeopardy opinions. Congress should provide significantly
increased funding for recovery programs under the ESA. To make the
development of recovery plans more workable and rational, Congress
should also amend the statute to move the designation of critical
habitat to a more sensible place in the process, the development of the
recovery plan. At present, the statute requires designation of critical
habitat ``concurrently'' with the listing of the species, or at least
within one year 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(a)(3)(A) and (b)(6)(C). This
requirement forces Fish and Wildlife either to make completely
uninformed decisions about habitat and, in the interest of caution,
designate much more area than necessary, or to violate the statute.
Fish and Wildlife has been placed in the untenable position of
routinely losing lawsuits for failure to designate critical habitat
within the statutory deadline, e.g., Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174
F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1999), and then losing another lawsuit because its
hasty compliance resulted in an inadequate designation. E.g., Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Babbitt, 206 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D.N.M
2000). Congress can rectify this counterproductive dilemma by including
critical habitat designation as part of development of recovery plans,
and providing sufficient funding that recovery plans can actually be
implemented.
4. Clarify the meaning of ``waters of the United States'' under
the Clean Water Act. In the years since the passage of the Clean Water
Act in 1974, the extent of its jurisdiction has been subject to
``regulatory creep.'' The Act regulates under the NPDES program
discharges into ``navigable waters,'' 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1344(a), which are
defined in the statute as ``waters of the United States.'' 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1362(7). The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the Corps of
Engineers had exceeded its authority when it interpreted the Act to
cover an isolated, intrastate gravel pit Solid Waste Agency of Northern
Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 121 S. Ct. 675
(2001). However, a new threat to water suppliers arises from a Fourth
Circuit case, United States v. Deaton, 332 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 2003),
which upholds the Corps' assertion of jurisdiction over a roadside
drainage ditch. The Corps' theory is that the drainage ditch eventually
empties into a navigable water. Of course, that is what drainage
ditches are intended to do, transport storm water and other surface
water off roads and developed land into streams and rivers. These
drainage ditches are considered sources of pollutants at the point
where they discharge into streams and rivers, and are regulated under
storm water management programs. It is difficult to see how they can
also be ``waters of the United States.'' The problem for water
suppliers is that water systems frequently include ditches of many
types, and any eventual connection with a stream could subject them to
control by the Corps of Engineers and EPA under the Clean Water Act.
Congress could clarify the definition of ``waters of the United
States'' to exclude ditches and other man-made structures.
OPTIONS TO IMPROVE WATER USE EFFICIENCY
As discussed above, conservation and reuse can be important sources
of water supply. Congress has an important role to play in enhancing
the productivity of these potential sources.
1. Create water efficiency standards for appliances. The federally
mandated production of low-volume toilets has been very effective in
helping to reduce indoor water consumption. Congress could further
increase indoor water conservation by creating water efficiency
standards for other water-using appliances, such as dishwashers and
clothes washers. These standards could either be mandated, as was the
case for toilets, or could form the basis for water efficiency product
labeling. Denver Water offered a rebate for horizontal axis clothes
washers during the recent drought, and the response from our customers
was overwhelmingly positive.
2. Enhance the effectiveness of irrigation systems. Automated
irrigation systems are becoming the norm in residential developments in
the West. Since irrigation constitutes more than 40% of Denver Water's
water use, any savings in irrigation enhances overall supply. Congress
could facilitate the manufacture of more efficient irrigation systems
in two respects. First, water efficiency labeling could be initiated,
so the customer could determine in advance which system would produce
greater efficiency. Second, Congress could mandate that new controllers
include a rain sensor, which prevents operation of the irrigation
system during precipitation events. Since rain sensors avoid wasting
water, their inclusion in new irrigation controllers would benefit both
consumers and water providers.
3. Prohibit restrictive covenants that restrict water-wise
landscaping. Although restrictive covenants are contractual, when they
violate important public policy, they are unenforceable. Several local
governments have prohibited new covenants that require a certain amount
of turf, or restrict the use of Xeriscape or other drought-tolerant
landscaping. E.g., Denver Rev. Municipal Code Sec. 57-100;Colo. Rev.
Stat. Sec. 37-60-126(g)(11). Congress could greatly enhance the use of
water-wise landscaping, resulting in significant water savings, if it
declared such restrictive covenants to be contrary to public policy.
4. Increase funding for recycling of water. Recycled water
projects are eligible for loans under the Water Pollution Control State
Revolving Loan Fund established under the Clean Water Act. However,
such funding has in the past been quite limited. As the technology for
recycling water has improved and public acceptance has grown, this
would be an opportune time to increase funding for recycling projects.
DENVER WATER'S INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN
Denver Water's approach to water supplies has undergone profound
change during the past several years. In part, this change has resulted
from a new and complex political and regulatory environment that
culminated in the federal government's 1991 veto of the Two Forks
project. Two Forks was designed to capture and store an additional 1.1
million acre-feet of water and was intended to provide for the needs of
much of the metropolitan Denver area well into the 21st century.
With the project's veto, Denver Water moved to redefine the
boundaries of its service area and reassess its traditional assumptions
for providing the water supply needed to meet customer demand within
that area. This reassessment was accomplished through Integrated
Resource Planning (IRP). Such planning includes techniques to factor in
changing public and regulatory sentiment and new technologies, as well
as traditional engineering and financial aspects of water utility
planning.
A principal policy decision made in the context of the IRP process
was that Denver Water would not attempt to expand its service area.
Denver Water defined a ``Combined Service Area'' comprised of the City
and County of Denver and 78 suburban Contract Distributors. See
Attachment A. Denver Water committed to serve the build-out needs of
this area, but also agreed to provide fixed amounts of water to certain
entities outside the Combined Service Area. This approach allows Denver
Water to estimate with more certainty future water needs, as growth
within the Combined Service Area proceeds to build-out. The Denver
Water Board decided to look outside its Combined Service Area for
potential efforts, only when such efforts would provide a substantial
benefit to the Combined Service Area.
In the 1996 IRP, the Board indicated that no single option or
project would be sufficient to close the 100,000 acre-foot shortfall
between its available supply and demand at build-out. As a central
feature of its resource strategy, the Board emphasized the need for a
strong water conservation ethic and additional cost-effective water
conservation measures. The Board also committed itself to development
of a non-potable recycled water project and small-scale system
refinements, such as conversion of park land from potable to non-
potable irrigation. The Board indicated that new surface water storage
would likely be needed toward the end of the near-term time frame to
supplement conservation, reuse and small-scale refinements. To
implement its near-term and long-term strategies, the Board set forth
certain guidelines:
When meeting future needs, including development of
cooperative projects with others, the Board will pursue resource
development in an environmentally responsible manner;
The Board recognized that ``cooperative actions'' with
other metropolitan entities outside its service area can enhance its
near-term and long-term strategies, and directed staff to explore such
cooperative actions with entities grouped by quadrants of the
metropolitan area;
The Board cautioned that, as a result of maximizing use
of its existing supply, flows in the Platte would be reduced downstream
north of Denver, and fluctuation of its reservoirs, such as Dillon
Reservoir, would be increased; and
The Board emphasized that it would not undertake future
structural projects on the Western Slope unless such project is
developed cooperatively with Western Slope entities for the benefit of
all parties concerned.
Supply and Demand. As part of its 2002 update of the IRP, Denver
Water revisited various water supply and demand management options. The
results of that update show that the Denver Water Board currently has a
supply of 375,000 acre-feet of firm annual yield. Much of that increase
can be attributed to projects under construction and processes
presently underway. For example, 17,000 acre-feet results from Denver
Water's non-potable recycling project, which is under construction and
will be fully used over the next decade. Similarly, 5,000 acre-feet are
attributable to gravel pit storage, even though these storage
reservoirs will not be fully operational for several years.
Current demand on the Denver Water system is now 285,000 acre-feet.
Denver Water projects its requirement for build-out of the system in
the middle of the 21st century at approximately 450,000 acre-feet.
Conservation. In 1996, the Board set a goal of saving 29,000
acre-feet through additional conservation efforts by the year
2045. The IRP identified two planning horizons: the near-term
from 1996 through 2030 and the long-term from 2030 through
build-out of the Combined Service Area. The near-term
conservation goal established in the IRP was 16,000 acre-feet.
Based on this near-term goal, the conservation measures are
considered to have saved approximately 2,300 acre-feet.
Staff is currently researching new incentive measures,
effective mandates and reasonable rates that meet other Board
goals, as well as the conservation goal. This approach will
include the education and information measures already in
place, and even more cooperation with neighboring utilities,
non-profit organizations and trade associations to maximize
results.
Non-Potable Reuse. Denver Water is currently constructing a
non-potable water recycling project. The recycling project will
take secondary treated wastewater from the Denver Metro
Reclamation District plant and treat it to a tertiary level.
The basic treatment processes include coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration and disinfection with chlorine.
Colorado recently implemented control regulations for non-
potable reuse water for urban irrigation areas. Denver Water's
recycled water will meet or exceed both adopted and proposed
state regulations.
In Colorado, 15 recycling projects are on-line, including
Colorado Springs, Aurora and Westminster. Broomfield is
planning a new project, and expansions of existing systems are
also planned. When constructed, Denver Water's project will be
the largest in the state. When it is fully operational in 2013,
it in combination with exchanges operated pursuant to state
water rights will, in effect, exhaust the yield that can be
generated from reusable water until additional reusable water
becomes available due to additional growth.
System Refinements or Modifications. The IRP process in 1996
identified numerous small-scale projects to improve water
system efficiency, resulting in 10,000 acre-feet of additional
firm yield. Today, the yield estimate is 13,000 acre-feet. As a
result of the long lead time and uncertainties of many of these
projects, Denver Water is implementing the largest projects to
determine their capabilities. Estimated yields and completion
dates are shown below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.001
Denver Water and South Adams County Water and Sanitation
District have jointly acquired six gravel mining sites to
develop 8,000 acre-feet of storage needed for river exchanges
and 4,000 acre-feet of storage for augmenting the recycling
project.
Nearing completion is a Future Management Study investigating
the effects of reducing deliveries in the lower third of the
High Line Canal and conveyance of that section to a recreation
management entity. Aurora has expressed interest in operating
most of the lower canal and helping provide canal flow to
maintain the vegetation.
The Lawn Irrigation Return Flow study began in 2000 and is
expected to be complete in 2004. Denver Water will enhance its
supply by claiming its reusable LIRF's through a water court
proceeding. Denver Water has constructed a pump station near
the South Platte, which will allow it to recover bypass flows
that must be released from Strontia Springs Reservoir as a
regulatory condition. Denver Water customers on or near the
City Ditch are being converted to the recycling plant.
Cooperative Actions. Denver Water believes it can find the
additional water to build out its Combined Service Area from its own
resources. That is, the Board is not dependent on resources--water
rights, facilities, or dollars--from those outside its Combined Service
Area to find additional water supply or demand reduction needed to meet
its future obligations within the Combined Service Area. The
combination of Denver Water's infrastructure and extensive conditional
water rights puts it in an enviable position in terms of preparation
for its future.
However, the Board also realizes that there may be economies and
efficiencies to be gained by pooling its efforts and resources with
those outside its Combined Service Area, and is willing to engage in
mutually beneficial cooperative actions with those outside its Combined
Service Area. The Board is not willing to permanently dedicate its
infrastructure or water rights capacity to those outside its Combined
Service Area without receiving yield, infrastructure or other
commensurate benefit beyond payment of the costs involved.
Denver Water has been exploring cooperative actions with water
suppliers outside the Combined Service Area. The following cooperative
actions have been discussed or implemented within the four metro
regions:
Aurora. Aurora and Denver Water are discussing potential steps for
rebuilding Denver Water's Antero Dam to allow storage of the full
decreed amount in the reservoir. Cooperation on the enlargement of
Denver Water's Eleven Mile Reservoir also is part of the discussion.
The Antero project would provide an additional 65,000 acre-feet of
storage, while the Eleven Mile project could provide an added 18,000
acre-feet of storage. Preliminary steps include an engineering
feasibility study, on-site environmental evaluation, an outreach
program in Park County to identify crucial issues, and an assessment of
probable regulatory hurdles.
Northeast. The northeast regional group includes Aurora, Brighton,
Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, South Adams County Water and
Sanitation District (South Adams), Thornton, the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, and the State of Colorado. Early meetings of this group also
included Public Service Company of Colorado (now Xcel Energy) and Metro
Wastewater Reclamation District. Denver Water has implemented one
cooperative action in this region--a three-way agreement among Denver,
South Adams and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. South Adams and Denver
Water are cooperatively building 8,000 acre-feet of gravel pit storage
for Denver Water's use, which will produce 5,000 acre-feet of new
yield. South Adams will receive 4,000 acre-feet of this new yield, and
Denver Water will acquire the remaining 1,000 acre-feet. The Rocky
Mountain Arsenal will receive 1,200 acre-feet of recycled water for the
wildlife refuge. A further outcome of northeast regional efforts is an
agreement between Denver Water, Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation
Company, and two other irrigation companies that settled long-standing
disputes surrounding the acceptability of Denver Water's reusable
effluent as a replacement supply in exchanges and Denver Water's
ability to use pumps at Metro Wastewater to operate exchanges.
Northwest. The northwest regional group includes Arvada,
Broomfield, Consolidated Mutual and Westminster. Denver Water's first
priority in this region is to solve its Moffat System problem. Denver
Water and Consolidated Mutual have entered into an arrangement that
provides Denver Water with 440 acre-feet of yield in exchange for
Denver Water paying $3 million toward the construction of a small
reservoir (Walter S. Welton Reservoir) built by Consolidated Mutual. In
1999, the Board entered into an agreement with the City of Arvada to
purchase land and preserve the option to build Leyden Gulch Reservoir
as a possible answer to Denver Water's Moffat reliability problem.
South Metro. The south metro group includes Douglas County, the
Town of Castle Rock, Centennial Water & Sanitation District, Parker
Water & Sanitation District, East Cherry Creek Valley Water &
Sanitation District, Castle Pines North Metropolitan District,
Cottonwood Metropolitan District, Inverness Water & Sanitation
District, Stonegate Village Metropolitan District, Meridian
Metropolitan District, Pinery Water & Wastewater District, Roxborough
Park Metropolitan District, and Arapahoe County Water & Wastewater
Authority. Denver Water, the Colorado River Water Conservation
District, and the south metro entities listed above have agreed to
study collaboratively possible water supply options. The expected
completion date for the study is December 2003. When the study is
completed, the Douglas County water users expect to prepare a
cooperative action proposal for Board consideration.
Upper Colorado River Basin Study. While not a part of the metro
Denver regional efforts, the Board has extended its outreach to
the Western Slope as well as to the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (Northern). On the Western Slope, Denver
Water has been engaged in a four-year effort known as the Upper
Colorado River Basin Study. The study includes, as
participants, the Colorado River Water Conservation District
(Colorado River District), Summit County, Grand County, the
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' ``QQ Committee,''
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and Colorado
Springs. Other interested entities, including the environmental
community, have participated from time to time. The study is
intended to identify current and future impacts of growth and
increasing water demand on the Upper Colorado River Basin,
whether from the headwater counties themselves or the Eastern
Slope. That study is now moving toward the ``negotiation''
stage to see if mutually beneficial solutions can be found for
the problems and issues identified in the study's data-
gathering efforts.
Eagle River Basin. The Board has numerous water rights in Eagle
County and is currently participating in a study to develop
information regarding the feasibility of storing Eagle River
water supplies near Wolcott, Colorado. The importance of this
effort is that the east and west slopes are working together to
understand how a joint use project may improve their respective
water supplies. The participants in this work are the River
District, Vail Consortium, Aurora and Denver Water.
The Moffat Project. Denver Water is facing an increased likelihood
that it will not be able to meet its customers' water demands reliably
on the north end of its system during dry periods. The reason is a
water availability problem at the Moffat Water Treatment Plant. Denver
Water currently has adequate water in its supply system, but not enough
of that water is available for treatment at the Moffat plant.
Denver Water is examining several potential solutions for providing
more water to the Moffat plant during dry years, such as enlarging
Gross Reservoir; building a new off-channel reservoir; or recycling
water for drinking purposes. The NEPA process for this project being
conducted by the Corps of Engineers has just begun, with the scoping
completed only a few days ago. Phase II, which involves the initial
screening of potential alternatives, will begin shortly.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.002
______
Additional statement submitted for the record by Patricia L. Wells,
General Counsel, Denver Board of Water Commissioners
In my pre-submitted testimony, I mentioned several means by which
Congress could increase water supply, or protect existing water supply.
A federal court opinion issued on December 11, 2003, has unfortunately
created another opportunity for Congress to act in response to judicial
interpretations damaging to water suppliers. Therefore, I submit this
supplemental testimony to make an additional recommendation for
Congressional assistance to increase water supply.
5. Adopt the ``No Surprises Policy'' as part of Section 10 of the
ESA. In 1994, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce first
announced the ``No Surprises Policy,'' which provides crucial
protection to landowners and water suppliers who are willing to devote
resources to protection of threatened and endangered species by means
of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) created pursuant to Section 10 of
the Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1539(a). The ``No Surprises
Policy,'' codified into regulation in 1998, provides regulatory
certainty to property owners in exchange for conservation commitments.
The regulation prevents the federal government from imposing additional
requirement that would increase costs or further restrict the use of
natural resources beyond the original HCP. See 50 C.F.R.
Sec. Sec. 17.22, 17.32, 222.2.
The ``No Surprises Policy'' has been extremely successful in
encouraging property owners to enter into HCP's. From 1982 to 1992,
only 14 plans were approved. In the following ten years, 379 HCP's with
``No Surprises'' assurances have been approved, covering approximately
30 million acres and affecting more than 200 species. The policy is
also important to Denver Water, which has an HCP for the Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse covering thousands of acres of operating property
along the foothills west of Denver. Without the ``No Surprises
Policy,'' Denver Water would not be willing to enter into an HCP and
dedicate certain land as a refuge for the mouse. Without an HCP, Denver
Water's operations could be severely compromised.
The ``No Surprises'' regulation has been remanded by a federal
district court on procedural grounds. Spirit of the Sage Council, et
al. v. Norton, et el., Civ. Action No. 98-1873(EGS)(D.D.C. Dec. 11,
2003). The court's order of remand was sufficiently critical of the
intent and purpose of the ``No Surprises Policy'' that its survival in
the next round of judicial review is doubtful. Congress could resolve
this problem simply by adopting the ``No Surprises'' regulation into
Section 10 of the ESA.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentle lady for her testimony.
Ms. Kassen, I certainly appreciated the remarks about
maximizing existing water supplies, but I'm aware your group is
well known for litigating to prevent farmers, ranchers and
others from using their existing supplies. Does that mean
you're no longer going to challenge the right to use existing
water rights?
Ms. Kassen. I'm not sure what litigation you're talking
about.
Mr. Calvert. Does that mean--as I understand, there's a
case, a lawsuit that affects the rights of Northern Colorado
farmer water supply and storage to use existing water rights,
is that the case--is your operation involved in that case?
Ms. Kassen. Is this the bypass water case from 1994?
Mr. Calvert. Yes.
Ms. Kassen. We're awaiting a decision from the Judge. I
don't think there are any other pieces of litigation on the
table, but with regard to bypass flows, Congressman, I think
that in the renewal of permits that were given long before any
environmental laws had come on to the books, it is appropriate
for the Federal agency who is the land manager to determine
whether the renewal of the permit is consistent with existing
law and that's when you have the bypass flow controversy arise.
Trout Unlimited remains committed to existing law which we
believe requires Federal agencies to manage land as wise
managers and to manage land consistent with existing laws and
FLMPA, which your Committee was probably involved with when it
was passed in 1976, does require, we believe, the Forest
Service to impose bypass flows, if necessary, to meet its
obligation under that act.
Mr. Calvert. Certainly we have a different understanding of
the intent of the law as it was passed, but to all of the
witnesses, Mr. Rosenstein, you talk about coordinating
permitting requirements, in the bill that I have that is
involved with Western Water and certainly involved with
Colorado. We have a portion of that bill that would streamline
the permitting process. This was, quite frankly, taking from
the City of San Francisco on their Hut Hutchie Reservoir
rebuilt and pipeline and Ms. Pelosi introduced the streamline
language. I took that language and put it in this legislation
and I guess I won't ask the whole panel, but I'll start with
you, is this the type of thing that you think is necessary to
help streamline and build these projects?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes sir, I do. I think it's important
before you're going in to do a project when you're doing your
initial due diligence you've got to be able to identify what
all the obstacles are and not be, I guess, surprised.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Wells, do you have any comment on that?
Ms. Wells. I'm not sure what the exact provisions of the
bill are. NEPA is long and difficult and expensive. If you have
enough money and enough time, you can get through it. And I
think that streamlining can be helpful. Redundancies are not
necessary. Where various Federal agencies don't cooperate with
one another, that would be very helpful.
Mr. Calvert. That's the intent of this and the fact that we
would, in effect, together through a large project like this,
streamline this process and move it not bypassing any existing
Federal law, but moving this in a more comprehensive way and
get it done and move on.
Ms. Wells. I can give you an example. We are in our North
Side supply. The Corps of Engineers is the lead agency and one
of the potential solutions, Gross Reservoir, which has a FERC
license and we had to pretty much pull teeth to get FERC to
agree to be a cooperating agency and they are and so that
helps, but actually it would be useful if they were required to
be.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Kuhn, any comment?
Mr. Kuhn. No, I think it's just a good idea. We've been
through four or five major permitting processes and generally,
if you get out ahead, it's good. The one concern that I have at
a local--as a local issue is many of these projects, we've had
project failures in Colorado because where proponents have
received Federal permits but have not been able to obtain the
necessary local permits, so you've got to bring them together,
both the local and the Federal issues. There are several major
ones, of those, in fact.
Mr. Calvert. Any other comments? Mr. Udall, you're
recognized.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just begin by
thanking the panel, in general, and Counselor Wells, it's
always great to see you and thanks for the very concrete ideas
that we can pursue at the Federal level to help meet the
challenge here in Colorado.
I look forward to reading your testimony because I think
there's a lot of great detail in there that the panel and the
Committee ought to consider.
If I might, I want to turn to Ms. Kassen for a minute and
talk a little bit about this concept of recreation flows you
had mentioned in your commentary and I wanted--Dr. Foutz also
had talked about agriculture is the third largest industry in
the state. Tourism is the second largest industry and we need
them both. I think we have some opportunities here to work in
concert, but this question of recreational flows is continuing
to raise its head and be debated and if you would comment on
that, I'd appreciate if the Panel would as well.
Ms. Kassen. Well, speaking just for a moment as a
representative----
Mr. Udall. You might take that mike and bend it in your
direction
Ms. Kassen. Speaking just for a moment as a representative
of Colorado, of Trout Unlimited, the fishing industry brings
about $1.5 billion a year to the State of Colorado and that's
part of the whole complex of recreation activities. I think the
drought report which the environmental community commissioned
at last fall after the 2002 year showed that agriculture was
the top loser and that recreation was the second biggest loser
as a result of the drought, mostly as a result of the reduced
flows associated with rafting. And you put a lot of rafting and
guide kind of businesses, if not out of business, at least at
risk as a result of that last year. So there are a number of
ways that reservoirs can be reoperated to enhance recreation.
There are also, as I think you know, a number of innovations in
Colorado water law to allow water, to allow kayak forces to get
water rights which puts them in the prior appropriation system
and enables them to protect those rights for recreation and
certainly we think that's important and we think that any new
projects going forward in this state will have to take account
of impacts to the recreation community. In other words, if
you're taking water--large amounts of water--out of a basin
that has a recreation economy, as is true in much of your
District on the West Slope, that would be an important part of
any mitigation that happens with those kinds of projects.
Mr. Udall. Thank you. And I think I may have demoted my
good friend, Mr. Foutz, by calling him Dr. Foutz, but I had it
in my head somewhere he had a doctorate, you do, don't you?
Yes, I think--so did you want to comment at all from an
agricultural point of view on that question?
Mr. Foutz. Thank you, Congressman Udall. You know, Colorado
Farm Bureau has historically proposed, I mean opposed
recreational industry in flows and I guess we do that for
several reasons. Number one, it's kind of a parochial issue
because we think that the beneficial use for the water really
in the State is agriculture and municipal use. We've always--
we've been there and that's probably where we're going to be.
Certainly I think one of the big issues that we face is how
those in stream flows today are being delineated and simply
going through Court action and delineating in stream flow
without participation in some way financially and obtaining the
water right or something else other than simply having it
decreed by a court, creates problems. It does create problems
because it defines then that a certain amount of water has to
pass a point in the stream and any activities which would
remove or delineate, decrease that amount of water past that
point, is certainly going to add an impact upstream from that,
from that particular point in the river. So the amount on how
it's handled is, I think, extremely important.
The State has water rights. If you want a water right, buy
one just like the municipalities and we do.
Mr. Udall. I highlight this because I think you're a
fisherman and I'm a fisherman, I'm a boater and I think
everybody sitting here in some way or another recreates with
our water resources and it reminds me of the 64 Principles that
this is an issue we ought to continue and try and to discuss
and solve together. I think the ground work has been done and
the common elements shown, so let's keep working on it.
Mr. Foutz. Again, I go back to the task force that Colorado
Farm Bureau has put together and we are bringing all of these
stakeholders to our table and sitting down and trying to
discuss that with the water owners and water users to see if
there isn't some way that we can reasonably try to address
those issues.
Mr. Udall. I want to thank the panel and if I might, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to extend a question to be answered
later to Mr. Kuhn about some of the projects he outlines and my
sense is that there hasn't been a lot of problems when it's
come to the permitting, once you all did that work on the front
end.
Mr. Kuhn. Yes, once you basically have local consensus and
a broad public support, the permits are there. If you look at
when projects have problems with permitting it's almost,
there's almost a complete coalition with whether there's local
support for a project. There are a few exceptions, but for the
most part, if you've got local and state support, Federal
agency permits, they can be onerous at times, but ultimately,
they're there.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just three quick
questions other than those that I'll submit for the written
response.
First of all, Mr. Rosenstein, I want to congratulate you,
first of all, I want to congratulate the organization and the
formation of this organization, it seems to me, is something
that was desperately needed here in the State. I want to see an
organization that will lobby for both development and
conservation efforts and so I wish you all the best of luck in
the world in that organization.
What's your impression of the reasons, the primary reason,
I guess that amendment, Referendum A failed. Do you think it
was, in fact, a rejection on the part of the stakeholders of
any idea of storage and expansion of present resources?
Mr. Rosenstein. First, thanks very much for your support of
our organization. And too, I wish I had a crystal ball that
could tell me why that measure failed and why the other ones in
the ballot failed as well. In terms of talking to folks, I
think people recognize the importance of having water storage
projects that will help sustain Colorado's economy. I think
that's the bottom line and the defeat of Referendum A, I don't
think, affects that bottom line. We need available water supply
to support our economy and also to support our future as well.
Mr. Tancredo. Alan, first of all, let me tell you that I'll
be happy to feed the birds that are around my house during the
winter if you promise me you'll feed the pheasants that might
be around your place.
Mr. Rosenstein. I'd be glad to do that.
Mr. Tancredo. It's a deal. Alan, you heard reference
earlier here to a mapping project. I don't know if Mr. Kuhn
spoke specifically of a mapping project, but the importance of
getting some new information about the geology out here in the
West and there is legislation that's been proposed, I think
it's a Senate bill. It's High Plains Aquifer Mapping and
Monitoring Act.
Are you familiar with it at all? Do you know how, for
instance, the agricultural community responds to these kinds of
requests for new information about the geology and hydrology in
the area?
Mr. Foutz. From the standpoint of collecting information, I
think you'll notice in my written comments that that's one of
the things that we do recommend is that we do gather as much
scientific data as we can on both closed basins and on
tributary waters and try to understand more fully what is
exactly going on in the interconnection. It may be between all
of those and how this system works.
We have a lot of information in the State. We have a lot of
people in CSU and CU that have studied Colorado waters for a
long time and we know a lot about, but there's still a lot that
we don't know and I think this last two or 3 years when we've
had the drought, we've really begun to understand what we don't
know.
If we were to go to the Rio Grande Valley or the San Luis
Valley, for example, on the Rio Grande, and if we were to look
at the underground aquifer and the stream flows there, I think
they're finding out that they don't understand that completely.
We don't understand the Ogalalla Aquifer completely and how
that is recharged. So those studies are important, yes. They're
all important.
Mr. Tancredo. They're important, Alan, but if you look at a
picture of those aquifers or what we believe they are today and
where they are today, you can see, it's not a Colorado issue.
This is an issue for all the states in the region and it will
require some sort of Federal initiative and Federal support. So
I'm hoping that what you're saying is that you would look
carefully at that particular piece of legislation. We did have
it come before the Committee, I know, and I think somebody from
maybe the Corn Growers Association came in and testified
against it. I really hope that we get some reference from the
Farm Bureau here that we can use----
Mr. Foutz. And I think if what we're looking at is a study,
I've not specifically looked at that particular piece, but I
don't see a problem with it. If it involves more than that we'd
have to sit down and take a look at it, but I think we have to
know what's going on underground and above ground in terms of
water in this State and in the surrounding states so that we
begin to understand the system. It is a system.
Mr. Tancredo. That's right and I think we would be in for
some big surprises if we took a very hard look at exactly how
that system is put together and what we're doing to it. So----
Mr. Foutz. But we do need to understand that, good or bad.
Mr. Tancredo. Undeniably. And last, Ms. Kassen, in your
testimony and in your responses to the question I think put to
you by Representative Udall, you indicated that you could see,
of course, that there was damage that had been done during the
drought to the recreation industry and specifically to trout.
Now doesn't that mean, can I interpret that to mean that you
would support projects that would store water for those times?
I mean, after all, it's not just an issue of storing water for
the potential use of urban projects or urban part of the State,
but storing water that can be used during drought to replenish
stream flows, so why shouldn't we--well, I guess I shouldn't
jump to a conclusion about what you're going to say. What do
you think about storing water? Increasing our storage capacity
so as to mitigate against the problems that you identify as
there with recreational industry?
Ms. Kassen. Congressman Tancredo, Trout Unlimited has never
been against storage, let's just start there.
Mr. Tancredo. And new projects, new development, new
storage capabilities, expanding the ones we have. How do you
feel about that?
Ms. Kassen. I think I said in my testimony that we believe
that expanding reservoirs is going to be part of the solution
and I'm certainly involved in terms of writing comments on a
number of these projects that are coming down the road. There
are attached to my testimony is the executive summary of
something called what I call the Drought Report and there's a
whole list of things there which include new storage.
Mr. Tancredo. Is there any project you can think of, that
you can tell us, anything that's on the drawing board right now
that you can say we support this idea or is it just a general,
that meets certain criteria and we'll be happy to think about
it?
Ms. Kassen. I think that Eagle Park Reservoir is one
example and when Patty Laws talked about the Denver North End
expansion 15 years ago, Trout Unlimited suggested that an
expansion of Gross Reservoir was part of the alternative
solution to Two Forks. We don't know exactly what that project
is going to look like right now. We're involved in the project.
We're hoping to be able to support that. Those are two.
We hope to be able to support the expansion of Pueblo
Reservoir as well. Our concern there, and this goes back to a
discussion you all were having a few minutes ago about getting
agencies to--the Federal agencies to be on the same page, is
that Pueblo Reservoir expansion could dry up a section of the
Arkansas River that the Corps and some local agencies have just
spent $6 million trying to restore. And we don't think that
makes a lot of sense. But assuming that Pueblo Reservoir can be
expanded in a way that preserves the Arkansas River below
Pueblo Reservoir, we would expect to be able to support that.
So those are three.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you. Maybe you should think about
joining Coloradans For Water Conservation and Development. You
seem to be more positive today than I noticed in the past, so I
just offer that to you for your consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Beauprez?
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you
so much for conducting this hearing today. I think it's been
exceptionally good. I know you have a plane to catch and I'll
try to be very brief. I'd like to pursue, if I had an unlimited
amount of time with Mr. Foutz, the statement you made about
agriculture being the real loser and I fear the same.
I'd like to pursue that issue with you about agriculture
because I could not agree more. And I very much fear because of
the nature of agriculture, small farms, and independent farmers
are few in numbers even if you aggregate all of them that
sometimes they're victimized and I'm very concerned about this
stream flow issue that has come up.
And I am very sensitive. I want to make that very clear. I
am sensitive to that, too. I don't know if anybody wants to dry
up our streams unnecessarily, but it certainly elevates the
issue of water rights and private property rights and whose
water is it and I think the point, I think you made, Ms.
Kassen, about needing more research is a legitimate one,
because I hope that this doesn't end up forever and ever and
ever in Courts.
Ms. Wells, I thank you very much for some very proactive
and commonsense suggestions as to what Congress might address.
Thanks for that.
And to Mr. Kuhn, if I might, I'll address my question and
stop right there. I want to commend you for the Colorado 64
Principles. I like that a lot. And I looked through those and I
noticed with great interest that number one in those says that
all Colorado water users must share in solving Colorado's water
resource problems. I couldn't agree more.
I assume you really mean it when you said ``all Colorado
users.'' And then last, not to skip over all the rest of them,
but you say ``future water supply solutions must benefit both
the area of origin and the area of use.'' There are some of us
that live on the east side of the mountains, where I've lived
all my life, and I'm not necessarily one of them, but there are
some that think that those on the West Slope think, when you
say water over here from over there it's a no how, no way.
My sense in scanning your position statement is that you're
much more open to discussion and I'd like you to directly
address that, if you would.
Mr. Kuhn. Thank you, Congressman Beauprez. I think the
reality of this is that it's always been a positioning between
West Slope interests and East Slope interests to establish a
neutral playing field, more or less, one where if you build a
transmountain diversion, the basin of origin doesn't unduly
suffer from that and our history is going back to the 1930s and
the development of the Colorado Big Thompson Project that
carried with it mitigation measures on the West Slope that are
very important today, to the most recent efforts that Peter
Binney mentioned and the Eagle River is one of where there is
that neutral playing field, then we have productive projects.
When one side says no, never or the other side says it's
our manifest destiny to take whatever we want, then we end at a
stalemate.
Mr. Beauprez. Well, I thank the gentleman for his proactive
action on that and I really think it is an absolute necessity
for the sake of Colorado and our--I mean I don't see another
solution to water other than we all work together and recognize
it is our collective challenge to address and focus not only
limitations, but upon solutions to rather obvious endpoints.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you very much for convening
this. I think it's been most productive and I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Beauprez, and thank you for
your leadership and inviting me here to Denver and your
community's hospitality. My friend, Mr. Tancredo, it's always
great for Californians to come up to Colorado and see what our
water looks like when it's white.
[Laughter.]
But seriously, as you know, I go around the country and we
discuss water issues and they're always emotional and
difficult, but we need that extra water to sustain all those
attorneys that are in the audience. And seriously, as one of my
best friends who is a water attorney continues to tell me
consensus is highly overrated.
[Laughter.]
Which leads to nothing happening and Mr. Binney, you said
in your statement ``doing nothing is not an alternative.'' And
that's absolutely correct. We can learn to share without having
one part of the State to the benefit of the other. We need to
do that. We can help the whole. And that's a hard thing to do.
I experience it all over the country. We can agree on a lot of
things. Everybody agrees that conservation is a good thing. I
don't think anybody in this room would say conservation is bad
and we can all agree to do that. And we can do a better job of
it. Removal of non-native evasive species, they're all over the
West and we need to get rid of them and it's expensive, but
it's a positive step and we need to do that. We can all agree
to work together to get that done.
Most of us agree that reclamation is a good idea and we
ought to get into it. Water transfers, I mean, obviously
there's fights within communities and between the rural
communities and the urban communities, but water transfers can
be done if properly done and water rights are protected and
people are paid. They can be done properly.
Ground water management is something that we need to work
on all throughout the West and certainly through the whole
country. When we get into controversies, we get into surface
storage, either off-stream storage or on-stream storage, but
all of it, really is part of the solution and we need to work
together to make sure that we get this done because especially
in this State, if you don't, the water, as Mr. Foutz pointed
out, the unappropriated water is going downstream and you're
not using it. And if you don't use it, I know who will.
[Laughter.]
So let's be realistic about this and work together to solve
this problem and we shall. I'd like to include statements for
the record from Mr. Dave Miller, the Independent Water Planner
for Palmer Lake, Colorado; Mr. Bart Miller, Water Program
Director, Western Resource Advocates; and Alan J. Leak,
Centennial, Colorado. I'd also again say for the record we will
keep the hearing open for 10 business days for any additional
statements from witnesses or anyone else interested in
contributing to the record. If there's no further business
before the Subcommittee, I again thank the Members of the
Subcommittee and all our witnesses and happy holidays.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]
[Additional information submitted for the record follows:]
[Information submitted for the record by Dave Miller
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.007
[A statement submitted for the record by Western Resource
Advocates follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Bart Miller, Water Program
Director, Western Resource Advocates
Members of the Subcommittee:
Western Resource Advocates takes this opportunity to provide public
comment on the December 12, 2003, Field Hearing: ``Colorado: Options to
Increase Water Supply and Improve Efficiencies.'' Western Resource
Advocates, formerly called Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, is a
regional law and policy center that uses law, economics, and policy
analysis to protect land and water resources and assure energy demands
are met in environmentally sound and sustainable ways.
The Issue
At the heart of today's hearing is how best to deal with Colorado's
water future, shaping a solution that meets human needs and, at the
same time, protects the natural environment that is a significant part
of why Colorado is such a wonderful place to live, work, and visit.
Although water currently is being put to use in the state for many
purposes, the growth in demand in the foreseeable future is for urban/
suburban uses. The population of the Denver metropolitan area, as well
as other communities on Colorado's Front Range, may double within the
next 35-40 years, potentially doubling urban water demand.
If we rely solely upon water supply solutions from the recent
past--diverting and storing water with large infrastructure projects--
we will endanger one of the state's most precious resources, our
natural river systems. This should not be the path we follow blindly
forward in the future and should not be the target of any federal
funding or other assistance.
Federal funding or involvement, to the extent any is needed, would
be best spent assisting the state, local water providers, and citizens
to maximize the efficient use of our existing supplies. We can stretch
already-developed water supplies to meet a higher portion of our needs
through indoor and outdoor conservation as well as through creative
supply-side options that are less likely to require large new projects
that are, on the whole, slow to construct, highly contentious,
extremely costly, and environmentally damaging.
Efficiency alternatives can postpone or alleviate entirely the need
to divert and store the last water left in our rivers. Water that is
crucial to continued enjoyment by anglers, rafters, local communities,
and the preservation of the plants, fish, and other wildlife that
rivers support.
Thus far, western water policy has not encouraged efficiency
alternatives, both because of legal impediments and a lack of sustained
public pressure to invest in efficiency. Some water utilities have made
efforts, but progress has been isolated and sporadic. Although
agricultural efficiency also must be addressed, urban water use is an
area where demand for water is growing most quickly, where there is a
receptive audience to an efficiency message, and the financial
resources to implement efficiency alternatives.
Lack of comparative data on water use and efficiency options has
been a significant hurdle to maximizing urban water use efficiency.
Many cities simply are in the dark as to how they compare to others in
the region. Nor are they necessarily aware of cutting-edge approaches
being explored elsewhere. Isolation has hampered innovation.
Comparative information could inspire the state, water providers, and
citizens to transform to a world of greater efficiency.
The Solution
Earlier this week, Western Resource Advocates released a report
that fills this gap in knowledge. ``Smart Water: A Comparative Study of
Water Use Efficiency Across the Southwest'' provides, for the first
time, a snapshot of current water use in major cities in six
Southwestern states (including 4 cities in Colorado), along with how
cities compare with conservation and efficiency programs, leaks, water
rate structures, and unmet potential for improvement. Smart Water also
includes a roadmap for the future, explained in detail in the pages
that follow. A digital copy of the report is available on Western
Resource Advocates' website at www.westernresourceadvocates.org.
Hardcopies or CDs can be obtained by calling Don Wojcik at 303-444-1188
ext. 247, or e-mailing him at [email protected].
To the extent that federal assistance or funding results from this
field hearing, we propose that ``in consultation with the state, local
water providers, and interested members of the public'' the following
recommendations from Smart Water be implemented to improve water use
efficiency in Colorado and throughout the Southwest.
(A) Outdoor Water Use Efficiency
On the demand-side of the water use equation, among urban uses,
outdoor use has the greatest potential for water savings in the
Southwest. Outdoor water use (primarily landscape irrigation) not only
accounts for the majority of residential urban water use but, for the
most part, is ``elective'' or discretionary. Current levels of outdoor
use in many urban areas in the Southwest expose the divergence between
the high-water-use landscape vegetation many have chosen and the arid/
semi-arid place in which we live. In addition, our Smart Water analysis
indicates that little or no correlation exists between municipal water
consumption and climate conditions. An appropriate or acceptable
``developed urban landscape'' is defined differently in many
southwestern cities. In addition to landscape design issues, low-
density urban sprawl compounds the problem of high outdoor water use as
it usually brings with it substantial landscaped area (i.e., irrigated
area), typically covered with non-native vegetation.
Recommendations for action for water policymakers:
Offer landscape/Xeriscape rebate programs and irrigation
controller rebate programs;
Limit water use on medians, sidewalk parkways, slopes,
and other areas close to impermeable surfaces;
Enact and/or amend landscaping ordinances (via municipal
zoning ordinance or development codes) that: (1) require some degree of
Xeriscape landscape; (2) regulate the amount/percentage of high water-
use vegetation; and (3) require water-efficient soil preparation best
management practices and landscape designs;
Enact watering regulations that restrict landscape
irrigation to early morning and evening times to avoid daytime
evaporation losses;
Provide landscape irrigation audits to identify waste by
customers in all sectors and educate the public on Xeriscape, efficient
irrigation techniques, design, etc.; or
Incorporate smart development principles into municipal
zoning ordinances, development standards, and comprehensive plans
(e.g., emphasize higher-density mixed-use developments, Xeriscape
requirements, infill development, and the use of reclaimed water for
landscape irrigation, etc.).
(B) Water Rate Structures and the Price of Water
Strategic water pricing is a key component of demand-side water-use
efficiency that can induce water conservation by customers. Currently,
water sold in the region to urban customers for discretionary use is
priced much lower than its actual long-term cost. Many water providers
in the arid Southwest simply do not use water rate structures that send
an effective ``conservation message'' to their customers. With a finite
water supply, this practice results in unsustainable consumption. Many
water providers have begun to apply increasing block rate structures in
an attempt to send this conservation message via their water pricing
structures. However, in many cases, the block price increases are not
steep enough to get the attention of water users. As explained in
detail in Smart Water, rate structures that yield inclining marginal
price curves and average price curves tend to be most effective in
promoting water-use efficiency. Increasing block rate structures also
tend to be fair, if they are designed to charge high-volume users for
the provider's avoidable costs of serving discretionary, outdoor use
and reward low-volume users.
Recommendations for action for water policymakers:
Reassess and modify water provider rate structures in a
way that sends a clear, consistent conservation message via water
pricing. This is most effectively done through an increasing block rate
structure;
More effectively incorporate long-term infrastructure
costs, new supply attainment costs, and environmental costs into
municipal water price-setting;
Set fixed service charges and variable consumption prices
in a way that sends a consistent conservation price signal while
maintaining revenue stability; and
Utilize aggressive increasing block rate structures in
all years (i.e., not just as an emergency drought response tool).
(C) Indoor Water Use Efficiency
Although the savings potential for indoor water efficiency may be
secondary to the gains from outdoor efficiency, they are still
significant. By converting a ``typical'' American home to a
``conserving'' American home, we can go from an average of 69 gallons/
capita/day (gpcd) to approximately 45 gpcd (via low-flow fixtures and
appliances that are readily available at home improvement stores).
Recommendations for action for water policymakers:
Offer indoor appliance/fixture rebate programs;
Enact municipal ordinances that require water-efficient
indoor appliances/fixtures in all new residential and commercial
development (coinciding with 1992 EPAct) as well as all building
upgrades (executed and inspected via building permit process);
Require appliance upgrades contemporaneous with property
sales, or perhaps require landlords to install them to qualify for a
rental license;
Enact municipal ordinances (building/plumbing codes) that
require appliances/fixtures not captured by the EPAct and that exceed
standards established therein;
Provide indoor water use audit services to all customers
in all sectors (including leak detection and repair assistance); and
Educate the public on water-efficient appliances,
fixtures, and personal water use behavior.
(D) Supply-Side Water Use Efficiency
Supply-side water use efficiency holds some of the greatest
potential for minimizing or even avoiding the need for developing new
supply sources. In order to send a consistent ``conservation message''
to their customers, water providers must demonstrate an equal effort in
increasing the efficiency of their collection/storage facilities,
delivery systems, and treatment facilities, as well as reap the
benefits of using innovative supply strategies and technologies.
Water loss reduction is a critical piece in the water efficiency
puzzle. Rates of Unaccounted for Water (UFW) vary substantially between
water providers in the region. Smart Water reveals that collectively in
our region, hundreds of thousands of acre-feet are unaccounted for in
our water collection and distribution systems each year. Halting
preventable losses (e.g., leaks) will save a great deal of water and
better metering will provide more accurate data on actual use and
losses in distribution systems.
Many other innovative supply-side measures are being developed
across the Southwest. These measures include: water reuse and recycling
systems; aquifer storage and recovery projects; system integration and
coordination; and market-based water transfers. Such supply-side
strategies are already being used by many water providers, although
they are not yet commonplace in the region.
Recommendations for action for water policymakers:
Implement aggressive system-wide water loss reduction
programs (e.g., leak detection and repair, dam repair, etc.) to
minimize UFW;
Seek efficiency savings via cooperative, integrated water
supply efforts with other local or regional water providers
Pursue market-based water transfers, such as water
salvage projects with agricultural users, temporary dry-year leases
with agricultural users, and water banking transfers with other water
providers or regional/state water banking authorities;
Explore the feasibility and legality of using water reuse
and recycling systems. When feasible, use non-potable reclaimed water
for urban landscape irrigation and industrial uses; and
Investigate the feasibility of using aquifer storage and
recovery (ASR) systems (e.g., conjunctive use), if at least a portion
of a water provider's supply is derived from groundwater sources.
(E) Program Implementation, System Monitoring, and Staying ``Up to
Speed''
Through the Smart Water analysis, we have discovered a very large
potential for improving urban water efficiency throughout the
Southwest. Based on comparisons of per capita Single-Family Residential
consumption, outdoor and discretionary consumption, UFW and other end-
use variables in service areas throughout the region, it appears urban
water providers have just begun to improve water-use efficiency.
There is a least one ``target'' water provider in almost every
category, setting the benchmark toward which others can strive. Model
water providers hint at a vast potential for water savings. Smart Water
also found a significant variation in conservation programs throughout
the region, from very comprehensive programs to much more limited ones.
The analysis reveals that several water providers' water
consumption accounting and program monitoring were lacking, incomplete,
and/or inconsistent, leaving these providers with only a fuzzy picture
of actual water use. In addition, many water providers have not
thoroughly assessed the cost-effectiveness of their conservation
programs. Although detailed benefit/cost analyses are often conducted
to justify traditional structural water supply improvements, this level
of analysis for water use efficiency measures is extremely limited,
even nonexistent for some providers.
Recommendations for action for water policymakers:
Enact and implement multi-faceted conservation programs
that concurrently use rebate programs, education programs,
conservation-aimed water rate structures, and regulations/policies to
reach customers with unique response ``triggers'' or ``motivators.''
Keep ``up to speed'' with the continuously evolving
state-of-the-art programs and policies used in other water providers.
The significant variation in conservation programs and policies in the
Southwest indicates that much more information sharing and modeling can
take place;
Improve or upgrade water system accounting practices to
reduce water waste and increase revenues;
Streamline water conservation program monitoring and
analysis efforts, including cost-effectiveness and/or benefit-cost
analyses. In addition to facilitating the promotion and fine-tuning of
conservation programs, this information also can provide excellent
``model'' material to be shared with other water providers; and
Take charge in promoting water use efficiency in dry and
wet years.
(F) Education and Awareness
Although many municipal water providers offer water conservation
education programs, many consumers do not have a basic knowledge of
water sources/issues within their area:
Where does our water supply originate?
What's at stake if we don't conserve? and
Where will the ``next drop'' of supply water come from?
Many water customers are not sufficiently aware of programs/
opportunities offered by their water providers, or aware of how they
can improve their water-use efficiency. Furthermore, many residents of
the American West, often transplants from other, less arid, parts of
the nation or globe, have only a fledgling awareness of place.
Collectively, Southwestern residents need to adjust their water use and
mindset to be more consistent with the arid climate in which we live,
and make clear distinctions between our water ``needs'' and water
``wants.''
Recommendations for action for water policymakers:
Improve the promotion and advertisement of water
conservation programs (e.g., for rebate programs, audit programs, the
rationale for increasing block rates, etc.);
Use all available media outlets to spread the message of
adapting to our surroundings/climate and the importance of water
conservation during wet and dry periods (i.e., not only during drought
conditions);
Educate people on the ``collision course'' of population
growth and water supply in the Southwest (i.e., that we can prevent a
``crisis'' by acting now); and
Promote comprehensive water-use audit programs to all
municipal water customers to provide personalized education and
direction on how to become water efficient.
______
[The statement submitted for the record by Alan Leak
follows:]
December 12, 2003
Honorable Richard W. Pombo, Chairman
1522 Longworth House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-6204
Dear Honorable Pombo, and Members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power:
As a native Coloradan, a resident of the City of Centennial, and a
water resources engineer with over 23 years of water resources planning
experience whom is extremely concerned about Colorado's water future, I
appreciate you taking time today to hear testimony on how the United
States can help Colorado further develop its water supplies.
I am writing you today to request the United States take whatever
actions are necessary which would allow, facilitate, and promote the
diversion of up to 240,000 A.F./year of waters of the Gunnison River
and tributaries at or above Blue Mesa Reservoir for the benefit of the
residents of the State of Colorado upon payment for power interference
charges at the Aspinall Unit.
Proposed diversions of water from or above Blue Mesa Reservoir
above 60,000 A.F. per year have been opposed by United States officials
in the past based primarily upon the transparent need to protect
hydropower and other claimed uses at the Aspinall unit. This was never
the intent of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (Act) under which
the Aspinall Unit was constructed. The following describes the current
state of renewable water resources within the State of Colorado and why
and how such a request should be approved.
Colorado is uniquely situated at the headwaters of seven major
river systems which discharge an average of 10,726,000 A.F. of water
per year to our neighboring states as follows (see Exhibit A):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.008
Ninety-three percent (93%) of this water (9,670,000 AF/YR)
originates on the west slope of the Colorado Rockies. In comparison,
over 81% of Colorado's total population resides on the east slope of
the Colorado Rockies. To meet the current water demands of this large
(3.6 million) east slope population base, Colorado water providers have
diverted water from the west slope (transmountain diversion), dried-up
agricultural lands, depleted non-renewable groundwater, and instituted
water conservation measures. However, to meet the State's current and
future east slope populations, additional water supplies from the west
slope of Colorado will be, and are currently, necessary. Repeated
attempts to divert water from the Gunnison River Basin have been met
with opposition, with the water rights assigned to, and owned by, the
United States for the Aspinall Unit being wrongly used to prevent
transmountain diversions out of the Gunnison River basin at or above
Blue Mesa Reservoir.
Compact requirements and the Endangered Species Act have severely
restricted Colorado's ability to use water leaving the state from the
South Platte River and the Arkansas River. In addition, existing
transmountain diversions (see Exhibit B) out of the upper tributaries
of the Colorado River (i.e. Blue River, Eagle River, Roaring Fork
River, Fryingpan River, Fraiser River, etc.), coupled with the
Endangered Species Act, limit the amount of additional water (if any)
which could be diverted from these rivers for use on the eastern slope
of Colorado. In contrast, the largest untapped and economically
feasible renewable water source for the east slope population is to
divert water out of the Gunnison River Basin, which currently
discharges almost 1,900,000 AF annually to the Colorado River. This
represents 40% of the total flow of the Colorado River leaving the
State of Colorado.
The Colorado River Compact apportioned to the State of Colorado a
share of the flows in the Colorado River. It has been estimated that up
to 1,000,000 AF annually of Colorado's compact entitled water has been
flowing out of Colorado for the lack of diversion and storage
facilities.
In 1956, the Colorado River Storage project Act (Act) was enacted
to assist the State of Colorado and other upper basin states in
developing its compact entitled water. The Act provided for the
construction of holdover storage reservoirs which, in times of drought,
could be drained to meet Colorado's (and other upper basin states')
compact requirements while still allowing Colorado to divert its
compact entitled water. Hydropower facilities were constructed at these
reservoirs in order to generate funds to pay for the project
construction until such time as water upstream of the reservoirs was
diverted by the upper basin states for compact entitled purposes. There
was no intent to use hydropower purposes to prevent the upper basin
states from using their compact entitlements. Rather the reservoirs
were meant to assist in this utilization.
However, efforts by those opposed to transmountain diversions, in
conjunction with United States officials have used the cloud of water
rights adjudicated for hydropower purposes in state water court and
donated to the United States as a tool to prevent transmountain
diversion of water from and above Blue Mesa Reservoir.
There is no doubt that the Aspinall Unit reservoirs generate a
significant amount of power revenues and provide recreational benefits
to the citizens of Colorado. However, in the current state of water
needs in Colorado, the need for renewable water to Colorado's most
populated east slope must outweigh the need for the incremental power
production, which would be lost by an upstream transmountain diversion
project, especially if the value of such power would be paid by those
who are diverting the water (power interference costs). Studies of such
proposed diversion of water from the Gunnison River Basin have been
previously prepared (i.e. the USBR's original Gunnison-Arkansas
Project), which proved that such diversions of water are viable.
The current missing component which would allow the State of
Colorado to utilize water from the Gunnison River at or upstream of
Blue Mesa Reservoir would be to direct the United States Bureau of
Reclamation to facilitate and promote the diversion of water at, or
above, Blue Mesa Reservoir. Specifically, the USBR should use the water
rights assigned to the Aspinall Unit to place a call on the river
system ``only'' when needed to refill the Aspinall Unit ``after'' a
compact call for releases from storage.
An additional 240,000 AF per year of water diverted into the
eastern slope river basins (Arkansas River and South Platte River)
would put a significant dent into east slope water deficits. The
reduction of 240,000 AF/year of runoff into Blue Mesa Reservoir
represents only one-fourth of the average annual inflow to the
reservoir, and would be diverted only in the average and high (wet)
runoff years, thus protecting natural habitats and the stream corridor
from damaging droughts and floods. Peaking flows could still be
released for aesthetic and habitat protection in the Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Park.
This simple directive would protect the Upper Colorado River Basin
area (above Green Mountain Reservoir) from further depletions, as well
as lessen the threat to eastern and western Colorado agriculture from
further dry-ups to meet Colorado's existing and growing population.
Because of page limits, I have not included information (reports,
studies, etc.) to backup the statements included herein. I would be
honored to provide whatever additional information is requested to
allow the Commission to establish a basis of findings to support this
request. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the
Commission on this important topic.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan J. Leak, P.E.
6909 South Clermont Street
Centennial, CO 80122
______
[Exhibits A and B follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0927.010