Headwaters Spring 2006: Recreation

C o l o r a d o F o u n d at i o n F o r W at e r e d u C at i o n | S p r i n g 2 0 0 6

From Peak to Prairie,Colorado’s Water Makes the Scene

An Avian OasisGunnison’s Whitewater ParkFly FishingSnowmaking

Colorado Foundation for Water Education1580 Logan St., Suite 410 • Denver, CO 80203

303-377-4433 • www.cfwe.org

Mission Statement

The mission of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education is to promote better under-standing of water resources through education and information. The Foundation does not take an advocacy position on any water issue.

Staff

Karla A. BrownExecutive Director

Jeannine TompkinsOffice Coordinator

Officers

PresidentDiane Hoppe

State Representative

1st Vice PresidentJustice Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.

Colorado Supreme Court

2nd Vice PresidentMatt Cook

Coors Brewing Company

Acting SecretaryWendy Hanophy

Division of Wildlife

TreasurerTom Long

Summit County Commissioner

Assistant TreasurerChris Rowe

Division of Minerals & Geology

At LargeTaylor Hawes

Colorado River Water Conservation District

Rod KuharichColorado Water Conservation Board

Becky BrooksColorado Water Congress

Trustees

Steve Acquafresca, Mesa Land Trust

Rita Crumpton, Orchard Mesa Irrigation District

Kathleen Curry, State Representative

Lynn Herkenhoff, Southwestern Water Conservation District

Jim Isgar, State Senator

Ken Lykens, MWH Americas, Inc.

Frank McNulty, Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources

John Porter, Colorado Water Congress

John Redifer, Colorado Water Conservation Board

Rick Sackbauer, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District

Robert Sakata, Sakata Farms

Gerry Saunders, University of Northern Colorado

Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University

Headwaters is a quarterly magazine designed to provide Colorado citizens with balanced and accurate information on a variety of subjects related to water resources. Copyright 2006 by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. ISSN: 1546-0584Lori Ozzello Managing Editor | Design by Emmett Jordan

AcknowledgementsThe Colorado Foundation for Water Education thanks all the people and organizations that provided review, comment and assistance in the development of this issue.

Letter from the Editor ......................................................... 1

In the News ........................................................................ 2

CFWE Highlights ................................................................. 4

Gunnison’s Newest Recreational Park ............................... 5

Fly Fishing ........................................................................... 8

An Avain Oasis .................................................................. 12

Let it Snow ........................................................................ 15

Legal Brief ......................................................................... 18

Order Form ........................................................................ 20

On the Cover: A lone hiker ascends in the

Wenimuche Wilderness in southwestern Colorado.

Named for a band of Utes, it is Colorado’s largest wilderness

and primitive area. Photo by Eric Wunrow

HEADWATERS | SpRing 2006 Wa†ermarks

Whitewater rapids, lazy rivers, heartstopping drops—you don’t have to go to the

Arkansas or the Colorado River for the thrills. An afternoon at a waterpark, such

as Water World in Federal Heights, can give you a little taste any summer day.

Kevin

Mol

oney

It may seem somewhat of a subtlety that most of our recreation in this arid state revolves around water—frozen, flowing or otherwise. Whether it be man-made entertainment like kayak parks and ski pistes, tests of skill between the angler and his catch, or quiet observation of the incredible journey of thousands of migrating birds, our water resources allow us an impressive quality of life that cannot always be tabulated on a spreadsheet.

River corridors are also natural centers of biodiversity whether on the plains or in the mountains, attracting people and wildlife alike. It makes up what the Colorado Riparian Association refers to as “the green line.” Historically, it is where we have built our cities, factories and farms.

In our busy modern lives, it can be easy to forget the intricacies and unique rhythms of this natural world. But thanks to the foresight of President Theodore Roosevelt, his forester Gifford Pinchot, and others who first organized to advocate for the sustainable use of forests, soils and water, Coloradans now have a wonderful playground of public lands to enjoy.

Water dedicated to recreation is not a new concept in Colorado. The state has long recognized water rights for snowmaking, fish and wildlife culture, as well as releases from storage for boating and fishing flows. Since 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld numerous implied federal reserved rights for a variety of national parks, monuments, and other federal reservations.

But as the state’s water resources become spread ever more thinly between people and the environ-ment, scrutiny of how this water is shared has become ever more intense—witness the recent debate over recreational in-channel diversions.

This issue of Headwaters has both a serious and playful side. I hope it serves to remind readers of all the wonderful resources Colorado has to offer, as well as the utmost seriousness with which we debate their future.

Karla Brown Editor and Executive Director

The Thin Green Line

Wa†ermarks

H e a d wat e r s | s p r i n g 2 0 0 6 �

Eric

Wun

row

2 C o lo r a d o f o u n dat i o n f o r wat e r e d u C at i o n

in THE nEWS

DENVER—The American Water Resources Association (Colorado Section) is pleased to announce its annual symposium Friday April 14, 2006. Co-sponsored by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education, the symposium will focus on innovative water manage-ment strategies in Colorado and the West.

Symposium topics include:

• Climate and Steamflow

• Current Water Projects and Infrastructure Protection

• Meeting Future Water Demands and Water Management Innovations

• Colorado River Negotiations: Comprehensive management of the river

A highlight will be luncheon speaker Mark Cowin, Chief of the Division of Planning and Local Assistance with the California Department of Water Resources. He will discuss the lessons learned from the recently updated California Water Supply Plan.

The symposium will run from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Mt. Vernon Country Club in Golden, Colo. A reception will follow.

To register, go to the AWRA Web site at http://awra.org/state/colorado/ or call (303) 455-9589. The early registra-tion deadline is April 1, 2006. CFWE members receive a $15 registration discount. With additional questions, contact the Foundation at (303) 377-4433.

Colorado Water Supply Issues—Today and Tomorrow2006 AWRA Annual Symposium

DENVER—In 2005, the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act created a new forum for discussing the state’s water issues. Spearheaded by the Department of Natural Resources, this state-wide collaborative initiative, also called the Interbasin Compact Process, is being billed as a new approach to managing water.

The decision-making bodies in this process are nine basin roundtables and a 27-member Interbasin Compact Committee. The roundtables, representing each of the state’s eight major river basins and the Denver metro area, will work to develop a basin-wide consumptive and nonconsumptive

water supply needs assessment, analyze available unap-propriated waters within the basin and suggest projects to meet the basin’s water needs. The statewide committee will address issues between basins.

More information about the roundtables and the IBCC, including progress reports, program statistics, and detailed information on the Interbasin Compact Process are available at the Department of Natural Resources Web site http://dnr.state.co.us. For additional information, contact the Interbasin Compact staff at [email protected].

A New Approach to Managing Water—Statewide

Since its publication by the Colorado Geological Survey, the Ground Water Atlas of Colorado has received tremen-dous recognition and acclaim by professional organizations, water managers, educators, politicians, and the public. Most recently, authors Ralf Topper, Karen L. Spray, William H. Bellis, Judith L. Hamilton, and Peter E. Barkmann received the Geological Society of America’s 2005 E. B. Burwell, Jr. Award from its Engineering Geology Division, recognizing this distin-guished contribution to the sciences.

The Colorado Geological Survey has now developed a Web site that features a synopsis of the atlas. Like the original publica-tion, the Web site contains introductory chapters on the state’s ground water resource, as well as specific discussions on each of the state’s major aquifers. In addition, the Web site contains the complete glossary, and allows viewers to download high-resolution graphic files.

A synopsis of the Ground Water Atlas of Colorado can be viewed at http://geosurvey.state.co.us/wateratlas/.

New Web Site Offers Synopsis of Ground Water in Colorado

CGS geologists Peter Barkman (2nd from left) and Ralf Topper (3rd from left) accept the 2005 Burwell Award from Dave Noe (left) and Robert Fakundiny at the Geological Society of America’s annual meeting in Salt Lake City on Oct. 17, 2005.


in THE nEWS

DENVER—Ralph Curtis, a longtime water and soil conservationist, will receive the 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award from the Wirth Chair in Environmental and Community Development Policy at an April 12 lun-cheon in Denver. This pro-gram is conducted through the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper will offer opening remarks, the Honorable Tim Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation, will be the featured speaker, and the Honorable Gary Hart who holds the Wirth Chair, will offer closing remarks.

In announcing the award, Kathleen Beatty, dean of the Graduate School of

Public Affairs said of Curtis that, “The San Luis Valley and all of Colorado are in his debt. From service as general man-

ager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, to his work with the Cattlemen’s Association, to his long relationship with the Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts, he has been tire-less in making us aware of the importance of caring for the natural world.”

Curtis is a native of the San Luis Valley, where

in 2000 he was named by his community as one of the valley’s “Most Influential People of the 20th Century.” Among his many board roles and contributions, Curtis’s service as the Vice President of the Rio Grande

Headwaters Land Trust and as a mem-ber of the San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee has been of great value to both organizations’ cur-rent and on-going conservation suc-cesses. His statewide efforts for water sustainability and as a board mem-ber of the Colorado Water Congress since 1983 were recognized with the Wayne Aspinall Water Leader of the Year Award in 2004.

Curtis will receive his award at the 9th Annual Wirth Chair Awards Luncheon, April 12, 2006, noon-2 p.m. at the Denver City Center Marriott, 1701 California Street, Denver.

The award is the highlight of the Chair’s Annual Sustainability Awards where statewide media, community, and business efforts fostering sustainable principles are honored. Tickets are $30 per person. For information or to RSVP, call (303) 352-3764.

Curtis to Receive Lifetime Achievement Award

Ralph Curtis

DENVER—The Colorado Foundation for Water Education would like to congratulate the 14 successful applicants to the first-ever 2006 Water Leaders Course.

This year-long program will provide extensive leadership training, including self-assessment opportunities, training in con-flict resolution, communication, negotiation, and other leadership skills necessary to future success. Participants will also receive one-on-one mentoring with established water leaders, coaching sessions with professional executive coaches, and the opportunity to attend several of the state’s major water conferences and sym-posia, including the 48th Colorado Water Congress Convention in Denver and the 31st Colorado Water Workshop in Gunnison.

The staff of LeaderExcellence Net, a consulting group specializing in leadership training and executive coaching, is conducting the course.

This program is the first of its kind in Colorado, creating a unique platform to help prepare this crop of talented profes-sionals to take a lead in the water management challenges of the 21st century.

Congratulations to:

Jacob Bornstein, Colorado Watershed NetworkJohn Carney, Colorado Water TrustAlexandra Charney, Boulder County Parks and Open SpaceJeff Crane, Crane Associates, LLCGreg Dewey, City of LovelandEmily Hunt, City of ThorntonTom Iseman, The Nature Conservancy of ColoradoAmy Johnson, Aqua Engineering, Inc.Mary Presecan, Leonard Rice Engineering, Inc.Richard Raines, Applegate GroupMark Shively, Registered Investment AdvisorKenney Smith, Dolores Water Conservancy DistrictAlan Ward, Board of Water Works of PuebloMike Wilde, Roaring Fork School District, RE-1

And we thank all the CFWE supporters who helped make this program possible!

Water Leaders 2006

� C o lo r a d o f o u n dat i o n f o r wat e r e d u C at i o n

CFWE HigHligHTS

In response to the needs of busy deci-sion-makers looking to better under-stand water issues, CFWE created AquaNotes—briefing papers on impor-tant water issues.

In 2004-2005, the Foundation cre-ated four new AquaNotes on topics such as the Colorado River, recreation-al in-channel diversions, augmentation plans, and more. Additional titles are also under development.

These double-sided, black and white sheets give basic factual infor-

mation and respond to frequently asked ques-tions on pressing water issues. They even pro-vide a section with “talk-ing points” highlighting main facts from the text.

AquaNotes are avail-able free of charge and may be downloaded from the Foundation’s Web site cfwe.org or by calling the Foundation.

AquaNotes:Just the facts, briefly

The Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Environmental Era is the second history-related guide in the Colorado Foundation for Water Education’s on-going citizen’s guide series. As a follow-up to the Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Water Heritage, our authors extend the history timeline to recent years, what we have labeled “the environmental era.”

This project draws together the expertise of prominent his-torians and scholars from throughout Colorado and the West. Their essays show how recent decades and the environmental

movement have shaped Colorado’s culture, commu-nities and landscapes. History serves to remind us that our cultural and social bearings are constantly

shifting, sometime imperceptibly, other times at piv-otal moments

Concern for the environment comes out of a long tradition of preservation and conservation in the United

States. Around the turn of the century, the establishment of Yellowstone Park and the Conservation Movement of

President Theodore Roosevelt marked some of the first organized advocacy for the sustainable use of forests, soils

and water. The modern American environmental movement has

built itself of these conservationist and preservationist roots—as well as on a mound of paperwork. We hope that

you will find these essays insightful and informative.Copies of the guide are $8 each, or $6 each if ordering 10

or more. To order, visit the Foundation’s Web site at cfwe.org or call the office at (303)377-4433.

Citizen’s Guide to the Environmental Era

AquaNotesBriefing Papers on Important Water Issues

Vol. 1, No. 2

Executive Director

Karla A. Brown

Administrative Assistant

Jeannine M. Tompkins

Recreational In-Channel Diversions

By CFWE Staff

In 1992, the Colorado Supreme Court made a landmark decision that opened the way

for whitewater parks around the state. In the City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins case, the

court ruled that controlling and directing the flow of water through a structure such as a boat

chute, constitutes a “diversion” and is therefore fair game for obtaining a water right decree.

Municipalities such as Breckenridge, Golden, and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation

District (Vail) filed for flow rights for recreational purposes in the late 1990s. All three successfully

obtained water court decrees for a range of flows, some up to 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).

All three applications were contested in court by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, State

Engineer’s Office and other objectors.

Each time, the Colorado Supreme Court came to a split 3-3 vote. This resulted in no

opinion from the Supreme Court, but did finalize the water court opinions upholding the three

water rights decrees.

Recreational In-Channel Diversions

In 2001 the Colorado General Assembly passed a new law which sought to better define

recreational water rights. The law stipulated that the amount of water allowed is the minimum

necessary for a “reasonable recreational experience.” In addition, only cities, counties, and

water districts or other governmental entities can obtain these water rights which were given the

name “recreational in-channel diversions” (RICD). The General Assembly also specified that the

Colorado Water Conservation Board is required to make recommendations to the water court

regarding all applications for these water rights.

CWCB Review

After submitting an application for a recreational in-channel diversion water right in court,

applicants must go before the Colorado Water Conservation Board for review of their application.

By statute, CWCB reviews must consider five areas:

•Whether the water right will impair Colorado’s ability to pursue use of water allotted to it under

interstate agreements;

•Appropriateness of the stream reach for the requested use (e.g., whitewater park);

•Access availability;

•Whether exercise of this recreational water right will injure other instream flow rights in the

river;

•Whether the requested water right promotes maximum use of the state’s waters.

The CWCB then makes findings about the application which will be used in water court

during evaluation of the application. These findings may be disputed in court.

In addition to the five statutory factors listed above, the CWCB also created a set of RICD

guidelines which recommend flow rates between 50 and 350 cubic feet per second. However, in

2005 the Colorado Supreme Court clarified that the General Assembly “intended for the CWCB to

analyze the application purely as submitted by the applicant, rather than to objectively determine

what recreational experience would be reasonable.”

• In all RICD applications,

the Colorado Water

Conservation Board

is required to make

recommendations to the

water court focusing on

five areas.

1580 Logan Street, Suite 410

Denver, Colorado 80203

Phone (303) 377-4433

www.cfwe.org

Providing balanced, accurate information

and education on water resource topicsColorado Foundation for Water Education

• RICDs are defined

as “the minimum

stream flow, as it is

diverted, captured,

controlled, and placed to

beneficial use between

specific points defined

by physical control

structures pursuant to an

application filed by a local

government entity, for a

reasonable recreation

experience in and on the

water.”

- Colorado Revised Statutes

37-92-103 (10.3)

• RICD water rights

may only be held by

a county, municipality,

city and county, water

district, water and

sanitation district, water

conservation district,

or water conservancy

district.

Talking PointsNovember 2005

AquaNotesBriefing Papers on Important Water Issues

Vol. 1, No. 1

Executive Director

Karla A. Brown



Colorado River Issues

by Paul Formisano

Nearly 30 million people in the United States and Mexico rely on the Colorado River to

meet their water needs. An extensive body of laws and regulations known as the “Law of the

River” governs river management.

Law of the River

The initial document of the Law of the River, the Colorado River Compact, was signed in

1922. It divided the waters of the river between the Upper Basin states (Colorado, Wyoming,

Utah and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin states (California, Nevada and Arizona).

The 1922 compact requires the Upper Basin to not deplete the flow of the river below a

running average of 75 million acre-feet (maf) of water over a 10-year period to the Lower Basin, as

measured at Lee Ferry. In addition, the Upper Basin may be liable to deliver up to one-half of the

U.S. Mexican Treaty delivery obligation of 1.5 maf per year.

California Must Reduce Share of Colorado River

Throughout much of the last 50 years, California has been taking more than its allotted

share of the Colorado River. As the river became more heavily used, the Department of the

Interior and the seven basin states launched an initiative to figure out how to wean California

from its over-use of the river. Negotiations that continued through the 1990s culminated in

May 2000, when California’s Colorado River Board issued a draft Colorado River Water Use

Plan (the 4.4 Plan) outlining how the state would reduce its use to its 4.4 million acre-foot

allotment.

In 2001, then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt approved a 15-year operating plan

for water deliveries to the Lower Basin, called the Interim Surplus Guidelines. The guidelines

allowed California to continue to take Colorado River surpluses until 2016, but only if California

could meet specific benchmarks, for example, agreements to reduce the amount of water

consumed by agriculture and transfer the saved water to metropolitan areas. The guidelines

stipulated that the Secretary of the Interior could suspend the guidelines if California’s four main

water agencies—Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of South California, San

Diego County Water Authority and Coachella Valley Water District—missed any benchmarks.

The first benchmark, set for December 31, 2002, required the water agencies to enter

into a Quantification Settlement Agreement which would delineate how much water each of the

southern California agricultural irrigation districts was entitled to use. It would also specify how

water saved through efficiency improvements would be transferred to California’s municipalities.

But the California agencies failed to agree on the terms of a QSA by the deadline, and

Interior Secretary Gale Norton suspended the Interim Surplus Guidelines, immediately cutting

off all access to surpluses, limiting California to its original 4.4 million acre-foot allotment.

Finally, in October 2003 California’s water agencies came to terms on a QSA. This

agreement, called the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement, allows California to continue

to use Colorado River surpluses until 2016, as originally agreed in the Interim Surplus

Guidelines. Currently, the seven basin states have entered into negotiations to determine how

to share the burden of river water shortages during extended dry periods. Strategies under

discussion include different management of Lakes Mead and Powell, among other options. A

resolution is due by December 2007. 1580 Logan Street, Suite 410


Phone (303) 377-4433

www.cfwe.org



• The 1922 compact

requires the Upper Basin

to not deplete the flow of

the river below a running

average of 75 million

acre-feet (maf) of water

over a 10-year period

to the Lower Basin, as

measured at Lee Ferry,

plus deliver up to one-half

of the U.S Mexican Treaty

delivery obligation.

• The Quantification

Settlement and Colorado

River Water Delivery

agreements stipulate

how much water saved

through agricultural

efficiency improvements

will be transferred to

municipalities, bringing

California’s annual

water use down to its

4.4 million acre-feet

allotment by 2016. The

Colorado River Water

Delivery agreement is

available at www.crss.

water.ca.gov/docs/crqsa/

crwda.pdf

Talking Points

• California’s 4.4 Plan

describes the state’s ef-

forts to reduce its use of

Colorado River water to

its allocation of 4.4 mil-

lion acre-feet per year,

specified in the decree in

Arizona v. California.

November 2005 AquaNotesBriefing Papers on Important Water Issues

Vol. 1, No. 3

November 2005

Executive Director

Karla A. Brown



Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act

(House Bill 1177)

By Paul Formisano

After the Statewide Water Supply Initiative in 2005, Governor Bill Owens signed into law

the “Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act” (House Bill 1177) in June 2005. The act seeks to

initiate a statewide discussion on how water may be managed and shared among river basins

to meet future water demands. The decision-making bodies in this process will be nine basin

roundtables and a 27-member Interbasin Compact Committee.

Basin Roundtables

Nine basin roundtables representing each of the state’s eight major river basins and

the Denver metro area will “facilitate continued discussions within and between basins on

water management issues, and encourage locally driven collaborative solutions to water

supply challenges.” Each roundtable will work to develop a basin-wide consumptive and

nonconsumptive water supply needs assessment, analyze available unappropriated waters

within the basin and suggest projects to meet the basin’s water needs.

Roundtable members will include:

• One (1) municipal member chosen collectively by the municipalities within a basin.

• One (1) county member chosen by the boards of country commissioners in that basin;

• One (1) member appointed by the boards of each of the water conservation and water

conservancy districts in the basin;

• One (1) member in each basin jointly chosen by the Chairperson of the House Agriculture,

Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee and the Chairperson of the Senate Agriculture,

Natural Resources, and Energy Committee;

• Ten (10) at-large members chosen by the appointees noted above. These members must

represent a diversity of environmental, agricultural, recreational, industrial and local domestic

water provider interests. Five of the 10 members must own water rights; and,

• Three (3) non-voting members who represent entities outside the basin but with water

interests in the basin.

Roundtable member terms last five years. The Colorado Water Conservation Board

member living in each basin will act as the liaison between the roundtable and the Interbasin

Compact Committee and the board.

Interbasin Compact Committee

The 27-member Interbasin Compact Committee will facilitate the process of interbasin

compact negotiations. Committee members will include:

• Two (2) members chosen by each of the nine basin roundtables.

• Six (6) at-large members appointed by the Governor;

• One (1) member appointed by the Chairperson of the House Agriculture, Livestock,

and Natural Resources Committee;

Talking Points

1580 Logan Street, Suite 410


Phone (303) 377-4433

www.cfwe.org



• The Statewide

Water Supply Initiative

concluded in 2004

that the state would

fall 20 percent short

of meeting its water

demands in 2030—

even with successful

implementation of

current water supply

planning efforts.

• HB 1177 guarantees

the protection of

existing water

rights such that

“the current system

of allocating water

within Colorado shall

not be superseded,

abrogated, or otherwise

impaired.”- HB 1177

• Beginning in fall 2005,

SWSI working groups

began to address four

main issues: water

efficiency in agricultural

and municipal

uses, alternatives

to permanent dry-

up of agricultural

land, quantifying

environmental and

recreational needs,

and bridging the gap

between future water

needs and available

supply.

Mic

hael

Lew

is

By Erin McIntyre

On spring and summer afternoons, tourists might observe brightly col-ored kayaks bobbing in and out of the waves, and applaud Gunnison for its recreation-friendly community. What is not apparent to casual observers are the hours invested in legal wrangling and community dialogue that went into building the park and obtaining the water right necessary to give this park a priority over some of the other future water uses in the valley.

Outside of the courtroom and beyond the water board meetings, the results of this hard-fought battle beg the question: How does the Gunnison community feel about its new recreational hotspot?

Making Sense of It AllBy the time the park was built, most

of the community was in favor of the project, says George Sibley, a professor at Western State College and organizer of the annual Gunnison Water Workshop.

Sibley says many locals support-ed the whitewater park because they thought gaining a water right for the park assured that the water could not be diverted to the Front Range. In the past, water developers have eyed the Gunnison River basin for projects such as Union Park, a proposed 1.2 million acre-foot reservoir. Although Union Park’s proponents lost a Colorado Supreme Court battle in 1998, when the court declared there was not enough water for the project, many locals still fear losing water to transmountain diversions.

“Frankly, that was a major reason for getting local support for it,” says Sibley. “It assures the water will have to be in the river at least for that far.”

But not everyone in Gunnison agrees. Rikki Santarelli, former Gunnison County attorney and commissioner, was on the commission when the county decided to build the park on its own land, and sup-ported the effort. Now Santarelli feels that

the park’s water rights may actually hurt the valley in the long run by hindering resi-dential and other development upstream.

He says if Front Range communities want water from the Gunnison Basin, a kayak park won’t stop them because they have more political clout and money than the small mountain town. What the kayak park hinders, says Santarelli, is development in the Gunnison Valley that could benefit the community.

“(The whitewater park) is kind of at the bottom of the valley,” says Santarelli, who has some clients who are develop-ers. “So, everybody who wants to make any change in the water right above that kayak park has to come up with a way to augment the stream.

Under Colorado law, junior water right holders are allowed to use water out of priority, but they must replace, or augment, what was used with the same quantity and suitable quality of water. An augmentation plan identifies how, where

Gunnison’sDeveloping Relationship

With Its Newest Recreational ParkTo most people driving on U.S. Highway 50 west of Gunnison, the stretch of water just west

of town near the Twin Bridges is just another fast-moving section of the Gunnison River. Even

a trained eye might have a hard time telling that beneath the water’s surface are hundreds of

boulders strategically placed to make a whitewater park.


Mic

hael

Lew

is

and when the water will be supplied. The law was the legislature’s solution to over appropriation of the state’s rivers.

Some feel that is not a reasonable expectation in this case. According to Santarelli, “The water district should do something so that upstream users don’t have to augment the stream to meet that silly kayak course’s (water right). To put a few kayakers in a higher priority than houses or businesses or even tourist-related industries is ridiculous. Suppose somebody wanted to build a resort?”

Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Director Karen Shirley said the district is trying to be flexible and is still learning how to bal-ance the park’s rights with its other con-stituents’ needs.

“I think they all understand this is kind of a work in progress,” says Shirley. “The district is looking at some administrative policies to try to decrease augmentation requirements just for indoor use.”

Gunnison Basin water users are accus-tomed to the concept of augmentation. Generally this means providing an alter-nate source of water to fulfill senior rights, should senior water users put a “call” for their water on the river. Those filing for water rights after the park’s 2002 priority date would be most affected.

New development has to deal with augmentation requirements from most of the basin already, says Shirley. One of the oldest rights belongs to the Gunnison Tunnel, with a 1904 prior-ity date. The tunnel, located about six miles east of Montrose, was one of the first projects the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation undertook. Upstream, junior water users have been “called out” of the river and had diversions curtailed to meet senior rights.

Even if augmentation is required, Shirley says there is no lack of develop-ment in the Gunnison Valley.

“The developers aren’t discouraged,” she says. “It costs them more, but there is not a lack of development above the kayak course.”

The whitewater park’s water right decree stipulates the water district will take the rest of the river basin into con-sideration when placing a call. Shirley says this allows for flexibility, and she anticipates the same flexibility will be required of the district in the future of the course, whatever it evolves into.

“If, in 20 years people don’t use

(the park) as much, we can take that into consideration.

We don’t know what the next eco-nomic or beneficial use of water will be and it’s very hard to predict the future,” says Shirley.

Boulders and BulldozersJust installing the waterpark in the

first place was a bit of an engineering experiment. What lies beneath the water is a series of rock and concrete diversion structures installed by Gunnison County four years ago. They channel the river into surf holes, drops and pools that boaters and kayakers use to stage competitions or just while away a sunny afternoon.

“I’ve been working with the park since 2002 and the best way I can describe it is a ‘work in progress,’ ” says Bob Jones with the Todd Crane Center for Outdoor Leadership at

Western State College.In addition to the water rights battles,

those working to construct the park have had to balance issues with the neighbor-ing landowners, the airport, a water-treatment plant and the state transporta-tion department. Proponents have also learned to go with the flow of a con-struction project involving rushing water, which can shift and change everything without warning.

“The process (of creating the park) took a lot longer and was much more expensive than I think the district and the county anticipated,” Shirley says. As of February 2006, the district had invested approximately $475,000 just in legal fees, mediation, and other costs associated with obtaining the park’s water rights. This does not include the amount spent by Gunnison County to construct the park.

“The biggest problem and obstacle we had getting the park approved was from homeowners adjacent to the river who were concerned that the features

The Legal Story A whitewater park without any

water won’t attract many boaters, a

situation which inspired the Upper

Gunnison River Water Conservancy

District—to file for recreational in-chan-

nel diversion (RICD) water rights for the

whitewater park in 2002. An RICD water

right varies from the traditional “use it

or lose it” water right, which typically

requires water to be removed from the

stream and to be put to beneficial use.

In the case of a RICD, the water stays in

the stream for recreation.

After a lengthy court battle against

the State of Colorado and other oppo-

nents, a final decree granting the

UGRWCD the RICD water rights was

issued in January 2006. In the end, the

district settled with all the opponents

in the case, says Karen Shirley, the

conservancy district’s director.

Their water rights now allow the

whitewater park to call for peak flows

of up to 1,200 cubic feet per second in

June, with lower flows allowed from

May through September.

A freestyle kayaker flips on the Arkansas River during the annual Blue Paddle FIBArk Whitewater Festival held in Salida.

6

Mic

hael

Lew

is


would cause a bigger icing problem in the spring runoff,” says Mark Gibson, assistant professor of recreation at Western State College.

Gibson’s program boasts the second-largest number of majors on campus, partially because the park helps recruit students, he says.

Constructing and maintaining a white-water park is an imprecise science. Some say it will require more trial and error, and will continue to change over time.

The top structure in the park still isn’t complete says Shirley. Recently, Gunnison County hired engineer and hydrologist Jeff Crane of Crane and Associates in Hotchkiss, to re-build parts of the upstream end of the park, and fine tune other park features.

“It does take what I call ‘adaptive management’ to do anything in the river,” says Crane.

“(The park) wasn’t designed quite enough to take into account the bend in the river,” he says, adding that one side of the whitewater park is substantially deeper than the other now.

“Hydrology is so far from being an exact science that you have to plan on making revisions. You don’t want to force the water to do what it doesn’t want to do,” says Crane, who is also the president of the Colorado Watershed Assembly.

Repair to the park’s original features has been problematic. Cold weather iced over the river in November, making work impossible. Crews have a narrow win-dow of opportunity to do the work, between the time when the ice melts and peak runoff arrives.

Of primary importance in creating the pools and drops boaters want, is mak-ing sure historical diversions along the course still receive the water they are

entitled. Part of Crane’s work involves improving the diversion structure for the 75 Ditch, located near the upstream end of the park.

This time of year, his design looks more like a riffle in the river, not an engi-neered structure, he says. But ultimately, the structure will fulfill two purposes. Buried rocks in the river bottom will cre-ate enough of a backwater to divert a full decree of water into the ditch, and he hopes the boulders will also create a little water feature at the top end of the whitewater park.

“Is there a wave here? Is there going to be a hole? We don’t know yet because we haven’t had high water yet,” he says. “But I have no doubt it will work well as a ditch diversion and it will work well for the river in the long term.”

“Designing water parks is not a hard science,” says Gibson. “You put things in the river and you have to see how it acts.”

Regardless of what the final version of the park will be, Crane says collabora-tion will be necessary for this water park and any others that come along.

“This is the future of water use in this state–developing projects that will benefit water users, recreation, storage, agriculture, everyone,” says Crane. “We’re pulling together because there’s a very limited supply of water we have to work with.” q

Hundreds of boulders beneath the Gunnison River’s surface create a waterpark for kayakers, and a metaphor for the park itself. Gunnison County and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District went toe-to-toe with the state and a boatload of oppo-nents to obtain the recreational in-channel diversion water right. The boulders had to be moved in and strategically placed to create the park, and designers say adjustments, fine tuning and revisions will continue, at least for a while.

A kayaker paddles on the Arkansas River, one of Colorado’s most popular for whitewater sports.

Mic

hael

Lew

is

To forget everything else.

The paperwork on your desk at the office. The car needs new tires. The bored-

till-everyone’s-comatose meetings. The commute. The nuclear meltdown your

teenager had yesterday or Monday or whenever.

By Lori Ozzello

� C o lo r a d o f o u n dat i o n f o r wat e r e d u C at i o n

Fly Fishing


AAsk people why they ski or watch birds or kayak or hike or run or hunt and often, the core of the answer is “to forget everything else.” When you ask a fly fisher, she’ll explain there’s an art and science to the forgetting.

“You can do it by yourself,” says Karen Christopherson, a native Coloradan, geophyscist and Webmaster of www.coloradofishing.net. “It’s one-on-one with nature.

“I’m looking at the water, the fish, the wind. When you’re on a river, you get exercise at the same time. I don’t know about everyone else. For me, when I’m out there, I forget everything else.”

Christopherson isn’t alone in her love for the sport.

In 2003, the most recent year the American Sport Association conducted a survey, its economic analysis showed hunting and angling–they’re grouped together—had a $1.3 billion impact in

Colorado. In retail alone, people spent $6.9 million on gear and boats.

Add in the cost of guides, hotels, food and fuel, and it’s not just a pastime.

A 2002 Colorado Division of Wildlife report stated that virtually all of Colorado’s 64 counties reap benefits from wildlife-related activities, which support more than 20,000 jobs around the state.

Outfitting for learning and visiting fish-ers is one facet of the industry. Anglers, along with the state’s own Division of Wildlife, are also involved in protecting rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands.

Trout Unlimited’s intent, for example, is to protect and restore fisheries and watersheds. To that end, the organiza-tion, founded almost 50 years ago in

Michigan, employs lawyers, lobbyists and other professionals to work with law-makers at the state and federal levels. Its chapters are also active in conservation issues and work to influence water policy around Colorado.

“Water management can be obvious,” Christopherson says. “On the Dolores River below McPhee Reservoir, it’s got-ten down to low flow. That used to be an incredible fishery. Irrigators were pulling water and the fish died. When you go there now the flow is low and there are practically no fish.

“Because of things like this, TU is working with organizations like Denver Water, so we maintain flows for wildlife and people.”

Water quality issues may have slowed development on the Arkansas River, says outfitter Greg Felt. But after a mine waste clean up and improvements, fish are liv-ing longer and the Arkansas has become

a popular spot. “The Arkansas is a fishery on the rise,”

Felt said. “There are other marque rivers in the state. As fly fishing became more pop-ular, people ventured further afield. The Ark has 140 miles to fish, healthy brown trout and a lot of public access.”

All of the outfitters and anglers talk of their concern about maintaining flows and water quality.

The issues, says Felt, are worrisome.“You feel like you’re always losing

this battle of a thousand nicks, you lose a little here, a little there and you wake up one morning and it’s all gone,” he says.

Caring for the rivers and passion for the sport go hand in hand.

“You’re immersing yourself into the

(river) system,” Colorado Trout Unlimited Executive Director David Nickum says. “You’re no longer a spectator.

“There’s an emotional connection. When you’re out there on the water you get so focused on every ripple, every bug, that setting, that place. ”

Shane Birdsey agrees. A third gen-eration resident of Mineral County, his dad and granddad taught him how to wet fly fish on the Rio Grande when he was 13.

“Fly fishing is not just throwing a worm on a hook,” he says. “You have to read the water, check the wind, keep the fly drag free, mend the line. If you’re tuned in, everything goes away. I tell people who really want to get into this that you gotta pay. They ask how much. I tell them: Time. You have to pay in time. It becomes almost an addiction.”

If it’s an addiction, it’s one that’s pay-ing dividends to Colorado in more ways

than one. Outfitters and long-time enthu-siasts have perspectives on the current and future state of angling.

Birdsey owns the Ramble House, a sort of general department store for Creede–everything from hand-tied flies to souvenirs to housewares—along with Creede Guide and Outfitters. Located in Mineral County, the former mining town sits in one of the least populated coun-ties—831 permanent residents—in the state. More than 90 percent of the county is publicly owned.

Birdsey offers beginning and inter-mediate fly fishing lessons, float trips and ladies-only clinics. His fly fishing school season starts at the end of June, just after runoff peaks on the Rio Grande

Shane Birdsey works on an orange simulater fly in his shop, the Ramble House. Fly fishers, center, float on the Arkansas River downstream of Salida. Water quality improvements in the Arkansas have also improved fishing for German brown trout, right.

Mic

hael

Lew

is (3

)

� 0 C o lo r a d o f o u n dat i o n f o r wat e r e d u C at i o n

bnm,./';lknbvhcgxfq

H e a d wat e r s | s p r i n g 2 0 0 6 � �

and its tributaries.“Fly fishing is a challenge,” Birdsey

says. “You’re one-to-one with the fish.”In beginning classes, Birdsey’s

company provides all the equipment. Instructors familiarize students with equipment, show them how to get set up to fish, demonstrate basic knot tying and introduce the biology of fly fishing. They talk about where the fish hide out, which insects there are and why each species is where it is.

That’s the morning. Next, says Birdsey, come casting

lessons. Then the students spend 2-3 hours on the river. Out of the begin-ners’ classes, he says, a handful of people get hooked, continue and invest in their own equipment.

The place he’s seen the increase, though, is among women in their 40s and 50s.

“It used to be a man’s sport, but not anymore,” Birdsey says. “A lot of women fished with their husbands. Their hus-bands tied the flies and did everything for them. Not anymore. The women learn and they do it themselves.”

Felt’s seen the same trend, and says that in some says, women are easier to teach because they tend to be better listeners and more receptive to sugges-tions for improvement.

Christopherson caught on to the sport when she was in high school in Boulder. A self-described tomboy, she enrolled in a fly tying class and added fly fishing to the sports she enjoyed. Her profession keeps her outdoors most days where she spends “a lot of time waiting for heli-copters.” She fishes while she waits, no matter the time of year.

“It used to be I’d see three women in a season,” Christopherson says. “I fish almost every day. Certainly, you see more women now. More classes are available through DOW, and there’s the national program, Women Afield.

“And, you see some of the gear, wad-ers and boots are made for women. It’s a gradual thing.”

While retailers target a new sports mar-ket, she says, women are coming around to the idea of the sport’s attraction.

Another Mineral County rancher and outfitter, Billy Joe Dilley, takes summer-time guests into the high country to fish in remote streams. His dad gave him his first fishing pole when he was 5. On one of the trips Dilley offers, he and his

guests climb down into a pristine can-yon on the East Piedra River, the same place his dad taught him to fish and the same place he’s fished nearly 50 sum-mers since.

“They’ll be 30 or 40 fish in the river and they don’t run,” Dilley relates. “It’s like when the mountain men were first here. The fish’ve been there for years. They don’t know what you are. They haven’t seen people so they don’t have that fear.“ While Birdsey, Dilley and Felt

are guiding and teaching, they’re also paying attention to the state of the river, the fish and their surroundings.

“Mining and drought have had a major effect up here,” Birdsey explains. “Float trips will be limited this year because we just haven’t had the snow. It will have an effect on insect repro-duction, too.

“In 2002 when it was so dry, we asked people just to fish in the morning. By afternoon, the water temperature in the river was up to 70 degrees. Even if people were doing catch and release, the stress could cause fish deaths. The water right now in late winter is 32 degrees. That’s a big difference. The increase in temperature also means an increase in bacteria in the water.”

Dilley is adamant about preserving the water and land by teaching Colorado residents and out-of-state visitors alike to have as little impact as possible.

“It’s here for all of us to enjoy,” says Dilley, “but people 50-75 years from now

need to enjoy it, too.”Fishing doesn’t have to be elabo-

rate or epic, though, or even particu-larly expensive. Several years ago, the Colorado Department of Wildlife identi-fied a need in the state—to successfully get youngsters involved in the outdoors one of their parents had to be into, too.

Fishing, observes Nickum, often “gets passed from generation to generation” and there are concerns about the sport’s decrease in numbers among the young.

Birdsey takes students as young as 8 in his fly fishing clinics. Christopherson notes that anglers would “love to have more kids involved,” especially considering that many people’s fondest memories “are of going fishing when they were kids.”

Felt says if you want “to get kids inter-ested, you can’t get impatient or mad. You have to focus on having fun.”

Christopherson says she fishes throughout the year.

“You can always fish the tailwaters because a dam keeps the water a cer-tain temperature and the fish like that,” she says. “They can feed year around and be happy. And, there are some streams that don’t freeze up totally, like some parts of the lower Poudre and the lower Big Thompson. I went up in late January to Buttonrock Reservoir on a warm day. The fish are still there. It’s a little more challenging, and the weather’s colder. Or, you can fly fish for the warm water species, like wipers or bass.” q

Creede Guide and Outfitters guide Rory Ramsay, left, and Ramble House owner Shane Birdsey, right, talk about flies with customer Dale Pizel. Birdsey owns both the 50-year-old Ramble House, a something-for-everyone store in Creede, and the outfitting company, which operates on the Rio Grande.

Mic

hael

Lew

is


An Avian Oasis on the Plainsby Lori Ozzello

Photos by Jon Deloreneo

According to Watchable Wildlife Coordinator John Koshak, 40 percent of visitors stopping at the Lamar Welcome Center and signing its guest book indicate they are visiting the state to watch birds.

From a migrating bird’s perspective, they look like a Marriott Hotel.

The rivers are part of a rich nexus that includes playas and wetlands provid-ing rest, food and refuge for thousands of migrating birds. The eastern plains are part of the Central Flyway, a north-to-south route acting as a wide, arte-rial highway for migratory birds traveling from Texas and Mexico. It follows the eastern base of the Rocky Mountains into Canada and the northwest arctic coast.

The plains’ rivers are only half the story, though. According to the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Colorado’s eastern plains have about 2,500 playas, or small, shallow wetlands that rainfall and runoff periodically fill. The plains’ annual average precipitation is 12 inches or less, so drought-like conditions are common and the playas often dry up.

DOW public information specialist Tyler Baskfield says there’s an advantage to the on-again-off-again playas: Their seasonal fluctuations allow for substan-tial plant growth, which produces much-needed seeds for food for waterfowl and migrating birds.

“Anywhere you get water out there, you’ll get waterfowl,” Baskfield says. “Wetlands on the eastern plains play a critical role. You’ll see it if you visit a reservoir. You’ll see it around playas, streams and creeks. Lot of times, because of creeks, you get kind of a treat corridor. The cottonwood seeds come down for the birds to eat and the trees provide a great cover for everything from deer on down. Any source of water is sort of a mecca for wildlife on the plains.”

Baskfield says there’s another advan-tage. Unlike Midwestern states that have

plentiful water, the plains’ scarce water supply “sort of narrows things down.”

Large mammals—like deer—he says, gravitate toward the same streams as the sandhill cranes.

An International AttractionBird and wildlife watching are among

Colorado’s fastest growing tourism sec-tors. Annually, birders in the state spend $16 million for binoculars and spotting scopes and $37.5 million for commercial-ly-prepared bird food, according to sta-tistics provided by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Wildlife watching alone, in total eco-nomic impact, is second only to skiing in the recreation sector. It brings $1 billion annually, according to a 2001 Department of Wildlife study. In the United States, that’s the largest amount by far of any


An Avian Oasis on the Plains

From the ground, eastern Colorado’s prairie rivers in late winter are shallow,

sandy and slow. Bare cottonwood trees, tall dry grasses and stick-like shrubs line their narrow

edges, sometimes the only clues the rivers are there at all.

� � C o lo r a d o f o u n dat i o n f o r wat e r e d u C at i o n

state that doesn’t have ocean front prop-erty. And, wildlife officers say it isn’t unusual to find international visitors who tour the state to see specific birds.

“This is an urbanized culture,” says Baskfield. “This is one of the ways peo-ple want to interact with wildlife.”

The state boasts more than 900 dif-ferent species. The variety, says DOW Watchable Wildlife Coordinator John Koshak, is due to Colorado’s own diver-sity, going from prairie to high country.

In eastern Colorado, Koshak is work-ing on a project to “loop” viewing trails, something like the scenic byways signs along state highways. He’s working with public and private landowners, the Rocky Mountain Observatory, Colorado Field Orinthologists, Audubon Colorado and the Colorado Department of Transportation, among others, to link 24 coun-ties. The viewing site locations will be available on the Web and on maps for wildlife enthusiasts to follow according to the time they have, area and season. The Web site’s completion is expect-ed by summer’s end, and the trail loops by the fall.

Until then, there are other alternatives, such as the existing watch-able wildlife stations and a variety of view-ing festivals held in various small towns.

Says Baskfield, “Really, all you need to do is get in the car and go.”

At a watchable wildlife station near Georgetown, for instance, DOW installed permanent viewing scopes for the pub-lic. At the site just off Interstate 70, visi-tors can drop in 50 cents to watch 300 or so bighorn sheep bounce from rocky ledge to precipitous foothold on the opposite mountainside. DOW volunteers staff the area on weekends. The sheep are around pretty much all day, every day, fall to spring.

At Windy Gap Reservoir near Highway 40, wildlife and birdwatchers can spot bald and golden eagles, a variety of waterfowl and small mammals through permanent scopes. The watchable wildlife area there includes a parking lot off the highway along with a covered picnic area.

The watchable wildlife program has existed for about 15 years and boasts a couple hundred areas around the state. Some are simple informational kiosks, others are blinds, and still others have

scopes, says Baskfield. DOW partners with a variety of agencies and organiza-tions to install and maintain the areas.

While watching wildlife maintains its popularity, searching for birds continues to become more popular all the time.

“We know hunting and fishing bring a lot of money into the state, but only seven percent of the population hunts,” says DOW’s Wildlife Watch Coordinator Renee Herring. “People pay to go to Africa just to see birds, not the charis-matic megafauna. Birds.”

Which explains the draw of events

like the Lamar Snowgoose Festival in late February. In its fourth year, the festival drew about 200 people to a weekend of workshops and wildlife viewing.

Not only did visitors enjoy the return of between 5- and 15,000 snow geese, Koshak says, they also got to see more than two dozen bald eagles and several other raptors, including rough-legged hawks.

“For some of these people,” says Koshak, “it’s a life changing experi-ence.”

White-tailed deer were out early Saturday morning and visitors got to see a great blue heron rookery. Free classes at the high school covered everything from Zebulon Pike’s historic odyssey across the plains, to how to watch wild-life properly.

If you missed Lamar, no worries. There’s more, like the Wray greater prai-rie chicken festival in early April.

The Wray event, made possible by a collaborative effort among the Wray Chamber of Commerce, Yuma Historical Museum, DOW and private landowners, attracts birdwatchers from around the

world, as well as Colorado.The prairie chicken festival in Wray

includes a night-before-viewing dinner, sunrise bird viewing, educational film and after-viewing breakfast.

After their 4 a.m. wake-up call, visi-tors board vans and ride over bumpy roads for a chance to view leks—the prairie chicken’s gathering and courting areas—where DOW parks specially fitted trailers. Inside the trailers are bleachers for the birdwatchers. One side of each trailer opens, says Herring, “almost like a hotdog wagon” revealing a window that

looks out onto the prairie. Visitors are led in and quietly seated before the awning is opened.

“At first, you can barely see outside,” she says. “Then the light comes up and it’s quiet. The sky begins to get light. Then you see the chickens.”

The males stomp, they dance. They blow up the orange sacs below their beaks.

After the mating ritual, ranch-ers on whose land the trailers are parked serve breakfast to the visitors and talk with them about a variety of topics, including water resources, rangeland manage-ment and life on the plains.

Says Herring: “It was a blast.” q

Several plains and mountain towns, including Lamar, Wray, Monte Vista and Walden, host weekend festivals for returning birds. Wray’s greater prai-rie chicken viewing occurs over five weekends beginning March 21. Visit [email protected].

The Colorado Division of Wildlife offers free workshops from now through August throughout the state to teach children and adults how to master out-door skills. Some offer college credit. Visit www.wildlifewatch.net .

For more about birdwatching, visit:

• The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory at Barr Lake, http://www.rmbo.org/;

• Colorado Field Orinthologists, www.cfo-link.org; and

• The Colorado Birding Trail, www.coloradobirdingtrail.com, an initiative to link state out-door recreation sites.

Prowers County District Wildlife Manager Bryant Will helps a young birdwatcher sight incoming snowgeese during Lamar’s 4th annual festival in February.


Let i t Snow

A tiny ski area that operated for just one season 50 years ago introduced snow-making technology to Colorado, blazing the trail for a tool to fake out Mother Nature and provide economic stability for a $1.5 billion industry.

Magic Mountain Ski Area, west of Golden, opened in 1958 and closed in 1959, says ski historian Pat Pfeiffer. Then-new Ski Broadmoor, near Colorado Springs, bought some of Magic Mountain’s used equipment.

“Ski Broadmoor was the area that all other ski areas kept a close eye on to see how the new technology worked and if it was profitable,” says Pfeiffer.

Pfeiffer, who is also a board mem-ber of the Colorado Ski Museum, viv-idly remembers her first experience with snowmaking in 1960. She and her husband were so excited about Ski Broadmoor opening that they planned a nocturnal ski party on the slopes.

After a few good runs, they got back on the lift and “they turned the snow machine on and it spewed out water, drenching all of us who were riding the lift,” says Pfeiffer. “You might say that put a damper on the ski party.”

The soaked skiers spent the rest of the adventure inside the warming house trying to dry out, and finally left early.

“Never has a hot buttered rum hit the spot more!” says Pfeiffer, who is now in her late 70s.

The Broadmoor worked out its prob-lems with the snowmaking equipment and went on to serve skiers for 30 years.

Today, the majority of ski areas in Colorado use snowmaking regularly. Even the highest areas, such as Loveland Ski Area at 13,010 feet above sea level, uses snowmaking, and die-hard powder fans know it’s typically the first to open. The ski area’s management is so confident snow enthusiasts will be satisfied with the

By Erin McIntyreKe

vin

Mol

oney

powder on its slopes–an annual average of 400 inches–it offers a full refund on lift tickets if skiers aren’t happy with the con-ditions and return their tickets by 10 a.m.

“We can’t remember the last time someone took us up on that,” writes Kathryn Johnson, Loveland Ski Area marketing manager, in an e-mail inter-view. “Frankly, it’s something we’ve kinda phased out just because the snow condi-tions are always quite adequate.”

But even Loveland needs a little help now and then from snowmaking technol-ogy to make sure it can uphold that guar-antee. It has the ability to make snow on 160 acres and takes advantage of that most years, says Johnson.

According to Colorado Ski Country USA, a state ski trade association, only three of its 25 member resorts in Colorado do not make snow today: Monarch, Ski Cooper and Silverton.

“Snowmaking is used in Colorado to build a good early-season snow base and to help provide high-quality opening day and early season conditions in the event Mother Nature is a bit stingy,” explains Molly Cuffe, Colorado Ski Country USA spokeswoman, in an e-mail interview. Yet, “only 16 percent of Colorado’s ski-able terrain is covered by way of snow-making capability.”

To make snow, three things are nec-essary: A relative humidity of at least 100 percent, air temperatures equal to or below freezing, and particles called ice nuclei.

Snow cannons shoot water into the freezing air, aspirating it. Particles allow ice to form as the compressed air expands and cools through a pro-

cess called adiabatic cooling, says Mark Williams, a fellow at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and a University of Colorado geography professor.

“It’s just the opposite of when you’re pumping up a bike tire, the pump gets hot because you’re compressing the air. Here, it’s expanding and it’s cooling off,” says Williams.

The result is a denser, wetter snow than Mother Nature’s. While natural snow is fluffier, made of mostly air, artifi-cial snow is heavier and is mostly ice.

For example, good, natural cham-pagne powder is about 95 percent air and 5 percent ice, says Williams. Artificial snow is only 30 to 40 percent air, which makes it useful for covering up rocks and tree branches.

The pressure of warming climates, Mother Nature’s unpredictability and cus-tomer demands have made snowmaking a near-necessity for most resorts.

“There’s a really high year-to-year variability in the magnitude of snow,” says Williams. “And snowmaking reduces the uncertainty of the skiing business.”

Williams knows how to get excited about really good snow, after running a ski lodge in the Sierra Nevada moun-tains for seven years. He said the abil-ity to create a good base with artificial snow allows resorts to have a more certain schedule and assure skiers and snowboarders that the runs will open by Thanksgiving, the target opening date for most Colorado resorts.

Snowmaking also has evened out the number of skiers across the ski season, meaning there’s less of a push for the slopes immediately after a storm.

“In general, skier days at resorts are not correlated with good snow any-more,” says Williams. “Places like Vail, their market is not based on day-use. Their market is from people coming from Florida, from Europe. People who are really their cash cows are booking their trips in advance.”

Statewide, 60 percent of the skiers and snowboarders on Colorado’s slopes are from outside the state, according to Colorado Ski Country USA. Either way, snowmaking helps resorts get a jump start on building a good base at the begin-ning of the season so they can open.

“The time period of skiing when ski areas make their money is not in sync with nature,” says Williams.

But for some smaller resorts like Powderhorn Resort on Grand Mesa, 45 minutes away from Grand Junction, snowmaking serves a different function. About 75 percent of its business comes from within 60 miles, says Kathy Dirks, Powderhorn spokeswoman.

“Snowmaking may get us open a little earlier, but primarily snowmaking allows us to put down a very dense base at the bottom of the mountain,” writes Dirks in an e-mail interview. “When the weather warms in the spring, that dense base allows us to keep our access to the lifts and base area until we close.”

Powderhorn covers 35 acres with its snowmaking and uses it mainly to increase the snow base from mid-November through mid-January. The maximum amount of water it uses, with eight snow guns going at the same time, is 575 gal-lons per minute. After the season is over, the snow melts and eventually drains to

“The problem is going to be having enough water to make snow,”

—Mark Williams,Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research


Kevi

n M

olon

ey (2

)

streams supplying downstream cities or and ranchers in the Plateau Valley and along the Colorado River.

“We like to think of our slopes and snowmaking as a storage area for their summer water,” says Dirks.

Snowmaking does require a water right. And ski resorts have invested thousands of dollars obtaining these rights, as well as making sure water will be available when they need it.

Vail Resorts, for example, helped construct Black Lakes, a pair of now twice-expanded reservoirs located along Interstate 70 at Vail Pass. Water from these high-altitude reservoirs can now be metered into Gore Creek to supple-ment low flows caused by snowmaking, or to supply downstream calls for water from senior diverters. It’s an elaborate system, taking water diverted from the stream and pumping it back some three miles up Gore Creek to the location of Vail’s snowmaking intake.

So who invented this technology to give Mother Nature a boost?

“I have absolutely no idea,” said Williams. He’s heard the different versions of snowmaking’s invention. According to information from the Colorado Ski Museum, snowmaking was developed

in March 1950 by Art Hunt, Wayne Pierce and Dave Ritchey of TEY Manufacturing Corp in Milford, Conn. But other materi-als from the Broadmoor Hotel indicate that an engineer with a small agricultural equipment firm may have discovered snowmaking in the same year, when he was working on a way to protect citrus crops from early frost.

“I’m sure it was some guy who was making five bucks an hour and came up with the idea,” Williams says, laughing. “Some seasonal ski bum.”

Williams predicts that in the next 50 to 100 years, snowmaking will become more popular at resorts in lower elevations as climate variations bring less snow.

“Lower areas will receive less snow, and not until later in the year,” he says. “Areas like Aspen, Keystone will have to start making more snow.

“The ski areas are concerned about that and…they’re hedging their bets. They’re trying to gobble water rights up for that.”

While ski resorts may have the money to invest in water rights, some streams are already over-appropriated. Williams predicts that attempts to take water from high-mountain streams that are at their minimum flows will be very controver-sial.

“The problem is going to be hav-ing enough water to make snow,” says Williams. “You end up with questions like, ‘If you take that water and make snow instead of leaving that water in the stream, are you losing more to evapo-transpiration?’ Nobody really knows.” q


An unidentified businessman takes at turn at early snow-making at Ski Broadmoor, near Colorado Springs. The resort was the second in Colorado to try out artificial snow after Magic Mountain, an area out-side Golden, folded in 1959, after only a year in operation. The Broadmoor purchased Magic Mountain’s snowmak-ing equipment, says the state’s ski historian, and the idea caught on.

Kevi

n M

olon

ey (2

)

Cour

tesy

of t

he C

olor

ado

Ski M

useu

m

lEgAl bRiEF

ALAMOSA—The fate of proposed state rules governing new groundwater with-drawals from the San Luis Valley’s confined aquifer rests in the hands of District Judge O. John Kuenhold.

In 1998, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 1011, and Senate Bill 222, passed in 2004, recogniz-ing the valley’s unique hydrology and the need to protect existing water rights and the state’s Rio Grande Compact deliv-ery obligations to downstream states. In response to those pieces of legislation, Colorado Division of Water Resources State Engineer Hal Simpson promul-gated rules governing new groundwater withdrawals on June 30, 2004.

But some don’t think the state’s rules are fair, and have been protesting them in water court in Alamosa throughout February and March. Challenging the state’s rules as unconstitutional are the Colorado Association of Home Builders,

San Luis Valley Water Company and Cotton Creek Circles, whose case centers on the “rules governing new withdrawls of ground water in Division 3 affecting the rate or direction of movement of water in the confined aquifer system.”

Defending the proposed rules are the Attorney General’s office repre-senting the state; Rio Grande Water Users Association; Rio Grande Water Conservation District; and the Conejos Water Conservancy District.

Judge Kuenhold is presiding over the case which went to trial on January 30 and was scheduled to conclude on March 9. The six-week trial included testimony from more than a dozen witnesses testifying on behalf of the state’s rules and a half-dozen witnesses opposing them.

Proponents of the rules argue the Valley’s water situation is unique, with a unique hydrologic structure. They also

By Ruth Heide

Rules Governing Deep Aquifers in San Luis Valley Go to Trial

� � C o lo r a d o f o u n dat i o n f o r wat e r e d u C at i o n

Eric Wunrow

lEgAl bRiEF

argue that water supplies in the San Luis Valley are over-appropriated, and that ground water management rules are necessary to maintain a sustainable aquifer in the Rio Grande Basin.

Opponents argue the rules are unconstitutional, violating individuals’ rights to appropriate water, that water is available in the basin for appropriation, and that new water applications should be given the opportunity to develop augmentation plans rather than replace new withdrawals at a one-for-one ratio as required in the rules.

Much of the testimony during the trial focused on the Rio Grande Decision Support System, a comprehensive computer model designed to meet state legislators’ mandate for a specific study of the San Luis Valley’s complex hydrology. This model is expected to be used to calculate the impact of any proposed new withdrawals from the

valley’s aquifers. State witnesses such as Willem Schreüder, who developed the model, testified to its accuracy and reliability while protesters’ witnesses such as groundwater modeling expert Charles Norris testified the model was flawed and unreliable, particularly for predictive purposes.

Witnesses including Colorado Division of Water Resources Chief Deputy Ken Knox and Registered Professional Engineer Allen Davey testified the val-ley’s aquifer systems are currently not in a sustainable condition, and the pro-posed state rules are necessary to bring the system back into balance.

Closing arguments are currently scheduled for Friday afternoon, March 24, in Alamosa. Judge Kuenhold has no specific deadline to render a deci-sion but said he would make a ruling as soon as possible following the conclu-sion of the trial.

Rules Governing Deep Aquifers in San Luis Valley Go to Trial


Support the Foundation’s efforts to provide balanced and accurate information on water resource issues. All members receive regular updates and notices on new Foundation products and events, 10 percent discount on all publications and event registrations, and FREE subscriptions to the quarterly Headwaters magazine. Your membership contribution is tax-deductible, in accordance with state and federal laws.

Charter member - $2,000 or more Up to 10 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine FREE set of Citizen’s Guides and posters Special recognition in CFWE publications & eventsPioneer member - $1,000 Up to 7 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine FREE set of Citizen’s Guides and postersSustaining member - $500 Up to 5 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazineAssociate member - $250 Up to 3 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazineWatershed member - $100 2 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazineIndividual member - $50 FREE annual subscription to Headwaters magazineStudent member (currently enrolled students only) - $25 FREE annual subscription to Headwaters magazine 50% off products and event registrations

I / we would like to become a member at the level as described above.

CONTACT NAME:

COMPANY OR AFFILIATION (if applicable):

How would you like this membership listed? Under my name. Under my company’s name.

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE:

EMAIL:

Watershed membership and higher: If you do not require all the subscriptions for your level of membership, please indicate the number desired:

If you would like the subscriptions sent to other people in your organization or to different addresses, please enclose a list with this form.

CHECK ENCLOSED (Make check payable to Colorado Foundation for Water Education)

VISA MASTERCARD AMEX DISCOVER

CREDIT CARD NUMBER: EXPIRATION:

NAME ON CARD:

CARDHOLDER’S SIGNATURE: DATE:

Mail or fax with payment to Colorado Foundation for Water Education1580 Logan Street, Suite 410 • Denver, CO 80203

fax (303) 377-4360or order online at www.cfwe.org

Thank you for supporting non-advocacy water resource information and education in Colorado!

20 ColoradofoundationforwatereduCation

CFWE mEmbERSHip

H e a d wat e r s | s p r i n g 2 0 0 6 2 �

Contact name: Company (if applicable): Address:Phone or email (in case there is a problem or delay filling your order):

Check enclosed Visa Mastercard Discover AmexCard number: Expires: Name on card: Signature:

Item Quantity MemberPrice

Non-MemberPrice Total

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Law: Second Edition Explores the basics of Colorado water law, how it has developed, and is applied today. 33 pages, full color.

$7.20 each;$5.40 each

for 10 or more

$8.00 each;$6.00 each

for 10 or more

$

Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Protection For those who need to know more about Colorado’s complex regulatory system for protecting, maintaining, and restoring water quality. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Conservation Highlights current water conservation technologies, incentive programs, regulations and policies promoting efficient water use in Colorado. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Water Heritage Explore how water shaped Colorado’s culture, history and identity with Native American, Hispano and Anglo contributions during the “settling in” period of the state’s first hundred years. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Where Your Water Comes From Explains how weather patterns and aquifers supply the water we use. Summarizes the intricate distribution systems Coloradans have developed to deliver water to our farms and cities. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Water Heritage: The Environmental Era Second in our water heritage series, six essays by leaders in the environmental movement and Colorado history take the reader through the awakening of Colorado’s environmental consciousness. 33 pages, full color.

Headwaters Magazine Our quarterly magazine features interviews, legal updates, and in-depth articles on fundamental water resource topics. Available by subscription or free with your membership, Headwaters keeps you up-to-date and informed about water resource concerns throughout the state.

FREE $25 annually $

Colorado: The Headwaters State Poster An overview of the major lakes, reservoirs and rivers in Colorado and describes how humans and the environment rely on these resources. 24”h x 36”w.

Free (plus shipping)

Water History Poster An archaeological and historical timeline of Colorado’s water resources and their development from circa 14,000 B.C. to the present. 36”h x 24”w.

Free (plus shipping)

Colorado Mother of Rivers Collection of 218 water poems by Colorado Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs book challenges readers to extend their thinking about the wonders of Colorado’s rivers. 190 pages.

$8.95 each; $6.25 each

for 10 or more

$9.95 each; $6.95 each

for 10 or more

$

SUBTOTAL

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING SHIPPING CHARGES TO YOUR PAYMENT:CITIZEN’S GUIDES and HEADWATERS 1-2 guides, $3.00. 3-5 guides, $5.00. 6-10 guides, $7.25. 11-20 guides, $9.50. 21-30 guides, $12.25.

COLORADO MOTHER OF RIVERS 1 copy, $4.00. 2 copies , $5.00. 3-5 copies, $7.75. 6-10 copies, $10.50.POSTERS 1-5 posters = $3.50.

Please call the CFWE office at (303) 377-4433 for shipping larger quantities than are listed here.

$

TOTAL $

Mail or fax with payment to CFWE, 1580 Logan Street, Suite 410, Denver, CO 80203, fax (303) 377-4360, or order online at www.cfwe.org

CFWE publiCATionS

1580 logan St., Suite 410 • denver, Co 80203

Registerfor The Headwaters Tour

June 16-17, 2006

See a high altitude portion of Colorado on this year’s annual CFWE river tour, June 16-17, which includes visits to the headwaters of both the Arkansas and South Platte rivers.

Members of the Legislative Interim Water Committee will join a diverse group of partici-pants, including water professionals, educators and policy makers, for the journey. Expect lively discussions, a raft of information, breathtaking scenery and opportunities for networking.

REGISTRATIONTour registration costs are all-inclusive, cov-

ering tour transportation, lodging, meals, activi-ties and background materials.

Early Registration – Before June 1CFWE Members $295 single occupancy room $245 double occupancy roomNon-Members $335 single occupancy room $285 double occupancy room

Late Registration – After June 1$350 single or double occupancy

For registrations forms, call the CFWE offices at (303)377-4433 or download a printable form at www.cfwe.org

Experience the headwaters of the South Platte and Arkansas rivers firsthand…HEADWATERS TOUR STOPS AND TOPICS(subject to change)

DAY ONE: Friday June 16“Trees for Trout” restoration projects on

Tarryall CreekReclamation after the Hayman BurnDenver Water’s South Platte supply systemRafting on the Arkansas River through

Brown’s CanyonReception and overnight in Salida

DAY TWO: Saturday June 17Transmountain diversionsFryingpan-Arkansas ProjectClimax Mine, Clinton and Eagle Park res-

ervoirs

TITLE SPONSOR

Mic

hael

Lew

is

Headwaters Spring 2006: Recreation

Documents

Transcript of Headwaters Spring 2006: Recreation