Headwaters Winter 2004: The Colorado River

C O L O R A D O F O U N D A T I O N F O R W A T E R E D U C A T I O N | W I N T E R 2 0 0 4

Colorado Foundation for Water Education

1580 Logan St., Suite 410 • Denver, CO 80203303-377-4433 • www.cfwe.org

MISSION STATEMENT

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

STAFF

Karla A. BrownExecutive Director

Carrie PatrickAssistant

Young Hee KimPrograms Specialist

OFFICERS

PresidentDiane Hoppe

State Representative, R-Sterling

1st Vice PresidentJustice Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.

Colorado Supreme Court

2nd Vice PresidentBecky Brooks

Colorado Water Congress

SecretaryWendy Hanophy

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Assistant SecretaryLynn Herkenhoff

Southwestern Water Conservation District

TreasurerTom Long,

Summit County Commissioner

Assistant TreasurerMatt Cook

Coors Brewing

At LargeTaylor Hawes

Northwest Council of Governments

Rod KuharichColorado Water Conservation Board

Lori OzzelloNorthern Colorado Water Conservancy District

TrusteesRita Crumpton, Orchard Mesa Irrigation District

Lewis H. Entz, State Senator, (R-Hooper)

Frank McNulty, Colorado Division of Natural Resources

Brad Lundahl, Colorado Water Conservation Board

David Nickum, Trout Unlimited

Tom Pointon, Agriculture

John Porter, Colorado Water Congress

Chris Rowe, Colorado Watershed Network

Rick Sackbauer, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District

Gerry Saunders, University of Northern Colorado

Ann Seymour, Colorado Springs Utilities

Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University

Headwaters is quarterly magazine designed to provide Colorado citizens with balanced and accurate information on a variety of subjects related to water resources.Copyright 2003 by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. ISSN: 1546-0584

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The 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 EDITOR ..........................................................1

IN THE NEWS .....................................................................2

CFWE HIGHLIGHTS............................................................3

CHRONOLOGY OF THE “LAW OF THE RIVER”...........................4

CALIFORNIA’S NEW COLORADO RIVER DIET............................6

What does it mean for Colorado?

INTERVIEW .......................................................................10

Colorado’s Lead Negotiator for Colorado River Issues

PROFILE ...........................................................................13

Paul Testwuide, Vail Resorts Inc.

BOOK REVIEW ..................................................................15

Silver Fox of the Rockies

INTERVIEW .......................................................................17

Dan Tyler, Author

COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT .............15

VOICES.............................................................................19

River of Words Poetry Contest, National Finalist

ORDER FORM ...................................................................21

Author Dan Tyler, Author Dan Tyler, page 17.

About the Cover: Snowmelt from the Gore Range in the Colorado River Basin (upper photo) will someday find its way down to Lake Havasu (lower photo). Pipelines at the Whitsett Intake Pumping Plant extract some 1.5 mil-lion acre-feet of Lake Havasu water annually to supply the Central Arizona Project. Upper photo by Jack Affleck. Lower photo by Jim Richardson.

Author Dan Tyler,

Chronology of the “Law of the River”, page 4.

Chronology of the

Colorado River Fast Facts

he Foundation has devoted this winter edition of Headwaters to the

Colorado River Basin, touching on the policy, people, and economies that rely upon and shape the water resources of this productive watershed.

The last quarter of 2003 sent many rip-ples into Colorado’s water resource pond. In October, the historic Quantification Settlement Agreement was finally signed. Whether one feels the settlement is a peace treaty or a problem, it is easier to agree that it set historic precedent for ag to municipal water transfers, and repre-sents hours and hours of hard work by many people dedicated to staying at the negotiating table, even after multiple set-backs and disappointments.

This issue of Headwaters is designed to take you through the history of our last century of development on the Colorado River, outlining the laws that govern its use, and the organizations such as the Colorado River Water Conservation District, working to shape its future. We also devoted our “Profiles” section to Paul Testwuide, senior vice president of Vail Resorts, highlighting his personal involve-ment in the growth of snowmaking in the ski industry and its associated reliance on Colorado River Basin water.

Mark your calendars, as the Foundation will be putting together a three-day professional development tour of the Upper Colorado River Basin in June 2004. For more details, check out our

overview in the “Highlights” section.Finally, just a reminder to all those

conducting their own water education, restoration, or other water-related pro-grams around the state – submitting your event to the Foundation’s Web site can be a good way to share information about your project. Special events may also be appropriate for mention in our “In the News” section. We’d love to hear from you.

Karla BrownEditor and Executive Director

WATERMARKS:Negotiating a New Era for the Colorado River

Size of Colorado River Basin: 242,000 square miles

Number of people who rely on Colorado River water:

25 million

Endangered native Colorado River fish:

razorback suckerbonytail chub

humpback chubcolorado pikeminnow

Total storage on the river system: 60 million acre-feet

Number of major damsand reservoirs:

10

Number of hydroelectric facilities:

11

Irrigated acres in the Colorado, Gunnison and Yampa river basins

in Colorado:810,000

Cost to construct the Yuma Desalting Plant in 1992:

$250 million

HEADWATERS – WINTER 2004 1

T

2 COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION

Feasibility Study Releasedfor “Big Straw” Project

DENVER, CO – In late November 2003, the results of the Colorado River Return Reconnaissance Study (CRRRS) were released at a Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting.

Boyle Engineering presented information on the proposed project that would divert the Colorado River downstream of Grand Junction and pump it east through the mountains to provide water deliveries to the Colorado, South Platte and Arkansas River basins.

Estimated to take 27 years to build, Boyle presented small, medium, and large versions of the project, as well as three potential pipeline corridors. According to ini-tial estimates, the least costly alternatives in terms of total present value capitalized costs – what it would cost to build the project in today’s dollars – are $8.1 billion for the small version, $13.4 billion for the medium version, and $18.3 billion for the large version. This translates into a cost per acre foot ranging from $32,400 to $24,400 with increasing economy of scale. These estimates include costs for opera-tions and maintenance.

Environmental interests have already raised concerns about water quality, as well as air quality impacts associated with the power plant(s) needed to supply the pumps, and potential hazards to wildlife from the proposed 22 square miles of evaporation ponds that may concentrate contaminants from the system’s water treat-ment facilities. They also noted that Boyle’s estimates, while they included costs for environmental permitting, did not include costs for environmental mitigation, which could be considerable.

A summary report of the study is available on the CWCB Web site at www.cwcb.state.co.us or by calling 303-866-3441.

Instream Gravel Mine Donated For River Park

HOTCHKISS, CO – Described by some locals as an “invisible resource,” public access to the North Fork of the Gunnison River between the towns of Paonia and Hotchkiss has been non-existent to date. That is all about to change.

At a signing ceremony on December 19, 2003, United Companies of Grand Junction finalized its agreement to donate 19 acres of a previous instream gravel mine near Paonia to the North Fork River Improvement Association for public access. In its place, plans are under way for restoration of the site and construction of a river park designed by the community. Several adjoining landowners have also agreed to contribute land, expanding the park to 30 acres including a half-mile of river frontage on both sides.

Planning and construction of the park is being funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, GOCO, the General Service Foundation, United Companies, and numerous local interests in the form of both cash and donated services.

Currently in the engineering stages, construction of the new park is slated to begin in early 2005, with the project to be completed by summer of the same year. For more information, contact Jeff Crane at 970-872-2433.

Peace on the Colorado River?Two new lawsuits charge vital economic and environmental impacts ignored

IMPERIAL VALLEY, CA – Less than a month after the Quantitative Settlement Agreement was signed, the deal has already been hit with two lawsuits. Presented by the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, and a dissident faction of farmers known as the Imperial Group, the lawsuits allege that the Imperial Irrigation District did a poor job of assessing poten-tial economic and environmental impacts associated with water to be transferred out of the Imperial Valley into southern California’s metropolitan areas.

The Imperial Valley is composed of

some 500,000 acres of farmland and 150,000 residents. The County Board of Supervisors contends the QSA does not adequately ensure that the area will not suffer air quality impacts from land fal-lowing, or from when the Salton Sea is reduced in size and exposes dry lakebeds high in salts and other minerals.

Not only that, but in this relatively isolated valley with an economy heav-ily reliant on agriculture, they allege that the economic hardships of land fallow-ing have not been adequately studied. Instead, the County asserts that it will be

left with the bulk of the responsibility for mitigating these impacts.

Although some feel that the lawsuit will have little chance of success, they understand the Board’s motivations. The Board had been trying to win a seat at the IID/San Diego water transfer and QSA negotiating table for over a year, without result. Now, with an interesting sense of timing, they appear to be looking to re-open the negotiations, and press for more monetary compensation and further detailed impact studies for their county.


The Colorado River turns into a class-room June 23-25 when the Colorado Foundation for Water Education presents its first Upper Colorado River Tour.

The three-day tour begins in Keystone and offers participants a balanced, first-hand look at Colorado’s water issues. A variety of experts will discuss their view-points on water supply, water quality and water uses.

Participants will get to know river issues firsthand as they raft the Colorado River near Glenwood Springs and tour water storage facilities, water diversion projects and regions of critical water resource debate. The tour will also include educational activities highlighting recre-ational water use in the Vail area, as well as agricultural activities in the Grand Valley.

Cost for the trip is $495 for per person

single occupancy, and $395 for a double occupancy room. This price includes reg-istration, transportation, lodging, food and activities. Scholarships will be available.

Reservations for the Upper Colorado River Tour begin in March 2004. For details, contact CFWE (303) 377-4433 or [email protected].

Innovative children’s water festivals and effective water resource education strategies are some of the topics that the Colorado Foundation for Water Education will present at its first annual Colorado Water Educator’s Conference April 6-7 in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

This conference is designed for educa-tors who “teach the teachers” or would like to improve their existing programs. Our first day is devoted to sharing innovative water festival ideas to “keep festivals fresh.” Day two focuses on both K-12 and adult water resource education strategies.

Whether you conduct educational pro-grams in or out of the classroom, or would like to learn how to more effectively reach adults in your community, a diversity of speakers are provided to spark new ideas, and share their experience.

There will also be a “share your best ideas” reception at the end of the first day. Worried that you might be recreat-ing existing programs? Plan to attend this resource-swap to learn what materials other educators in the state have to offer.

For registration forms, an agenda or other details, contact CFWE at 303-377-4433 or [email protected].

Upper Colorado River Tour June 23-25

Students marvel at simulated water tornadoes during a water festival. Between May and September, many water orgainzations coordinate water festivals for third to fifth-grade students.

Phot

o: Jim

Rich

ards

on

Water Educator’s Conference April 6-7


1922 Colorado River CompactDivided the Colorado River, 50-50 between the upper basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) and the lower basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada). An additional 1 million acre-feet of tributary water is allowed to the lower basin.

On a ten-year running average, the compact guarantees 75 million acre-feet of water to the lower basin, delivered at Lee Ferry, Arizona. Theoretically, the upper basin was also to receive 7.5 million acre-feet annually. However, due to the lower basin delivery guarantee, in times of shortage, the upper basin may have less water available to it.

1928 Boulder Canyon Project ActDivided up use of the Colorado River within the lower basin

states, in the annual amount of 2.8 million acre-feet to Arizona, 4.4 million acre-feet to California, and

300,000 acre-feet to Nevada. Designated the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to play the important

role of lower basin “water master” responsible for distributing all Colorado River water

below Hoover Dam. Major water users on the Colorado River must contract for water with the U.S. Secretary of Interior for annual deliveries. Authorized con-struction of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal, on the condition that

six states ratify the compact.

1929 California Limitation ActLimited California to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, satisfy-ing the conditions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act for the construction of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal.

1931 California Seven-Party AgreementPrioritized the use of the Colorado River within California. The first priority for 3.85 million acre-feet of water went to agricultural uses in the Imperial, Coachella, and Palo Verde areas, and the Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Project; 550,000 acre-feet went to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). If there were any surplus water still in the river, MWD was granted an additional 662,000 acre-feet and the Imperial, Coachella, and Palo Verde districts were to receive 300,000 acre-feet. This brought the state’s total projected water needs up to 5.36 million acre-feet.

1944 United States-Republic of Mexico Water Treaty

Guaranteed that the United States would deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water

annually to the Republic of Mexico.

1948 Upper Colorado River Basin CompactDivided up use of the Colorado River within the upper

basin states, allocating the upper basin’s available water as fol-lows : 50,000 acre-feet to that portion of Arizona above Lee Ferry;

of the remainder 51.75 percent to Colorado, 11.25 percent to New Mexico, 23 percent to Utah, 14 percent to Wyoming.

1956 Colorado River Storage Project ActAuthorized construction of Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, Flaming Gorge

Dam in Utah, Curecanti Dams (now called the Aspinall Unit) in Colorado, and Navajo Dam in New Mexico, for a total combined water storage capacity in excess

of 30 million acre-feet. The reservoirs behind these dams hold and deliver water pri-marily to fulfill the upper basin’s delivery obligation to the lower basin. The four-year water supply stored in these reservoirs, helps mitigate the burden of drought which falls on the upper basin due to lower basin water delivery requirements.

1963 Arizona v. California Decree of United States Supreme CourtReaffirmed that the Boulder Canyon Project Act had divided up the lower basin’s share of Colorado River between Arizona, California and Nevada. Recognized the reserved water rights of Colorado River Indian Tribes and other federal lands. Held that all uses of Colorado River water within a state, including water uses by the tribes and the federal government, should be charged against the state’s allotment. Required the Secretary of Interior to approve contracts to release and deliver water to the

lower basin under only three circumstances – normal, surplus, and short-age conditions.

Dividing the Colorado River


1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act

Authorized construction of the Central Arizona Project and five water storage projects in Colorado and one in Utah. Empowered the Secretary of Interior to develop and adopt operating criteria for the coordinated management of the upper and lower basin reservoirs. Four of Colorado’s five proposed water storage projects were not built – the West Divide, Fruitland Mesa, Savory Pothook, and San Miguel projects. The fifth, the Animas-La Plata Project, is now under construction.

1970 Operating Criteria for Colorado

System ReservoirsEstablished how the Secretary

of Interior will put together the “Annual Operating Plan” for the major Colorado River reservoirs (Lake Powell, Lake Mead, Flaming Gorge, Aspinall, and Navajo). Surplus water deliveries would be parceled out at 50 percent to California, 46 percent to Arizona, and 4 percent to Nevada, as outlined in the Arizona v. California decree.

1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control ActImplemented an agreement with the Republic of Mexico (Minute of the International Boundary and Water Commission issued in 1973) to control the salinity of the Colorado River as it flows into Mexico. Salinity control measures included construction of the Yuma desalting plant and lining of the Coachella Canal. Salinity reduction programs were also funded in the Paradox and Grand Valley areas of Colorado, Crystal Geyser area in Utah, and Las Vegas Wash in Nevada. The Salinity Control Forum monitors compliance with salinity standards at three checkpoints in the lower basin. The standards have never been exceeded.

2001 Interim Surplus GuidelinesAllowed California to continue to use surplus Colorado River water until 2016, providing a soft-landing for California while that state developed a plan to reduce water use down to its 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement.

One of the first requirements was for the main California water agencies to reduce the amount of water con-sumed by agriculture, and transfer some of that water to metropolitan areas. This reduction was to be negotiated in the form of a Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA) due December 31, 2002.

When an agreement could not be reached, the Secretary of Interior suspended the Interim Surplus Guidelines and cur-tailed California’s 2003 orders for Colorado River water.

2003 California Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA)

Settled water deliveries among the California’s four main Colorado River water agencies to keep

California within its 4.4 million acre-foot entitle-ment. Limited the Imperial Irrigation District to 3.1 million acre-feet, and provided for water gained through irrigation efficiency improvements to be transferred to MWD and San Diego.

2003 Colorado River Water Delivery AgreementReinstated the Interim Surplus Guidelines. Specified the amount of water to be delivered to California’s Colorado River water users, as provided in the Quantification Settlement Agreement. Signed by the Secretary of Interior, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and San Diego Water Authority.

A Chronology of the “Law of the River”

Phot

os: J

im R

ichar

dson

(5)

, Bur

eau

of R

ecla

mat

ion

(B&

W)


Legal requirements to reduce California’s use of the Colorado River put pressure on urban and rural water agencies to come up with a solution. Quantifying the amount of water consumed by their main water agencies such as the Imperial Irrigation District (right) and the Coachella Valley Water District (which serves the Palm Springs area above) was one of California’s fi rst steps in fi guring out how to stay within their Colorado River allotment.Their recent agreement represents the largest transfer of water from agricultural to municipal use in U.S. history, and denotes a new era for the Colorado River.

California’s New Colorado River Diet

HEADWATERS WINTER 2004 7

On October 16, 2003 at a midday signing ceremony at Hoover Dam, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and a host of water managers from around the West made it official: California is on a Colorado River diet.

California’s water diet is spelled out in a long-awaited series of agreements called the “Quantification Settlement Agreement” or QSA. These agreements require California to stick to the allocations established by Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court permitting the Golden State to withdraw no more than 4.4 million acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River.

Signing the QSA marked an historic event, signifying the first time in more than 70 years that the four major water agencies in Southern California – the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) – were able to agree on how to allocate the precious waters of the Colorado River.

A HISTORY OF NEGOTIATION

Often referred to as the cornerstone of the “law of the river,” the Colorado River Compact divides use of the river at Lee Ferry, Arizona between two huge basins: upper and lower. The lower basin consists of Arizona, Nevada, California, and parts of New Mexico and Utah. The upper basin includes Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, and a small portion of Arizona.

Initial refinements to the 1922 compact began during the first half of the century when agreements were negoti-ated to further share the river within the upper and lower basins. The 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act determined how the Colorado River was to be divided within the lower basin. Similarly, the Upper Colorado River Compact of 1948 distributed the use of Colorado River water amongst the upper basin states.

According to the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior plays the important role of lower

What does it mean for Colorado?

By Jim LochheadPhotos by Jim Richardson

Phot

o: Em

met

t Jo

rdan


basin “water master” responsible for dis-tributing all Colorado River water below Hoover Dam. The act required all water users in the lower basin to contract with the Secretary for the delivery of water from the River on an annual basis. However, before the Secretary of the Interior was able to enter into such contracts in California, the major California water users needed to agree on how to allocate the state’s 4.4 mil-lion acre-foot allotment.

This brought about the California Seven Party Agreement of 1931. This agreement divided up California’s apportionment between the agricultural irrigation districts in the Yuma, Palo Verde, Imperial and Coachella valleys, and the cities on the coastal plain – MWD, San Diego and Los Angeles. The irrigation districts got the right to the first 3.85 million acre-feet of water. But they could not agree on just how much water each area was entitled to receive. The result was an unadministrable set of “cascading” priorities, whereby the most senior district could use as much water as it wanted before passing the leftovers on to the next priority. It was a problem the California agencies could not solve until the QSA.

From the perspective of the other states on the river, the most troubling aspect of the Seven Party Agreement was the fact that after the 3.85 mil-lion acre-feet of agricultural water use was satisfied, only 550,000 acre-feet of California’s 4.4 million acre-foot alloca-tion was available for municipal use. MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct, with a capacity of over 1.2 million acre-feet per year, provides domestic and com-mercial water to nearly 18 million people in the metropolitan area from Ventura to San Diego. Without the surplus river water not used by the other states, the Colorado River Aqueduct would be less than half full.

For years, California’s need for surplus water was satisfied by the unused water belonging to the other lower basin states – Arizona and Nevada. This brought California’s total Colorado River water consumption up to some 5.3 million acre-feet annually. Yet as population growth in those two states increased water usage during the 1980s, the lower basin sur-plus started to disappear. MWD was fast becoming dependent on surplus water flowing down from the upper basin.

STEALIN’ OUR WATER?Coloradans were becoming alarmed

that California’s dependence on upper basin surplus water might someday threaten the state’s water rights under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. This concern arose despite one of the most important tenets of the compact – lower basin water deliveries are fixed at 75 million acre-feet delivered on a 10-year rolling average. The rest of the water the Colorado River produces may be used by the upper basin states as they are able – that water is not abandoned if not used currently. However, the lower basin may legally consume surplus water not used by Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah.

The original architects of the compact understood that the lower basin would grow and develop its water faster than the upper basin. Fixed water deliveries provided a solution so that water devel-opment along the river did not dissolve, as Colorado’s compact negotiator Delph Carpenter put it, “into a mere contest of speed whereby an unfortunate unnatural growth would be forced upon one basin in order to keep pace with what might be a natural development in another basin.”

Still, by 1991 Colorado felt increas-ing concern that California’s reliance on upper basin water surpluses might threaten the underpinnings of the 1922 compact. California’s surplus water dependence also created pressure to allow water marketing from the upper to the lower basin – something that Colorado has always opposed as a threat to our water rights and as inconsistent with the compact.

These concerns led Colorado Governor Romer to write to Governor Wilson of California, offering a deal. Colorado would agree not to object to California’s use of surplus upper basin water, but only for a limited time. In exchange, California would agree to develop an enforceable program to trans-fer water from senior agricultural water rights to the junior municipal rights held

FOR YEARS, CALIFORNIA’S NEED FOR SURPLUS WATER WAS SATISFIED BY THE UNUSED WATER BELONG-

ING TO THE OTHER LOWER BASIN STATES – ARIZONA AND NEVADA. THIS BROUGHT CALIFORNIA’S TOTAL

COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSUMPTION UP TO SOME 5.3 MILLION ACRE-FEET ANNUALLY.

Source: Southern Nevada Water Authority


by the MWD. Governor Wilson accepted this concept, and the seven basin states and the Department of the Interior launched into a series of negotiations that did not resolve until 2003.

A major step in the negotiations occurred in 2001 when former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt approved a 15-year operating plan for water deliver-ies from Lake Mead, called the Interim Surplus Guidelines. These guidelines gave California the right to use specific quantities of Colorado River surpluses until 2016, but only if California met benchmarks to reduce the amount of water consumed by agriculture and trans-fer the saved water to metropolitan areas.

To initiate the transfers, MWD and San Diego agreed to pay IID and its farmers to implement irrigation effi-ciency and land fallowing programs. The hope was that increases in irrigation efficiency would reduce the agricultural districts’ needs to fully consume their 3.85 million acre-foot senior prior-ity. Water gained through increased efficiency could then be transferred over to the metropolitan areas of Southern California, and the state as a whole could be on its way to living within its 4.4 MAF Colorado River allotment.

However, the Interim Surplus Guidelines stipulated that the Secretary of the Interior would suspend the guide-lines if the California water agencies missed any benchmarks. Suspension of the guidelines meant California would lose access to the surplus water the guidelines guaranteed, and the metro-politan areas so badly needed.

The first benchmark, set for December 31, 2002, required the California water agencies to enter into a Quantification Settlement Agreement. The QSA would quantify how much water each of the southern California agricultural irrigation districts was enti-tled to use. This quantification would then be the measuring stick against which water efficiency savings could be measured. The QSA would also set up the administrative arrangements for how the water saved through efficiency improvements would be transferred to MWD and San Diego.

Unfortunately, the California agen-cies failed to agree on the terms of a QSA, and the end-of-year deadline slipped by. The deal was killed by a vote of the Board of Directors of IID on

Saving the Salton SeaA critical component of the Quantification Settlement Agreement involves

increasing irrigation efficiencies in the Imperial Valley, and transferring that saved water to southern California’s metropolitan areas. But what to do about the Salton Sea? More efficient irrigation in the Imperial Valley would mean less return flow water to the sea – a loss of water this environmentally-troubled inland lake can-not afford.

The Salton Sea was formed in 1905 when the flooded Colorado River diverted its course and flooded an ancient lakebed previously known as the Salton Sink. The Colorado River was eventually redirected, but the landlocked lake it left behind has experienced salinity and other environmental problems since its inception.

There are no outlets to the lake; it loses water only though evaporation. This leaves behind minerals, especially salts. Inflows consist primarily of poor qual-ity agricultural runoff, which doesn’t help. The result is a string of water quality problems threatening the ecological health of the substantial fish and birds popu-lations that inhabit the area. Although the sea has become a primary stopover along the Pacific Flyway, decreasing water quality has resulted in large fish kills, odor problems, and health concerns.

Mitigating this mess was a potential roadblock for finalizing the QSA. According to California law, water transfer beneficiaries must pay for the associ-ated environmental and socio-economic remediation costs. This meant that the water agencies were looking at potentially enormous remediation expenses.

Solutions to the sea’s problems have come and gone, but the latest solution developed as part of the QSA negotiations may have sticking power.

The strategy: Net proceeds from MWD’s purchase of transferred water at $250/AF will be contributed to restoration efforts. IID/SDCWA/CVWD contrib-ute $30 million. Any future funding obligations will be the full responsibility of the State of California.

Whitewater River

Shorebird & Pelican Habitat

North LakeSalton Sea

Dam

EvaporationPond

Salt Crust for Dust Control

Canal to North Lake

Canal to South Habitat

Shallow Water Habitat

Desalination Plant

Pretreatment Wetland

Desalinated water to farms

SALTON SEA INTEGRATED

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

New RiverAlamo River

Diversion Dam

The proposal: • Cut California’s largest lake

in half.• Capture and desalinate the

farm runoff that flows into it.• Send some treated water to

the lake, some back to the farms for reuse.


the last day of the year. California law requires the parties to

a water transfer to mitigate the environ-mental and socio-economic impacts of the transfers. The IID Board felt the QSA failed to assure that IID would not be liable for millions of dollars in mitigation related to potential impacts to endan-gered species or reduced inflows of water to the Salton Sea. The IID Board also insisted that the QSA did not adequately address socio-economic impacts resulting from transfers of water out of the Imperial Valley – an area whose economy is wholly centered around irrigated agriculture.

As a result, Interior Secretary Gale Norton suspended the Interim Surplus Guidelines, cutting MWD off cold turkey from its surplus water fix. At the same time, she reduced the water order of the Imperial Irrigation District, the largest user of water within the 3.85 million acre-foot agricultural water right priority. This prompted IID to sue the Secretary. In response to the lawsuit, the Secretary started a federal investigation to deter-mine whether IID was wasting water.

In July 2003, the Secretary deter-mined that IID was in fact wasting some

300,000 acre-feet of water annually. (For comparison, this amount of water is about equal to what Denver Water normally supplies to its customers each year.) A basic principle of western water law is beneficial use without waste. The Secretary determined that water wasted by IID should be available to the other California Colorado River contractors. This meant IID was facing the loss of 300,000 acre-feet of water it would have transferred to the cities under the QSA, yet without the millions of dollars in compensation included in that deal. This risk of loss brought IID back to the nego-tiating table.

Finally, after intense and sometimes acrimonious negotiations, in October 2003 the four main California water agencies came to terms on a QSA. With this agreement, the Interior Secretary agreed to allow California to continue to use Colorado River surpluses until 2016, as originally agreed in the Interim Surplus Guidelines.

In reaching agreement, California water users overcame 70 years of historic rivalry over the Colorado River. Their agreement also set into motion the larg-

est agricultural-to-urban water transfer ever undertaken. The finalization of the negotiations first initiated by Colorado in 1991 represents a milestone in the storied history of the development of the Colorado River, and important precedent for water management in the West.

The agreement – involving seven states, the federal government, and numerous local agencies – represents a triumph of public agency negotiation and compromise over litigation and divisiveness. It puts in place a manage-ment regime developed by public enti-ties interested in sharing and managing a public resource for the benefit of the greatest number of people. It illustrates the trend of growing metropolitan areas looking to buy out farms and ranches for their water. Finally, it foreshadows an era in which a growing tension will exist between agricultural water efficiency and environmental values.

What does this agreement mean for Colorado? Whether or not the QSA is suc-cessfully implemented, the precedent has been established that the Secretary of the Interior will enforce the Colorado River water allocations set under the law of the river. California’s water use will be limited one way or the other – through the ham-mer of law, or by cooperative agreement.

From an interstate compact point of view, Colorado has achieved all of the goals it aspired to since the compact was first negotiated in 1922 – specifically protection of our undeveloped Colorado River Basin water for use by future gen-erations as need and feasibility warrant. By forcing California to live within its means, the QSA provides reassurance that our ability to develop water in the Colorado River Basin is for the time being, secure.

This security provides Colorado with the continued opportunity to manage its water in a deliberate and thoughtful man-ner – taking into consideration all sides, and basing our decisions on economic feasibility, societal need, and environ-mental responsibility. And that security is worth a lot.

Lake Mead – One of the major storage reservoirs providing lower basin water deliveries, Lake Mead is located along the Arizona-Nevada border. Created by the massive Hoover Dam, Lake Mead is capable of storing some 26 million acre feet of Colorado River water.

WHAT DOES THIS AGREEMENT MEAN FOR COLORADO? WHETHER OR NOT THE QSA IS SUCCESS-

FULLY IMPLEMENTED, THE PRECEDENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

WILL ENFORCE THE COLORADO RIVER WATER ALLOCATIONS SET UNDER THE LAW OF THE RIVER.


An Inter view with Colorado’s Lead Negotiator for Colorado River Issues –Greg Walcher

Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources

By Karla BrownPhotograph by Brian Gadbery

CFWE: Could you describe your role as Colorado’s lead negotiator for Colorado River issues over the last five years?

GW: Let me just start by saying it has been one of the most interesting and exciting, and I think in the long-term, important things that I have worked on in my life; certainly in this job.

As you know, this is a more than 10-year long battle with California. So it has transcended now through differ-ent administrations, both in Colorado and in Washington. It began when Jim Lochhead was in my position, and Bruce Babbitt was in the Secretary [of Interior’s] office in Washington.

As one of the seven basin states, Colorado sends a representative appoint-ed by the Governor, so I have been serving in that capacity. But we have approached it more on a team basis over the last five years. Partly because there is all sort of expertise all over Colorado that we ought to take advantage of, and because there is an institutional memory on this issue that’s needed. So rather than be the only negotiator on the deal, I’ve been part of a delegation.

I view my job throughout the process as a two-fold thing: first to absolutely insist on protecting Colorado’s position on the issues, and second to develop to the maximum extent possible, good relationships with all the other people involved so that we can not only prevail on Colorado’s position on the issues, but help facilitate progress.

CFWE: What have been some of the milestones you encountered in the nego-tiation process?

GW: The very first milestone was to quantify California’s water rights.

It’s a difficult thing to explain to a lot of people in Colorado, because it’s so counter to our culture that you can have a water right without it being quanti-fied. Here, you can’t get a(n) [unquanti-

fied] decree like that, but in California where you only have four or five water rights on the river, you get a decree that literally says, “such water as they may in their judgment need to irrigate x num-ber of acres.”

So having to quantify the water rights of Palo Verde, Imperial and Coachella, that was the pre-requisite to getting anything done. The principles for the Quantitative Settlement Agreement by which they would even agree to meet together and talk about it were published on October 15, 1999. It was a huge step on California’s part. And it felt good to us at the time, because Colorado had helped create the political necessity for California to do that.

All my life people have said, “Once they get that water, you’ll never get it back from them.” And that’s been kind of the conventional wisdom in Colorado for a long time. But we had a hook here that we never had before.

After the Central Arizona Project was built and with the growth of Nevada into its full allotment of the river, for the first

time in the history of the compact, there was no extra lower basin water left. So they needed a definition of “surplus” [from the upper river basin] for the very first time in history. But the upper basin states said, “Nothing doing, not until you show us a 4.4 Plan.” So California had this legal obligation that they just couldn’t get out from under.

That led up to another milestone on May 11, 2000, which was the publica-tion of the California 4.4 Plan. And that was a victory of historic proportions for Colorado and the other upper basins states. It helped, I think, prove once and for all, that the interstate compact is the law on the river, and it will be enforced.

A series of things followed after that. In August 2000, the Interim Surplus Guidelines were published. And December 2002 was set as the deadline for the QSA.

For me, probably the ultimate mile-stone in this process, was when the Imperial Irrigation District voted to kill the QSA that December. They did so, I believe, with an assumption that the

Greg Walcher shows CFWE Executive Director Karla Brown his collected edition of the “Law of the River” during an interview at his Denver office in December 2003.


Interior Department wouldn’t really shut down their headgates. But they learned right away, that the Interior Department wasn’t bluffing.

This [shutdown to the 4.4 level] lead to the California Legislature passing a law that required them by October of 2003 to adopt a QSA. That was a very important part of the process. Then, in July of 2003 the Interior Department came out with the Part 417 Guidelines, which stated that that IID was wasting water – which they’re not allowed to do. This brought IID back to the negotiating table.

After that, Imperial continued to put out drafts of a QSA they thought would work. But what they wanted were assurances that none of the rest of us on the Colorado River get – assurances that they would never in the future ever be held liable if some future endangered species is found, for example. We would all love to have that kind of guar-antee, but unless we get it [ourselves], we’re not giving it to IID.

So at the end of August, MWD finally rejected the last IID proposal, and that really created the showdown at Bishop’s Lodge, in Santa Fe, New Mexico this September. IID’s tactic was: we’ll sign the QSA, we’ll make this deal, but if MWD doesn’t live up to their obligation, our headgate will still stay open.

And I had to take a stand that was uncomfortable to me, because I’m sym-

pathetic to the plight of farmers. But I had to say, “It’s not about that, it’s about Colorado’s share of the river that you folks are using. If California doesn’t meet these milestones, we’ll have to insist that the law be followed. And it doesn’t matter to us, who in California breaks the deal.”

The result was that a few days later, IID finally agreed to the QSA. And I believe from now on, California’s ability to meet all of their milestones is fairly well decided.

CFWE: So for you personally or profes-sionally, what were some of the most chal-lenging moments in the negotiations?

GW: Actually, the biggest challenge was one I already mentioned, which was the need to separate our concern for the plight of farmers, from doing what is best for the river and to enforce the compact.

This deal results in the biggest trans-fer of agricultural water to municipal use in the history of America. And I’m not comfortable with that. Most people who care about agriculture are not comfortable with that. The Imperial Valley is in many ways the fruit and vegetable basket of the world. So they have a very strong point to make about the plight of people who are looking at drying up maybe as much as 75,000 acres or more.

The second really difficult challenge

has been Nevada, and separating out Nevada from California in this context. Nevada is a very different situation. It has also overused its share of the river, but in a proportion that is nothing compared to California. Their share is only 300,000 acre-feet compared to 4.4 million for California, and they have overused it by 30,000 acre-feet, compared to California’s overuse of 800,000 acre-feet.

It has been very difficult to have to say to our friends in Nevada, “We don’t have the ability to say ‘yes’ to you, while we say ‘no’ to California.” So when the QSA failed, and they shut the headgates down, Nevada tried to have their headgates re-opened but leave California’s shut. But we just simply couldn’t agree to that.

CFWE: So from the state’s perspective, what are the implications of the signing of the QSA for Colorado?

GW: To put it succinctly, it is the most important victory in water for Colorado since the signing of the interstate com-pact in 1922. It is absolutely of historical proportions to be able to say, no matter how many years California has overused the river, that it’s Colorado’s water and we will be able to develop it at Colorado’s pace, and under Colorado’s terms when-ever we or our grand-children get ready to do that.

“…IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VICTORY IN WATER FOR COLORADO SINCE THE SIGNING OF

THE INTERSTATE COMPACT IN 1922…WE WILL BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AT COLORADO’S PACE, AND

UNDER COLORADO’S TERMS WHENEVER WE OR OUR GRAND-CHILDREN GET READY TO DO THAT. ”

The mid-point dividing the upper and lower Colorado River Basin states is set at Lee Ferry, Arizona some 15 miles downstream of Glen Canyon Dam (above). The dam holds back the waters of Lake Powell, the second largest man-made reservoir in the United States. (Lake Mead is the largest.)

Phot

o: Jim

Rich

ards

on


Paul Testwuide vividly remembers December 1976. Skies were distressingly blue, the slopes melancholy brown. The lifts at Vail remained idle, the lodges, stores, and restaurants empty. All awaited the winter’s first snow.

As Christmas approached, the ski company sponsored a soup kitchen of stew and spaghetti dinners for seasonal employees still without work and paychecks. It was, remembers Testwuide, a grim time for Vail and most other resorts. At that time, few Colorado resorts had snowmaking.

“Once you go through something like that, you don’t ever want to do so again,” says Testwuide, Vail Resorts senior vice president. “It hurts everyone from the people making the beds to the people who own the ski company. It’s a disaster for everybody.”

After the winter of 1976-77, still the benchmark for winter drought in Colorado, Vail and most other major ski resorts extensively invested in snowmak-ing equipment. Ski area atten-dance was growing in double digits annually. Vail and other resorts had become too big to rely solely on fickle weather pat-terns that allowed Thanksgiving openings only half the time. Now, all but two of Colorado’s 25 ski areas have snowmaking, and ski season reliably lasts from Thanksgiving until April.

According to Colorado Ski Country, the ski industry cur-rently contributes some $7 bil-lion in direct and indirect expen-ditures to the Colorado economy every year. The water resources required to make that happen are a critical, yet perhaps often over-looked, piece of that economic gain. For Vail Resorts, Testwuide was the visionary, the person who foresaw early on the need to methodically install an extensive network of high country res-ervoirs and pumping stations to provide

long-term water supply for snowmaking and community needs.

“Weed,” as he is called by friends, arrived in Vail 40 years ago, during the

resort’s second season. He first joined the trail crew, then ski patrol. His youthful good-humored mischief is still legendary in the community lore. Yet almost from the beginning, he took a strong interest in snowmaking, and hence water. After

a second major drought in 1980-81, Testwuide supervised the resort’s first water storage initiative, a modest on-mountain reservoir.

“That,” says Testwuide, “was my first realization that the real key to developing a portfolio for a water system is reservoir stor-age, because it doesn’t damage the stream as much, it’s predictable, and you can rely on it.” Today, water from Gore Creek which flows past the town of Vail, is still pumped 1,400 feet up the moun-tain to this 18 acre-foot reservoir.

This project gave Testwuide valuable experience in the chal-lenge of managing the state’s waters for multiple uses. Gore Creek is also a gold medal trout fishery. Taking water out of the creek for snowmaking without somehow replacing that water, would have crippled fish habitat. In response, Vail Resorts helped construct Black Lakes, a pair of now twice-expanded reservoirs located along Interstate 70 at Vail Pass.

Water from these high-alti-tude reservoirs can be metered into Gore Creek to supplement low flows caused by snowmak-ing, or to supply downstream calls for water from senior divert-ers. Additional replacement water comes from Dowd Junction, where Gore Creek joins the Eagle River. At the confluence, water is diverted from the stream and pumped back some three miles up Gore Creek to the location of Vail’s snowmaking intake.

For Testwuide, keeping water in streams is more than a legal obligation required by Colorado’s instream flow program; it is a personal responsibility. In his spare time he can sometimes be

found in Nebraska, restoring farmland to wetlands for migrating fowl. His calendar is thick with outdoors trips. “We call him the senior vice president of hunting and fishing,” says Brian McCartney, vice

Prof ilePaul Testwuide, Vail Resorts Inc.

By Allen BestPhotographs by Leisa Gibson

Paul Testwuide, Senior Vice President for Vail Resorts, Inc. has guided the ski company’s water development strategy for the last 40 years.

“…ONE OF THOSE RARE INDIVIDUALS

WHO HAS BEEN ABLE TO ADAPT WITH THE

CHANGING TIMES WITHOUT LOSING THE

ESSENCE OF WHY PEOPLE BEGAN TO DOWN-

HILL SKI IN THE FIRST PLACE.”

– GLENN PORZAK


president of operations at Vail Mountain. “If he had his choice, Weed would be in a hunting blind or in Alaska fishing for salmon every chance he got.”

But it hasn’t been easy. In a com-munity where the ski company dwarfs all others, Vail Resort’s stature can often spark distrust and resentment. Testwuide worked hard to collaborate and share his vision with the public.

James Collins, an attorney for the Eagle River water district, credits Testwuide’s “force of personality” for his success. People like Paul, he says, they trust him and respect his opinion. “People either believe your values or they don’t, they are prepared to follow you or not – not just because of your argument that morning, but also because of how you got there,” says Collins. “His arguments are always above-board, unambiguous, and in the best interests of the public.”

Long-time friend McCartney, who has worked for or with Testwuide for 31 years at Vail, says Testwuide’s leadership begins by listening. “He listens and is able to take a whole variety of conversations and put them together to make some sense or give some logic to a particular point of view.”

Testwuide’s success is also rooted in his credibility. People, McCartney says, “know when they ask Paul a question they’ll get a real answer. He doesn’t dance around you or take you on a bird walk. He cuts right to the chase.”

Ski areas are relatively new to Colorado’s water priority system, and generally face two major challenges when looking to increase their water rights holdings. First, ski areas typically need water in the winter when most streams are at their lowest annual ebb. Second, taking water from local creeks is possible

only if the needs of senior downstream diverters can still be met. To resolve these two issues, storage is essential.

In the Upper Colorado River Basin, the Shoshone Hydropower Plant in Glenwood Canyon has a large and very senior water right. To deliver enough water to Shoshone, and still be able to divert water upstream, Testwuide and others began contracting for water out of larger multipurpose reservoirs located on tributaries to the Colorado River, such as Green Mountain and Wolford. From a basin-wide perspective, these exchanges helped allow the ski areas to grow and use more water, while also meeting downstream calls during critical low-flow times in fall and winter.

As the 1990s boom began, Testwuide saw the impending need for more water storage projects, both for the ski areas and surrounding communities. The strat-egies Testwuide took to his boss were both bold and creative. They involved Climax, the dormant molybdenum mine at the headwaters of the Eagle River.

First, Vail purchased water from a groundwater well along the Arkansas River and pumped that water across the Continental Divide into the Eagle River drainage – possibly the first substantial East-to-West Slope diversion in a century.

Then, Testwuide and colleagues ambitiously assembled a consortium of Eagle County water users to buy an exist-ing reservoir at the Climax mine. Located at an elevation of 11,000 feet, the reser-voir was scoured of mining toxins and renamed Eagle Park. The process took seven years and a mountain of patience. Those involved say Testwuide’s leader-ship was evident all along the way.

“I’ll never forget, when I took over the company in 1992 as president, Paul came

to me with the concept of examining Eagle Park Reservoir as a long-term water source,” says Andy Daly, Vail’s past-president and CEO. “There was no one in the company who’s had the vision to the extent Paul has for the long-term needs of the company and the valley’s communities.”

Water attorney Glenn Porzak has been Paul’s friend and partner in orchestrating Vail’s key water deals over the last 30 years. Looking back on their progress-Glenn describes Paul as, “one of those rare individuals who has been able to adapt with the changing times without losing the essence of why people began to down-hill ski in the first place. To develop water for snowmaking while at the same time enhancing the quality of the area streams is a lasting legacy.”

In 1993, Testwuide was elected to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Board of Directors. This district, work-ing in conjunction with Vail Resorts and other local water districts, has markedly increased the Vail community’s overall water portfolio. Among the gains are agreements with Colorado Springs and Aurora to allow winter releases from Homestake Reservoir, a high-elevation reservoir located on a tributary to the Eagle River.

At the center of this resource expan-sion for the last 40 years, Paul Testwuide has helped set the precedent for future water use and development in the winter recreation industry. Revered by his col-leagues and detractors alike for his steady presence, measured reasoning and core values, Paul’s story provides important insight into the collective memory of the growth of the ski industry in Colorado. Paul, perhaps the least we can do is: Think Snow!

Snowmaking equipment has improved significantly over the years. Computerized snowmaking guns can now constantly measure air temperature and humidity, automatically adjusting to ensure production of the ideal snow crystal.


Delph Carpenter (1877-1951) was Colorado’s interstate stream commis-sioner during a pivotal time when the state was struggling to protect its water rights, while still figuring out how to share its rivers equitably with its down-stream neighbors.

In Silver Fox of the Rockies, Dan Tyler tells Carpenter’s neglected tale as a one of the first crop of native Coloradans uniquely prepared to deal with questions of water management in this arid land. As portrayed in a political cartoon of the day, Delph was “raised on a farm, punched cows, specialized in irrigation law.”

One of Delph’s first tests as a law-yer came in litigating the Wyoming v. Colorado case before the U.S. Supreme Court – arguing for Colorado’s right to use the Laramie River located in Colorado’s North Park area. Although Delph lost the case, Tyler explains how the experience inspired Carpenter to take a different approach to future interstate water disputes.

Best known for his leadership role in creating the Colorado River Compact of 1922, Delph went on to play a key role in devising all but three of the nine interstate water compacts that Coloradans rely upon to this day.

In a style rich with legal history, Silver Fox of the Rockies gives the reader insight into the personal struggles and ambitions of a driven man, as well as one of the first models for negotiating water issues in the West.

Delph Carpenter at his seat in the Colorado State Senate, circa 1910.


November 12, 2003

Carpenter homestead, Centennial VillageGreeley, Colorado

CFWE: Your book shows Delph as an ambitious, independent man – a State Senator by 31, arguing for Colorado in front of the U.S. Supreme Court by age 39. He also really broke new ground in water law and interstate stream litigation.

DT: Yes, in fact Delph was the first native Coloradan to be elected to the Colorado Senate, and at a time and for a political party that was not dominant in the legislature. Most legislators being elect-ed at this time were Reform Democrats. Here Delph is, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, a Teddy Roosevelt supporter wearing the red, white, and blue elephant on his shoulder. And yet he managed to gain a great deal of respect from the Democrats, and not just for his leadership in the Senate, but for his knowledge of water.

Now, Colorado had just been hit very hard by the Kansas v. Colorado Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court had said to Colorado, “this is new era, and you don’t own all your water. We don’t know exactly how you should divide it, but at some point down the line, there will have to be an equitable division of the water coming out of Colorado to assure these other

states have a constant supply.” I think this is where Delph began to

realize that he could become a pioneer like the generation of his father. But not in terms of agriculture, and digging up new land and chasing away the Indians and all that, but in developing a stable environment for these people who were going to have to rely on water when they came out here to farm.

CFWE: Arguing the Wyoming v. Colorado case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Delph talks about the “crushing weight of the litiga-tion” which taxed him to the point of exhaustion. How do you think

this experience shaped his future attitudes towards avoiding litigation and instead negotiating inter-state water compacts?

DT: I have no difficulty say-ing it convinced him that he would have to represent himself as an attorney, and go out to the other states and say, “Listen. Litigation is not the way to go here.” Several times, Delph compares litiga-tion to war. You don’t want to resort to war when you’re in a conflict because everybody loses. What you have to do is figure a way to develop “diplo-macy,” and diplomacy was his word for negotiation.

…His mantra really was – you get other people across the table from you, and your job is to persuade them that it will pay them financially,

economically, in some way, to negoti-ate. And once you accomplish that and they want to negotiate, then the sky’s the limit. But as soon as you come into negotiations with a bullying, disputa-tious approach, people then back up and protect their turf.

And we know this is exactly what happened during the first seven meetings negotiating the Colorado River Compact in Washington, D.C. Everyone wanted to protect the potential irrigable acres with-in their state, and so they bankrupted the river. And poor Herbert Hoover [chair-man of the negotiations] had to throw up his hands and say, “we’re not getting any-where here, we might as well go home.”

Inter viewDan Tyler, Author

Silver Fox of the Rockies:Delphus E. Carpenter and Western Water Compacts

By Karla Brown

The Foundation would like to thank Dan Tyler for agreeing to be interviewed by Headwaters magazine for this special book review section. The interview was conducted at the original Carpenter homestead, moved from its location just outside Greeley and currently residing at nearby historic Centennial Village. We would also like to thank Chris Dill, Superintendent of the Greeley Museums, and Collections Specialist, Erin Quinn, for allowing us access to the property.

Phot

o: Br

ian

Gad

bery


CFWE: What were the major factors that brought together the seven basin states to begin negotiations for the Colorado River Compact?

DT: Very simple. You can boil it down to two words. The lower states, California in particular, wanted construction of the dam [Hoover Dam] to keeps flood waters controlled. The upper basin states, particularly Colorado, wanted protec-tion because if the river was going to be divided up in some way – Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah – would need 50, 75, maybe even 100 years before they could use their share of the water. So Carpenter got it so that we could have enough time to put the water to use, without them using it themselves and then telling us 100 years from now, “sorry, we’ve already put that water to use in L.A. or San Diego or someplace.”

CFWE: So they began the Colorado River Compact negotiations in 1922 – were they particularly heated and acri-monious, did they stalemate?

DT: Well, Washington, D.C. was a stale-mate. And when they finished the seventh meeting in Washington, and Hoover’s sit-ting at the table and he’s chairman of the conference, he looks around the room and he basically says, “well, we haven’t accom-plished anything.”

…So it wasn’t until they went out to the public and had meetings in six major

cities – and heard all of the complaints, arguments, and suggestions of people in all the seven states – then they realized that what they needed was something other than dividing up the water state-by-state. And that’s when Carpenter presents his 50-50 plan to divide the Colorado River [into upper and lower basins].

It wasn’t the first time. He had done it before in other compacts. So he already had some experience doing that. But it was new to the other Commissioners. And there is this wonderful letter that I quoted in the book, where he writes this compact and suggests a split 50-50. Sends it to Hoover, and then puts a little P.S. on the letter saying, “I want you to know how alone I have felt all my life trying to come up with a solution to water problems where nobody is willing to listen, and everybody wants to fight and go to court.”

CFWE: In Colorado today, these sorts of entrenched battles are not uncommon – East Slope versus West Slope, or one interest versus another. What can Delph’s negotiation skills teach us today?

DT: There’s an interesting theme that runs through Carpenter’s leadership, and I think it is that you not only have to get the facts out, and talk as best you can about what you know about the topog-raphy, hydrology, snowfall, rain, and all that. But you also have to understand and study the culture of your adversary. You

have to understand what it is that drives people to defend that particular issue.

And that’s why I think as a negotiator he has an awful lot to teach modern-day people, because when you’re talking about environmentalists, bug-ologists, govern-ment people, and all these diverse entities that want to sit at the table. You have to go beyond who they are, and understand the culture they represent. And you have to understand what it is they’re really saying when they spit the words out.

…I think that Carpenter, somehow, and maybe this book will help out a little bit, could tell people how to go about negotiations and how important it is to stick with it and not run when the going gets tough. Because, I tell you, people I’ve run into all across the state who have worked with conservancy districts or municipal organizations – they can give you dozens of examples of people just putting their papers together, getting up and walking out of the room, and saying that’s enough – I’m not talking with you guys any more.

You have to have a different atmo-sphere when you’re talking water because everybody knows that everybody’s going to get some, so you might as well figure out a way to stick it out.

Dan Tyler is a Professor Emeritus of History at Colorado State University, Fort Collins. He is also the author of The Last Water Hole in the West.

Delph (back row, fourth from left) stands with the other members of the Colorado River Commission at the signing of the Colorado River Compact, November 24, 1922. The signing took place at the Palace of the Governors, Santa Fe, New Mexico, with Herbert Hoover presiding (seated).


The Colorado River Water Conservation District covers 15 West Slope counties comprising a large por-tion of the Colorado River Basin in the state of Colorado.

This includes Moffat, Routt, Grand, Eagle, Summit, Pitkin, Gunnison, Rio Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, Ouray, Delta, and portions of Montrose, Saguache and Hinsdale counties.

The district covers approximately 29,000 square miles, roughly 28 per-cent of the land area of Colorado, and is supported primarily by property taxes.

•••During the spring, Eric Kuhn can

look out his office window in Glenwood Springs and watch runoff from the Colorado River rise and peak, foretelling a plentiful or parched summer ahead. After 22 years, the rhythm of the river is like a second heartbeat to Kuhn, gen-eral manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.

Established in 1937 by the state leg-islature, the river district was created as a water policy-making body to promote “the conservation, use and development of the water resources of the Colorado River and its principal tributaries” and to safeguard “all waters to which the State of Colorado is equitably entitled under the Colorado River Compact.” Later, two other water conservation districts, the Southwestern and Rio Grande, were cre-ated to serve the San Juan, Dolores and Rio Grande basins.

Today, the district’s staff of 23 engi-neers, lawyers, lobbyists, educators and other professionals, are involved in all aspects of water policy and management, including: construction and management of water storage projects; lobbying state and federal officials to support West Slope water interests; filing for water

rights to benefit present and future water uses; marketing water; negotiating coop-erative arrangements with out-of-basin diverters; and monitoring interstate and federal actions that have impacts on water use in Western Colorado, among other activities.

To both safeguard and develop the waters of the Upper Colorado River Basin is an on-going challenge. Over the years, the river district has pioneered the con-cept of basin-of-origin protection which requires mitigation or compensation for negative impacts resulting from out-of-basin water transfers. Negative impacts may include reduced recreational oppor-tunities, changes in water quality, or simply less water available to meet future needs, among other impacts.

Compensatory storage is one form of mitigation which involves providing funds to construct reservoir storage for use by effected basin(s). Compensation may also include payment to counties in lieu of lost tax revenues, or adjusting infrastructure to accommodate for new, lower water levels.

Minimizing environmental impacts or tim-ing water releases to enhance recreation are other forms of mitigation.

The district is involved in multiple compensatory storage projects, includ-ing Green Mountain Reservoir on the Blue River which helps compensate the West Slope for losses of water from the Colorado Big-Thompson transmoun-tain diversion. Ruedi Reservoir on the Fryingpan River east of Basalt provides compensatory storage for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project that diverts West Slope water into the Arkansas River Basin.

Wolford Mountain Reservoir is one of the district’s latest cooperative water stor-age projects. Owned and operated by the district, the reservoir is located on Muddy Creek, a tributary to the Colorado River north of Kremmling. Some 60 percent of the water the reservoir holds is desig-nated for West Slope use and 40 percent for Denver Water. Built in 1992, Wolford Mountain Reservoir was financed with funds from Denver Water and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy’s Municipal

Eric Kuhn testifies in front of the State Legislature’s Interim Water Committee. He and Chips Barry, general manager of Denver Water (rear), presented information regarding their partnership on the South Metro Water Supply Study – looking at ways to store excess surface water in underground aquifers for pumping during times of short supply.

Phot

o: Br

ian

Gad

bery


Prof ileColorado River Water Conservation District

By CFWE Staff

Subdistrict. Currently, Wolford provides agricultural irrigation water, recreation, drinking water, and water to be used in the recovery of endangered fish species. In addition, the district is in the early stages of applying for permission to gen-erate hydroelectric power from normal water releases.

The river district is a powerful force in deciding how West Slope water is managed. During the intense drought year of 2002, the river district played a key role in preserving upstream water stores, maximizing short supplies, and negotiating water exchanges. Among their many cooperative efforts, the river district negotiated with water users in the Grand Valley to reduce springtime demand and convinced Redlands Water and Power Authority to reduce and later eliminate their call on the Gunnison River. Both efforts were designed to maintain upstream storage and minimize the number of junior water users whose deliveries might have been cut off entire-ly. Donations of unused stored water

were also solicited from entities such as ExxonMobil and others to meet the needs of those left dry by drought.

The river district is currently involved in a number of cooperative studies and partnerships outside the Colorado River Basin. For example, the district recently teamed up with Douglas County, Denver Water, and others to conduct the “South Metro Water Supply Study.” The study investigates how to meet the water sup-ply needs of the south metro area through 2050, and also looks at the concept of “conjunctive use,” which might involve storing water from the South Platte and Blue Rivers in aquifers during wet years, for pumping as needs or drought require.

In the “Upper Colorado River Basin Water Supply Study,” the dis-trict is partnering with Denver Water, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Colorado Springs, and others to look at existing hydrologic and water quality conditions in Grand and Summit counties, and investigating how

increased water diversions may impact these conditions.

This district is also involved in numerous other projects exploring expansion at Elkhead and Wolford Mountain Reservoirs, as well as a feasi-bility study with Denver Water concern-ing the proposed new construction of Wolcott Reservoir.

Working to satisfy competing water interests not only within the state but within its own basin is one of the district’s main responsibilities. Dave Kanzer knows this role well. One of the district’s senior water resource engineers, he spends his days tracking river flows, juggling calls for water deliveries and monitoring res-ervoir releases. From his desk covered in newspaper clippings, Kanzer also moni-tors the ebb and flow of public opinion.

He visits with the Olathe Sweet Corn farmers, municipal water providers, kay-akers and environmentalists. With so many different interests in its 15 coun-ties, it can be difficult to keep everyone satisfied. Kanzer and the other river district engineers try to anticipate prob-lems before they happen, and work out innovative compromises.

With so many different concerns on the horizon, what is in store for the future? According to Kuhn, in the short-term with most of the “easy” reservoir sites already developed, urban areas will be trying to optimize use of exist-ing water storage and transfer projects. This means that one of the district’s main challenges in the coming years will be to fashion mutually beneficial and coopera-tive projects that benefit both sides of the Continental Divide.

In the long-term Kuhn predicts, “We’re headed for at least 10 to 20 years of precipitation and runoff below what we experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. If dry conditions continue, the percep-tion that there is surplus water available for Colorado and the other upper basin states may, in fact, be dead wrong.” Divers inspect the main gate on the outlet tower at Wolford Mountain Reservoir looking for leakage.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINESWe encourage submissions of original essays, non-fiction, poetry

and/or photographs for our Voices department. Headwaters magazine publishes one to two selections of creative work in each issue.

Voices is a forum for Coloradans to creatively express their relation-ship to our water resources. As a literary and artistic outlet, we are look-ing for well-crafted, and preferably unpublished work.

Literary submissions should not exceed 500-600 words. Longer pieces may be considered, but may require editing. Photo submissions need to include pertinent caption information.

Deadline: review on a continuing basis.Articles or digital photos may be submitted to [email protected]. Print submissions should be mailed to:1580 Logan Street, Suite 410Denver, CO 80203

If desired, please enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE) with enough postage for us to return your materials to you.

The writer retains the copyright and, therefore, the right to resell or repackage the original manuscript to another party after publication in Headwaters magazine. The right to republish the edited manuscript in a subsequent anthology or on the Colorado Foundation for Water Education website is retained by Colorado Foundation for Water Education.

With photographs, CFWE exercises “one-time” or “first serial” rights, both of which include the right to reprint the photo (as originally used) for marketing and promotional purposes, such as ads or on the Colorado Foundation for Water Education website.

NATIONAL RIVER OF WORDS CONTEST WINNER FROM

COLORADO


FISHING THE SOUL

The river comes alive at a flick of the wrist,

A smooth motion takes control of everything,

The layer between two worlds is peeled back,

A mayfly speaks as the go-between,

The motion once again takes control,

With more meaning than the first,

There is a sensation different from before,

Like having confidence in the river itself,

The mayfly returns,

And quietly settles back down,

This time in now familiar territory,

The motion has stopped,

Drifting as an image in the clouds,

The mayfly leaves recognizable waters,

Carefully and without song,

The motion calls again,

A familiar rhythm returns and restores order,

Just to be broken once more by the calling of the water.

Matthew Sparks, Age 17Gunnison High School

Teacher: Lisa Danos

__ Check enclosed __ Visa __ Mastercard __ Discover __ AmexCard number: ___________________________________________ Exp: ____________________________________Name on card: __________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________Phone: ______________________________________ Email: _________________________________________

Item Quantity Member Price Non-Member Price Total

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Law This 33-page full color booklet explores the basics of Colorado water law, how it has developed, and how it is applied today. Designed to be easy-to-read, yet comprehensive enough to serve as a valuable refer-ence tool.

$6.30 each;$4.50 each if ordering 10 or

more

$7 each;$5 each if

ordering 10 ormore

$Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Protection This handy desk reference is designed for those who need to know more about Colorado’s complex regulatory system for pro-tecting, maintaining, and restoring water quality. Wondering if your local creek is safe for fi shing or swimming? This guide can help you fi nd the answers.

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 Recently updated, this colorful poster Colorado: The Headwaters State Poster Recently updated, this colorful poster Colorado: The Headwaters State Posterprovides an overview of the major lakes, reservoirs and rivers in Colorado and describes how humans and the environment rely on these variable resources.

FREE

Water History Poster Presents an archeological and historical timeline of Colorado’s Water History Poster Presents an archeological and historical timeline of Colorado’s Water History Posterwater resources and their development from circa 14,000 B.C. to the present day. FREE

Shipping & HandlingCITIZEN’S GUIDES $7-$45 = $2 • $45.01-$100 = $5.50 • $100.01-$175 = $9.00 • $175.01-$300 = $10.50 • Over $300 = $12.50

POSTERS 1-5 posters = $3.50. If ordering more than 5 posters please call us on 303-377-4433 for shipping charges.$

SUBTOTAL $

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

TOTAL $

Charter member - $2,000 or more • Up to 10 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine • FREE individual registration for tours and events • Special recognition in CFWE events & publicationsPioneer member - $1,000 or more • Up to 7 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine • 20% off registration for Foundation tours and events • FREE set of Citizen’s Guides, maps and postersSustaining member - $500 • Up to 5 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine • 20% off registration for Foundation tours and eventsAssociate member - $250 • Up to 3 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine • 10% off registration for Foundation tours and eventsIndividual member - $50Student member (currently enrolled students only) - $25 • FREE annual subscription to Headwaters magazine • 50% off all tours and events

BECOME A MEMBER

Mail this form with your payment to CFWE, 1580 Logan Street, Suite 410, Denver, CO 80203,or fax to (303) 377-4360.

Support the Foundation’s efforts to provide balanced and accurate information on water resources issues. All members receive regular updates and notices on new Foundation products and events, discounts on all publications and event registrations, and FREE subscriptions to the quarterly Headwaters magazine.

Your contribution is tax-deductible, in accordance with state and federal laws.

Pioneer member - $1,000 or more • Up to 7 FREE annual subscriptions to • 20% off registration for Foundation tours and events • FREE set of Citizen’s Guides, maps and postersSustaining member - $500 • Up to 5 FREE annual subscriptions to • 20% off registration for Foundation tours and eventsAssociate member - $250 • Up to 3 FREE annual subscriptions to • 10% off registration for Foundation tours and eventsIndividual member - $50Student member (currently enrolled students only) - $25 • FREE annual subscription to • 50% off all tours and events

Your contribution is tax-deductible, in accordance with state and federal laws.

Item Item

Please include your daytime phone number and/or email so we can contact you if there is a problem fi lling your order. We do not sell our mailing list.


Headwaters of the Colorado River, Rocky Mountain National Park. Photo by Jim Richardson.

1580 Logan St., Suite 410Denver, Colorado 80203303-377-4433 • www.cfwe.org

NONPROFIT ORGU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDDENVER, CO

PERMIT NO 178

Headwaters Winter 2004: The Colorado River

Documents

Transcript of Headwaters Winter 2004: The Colorado River