22ND ANNUAL ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND USE INSTITUTE CONFERENCE: LAND USE FOR A LIFETIME: CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS AND SHIFTING PRIORITIES

Denver, Colorado   March 8, 2013

The Colorado River: Intergovernmental Agreements

As part of their three-day conference, the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute hosted a discussion on recent developments in Colorado River use, particularly as they relate to the unique and sometimes competing land use interests in Colorado on either side of the Continental Divide.  “The Colorado River: Intergovernmental Agreements” specifically focused on the 2011 Colorado River Conservation Agreement (“CRCA”), which brought together Western Slope and Front Range parties to settle ongoing conflicts and consider cooperative conservation efforts.  Eric Kuhn, General Manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District (“CRWCD”), outlined the general Western Slope view.  Covering fifteen counties, CRWCD is one of Colorado’s four conservation districts formed around a specific water basin.  As the conservation district of the Colorado River Basin, CRWCD strives to conserve water in the basin, protect statewide interests, and promote responsible development on both sides of the Divide.  Tom Gougeon, a member of Denver Water’s five-person Board of Water Commissioners, joined Kuhn and represented the Front Range (and more specifically Denver) view.

Kuhn began by describing how land use policy inextricably links to water use and conservation.  For the Western Slope, encouraging settlement and agricultural development requires extensive irrigation and improvements to access.  At least since the 1930s, the Bureau of Reclamation has played a vital role in creating more arable land and encouraging agriculture on the Western Slope.

But as the Bureau of Reclamation experienced its heyday in Western Slope irrigation projects, Denver also continued to grow and strain its own water supply from the South Platte system.  Denver and the Front Range had similar goals in agriculture and irrigation as the Western Slope, but Denver’s large population growth forced the city to look beyond the South Platte to supply its residents. As a solution, Denver turned to the Colorado River Basin and constructed an impressive water infrastructure that could supply the burgeoning Denver population.  The decision to turn to the Colorado River was predictable: 80% of the state’s population lives along the Front Range, but about 80% of the state’s water flows west away from Denver by the Colorado River and its tributaries.  As Kuhn noted, major projects that brought Western Slope water to the Front Range, including the Moffatt System on the Fraser River and Dillon Reservoir on the Blue River, pulled water from headwater streams.  Kuhn also explained that projects on the Fraser River and the Blue River were both just “one pass” from the Front Range (Berthoud and Loveland Passes, respectively), making them the most accessible options to Denver.

As these projects came on line, Kuhn explained, disputes arose between the two interests, pumping untold amounts of money into litigation.  For example, determining the priorities of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which supplies the Front Range, and Green Mountain Reservoir, which supplies Western Slope communities, proved arduous and expensive. Some on the Western Slope also desired some kind of mitigation for the water they would lose to Denver.  The Blue River Decree attempted to resolve these and other conflicts, but since its inception in 1955 the Decree has been the subject of continued litigation and disputes of interpretation.

After the drought years of 2002-2003, Denver sought to improve the Moffatt System and increase the capacity of Gross Reservoir, and applied for permits to do so. Instead of allowing the permits, CRWCD and other Western Slope entities wanted to create a comprehensive agreement to resolve problems and set out a more cooperative relationship over Colorado River use.  The CRCA concluded in 2011. CRWCD, Denver Water, and many Western Slope counties and towns have signed the agreement.

As Kuhn explained, the most important goals for CRWCD and the other Western Slope signatories were to protect streamflows, secure water for consumptive use in the Western Slope’s agricultural and recreational economies, encourage smarter growth and irrigation practices, and implement better Front Range conservation and reuse.  To CRWCD, the CRCA works to achieve each of those goals by, for example, defining the specific service area of Denver Water, supplying more water for more diverse uses in Summit and Grand counties, implementing Denver’s “WISE” reuse project (discussed below), and allowing new Denver Water development only with the consent of impacted Western Slope signatories.  Each of these provisions contributes to water conservation and to a more cooperative environment that can allow the two sides to work together to tackle future challenges.  As Kuhn stated, the CRCA recognizes that Denver and the Western Slope have interconnected economies but need to recognize the same connection in water policies.

After Kuhn’s outline of the CRCA and its effect on Western Slope signatories, Denver Water’s Tom Gougeon spoke about the agreement’s impact on Denver and the Front Range.  After summarizing the century-long development of the Denver system and its utilization of the South Platte, Blue, and Fraser Rivers, Gougeon assessed the current state of the system and noted that Denver Water’s system is quite reliable and robust, providing high-quality water to over 1.3 million people in Denver and surrounding areas.  Denver Water has diligently pursued conservation efforts by metering use and instilling a culture of conservation in its customers.  In fact, despite population growth Denver Water has reduced demand by 20-25% since 2005.  But as Gougeon explained, these improvements to the system and to conservation efforts have not tempered the need to ensure reliable supply in an increasingly unpredictable hydrological climate.  The old view that rivers provide a “firm yield” year-to-year no longer accurately describes the situation.  Future supply is not as easily calculable as once believed, meaning conservation and reuse are more important than ever to prepare for dry years.  New challenges like increased fire danger, terrorism, and possible Colorado River Compact calls do not simplify the picture either.

To Denver Water, the CRCA was a way to tackle numerous goals at once and replace historical conflict with cooperation. Above all, the CRCA helped to create more certainty in supply and in the ability to cooperate with the Western Slope on new projects and conservation.  As Gougeon astutely observed, fighting over the interpretation of the Blue River Decree did not help either party.  By settling points of contention, both sides could instead focus on more pressing issues of conservation and vulnerability of supply.  Denver Water, for instance, abandoned long-held conditional water rights in Eagle County because it was unlikely to ever utilize those priorities. In truth, continued retention of those priorities only aggravated relations with Western Slope communities.  CRWCD likewise abandoned similar rights that it perfected in the 1950s and 1960s but never put to development or use.  This new cooperative mindset, Gougeon believed, created “a holistic approach” that would be better suited to actually resolve sticking points between the Western Slope and Front Range and benefit all Colorado River users.

Two accomplishments of the CRCA particularly serve Denver’s interests.  First, Gougeon said, making progress on the Gross Reservoir expansion was essential to Denver Water to strengthen the relatively weak northern end of their system.  Second, WISE would also serve to conserve more water and relieve some stress upon Denver’s system in the present and future.  As Gougeon explained, WISE was part of a realization that, eventually, many residents in Douglas County and other areas southeast of Denver would face supply problems and would turn to Denver Water’s extensive system for relief.  Since many residents of Douglas County rely upon a decentralized system of groundwater wells, any depletion in supply cannot easily be resolved without outside help.  Instead of taking on those customers directly, Denver Water preferred to reuse some of its reusable effluent through the WISE project to supply those areas.

Kuhn and Gougeon agreed that, from each of their perspectives, the CRCA embodies a “new way of doing business.”  While future supply may always be uncertain due to climate change and Colorado River use outside of the state, the CRCA will help to secure reliable water supply to all Coloradoans along the Front Range and throughout the Colorado River Basin.  It will also work to ensure environmentally healthy water systems and politically healthy relationships across the Continental Divide.

Overall, the discussion was effective in helping to describe the competing interests in Colorado for Colorado River water.  Kuhn and Gougeon’s comprehensive account of the various challenges each faces in their job role and in implementing the CRCA left out no detail, and provided a good look into the future of cooperation between their respective organizations.

22ND ANNUAL ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND USE INSTITUTE CONFERENCE: LAND USE FOR A LIFETIME: CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS AND SHIFTING PRIORITIES

Denver, Colorado   March 8, 2013

ENERGY PRODUCTION & WATER USE: PREPARING FOR A DRIER FUTURE

Alice Madden of the University of Colorado, Denver moderated a discussion on water consumption planning in a drought environment.  She noted an increase in populations across the West, and charged the panelists with delineating how states could engage in water resource planning.

John Stulp, Director of the Interbasin Compact Committee and Colorado Special Policy Advisor to the Governor for Water, opened the discussion by describing water availability in Colorado and the state planning process.  Stulp explained Colorado is experiencing a significant drought, with the State in an arid D4 drought condition.  He further explained because approximately 80% of Colorado’s population lives on the eastern side of the state, and 20% lives on the western side, water is diverted from the west to the east.  Nonetheless, Colorado must let some water leave the state in order to comply with interstate water agreements.  Stulp noted two out of every three gallons of water in Colorado go to out-of-state users.  Yet these out-of-state users have never forced Colorado to curtail water rights in the 90 years since the enacting of the interstate agreements. However, with climate change and extreme drought, Colorado may have to curtail water rights. Stulp explained agriculture uses eighty-six percent of water in Colorado, municipalities and industry use twelve percent, and self-supplied industrial users consume only two percent.  Stulp further noted between fourteen thousand and fifteen thousand acre feet of water go toward hydraulic fracturing processes in Colorado.

Stulp gave an overview of the Interbasin Compact Committee reports, based on the 2010 Statewide Water Supply Initiative.  Even with proposed projects making the possibility of greater water availability, Stulp explained, Colorado will still experience an annual 390,000 acre foot shortfall.  Stulp noted the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“Board”) considered several water availability scenarios. Board’s main recommendation was to minimize the effects of buy and dry, where purchasers buy new water supplies from agricultural users and agricultural users then “dry out” their land. Board also recommended increased conservation, while maintaining non-consumptive water allocations for tourism and recreation.

Kristen Averyt, Associate Director for Science at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (“CIRES”), spoke next. Her presentation concerning the energy-water nexus, focused on electricity generation and water use. Averyt noted in the United States, generating electricity accounts for forty one percent of all water withdrawals. Industry withdraws the water primarily to run and cool power plants.  Averyt explained the electricity sector is the only energy sector where water needs are actually growing nationally and internationally.  Ironically, thirteen percent of energy produced in the United States is used to clean, convey, and pump water.  In California, water related energy uses consume about twenty percent of the electricity supply.  The water related uses consume much of the energy by moving, conveying, and storing water. Averyt then explained power plants are the primary contributor to thermal pollution in the country.  Additionally, in some areas, electricity withdrawals account for above ninety percent of all water withdrawals in the municipality.  In the Lower Colorado and Rio Grande, power plants use mostly ground water and recycled water, because of the scarcity of surface water.

Averyt noted the Colorado River is expected to decline by ten to fifteen percent over the next forty years.  Averyt projected a twenty to thirty percent increase in water stress, based on current power plant demand for water.  Averyt emphasized electricity generation is vulnerable to water shortage.  Lastly, Averyt presented research on how low carbon energy production impacts water use.  She explained that producing energy under a carbon budget might mean a 1.5 to two million acre feet increase in the monthly average volume of water available for storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell.  At current coal/natural gas production ratios, Averyt projected a net decline of two million acre feet in available water for storage in both lakes over the next forty years.  Averyt further noted low carbon energy productions means states would preserve more water in groundwater aquifers.

Amelia Nuding, Water and Energy Analyst of Western Resource Advocates, discussed managing energy and water during drought in the West.  Specifically, she presented research on how electricity power plants use energy during a drought.  Nuding noted some of the challenges faced by electricity generators include insufficient water resources, degraded water quality, and high water temperatures not suitable for power plant processes.  Nuding further highlighted case studies demonstrating how some states have reacted to drought.  In one case study, Texas risked losing roughly 3000 megawatts of electricity due to lack of water.  Texas responded by bringing power plants, previously mothballed, online to supplement existing energy supply.  Texas also had to curtail 1200 water rights to manage the problem.  The State mostly curtailed senior agricultural water rights in the process.  Nuding presented more research focusing on the impact of drought in the West on power generation mixes.  The study postulated that due to the drought: coal production will go down; natural gas production will increase; hydroelectric production will decrease; renewable energy production will stay the same; electricity prices will increase; and carbon dioxide emissions will increase—primarily because of the drop in hydroelectric power.  Nuding outlined a way forward in a drought environment: (i) utilities need to share more information on water use and water intensity with their respective states; (ii) communities need to realize the value of water and the opportunity cost of using water; and (iii) society has to recognize the risk of drought and the impact drought has on energy production.

Nuding summed up by noting most energy companies and water commissions run their water conservation programs independently. Nuding argued because there may be opportunities for synergies in combining water conservation efforts, utilities and water commissions should integrate their conservation programs.

The panelists concluded by acknowledging as population increases, the need for energy increases.  Therefore, communities need to find more efficient ways to use water in the production of energy.

COME TO THE WELL: CONVERSATIONS ON WINE AND WATER

Denver, Colorado   March 6, 2013

Patricia Limerick, Professor of History and Faculty Director at The University of Colorado’s Center of the American West, discussed her recent book, A Ditch in Time: The City, The Water, and the West at “Come to the Well: Conversations on Wine and Water.”   The Environmental & Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, the Fritz Knoebel School of Hospitality Management at the University of Denver Daniels College of Business, Metropolitan State University, and One World One Water: Center for Urban Water Education and Stewardship sponsored the evening.  Professor Tom Romero, 2012-13 Hughes-Rudd Research Professor at the Sturm College of Law, and faculty advisor to the Denver University Water Law Review, introduced Limerick, with whom he worked at the Center of the American West from 2002-2003.  During that time, Romero served as the Center’s Western Legal Studies Fellow and completed a statewide survey of resources related to the legal history of Colorado.

Limerick presented her book, A Ditch in Time: The City, the Water, and the West, with an overview of each chapter, and used maps, charts, and historical photos to demonstrate the complex development of the Denver Water supply system that transformed Colorado’s Front Range.  Limerick traced the growth of her main character, the Denver Water department, through the “Era of Improbable Comfort Made Possible by a Taken-For-Granted but Truly Astonishing Infrastructure,” as a challenge to the complacent disconnect between consumers and the provider of this essential resource.  Noting that topics such as infrastructure, bureaucracy, and legal technicalities may not entice the general reader, Limerick wrote the book—and gave her presentation—in an engaging manner that combined detailed scholarship with wry humor.  She opened each chapter with a limerick designed to set the tone for the topic contained within, for example, Chapter One: Engineered Eden:

The Tangled Ties of Growth and Water

The West left settlers aghast;

It was dry; it was rugged; it was vast,

They thought water was the trigger

For making towns bigger,

An idea whose time is now past.

Limerick reported that early explorers, Zebulon Pike and Stephen Long described the Front Range as the great American desert, and believed that the dearth of trees and flowing water made the area unsuitable for settlement and, in fact, provided a necessary check to potentially unrestrained westward expansion.  Noting that the Front Range is now home to a million people, Limerick described the explorers as “failed prophets” who did not foresee the ingenuity and determination of Denver’s early visionaries who turned the arid landscape into a picturesque town of flowers, gardens, and lawns by the 1890s.  What began with the Platte Company’s Big Ditch and side street canals that drew untreated water from the South Platte River, is now Denver Water’s four-thousand square mile system of dams, tunnels, and diversions that draw water to Front Range treatment plants from points west of the Continental Divide.  Throughout her presentation, Limerick gave highlights from each chapter in A Ditch in Time to tell the story of how this remarkable transformation occurred.

The book’s title, a play on the aphorism “A stitch in time saves nine” aptly describes Denver Water’s approach to water planning throughout its history, noted Limerick.  Various private water companies in the area took forty years to become the municipal entity known as Denver Water, but the department’s approach to water acquisition never mimicked this drawn out process of municipalization.  Denver Water did not react to shortages in the system, but rather prevented them in the first place, by expanding its reach to develop the four-thousand square mile water supply system.  It did so in order to fulfill its simple mission “to provide an adequate supply of water to the people of Denver.”

Limerick observed that Denver Water, throughout its history, has demonstrated an unexpected ability to adapt to changed circumstances, belying the stereotype of the entrenched bureaucracy.  It shifted from litigation to collaboration with a change in leadership, and from an emphasis on use to an emphasis on conservation in response to climate change.  In short, Limerick concluded, Denver Water has never simply maintained the status quo; it recognizes the economic, environmental, and political factors that influence water use and responds appropriately.

For more information about Limerick’s history of Denver Water, as well as other projects at the Center of the American West, go to the Center for the American West’s website.  In addition, please be looking forward to the Water Law Review’s upcoming Book Note with a full review of A Ditch in Time: The City, The Water, and the West.