Water Resources Review Committee (08/21/2014)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

WATER RESOURCES REVIEW COMMITTEE

Date:	08/21/2014	ATTENDANCE

Time:	05:04 PM to 08:03 PM	Brophy	E
		Coram	X
Place:	Glenwood Springs Branch Library	Hodge	X
		Jones	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Mitsch Bush	X
	Representative Fischer	Roberts	X
		Sonnenberg	X
This Report was prepared by		Vigil	X
	David Beaujon	Schwartz	X
		Fischer	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
Call to order and Announcements Legislative Intent of Senate Bill 14-115 Concerning the State Water Plan Colorado Basin Roundtable Basin Implementation Plan Update on the Colorado Water Plan Reports from Small Group Discussions Public Testimony		- Briefing only Briefing only Briefing only Briefing only -

05:01 PM -- Call to order and Announcements

Representative Fischer, Chair, called the meeting to order and introduced committee staff. Members of the committee also introduced themselves and the districts that they represent.

05:12 PM -- Legislative Intent of Senate Bill 14-115 Concerning the State Water Plan

Representative Fischer discussed the format of committee meetings to satisfy the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 14-115. He explained that the Water Resources Review Committee is required by this law to review statewide planning for water resources. The committee is required to hold at least one public hearing in each geographic region associated with basin roundtables to collect feedback from the public. The committee must provide a summary of the public's feedback as well as its own feedback to the CWCB by November 1, 2014. By July 1, 2015, the CWCB is required to submit a draft state water plan to the committee, after which the committee must hold at least one public hearing in each basin to collect feedback from the public. The committee must provide a summary of the public's feedback as well as its own feedback to the CWCB by November 1, 2015.

05:17 PM -- Colorado Basin Roundtable Basin Implementation Plan

Jim Pokrandt, Chair of the Colorado Basin Roundtable, discussed the roundtable's basin implementation plan (BIP) and expressed concern about additional transbasin, also called transmountain, diversions (TMDs) from the basin (Attachment A). He identified the counties in the mainstem of the Colorado River Basin and identified elements of the BIP including an inventory of water projects, ideas, and conditional water rights in the basin. He also discussed public outreach activities in the basin that lead to the development of the BIP and identified TMDs from the basin. He explained that TMDs currently divert between 450,000 acre-feet (AF) and 600,000 AF annually from the basin and that existing and prospective agreements seek to transfer an additional 140,00 AF from the basin.

Attachment A.pdf

05:24 PM

Mr. Pokrandt discussed the chief findings of the Colorado BIP. According to the BIP, additional large TMDs would be damaging to the basin's recreation economy, agriculture, and the environment, and that over development of the river system increases the risk of a compact curtailment. Also, high conservation, reuse and linking water supply to land use are in the best interest of Colorado. The BIP also determined that the Shoshone Hydro Plant is the basis for consistent, dependable river administration and streamflows, and that the basin should investigate ways to protect it. It also found that the senior Grand Valley irrigation rights provide flows and dependability that benefit recreation and the environment, as well as other water providers. Currently the basin has a shortage of 100,000 AF for agricultural purposes (between crop demand and supplies) and a municipal and industrial (M&I) gap of between 22,000 and 48,000 AF. The BIP explains that water providers are interested in small, multi-purpose reservoirs above their intakes for drought and climate change protection and to provide environmental releases.

05:30 PM

Mr. Pokrandt explained that the BIP identifies environmental concerns related to TMD-influenced low flows and the legacy of hard-rock and dredge boat mining. It also discusses water projects that are planned or are underway in the headwaters of the basin. He noted that the Colorado Basin Roundtable and the Statewide Water Reserve Supply Accounts have provided nearly $1.5 million in completed and ongoing projects related to the environment and recreation. He explained that the Colorado Roundtable plans to advocate for a Basinwide Streamflow Management Plan that employs the Flow Evaluation Tool and identified potential environmental benefits for the basin related to the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, Windy Gap Agreement, and the Wild & Scenic Stakeholders Alternative Management Plan. He also discussed six findings of the BIP including the need to protect and restore healthy rivers and other water bodies, to sustain agriculture, to secure safe drinking water, to develop local water conscious land use strategies, to assure dependable basin administration, and to encourage a high level of basinwide conservation. Mr. Pokrandt identified next steps for Colorado Basin Roundtable including the refinement of the consumptive water needs gap using recent water provider data, and the quantification of environmental and recreational flows needed to support healthy ecosystems and other measures.

05:36 PM -- Update on the Colorado Water Plan

Rebecca Mitchell, Section Chief, Water Supply Planning Section, Colorado Water Conservation Board, thanked the Colorado Basin Roundtable for its efforts developing the basin implementation plan (BIP)and explained how the board will incorporate the BIPs into the Colorado Water Plan.

05:38 PM

Representative Fischer polled the audience to determine who was from the Colorado Basin, were members of the Colorado Basin Roundtable, were representatives of local governments, were representative of nongovernmetal entities, and were members of the general public.

05:43 PM

The meeting recessed for small group discussion.

06:36 PM -- Reports from Small Group Discussions

The committee returned from recess. Representative Fischer invited a person from each table to summarize the comments and concerns expressed by their members.

06:36 PM

Kristin Green reported that her table raised concerns about how basin implementation plans (BIPs) will be incorporated into the Colorado Water Plan (CWP) and whether the basins will have an equal voice in the development of the CWP. The table also expressed concern that the draft CWP is too project focused instead of policy focussed. The legislature should also listen to a broad range of opinions when it reviews the CWP, instead of just special interests, and to help ensure that land use is more closely connected to water, and that there will be sufficient water available for recreation. The plan should also encourage the state to live within its water means.

06:39 PM

Bob Jenkins reported that his table said the Shoshone Hydropower plant water right should be owned by the Colorado Basin, that no new transmountain diversions be allowed for municipal outdoor purposes, and approving authorities for new subdivisions should not approve open space planted with non-native vegetation. His table agreed that the term "new supply" is a fictitious term because its only a new supply for the persons that receive the water and that such water is being taken from someone. The state should also control how water is used instead of the federal government.

06:43 PM

Lois Dunn reported that Colorado needs to quantify the amount of water that the state is entitled to that is currently going downstream, to quantify how much water is adjudicated, and to identify how any shortfall will be covered. The table also agreed that Delta and Mesa counties need more storage on the Grand Mesa and that the State of Colorado should advocate for this storage in the federal permit review process. It should also sustain agriculture, ensure local control, and the priority system must stay in place. The table was also opposed to water use predicating land use.

06:46 PM

Mark Fuller, member of Colorado Basin Roundtable, reported his table discussed the role of the legislature in reviewing the CWP and questioned whether new TMDs are needed when existing TMD have unused capacity. It also agreed that users of any TMDs must bear the risk during droughts and compact calls. The burden of proof should be on those seeking new diversions to demonstrate the need for the water and prove that existing users and streams will not be impacted. The CWP should be the basis for unified state action and not a collection of competing interests. The plan should also address the needs of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and the downstream states. A reservoir in the lower South Platte Reservoir should be considered because it would enable flexible water transfers and help meet compact delivery obligations. There should also be a permanent and reliable source of funding to implement the plan and a stronger connection between land use and water use in the plan. It should also encourage additional research on low water consuming crops.

06:49 PM

Hanna Holm, Coordinator, Water Center at Colorado Mesa University, reported that her table discussed the priority of water uses and determined that water for agriculture and recreation is important. The table also determined that residents should reduce outdoor water consumption by limiting the size of lawns to help ensure that other important needs are met and to delay the need for new projects. Local communities should resolve conflicts between competing recreational water needs, such as water for golf courses, ski areas, and fishing, through voluntary agreements. The plan should also address legal barriers to conservation, such as use it or lose it, and should enable the tracking, protecting, and directing of saved water. The table also determined that the Shoshone hydro power call should be protected.

06:54 PM

Ken Neubecker, Environmental Representative on Colorado Basin Roundtable, reported that his table determined that there is no water available for new TMDs. The table disagreed with the Interbasin Compact Committee's (IBCC) principles for new TMDs; i.e., that new TMDs only divert during surplus or wet periods when the additional diversions would not increase the risk to existing uses and that the diverter take hydrologic responsibility for risk associated with new TMDs. The table agreed that high water flows are needed for in-basin for recreational and environmental purposes, and to help meet compact delivery obligations. It also determined that front range growth should be considered and that front range water users should know where they get their water. The table questioned whether new storage to capture water in unusually wet years makes sense and it determined that the front range and west slope need each other. The legislature should also consider making adjustments to the doctrine of prior appropriation to address evolving water needs and to avoid crises.

06:59 PM

Ken Ransford, member Colorado Basin Roundtable, reported that his table determined that no change should be made to the doctrine of prior appropriation and that the CWP should consider adjusting compact delivery obligations to lower basin states to account for evaporative losses in Lake Mead and delivery obligations to Mexico. The plan should promote block water rates, ensure that water users know how much water they are using, and provide financial incentives to use less water. Payments for land fallowing should be based on loss of total income not just net income to protect agricultural communities. The table expressed concern about a water bank that uses west slope agricultural water rights to help meet a compact call. Water banks should not harm the west slope, should be voluntary, and should not be used for new supplies. Fairways and parks in Denver should deficit irrigate and the front range municipal and industrial users should not be expected to bear a disproportionate burden of meeting Colorado's compact delivery obligations. The table also saw merit in the Sterling Ranch subdivisions water budget as a model for new subdivisions.

07:03 PM

Ann Hopkins reported that splitting comments on the draft water plan into constituent groups is not useful because persons may be multiple types of water users. Her table determined that land use and water use should be linked and water conservation should be maximized. County 1041 powers should be maintained to enable basins of origin to protect themselves. The burden of a compact call should not fall disproportionately on the west slope and that TMDs limit the ability of Colorado to meet a compact call. The CWP should go beyond 2050 especially when considering the needs of agriculture and the impacts of climate change. State law should also be amended to encourage conservation. The public needs to be educated about the cost of their water use. The table also determined that baselines for instream flow needs should be quantified and funding should be made available to help quantify these needs, especially for head water streams.

07:07 PM

Melissa Lights, general public, reported that her table supports additional residential outdoor water conservation and that water should not be taken from agriculture to supply residential growth. Also new residential developments should be required to have an adequate water supply.

07:12 PM -- Public Testimony

07:12 PM -- Laura Makar, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Advisory Board, submitted written comments from Robert A. Ittner, Jr. Chair of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (Attachment B) and spoke in support of maintaining county 1041 review powers for new transbasin diversions and for statewide projects. She explained that the Colorado Water Plan (CWP) should recognize and account for the disproportionate impact that transbasin diversions have on the state's ability to meet its compact delivery obligations compared to in-basin diversions. Unlike in-basin diversions, transbasin diversions provide no return flows to the basin of origin. The CWP should also support stream health and recognize the benefits of recreational in-channel diversions (RICDs) and instream flows in helping Colorado meet its compact obligations.

Attachment B.pdf

07:14 PM -- Ken Nuebecker, American Rivers, explained that the Colorado Basin Roundtable developed the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool to identify the basin's nonconsumptive water needs. This tool may also help other basins identify environmental and recreational water needs as well as provide a standard and widely agreed upon method for assessing these needs. The CWP should also recognize the challenge and importance of quantifying water needs for the environment and recreation.

07:16 PM -- Mark Fuller, Executive Director, Ruedi Water and Power Authority, explained that the CWP should identify realistic and broadly applicable metrics to measure adequate streamflows and implementation measures to guarantee those flows. The plan should also identify short term leases of agricultural water rights for instream flows as a reasonable means for meeting instream flow needs while complying with Colorado water law. Unappropriated water in the Colorado River Basin should not be used to satisfy water needy areas in other parts of the state. Instead, this water should be used to ensure that Colorado meets its compact delivery obligations. He explained that the value of the CWP lies in the boldness and innovations that it brings in helping to solve water issues. A plan that is a catalog of unresolved issues, undeveloped projects, and unchallenged policies will not make progress.

07:19 PM -- Steve Acquafresca, Mesa County Board of County Commissioners, explained that the value of the CWP depends on it being developed by the grassroots and that it should be flexible enough to be adjusted over the years. He cautioned the legislature in recommending changes to the CWP that overturn grassroots recommendations.

07:22 PM -- Ken Ransford, Recreational Representative of Colorado Basin Roundtable, said the Colorado Basin Roundtable adopted the high conservation target in its basin implementation plan (BIP) and that this standard should be included in all other BIPs. He also recommended amending Colorado water law to remove disincentives to efficient irrigation practices, such as use it or lose it. Also, the law should allow certain changes of water rights outside of water court to reduce the cost of water transfers and to encourage more flexible water use.

07:24 PM -- Robert Jenkins, Colorado Association of Homebuilders, explained that he failed to mention during the small group discussions reports that his table also supports statewide water storage on both the west slope and the front range and that the Colorado BIP should recognize the importance of forest health in watershed management.

07:25 PM -- Cindy Houben, Pitkin County Economic Development Director, member of the Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative Group, explained that a healthy environment is necessary for a health economy. She also recommended that the CWP include an inventory to assess stream health that should be used to guide water development. Legal incentives should also be identified to encourage water sharing, as well measures to encourage greater efficiencies.

07:28 PM -- Kristin Green, Conservation Colorado, recommended that the CWP prioritize conservation and reuse and that such measures should be maximized prior to authorizing new water diversions. The plan should also include a high level water conservation goal and it should promote funding for environmental needs assessments.

07:30 PM -- Torie Jarvis, Northwest Council of Governments Water Quality and Quantity Committee submitted written comments on the CWP (Attachment C) and said that new TMDs should only be allowed if they are able to address local concerns and if approved by affected local governments and water providers. She also spoke in support of legislation to reestablish the Colorado Joint Review Process that was repealed in 1996.

Attachment C.pdf

07:32 PM -- Rachel Richards, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, spoke in support of 1041 powers, wild and scenic designation for rivers, and recreational in-channel diversions. She also discussed the benefits of instream flows for tourism, recreation, and to ensure that Colorado satisfies it compact obligations. She expressed concern about the potential impact of a compact call on the west slope and said that the CWP should recognize the benefits of healthy rivers and recreation to the economy. The plan should also consider how to protect agriculture without new TMDs and that municipal outdoor water consumption should be limited to reduce the pressure on agriculture and the waters of the Colorado Basin. New residential growth should also pay for new water projects, transportation, and other related infrastructure needs.

07:37 PM -- Annie Henderson, Upper Colorado River Private Boaters Association, explained that a water based recreation economy benefits the environment and that conservation is the only way to avoid the impending water crisis. She also spoke in opposition to new water diversions and discussed the need for a statewide effort to reduce water consumption and identify water conservation goals. Water conservation should be maximized prior considering new TMDs and that water for the environment and other nonconsumptive uses should be recognized as beneficial uses. The law should be re-evaluated to ensure that it can address climate change and population growth.

07:39 PM -- Bill Hoblitzell, Eagle Watershed Council, submitted written comments on the CWP (Attachment D) and expressed concern about provisions of the State Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) that identify the Colorado Basin as a possible solution to the water supply needs of other basins. He recommended that SWSI should be updated to include information about the impacts of climate change, to provide a greater emphasis on conservation, and to identify new water conservation technologies. Colorado instream flow law should also be updated to reflect new scientific information, such as the benefits of flushing flows, and the CWP should consider the benefits of stream management planning such as developed by Grand County. He urged the legislature to consider new policies to allow water sharing agreements and flexible water use, and to provide sufficient time for local communities to identify solutions to their water supply needs.

Attachment D.pdf

07:43 PM -- Steve Child, representing himself, explained that he is a Pitkin County Commissioner and an irrigator. He recommended that the CWP take a longer range view beyond 2050 to avoid upcoming problems. He explained that a reservoir on the lower South Platte could provide water for upstream municipal and industrial users, help meet interstate water delivery obligations in the South Platte and Republican River Basins, and to recharge the Ogalala aquifer. He expressed concern about the impact on Colorado from a compact call on the Colorado River and recommended that triggers be developed based on levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell that determine when TMDs are allowed. He also expressed concern about the current diversions from the upper Frying Pan River to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District by the Frying Pan-Arkansas Project, and the Twin Lakes Tunnel and questioned whether these diversions were needed. He recommended that an alternative be developed to replace bluegrass lawns with landscapes that use less water. He also proposed a pump back project on the Gunnison River to help provide water for endangered fish on the Colorado River and that land use policies be adopted that encourage conservation.

07:52 PM -- Roger Wilson, representing himself, explained that he was a former legislator and member of the Water Resources Review Committee. He recommended that the CWP identify water needs for endangered species and to ensure that sufficient water is provided to allow the removal of these species from the Endangered Species List. The legislature should adopt legislation or a resolution that identifies guiding principles for the IBCC that are derived from regional sensitivities and statewide economic interests (tourism, recreation, agriculture, and municipal needs) with a focus on preserving the current balance of water use. Also, the price of population growth must be borne by those seeking that growth and not by current water users.

07:54 PM -- Marc Catlin, Montrose County, recommended that the CWP incorporate permanent phreatophyte removal to make additional water available at the state line and to reduce the need for agricultural water transfers. He expressed concern about water banks that store agricultural water for other purposes and the impact such banks will have on agricultural communities. Communities that receive water from fallowed agricultural lands should be required to offset the economic impacts to the affected agricultural communities.

07:57 PM -- Richard Van Gytenbeek, Trout Unlimited, distributed a flyer and a DVD concerning the Our Colorado River program (Attachment E). He explained that this program seeks to promote agricultural water efficiency to benefit stream flows and to encourage greater cooperation between the agricultural community and the recreation, tourism, and sportsmen's communities. He explained that his organization opposes new TMDs and said that other water supply options are available. He also explained that his organization is not opposed to all types of water storage and it recognizes that additional in-basin storage may be needed.

Attachment E.pdf

Rick Lofaro, Executive Director, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, submitted a letter to the committee (Attachment F).

Attachment F.pdf

Andre Willie, Chairman, Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Stream Citizen Advisory Board, submitted a letter to the committee (Attachment G).

Attachment G.pdf

08:03 PM

The meeting adjourned.