Water Board concerned with state’s interest in local water

That’s a lot of water

There’s a lot of attention on Blue Mesa Reservoir these days.  
While the Bureau of Reclamation waits for comments on its recently released plan of operations for the Aspinall water storage unit, which includes Blue Mesa Reservoir, the state of Colorado is looking to enter negotiations with the Bureau for a large quantity of the reservoir’s water. 

Although the potential contract between the state and the federal government has been on the table since last fall, local water officials remain concerned because the idea has not yet been discussed with stakeholders in the Upper Gunnison Basin.
Last August, Colorado Department of Natural Resources executive director Harris Sherman sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns and operates the Aspinall water storage unit, asking to enter into formal negotiations for 200,000 acre-feet of water in Blue Mesa Reservoir.
In the letter, Sherman writes, “The state seeks this contract in order to help firm, safeguard, and use water supplies available to Colorado pursuant to the Colorado River and Upper Colorado River Compacts.”
Sherman’s letter also asked the Bureau to consider the potential contract in their development of the Aspinall unit’s re-operational plan.
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Aspinall re-operational plan was released on February 17, and describes a “remaining project yield” in the Aspinall series of approximately 300,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot of water can be roughly compared to the amount of water a suburban family uses in a year.  
The DEIS states, ”This remaining water may very well be developed in the future, upstream or downstream from the Unit,” and, “The potential use of remaining unit yield is not modeled because specific foreseeable proposals are not available.”
Part of the local concern is that taking that much water out of Blue Mesa could leave little left over for recreation, since the state is asking for nearly a quarter of the reservoir’s total water storage capacity.  
But the Upper Gunnison River Basin isn’t the only water supply being targeted for future water needs. Some water officials believe the 200,000 acre-feet requested by the state will be used to cover downstream obligations once further large scale depletions of the Colorado River occur. Colorado resident Aaron Million has proposed a diversion from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir to target Front Range water needs, and the Yampa River is also being targeted for water diversions and oil shale development. Both rivers serve as tributaries to the Upper Colorado River Basin.  
According to Sherman’s letter, “Colorado intends that this water would be released downstream, but must ensure the water is used to benefit the entire state of Colorado, thus the details of the use would be determined during negotiations between the state and the (Bureau of Reclamation), with meaningful input from all water user stakeholders.”
Part of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District’s frustration is the DNR has been meeting with various groups across the state, such as the Colorado Water Congress and Club 20, but the state has yet to discuss the matter before the local water board.  
During the UGRWCD meeting on March 23, board member Steve Glazer recapped a Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting he attended on Tuesday, March 17 in Longmont that included a late addition to the agenda, titled “Blue Mesa Water Issues.”
Glazer says at the meeting DNR water director Alex Davis announced she had been visiting with various organizations across Colorado and discussing the 200,000-acre-foot proposal. “She indicated the bureau has acknowledged receipt of the request but has taken no action,” Glazer said. “I indicated we had many questions and an awful lot of expertise in the basin and that it would be useful if they started discussions with us,” Glazer said.  
Board member Ralph Grover suggested writing a letter to Davis and Sherman asking them to meet with the UGRWCD.  
UGRWCD manager Frank Kugel said Davis has been trying to meet with the board and was planning on coming to their May meeting.   
Board president Brett Redden said in that case, a letter could cause more harm than good in the UGRWCD’s relationship with the DNR.
Glazer agreed. “I got the impression they didn’t think of anything going on with this until after the record of decision is issued [for the Aspinall operations],” Glazer said. “I don’t see that there’s any urgency at this point.”
Grover disagreed. “Alex and Harris don’t seem to have any problem talking about something that doesn’t have any urgency. It sounds like they’re out trying to generate some grassroots support,” Grover said, adding that he felt it was discourteous that the DNR has not presented the idea before the UGRWCD. “I would encourage staff to continue to press it,” he said.  
Kugel said he would inform the board once he confirmed a date for Davis to make a presentation.