Western Slope water users, in an unprecedented show of solidarity, this week presented Denver Water with a comprehensive proposal to reduce the pain of future water transfers to the Front Range.
A coalition of western Colorado cities, towns, ski resorts and water districts asked for limits on diversions from their communities, and commitments to resolve other long-standing disputes over water development.
Proponents hope the plan offers a way to end decades of bickering across the Continental Divide that has soured relationships between Colorado’s big cities and its scenic tourist spots.
Among the Western Slope’s main concerns are Denver Water’s plan to import more water from the already depleted Fraser River basin in Grand County, future development of Denver’s significant water rights in Eagle County, and projected shortages in Summit County as Denver water increases withdrawals from its Dillon Reservoir.
No one, however, is expecting quick or easy negotiations with the metro area’s biggest water provider.
“These are the same issues that have been cussed and discussed for quite some time,” said Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District in Glenwood Springs.
“We need to figure out what we have to do, what we’re going to get and what it’s going to cost,” said Chips Barry, Denver Water’s manager. “There is the potential for an important understanding at the end of the road. We’re not guaranteed to get there, but we’re all going to try.”
The 19-point proposal was presented by representatives of the coalition Tuesday and briefly discussed by Denver Water’s board at its regular meeting. But the proposal has not been made public and officials were unwilling to disclose details Thursday.
The proposal covers a variety of disputes ranging from financial compensation for future projects to new ways of dealing with problems well into the future.
Among the issues:
With the hardships posed by the receding drought fresh in mind, elected officials, water districts and businesses in the Colorado River basin realized that development in one part of the region would affect all of them. The best hope of protecting their common interests was solidarity, participants said.
“The day is long gone when you can do something in a vacuum in Summit or Grand County without having impacts elsewhere,” said attorney Glenn Porzak. “Anything you do has a ripple effect throughout the basin.”
For example, the Shoshone call supplies an Xcel hydropower plant near Glenwood Springs. Downstream from Denver Water’s diversions, it dates to 1905 and is the first to be satisfied in times of shortage. When the plant exercises its water right, it can command virtually the river’s entire flow, making water available to downstream users.
In 2002, the Shoshone and Cameo power plants controlled the river for almost 10 months, while Denver’s reservoirs fell sharply.
Denver Water officials say they have no plans to try to buy the water right from Xcel, but Western Slopers want assurances Denver won’t have a change of heart in the future.
“If you’re going to have a global settlement, you have to make sure you’ve thought through every element,” said Porzak. “If you didn’t add that issue, you’d be burying your head in the sand.”
This week’s comprehensive proposal is the latest development in years of talks between western Colorado water users and Denver Water. But the level of urgency increased this winter as Denver Water made proposals to compensate Grand and Summit counties for taking more water through the Moffat and Dillon projects.
Denver Water is finalizing a plan to increase its withdrawals from the Fraser River through the Moffat Tunnel.
But the project could severely limit the ability of Winter Park, which sits just below Denver’s ditches, collection points and tunnels, to continue growing.
In neighboring Summit County, Denver intends to double its withdrawals from Dillon Reservoir, its biggest Western Slope bucket, to 130,000 acre-feet per year. Summit County officials want assurances the depletions won’t harm tourism activities on the reservoir and in the Blue River below.
The new proposal is designed to avoid the kind of acrimony that typified debate over Denver Water’s Two Forks Dam proposal in the 1980s.
Over two days in January at a meeting in Beaver Creek, a dozen Colorado basin users met to hash out a framework for a unified bargaining position. Operating under intense secrecy, the coalition fleshed out the plan and then presented it to 30 different governments, water providers and environmental groups.
“This certainly is more extensive and comprehensive than anything we’ve seen before,” said Barry.
Now the sides need to sit down and collect more data to see how the proposals would actually work.
“It will require a lot more study and massaging,” said Summit County Commissioner Tom Long. “But Denver Water didn’t say, ‘This isn’t going to work.’ So we’re hopeful.”
Staff writer Theo Stein can be reached at 303-820-1657 or tstein@denverpost.com.