Grand County locals among proponents of instream flow laws

By Tonya Bina Sky-Hi Daily News February 7, 2008
   Efforts are being made on the state level to establish instream flows in rivers as a “beneficial use” under Colorado law, and a few locals are getting behind the legislation.    Kirk Klancke of Trout Unlimited and manager of a local water and sanitation district, endorses HB 1280, introduced last week, for making instream flows a “beneficial use to mankind.”

    Klancke, along with Mitch (Mo) Kirwan of Mo Henry’s Trout Shop, participated in a press conference introducing the legislation recently. They talked about the economic impacts of low flows.

    Not only are river flows necessary to the recreation and tourism industries helping to drive Colorado’s economy, they said, but are critical to sustaining fish, wildlife and healthy river corridors.

    In accordance with Colorado water law, Klancke said his district must prove beneficial use of water rights in order to protect those rights. The district’s water rights are secured for future growth, but at present, are not being fully utilized for the purposes of the district.

    Therefore, because of the “use it or lose it” component in Colorado water law, the remaining water to which the district has rights is pulled out of the river to irrigate a field that no longer gets hayed, he said.

    “It seems like a foolish use of water when leaving it in the stream has more beneficial use,” he said.

    And as more and more water gets diverted from the Fraser River, low flows are driving the cost of waste water and water treatment upward, he said.

    The concentration of pollutants is greater when flows are lower, resulting in higher expenses related to treatment operations, maintenance and construction, Klancke said.

    The Colorado Environmental Association has teamed up with other instream flow advocates, such as Trout Unlimited, the Environmental Defense Council and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, to create the Healthy Rivers Campaign in support of three legislative solutions proposed at the Statehouse.

    Groups such as the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union have also endorsed the bills, according to Water Caucus Coordinator Becky Long of the Colorado Environmental Coalition.

    “Colorado water law is many things, but logical and simple aren’t on the list,” Long said.

    The proposed bills are not in any way designed to reconstruct the existing water authority already worked out in statute, she said. Among the chief merits of current water law is that it has “an infrastructure built around it that people agree to,” she said.

    But what the proposed laws are designed to do is “provide protection for water right owners who want to do the right thing and keep water in the river.”

    Water right owners would do this by working with the state through the Colorado Water Conservation Board, an entity that since 1973 has been the only body allowed to acquire water rights for the sole purpose of letting water continue to flow downstream.

    The conservation board acquires these rights in a number of ways, by grants, purchases, donations or leases.

    HB 1280, dubbed the “Protect Lease Instream Flow Water Right Bill” among supporters, has been crafted to ensure protection of water rights if a rights owner chooses to donate or loan water to the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

    A Healthy Rivers Campaign fact sheet states that “by protecting the value of the owner’s water right for the future, this bill will allow individuals and cities to donate or lease water to the state without fears of future penalties.”

    The Colorado Legislature passed a similar bill, HB 1012, last year which allowed for a temporary loan or donation of water without penalty to the conservation board during drought times when the health of a river is in jeopardy.

    “This year’s legislation, in my opinion, is a natural progression of that,” Long said.

    Two pieces of companion legislation are set to follow HB 1012. One, sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Curry and Sen. Jim Isgar, would create a $1 million fund to assist the instream acquisition program. The other, sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer and Sen. Dan Gibbs, is meant to create tax incentives for water-rights owners who choose to leave their water in local streams and rivers. The latter was written to offset costs that come along with each step of the process, such as the need to hire a professional hydrologist, for example, to provide documentation of rights.

    “This bill allows (water right owners) to take tax incentives up to 50 percent of the current use value of a water right capped at $100,000 per water right owner,” Long said.

    The tax incentive program would have a limit of $2 million per year starting out, she said, but it is hoped the program would have a chance to grow as participation grows.

    — Tonya Bina can be reached at 887-3334 ext. 19603 or e-mail tbina@grandcountynews.com.

Life Support? Pipelines challenge valley's ag future

The Pueblo Chieftain's Chris Woodka has written extensively and well about Arkansas Valley Water and the various entities who want to exploit it. This is a great, "everything you want to know" article that describes all of those proposed projects in detail. http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1202022922

Water Troubles in the West May Worsen

From the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-sci-water1feb01,1,7686108.story?ctrack=1&cset=true A study finds that man-made global warming has been steadily reducing man-made global warming has been steadily reducting snowpack along mountain ranges. States must make plans now to adapt, scientists say....

Colorado looks at water leases, donations to increase river flows

By COLLEEN SLEVIN Associated Press Writer

Lawmakers are also working on bills that would give tax credits to people who let their unused water flow downstream and to give the state water conservation board $1 million to buy or lease rights to water that it can then allow to flow rather than be diverted.

The board is the only body allowed to hold such instream rights, as opposed to water rights in which water is taken out of the river to irrigate crops or support cities. Currently, it doesn't have any money to buy the rights or pay the legal fees for people who want to donate or lease their unused water.

All three bills are backed by Trout Unlimited and Environmental Defense, which released a study Wednesday saying that increasing instream flows would add another $4.4 million a year to the state's economy because of increased rafting and fishing. The study was paid for by Environmental Defense.

Mitch Kirwan, co-owner of Mo Henry's Trout Shop in Fraser, said it will become more difficult for fish to thrive in the Fraser River, especially in warm weather, if more water is diverted to the populous Front Range.

Kirk Klancke, who manages the water district for a nearby subdivision, said the development has rights to water it needs to provide for future development but doesn't need now. He said the district would like to let the water flow downstream to help fishermen and others who use the river but, fearing the district would lose its rights, each year he uses the extra water to irrigate part of an old ranch.

Kirwan said adding more water to mountain rivers like that would help his business besides helping the environment.

"It's a huge boon for the economy of the mountain areas," Kirwan said.

Groups (TU too) back bills to boost flows in state waterways

According to a report by Environmental Defense, more water in streams means more dollars for local economies... Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/31/groups-back-bills-to-boost-flows-in-state/

Common Sensical

The Pueblo Chieftain supports HB 1141, which would require local governments "to determine whether a developer of any project larger than 50 units can demonstrate there is sufficient water available to meet peak demands."   Read the editorial at: http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1201683357/1

Sportsmen can voice concerns on Roan

"We would have liked Gov. Ritter's proposal to be more protective," said Chris Hunt of Trout Unlimited. "Why Northwater Creek isn't included is a mystery."

Conciliation has its perils, particularly when the other side has no inclination to budge. When this occurs, the result borders on surrender — a condition that, pending a lawsuit and change of administration, seems to be the state of affairs for Colorado's imperiled Roan Plateau.

When Gov. Bill Ritter made a proposal late last year urging the Bureau of Land Management to expand protection of the Roan, it was with full understanding that he had no real authority to make it stick. Which makes one wonder why an avowed wildlife-friendly governor wouldn't ask for the broader safeguards the habitat really deserves, if for no other reason than good public relations.

After all, his counterparts to the north and south — Dave Freudenthal in Wyoming and Bill Richardson in New Mexico — had made what seemed like grandstand plays on resource protection involving federal oil and gas leasing and pulled it off.

The Roan issue involves 67,000 acres of public land sought for lease by various energy companies in concert with a massive leasing initiative in the fading months of the George W. Bush administration.

Ritter's request to increase the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) excluded an important refuge for a remnant population of Colorado River cutthroat trout on Northwater Creek, a puzzling omission considering the Division of Wildlife is busily promoting restoration of this threatened species.

It should be noted that Roan public lands represent just 1.5 percent of the land base in the greater Piceance Basin. Further, half the BLM's Roan Plateau Planning Area already is owned or leased by the natural gas industry. Drilling already is occurring on many of these lands.

"We would have liked Gov. Ritter's proposal to be more protective," said Chris Hunt of Trout Unlimited. "Why Northwater Creek isn't included is a mystery."

The overall thrust by the omnibus group Sportsmen for the Roan Plateau is for balance. The notion is that preserving this relatively small part of Colorado's Western Slope would help bring at least some measure of environmental equilibrium to an area already torn apart by energy development.

"They can get to 80 percent of the gas without disturbing the ridges or key watersheds," Hunt said.

It might be argued that the Roan — and other energy-rich areas around the nation — was toast when the nation pulled the lever for George W. Bush more than three years ago. Politicians almost always choose their fading term to repay the most contentious campaign debts without fear of retribution from an electorate denied the use of tar and feathers.

One potential avenue for Trout Unlimited and other wildlife groups is to file a lawsuit that might stall Roan leasing pending a change in administration in Washington.

While the state of Colorado has no official leverage in the granting of BLM leases, it isn't without clout when it comes to enforcing certain regulations concerning the impact of energy development on public health, safety and welfare.

Last year, the Colorado General Assembly passed legislation requiring the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to revise its rules by July 1, 2008, to reflect these concerns, as well as set standards to minimize impacts on wildlife resources.

Through this process, sportsmen have the opportunity to comment or endorse the guidelines established by the Colorado Wildlife Federation and Colorado Mule Deer Association and endorsed by Trout Unlimited.

Submit these to: COGCC Rulemaking, c/o Department of Natural Resources, 1313 Sherman St. Room 718, Denver, CO 80203.

Clean Eagle River May Mean More Trout

by Matt Terrell / Vail Daily "A set of new standards, being proposed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, would require a stretch of the Eagle River to be clean enough for sculpin, that now rare fish that’s very sensitive to zinc." Read the entire story at http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20080129/NEWS/583429316