. . . . Healiht?aiunillesnum Decentber 18, 2007 James Broderick Executive Director Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District - 31717 United News . Pueblo, Colorado 81001 Steve Miller Senior Water Resource Specialist Water Supply Protection Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: Correspondence Pertainlnd to Proposed Proleot Legislation Dear Jim and Steve: As vie?discussed at the Colorado Basin Roundtabie meeting yesterday. I am forwarding copies of letters pres/lonely sent to SenatorKen Salazar on HR. 1833, HR. 2277 and his draft legislation, "Arkansas River Storage and Flood Control Act of 2007.? and to Representative John Salazar on HR. 1833. These letters articulate the position of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen on re-operationienlargement of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - as summarized by Rachel Richards and Phil Overeynder yesterday. As you may knownthe Water QuailtyIQuantity Committee of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments also submitted letters in support of the position of the County and City. Please contact Shanna Koenig at 010 (970-468-0295) if you are interested in receiving copies of this correspondence. As Jim requested, I am also forwarding this material to Turin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company (Alien Ringle?). Steve am hoping you can pass copies along to Jennifer Glmbel. . Sincerely. Rose Ann I Enclosures Cc: Alien Ringie (wiencis) Rachel Richards (w/encis) Phil Overeyndor (wiencis) Shanna Koenigtwlo encis) 0405 Castte Creek Road. Suite to A5pen, Colorado Bt?lt (970) 920-5020 fax (970) 920-507? a. M95691 residence: .- 4W0 nil-l? 530 E. Main Str'eet. Aspen, Colorado 83,6! 14948 May 16. 2007 The Honorable John T. Saiazar . 1531 Longworth House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-0603 Re: 113.1033 - Authorizing" a Feasibility Study . Relating to Long-Term Water Needs for the Area Served by the Fryingpan-Arkans?es Project, and for Other Purposes - Dear Congressman Salazar: . Pitkin County and the City of Aspen are very Interested in any federal legislation that. mayinipact Western Slope water quality and quantity. Thus, the proposed enlargement and changes In operation of the Fryingpan?Arkansas Project (the "Fry-Ark Project?), with the potential to increase trans-mountain diversions from the Roaring Fork River Watershed. has concernedus for several years. We continue to view the Preferred Storage Option Plan _as _a ?bad idea,? as currently structured. It is a project driven by . Front Range Interests with no foreseeable benefits for? the Western Slepe. Indeed. the project has a signi?cant downSIde for Western Slope interests. particularly the FryeArk' Project headwater communities. That being said. we appreciate the time Richard Baca spent with our representatives in . Gienwood Springs discussing our particular water issues. Clearly, some of the comments from that meeting (together with the written comments we provided on the draft Bill your staff circulated In January) were considered in the preparation of HR. 1833' However, there are still a number of significant Issues that we feel need to be addressed if we are to ?support this Bill as it moves forward. Our concerns are . summarized belowCurrent and Future Water and Storage Reguirements for the Western Slop . You have elected not to do no the ?area served? by the Fry?Ark Project in HR. 1833. Thus. we remain concerned that the interests of the Western Slope may not be given as?much weight as Eastern Slope interests in discussions on this Bill. . The Fry-Ark Project's authorizing legisiation clearly contemplated that the Western Siopa was included In Its service area. Additionally. Its Operating Principles speci?cally recognized that the Fry?Atk Project was intended to ?[proteetj western Colorado water uses. both existing and potential and [tjhe preservation of recreational values.? The Western Slope is supported by a'strong residential home market (with high property values), diverse recreationai interests and a signi?cant amount of agriculture. It is important that the Western Siope?s present and future water supply and storage requirements (for both consurnptive and?non-consumptive uses) be placed on a par with those of the Eastern Slope and included In all discussions on H.R. 1833. Any feasibility study resulting from HR. 1833 must address Western Colorado's present and future regional water needs. not just investigate ways to mitigate impacts from an lncreaseln trans-mountain diversions. . - Administration Suite 301 (970) 925-5200 fax 920-5198 County Commissioners County Attorney Finance and Use Tax sure 30: Suite 302 -Suire zel (970)9206200 (97039204190 (970) 920-5220 rat-320.5193 fax 920-5190 rat 920-5230 sewers?!? A g: . . 2.. can: A. ii; I. - b. impacts on Stream In the Roaring Fork River Watershed. We note and appreciate the specific reference to the Roaring Fork iver in Section of 1833. Trans-mountain diversions in? the Upper Roaring Fork RiVer already preclude - our ability to consistently meet minimum decreed instrearn flows for the Roaring Fork River. "Recreation and the conservation and development of fish and wildlife" are among the stated purposes of the Fry-Ark Project. Clearly, ltwouid be contrary to the original legislative intent to allow any expansion of the Fry-Ark Project facilities to impair these values anywhere in the Roaring Fork Watershed (including but not limited to the Fryingpan River and its Gold Medal fisheries). We strongly encourage you to expand - the scope of Section to lnciude all of our rivers and-streams 3. New Contracts, Contract Extegslops and Renewals; Colorado River Basin Protection (Sec. 2 and Sec. 4) We strongly encourage you to add an additional provision to H. 1833 that would prohibit. (I) the use of excess capacity in the Fry-Ark Project facilities to increase trans-mountain diversions of nonproject water. and (ii) the reoperatlon of Fry?Ark Project facilities to increase trans-mountain diversions of project or nonproject water in any instance reasonably likely to result in a failure to meet minimum decreed lnsiream flows in any river or stream in the Roaring Fork River Watershed. We believe that it is good environmental policy to prohibit utilization of federal funding and a federal project by any water user who is reasonably likely to exacerbate What has already been demonstrated to be 'a critical environmental situation in our watershed 4. Contracts With -ln-Bas n Entities (Sec. 5) We remain confused by the language of Section 6. The Bill provides a level of protection for the Arkansas River basin not provided for the Colorado River basin. As drafted, Section 5 would allow excess capacity In the Fry-Ark Project to immediately. be used for both existing diversions of nonproject water and increased diversions of nonproject water (presumably subject to Section 4) from the Colorado River basin to the Arkansas River basin without any consideration for existing or future consumptive and non-consumptive water needs or Impacts on the Western Slope. Execution of contracts by the Secretary of the interior under Section 5 is not tied to the completion of the feasibility study referenced ln-Sectlon 3 of HR. 1833. Again we strongly encourage you to prohibit the use of excess capacity in the Fry?Ark Project facilities in any instance where the use (whether an existing or increased diversion, an exchange or any other use) is reasonably likely to result in a failure to meet minimum deereed insiream ?ows in any river or stream in the Roaring Fork River Watershed. CITY OF ASPE We approolate your efforts on behaif of F3itkln County?and the City of Aspen and look forward to continuing our work with you and your staff on our water lssueo. Sincerely, . PITKIN COUNTY BOARD oz: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7% hog 3 Wch?ef M. 6wsl?f; Chat?" -.. .. 3 Helen Kalln Kland'orud . i I 530a Mn Street Aspen. cornmeal? 14943 .- . . - July 19?. 2007 The Honorable Ken Salazar United States. Senate 702 Hart Senate Of?ce Building. . Washingtonian. 20510-0605 Re: The Fminggan-Arkansas Project and the Preferred Storage Options Plan . Dear Senator Salazar: Pitkih County solicits your assistance in our efforts to ensure that any proposed enlargement and changes In operation of the Fryingpan-Arkensas Project (the "Fry?Ark - Project?). particularly future operations related to the Preferred Storage Options Plan do not occur unless the current stream flow problems in the Roaring Fork River Watershed are recti?ed. Neither of the recent House Bills Introduced on the Fry- Ark Project (HR. 1833 and HR. 2277) adequately proteotWe-starn?lope Interests. We are ales concerned that the ?feasibility study? authorized in'your draft Senate Bill. ?Arkansas River Storage and Flood Control Act 01'2007,? will be used as a springboard - to address Front Range water supply and storage requirements to the detriment and exclusion of Western Colorado All of these Bills Open the door for additional trans-mountain diversions which if left unrestricted will have a ruinous effect on the Upper Roaring Fork River. We believe that We are at a dangerous juncture for both the economic and environmental health of our communities. I . PSOP and other changes being proposed'to the Fry-Ark Project are being spearheaded .. by Front Range Interests. To date Pltkin County has been unable to even secure a seat - at the table in the recent meetings and Congressional hearing held on the Fry-Ark Project. The sole Western Slope representative has been the Colorado River Water Conservation District Given the significant downside for Western Slope Interests associated with the changes being proposed to the Fry- -Ark Project this is an . untenable situation. The cannot adequately represent the diverse and sometimes con?icting needs of all of. the Colorado River Basin? 3 affected commonliles in the federal deolslon?Jpeklng process. Summary of Qur Position The rudiments of our position on any legislation addressing enlargement andlor changes .., in operation of the Fry?Ark Project (including any related studies) are as follows: 1. The Eastern Slope and Western Slope must be treated equally when analyzing and addressing water supply demands, project bene?ts impacts. threats and mitigation. The- . communities from which water is diverted must be recognized as just as important and treated the same as the communities to be served by tr??ner?nountain diversions with respect to project bene?ts and impacts. including: tninistracton Canny County Attorney Finance and Use Tax "also 301 Su?sm Suite 201 $70) moron (970) 920-5100 (970) 920-5 I 90 920-5210 . ?x 910x393 fax 91ng ?at 910-5198 910-5230 I a. Securingfm aintaining adequate year-round water supplies for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses, including environmental and recreational needs; and b. Securingtmaintaining water supplies with adequate water quality. 2. of the Fry-Ark Project in a manner that will result in a failure to achieve Roaring Fork River watershed stream ?ows suf?cient to sustain their ecological function must be prohibited. 3. The? efficient use, including reuse, of existing water supplies available to the Eastern HSicpe? must bemandatory prior to a project bene?ciary?s utilization of any future enlargements or changes in operation of the Fry-Ark Project. .. Each of these items ls discussed in more detail below. .- Egual Treatment 9f the Eastern and ?estem Slopes . Both the Western Slope and the Eastern Slope are beneficiariesof the Fry-Ark . Project. if the Operation (and utilization) of the Fry-Ark Project is re-opened, it is imperative that decision makers recognize that the paradigm on which its operation was originally structured in the 19605 no longer exists today. -Today the Fry-Ark Project does not fuel an agriculturainhased economy on the Eastern Slope; it provides water to Front Range cities experiencing unmanaged growth. The situation on the Western Slope has also changed dramatically since the Fry-Ark . Project was authorized. The Western Slope is now supported by a strong year-round and second-horns residential market (with high property values), diverse recreational Interests, as well as a significant amount of agriculture. Ruedl Reservoirs operations have established Coiorado's longest stretch of Gold Medal trout ?shing. In addition to supplying supplemental water to a diverse assortment of Western Slope water users. . Furthermore, when the Fry-Ark Project was being developed, there was a greater value pissed on removing water from rivers and streams for irrigation uses than keeping the water in the channel. Today we place a much higher value on keeping water In our rivers and streams. This is evident in the changes that have been made to Colorado water law the Colorado Water Conservation Board?s instream?tiow water rights program), as well as the programs that have been instituted in response to our nationai der?nand for better protection of the environment (9.9., satisfaction of the stream flow demands of the Upper ColoradoRtver Endangered Fish Recovery Program)? The Fry-Ark Operating Principles speci?cally state that the Fry-Ark Project Is intended to ?[proteotj western Colorado water uses, both existing and potential -- - -- -- preservation of recreationat trainee.t he Operating Principles adopted more than 40 years ago clearly contemplated a need for protection of?future western Colorado water needs. Thus. it?is critical that ?the area served" in your draft Bill, or in any other proposed legislation. be clearly de?ned to inciude?western Colorado. Qniy? than can rye . . . .. he assured that the Western Slope's present and future water supply and storage . requirements '(ior both consumptive and non-consumptive uses) wilt be placed on a par' - --with those of the Eastern Slope tn any study addressing enlargement or changes in operation of the Fry-Ark Project. . 2. atntenance b! Adeguate. Stream Fiows'ln the Roaring Forts River Watershed ?Recreation and the conservation and development of ?sh and wildlife? are among the stated purposes? of the FrynArtt Project. (.P L. 87-590). Clearly, it is oontrary to the original legislative intent to continue to allow the operation (and any expansion) of the Fry-Ark Project facilities to impair these values in the Roaring Fork River Watershed. Today. even Colorado Water Conservation? Board decreed instream flows on the Upper Roaring Fork River are not being met. a. Maintenance of Adequate inetream Flows. The Operating Principles include minimum average 'insfrearn ?ow thresholds for the Roaring Fork River Immediately above its con?uence with Difficult Creek (above the City of Aspen). These thresholds were recommended by the us. Fish and Wildlife Service and the (then) Colorado Game and Fish Commission: Average Stream of cis 1 0005 3.9 2.6 40.9 Between October 1979 and September 2006, stream gage that these average minimum stream flows have not been met 77% of .the time as a result of existing trans-mountain diversions in the Upper Roo?ng Fork River. . The Operating Principles also established the following ?herd minimum? stream ?oWs for the Roaring Fork River. Time Period Minimum Stream new (sis) August - April 15 - May - July . 60 Between October 1979 and September 2008 stream gage records indicate that the ?hard minimums? (when the Roaring Fork River ls already at a stress point) have not been met 24% of the time. 33 of the 76 total recorded violations have occurred since the year 2000. We are part at ?the area served? by the Fry-Ark Project and our current water supply requirements are not being met. This issue must be addressed In any ?feasibility . Roundtable Non- Water Use Needs Assessment; study? resulting from your draft Senate Bill Further any new legislation specificaliy - addressing enlargement andior changes in operation of the Fry-Ark Project must contain a mandate that the current stream flow problems be rectified and that no further diversions shall occur that will result in a failure to achieve Roaring Fork River average and ?hard ?ows at levels less than those specified in Paragraph 11 of the Operating Principles. Establishment of ?Flushing Flows? for. the Roaring Fork River. 'Fiushing flows? for the bene?t of aquatic habitat and dependeht?sh species were not included in the Operating Principles that were developed nearly. 50 years ago Today. the benefits associated with periodic ?flushing ?ows? are wellnesiablished in the scientific community. . - Any new legislation addressing enlargement andior changes in operation of the Fry?Ark Project should also require that the beneficiaries of any diversions from the Roaring Fork River must provide ?flushing ?ows." The need for "flushing ?ows? must be considered in the ?feasibility study? authorized in your draft Senate Bill. We believe that requiring an instantaneous peak flow of at toast 650 'cis every year and 1 500 etc once every 10 years is reasonable The requisite instantaneous peak ?ow should be measured at the Roaring Fork River near Aspen USGS gage. Ramping up should occur 1 over a 2-week period (at a rise rate of 50 cis) and romping down should occur over a week- period (at a felt rate of 50 sic). c. The Roaring Fork River Watershed Plan and the Colorado Basin Non-consumptive water use needs In'the Roofing Fork River Watershed are being identi?ed as part of the Roaring Fork River Watershed Plan - an effort being sponsored by the Ruedi Water and Poster Authority Phase of that Plan will produce a ?State of the Watershed? report which will compile existing data on riparian and aquatic habitat health seasonal stream ?ow needs and other elements of non-consumptive water use. .This report's findings will be made available to the Colorado Basin Roundiable Non- Consumptive Water Use Needs Assessment which is being developed In cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board under the authority of the Colorado Water for the 21? Century Act. Watershed science has improved since the development of the ?ow recommendations Included in the Operating Principles Given the studies currently underway, we believe it would be appropriate to conduct a reassessment of the average insiream ?ows. ?hard minimums? and ??ashing ?ows? once these studies are complete and their findings are available -Mandatory Water; Rguse and Conservation Taxpayers should not be asked to countenance the expenditure of federal funds for I either water project feasibility studies or additional water projects (particularly those that would facilitate more trans-mountain diversions) without the implementation of comprehensive Water reuse and conservation on the Eastern Slope indeed the Operating Principles for the Fry-Ark Project specifically contemplated that the project, would make ?[tjhe maximum conservation and use of water' and that '[tjhe project [was] 'to be operated in such a manner as to secure the greatest bene?t from the use and reuse of Imported preject waters? . 1 Colorado is a semi-arid state and drought cycies are characteristic of the climate. The dramatic increase in Colorado 3 population along the Front Range (a trend that is expected to continue), demands that changes he made in the way available water supplies are utilized As noted in Facing Our Future: A Balanced Water Solution for Colorado (2005): The potential for greater conservation and ef?ciency in the use oiwater in Colorado is so large that if it were fully or mostly realized few if any new dams or transbasin diversions would be needed in the coming decades, even taking into account the extracted growth in the state' a population and economy. Most Front Range water providers have Implemented modest water censor- vatlon programs, few have effectively integrated conservation savings into their water supply-planning strategy. Many viable and costefiective water saying measures acceptabie to consumers remain tmderutilized or undetreioped. The ?feasibility study? authorized tn your draft Senate Btti should speci?cally be required to_ address Water reuse and conservation measures that could be undertaken to make more ef?cient reuse of water already available to Eastern Slope water suppliers. in any new legislation authorizing enlargertient andior changes in the operation of the Fry -Ark Proisqct the ef?cient use of existing water supplies available to the Eastern Slope muet be mandatory prior to a project beneficiary's utilization of any enlargements or changes in operation of the Fry-Ark Project. We cannot overstate the Importance to Pitkln County of remedying the current stream ?ow problems in the Upper Roaring Fork River and ensuring that the situation is not allowed to further deteriorate. We hope you share our concerns and that you will be a strong advocate for our position on these critical water Issues Sincerely, COUNTY BOAR COUNTY Cos: The Honorable? Gall Schwartz . The Honorable Kathleen?Curry Honorable can thb?s? Kan Lane. Senior Counsel Trudy Kareus Western Slope Regional Director '5aos.uaa5aeez - October 3, 2007 BY E-MAIL 81, Ken Lane Senior Counsel - - . U.S. Senator Ken Salazar . . . 2300 15*h Street, Suite 450 . . .- Denver, CO 80202 . Re: ?Arkansas R'tver Storage and Flood Control Act of 2007" Dear Mr. Lane: As a stakeholder in any study or resulting p?roject(s) that could affect current or future operation of the Fryingpan-Ark?ansas Project. Pitkin County looks forward to participating In the upcoming October meeting and is pleased to be able to provide i you with specific comments on the redra? of the above-referenced legislation In . advance of that meeting. New Sets. are): EFFECT RELATING seem Divansrows. Clearly the draft Bill does not authorize an increase in diversions from the Colorado River Basin, although the prospect of an increase in transmountaln diversions remains an issue for Pitktn County. 1 Pltkin County?s concern is that the feasibility study which the Bill does authorize will not include the'Western Slope ,as part of the ?area served" by the Fryingpan?Arkansas Project. if that is the case. then the feasibility study may produce nothing more than a ?roadrnep? for increasingthe levels of transmountaln diversions which exist today (regardless of whether or not these water rights have already been decreed). . Federal funds should not be used for a study that Ignores the consumptive and non- consumptive water supply and water storage requirements of Westem?oiorado - partlculariy when those needs are not being met by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project today.? '(Pitkin County's Joly 19. 2007 letter providing comments on the original draft of . - this Bill highlighted the stream flow issues we currently face on the Upper Roaring Fork River and our other connotes.) Neither is it in Colorado?s best interest to introduce legislation that only perpetuates a ?we versus them" approach to the State's water issues by ignoring a key group of stakeholders in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. i As you know. Northwest Colorado Councti of Government?s Water Quality and Quantity Committee (QIQ). which Includes counties, towns and water and sanitation in the headwaters of the Colorado, Gunnison and South Piatte River Basins. has also songht the Senator's assurance that legislatton treat the Eastern Steps and Western Stops equally when analyzing and addressing ?it-Lg? suppty demands. . County Comissioners County Attorney ?nance and Use_Tax we: 30! Suite so: see 302 Suite? 201 memos (are) 910.5190 preemies rum-sue fax920-5198 fax 9204.230 I 3 Pitkln County strongly encourages the? Senator to take a systemic approach in addressing the complicated Issue of Colorado' water supply and storage requirements. . We belleve that cooperative? solutions can be achieved In the total? area served? by the Project tfwe work harder to identify those interests of the East and West Slope that are complementary. and not competing The Operating Principles for the Fryingpan~Arkansas Project Include 'proteotlon of western Colorado water uses both existing and potentlal," among the Project' a purposes. To do so. it Is lrnperatlve that the? area served" In your ?draft Bill be specl?cally de?ned to Include Western Colorado. We look forward to these matters further with you next Saturday In Colorado Springs Sincerely. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Cos: Mlok Ireland Chris Treese Shanna Koenlg