Seven conditions to divert more water to Front Range

Brent Gardner-Smith
Aspen Journalism
A diversion structure that ends the natural path of Sawyer Creek, a tributary of the Fryingpan River. There are 15 major transmountain diversions in the headwaters of the Colorado RIver, and most of them are made up of collection systems that tap smaller tributaries.
Brent Gardner-Smith / Aspen Journalism |

diversion points

1. The Eastern Slope is not looking for firm yield from a new transmountain project and would accept hydrologic risk for that project.

2. A new transmountain diversion project would be used conjunctively with Eastern Slope interruptible supply agreements, Denver Basin Aquifer resources, carry-over storage, terminal storage, drought restriction savings and other non-Western Slope water sources.

3. In order to manage when a new transmountain will be able to divert, triggers are needed.

4. An insurance policy that protects against involuntary curtailment is needed for existing uses and some reasonable increment of future development in the Colorado River system, but it will not cover a new transmountain diversion.

5. Future Western Slope needs should be accommodated as part of a new TMD project.

6. Colorado will continue its commitment to improve conservation and reuse.

7. Environmental resiliency and recreational needs must be addressed both before, and conjunctively, with a new transmountain diversion.

GRAND JUNCTION — A draft seven-point framework that lays out conditions for a potential new transmountain diversion in Colorado was explained last week in Grand Junction to members of four Western Slope water-planning roundtables.

About 75 members of the four roundtables heard Bruce Whitehead, a member of the Interbasin Compact Committee, or IBCC, describe in relatively plain terms a “draft conceptual agreement” the committee reached in June on how to possibly move more water from the Western Slope to the Front Range.

“This is conceptual,” said Whitehead, who serves on the Southwest basin roundtable. “We haven’t sold the ranch. And, I don’t think, intend to. It was really to set up a dialogue about, yes, go ahead and say it, transmountain diversions. What are the pros? What are the cons? How do we meet Colorado’s gap in the future?”

Whitehead said that the seven-point framework had moved the discussion about a new transmountain diversion past the water-planning euphemism, “new supply.”

“The term ‘new supply’ had been used a lot,” Whitehead said. “And folks on the Western Slope, obviously, are a little sensitive about ‘new supply.’ I’ve heard it stated that it might be new supply to somebody else, but it’s not really a new supply.”

The 27-member IBCC serves as an executive committee for the nine basin roundtables. Its mission includes developing new water storage and providing a framework for negotiations between the roundtables.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board, the state agency charged with planning for the state’s water needs, oversees both the IBCC and the roundtables.


On Dec. 10, the agency presented a draft Colorado Water Plan to Gov. John Hickenlooper. The plan includes the IBCC’s seven-point “draft conceptual agreement.”

Whitehead explained that the IBCC members were polled at a meeting in June using a clicker system, and all of them endorsed the statement, “I agree that the draft conceptual agreement is ready to go the CWCB board for consideration while we continue to get feedback from our roundtables, and constituencies, and the public.”

“So it is not a done deal, “ Whitehead said. “And I know there’s even been some things in the newspaper here recently that agreements have been cut, that a deal’s been done, and that’s not the case.”

Members of both the Colorado River and the Gunnison River basin roundtables recently expressed dismay that a perception had been created that an agreement has been reached on a new transbasin diversions.

“Our last roundtable meeting in November was a very emotional, heartfelt meeting where we discussed the seven points,” said Louis Meyer, a member of the Colorado roundtable. “We are the donor basin. There are currently 15 major transmountain diversions diverting between 450,000 and 600,000 acre feet out of our basin.”

At their November meeting, the Colorado roundtable members unanimously adopted a motion stating, “it would be premature and inappropriate” to include the seven points in the Colorado water plan.

“We’re not saying they don’t belong in Colorado’s water plan, we’re saying they are not ready yet,” Meyer said at Thursday’s meeting, which also was attended by another 75 or so members of the public and Colorado’s professional water community. “They need a lot more discussion.”


The first, and perhaps most significant of the seven points, states “the Eastern Slope is not looking for firm yield from a new transmountain diversion project and would accept hydrologic risk for that project.”

“I think the IBCC has acknowledged that in high water years, and at high levels of storage, there is probably some water left to develop in the Colorado River system,” Whitehead said of the first point. “In very low years, as in the previous 14 or 15 years we’ve just seen, there may not be.”

Whitehead said the third point, concerning “triggers” that might force a new transmountain diversion to take less water, was about managing a potential “compact call” from California and other lower basin states. Such a call could force junior water rights owners in Colorado and other upper basin states to stop diverting water.

“If it looks like we’re going to be headed toward compact curtailment of some kind, then they shouldn’t divert and increase that risk,” Whitehead said of a new diversion. “What those triggers are hasn’t been fully defined.”

The fourth point calls for an “insurance policy” for existing junior water rights, and it raises the question of how much more water should be diverted from the state’s west-flowing rivers in the face of a looming compact call.

“Obviously, any development is going to increase the risk,” Whitehead said. “In my mind, two acres of irrigation on the Animas River that has a fairly small depletion is a bit of a different animal than a 100,000 acre-foot diversion. So how do we handle that? Is there a de minimus amount that we could agree to that would allow for some future uses on the Western Slope while trying to minimize that risk?”

Most of the basin roundtables are set to meet in January, and the IBCC, which has not met since June, is slated to meet next on Jan. 28. A final version of the Colorado water-supply plan is due on Dec. 10, 2015.

Editor’s note: Aspen Journalism and The Aspen Times, a sister publication to the Post Independent, are collaborating on coverage of rivers and water. More at

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.