Editor’s note: This guest opinion has been edited to correct the amount of farmland irrigated by the Colorado River.
The Colorado River provides water to almost 40 million people, irrigates approximately 5 million acres of farmland or about 9 percent of the nation’s irrigated land and drives a $1.4 trillion-dollar annual economy. Its importance to our region’s economy, culture and quality of life cannot be overstated.
However, development of the river has come at significant cost to the environment. It is one of the few major rivers in the world that no longer reaches the sea, and in one of its headwaters regions — Grand County — trans-mountain diversions pump and pipe more than half of the river’s flows through the mountains to Front Range citizens, farmers and businesses. This water, permanently removed from the Colorado basin, never returns to the rivers of the West Slope.
Two projects, in various phases of permitting for more than a decade, aim to expand existing trans-mountain diversions by putting existing water rights to use and expanding Front Range storage. The Moffat Firming Project, operated by Denver Water, and the Windy Gap Firming Project, operated by the Northern Water Conservancy District, would increase the diversions and store more Colorado River water in an expanded Gross Reservoir (in the case of Moffat,) and in both existing and a new reservoir on the Northern Front Range (in the case of the Windy Gap.)
American Rivers and other conservation organizations have repeatedly highlighted serious concerns with these projects.
In 2005, then again in 2010, American Rivers named the Fraser and Upper Colorado rivers among America’s Most Endangered Rivers, raising the visibility of the threat of these new diversions to the Colorado River if left unmitigated. Early in project development, conservation organizations and West Slope counties, specifically Grand County, geared up for a bitter fight with Denver Water and Northern Water Conservancy District. But then something new happened. Instead of attacking each other, both sides began talking and taking each other’s concerns seriously. This progress didn’t happen overnight; it has taken years to overcome decades of mutual distrust and build relationships that allowed this trust to take root, even blossom.
Both water agencies have come to understand that approval of the projects would be tied to consideration of the needs of the Western Slope. Consequently, officials at Denver Water and Northern have both pledged commitments to the Colorado River their predecessors would not have made: millions of dollars for river restoration, dedicated water for environmental flows, miles of habitat restoration for trout on Forest Service land, reconnection of the Colorado River around Windy Gap Reservoir and irrigation certainty for working ranches in Grand County.
But concerns raised by people on the Front Range should not be overlooked. Denver Water plans to triple the size of Gross Reservoir to store more water, involving a massive construction project and millions of tons of concrete and steel. While temporary, the impacts to local communities may be significant. Opposition to expanding Gross is legitimate, and Denver Water must address local concerns as it works to mitigate those impacts.
The mitigation and enhancement commitments for the Colorado River present a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore the river. Without these commitments, tied to federal permitting of these projects, conservation organizations, county governments and ranchers will not be able to halt degradation of Colorado River headwaters.
We all recognize the importance of the Colorado River and its tributaries on the West Slope for recreation, the environment, agriculture — for our quality of life. We must also recognize that the Colorado River is and will continue to be a critical resource for the Front Range. If the Colorado River is going to have a future in the face of climate change and increasing demand for water, we need to partner with progressive water utilities like Denver Water to continue to advance sustainable water policy, invest in conservation programs like the System Conservation Pilot Program and Forest to Faucets Program and commit to unprecedented river restoration in the Upper Colorado River.
The water of the past is not coming back. The Upper Colorado River from 50 years ago is not coming back. We have a choice to make. We can choose the path of opposition and animosity, or we can choose the path of collaboration and solutions — and make a real, lasting difference for the river and future generations of Coloradans.
Matt Rice is director of the Colorado River Basin Program
