In a bid to alleviate concerns over the state’s involvement in a significant water agreement on the Western Slope, a local water district has put forth a compromise proposal aimed at Front Range water providers.
The Colorado River Water Conservation District, led by General Manager Andy Mueller, suggested that the state water board should take a neutral stance on the historical water usage associated with the Shoshone hydropower plant’s water rights. This approach aims to allow a water court to determine the final allocation, avoiding what Mueller described as a potential ‘ugly contested hearing’ at the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB).
Mueller’s email to officials from the Front Range Water Council expressed the River District’s intent to assuage the primary concern raised during a CWCB meeting on May 21, 2025. The River District’s proposal seeks to sidestep a formal endorsement from the state agency regarding a preliminary historical use analysis.
While the River District collaborated with CWCB staff to develop this proposal, it remains uncertain if it sufficiently addresses apprehensions from Front Range stakeholders.
The River District is in the process of acquiring significant non-consumptive water rights from Xcel Energy for nearly $100 million. These rights, linked to the Shoshone hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon, are critical for ecosystem health downstream, as well as for cities, endangered fish species, and agricultural and recreational water users.
In pursuit of this deal, the River District is seeking to establish an instream flow water right to enhance environmental protections tied to the hydropower rights.
This initiative has garnered widespread backing across the Western Slope, with the River District successfully raising $57 million from over 26 local and regional partners. Additionally, a $40 million grant from the Inflation Reduction Act, secured during the Biden administration, is currently on hold due to the Trump administration’s actions.
‘These water rights are foundational to the Colorado River,’ stated Amy Moyer, chief of strategy at the River District. ‘It’s the number one project for the Western Slope. It’s our top priority moving forward.’
The significance of the Shoshone water rights is underscored by their seniority, established as far back as 1902. They possess the authority to compel upstream water users to curtail their usage, thus controlling flows of the Colorado River and its tributaries from the river’s headwaters onward.
However, a primary contention between the River District and the Front Range Water Council involves the historical water usage of the Shoshone hydro plant.
The River District estimates the average annual usage to be approximately 844,644 acre-feet, drawing from data collected between 1975 and 2003. This period was prior to various natural hazards causing disruptions to the plant’s operation.
In contrast, Front Range water providers challenge this figure, arguing that it represents a flawed assessment and could lead to an expanded interpretation of historical water rights. As a result, they have requested a hearing during the upcoming CWCB meeting in September to address these concerns.
‘We are worried that the preliminary analysis presented seems to expand historical use and could lead to potential injury,’ expressed Abby Ortega, general manager of infrastructure and resource planning at Colorado Springs Utilities, during the May CWCB meeting.
Accurately determining the historical usage of the Shoshone water rights is vital, as it will inform future usage limits. While adjustments to a water right’s utilization are permissible through the water court process, any enlargement of that right is not allowed.
Under the River District’s proposal to acquire the water rights, the CWCB must officially register the right and agree to act as a co-applicant in the water court change process.
However, Front Range water providers assert that this step would imply an endorsement of the River District’s historical usage assessment, thrusting the state agency into a conflict between Front Range and Western Slope interests.
‘If you move to accept the right, and it appears to also include the instream flow agreement, you would be agreeing to co-application,’ warned Alexandra Davis, an assistant general manager with Aurora Water, during the May meeting.
Several members of the Front Range Water Council have urged the CWCB to remain neutral in the pending water court matters. In letters dated May 9 and June 9, Marshall Brown, general manager of Aurora Water, articulated that the CWCB should refrain from endorsing specific methodologies or water volumes.
‘… (T)he CWCB should remain neutral in the water court proceedings and defer to the court’s determination of the appropriate methodology and volumetric quantification,’ stated the May 9 letter.
The River District’s proposal aligns with these concerns by suggesting that the CWCB should maintain neutrality regarding the determination of historical usage of the Shoshone water rights.
‘We have listened to the primary issues presented by these entities and are working to forge a collaborative path forward,’ Moyer remarked.
Nonetheless, even if the proposal finds favor with Front Range Water Council members, the likelihood of the cancellation of the scheduled hearing seems slim. CWCB Executive Director Lauren Ris indicated that the board is mandated to conduct a hearing under its existing rules.
Additionally, Jeff Stahla, public information officer at Northern Water, asserted that they would continue to pursue the hearing.
Spokespeople from Colorado Springs Utilities, Aurora Water, and Denver Water refrained from commenting on the River District’s proposal, citing its confidential status.
Beyond the issue of CWCB neutrality, additional concerns have been raised by Front Range water providers that they hope to address in the September hearing.
In a letter dated May 14 to the CWCB, Denver Water’s CEO Alan Salazar emphasized the necessity for continuity of provisions from existing agreements, such as the Shoshone Outage Protocol. This agreement allows Denver Water to continue its diversions during severe droughts when reservoir levels dip below specified thresholds and streamflows are low.
Denver Water also raised issues regarding the River District’s analytical period, suggesting that omitting the last two decades of Shoshone water use skews the overall findings. They contended that utilizing an upstream stream gauge for measuring historical use is inappropriate.
As it stands, the CWCB board meeting is slated for September 16-18, during which the board will determine the future of the water rights acquisition. The board has the authority to either approve, deny, or amend the proposal based on the hearings, pressing for action in September unless the River District grants an extension.
Pre-hearing statements must be submitted by August 4, leading up to the anticipated discussions at the September meeting.
Notably, CWCB board members Brad Wind and Greg Johnson have recused themselves from both prior and future deliberations regarding the Shoshone water rights, ensuring an impartial review process.
image source from：aspentimes
