Four major water providers from the Front Range have expressed apprehensions regarding the Colorado River District’s plans to purchase the Shoshone water rights on the Colorado River.
The providers fear that this acquisition could diminish their water supply, despite the Colorado River District’s insistence that it intends to maintain the status quo for all users.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board is set to hold a hearing in September to formally address these concerns.
The Shoshone water rights are linked to a hydroelectric plant in Glenwood Canyon and are recognized as among the largest and oldest non-consumptive rights on the Colorado River.
Currently, the Colorado River District is leading the effort to purchase these rights from Xcel Energy for approximately $98.5 million.
The rights consist of a senior water right established in 1905, connected to the Shoshone Power Plant, as well as a secondary, junior right established in 1929 for other users, including those from Front Range.
These rights are crucial as they command significant flows from the river, which can influence water availability throughout much of Colorado.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board’s staff acknowledged in a memo that the Shoshone water rights’ magnitude and operational impact could affect a large part of the state.
The Colorado River District has reiterated its commitment to preserving the historic flow rates associated with the Shoshone rights and insists that it does not plan to extend these rights.
“It is our intent to — preserve the historic flows commanded by the Shoshone water rights, not to enlarge them,” stated Matt Aboussie, the district’s communications director.
As of July 1, the district has managed to raise approximately $57.2 million towards the almost $99 million purchase price, thanks to contributions from the state legislature and various Western Slope municipalities and utilities.
The district was allocated $40 million from the Inflation Reduction Act late in the Biden administration, but these funds have encountered complications under the new presidential administration.
Aboussie mentioned that the district is actively engaging with federal officials, including Senator Michael Bennet and Representative Jeff Hurd, in hopes of unfreezing these federal funds.
The Colorado River winds approximately 166 miles through areas such as Grand Lake, Kremmling, and Glenwood Canyon before reaching the Shoshone Power Plant, where water is diverted for power generation and subsequently returned to the river.
However, the four Front Range providers—Denver Water, Northern Water, Aurora Water, and Colorado Springs Utility—have raised objections, questioning the flow analysis presented by the river district.
The providers assert that the district’s methodology overstates historic usage of the Shoshone rights, potentially jeopardizing their ability to supply water to their consumers in the Front Range.
Marshall Brown, the general manager of Aurora Water, voiced concerns in a June 9 letter to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, emphasizing the need to evaluate the acquisition’s implications carefully.
“If, as the River District asserts, the status quo will be maintained, this acquisition can be a win-win for both the Front Range and the West Slope,” Brown noted, highlighting concerns over the increase in Shoshone’s rights possibly impacting water provisions.
Colorado Springs Utility raised similar concerns, warning that any expansion of Shoshone’s rights could decrease the water available for diversion, thereby affecting its existing rights on the Blue River and interests in the Homestake Reservoir project.
“Any reduction in water supplies currently available for a growing community like Colorado Springs results in increased reliance on water derived by changing agricultural water rights in other basins to meet their customers’ demands,” stated Michael Gustafson, Colorado Springs’ senior attorney, in a letter from June 9.
The Front Range providers estimate that the river district’s analysis could overstate historic use of the water rights by approximately 36%.
As part of the acquisition process, the Colorado River District has proposed an instream agreement with the state aimed at promoting environmental use.
This agreement seeks to safeguard and improve the natural environment around the power plant, independent of its operation.
In May, the Colorado Water Conservation Board initiated a 120-day deadline to make a determination regarding the acquisition, which includes a review period for contesting the instream flow use aspect.
The four Front Range water providers officially requested the Colorado Water Conservation Board hold a hearing to ensure the acquisition does not negatively impact current water uses.
The board agreed to this request during a special meeting on July 1, with the hearing scheduled for September.
In response to these objections, the Colorado River District stated that it takes the providers’ concerns seriously but also emphasized the appropriate legal channels for addressing such issues.
Aboussie remarked that while the river district respects the historical use analysis concerns, it emphasized that issues like these fall under the jurisdiction of water courts.
“Colorado’s water courts, not the Colorado Water Conservation Board, have the exclusive legal authority to determine the historical use of a water right in the context of a change case,” he noted.
The legal framework ensures rigorous, fact-based reviews designed to protect all water users.
The ultimate decision on the district’s acquisition will rest with Colorado’s Water Court, which the River District aims to complete by December 31, 2027.
Aboussie reaffirmed the district’s commitment to open dialogue with the providers regarding their concerns through the appropriate legal avenues.
Furthermore, he cautioned against yielding to political pressures that might compromise the flow of the Colorado River for the sake of rapid metropolitan growth in the Front Range.
image source from：vaildaily
