Headwaters Fall 2005: Rio Grande

BASI

N FO

CUS

The Rio Grande BasinDeclining AquifersPreserving WetlandsRestoring the River

Colorado Foundation for Water Education

1580 Logan St., Suite 410 • Denver, CO 80203303-377-4433 • www.cfwe.org

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education is to promote better understanding of water resources through education and information. The Foundation does not take an advocacy position on any water issue.

STAFF

Karla A. BrownExecutive Director

Jeannine TompkinsAdministrative Assistant

OFFICERS

PresidentDiane Hoppe

State Representative

1st Vice PresidentJustice Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.

Colorado Supreme Court

2nd Vice PresidentMatt Cook

Coors Brewing Company

SecretaryLori Ozzello

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy DistrictColorado

Assistant SecretaryWendy HanophyDivision of Wildlife

TreasurerTom Long

Summit County Commissioner

Assistant TreasurerChris Rowe

Colorado Watershed Network

At LargeTaylor Hawes

Colorado River Water Conservation District

Rod KuharichColorado Water Conservation Board

Becky BrooksColorado Water Congress

TrusteesSteve Acquafresca, Mesa Land Trust

Rita Crumpton, Orchard Mesa Irrigation District

Kathleen Curry, State Representative

Lynn Herkenhoff, Southwestern Water Conservancy District

Jim Isgar, State Senator

Ken Lykens, Denver Water

Frank McNulty, Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources

John Porter, Colorado Water Congress

John Redifer, Colorado Water Conservation Board

Rick Sackbauer, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District

Robert Sakata, Sakata Farms

Gerry Saunders, University of Northern Colorado

Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University

Headwaters is a quarterly magazine designed to provide Colorado citizens with balanced and accurate information on a variety of subjects related to water resources.Copyright 2005 by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. ISSN: 1546-0584

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Colorado Foundation for Water Education thanks all the people and organizations that provided review, comment and assistance in the development of this issue.

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR .....................................................1

IN THE NEWS ......................................................................2

LEGAL BRIEF ........................................................................4

THE RIO GRANDE BASIN .......................................................6

PRESERVING WETLANDS IN AN ALPINE DESERT ...........................8

BIG AMBITIONS: RESTORING THE RIO GRANDE .........................12

DECLINING AQUIFERS ..........................................................15

CFWE HIGHLIGHTS ...........................................................19

ORDER FORM ....................................................................20

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

��

��

��

��

About the Cover: Scott Miller (left) and

Rick Schnaderbeck with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regularly monitor

the health of the San Luis Valley wetlands. Photo by

Cynthia Hunter.

Preserving some of Colorado’s most important

wetland habitat, page 8.

River restoration gets under way on many needy stretches of the Rio Grande, page 12.

Threatening an economy reliant on agriculture, recent drops in the area’s shallow aquifers have required innovative thinking about groundwater man-agement, page 15.

HEADWATERS – FALL 2005 1

Wa†ermarks

Editor and Executive Director

This July, in preparation for this “Basin Focus” issue of Headwaters, I attended the Rio Grande Water Conservation District meeting in Alamosa. Around the state, at board meetings like these, so many of our immediate water policies are hatched—whether at the annual meeting of the local ditch board, or the bi-monthly three-day meetings of the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

I had been forewarned that these meetings in Alamosa were unique because (according to my source) “everyone gets to speak.” Picturing the meeting scenario where comments from the public are relegated to the bitter end and fated to compete with growling stom-achs and the tempting prospect of the rest of our lives—my expectations were low.

But the San Luis Valley writes its own script. A repeat cast of characters works together on wetlands committees, land trusts, conservation district boards—even the 4-H fair. They are neighbors, rivals and friends, and at each meeting where they show up, sit and listen, they show their commitment and pride in this place.

And to my suspended disbelief, everyone at the Rio Grande Conservation District board meeting does get to speak. Each with their own spot on the agenda, gently guided by the Board President Ray Wright, one after the other they all stood and apprised every-one else of their state of the world. A minimum of oratories. These were briefings, not volleys. It was intimate environment, no microphones, computer screens or intimidation. Above all, there was a feeling of mutual interest.

As the basin roundtables which are part of the “Water for the 21st Century Act” begin their first round of meetings, initial commentary has been both hopeful and cynical. Will these meetings bring progress that has managed to evade other efforts? The quality of leadership and participation will be so important.

In each Basin Focus issue, the Foundation hopes to share with other Coloradans and interested readers a glimpse of some unique part of this state. The Rio Grande Basin may seldom make news, but it does have successes to share.

Leadership Rio Grande Style

Cynt

hia

Hunt

er

2 COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION

BOULDER—Conservation, efficiency, reuse and water sharing between cities and farmers are higher priorities than building new reservoirs, concludes a new study just released by a consortium of Colorado environmental concerns. Their detailed report Facing Our Future: A Balanced Water Solution for Colorado takes an alternative look at how to satisfy the state’s growing demands for water.

Conceived by Trout Unlimited, Western Resource Advocates and the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the report rec-ognizes that some new water storage facili-ties will be necessary, but expects projects to meet “smart” storage criteria before they can be endorsed by the environmental community. It also offers a unique strategy for future water management by plac-ing a higher value on conservation and environmental protection than other existing approaches.

Some principles of “smart” water management include more public input, full protection of endangered species and expan-sion of existing reservoirs before developing new ones. In total, the report supplies 10 main cri-teria that smart water supply

or storage projects should meet. For the two river basins in the state facing the greatest population pressures—the Arkansas and South Platte—they sug-gest specific alternatives.

Next to lists of the proposed water development projects in each river basin are lists of the “smart storage” issues that need to be resolved. In regard to the Halligan and Seaman reservoir enlarge-ment projects in northern Larimer County, they recommend that project beneficia-ries (Fort Collins, Greeley and others) “become more water efficient before the enlargements are initiated.” For the Gross Reservoir enlargement and proposed Leyden Gulch Reservoir west of Arvada, one recommendation is to “avoid/offset impacts to Fraser River instream flows.” Water conservation, temporary transfers from agriculture and industry to cities, and reuse (e.g., reuse of wastewater) are also considered in detail.

And it adds up to significant amounts of water available for our growing needs, they assert. According to their calcula-

tions, water reuse projects alone in the South Platte Basin could free-up as much as 120,000 acre-feet of water each year—enough to supply at least that many new households, if not more.

In the South Platte Basin, they esti-mate that if 100 percent of the house-holds converted to moderate xeriscaping (low-water-use landscaping) by 2030, the region could save 224,646 acre-feet of water each year. That is just less than the holding capacity of Dillon Reservoir, one of Denver Water’s main reservoirs.

The state’s projections are some-what different. A recent state-funded study called the Statewide Water Supply Initiative predicts an average statewide water supply shortfall of 20 percent by 2030. And although it concluded that water conservation will be “a major tool for meeting future demands,” its calcula-tions only include so-called “involuntary conservation.” This is the conservation that occurs over time as a result of federal requirements for all new plumbing fix-tures to be more water use efficient.

But the authors of Facing Our Future are convinced there can be more than one blueprint for the state’s future water management.

Bart Miller, a lawyer for Western Resource Advocates and co-author of the report, says he hopes “all the material and analysis will both inform water planning across state, and have conservation groups become more involved in the water plan-ning process.”

As an example he cites the South Platte Basin, which the state study projected would produce approximately 400,000 acre-feet of new water demand. According to Miller, “Our conservation numbers alone could cut that demand in half over the next 25 years through more efficient [plumbing] fixtures or converting land-scapes to more efficient types. This report does not say we have to suffer. It’s about real solutions that take into account our values as a society.”

Downloads of Facing Our Future are available on the following Web sites: www.cotrout.org, www.ourcolorado.org, www.westernresourceadvocates.org If you would like to purchase a hard copy call Kevin Natapow at the Colorado Environmental Coalition, (303)534-7066 x1514.

New Report Promotes “Smart” Water Use and Supply


ognizes that some new water storage facili-ties will be necessary, but expects projects to meet “smart” storage criteria before they can be endorsed by the environmental community. It also offers a unique strategy for future water management by plac-ing a higher value on conservation and environmental protection than other existing approaches.

water management include more public input, full protection of

or storage projects should meet. For the two river basins in the state facing

Conceived by Trout Unlimited, Western Resource Advocates and the Colorado Environmental Coalition, Facing Our Future rec-ognizes that some new water storage facilities will be necessary, but expects projects to meet “smart” storage criteria before they can be endorsed by the environmental community.


DURANGO—Since 2003, the Animas Nutrients Working Group has been sampling the waters of the Animas River Basin to help understand where high concentrations of nutrients may be en-tering the river. Motivated by ropey blooms of green algae that started appearing in the river during the summer of 2002, this unique group of governmental agencies, tribes, cities and water-shed groups from Colorado and New Mexico, is attempting to understand and mitigate the source of the problem.

The algae blooms started south of Durango below several waste-water treatment plants, then later extended several miles north of town indicating other potential sources of pollution. Algae is an indicator of excess nutrients and potentially bacteria in the stream. Algae blooms can strip oxygen from the river which is detrimental to fi sh and bug health, as well as a nuisance for recreation.

Initial monitoring results have found excess nutrients in some sections of river. The group hopes that after 2005 they

should have a much better idea about where these nutrients are coming from.

Using a blend of Colorado and New Mexico sampling pro-tocols, 20 sites are sampled annually during low-water look-ing at total nitrogen, total phosphorous and algae (periphyton), among other parameters. The samples start a few miles below Silverton, and stretch down to the San Juan River in New Mexi-co. In 2005, 10 of the 20 sites will be sampled monthly for most of the same parameters.

This fall, members of the Working Group will be trying to in-crease the number of stakeholders participating in river monitor-ing, and are hoping to start development of a watershed plan for the Animas Basin.

For more information contact Chuck Wanner at the San Juan Citizens Alliance. Phone: 970-259-3583 E-mail: [email protected]

What is Causing Algae Blooms in the Animas River?

DENVER–The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation celebrated the 75th anniversary of its Water Resources Research Laboratory on August 19. Housed at the Federal Center in west Denver, the lab is the only one of its kind in the nation. A quiet cornerstone of modern water storage and development projects, the laboratory has tested and helped engi-neer the design of most all the major dams in the West: Shasta, Hoover, Glen Canyon, Grand Cooley, Imperial, as well as the All American Canal and others.

It started back in 1930 when the Bu-reau was looking to build Hoover Dam—a

project 60 percent larger than any dam ever constructed by the agency. Faced with a disparate group of engineers and scien-tists lacking comprehensive knowledge or experience with dams and hydrology, the government knew it needed to create a brain trust of experts if this massive proj-ect were to succeed.

Their fi rst partner was Ralph Par-shall—inventor of the widely-used Parshall fl ume—who let the group share his labora-tory at Colorado Agricultural and Mechani-cal College—now Colorado State Univer-sity. As the lab grew, it eventually moved to its present-day location in 1946.

Initially the lab was dedicated to dam construction design, fl ood control and other issues related to water management structures. But these days its focus has shifted to address “as-built” issues such as dam safety, better spillways, fi sh ladders and water conservation innovations. At the facility, enormous models replicate the turbulent forces and stresses that uniquely occur when large rivers are dammed. Slow-moving fi sh test the best passages around scaled-down obstructions.

Speaking at the awards ceremony, John W. Keys III, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, complimented the lab’s “engineers, technicians and craftsmen” as they “continue to supply the innovation needed to solve today’s problems.”

The lab is open for tours and school

visits. For more information call Anita Decker at (303)445-2140 or view www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab

Bureau Celebrates 75th Year Anniversary of Water Lab

John W. Keys III, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, congratulated employees of the Water Resources Research Lab on their design innovations used in a majority of the major dams in the West. Keys himself was once an engineer at the lab.

Multiple scaled-down replicas of dam structures fi ll much of the lab. Models evaluate fi sh ladders, spillways and dam safety issues that will be used in facilities from Montana to California.


Traveling 1,885 miles through Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and five Mexican states, the Rio Grande’s history is marked by conflict and debate as countries and states fought for what they believed to be their fair share of the river.

In 1906, treaty negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico established how much Rio Grande water Mexico would receive. But the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas still had no formal agreement on how to divide the waters among them. When farmers in Colorado’s San Luis Valley sought to increase diversions of the river to bring more acreage into production, New Mexico and Texas quickly voiced their opposition. They feared such diversions would compromise the Rio Grande Project, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation system which supplies agricultural irrigation water to those two states.

Although the 1922 Colorado River Compact served as a good model for interstate cooperation, such optimism did not translate into the Rio Grande Basin. Continued opposition from New Mexico and Texas derailed any attempts to come to an agreement. With the prospect of costly litigation at hand, in 1929 the three states eventually decided on a temporary compact which established a commis-sion to resolve disputes. It wasn’t until

December 18, 1938 that a formal compact was signed by the water commissioners of each state.

The 1938 Rio Grande Compact sought to establish an equitable division of the Rio Grande’s water above Ft. Quitman, Texas. Based on data collected at gauging stations from 1928-1938, a sliding scale for water deliveries was established and outlined in the compact’s provisions.

Today, Colorado must deliver different percentages of the total amount of water recorded in the Conejos and Rio Grande rivers and their tributaries, minus 10,000 acre-feet, to the Colorado-New Mexico state line. The compact’s sliding-scale dic-tates what portion of the total flow is delivered. New Mexico’s deliveries are also dictated by a similar sliding-scale.

To help Colorado meet its compact delivery requirements, the Closed Basin Project was completed in 1993. This net-work of 170 wells draws water from the shallow aquifers of the “Closed Basin” which is part of the unique hydrogeologic structure of the San Luis Valley. Scientists think that no water flows out of the Closed Basin and the basin is not hydrologically connected to the Rio Grande River. Large confined and unconfined aquifers in the basin store water—the majority of which is pumped for agricultural irrigation. Wells

from the Closed Basin Project pump water across that hydrologic divide and into the Rio Grande to help meet Colorado’s com-pact obligations.

However, to receive credit for water pumped from these wells, Colorado must deliver water that meets certain guidelines for its salt content. This pro-vision protects downriver users from the low quality water naturally found in these aquifers. The water that infiltrates the aquifers carries heavy loads of salts and other solids left behind by eons of evaporation. Colorado must mix the low quality aquifer water with higher qual-ity water from agricultural return flows and precipitation runoff to ensure that it meets the compact standards.

Salinity is not the only challenge facing the Closed Basin Project. Project planners questioned whether continual pumping of the aquifers would compromise the sur-rounding wetlands. Ralph Curtis, recently retired general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District in Alamosa recalls that “an Environmental Impact Statement was done and it was antici-pated that, yes, the wetlands would be impacted.” To mitigate potential damages to the wetlands within the project area, 5,300 acre-feet of water from the Closed Basin was allocated to two specific wet-

L E G A L B R I E F1938 Rio Grande Compact Meters Water to Thirsty Basin

Cynt

hia

Hunt

er


lands outside the project boundaries. The Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge receives 4,500 acre-feet while the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area receives 800 acre-feet.

The Rio Grande Compact also requires an annual review of water deliveries from all three states. If Colorado and New Mexico are below or above their delivery requirements, they must adjust how much water will be stored in their reservoirs in the coming year. In January of each year, New Mexico or Texas compact commis-sioners may demand that reservoir storage (for all reservoirs built after 1929) be suf-ficient to cover any shortfalls on behalf of Colorado or New Mexico.

Such shortfalls plagued Colorado in the 1950s and 1960s when it failed to meet its compact obligations. By 1967, Colorado had a delivery debt of 940,000 acre-feet and New Mexico and Texas reacted by suing Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado responded by agreeing to immediately curtail its use of water from the Conejos and Rio Grande rivers. Since 1968, Colorado has never failed to deliver its required water allot-ments to the other states.

At the same time, however, these cut-backs complicated matters in Colorado. Although the compact outlines two sepa-rate delivery schedules for the Conejos

and the Rio Grande, the two rivers had been historically operated as though they were one river.

Over time, the state engineer worked with water users along these two rivers to devise a scheme by which surface diver-sions could be limited, ensuring that flows leaving the state met the compact’s pro-visions. Through a lengthy, tumultuous period of negotiations and law suits, oper-ating criteria were finally enforced by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1983 which upheld the two river management system outlined in the original compact.

Every five years, the Rio Grande Compact Commission convenes to review and amend the compact as necessary with any changes approved by the state legis-latures and Congress. Changes have been very limited. In 1948, the Commission agreed to discontinue use of a few gaug-ing stations in New Mexico while altering New Mexico’s water delivery schedules. And although the three states have faced their share of challenges in dividing the Rio Grande’s water since this resolution, no other amendments have been made to the original 1938 compact.

Compared to other rivers governed by multi-state, multi-nation compacts, the conflicts facing the Rio Grande are relatively few. David Robbins, attorney

for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, attributes that in part to the structure of the compact. “Because the compact has specific schedules of deliv-ery for both Colorado and New Mexico, with provision for shortfalls and over delivery, it is pretty easy to operate,” he says. This format has allowed water man-agers to better adapt to the Rio Grande’s variable flows while ensuring that water rights are met.

Yet, as water demands increase from growing cities up and down the Rio Grande, not to forget recreational needs and shifting environmental priorities, the Rio Grande compact will surely be put to additional tests. ❑

The current Rio Grande Compact Commissioners are:

Harold “Hal” Simpson (CO)John D’Antonio (NM)Joe Harmon (TX)Bill Ruth (Federal Representative)

The state engineer acts as the compact commissioner for Colorado and New Mexico while a Governor appointee represents Texas. A federal representative is appointed by the President of the United States and serves as Chairman of the Commission.

L E G A L B R I E F


Rio Grande Basin

The headwaters of the Rio Grande Basin help feed a river system that produces the fi fth-longest river in North America. Traveling 1,885 miles from its headwaters to its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico, the

Rio Grande carries water from three states in the U.S. and fi ve in Mexico.

The Rio Grande’s headwaters begin at Stony Pass in Colora-do’s San Juan Mountains. Flowing east, the river passes through the town of Creede on its way into the San Luis Valley where runoff from both the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo mountains empties into its quickly descending banks. The river also feeds the valley’s aquifers and extensive wetlands that provide ideal habitat for many plants and animals, including the endangered whooping crane.

The San Luis Valley also contains the Closed Basin, a unique geologic structure in the northern part of the valley that scientists believe is hydrologically disconnected from the Rio Grande. To help meet Colorado’s interstate water delivery obli-gations, water is pumped out of the Closed Basin and into the Rio Grande each year.

The Rio Grande travels approximately 175 miles in Colo-rado before it crosses into New Mexico. Its primary tributary in Colorado is the Conejos River that joins the Rio Grande south of the city of Alamosa. Other small tributaries include the Ala-mosa River and La Jara and Trinchera creeks. The Rio Chama also begins in the Colorado’s southern San Juans, but joins the Rio Grande in New Mexico. This tributary is an important com-ponent of the San Juan-Chama Project that diverts water from Colorado’s Western Slope to urban centers in New Mexico.

WATER PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS

WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Water conservation districts are the local water-policy making bodies created by the Colorado General Assembly “to protect and develop the water to which Colorado is entitled.” One district covers the entire basin: the Rio Grande Water Conservation District in Alamosa.

WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICTS

Water conservancy districts are local governmental agen-cies originally created to construct, pay for and operate water projects. There are five districts in the Rio Grande Basin: Alamosa-La Jara, Conejos, Costilla County, San Luis Valley and Trinchera.

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-DISTRICTS

Two sub-districts are currently under development. One sub-district is pending in water court.

LOCAL WATERSHED GROUPS

Alamosa River FoundationColorado Acequia AssociationRio Grande Headwaters Restoration ProjectSan Luis Valley Ecosystem CouncilSan Luis Valley Wetlands CommitteeWillow Creek Reclamation Committee


Groundwater Sources in the San Luis ValleyUnconfi ned Aquifer Confi ned Aquifer

Aquifer Characteristics 40 to 100 feet thickUnconsolidated alluvial sand and gravel.Clay layers separate the unconfi ned from the confi ned aquifer.

500 to 4,000 feet thick and estimated to average 2,000 feet thick across most of the San Luis Valley.Upper portions same as unconfi ned. Sandstones and fractured volca-nic rocks in deeper portions.

Major Recharge Sources Percolation of surface water runoff from streams along the periphery of the valley where the clay layers are not present.Ditch and canal leakage. Irrigation return fl ows.

Deep percolation of surface water from streams on alluvial fans along the periphery of the valley where the clay layers are not present.

Yield Up to 1,500 gallons per minute on the west side of the val-ley. Typically 50 to 700 gpm in the central and eastern parts of the valley.

Deep percolation of surface water from streams on alluvial fans along the periphery of the valley where the clay layers are not present.

Water Quality Usually acceptable for potable use, although in localized ar-eas of the central valley nitrate, sodium and total dissolved solids concentrations are high.

Typically acceptable for potable use.

ReservoirsActive Capacity (af)

SanchezPlatoro

Rio GrandeSanta MariaContinental

Mountain HomeTerraceLa Jara

SmithBeaver Park

Eastdale No. 1Eastdale No. 2Big Meadows

Head Lake

103,114 59,571 52,192 43,826 22,679 17,374 15,182 14,052 5,808 4,758 3,468 3,041 2,436 1,500

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Rio Grande silvery minnow was designated an endangered species in 1994. Once found throughout the river system in New Mexico, Texas and Mexico, the silvery minnow now occupies only five percent of its historic range. In 2000, 20 groups throughout New Mexico formed the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program to help manage the fish’s recov-ery through habitat conservation and restoration, scientific study and better river management.

Rio Grande

• Del Norte

• Alamosa

• Saguache

• Antonito

Cynt

hia

Hunt

er

New Mexico


The San Luis Valley of southern Colorado is known as an agricultural land of plenty. Its potatoes, wheat, alfalfa, barley and other bounty make their way to feedlots and dinner plates throughout the region. However, meteorologists say this breadbasket is technically a desert, averaging less than 8 inches of precipitation per year.

This puzzling contradiction is even more striking in view of the valley’s abundant wetlands. This alpine desert boasts more than 230,000 acres of wet, marshy grassland that is home and vacation resort to an array of wildlife that would make John J. Audubon’s palms sweat.

It’s been that way since before humans roamed the Earth, according to Ron Garcia, deputy manager of the Alamosa-Monte Vista Wildlife Refuges.

“It’s the layout of the valley,” says Garcia, “We’re between two mountain rang-es, the San Juans and the Sangre de Cristos, and we get massive spring runoff.”

Preserving Wetlands in an Alpine DesertBy Marcia Darnell / Photos by Cynthia Hunter


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has invested significant resources into the San Luis Valley wetlands in an effort to enhance what some call Colorado’s most important wetland habitat. USFWS employees Scott Miller (left) and Rick Schnaderback monitor how the area’s unique meadow wetlands are faring in the midst of drought and competing water needs.


The northern part of the San Luis Valley is a closed basin, meaning that snowmelt and rainfall stay in the valley and don’t drain into a river. That water seeps into groundwater aquifers with high water tables, keeping the ground wet and creating perfect habitat for many species of birds, including ducks, geese, and cranes. Ancient petroglyphs near Del Norte depict cranes arriving in the Valley long before before written history.

“The San Luis Valley is Colorado’s most important wetlands habitat,” Garcia says. When settlers first arrived in the mid-1800s, the plentiful water led them to become farmers, and their artesian wells further enhanced the wetlands by bringing groundwater to the surface. Today, those wetlands serve as farmland, ranch land, water storage, wildlife habitat, plus aquifer recharge and water purification systems.

“The San Luis Valley is unique in that we don’t have deep ‘cattail-like’ wetlands,” says Garcia. “Instead we have shallow ‘wet meadow’ wetlands. It’s a function of the valley being so flat.”

Those wet meadows are also perfect for raising hay, barley and other grains. In some regions this might translate into con-flict between the needs of wildlife habitat and commercial agriculture. But coopera-tion is the name of the game in the San Luis Valley, where government agencies, private groups, non-profits and individu-als routinely work together to protect the land and water.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service offers its Private Lands Program to help private landowners create and enhance wetlands. About 70 percent of the nation’s wetlands are on private property. Rick Schnaderbeck runs the USFWS program in the San Luis Valley.

“When we help create a wetland, we don’t like to see a typical duck pond,” he explains. “A duck pond is too deep, and we don’t grow the invertebrates that the birds feed on. We prefer a hay meadow, with a maximum depth of 6 inches of water.

“Our goal is much like a rancher’s,” he says, “to grow more grass.”

The program has very little bureaucracy; a typical contract with a landowner runs a page and a half. That encourages participa-tion among the agricultural community.

Schnaderbeck and his crew help ranchers and farmers improve their water delivery systems to enhance grass growth and nests. Over a 30-year period, the areas monitored averaged 1,300 nests per

square mile, one of the most productive wetland areas in the U.S.

“Ranchers are usually pleased to hear we value their hay meadow as much as they do,” says Schnaderbeck, “and that we can increase hay production as well as wildlife.

“A good hay meadow is a very good thing for wildlife,” says Schnaderbeck, “and barley is good bird food.”

That lush banquet and habitat are attracting more birds every year, including northern harriers, peregrine falcons and wintering bald eagles. The snowy plover, a species on the endangered species list, has been seen in the valley, and pelicans are making an appearance, making this alpine desert look a lot like a beach.

Another example of the valley’s broad-based cooperation is the San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee. Established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the committee is an amalgam of land and wildlife management agencies, focus groups, land trusts and interested individuals. Their monthly meetings are open to everyone. Rio de la Vista is the committee’s coordinator.

“This is one of the largest areas of wet-lands in Colorado,” de la Vista says, “and a lot of it is formed by agricultural water. What we try to teach landowners is that with the right management and vegetation mix, it can be great wildlife habitat, too.”

The committee’s focus is on conserva-tion of private, rather than public, land. It seeks to conserve and restore open space through buying easements and educat-ing landowners, and raise money for the cause.

They’ve distributed two $1 million grants thus far, and have applied for a third. In addition to buying conservation easements to permanently preserve land from development, they educate land-owners about preserving and managing wetlands in the valley.

“The education comes one landowner at a time,” says de la Vista.

“Usually if you just change the water distribution, you get the desired plants.”

Catherine McNeil is one of the private landowners who cares. She and her hus-band, Mike, farm and ranch near Monte Vista. She is also a cofounder of the Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust and the Rock Creek Project, both of which aim to preserve land.

“We feed a lot of birds,” she says. “We try to time our planting and harvesting to

make that habitat better. It benefits the animals and it benefits the McNeils.”

The couple also uses conservation ease-ments as a way to preserve their land for the future. They’re part of the Fish & Wildlife Service’s Private Land Partners program.

“Fish & Wildlife is great,” says Cathy McNeil, “and because of our easements, this land will never be developed.”

Even groups who don’t focus on wet-lands are pitching in. The Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project is working to restore the river from its source to the New Mexico border. Riparian areas, nar-row strips of habitat along the river, are important to the birds living in the wet-lands. Project manager Mike Gibson tries not to lose sight of that.

“If we have the opportunity, we try to restore an area naturally,” he says, “mostly by changing or preserving the hydrologi-cal system in the area.”

Chris Canaly runs the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, whose mission is to protect and restore the ecosystems of the upper Rio Grande bioregion through edu-cation, research and advocacy. It has been in existence since 1995. A 15-year veteran of ecological battles in Colorado, Canaly values the cooperation of public and private entities for the greater good, and is a mem-ber of the Wetlands Focus Committee.

“Rio de la Vista has done a great job of bringing people together,” Canaly says. “She’s a wonderful team builder.”

After battling water developers who sought to export the valley’s water, and battling the federal government into pro-tecting it through legislative fiat, Canaly is happy and relieved to be part of this cooperative effort.

“This is an exciting time to be in environmental work,” she says. “We can accomplish so much more together.”

The wetlands’ circle of care is complet-ed by Ducks Unlimited (DU). The interna-tional wetlands conservation organization has been very successful in the San Luis Valley. Bob Sanders is the regional biolo-gist for the valley chapter of DU.

“We’re like a general contractor,” he says. “We do hands-on management of wetlands on private and public lands.”

Sanders’ group has contracts to man-age the wetlands on several public lands, including the Monte Vista Wildlife Refuge, the emerging Baca refuge, and three state wildlife areas: the Higel, the Rio Grande, and Russell Lakes. Ducks Unlimited also main-tains about 12,000 acres of wetlands under


easements, and provides advice on manag-ing another 20,000 acres in the valley.

The group mows and irrigates acreage and, on request, helps landowners with assessments and advice.

“We’ll get in there and we’ll find graz-ing and check the vegetation,” Sanders says. “We evaluate the land practices and the landowner’s objectives, then advise.”

That advice can include timing of har-vest and grazing to protect wildlife, over several years if the owner requests it.

“Ducks hatch in mid-June,” he explains, “so that means they lay eggs in early May. If you can delay haying or grazing in that area until July 1, the ducks can hatch and grow safely.”

Ducks Unlimited also writes grants, garnering about $10 million over the last decade, and buys easements, trying always to keep water rights with the land. The group also helps landowners make some money from conserving, so a farmer or rancher can protect the open space and still pay off their home or send their chil-dren to college.

“Colorado has a great tax credit sys-tem for conservation,” Sanders says. “It’s head and shoulders above the rest of the nation. My counterparts in the Dakotas

and Carolinas marvel at what we’re able to do here.”

What makes the San Luis Valley unique, ultimately, is its people. The cooperative efforts of government, business and private citizens are greater than the individual.

“We have such a conservation ethic here,” says Sanders. “For me, it might be a focus on wildlife. For a rancher, his fami-ly’s way of life. For someone else, it might be open space. But we work together. The ag community and the water community

make a cohesive team.”Rio de la Vista agrees. “Because of the

cooperation and the resources,” she says, “education is a good investment here.”

“In other parts of the country, getting people to participate in wetlands manage-ment is hard,” says the refuges’ Garcia, “but here in the San Luis Valley, it’s easy.”

It’s that conservation attitude, and the work ethic that goes with it, that makes the San Luis Valley a great home. Even for the birds. ❑

Lush hay meadows at Catherine and Mike McNeil’s Monte Vista area ranch provide prime bird habitat. Conservation easements and cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Partners” program help private landowners like the McNeils enhance their unique San Luis Valley wetlands.

Ducks Unlimited takes an active role in wetlands conservation in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. Bob Sanders helps landowners with everything from conservation easements to advice on grazing practices that protect wildlife.


Although the Rio Grande travels nearly 175 miles before it enters New Mexico, it seems to do so in silence. Isolated from Colorado’s economic and political hubs by the surround-ing mountains, this river basin often escapes the attention its neighboring rivers receive. Even when the non-profit group American Rivers listed the Rio Grande in 2003 as one of the nation’s most threatened, Colorado’s stretch of the river avoided mention. But that has not deterred local groups from working on an ambitious plan to bring the Upper Rio Grande back to vibrant life.

Early on, the Rio Grande Water Conservation District sponsored a “Snag and Drag” program among the local water conservancy districts to clean up an often debris-clogged river. Then in 1999, a newly-formed Task Force began to envision a much larger program that would involve a massive restoration of the many historical functions of the river: fish habitat, graz-ing, irrigation, wildlife preserves, recreation and flood mitiga-tion. Comprised of farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, city officials, and representatives from state and federal agencies, the Task Force set out to assess the river’s needs.

With the guidance of the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, the task force created a technical advisory com-

Big Ambitions: Restoring the Rio Grande By Paul Formisano

Photos by Cynthia Hunter

Mike Gibson, manager of the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, has a difficult task ahead. His organization and their partners, the Colorado Rio Grande Restoration Foundation, have identified a 91-mile stretch of the Rio Grande in need of bank stabilization, better irri-gation diversions, improved grazing management, levee repair and a host of other improvements.


mittee to oversee what became the Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Study. Funded by a $200,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the committee worked with engineering firms and local citizens to outline a series of river restoration projects to help the Rio Grande better fulfill its historic functions. The committee identified six major areas of concern including access to the river for agricultural water diversions, maintenance of riparian habitat, flood plain man-agement, and water delivery obligations required in the Rio Grande Compact.

Mike Gibson, manager of the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy, knew this would be a long-term project from the beginning. “First we had to do the basic homework of under-standing what the river had done historically, so we could identify where we wanted to go. And then we had to start pri-oritizing what parts of the river had the most acute needs.”

Understanding the historic flows of the Rio Grande was no easy task. With the river and its tributaries in continual human use for over a century and a half, the committee had to rely on a variety of field studies and aerial photographs to piece the river’s past together. It also welcomed the advice of local government agencies and landowners famil-

iar with the river’s behavior in earlier years. Combining all this information with visits to other river restoration sites throughout the state, the advisory committee developed a published report in 2001 called The Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project.

The project identifies a 91-mile section of the Rio Grande most in need of attention, stretching from the upstream city limits of the town of South Fork to the Alamosa-Conejos county line. Other river restoration projects often focus on a few hun-dred feet or a several miles. This ambitious project will require a lot of creativity and a massive effort by the valley’s water dis-tricts, local citizens and state and federal agencies.

The study revealed numerous problems with bank and channel stability, riparian habitat and floodplain management. Urban development in the floodplain, outdated irrigation struc-tures, bank erosion, and increasing sedimentation, among other problems, had compromised the river’s historic functions. In response, the advisory committee devised a two-part strategic plan involving structural and non-structural mitigation.

The Monte Vista Natural Resource Conservation Service field office has taken the lead on addressing most of the river’s structural needs. Using the agency’s Environmental Quality

Improvement Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP), recently retired District Conservationist Steve Russell and local landowners worked to construct 42 struc-tures to improve bank stabilization and trout habitat. Russell also helped find funding for another 67 structures.

Thad Elliot, a landowner near Monte Vista, worked with the NRCS to restore the river on his property. “I saw my neigh-bors doing some work on the river and thought it was time to get some work done too,” remembers Elliot. After survey-ing a one-mile stretch on his property, the NRCS agreed to cost-share the con-struction of seven bank stabilizing j-hook structures made with boulders from Wolf Creek Pass. They also reinforced the banks by planting willows.

But some proposed structural improvements have met with objections. Not all river users are in favor of removal of diversion dams or consolidation of ditches. Each improvement will likely need its own set of negotiations. Other structural restoration plans include improved floodplain mapping and chan-nel stability structures between Monte Vista and the county line.

Managing land uses along the river was also identified as a high priority for improving river health. This includes non-structural measures such as better grazing management to reduce damage to riparian areas, adoption of standard operating pro-cedures for ditch and diversion mainte-nance, and sedimentation reduction stud-ies upstream of South Fork.

Scott Miller, a fish and wildlife biolo-gist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is responsible for the river restoration

aspects of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. While the Partners program also helps with wetlands restoration, over the last five years it has also focused on reducing grazing pressure along the river. Intensive cattle grazing removes willow and cottonwood seedlings necessary to regenerate the aging riverside vegetation. That habitat is vital to the southwest wil-low flycatcher, a high priority endangered bird species.

The Fish and Wildlife Service signs 10-year contracts with landowners and then fences out as much of the floodplain as pos-sible. Generally, during the first five years of the program the fenced off area receives no grazing. The next five years a maximum of two weeks of grazing is allowed.

So far the program has protected more than 1,050 acres covering about nine lin-ear miles of river with some sort of graz-ing management. Most of the projects are between the towns of Alamosa and South Fork, with 15 different landowners cur-rently participating.

Some ranchers participate in the program out of concern for how lack of willow and cottonwood regeneration can reduce windbreaks for calving and pasturing livestock. Other landowners may have conservation easements, but according to Miller, “In general, most landowners I have worked with simply care about the wildlife.”

LONG-TERM PLANS

Securing the necessary funding to carry out a 91-mile restoration project is a task that will take decades, if not genera-tions. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District provides small restoration grants to the Alamosa-La Jara, Conejos and

San Luis Valley water conservancy dis-tricts and the Sawatch Creek Water Users Association. Other funding sources include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency non-point source (319) grants adminis-tered through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and grants available through the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Recently, a Colorado Rio Grande Restoration Foundation was organized to oversee long-term restoration plan-ning and implementation. According to Foundation Board President Karla Shriver, “Funding is key. Being able to get funding sources flowing to the NRCS has allowed us to keep going. Landowner cost shares have also helped distribute some of the expense.”

A 2004 Rio Grande Restoration Strategic Plan was also recently com-pleted. The report takes a watershed view beyond the 91 miles identified in the initial study, and helps identify related planning efforts such as the Rio Grande National Forest Management Plan, the Willow Creek Restoration Project in the northern portion of the valley, and the proposed Rio Grande Natural Area.

Steve Vandiver, the newly-appointed general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, doesn’t fault the restoration efforts for moving slowly.

“We have all been putting our heads together to try to figure out how to improve the river, move sediment and make the changes that didn’t get done in years past,” he says. “This river still has lots of troubles we need to address. We don’t have much of a channel in some areas. But nobody wants a canal. We want the river to operate like it’s supposed to.” ❑


The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has been a driving force in working with local landowners to install river stabilization structures that help encour-age sediment transport, reduce erosion, create better fi sh habitat and improve water quality. Improvements are cost-shared with the landowners.


Throughout the last four years, water tables in some of the San Luis Valley’s shal-low aquifers have been dropping like a stone. Some 20 percent of the valley’s total water supply is from groundwater—most of which is used for agricultural irrigation. Groundwater also helps sustain numerous meadow wetlands in the valley, home to abundant wildlife. But as water manag-ers watched the aquifers slide further into decline, it became obvious that even Mother Nature could not bail them out.

Since 1976, the Rio Grande Water

Conservation District has monitored approximately two dozen wells tapping the shallow unconfined aquifer beneath the farms and ranches in the west central San Luis Valley. Up until 2002, the wells charted an uneven course of groundwater ups and downs as dry years in the late 1970s were followed by years of ample snowmelt in the 1980s.

But since 2002, the driest year on record for the Rio Grande, the level of the unconfined aquifer in the study area has dropped by nearly 800,000 acre-feet. And

there’s little sign of reversal, even though the area has begun recovering from the drought and 2005 snowpack levels mea-sured 150 to 170 percent of normal.

Rio Grande Water Conservation District Engineer Allen Davey, keeper of the district’s unconfined aquifer data since the early 1980s, pointed out that at the current rate of pumping, the valley’s underground aquifer will never recover from its diminished condition. Using a recently-completed groundwater model, he predicted a continued decline in aqui-

Declining AquifersSan Luis Valley water users struggle to pump groundwater sustainably By Ruth Heide / Photos by Cynthia Hunter

CHANGE IN UNCONFINED AQUIFER STORAGE

WEST CENTRAL SAN LUIS VALLEY

-1200000

-1000000

-800000

-600000

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

Jan-

76

Jan-

77

Jan-

78

Jan-

79

Jan-

80

Jan-

81

Jan-

82

Jan-

83

Jan-

84

Jan-

85

Jan-

86

Jan-

87

Jan-

88

Jan-

89

Jan-

90

Jan-

91

Jan-

92

Jan-

93

Jan-

94

Jan-

95

Jan-

96

Jan-

97

Jan-

98

Jan-

99

Jan-

00

Jan-

01

Jan-

02

Jan-

03

Jan-

04

Jan-

05

Jan-

06

YEARS

CH

AN

GE

IN

ST

OR

AG

E -

AC

RE

FE

ET

DRAFT - August 18, 2005Data through August 1, 2005

Prepared by Davis Engineering Service, Inc,For Rio Grande Water Conservation Dist.

River water was fi rst diverted north of the Rio Grande using unlined earthen canals constructed in the 1880s and 1890s. Before that time, natural depth to groundwater was reportedly 80 to 100 feet. After several years of irrigation, groundwater levels in the shallow unconfi ned aquifer increased to less than 15 feet below the surface in most areas.

During a drought in the 1950s, a number of wells were drilled into the aquifer and it became a function-ing reservoir that would fi ll with water seeping from canals and fl ood irrigation, to be drawn down by well pumping. However, when fl ood irrigation converted to more-effi cient center pivots in the 1970s, irrigation relied less on river water and more on groundwater pumping. Irrigation became synonymous with pushing the electric switch.

Although the aquifer has seen periodic dips, for example in the 1970s, since the summer of 2001, monitoring shows that water levels have been drop-ping without signifi cant recovery. Water managers are looking toward the creation of groundwater manage-ment subdistricts and land fallowing as potential ways to turn the area’s aquifer back into a functioning, sustainable reservoir.

Rio Grande Water Conservation District Board President Ray Wright, and Alan Davey with Davis Engineering, have been keeping an eye on water tables in the San Luis Valley for decades. Precipitous drops started in 2002. Even with above-average runoff in 2005, aquifer levels are not recovering substantially.


fer levels unless the amount of pumping also declines. “We do not have a sustain-able aquifer system at the rate we are pumping,” he said.

Reflecting on the effect of above-nor-mal snowpack levels this year, Daveys says he “was hoping we would not see additional declines [in aquifer levels]. We might not, but it is going to be close. I expect we will see some decline.”

Like an overdrawn checking account, the valley’s underground aquifer is having a hard time recovering from deficit. “If you take out more than you put in, it is going to go down, and eventually it is going to go dry,” Davey says. “We have to stop using so much water.”

Ray Wright, a long-time San Luis Valley farmer and president of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, adds “The reality that we are using more water than nature is providing becomes really abun-dantly clear when we go through a wet year and do not see any signs of recovery.”

There’s no doubt the situation is seri-ous; the question is what, if anything, can be done besides waiting and hop-ing Mother Nature continues being more generous with snow. Finding that answer starts with trying to understand what, apart from the obvious drought, may be contributing to the aquifer’s depletion.

Davey attributes the depletion in part to expanded irrigation and crops which require more water. For example, the establishment of dairies in New Mexico has created a new market for alfalfa in recent years. San Luis Valley farmers were able to convert ground too rocky for pota-toes into productive alfalfa fields. And alfalfa generally uses more water than other crops grown in the area.

Other changes in farming contributing to expanded water use include the intro-duction of center pivots which allowed more ground to be farmed than before, more efficient farming practices, higher yields and the use of water for soil manage-ment rather than just for producing crops.

THE SUB-DISTRICT SOLUTION

When the drought year of 2002 shut down water deliveries to surface water users in the San Luis Valley, well users were still able to pump. The inequity of the situation prompted a rumbling for the state engineer’s office to start regulat-ing wells in the valley much like they are already managed in the over-appro-priated South Platte and Arkansas river

systems. In those basins, enforcement of well regulations and requirements for court-approved augmentation plans has forced some irrigators to shut down their wells, or spend thousands in legal and engineering fees.

Many San Luis Valley residents did not want to see the same thing happen to them.

One of the most organized approaches to the problem is the creation of ground-water management sub-districts under the umbrella of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. Such districts would enable San Luis Valley water users to reduce their groundwater use in an orga-nized manner, short of state mandates.

Groundwater sub-districts were not well defined until the passage of Senate Bill 222 last year. State Senator Lewis Entz, a San Luis Valley farmer and charter member of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education board, sponsored the legislation which was written specifically for the valley. The legislation provided for the formation of groundwater manage-ment sub-districts as a means of creating localized solutions to protect senior water rights, replenish the water table, and com-ply with the state’s obligation to deliver a portion of the basin’s annual river flow to downstream states under interstate com-pact agreements. And it allows for greater input and participation from the farmers and ranchers affected.

Doug Shriver, one of the proponents who testified before the legislature in sup-port of the bill, explains that “Senate Bill 222 allows us to work together as a team.”

Shriver is a second-generation San Luis Valley farmer whose father Henry began farming in the valley in 1946. Using a com-bination of wells and surface water rights, Doug, his wife Karla and Doug’s brother raise potatoes and wheat on a farm halfway between Monte Vista and Alamosa.

Doug Shriver says he became involved in water issues because he wanted to be proactive. “I feel it is important that we handle our own problems, and this is an opportunity for us to fix those problems ourselves rather than have the state fix them for us. It really is the right thing to do, because we caused the problems.”

“We cannot continue going down the path we are,” Karla Shriver adds. “We have to come up with a solution.”

Senate Bill 222’s solution is based on a “pay to play” concept which allows sub-districts to levy fees. Everyone in the

sub-district pays a flat fee to participate. Additional fees are based on usage of water compared to the surface water supplied to the system for any piece of ground. Lands with no surface rights pay the most while lands with adequate surface water for their needs pay the least.

The goal is to fallow, meaning refrain from growing crops or irrigating, a certain amount of land within the sub-district. This helps replenish the underground aquifer and protect those who have sur-face water rights. Farmers who intention-ally take land out of production will be compensated through fees paid to the sub-district combined with compensation from programs such as the federal Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

Two sub-districts are underway at this point. Groundwater Management Sub-district #1 is still in the process of gath-ering signatures from landowners, while Groundwater Management Sub-District #2 gathered enough petitions to suc-cessfully request approval from the Rio Grande Water Conservation District this summer. The next step will be going to District Court for approval.

Subdistrict #2 will encompass some 30,000 acres south of the Rio Grande River. Groundwater Management Sub-District #1 encompasses approximately 200,000 acres in the Closed Basin area, considered closed because of a natural topographical divide which presumably prevents water which flows into the basin from moving toward the Rio Grande River.

So far nearly 51 percent of the land-owners managing approximately 98,000 acres have signed up in Sub-District #1. Organizers have set a goal of approximately 110,000 acres. Current requirements are that at least 51 percent of the landown-ers, owning at least 51 percent of the land within a potential sub-district, must for-mally request the formation of the district through a petition process before it can be submitted to the water district and subse-quently the District Court for approval.

Other potential sub-districts have been discussed but none have begun the peti-tion process. Wright estimates as many as 6 or 8 sub-districts could be formed throughout the San Luis Valley.

Wright added that in order for the closed basin sub-district to be effective, it would have to raise between $1.5 mil-lion and $4 million in fees per year. In addition, he estimates as many as 50,000 acres would need to be idled in the closed


“We cannot continue going down the path we are, we have to come up with a solution.” — Karla Shriver

Karla and Dave Shriver are participating in one of the fi rst groundwater management sub-districts in the San Luis Valley.


basin sub-district area to help recharge the aquifers sustainably.

AN OBJECTION OF EQUITY

Not everyone is happy with the pro-posed sub-districts. A group of potential objectors say they are not being given enough credit for their water rights.

“We are not really opposed to the sub-district,” says objector Richard Benton, a stockholder on the Rio Grande Canal. “We are just trying to get some equity out of our water.” Benton says he does not believe the Rio Grande Canal is getting enough credit in the proposed sub-district structure for the water it contributes to the Closed Basin.

He said he and others who share his views have met with the sub-district organizing committee and the Rio Grande Canal’s representatives for the proposed sub-district but did not feel they made much progress in reaching a compro-mise. “They have the impression we are opposed to the sub-district, and we are not. We want clarity of rules and regs and we want these things stated before we vote. They are asking us to sign a contract without the terms.”

Benton, who raises alfalfa and cattle, has been farming for 30 years.

“We all know and accept the fact that something needs to be done and has to be done. It’s just we felt there are more options than what they are giving.”

But Rio Grande Water Conservation District Board President Ray Wright says that those designing the closed basin sub-district have tried to recognize the value and role of surface water rights in

recharging the groundwater system. The sub-district proposes to include acreage with good surface water rights, acreage with inadequate surface rights and acreage with no surface rights.

Faced with continued disagreement, in early August the organizing com-mittee for Groundwater Management Sub-District #1 announced it was con-sidering changing the boundaries of the sub-district to exclude those who do not want to be in it. If the boundaries are altered to encompass the acreage already signed up, the sub-district could move forward. But altering the boundaries might not be the right solution, Wright admits. In the long-term, he feels, the nature of the common aquifer in the closed basin area requires everyone to participate to make it work.

Benton says he believes changing the boundaries now will only cause more

problems. “They are trying to redraw all this while in the middle of the game. That’s going to open another battle if they think they are going to do that.”

UNCERTAIN FUTURE

Many San Luis Valley residents still fear the threat of state well regulations. In many visits to the valley, Colorado Division

of Water Resources State Engineer Hal Simpson stressed that if valley residents did not do something, he would have to. He strongly encouraged valley residents to participate in sub-districts to avoid state regulation, noting that he would not wait indefinitely before proceeding with groundwater regulations.

Wright explains that if the sub-dis-tricts are not successful, the next best solution might be for San Luis Valley residents to work as closely with the state engineer as possible to draw up rules which recover the aquifers and pro-tect surface water rights without causing wholesale devastation.

“I think it is inevitable that ground in the San Luis Valley is going to be fallowed whether by sub-districts or CREP or well regulation or simply running out of ade-quate supplies of water,” Wright says. “We are going to see the scale of irrigated agri-culture here in Division 3 reduced because Mother Nature demands it.”

Benton predicted water would some-day be exported from the area because it would be more economical for farmers to sell it to Front Range cities than try to keep it on their farms. An acre-foot of water would stretch much farther in sup-plying urban residents with water than providing water for agriculture, Benton adds, and cities can afford to pay for the resource because they can spread out the cost among the city residents. “It’s just a matter of time.”

Farmers like Doug and Karla Shriver and Ray Wright are not willing to sur-render their way of life so easily. “I still feel that agriculture can come up with a way to work out this problem, and I think all of us can do something,” Doug Shriver says.

Although Wright says his three daugh-ters are not likely to continue his agricul-tural legacy, he is passionate about pre-serving it just the same. “I do care about the valley,” he says, “and think I am in a position to understand what we are facing whether it feels like ‘Chicken Little’ or not. [We have] to try to come to some resolu-tion without a wreck.” ❑

of Water Resources State Engineer Hal Simpson stressed that if valley residents did not do something, he would have to. He strongly encouraged valley residents to participate in sub-districts to avoid state regulation, noting that he would not wait indefinitely before proceeding with groundwater regulations.

tricts are not successful, the next best solution might be for San Luis Valley residents to work as closely with the state engineer as possible to draw up rules which recover the aquifers and pro-tect surface water rights without causing wholesale devastation.

the San Luis Valley is going to be fallowed

“I think it is inevitable that ground in the San Luis Valley is going to be fallowed whether by sub-districts or CREP or well regula-tion or simply running out of adequate supplies of water,”

— Ray Wright, President, Rio Grande Water Conservation District

Not everyone is ready to sign up for the sub-districts. Those with signifi cant surface-water rights want to make sure they are adequately compensated for the value of those rights. Richard Benton, a stockholder in the Rio Grande Canal, is committed to negotiating a deal that balances the needs of those with little or no surface water rights with those invested in good rights.


CFWE: Over the years, there have been serious attempts to pump San Luis Valley groundwater to other regions. In the early 1990s, American Water Development Inc. tried to get per-mission to suck millions of gallons of water from beneath the valley, and was defeated. What did you learn from that battle?

CURTIS: I guess what I learned, most importantly, was how the valley as a whole came together. They all could see it as a threat from one end of the valley to the other. And it was just amazing the response the local citizens gave. We were all reading from the same book, from the same page.

CFWE: Then several years later local rancher Gary Boyce and Stockman’s Water attempted a similar scheme. He even took two ballot initiatives to the voters seri-ously challenging the basic operation of your district. It looked like you were outgunned by high-paid lobbyists and deep-pocketed financiers. What made your strategy to defeat these Goliaths successful?

CURTIS: We had a lot of people working for us. People would go up to Denver from the valley, or go to Kiwanis Club or other civic meetings [around the state]. These were people from the valley, they lived there. We had great support from the League of Women Voters. And of course Dick MacRavey and Wally Stealey and the [Colorado Water Congress] put together a good campaign. And [its proponents] just couldn’t get the people of the State of Colorado to buy it.

But I still thought, ‘This thing’s going to go.’ I couldn’t believe when it came out 75 percent against it. I thought, ‘the people of the State of Colorado really aren’t that naïve about what’s going on.’

CFWE: Looking back over your 25-year tenure at the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, how do you think state water management strategies have changed?

CURTIS: State water management strategies did change some. But they did not change that much until the drought. And that’s when all this leasing water for fisheries, leasing water from the Arkansas Valley to Aurora, or what they call these ‘dry year leases’ started to happen. That was going on before, but it wasn’t institutionalized. It was not codified in

law. And it is my understanding that there will be a bill coming out this legislative session that will try to carry that a little bit further.

I think we have seen some real drastic changes in the way we are try-ing to make water available for every-body, and—unfortunately—support the growing population of the metro area, just through these innovative ways of doing business.

CFWE: Is there any one big issue that you are most concerned about for the valley’s future? CURTIS: Living within our means, as far as water supply is concerned. For those people who only have surface rights, when there isn’t any water in the stream for their priority, they don’t

irrigate. But people who have wells, they continue to irrigate. And what we have found out, particularly in that intensively farmed area north of the Rio Grande—they’ve pumped the bottom out of the barrel.

And we are trying to get a groundwater management sub-district up there, and it is like pulling teeth…In other areas, people are very interested in trying to put something together...A lot of people will say, ‘Oh, the State Engineer will never come in here and regulate wells.’ And Hal Simpson has told them several times, ‘If you don’t do something, I’m going to be here.’

CFWE: What is your hope for future generations of water man-agers around the state?

CURTIS: I guess the best way to say it, is to go back to the philosophy that manager Chips Barry has for the Denver Water Board…that Denver Water is kinder and gentler than it used to be. It’s no longer, ‘I don’t care what you say. I am going to come over here and take your water, and you aren’t big enough to fight me.’

I think the future water managers are beginning to realize that, and you are going to start seeing a lot more cooperation, a lot more dialogue. I think people are realizing today that it is just too costly to have litigation to fight these things. But it’s going to get tougher, because there are more non-traditional uses of water coming onboard…How do we accommodate them all and bring them into the system? Because we are a recreational state in a lot of ways. ❑

An Interview with Ralph CurtisRecently retired as manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation

District, Ralph Curtis spent 25 years shepherding the district through

water grabs, droughts and aquifer declines. A native of the San Luis

Valley and a life-long resident of Saguache, Curtis agreed to be inter-

viewed by the Foundation in September 2005.

Support the Foundation’s efforts to provide balanced and accurate information on water resource issues. All members receive regular updates and notices on new Foundation products and events, 10 percent discount on all publications and event registrations, and FREE subscriptions to the quarterly Headwaters magazine. Your membership contribution is tax-deductible, in accordance with state and federal laws.

Charter member - $2,000 or more Up to 10 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine FREE set of Citizen’s Guides and posters Special recognition in CFWE publications & eventsPioneer member - $1,000 Up to 7 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazine FREE set of Citizen’s Guides and postersSustaining member - $500 Up to 5 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazineAssociate member - $250 Up to 3 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazineWatershed member - $100 2 FREE annual subscriptions to Headwaters magazineIndividual member - $50 FREE annual subscription to Headwaters magazineStudent member (currently enrolled students only) - $25 FREE annual subscription to Headwaters magazine 50% off products and event registrations

I / we would like to become a member at the level as described above.

CONTACT NAME:

COMPANY OR AFFILIATION (if applicable):

How would you like this membership listed? Under my name. Under my company’s name.

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE:

EMAIL:

Watershed membership and higher: If you do not require all the subscriptions for your level of membership, please indicate the number desired:

If you would like the subscriptions sent to other people in your organization or to different addresses, please enclose a list with this form.

CHECK ENCLOSED (Make check payable to Colorado Foundation for Water Education)

VISA MASTERCARD AMEX DISCOVER

CREDIT CARD NUMBER: EXPIRATION:

NAME ON CARD:

CARDHOLDER’S SIGNATURE: DATE:

Mail or fax with payment to Colorado Foundation for Water Education1580 Logan Street, Suite 410 • Denver, CO 80203

fax (303) 377-4360or order online at www.cfwe.org

Thank you for supporting non-advocacy water resource information and education in Colorado!



Contact name: Company (if applicable): Address:Phone or email (in case there is a problem or delay filling your order):

Check enclosed Visa Mastercard Discover AmexCard number: Expires: Name on card: Signature:

Item Quantity MemberPrice

Non-MemberPrice Total

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Law: 2004 revised edition Explores the basics of Colorado water law, how it has developed, and is applied today. Updated for 2004 with important changes based on new legislation in 2003. 33 pages, full color.

$7.20 each;$5.40 each

for 10 or more

$8.00 each;$6.00 each

for 10 or more

$

Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Protection For those who need to know more about Colorado’s complex regulatory system for protecting, maintaining, and restoring water quality. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Conservation Highlights current water conservation technologies, incentive programs, regulations and policies promoting efficient water use in Colorado. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Water Heritage Explore how water shaped Colorado’s culture, history and identity with Native American, Hispano and Anglo contributions during the “settling in” period of the state’s first hundred years. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Where Your Water Comes From Explains how weather patterns and aquifers supply the water we use. Summarizes the intricate distribution systems Coloradans have developed to deliver water to our farms and cities. 33 pages, full color.

Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Water Heritage: The Environmental Era Second in our water heritage series, six essays by leaders in the environmental movement and Colorado history take the reader through the awakening of Colorado’s environmental consciousness. 33 pages, full color.

Headwaters Magazine Our quarterly magazine features interviews, legal updates, and in-depth articles on fundamental water resource topics. Available by subscription or free with your membership, Headwaters keeps you up-to-date and informed about water resource concerns throughout the state.

FREE $25 annually $

Colorado: The Headwaters State Poster An overview of the major lakes, reservoirs and rivers in Colorado and describes how humans and the environment rely on these resources. 24”h x 36”w.

Free (plus shipping)

Water History Poster An archaeological and historical timeline of Colorado’s water resources and their development from circa 14,000 B.C. to the present. 36”h x 24”w.

Free (plus shipping)

Colorado Mother of Rivers Collection of 218 water poems by Colorado Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs book challenges readers to extend their thinking about the wonders of Colorado’s rivers. 190 pages.

$8.95 each; $6.25 each

for 10 or more

$9.95 each; $6.95 each

for 10 or more

$

SUBTOTAL

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING SHIPPING CHARGES TO YOUR PAYMENT:CITIZEN’S GUIDES and HEADWATERS 1-2 guides, $3.00. 3-5 guides, $5.00. 6-10 guides, $7.25. 11-20 guides, $9.50. 21-30 guides, $12.25.

COLORADO MOTHER OF RIVERS 1 copy, $4.00. 2 copies , $5.00. 3-5 copies, $7.75. 6-10 copies, $10.50.POSTERS 1-5 posters = $3.50.

Please call the CFWE office at (303) 377-4433 for shipping larger quantities than are listed here.

$

TOTAL $

Mail or fax with payment to CFWE, 1580 Logan Street, Suite 410, Denver, CO 80203, fax (303) 377-4360, or order online at www.cfwe.org

2006 Water Leaders CourseThis innovative year-long course

offer 12 emerging Colorado pro-

fessionals the opportunity to

hone their leadership skills with

an emphasis on water resource

issues. Attendees may come

from any sector: agriculture,

law, government, environ-

mental activism, recre-

ation, engineering, or

other fields where water

resources are an issue. Candidates

should exhibit clear leadership potential within

their own organization, and have on-the-job experience ranging

from 5-10 years.

Applications available on the Web, www.cfwe.org, or by calling the CFWE office (303)377-4433

• Quarterly leadership trainings

• Executive coaching sessions

• Mentoring opportunities with major water leaders

• Registration to two water conferences included

• Tour the state and learn about water management first hand

• Network with colleagues statewide

Tuition: $1,850* Two scholarships available.

Location: Meetings statewide

Application Deadline: December 1, 2005

Questions? Contact Karla Brown, CFWE Executive Director

([email protected])

* Includes registration to two water conferences, meals, lodging, all materials, leadership training sessions, executive coaching sessions, tour expenses, and mentor opportunities.

LEADERSHIP TRAININGfor professionals with an interest in water resource issues

This innovative year-long course

offer 12 emerging Colorado pro-

fessionals the opportunity to

hone their leadership skills with

an emphasis on water resource

issues. Attendees may come

from any sector: agriculture,

law, government, environ-

mental activism, recre-

resources are an issue. Candidates

Leadership

Training

for professionals with an interest in

water resource issues

+ Quarterly leadership training sessions

+ Executive coaching sessions

+ Mentoring opportunties with major water leaders

+ Registration to two water conferences included

+ Tour the state and learn about water mngt firsthand

+ Network with colleagues statewide

Co lo rado Foundat ion fo r Wate r Educa t ion

2006 Water Leaders Course

This innovative year-long course offers 12 emerging Colorado professionals the opportunity to develop

their leadership potential with an emphasis on water resource issues. Attendees may come from any sector:

agriculture, law, government, environmental activism, recreation, engineering, or other fields where water

resources are an issue. Candidates should exhibit clear leadership potential within their own organization,

and have on-the-job experience ranging from 5-10 years.

Tuition:

$1,850* Two scholarships are available.

Location:

Meetings statewide

Application Deadline:December 1, 2005

Download applications from our Web site: www.cfwe.org

or call our offices at (303)377-4433

Questions:

Contact Karla Brown, Executive Director

[email protected]

* Includes registraton, meals and lodging at two major water conferences, all materials, leadership training sessions, executive

coaching sessions, tour expenses, and mentor opportunities.

The Colorado Foundation for Water Education is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that strives to promote

balanced and accurate information and education about water resource issues.

presents the

Documents

Headwaters Fall 2005: Rio Grande