DWCD lambastes water study

DWCD lambastes water study
Board disputes claim of adequate water for fish

Dec. 16, 2000

By Jim Mimiaga
Journal Staff Writer

Describing it as "fatally flawed," the Dolores Water Conservancy District board on Thursday sharply refuted a hydrology study released last month that claims there is enough available water in McPhee Reservoir to improve downstream fisheries.

"The study’s conclusions have no merit whatsoever because it is based on invalid and biased assumptions," said McPhee manager John Porter. "All the water has been already allocated."

The controversial study has caused increased division between local water developers protecting agricultural interests and national environmental groups advocating improved fish habitats.

The DWCD board fears the information could be used to stop a proposed new reservoir, and may delay, or block, another long-awaited project slated to increase irrigated farmlands served by the Dolores Project in the next few years.

If that happens, the board members indicated they will legally challenge tactics they see as intended to derail plans laid out under the so-called Water for Everyone Tomorrow Package (WETPACK), a long-term, two-part water-development strategy involving the Dolores Project.

Following intensive study and exhaustive preparation, the board is finally poised to expand irrigated lands in Montezuma and Dolores counties by 4,000 acres, thanks to a $7.2 million loan approved in November by the Colorado Water Conservancy Board.

That Phase I project involves purchasing 6,000 acre-feet of water from the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company for $2.25 million and then constructing $5.2 million worth of pumping stations and canal facilities to deliver it to drylands off of the Dove Creek Canal. The purchase water already sits in McPhee, in addition to Totten Lake.

But a final hurdle must first be overcome. The district is awaiting the go-ahead from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which must give a biological opinion regarding the project’s effects, if any, on salinity and endangered fish in the Dolores and San Juan rivers.

The environmental assessment is part of a carriage contract needed when "non-project water" (MVIC) is destined for delivery through a federal irrigation system (the Dolores Project).

The board learned Thursday from Bureau of Reclamation representatives that the USFWS has up to 150 days to decide on the case, a time period that if totally utilized could delay the project until 2002, or quash it completely. DWCD had been tentatively planning to begin construction this spring, pending a favorable opinion.

"The date on this project has slipped and slipped, and it will not slip again without a fight," vowed DWCD board president Don Schwindt. "If they want to play hardball, then that is the road we will take if we lose a year of construction because of this. We have other options available to us."

Initial feedback from the Bureau of Reclamation office conducting the environmental assessment appeared to be in the district’s favor, but Porter reported that the new hydrology report is giving federal biologists pause, specifically on the issue of "salvage water."

That report, released last month by Trout Unlimited and Environmental Defense, concluded that there is 18,000 acre-feet of unallocated water in McPhee Reservoir, which they argue should be used to increase an inadequate fishery pool in the lake reserved for sustaining fish habitat downriver.

The district denies the extra water exists and prefers under Phase II of WETPACK to eventually construct a 120,000 acre-foot reservoir and dam on Plateau Creek, a tributary of McPhee, in order to collect and store the additional 3,300 acre-feet needed annually to bring the pool up to an appropriate level.

The water report, conducted by Colorado engineering firm Hydrosphere, asserts that the MVIC water being proposed for transfer to the district under the Phase I plan is salvage water intended to flow downstream. Trout Unlimited says it cannot be legally sold because it was conserved thanks to a federally funded desalination program.

But reservoir managers and the board criticized the study as invalid, arguing that it is based on inaccurate assumptions and data that shows extra water when there is none. The district claims that:

The study wrongly states that "by 1987 the project was delivering its full supply of water to most of its users." It exaggerates how much water is available (18,000 acre-feet) because it bases the claim on water-use data from the years 1990-1999. Using that period to establish a baseline water use is distorting because then and now, not all of the allocated water has been fully developed, a factor DWCD officials say was either ignored or overlooked.
In other words, the district said, the water has been bought and is stored in the lake, but has yet to be delivered, or "developed" to farmland.
It is not a feasibility study, as the researchers claim, because it fails to take into account cost of acquisition and legal constraints. If Trout Unlimited had wanted a credible study, the DWCD and MVIC would have been given the opportunity for input into the final product.
"If they were serious about scientific study then they would have at least sent a draft to us," remarked Abdel Berrada, a DWCD board member.
The study ignores the legal allocation and obligations the district has to reserve project water for irrigators, cities and towns. That means the water has all been allocated and paid for.
It assumes unused municipal and industrial water (7,120 acre-feet per year) in McPhee is available for other uses. But the district states that the unsold water is leased on a temporary basis by taxpayers.
In a 1995 district-wide mill-levy election, voters approved allowing the district to keep all of its M&I water for future demand. The public has paid for that through the levy, an amount that reached $514,000 in 2000.
"That water is unsold, but it is being held for the future by the taxpayers through the mill levy they passed," Porter explained.
Water saved through lining canals and implementation of sprinkler systems can be sold by contract with the MVIC, which says that any water saved is MVI’s to use, or sell, as long as it is not irrigated on heavily salinated lands.
The report falsely concludes that 16,000 acre-feet of water initially allocated for irrigation is not being used. The district said the water targeted by the study was at the time not being utilized by the Ute Mountain tribe, but since circle farms have been completed on the reservation, it is now being drawn on and therefore is not available for other uses.
The district’s response is being sent off to Trout Unlimited and Environmental Defense. Copies are available to the public from the DWCD office in Cortez. Porter plans to meet with leaders of both groups next week.