Experts doubt a planned Flaming Gorge pipeline will be built, but it could still spark a regional water war

A Colorado man’s suggestion to divert water from Utah’s Green River to the Denver area is growing rapidly – and the objections aren’t just coming from the usual suspects.

Despite increasing water scarcity, states that share the Colorado River are reluctant to openly criticize their neighbors’ water development proposals. But officials in Utah and Colorado are opposed to the latest idea of ​​moving water from the Flaming Gorge to the Denver area.

The Utah Division of Water Resources was among the first to formally object to a request by Fort Collins-resident Aaron Million to export 55,000 acre-feet of water from the Green River, which tapped near Utah’s Browns Park in Daggett County shall be.

Million, who previously unsuccessfully pushed his pipeline idea forward, must obtain the right to use the water from the Utah engineer. However, Eric Millis, director of the water resources division, said the proposal lacks vital details – including whether the water that a million wants belongs to Colorado at all.

“That was one of the things we were looking for [in the application]”Said Millis. “There is nothing to suggest that there is support or assistance or that it is part of Colorado’s division.”

Eight Utah water utilities are also officially denying Million’s request, including the Washington County Water Conservancy District, which is also working with the state to search for Green River water to build the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline to bring in water from the Colorado River Bring St. George.

Million, an entrepreneur and graduate student at Colorado State University, said he wasn’t worried and called Utah’s opposition a mere formality. The states that span the upper reaches of the Colorado River share a “brotherhood,” Million said, and have a long history of working together to help one another use their water resources.

Million said Utah should support the Flaming Gorge pipeline because the goals of its project and the state’s Lake Powell pipeline plan are largely the same.

“They are not competitive,” he said. “They complement each other.”

But several Utah residents, environmental groups and industry associations also reject the Million’s project. But it’s the opposition – or lack of open support – in Colorado for the $ 800-1 billion water proposal that is possibly the most illuminating.

Indeed, the lack of formal government support in Colorado makes this project different for some in Utah, and gives Utah some sort of green light to oppose the plan – though doing so risks upsetting a delicate balance in Colorado River politics.

“Risk and Problem”

The 1922 Colorado River Compact regulates the use of river water and is intended to resolve disputes between the upstream states of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming and their downstream neighbors Arizona, Nevada, and California essentially by dividing the river in half.

The pact requires the Upper Basin states to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year to the Lower Basin.

In 1948, the Upper Basin states wrote a second treaty specifying how they divide their stretch of river. Water was allocated in percent rather than in exact amounts, with Colorado receiving 52 percent of the Upper Basin allotment and Utah 23 percent.

Many experts today believe that the 1922 Treaty overestimated how much water the Colorado River actually contains, possibly shorting out the Upper Basin states. Some doubt that the Colorado, which is now running dry before it reaches its natural confluence with the Gulf of California, has undeveloped water left.

“Throughout the watershed, we have major concerns about how to meet existing demand,” said Jack Schmidt, Janet Quinney Lawson Endowed Chair in Colorado River Studies at Utah State University. “Inserting new diversions … must be viewed as risky and problematic.”

But under the Pact, Upper Basin states still have a legal right to water that they haven’t used, and that has created a tense situation. The top four states usually hesitated to question each other’s water-use plans, Schmidt said, because they didn’t want to attract criticism.

“The states … want to avoid a tit for the act,” said Schmidt.

But some – including a million – believe the Upper Basin states still have water available and should build new water projects to use their allotments before the water is claimed by someone else.

Million said its Green River pipeline is “about developing the compact allocation of the four Upper Basin states, and frankly nothing more”.

Utah should understand, Million said, because its Lake Powell Pipeline – the cost of which is currently estimated at between $ 1.1 billion and $ 1.8 billion – is based on the same reasoning.

‘Rob Peter to pay Paul’

However, Utah officials see no similarities between the Lake Powell and Green River pipelines. Contrary to Utah’s proposal, Millis said the Million Pipeline threatened a critical habitat for four endangered fish – the humpback chub, the razorback sucker, the Colorado pike-mouth, and the osteail chub.

“There are target flows that must be met to aid these fish in recovery,” said Millis. “Utah and the other states of the Upper Basin are very active in supporting this program.”

Water abstraction in Browns Park, Millis said, could endanger the downstream habitat.

The Lake Powell pipeline, on the other hand, would be good for the fish, he said. That plan calls for Utah to receive water rights in the Flaming Gorge, releasing that water to flow through the Green River’s critical fish habitat before eventually arriving at Lake Powell, where the water heads north and west to Washington County in the southwest Utah is pumped.

Million said he was not concerned about the state’s claims about the impact on the Green River. Current climate models, he said, suggest that as the earth warms, the river will become wetter. He notes that this makes a good addition to the rest of the Colorado River, which is expected to be increasingly hit by droughts.

A leading expert on global warming and water supplies with a focus on the Colorado River confirms at least part of Million’s claim. In fact, some climate models suggest the headwaters of the Green River will receive additional rainfall in the future, said Brad Udall of the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University.

But extra rain and snow, Udall said, doesn’t always mean more water in a river – higher temperatures increase evaporation and make plants and soil more thirsty. And even if the Green River swells with new water, the rest of the Colorado will likely only become more dry.

“This could be a situation where Peter is paid by Paul,” Udall said of Millions Project. “By and large, the entire course of the river goes down. Should that happen, it doesn’t make sense to me to take more water from a tributary that actually has water. “

Udall noted that a provision in the 1922 River Treaty states that if the Upper Basin states fail to deliver the required 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin states, existing water projects in Utah and Colorado may have to be closed. This could threaten water supplies in Utah County, which draws water from the Colorado River through the Central Utah Project, as well as the Denver metro area.

“The Upper Basin shouldn’t see any development right now,” said Udall. “Trying to get more water … honestly, it seems risky and dangerous.”

Who want it?

Given the lack of evidence that Colorado officially supports the Green River Project, Millis said the Utah Department of Water Resources is comfortable raising concerns about inadequate water supplies. If official support showed up in Colorado, it would be different.

“We would have discussions with Colorado about how we and they could develop our water in a mutually acceptable way,” he said. “If the state of Colorado supports this project, we would like to have discussions with them.”

Millions rejected concerns about Colorado’s lack of support. Demand in the Denver area has tripled the price of water in the past three years, he said. And his project, he said, was part of the official Colorado water plan.

But Rebecca Mitchell, who oversees the Colorado water plan as director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, said she was not in favor of the Green River pipeline or any other project. She did not want to comment on whether the board supported Millions’ motion.

However, the Colorado River District – an advisory body created by the Colorado Legislature – openly opposes Million’s program.

“The Colorado River District has resisted any speculative project in the past,” a River District spokesman said in an email. “Mr. Million did not disclose who its end users are.”

So Utah seems to have legitimate concerns “whether this is a legitimate project,” said Don Ostler, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission, an intergovernmental agency established by the legislatures of the Upper Basin states.

When these states divided up their water in 1948, Ostler said, they had also agreed that if water were to be moved across state borders, it would be counted towards the receiving state’s share of the river. So it is crucial, he said, that Utah determine whether Colorado officials support this project to clarify which legal part of the river the pipeline will flow out of.

“And as far as I know,” said Ostler, “none of this has been proven.”

“A thousand cuts”

Back in Utah, Schmidt of USU is skeptical that Million will ever get official support from Colorado – but even if he did, Schmidt said, it would have no measurable impact on the entire river flow.

The 55,000 acre-foot-million searches are relatively small compared to the total amount of water in the Green River. Even the larger Lake Powell pipeline, which would span just over 86,000 acre-feet, is a relatively small draw, Schmidt said.

The central question, as Schmidt sees it, is what happens when several small projects are built on the same river. “It’s not so much the number,” he said, “it’s the principle that if you kill the patient with a thousand cuts, you don’t cut the patient again.”

But if Utah is to make that argument, where does the water for the Lake Powell Pipeline come from?

“If there is no water for us,” he said, “there is certainly no water for them.”

And although Millis denied that Utah’s objections to the Green River proposal were linked to its Lake Powell pipeline, others see it as a direct link.

The Washington County Water Conservancy District, the future recipient of water from the Lake Powell Pipeline and a current user of tributaries to the Colorado River, said Million’s proposal could “affect” the county’s ability to draw water from the river.

In a letter to the Water Rights Department, the water district also rates the Green River project as “massive and … extremely expensive to build and maintain.”

Million, the letter continues, “has shown no financial ability to complete the project or that the project is physically and economically viable.”

Countered Million: “I’m not worried at all. … I wish Utah the best of luck with the Lake Powell project, and hope they respect the same on our side of the fence. “