< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
A couple of weeks ago, I made the annual summer visit to Gunnison for the three-day Western Water Workshop, where Referendum A was the hot topic of hallway conversation.
Referendum A, in case you've been hiding in one of Dick Cheney's secure locations this summer, is an item put on the November ballot by our legislature. It would allow the issuing of up to $2 billion in bonds to help fund big water projects selected by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the governor.
In Gunnison, the only people speaking in favor of Referendum A were Gov. Bill Owens, who promoted it for about half an hour before departing without taking any audience questions, and Greg Walcher, director of the state Department of Natural Resources, who did stick around to answer questions.
Walcher said there was a long list -- more than 600 -- of potential water projects that Referendum A might assist. He also made it clear that those projects will not include Union Park or its successor, the Central Colorado Project, that are being promoted by Dave Miller, an independent water developer based in Palmer Lake. These would take water from the upper Gunnison basin and pipe it to South Park for Front Range use.
Miller asked why his projects would not be considered,
since environmental laws require considering all
alternatives. Because nobody besides you wants them,
Dave,
Walcher replied, rather forcefully.
The Gunnison does carry considerable water -- about 1.8 million acre feet in an average year -- but as other speakers pointed out, its flows are already put to the beneficial use of all Coloradans. It helps the state meet its downstream obligations under the Colorado River Compact, thereby enabling diversions from the upper Colorado (Big Thompson Project for northeastern Colorado, Denver diversions from the Blue, Fraser and Williams Fork). It generates electric power at the three Aspinall Unit dams (whose reservoirs are a major recreational and fishing attraction), and it provides stream flows for endangered species, making up for irrigation and storage on the Dolores and Uncompahgre rivers.
Since just about everybody that matters in Colorado appears to be lining up behind Referendum A (no cause for alarm, since the same was true before the 1972 vote that killed the 1976 Winter Olympics), what sort of big water project might work?
Last session, our legislature somehow found $500,000 for
studying the Big Straw,
which would tap the Colorado
River at the state line, then pipe and pump the state's
unused share (about 400,000 acre feet) back up to the
Continental Divide in the general area of Dillon
Reservoir.
But the water doesn't have to come out of the main stem of the Colorado River, so here's a proposal for the Politically Acceptable Big Expensive Water Project. The White River rises in the Flat Tops Wilderness Area north of Glenwood Springs and flows west through Meeker and Rangely before reaching Utah and its junction with the Green, which joins the Colorado in Canyonlands National Park.
The White carries about 600,000 acre-feet in an average year, so Colorado could take 400,000 for the Big Straw. Kenney Reservoir near Rangely could be expanded. The export pipeline would go up Piceance Creek, then down to Rifle, up the Colorado River to Dotsero, then up the Eagle River to go through an unused railroad tunnel under Tennessee Pass and into a reservoir in some canyon above Leadville.
This would avoid wilderness areas, national parks and the like, and the water from the relatively unpopulated White River basin would be cleaner than the stuff in the Colorado below Grand Junction, so treatment costs would be reduced.
Power would be a big issue. The net elevation gain is about 5,000 feet, and we're talking about a trillion pounds of water every year. Figure a six-month pumping season, and this works out to 475,000 kilowatts without considering friction and other losses. Double the power for those factors, and that's a million kilowatts.
But siting a big power plant near Rangely shouldn't be a political problem. Put it in nearby Moffat County, especially in a currently roadless area, with its fuel supply (coal or oil shale) situated likewise, and the Moffat County government should provide enthusiastic support.
This solves most of the Big Straw's problems while providing the same alleged benefits: more water for Front Range real-estate developers. And Moffat County would get the roads, development and pollution it seems to want, which should mute some Western Slope opposition. I don't like these big projects, but this one makes more sense than many others.
However, I'm so modest that I don't want my name on this
proposal. Instead, why don't we honor our governor, and
call it something appropriate like Colorado's Owens
Valley Project
?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >