Reservoir slog

A plan to significantly rework, and potentially damage, the Cache La Poudre River moves forward

0

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met with the public on July 22 and 23 to discuss decades-long plans to address water needs in Northern Colorado.

The public comment session came about a month after the Corps released its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which was about 12 years in the making. It looked at a number of options for meeting water needs, including building multiple reservoirs and diverting major amounts of water from the Cache La Poudre River.

The Corps ultimately dismissed plans that centered around conservation and efficiency.

The debate on how to acquire the amount of water that the Corps says Northern Colorado needs — about 45,000 acre-feet of water capacity now, with increasing needs in the future — started as soon as the problem was recognized. A conglomerate of 15 water providers in the area, from the Fort Collins Loveland Water District down to Lafayette and all the way out to Frederick, submitted a plan to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to secure that water, and in 2004 the Corps returned with the original EIS. Because the scope of the project was so large; the population in the region had grown so much; and there were so many points of contention in the first study, the Corps came out with a supplemental study — the one that was released last month.

The current plan to meet water needs includes the construction of two reservoirs, the Glade and Galeton reservoirs, which would have a combined capacity of about 200,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped into the reservoirs via a canal built from the Poudre.

The Corps considered alternatives to this plan that were submitted by various groups. In all, the Corps says it considered more than 16 water supply sources and four project alternatives.

One big alternate option to the above plan that includes Glade and Galeton, is the “No Action Alternative,” which assumes the need for 40,000 acre-feet of water as set forth by the Corps (this number is in dispute by some who say conservation and efficiency measures can lower the capacity need). It also would set out to transfer agricultural water supplies from the Poudre and Big Thompson rivers into two existing reservoirs and a third, Cactus Hill Reservoir, that would be new.

Other alternatives include only constructing the Glade Reservoir, diversions to other existing reservoirs and more.

One of the biggest opponents of the current plan is the group Save the Poudre, which points to key errors in the new EIS.

“The main problem is that the proposed project is exactly the same as it was seven years ago,” says Gary Wockner, director of Save the Poudre. “They’re still proposing to drain and destroy the Cache La Poudre River.” 

Wockner says the “No Action Alternative,” outlined above, which serves as a foundation for the study’s look at alternatives, has major issues.

“It was completely flawed because it also required taking water from the Poudre River, building a big reservoir, [which would cost] more than a billion dollars. So we think the entire document is flawed because the comparisons are all messed up,” Wockner says.

As much as 68 percent of the water in the Poudre River would be siphoned off in the current plan, Wockner says, which would have major impacts on the river’s overall health, the associated ecosystems and the agricultural community.

Northern Water, the conglomerate of water districts that put forward the original plan, released a white paper explaining proposed actions that they say would help mitigate environmental concerns. The actions include building new wetlands around Glade Reservoir, repairing nearby rivers and streams, implementing fish passage facilities, and “avoiding impacts to federal and state plant, animal and bird special status species through surveys, habitat protection and relocation if needed.”

Wockner says his group’s research found that an emphasis on conservation, efficiency and working with farmers, who as a group use a large portion of the area’s water, could be enough to avoid massive diversion of the Poudre.

“We put [conservation] in as an alternative, asking that they analyze water conservation as a solution to this problem. They blew it off saying the cities are going to grow too much, too fast. But we think they should start with conservation and then work with farmers,” Wockner says.

The Corps ultimately threw out the conservation alternative, claiming it wouldn’t be enough to adequately address the water needs.

The Corps will now solicit comments on the revised study until Sept. 3. Wockner says his group will be submitting a comprehensive rebuttal to the study, outlining the environmental and logistical issues with the plan as it is. After the comments are received, the Corps will have to begin the long process of securing permits and rights to build the reservoir, but Wockner says it is “far from a done deal.”

“I think it’ll be 10 years before there’s a final determination about whether they can build this project or not,” Wockner says. “And I would encourage any city that wants this water, which includes Lafayette, they need to go to Plan B and find a way to get it sooner and cheaper and easier, and that’s conservation and efficiency.”