CTU helps put the “water” back in “watershed”

By David Nickum, CTU Executive Director

 

For an angler, the equation seems pretty basic: fish need water – 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  That simple fact, however, can be lost in the complexities of Colorado’s water law, under which water users have the right to remove water from streams even to the point where they are dried up completely.  

            Indeed, until 1973, water left in a stream for fish and other aquatic life was not even recognized as a legitimate use of water in Colorado.  This has created a legacy across the state of streams with too little water to sustain healthy, productive fisheries – and in some cases, streams with no water at all.  Colorado’s ongoing drought has exacerbated this problem, putting pressure on even our best trout streams from the Roaring Fork to the Rio Grande. 

In the face of these problems, Colorado Trout Unlimited got some very good news this May when a federal district court issued a ruling which could lead to better protection of stream flows on public lands.  This ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by CTU and Trout Unlimited ten years ago, challenging a U.S. Forest Service decision to allow operation of a dam on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest without requiring any minimum releases to keep the river downstream alive.   

Although CTU engages in litigation only as a “tool of last resort,” we took the Forest Service to court in this case because of the agency’s obvious abdication of its responsibility to protect National Forest streams.   Due to the Forest Service’s renewal of the dam operating permit without a “bypass flow” requirement, La Poudre Pass Creek – a headwater tributary to the Cache la Poudre River that flows along the border of Rocky Mountain National Park – had no flows released into it through the winter months of each year, leaving the fishery high and dry.   

The court ruled that the U.S. Forest Service has a responsibility not to allow rivers and streams below dams to go completely dry and thus adversely affect fish, wildlife and public recreational opportunities on federal lands.  It’s a responsible decision that reaffirms the fact that our public lands and waters belong to and provide diverse values for everyone – not just a select few. 

Predictably, in the wake of the Court’s ruling some water developers are claiming that the sky is falling and that the court’s decision puts Colorado’s ability to withstand drought at risk.   To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the death of Colorado’s drought water supplies are greatly exaggerated.  First, the quantities of water involved are small – basically, survival flows for fish.  While the amount of water is small in the context of overall water supply, it can mean the difference between a living stream and a dry, lifeless riverbed.

Perhaps the biggest misconception, however, is that bypass flows are “lost” water to the cities or farms that ultimately use it.  That simply isn’t true.  Most water facilities on National Forests are at high elevations in the mountains, while the cities and farms are at lower elevations – cities and farmers will still get their water, as it can be recovered downstream of the dams on public lands.

Colorado has an extensive water infrastructure in place, with numerous reservoirs that can work together.  This means that, with a little flexibility and creativity, most users should be able to recapture or use the small volumes of water they release to keep rivers from drying up.  This is not an “either-or proposition” – having enough water for people or for the environment – it is a matter of delivering 

Many Colorado rivers, including the Big Thompson (pictured), can be reduced to a trickle or even dried up under Colorado water law.

 

water for our cities and farms in a manner that also allows us to maintain living rivers at the same time.

Working to establish and enforce bypass flows is only one of the ways that CTU helps keep Colorado rivers flowing.  We also secured passage of legislation that allows for those who own water rights to donate or sell their water for use in streams – a law that has already been used to help flows in the Animas River headwaters.  We have worked with water users to secure flow agreements – for example, we partnered with Denver Water and the City of Aurora on a flow management plan that preserves minimum flows on the South Platte River.  And we are working to preserve meaningful federal reserved water rights that can protect flows in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison.  While the challenge of dewatered streams is great, we are using every tool we can to help conserve, protect and restore Colorado’s justifiably famous rivers.

Most anglers would agree it’s important to leave a “wet” rather than a “dry” legacy in Colorado – it’s the only way to pass on the world-class fishing anglers expect from our Rocky Mountain rivers.  Leaving some water in rivers and streams that historically have been allowed to run dry is necessary to fulfill this legacy.  And despite the rhetoric you may hear from water providers, keeping minimum flows in streams won’t sacrifice Colorado’s ability to withstand drought.  Rather, it will mean we have struck a balance in Colorado that provides for healthy rivers, productive trout fisheries, and adequate water supplies.  That’s something that Coloradoans expect – and deserve.

 

TU’s report “A Dry Legacy”, with more information about the problem of dewatered streams in Colorado and potential solutions, is available at www.cotrout.org. 

 About the Author

David Nickum is the Executive Director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. To learn more about CTU, visit www.cotrout.org