Flaming Gorge Pipeline
- 1. Current Conflict Western Water Law History and Policy Environmental/Economic Impacts •Why the need for more water on the Front Range? •Colorado River Compact, 1922 • The major environmental effects of the proposed pipeline are directly • Next 100 years, demand increase of 1.2 mil AF •15 mil AF of the Colorado River’s estimated annual flow split between Lower related to drop in water levels of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and to the • Next 20 years, demand increase of 250,000 AF and Upper Basin states Green River. Estimates project water levels of the reservoir to drop on • 1.7 mil new residents by 2020 • Upper Basin, 7.5 mil AF between Colorado, New Mexico, average 10 feet, with potential drop of up to 30 feet. • Mostly on the Front Range Utah, and Wyoming. • The project is planned to divert approximately 250,000 AF/yr of water • CO residents use 208 gal water/day • Lower basin, 7.5 mil AF between Arizona, California, and Nevada. from the Green River. This is equivalent to 25% of the river. • National avg. = 178 gal/day •Upper Basin Colorado River Compact, 1948 • Economically the project is upwards of 10x more expensive than any • CO per capita usage = 3690 gal/day • Upper Basin, 7.5 mil AF between Colorado (51.75%), other water plan. The proposed publicly funded option of the project • 3 times National average New Mexico (11.25%), Utah (23%), and Wyoming (14%). would cost approximately $4.5 billion, or $2,800 per acre foot. The • Only ID, WY, MT, NE use more •Mexican Water Treaty, 1944 privately funded option could cost upwards of $9 billion. The recreation & • 90% CO water use is agriculture • Committed 1.5 mil AF of CO river annual flow to Mexico tourism industry is projected to take a severe blow to their revenues. • 10% CO water use is domestic, • Current debate on Upper or lower basin owes Mexican • Recreation revenues at the Flaming Gorge Reservoir are estimated to commercial/industrial, thermoelectric delivery obligation decrease by $7.6million per year. Concurrently on the Green River, a power, livestock, and mining decrease of $3.1million per year could be seen. An industry wide total • ½ municipal water delivery in summer is decrease in revenue is estimated at $59million per year. landscape irrigation • Million would receive temporary rights to the water, then sell it for substantial personal profits. • Some of the Green River’s un-apportioned annual flow would be diverted to Flaming Gorge Reservoir and then piped to the Front Range. •Would be basis for a water supply contract from the Bureau of Current Status Reclamation • The original EIS, which stated water supply as its main purpose, was •Also would have to file a claim in water court. withdrawn and terminated in July 2011. Currently a DEIS is in the works for electrical power generation. Proposed Flaming Gorge Pipeline • September 16, 2011. Colorado Water Conservation Board approved $72,000 to fund a 6-month investigation on the feasibility of the pipeline.. • 560 miles long (as crow flies) • Aaron Million applied for license from Federal Energy Regulatory • Construction $6-9 bill. Committee to rename/repurpose the project to included hydropower. • Operation expenses $217 mil/yr • He must prove ability to obtain water rights from Wyoming. • Divert 250,000 AF/yr from the Green River and • October 2011, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accepts the Flaming Gorge Reservoir preliminary permit application for the hydroelectric components of the • Equivalent to a football field with a column of water 43 miles project. There is now a 60-day public comment period open. high! Conflict Framers Drivers Get Involved! Framing in the media Lords of Yesterday www.SavetheColorado.org • Western Slope and Wyoming concerns •Colorado River Compact www.OurColorado.org • Media uses powerful negative language •CO and WY over-delivering water www.FriendsoftheYampa.com • Unbalanced stories •CA and AZ greedy for more • Front Range should “slow growth” according to WY Claims made by Million: conservation •Provide water for growing population • Project is expensive and waste of resources •Would quench urban thirst without stealing Selected Sources • “Business as usual” water use by Front Range irrigation from Western Slope • “Save the Colorado”, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www.savethecolorado.org/>. • Does not mention conservation •Will keep project private • “Regional Watershed Supply Project EIS” US Corps of Engineers: Omaha District.14 July 2011. Web 20 September 2011. • Front Range voices •Use as leverage for smaller growth and • "Laws Influencing Community-Based Conservation in Colorado and the American West: A • Pitting Upper Basin states against CA and AZ better conservation measures Primer." Natural Resource Law Center. University of Colorado School of Law, 2000. • Preventing inevitable shortages Web. 10 Oct. 2011.<http://www.colorado.edu/law/centers/nrlc/publications/ Yampa.PDF>. • Need water for agriculture • Western Resource Advocates. Economic and Financial Impacts of the Proposed Flaming • Recreation and tourism Gorge Pipeline. 2011. Web.<www.westernresourceadvocates.org/water/pipeline/ • Devastating to industry Possible Sustainable Solutions FGEconImpactReport.pdf>. • Projected loses of $59 million a year •Conservation! • NGO influence •Denver, Aurora and southern suburbs • Strong advertising and outreach signed proposal to work together to share • Trout Unlimited water. According to the Denver • Save the Colorado Post, Colorado “would not be obligated to divert water from the Western Slope.”