A dewatered Rio Grande below the reservoir. The river lives in this condition November 1 through April 1 every year. While it receives some relief from a few streams as it enters the Weminuche Wilderness, real relief doesn’t come until some miles later. (Terry Taddeucci photo)
October 18, 2024
By Marty Grabijas
Expectations are a funny thing. And they may well summarize the story of the Rio Grande Cooperative Project in Colorado, which cost taxpayers $30 million dollars, in total. The Committee for a Healthy Rio Grande believes that the San Luis Valley Irrigation District and its partners in the project, made promises of serving multiple user groups, and then not delivering. And that the promise of serving those multiple user groups was allegedly used as leverage to secure government funding.
The Rio Grande Cooperative Project was largely an effort by the San Luis Valley Irrigation District to rehabilitate that Rio Grande Reservoir, as per its superintendent of the time, Travis Smith. Funding was provided by a Colorado Department of Natural Resources Branch called the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). The irrigation district was the driver, with Smith its messenger spreading the word to communities and stakeholders. According to Smith, bringing a diverse group together would be necessary to secure the millions of dollars that the project requires. A “one use project”, one that would just benefit ag interests, would not fly as a funding request. To satisfy that need, Smith and the irrigation district, “Rose to the occasion”, according to author David Stiller in Water and Agriculture in Colorado and the American West, and, “in conjunction with Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife, they came up with what would be know as the Rio Grande Cooperative Project.”
For its part, the CWCB was quoted in a Colorado Sun article stating: “CWCB does not have the ability to impose extra terms on the recipients of funds that are not articulated in the funding agreements. In the case of the Rio Grande Reservoir Rehabilitation, the final deliverable was completion of the project.”
My introduction to this controversy came in the form of a petition at a local fly shop by the Committee for a Healthy Rio Grande. As I started to look at this project, and the controversy, it seemed simple enough. The fly-fishing community, of which I am a part of, was bitter because they did not get what they wanted. In looking at various agreements, there is no mention of specific benefits to the environment or recreation. In my experience, if an entity does not include a clause in a written agreement, they have no intention of fulfilling that obligation, regardless of verbal communication. As I dug further, a more nuanced landscape emerged.
Advertisement
Spawned high in the federally protected Weminuche Wilderness of the San Juan Mountains, the Rio Grande has humble beginnings in a spectacular setting. At about 9,600 feet in elevation, the waters of the Rio are contained by the Rio Grande Reservoir, constructed in 1912 by the San Luis Valley Irrigation District. As per Colorado’s 1876 constitution, while the dam may belong to the irrigation district, the water belongs to the public. Simultaneously, the constitution also states that entities may divert water for their use.
Before we get to the heart of the controversy, it is important to understand the importance of water from the Rio Grande, which feeds agriculture in the San Luis Valley. In 1998 one million acres of the valley were devoted to irrigation. Revenue equated to $285 million in crops and $40 million in livestock. Real money, even in the 90s. The Rio Grande Reservoir is an integral part of delivering that water.
While the San Luis Valley Irrigation District’s agricultural constituents would be the primary beneficiaries of a consistent and reliable water source from the project, much of the project positioning and marketing materials pointed to multiple uses as a part of the overall plan. The CWCB often bases financing approvals on a project’s ability to serve multiple user groups, including those that are recreation and conservation based.
Advertisement
The Committee for a Healthy Rio Grande’s ask is based in science and best practices. As of now, flows from the dam shut off November 1, dewatering the Upper Rio save for a few feeder streams. Flows are turned in again April 1. Minimum winter flows, as defined by the Aquatic Habitat Flow Needs Assessment in the Rio Grande Stream Management Plan of 2020 , should be no less than 31 cfs to insure a healthy river environment. The list of technical advisors of the report includes Colorado Parks & Wildlife (a partner in the Rio Grande Cooperative Project), US Fish & Game, American Whitewater, and the CWCB.
In previous years, before dam seepage was repaired, the Rio realized some wintertime flow from the seepage. Now that the repairs have been completed flows are close to non-existent. According to Kevin Terry, Trout Unlimited’s Southwest Program Director, “…the San Luis Valley Irrigation District was participating in TU’s innovative Winter Flow Program before the new dam was complete, so it’s a big surprise to everyone that the new dam was not designed to work in the winter.”
The Rio Grande, prior to the water being turned off, flowing through the Weminuche Wilderness. (Marty Grabijas photo) In 2016 the CWCB also produced this video with Colorado Parks & Wildlife promoting how the restoration effort’s funding was predicated on operating the reservoir as a multi-purpose facility. The presented narrative seems to betray the finished product’s functionality.
In his excellent book on the Rio Grande, Stiller asked Superintendent Smith (who served in that capacity from 1992-2017) if funding would have been awarded to the irrigation district if multiple uses and Colorado Parks & Wildlife had not been integral parts of the project. Smith’s response? “No way.”
Various marketing materials associated with the project have language such as “…all major stakeholders must be included in the long-term solutions to improve the health of the Rio Grande in Colorado.” It feels nice. Those statements promise collaboration with all stakeholders. However, based on statements from the CWCB that feels like a promise that was never intended to be delivered.
In my correspondences with Katie Weeman, Marketing & Communications Director for the CWCB, she noted that, “The Rio Grande Restoration Project’s goal was to address those issues and to do so in a way that improved conditions for irrigation, the environment, and recreation.” However, with flows being totally shut off for the winter, the river is essentially without flow for approximately 8.6 miles until Clear Creek contributes its waters.
Hattie Johnson, Southern Rockies Restoration Director for American Whitewater stated that, “…our Flow Preference and Boatable Days study did not result in flow recommendations or releases to achieve preferred flows.”
And what of Trout Unlimited, the body that represents the interest of the fishing community? Several area guides that I spoke to felt that TU did all that they could. Kevin Smith, TU’s Southwest Program Director, said that, “…the quotes really tell the story he (Travis Smith) was selling everywhere he went without anything on paper.” Smith went on to say that, “People ate it up because he was influential and trusted but now hearing from individuals on the board and the new superintendent, they never actually intended to have a dam that operated year-round or to benefit environment and recreation at all.” Kevin Smith’s position seems to be supported by the public statement from the distributor of funds.
What feels especially egregious is that the CWCB was partnered with Colorado Parks & Wildlife on this project. Colorado Parks & Wildlife would have seen winter flows as a necessary component, as outlined in the Rio Grande Stream Management document, if the health of the river was a concern.
It should be noted that, as per Jim Loud of the Committee for a Healthy Rio Grande, Colorado Parks and Wildlife received $10M of the funds (part of the $30M total) to refurbish Beaver Creek Reservoir on the South Fork of the Rio Grande. According to Weeman, those funds, “…allow better utilization of flows in the Valley.” The South Fork of the Rio Grande's confluence is dozens of miles downstream from the Rio Grande Dam, and does not benefit the upper section of the mainstem.
Spring influenced creeks such as this one, which flow into the Rio Grande miles downstream, provide some relief. (Marty Grabijas photo) Beaver Creek Reservoir, as per Wolf Creek Angler’s owner Rick Mcguire, is best characterized as a “put-and-take fishery”. Someplace that is easily accessible, and someplace that they send tourists looking for an easy place to catch stocked trout. Some would argue that $10M to support a put and take fishery, while dewatering a portion of one of Colorado’s Gold Medal Waters , makes no sense.
So where does the truth lie in this story? Let the story inform you. Perhaps the irrigation district superintendent was driven by enthusiasm for the project. Or, as many in the river community have conveyed to me, perhaps he was far less than truthful.
Colorado Parks & Wildlife has been taking the radio silence approach in this matter. Fortunately, CWCB's spokesman weighed in. Her complete statement can be seen below:
Back in the early 2010s, the Rio Grande Reservoir dam was leaking, there was a dam safety storage restriction in place, and the outlet works had extremely limited operation all year round. The outlet gates could only be used for very low releases and very high releases. The large range of flows in between resulted in a vibration that was a threat to the dam's integrity.
The Rio Grande Restoration Project’s goal was to address those issues and to do so in a way that improved conditions for irrigation, the environment, and recreation. The completed project has achieved that goal by improving the dam’s safety, raising the reservoir’s fill height, and increasing outlet control during the spring, fall and especially late summer. The Project allows the District to release water at a rate that now benefits the Rio Grande through cooperation between the District and other users by removing the “too-little” and “too-high” flow limitations previously experienced.
Some of the key environmental and recreation benefits of the project are more consistent lake fishing conditions and a better ability to coordinate releases with those of other headwaters reservoirs to optimize flow benefits basin-wide. For irrigation, the increased storage capacity and better outlet control has allowed the District to contract with irrigators in the Valley to store and release water at key times during the growing season.
It’s important to note that the Colorado Parks and Wildlife also received a $10M loan for the rehabilitation of the nearby Beaver Park Reservoir as part of the broader Rio Grande Cooperative Project removing its restrictions and allowing better utilization of flows in the Valley. One key component of the overall Rio Grande Cooperative Project was the creation of the Rio Grande Cooperative Water Management Plan. It created a process for the District and the Local Stakeholders Group to set up a voluntary plan of annual releases from Rio Grande and Beaver Creek Reservoirs. The releases are managed to achieve irrigation, well augmentation, in-stream fishery, reservoir fishery, white water and float boating, and flood control benefits.
CWCB’s financing of the Rio Grande Reservoir Rehabilitation Project was guided by the funding contracts between CWCB and the San Luis Valley Irrigation District. The project design, construction, and final result all met the written terms of those contracts. There were no terms stipulating winter flow commitments. In July 2021 the Colorado Dam Safety Branch accepted the completed work and in September 2021 CWCB approved the final project payments.
While CWCB can’t impose extra terms on the recipients of funds that are not included in the funding agreements, that doesn’t mean we discourage the exploration of further improvements to the Rio Grande Reservoir. If there is consensus among the water users in the Valley, including the San Luis Valley Irrigation District, that an adaptive management plan could improve operations at the reservoir, CWCB would certainly be supportive of that kind of locally led effort.
Katie Weeman Marketing & Communications Director Phone: 720.670.0089 1313 Sherman St, Denver, CO 80203 katherine.weeman@state.co.us | cwcb.colorado.gov
The Rio Grande as it winds its way through canyons to the Rio Grande Reservoir. (Marty Grabijas photo) In the book Water and Agriculture in Colorado and the American West , Travis Smith is quoted as saying, “I went to water users’ groups. I went to the canal companies. I went to the San Luis Valley wetlands focus group. I went to the division of wildlife. That started a conversation about this whole idea of re-operating reservoirs, multipurpose, multi-use.”
Expectations are a funny thing.