What’s the matter with the Windy Gap Firming Project?
The Colorado River has suffered from decades of depletions, and the Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP) is the latest new proposal to divert water from the headwaters across the Continental Divide.  It would expand diversions from the current Windy Gap project near Granby, and would divert Colorado River water through the existing Colorado-Big Thompson Project to the Front Range for storage in a new reservoir, Chimney Hollow.  The result will be further depletions on an already strained river.   The WGFP is also a project that CTU and other conservation groups said had the potential to be a “smart supply” water project in our report, “Facing Our Future,” which lays out an environmentally-sound agenda for meeting Colorado’s future water demands.  Unfortunately, as proposed, the WGFP falls well short of our “smart supply” principles.  Some of the major points of concern from our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are outlined below – along with ideas on how the project’s shortcomings could be addressed.
PROBLEM		LET'S MAKE IT BETTER
Failure to consider cumulative impacts   The WGFP is only the latest transbasin diversion, and comes on top of existing diversions by the original Windy Gap Project, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Denver’s Moffat Tunnel, and the Grand Ditch. While each project has impacts individually, the greatest concern is the cumulative impact of all of these projects and their collective draw on the Colorado River. Current diversions pull more than 50% of the river’s flow across the divide – and pending proposals for new projects (including WGFP) could pull another 20%. Yet the WGFP Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to look at the cumulative impacts of these historic operations on the Colorado River.	Æ	The Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be revised to add a thorough analysis of the direct and cumulative impacts of the WGFP in combination with historic operations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and other transbasin diversions.  Only with an honest assessment of these cumulative impact issues can appropriate mitigation measures be developed.  This should be done through preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Failure to consider impacts of extending low flow “dry year” conditions   The DEIS downplays the impacts of  the WGFP by emphasizing that water would be drawn primarily during the wetter periods of the year (runoff and the shoulder months) and primarily in average to wet years. Yet the overall effect of this drop in flows is to extend periods of low flow and to make aquatic life downstream from the project experience more dry years and prolong drought conditions from year to year. Dry years already create stress on fisheries, and curtailing those periods that now provide a “refuge” of higher flow and cooler water temperatures may have serious impacts for fish.  These issues are basically ignored by the DEIS.	Æ	A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared, and should include a more rigorous assessment of fishery flow needs – drawing from the ongoing Grand County Streamflow Management Plan study.  It should also analyze the impacts WGFP will have in terms of extending periods of critical low flow by tapping the river during its “wetter” periods, with an eye towards the cumulative impacts of the proposed diversions alongside those already taking place.
Lack of protection for “Wild and Scenic” river values   Parts of the Colorado have been identified by the Bureau of Land Management as eligible for Wild and Scenic Rivers Act designation – including the reaches downstream from Windy Gap and the reaches through Gore Canyon below Kremmling. The DEIS fails to consider how operations of WGFP would effect the Wild and Scenic values of these reaches, the river’s potential suitability for designation, and what mitigation might be necessary to avoid or offset those impacts. The DEIS simply does not examine impacts on aquatic resources downstream of Gore Canyon at all.	Æ	In a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the implications of WGFP on the Colorado River’s wild and scenic characteristics – and thereby on its potential suitability for designation as a Wild and Scenic River – should be fully documented, and measures necessary to avoid or offset impacts identified. This should be done in close coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, which is conducting the Wild and Scenic suitability study for the Colorado River. It should include an examination of impacts on aquatic resources and recreation downstream of Gore Canyon, through the entire eligible reach of the Colorado River.
WGFP will lead to violations of water quality and temperature standards   The DEIS predicts that the Colorado River above Williams Fork will reach levels for weekly average temperatures that exceed the State’s water quality standards for this reach, and that daily temperatures are expected to reach 25.5ºC, which is well in excess of the state’s acute (lethal) standard for temperatures deemed by the Water Quality Control Commission to be safe for trout.  Yet the DEIS claims then ignores the data that went into these state standards and claims that these temperature violations will not harm fisheries.	Æ	The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement should use the state standards in assessing temperature impacts, and determine what operational changes are needed for WGFP so that it does not trigger violations of the state’s water quality temperature standards.  Stipulations on the WGFP’s federal permits should prevent the project from pumping water when doing so would lead to increases in temperatures above the State standards for aquatic life in the Colorado River.
WGFP has not complied with state water law and could harm other existing water uses, including instream flows    The WGFP does not simply propose pumping water under the Windy Gap rights and delivering that water to a new Front Range reservoir; it proposes to move much more senior water – under the Colorado-Big Thompson Project – into the new reservoir for so-called “prepositioning”, and then make a "paper exchange” of water whenever WGFP is later able to pump. This represents a change in water rights and could lead to an expansion in the use of the senior Colorado-Big Thompson rights – to the detriment of other water users on the Colorado, including the State’s instream flow water right.	Æ	WGFP should not be permitted, nor a contract for use of Bureau of Reclamation facilities approved, until its proponents go to Colorado Water Court and secure a change in their water rights that will reflect the reality of how they propose to operate this project.  The Water Court process gives all those with a water right in the Colorado River the opportunity to protect their interests from "injury" by this proposed change and will likely result in stipulations to protect instream flow and other water rights. Those stipulations should be embraced by any subsequent federal permitting.
Failure to consider whether WGFP complies with key federal laws   Similarly to the failure to address State Water Law concerns, WGFP proposes to deliver federal (Colorado-Big Thompson Project) water to a new non-federal reservoir (Chimney Hollow) that is not authorized to receive C-BT water.  This would seem to run contrary to federal law and may indeed require Congressional approval.	Æ	In a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the Bureau of Reclamation should explicitly assess and disclose all relevant Reclamation laws, including Senate Document 80 authorizing the C-BT project, and evaluate WGFP for compliance with those laws. Until WGFP can be brought into compliance, no authorization can or should be issued. This may require an Act of Congress to authorize the storage of federal C-BT water in the newly proposed non-federal reservoir.
Failure to analyze and define meaningful mitigation measures and assess their adequacy in addressing direct and cumulative impacts.    The DEIS effectively treats mitigation as a laundry list – with sparsely described possibilities - but no meaningful analysis.  For many of the listed items, even the mitigation proposal is vague and speculative, including things that “might be” done if deemed appropriate (by the permittee?), and not measures that would be required as permit conditions. This makes it impossible to honestly assess the mitigation concepts, their implications, and most importantly, the extent to which they actually would or would not effectively mitigate WGFP impacts. Moreover, the failure within the DEIS to fairly examine the cumulative impacts of WGFP in association with the historic depletions which already plague the Colorado also limits the concepts for mitigation from appropriately addressing the serious cumulative issues that are created.	Æ	In a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, potential mitigation measures must be described in much greater detail – far more than a simple listing of possibilities – to allow the public and the responsible agencies to evaluate the efficacy of different strategies in addressing WGFP’s impacts. This analysis should be done with a thorough understanding of the cumulative impacts – looking at the big picture of the Colorado River’s health, not just at the newest proposal in isolation from the historic stressors already in play.  Any mitigation measures that are proposed should be clear and NOT discretionary – a requirement to “consider” doing something is tantamount to no mitigation requirement at all.  A failure to include adequate and mandatory mitigation measures is simply unacceptable.
Many WGFP participants lack adequate water conservation programs   Before tapping the Colorado River more heavily, one might expect participants in the WGFP to be implementing aggressive programs for water conservation and using their existing resources as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, many of the WGFP participants lag behind other Front Range communities in their programs. Indeed, some still operate with a “flat rate” pricing structure for their customers, providing no price-based incentive for conservation. (In contrast, more conservation-minded water utilities increase the price per unit of water as the total amount of water use increases).	Æ	WGFP participants should be required, as a condition of approval for permits, to adopt stronger conservation plans, including - at minimum -  tiered water rates that encourage customers to conserve water, and development of water conservation plans in consultation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board that comply with current state requirements for water utilities.
Failure to consider appropriate water supply alternatives    The real “purpose” for WGFP is, presumably, to provide water to meet the needs of customers within the participating water districts. Yet the stated purpose in the “purpose and need” portion of the DEIS is not water supply, but development and “firming” of these specific water rights.  Because of this extraordinarily narrow statement of purpose, the DEIS has dismissed from consideration other reasonable water supply alternatives that might be far less damaging to the environment – including strategies for water conservation and leasing agreements with agricultural users.	Æ	The Windy Gap Firming Process statement of purpose and need must be revised to reflect the real purpose of the project – meeting water supply needs for participating communities. Additionally, in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, other alternatives should be considered, including at least one alternative that relies on water conservation and nonstructural options such as water sharing agreements with irrigators (e.g., dry-year leasing).