FLAMING GORGE PIPELINEWestern Water Law History and Policy

•Colorado River Compact, 1922• 15 mil AF of the Colorado River’s estimated annual flow split between Lower

and Upper Basin states•Upper Basin, 7.5 mil AF between Colorado, New Mexico,

Utah, and Wyoming. •Lower basin, 7.5 mil AF between Arizona, California, and

Nevada. •Upper Basin Colorado River Compact, 1948

•Upper Basin, 7.5 mil AF between Colorado (51.75%), New Mexico (11.25%), Utah (23%), and Wyoming (14%).

•Mexican Water Treaty, 1944•Committed 1.5 mil AF of CO river annual flow to Mexico•Current debate on Upper or lower basin owes Mexican

delivery obligation

Conflict Framers Framing in the media• Western Slope and Wyoming concerns

•Media uses powerful negative language•Unbalanced stories •Front Range should “slow growth” according to WY

conservation •Project is expensive and waste of resources

• “Business as usual” water use by Front Range• Does not mention conservation

• Front Range voices• Pitting Upper Basin states against CA and AZ• Preventing inevitable shortages• Need water for agriculture

• Recreation and tourism • Devastating to industry• Projected loses of $59 million a year

• NGO influence • Strong advertising and outreach

• Trout Unlimited• Save the Colorado • Western Resource Advocates • Colorado Environmental Coalition

Environmental/Economic Impacts•The major environmental effects of the proposed pipeline are directly

related to drop in water levels of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and to the Green River. Estimates project water levels of the reservoir to drop on average 10 feet, with potential drop of up to 30 feet. •The project is planned to divert approximately 250,000 AF/yr of water

from the Green River. This is equivalent to 25% of the river.•Economically the project is upwards of 10x more expensive than any

other water plan. The proposed publicly funded option of the project would cost approximately $4.5 billion, or $2,800 per acre foot. The privately funded option could cost upwards of $9 billion. The recreation & tourism industry is projected to take a severe blow to their revenues. •Recreation revenues at the Flaming Gorge Reservoir are estimated to

decrease by $7.6million per year. Concurrently on the Green River, a decrease of $3.1million per year could be seen. An industry wide total decrease in revenue is estimated at $59million per year.

Current Conflict•Why the need for more water on the Front Range?• Next 100 years, demand increase of 1.2 mil AF• Next 20 years, demand increase of 250,000 AF• 1.7 mil new residents by 2020

• Mostly on the Front Range• CO residents use 208 gal water/day• National avg. = 178 gal/day• CO per capita usage = 3690 gal/day

• 3 times National average•Only ID, WY, MT, NE use more•90% CO water use is agriculture•10% CO water use is domestic,

commercial/industrial, thermoelectric power, livestock, and mining

•½ municipal water delivery in summer is 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

Reclamation•Also would have to file a claim in water court.

Possible Sustainable Solutions•Conservation!•Denver, Aurora and southern suburbs signed proposal to work together to share water. According to the Denver Post, Colorado “would not be obligated to divert water from the Western Slope.”

Selected Sources• “Save the Colorado”, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www.savethecolorado.org/>.• “Regional Watershed Supply Project EIS” US Corps of Engineers: Omaha District. 14 July 2011.

Web 20 September 2011.• "Laws Influencing Community-Based Conservation in Colorado and the American West: A

Primer." Natural Resource Law Center. University of Colorado School of Law, 2000. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www.colorado.edu/law/centers/nrlc/publications/

Yampa.PDF>. • Western Resource Advocates. Economic and Financial Impacts of the Proposed Flaming Gorge

Pipeline. 2011. Web. <www.westernresourceadvocates.org/water/pipeline/FGEconImpactReport.pdf>.

Poster compiled by Daniel Cohen, Julianne Mikula, and Ian Wilson.

Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University

Get Involved!www.SavetheColorado.org

www.OurColorado.orgwww.FriendsoftheYampa.com

Current Status•The original EIS, which stated water supply as its main purpose, was

withdrawn and terminated in July 2011. Currently a DEIS is in the works for electrical power generation.•September 16, 2011. Colorado Water Conservation Board approved

$72,000 to fund a 6-month investigation on the feasibility of the pipeline..•Aaron Million applied for license from Federal Energy Regulatory

Committee to rename/repurpose the project to included hydropower. •He must prove ability to obtain water rights from Wyoming.•October 2011, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accepts the

preliminary permit application for the hydroelectric components of the project. There is now a 60-day public comment period open.

Proposed Flaming Gorge Pipeline•560 miles long (as crow flies)•Construction $6-9 bill.•Operation expenses $217 mil/yr•Divert 250,000 AF/yr from the Green River and Flaming

Gorge Reservoir•Equivalent to a football field with a column of water 43

miles high!

DriversLords of Yesterday•Colorado River Compact•CO and WY over-delivering water•CA and AZ greedy for moreClaims made by Million:•Provide water for growing population •Would quench urban thirst without stealing irrigation from Western Slope•Will keep project private •Use as leverage for smaller growth and better conservation measures