RANGELY | The Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District (RBWCD) voted to engage Denver-based law firm Otteson Shapiro as special counsel to help recover lost CCITF funds. “They are moving forward with filing our claim with the Colorado Special Districts Association, property and liability pool and also with ColoTrust to help us recover these funds,” RBWCD Executive Director Alden Vanden Brink told the board during the February meeting.
According to its website, the firm specializes in “financial services, capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, corporate structuring, insolvency, and insurance coverage.”
The board did not discuss approval of the agreement in the public meeting before voting to approve it. Vanden Brink told the HT that the board discussed the agreement in executive session in the January meeting, and that he met individually with district board members about the agreement prior to the meeting.
CORA POLICY
Vanden Brink presented the board with a draft policy for how the district manages open records requests under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). Without a policy in place, tax districts and other entities subject to open records laws cannot legally charge an hourly rate for document retrieval. One major component of setting CORA policies is determining what the hourly rate would be.
Following Vanden Brink’s presentation, one board member stated “I’d like to see the form spell out exactly what the requests are for, by the public or whoever, and also, what is allowed and what is not allowed, because there are some exemptions I’m sure of what we can provide, and what we do not have to provide.”
Vanden Brink said “I didn’t find any policy or any form that had specific exemptions outlined,” noting that he could seek further counsel on the issue before presenting the resolution to the board again. Under the draft proposal, the district would furnish copies of records at a rate of $0.25 per page for a copy, printout or photograph of a public record. The policy also sets the hourly research and retrieval fee at $30 per hour and states “The District may require a deposit to cover the estimated cost to produce the records, including the cost of the copies and the research and retrieval fee, prior to commencing work to produce such records.”
The board tabled a vote on the draft policy until district staff provides an update on additional exemptions to public record requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENT
During public comment RBC resident and property owner Deirdre Macnab requested the board expand access to board meetings to virtual and/or phone call options, stating “tonight is a perfect example, each of you took a chance getting here with this weather.”
Macnab also highlighted that a board member was unable to attend but might have been able to listen or participate if a virtual or phone attendance option was available.
“Your topic is of the highest interest to the county given all the things that are going on and so I would like to request again for the board to consider and discuss the availability of virtual attendance both by members and the public,” she said.
One board member responded “We always just go to the meetings, that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
Vanden Brink further explained to the HT, “we have a phone but we only have one line and I can’t tie that line up.”
SYSTEM CONSERVATION PILOT PROGRAM
Vanden Brink updated the board on the Upper Colorado River Commission’s latest efforts to fulfill its “Five-Point Plan,” a response to the Bureau of Reclamation’s call for significant conservation across the Colorado River Basin.
As one part of the plan, the UCRC is proposing a re-launch of the System Conservation Program, which would utilize $125 million of federal funding to pay agricultural producers in the upper basin to fallow fields and send more water downstream to Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Applications to participate in the program ended on March 1.
The SCP is similar to another proposed water conservation project known as “Demand Management” in that it is “voluntary, temporary and compensated.”
There are, however, key differences between the SCP and Demand Management, a point Vanden Brink emphasized during the February meeting.
“Demand Management would fill a pool of water and power that we get credit for, that they can’t take and that water stays in that pool,” Vanden Brink said. Water conserved under SCP would not count toward Colorado’s obligation to the Colorado River Compact, and could be released from Lake Mead/Powell to the Lower Basin in accordance with existing river laws and operating criteria.
Vanden Brink described the SCP as a deal for Lower Basin states. “They’re looking at conserving 800,000 acre feet of water in two years, 51% of that was supposed to come from Colorado.”
He also expressed a broader concern in the Upper Basin that the SCP might become permanent.
Upper Basin water managers describe SCP as a tool to help the upper basin’s commitment to “assist with the protection of the Colorado River system,” noting however that it would not be effective without more substantial action from the lower basin states to reduce their water use.
6 STATE CONSENSUS MODELING APPROACH
Six of seven states in the Colorado River Compact sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation last month with a “consensus based modeling approach” that they said Reclamation could use to make decisions about short term actions to protect water levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead
The framework lists components for the upper basin as:
- recognition of hydrological shortages
- additional voluntary conservation measures (SCP)
- consideration of additional releases from Upper Basin reservoirs
- constrained release tiers (i.e. no balancing)
- reduced releases as necessary to protect water levels.
Components for the lower basin states under the consensus modeling approach would be:
- Reductions in Lower Basin deliveries of 1.5m acre feet (AF)/year to address evaporation and losses
- Additional lower basin reductions at Mead
- Additional reductions as necessary to protect Mead elevation 1000’
California is the only state that did not sign on to the consensus modeling approach even though it is not a formal agreement. Instead California is arguing for reductions based on prior appropriation, which will have disproportionate effects on states with more junior water rights, particularly Arizona.
The upper and lower basins are both allocated 7.5 million acre feet of water per year. The upper basin has never violated the compact, consistently underusing its allocation. From 2019-2021, upper basin states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico) used on average 3.2 million AF less than their allocation, cutting back 1 million AF of usage from 2020-21. In 2021 the Upper Basin used approximately 3.5 million AF.
In the same time period (2019-21), Lower Basin states (California, Arizona, Nevada) used on average 2.1 million AF more than their allocation. In 2021 the Lower Basin used approximately 9.8 million AF.
By LUCAS TURNER | [email protected]om
