Save the Fraser River (CO)

For those that don't know, the Fraser River has been getting fucked in the ass by Denver water users. Currently (pun intended) over 50% of the water is diverted, with plans to take even more. Don't care about the Fraser but enjoy fishing the Colorado? Well, this affects you too.

How can you help without getting off your lazy butt? Sign this online petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/kee...ine-the-fraser



Side note: I have been hearing reports (unconfirmed) that biologists have determined that cutthroats in the upper Fraser tributaries are actually greenbacks, and not CO River cutts as previously thought.

link doesn't link.
post new link and I will sign.

You should make "keep the front range golfcourses brown, save the Fraser" bumper stickers

doh! I think it works now.


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/kee...ine-the-fraser

signed with the following message "Keep Denver Brown"

I agree, this sucks, but it's probably not going to get any better, unless Denver stops over populating. Water is becoming a more valuable and fought over commodity and it's only going to get worse.

I am not saying that we shouldn't save the Fraser or use less water, but let's put the blame where it goes:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...nt+range+water

Per the the linked study, the Front Range uses about 19% of Colorado's water. The real water hog are the people that thought it would be a good idea to put farms in an arid climate.

Received this email today from CTU. While some of it sounds good, does it really mean any more water for the river, or just that the additional water that they wanted to take, is still being taken with a couple concessions on timing?

Celebrate A Major Victory for the Fraser River!
The Fraser River is an outstanding trout fishery that has been treasured by generations of Coloradoans and even drew President Eisenhower to the area to fish in an area known as his “Western White House”. Now it is poised to enjoy a renaissance and a future worthy of its storied past.

After years of persistence and hard work - negotiations, public outreach, research, community organizing, lobbying – TU has announced a major deal with Denver Water and Grand County that will bring a new spirit of collaboration – along with significant financial and water resources – to conserving and restoring the Fraser River watershed.

This is one to celebrate!

The Fraser, a key tributary of the Upper Colorado that flows from Berthoud Pass to Granby, has been hammered by years of diversions. Currently, Denver Water is taking about 60 percent of the natural flows of the Fraser, and their proposed project to expand diversions through the Moffat Tunnel would take another 15 percent of the river. That would put the Fraser and its trout fishery on life support, unless the river received additional protections and mitigation to offset the potential impacts.

For the past decade, TU has been working to secure just those kinds of protections. We identified three core issues for the river: avoiding excessively warm water temperatures that threaten trout and other coldwater species; ensuring adequate “flushing flows” to keep stream beds from becoming clogged by sediment; and including a long-term monitoring and adaptive management program to deal with future challenges that might not be foreseen based on limited information today. Over the years we had moments of promise and others where things looked bleak – but we never stopped pushing for the protections we knew the Fraser River needed. Now, we can celebrate an agreement that addresses all three challenges and helps secure a bright future for the Fraser.

The new agreement, called the Mitigation and Enhancement Coordination Plan, builds on other commitments Denver Water has previously made to address issues facing the Fraser. Under the agreement, Denver Water will provide additional instream flows during key summer months to help keep water temperatures from rising too high. They will use the flexibility built into their extensive water diversion system to help meet target peak flows to help flush sediment and maintain habitat. All of this will take part through a new collaboration called “Learning By Doing” that includes long-term monitoring, financial and water contributions from Denver Water, and cooperative management to adjust conservation and mitigation efforts over time to minimize impacts and maximize benefits for the Fraser River. Importantly, Denver has agreed to propose Learning By Doing as a condition of its federal permit for the Moffat Project – meaning that the commitment to this effort will be secure not only today, but for the future.

Through this Plan and the parallel agreements, the Fraser and Upper Colorado will have an impressive package of protections and enhancements to help secure their future:
Mitigation Measures:
• Measures to address stream temperature issues:
o Monitor stream temperatures and bypass up to 250 AF of water annually if stream temperatures reach state standards
o Bypass sufficient additional flows to reach defined minimum flows if stream temperature problem persists after the 250 AF have been bypassed
o Contribute $1 million to additional projects if temperature problems persist
• Measures to address sediment issues:
o Work to provide flushing flows as recommended in Grand County’s Stream Management Plan
o Operate and maintain sediment pond that catches highway traction sand
o Contribute $1 million to additional projects if sediment problems persist
• $750,000 for fish habitat restoration projects
• $72,500 for fish barrier and restoration of cutthroat habitat plus any additional measures required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in its Biological Opinion

Enhancement Measures:
• Through Learning by Doing, implement an extensive monitoring program including stream temperature, sediment transport, benthic macroinvertebrates, and riparian areas and wetlands
• Use Denver Water’s system operation flexibility to address identified problems while maintaining water yield
• Provide in-kind contributions of people, equipment and material to benefit Learning by Doing
• $3.25 million for aquatic habitat improvement projects ($1.25 million available before the project is built)
• $2 million for water quality projects (available before the project is built)
• $1 million to pump water at Windy Gap to Granby for release for the benefit of the Colorado River below Granby and below Windy Gap Reservoir
• $2 million for stream improvement projects in the Colorado River
• $1 million for the Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder effort in the Colorado River
• 1000 AF of water each year released from Denver Water’s Fraser collection system for the benefit of Fraser basin streams
• 1000 AF of water each year released from Williams Fork reservoir (including up to 2,500 AF of carryover storage) for the benefit of the Colorado River below its confluence with Williams Fork

It has been a long road, and one that we haven’t travelled alone. Our conservation allies have been steadfast in their shared commitment to this watershed. Grand County has been a remarkable example of local government leadership in protecting the values of their home waters. Local landowners have contributed their time, expertise, resources, and political support – standing up for their local watershed and community. Denver Water, while we didn’t always see eye to eye, maintained an open door for dialogue and has stepped up to address its impacts in good faith. We deeply appreciate the contributions of all of our partners to this milestone victory for a treasured river.

And we thank you – our members and supporters – for all that you have done throughout this effort to make this achievement possible. You’ve turned up at public meetings, submitted letters and comments to regulatory agencies, taken part in rallies to support the river, shared the Fraser the Trout video with friends and signed the petition of support for the river – all of these individual efforts and actions have added up to a powerful force for change and truly made a difference for the Fraser River.

I’m very proud of what “Team TU” has accomplished together —national staff, state council and grassroots all working together. Mely Whiting of TU’s Colorado Water Project has put blood, sweat and tears into this campaign for years, attending countless meetings, crunching mind-numbing technical data, and negotiating the shoals of the federal permitting process. Our Council staff and volunteer leaders like Sinjin Eberle have helped at every step with negotiations and public education. TU’s Colorado River Headwaters Chapter and its president, Kirk Klancke, spoke eloquently about the Fraser at every opportunity and spearheaded chapter-led restoration projects. (Kirk’s passionate advocacy was the subject of a recent National Geographic profile online.) At all levels, TU has been working together to protect the Fraser and Upper Colorado.

This agreement comes just over a year after a similar agreement was reached with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District on its Windy Gap Firming Project – including extensive river protections and mitigation for the Upper Colorado River, including a shared vision for reconnecting the Colorado River through the current Windy Gap dam to restore fish passage, create improved habitat, and enhance water quality. Collectively, these agreements and the long-term cooperation envisioned under Learning by Doing give us a chance to truly protect and restore a priceless part of Colorado’s river heritage.

While this is a major turning point, our work in the Fraser basin and Upper Colorado is far from over. With both the Moffat and Windy Gap projects, we need to secure final federal permits that reflect the agreements reached with Denver and Northern. Your voice in urging the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation to honor these agreements and lend their support and force of law to the effort will be vital. Beyond that, we will have the long-term work of collaborating with Denver, Northern, Grand County, local landowners, and community partners for ongoing monitoring, cooperative water management, leveraging of additional financial and volunteer resources, and completing projects to improve river health. These agreements provide the framework and opportunity for future success – and ensure TU has a place at the table moving forward – but it will take our continued committed efforts to truly achieve the full potential of these victories for Colorado’s rivers.

Your continued support and involvement with TU will make that possible, and I thank you for helping us to make a difference.

Sincerely,

David Nickum
CTU Executive Director



Is this a good or a bad thing?

Dave and TU are good people. I tend to side with them if they think they have a victory. Legally, Denver could just drain the Fraser. The only thing stopping them is the politics. If TU can wrangle some wet water in the summer down the fraser, they have done a good job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gretch6364

I am not saying that we shouldn't save the Fraser or use less water, but let's put the blame where it goes:

The real water hog are the people that thought it would be a good idea to put farms in an arid climate.

---

Yep. Farms are sacred. In the Snake River Watershed, domestic consumption is less than 2%, industrial is another 2% and the other 96% of diverted water goes to agriculture. Only a few people fish but everybody eats so, what can you do. Farms are still exempt from the Clean Water Act last time I heard so, after draining the river, they are also free to put shit, mud and chemicals back into the river. Granted, I mostly know the Henry's Fork Watershed but, hey this is supposedly holy water up here and farms mostly do whatever they want. You should see the Teton Valley. The valley is surrounded by mountains gushing with creeks but, after runoff winds down, probably 90% of the creeks are entirely diverted into canals. The creeks on the basin floor below the diversion dams are essentially runoff flood channels and do not connect to the river 10 months out of the year. In a dry year, we see winter level flow on the upper Teton by early august. Farmers here believe in "use it or lose it" and state water law reinforces this mindset encouraging waste. Plus very few state level politicians would dare to even point a finger at ag. Seems like politicians telling people to stop watering a lawn is a more a matter of political cowardice than effectve conservation. Living in a farming community means you can't really do too much about it because, well, its a small town life thing... The local conservation groups won't even touch the issue because they need good relationships with the farms and, correctly, have had better results working with the farmers on culverts, streamside fencing and conservation easements.

so the problem is Denver urbanites eating local?

Part of me thinks that if water in the west wasn't subsidized so heavily then market forces would close a lot of these farms. Cadillac Desert is a good read that sorta makes this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

so the problem is Denver urbanites eating local?

---

A big problem for Denver, ( and Las Vegas, Phoenix, LA, San Diego) is that much of the Colorado River's water is not consumed locally or residentially. Here is an article glossing California's squabbles over the West Slope's precious melting snow. Problems caused by Ag using up most of the water and refusing to redistribute a larger share with the residential users who make up the bulk of California's economy. Ponder this stat:

"Imperial County, with a population of 175,000, gets 3.1 million acre-feet of water a year. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, serving 19 million people, gets about 1.1 million acre-feet."

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-i...#ixzz2wETqTsEn

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-i...#axzz2wEOnfw8A


See, one desert farming county with 2% of southern CA's population gets to take 75% of CA's share of water coming down the Colorado River. And the core issue is waste. There is plenty to go around but Ag hates to share, on principle. Furthermore, Ag has no incentive to conserve as long as it has all the water it needs. What is the "use-it-or-lose-it" mindset? To conserve is to admit they can get by using less water and farmers fear that is a slippery slope leading to losing water rights. So you end up with a vested interest group that is fundamentally hostile to sharing, selling or conserving water. Eventually, some sort of eminent domain legal end run around their property rights will have to happen. You can only squeeze so much out of low flow toilets and dry landscaping.

For those that don't know, I live about a 1/2 mile from the mouth of the Fraser Canyon. My house sits between two creeks that feed the Fraser. This is an emotional issue for me so I try and keep my distance. TU, the local governments, etc. have been working their asses off on this issue. It is an uphill battle. Any victories, such as the one that started this thread, are only making the river less worse. You won't find anyone who spends time on the Fraser noticing any real progress.

I certainly understand and have seen the Ag usage of river water though out the western US. I get that residential is a small portion of the pie. I take issue, however, with the position that because residential use represents but a small percentage of the overall usage, residential conversation is not the answer.

We all understand that the surface water is owned through water rights and the system of prior appropriation. How is this going to change? Political pressure. Political pressure is votes. Until (in this one example of the Fraser) the front range voter outs himself as caring about conservation and riparian ecosystems, nothing will happen.

The mountain communities are doing all we can. My drinking water originates less than five miles from my house, our neighborhood san plant puts drinking water quality effluent back into the Fraser. I pay about $250 (plus taxes) a quarter for having the brown go down and good domestic drinking water. Fill a hot tub? Wash a car? Water the lawn? Nope. My water rights don't allow that. Yes, you will get fined. My rental property in Denver, about $50 a quarter for the same water. Use it how ever you chose. Heck, some front range communities don't even have metered water.

It is not an us vs. them thing. The mountains of Colorado are for all to enjoy. What can be done? Political pressure. Will it cause pain? Absolutely. Would you exchange higher food prices, no tropical fruits in the winter, agricultural welfare among other things in order to better take care of this one planet we got? I would.

So come up to Tabernash, Underroos and I will take you fishing. Even show you the good spots. I don't ask that you support our economy, I ask that you support our environment. Conserve when you can. Tell your friends. Over time, perhaps the politicians and bureaucrats will start pressuring for changes in ag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

The mountain communities are doing all we can. My drinking water originates less than five miles from my house, our neighborhood san plant puts drinking water quality effluent back into the Fraser. I pay about $250 (plus taxes) a quarter for having the brown go down and good domestic drinking water. Fill a hot tub? Wash a car? Water the lawn? Nope. My water rights don't allow that. Yes, you will get fined. My rental property in Denver, about $50 a quarter for the same water. Use it how ever you chose. Heck, some front range communities don't even have metered water.

It is not an us vs. them thing. .

---

This is where I disagree. After living in a farming community for 15 years, I do see it as an "us vs. them" situation. If farmers would give some room for negotiation, maybe it wouldn't be. But, YOU can't fill up a hot tub because THEY want the unregulated right to spray billions of cubic feet of water onto a crop however they damn well please and refuse to share. THEY have monetized a public resource and don't want to share one extra cent of it with US. How could it not be an "us vs. them thing"? I feel lucky to live in one of the wettest counties in the Rockies.

^^^^
I was referring to East Slope/West Slope residential water users. Agreed on all points about agribusiness wanting to maintain status quo. That's why I talk about political pressure. Until average joe car washer equates the Farm Bill with idiotic government subsidies at the expense of our rivers, ain't nothing gonna change. Honestly, I'm not an expert on any of this however I'm thinking there must be a better way to make food than what we've currently got going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

I'm thinking there must be a better way to make food than what we've currently got going on.

---

Not really. Not so long as there are these things called cities, concentrations of millions of low incomed people located away from arable land. There has to be an economy of scale to pull it off. Throughout history, the inability to deliver plentiful, affordable food into the cities has led to the collapse of many social and political orders. Thus, even today, you see politicians very, very reluctant to fuck with farmers. Joseph Stalin and Mao are notable exeptions. To transform their societies, they shot every farmer who was above subsistence level. All of them. They had decided it was fundamentally an us vs. them problem.

Like I say, I'm not very educated on the subject. If we "need" all the water in the rivers to feed people, then the rivers are probably fucked. That said, I have a hard time believing that wheat, corn and soybean production for export and cattle feed plus flooding fields to grow grass to feed cows in the best system out there. I would think that there could be major improvements in efficiency and water consumption.

So you don't want winter vegetables neckdeep? (or at least ones grown in the US and not flown in from Mexico/Peru/Chile wherever the fuck) All well and good to bitch about "ag" while eating the products. This board is mostly mountain transplants eating gourmet foodstuffs, driving expensive cars, jetting around the world and generally doing a bunch of wasteful things. It is the fucking problem. then they get all nimby. efficiency = money invested = more expensive <- that's already a problem for much of the world.

I agree with you Hugh. As a society will all want somebody else to change, so we can keep doing what we do. Me, I've got a nice house, and older truck, and a mid 5 figure income in a good year. I do like me some airplane travel however. I've got plenty to lose I suppose. I think the best thing we, our generation, could do for the future is step up and take some pain. Higher food prices, higher gas prices, higher energy prices would suck in the short term but its the motivation we need to change. The externalities so the status quo are not sustainable. But hey, maybe the world in not sustainable under any senario, so fuck it?

I'm far from smart and certainly don't have the answers. I'm just looking to "Save the Fraser".

I live in the Almond capital of the world. 70% of the almonds grown in California are exported. These are grown with very cheap, subsidized water. Almonds are mostly flood irrigated (those farms with irrigation). This isn't staple food going to feed hungry Los Angelinos. This is a food being exported (mostly to Asia) for big money. A lot of our water is being 'exported' via big money crops like this. But big ag owns the politicians. So we got what we got.

The California drought and issues like the Fraser will open dialogue, but it's going to get ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

Higher food prices, higher gas prices, higher energy prices would suck in the short term but its the motivation we need to change.

---

The Almond post is a great example of the stuff that needs to change. Stop subsidizing water for farmers. If they can't afford the water, they will close and either move somewhere else or do a different job.

On the prices of things, Foggy, I know you have obviously been grocery shopping over the last 6 years. Food prices are out of control and insane. It can be argued for years all of the things that have caused this, but I know one thing, my parents could not of afforded to feed us kids on just my dads salary at todays prices.

I don't see how a single income family could live comfortable today without the bread winner bringing home six figures. It is just my wife and I and the only time recently we have not been a good chunk of $100 for the weekly groceries was when our meat was mostly the elk I shot last season. We are pretty much strictly veggies, fruits and meat, too. Outside of beer, we pretty much do 80% to 90% paleo.

So yeah, not eating veggies in the winter would be tough for us, but I would rather eat veggies from south America and have a river to enjoy.

Look at obesity rates among poor Americans. It is not so much higher because the poor buy their kids playstations and big screen TVs rather then footballs and basketballs. It is because the poor can't afford to eat healthy anymore in the US.

So you want to ship the problems to other countries and let your work/living enjoy subsidies, not the farmers. Especially with the higher energy consuming Paleo (Imperial Valley = alfalfa hay = foodstuff for cows) and the even higher energy consumption shipping production to other nations far away. aka "fuck you, I got mine". About par for TGR. The west was built on subsidies; the world isn't fungible.

best of luck Foggy :)

Let me guess Hugh, you eat bark and pine cones everyday? What are you even doing in the fishing forum? Go troll poli ass and the padded room.

I own that what I eat and where and how I live kills fish; and that if I want cheap food in the stores that's one of the sacrifices, and that sacrifices are what the overpopulated West has to make. You can't have "market forces" western cities and agriculture co-existing together because if they did, and had, there'd be no fucking West.

[QUOTE=Hugh Conway;4212115] that if I want cheap food in the stores that's one of the sacrifices, and that sacrifices are what the overpopulated West has to make. QUOTE]

Hugh, I just don't see how this must be. There's enough water. There's a lot of water being used wastefully through inefficient methods. There's a lot of water that goes into crops that, in times of low commodity prices, produce product that doesn't fetch a profit sufficient to justify pouring water on the ground. I think there's plenty of water to go around IF the vested interest group that controls and uses the disproportionate bulk of the West's water was more efficient about it and could be counted on to always make rational economic decisions. But, they don't and they won't. We are talking about a group that doesn't even want to sell water rights. In the West, water is power and people don't just give up power, mon frere. That's the real problem. That's why I alluded to Stalin's murder of the kulaks. This is as much a matter of power as it is droughts, river levels, conservation, rational economic use of a resource, etc. Fights over power....now you are confronting the human condition itself and rationality takes a back seat to greed and fear.