Eric Kuhn Overview: "Gunnison River---Multiple Users and Changing Demands Colorado Water Workshop 1986

The Gunnison River is formed by the confluence of the

East River and Taylor River approximately 20 miles north of the

Town of Gunnison. From its headwaters along the Continental

Divide to the confluence with the Colorado River at Grand

Junction, Colorado, the Gunnison and its tributaries drain over

8,000 square miles of land. Based on total annual discharge, the Gunnison River is Colorado's second largest river. Only in the mainstream of the Colorado River is larger.

The Gunnison River is also one of the most developed and regulated rivers in the State of Colorado. The state's largest reservoir, Blue Mesa, is located on the Gunnison River. Blue

Mesa Reservoir, along with Morrow Point and Crystal form the

Wayne Aspinall unit of the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado

River Storage Project. Together the three dams and reservoirs

store nearly 1.1 million acre feet of water and have an

installed hydroelectric generating capacity of 208 megawatts.

Power generated by the Aspinall Unit and is sold through the

Western Area Power Administration to preference customers,

primarily municipalities such as the City of Colorado Springs.

The Uncompahgre Valley Project was one of the four

original reclamation projects authorized by Congress when it

passed the Reclamation Act of 1902. The Uncompahgre Project

diverts water from the Gunnison River through a six mile tunnel

into the Uncompahgre Valley. The Gunnison Tunnel has a capacity of approximately 1,000 cubic feet per second and provides irrigation water for approximately 77,000 acres of agricultural lands. In 1937, Congress authorized the construction of Taylor Park Reservoir as a part of the

Uncompahgre Project. Taylor Park Reservoir has a capacity of

106,000 acre feet.

In addition to the Uncompahgre Project, three smaller reclamation projects are located within the Gunnison Basin,

Bostwick Park, Smith Fork, and the Paonia Project. A fourth reclamation project, the Dallas Creek Project is under construction and nearing completion.

The development of the Gunnison River has also contributed to the regions growing recreation and tourism industry. Recreation and tourism is now the largest single contributor to the economy of Western Colorado, including the

Gunnison basin.

The Gunnison River Valley supports a variety of different and unique recreation resources. Blue Mesa Reservoir provides some of the state's finest flatwater recreation opportunities.

Forest Service campgrounds along the Taylor River are so popular they are overflowing. Both the Gunnison and Taylor

Rivers are nationally recognized fishing streams.

2 The Gunnison Valley is rimmed by several unique wilde rness areas. The Crested Butte ski area, located on the

East River, recently announced expansion plans that would make

it one of the nation's ten largest ski resorts. The Black

Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument is one of Colorado's most important scenic resources. This spring, Congressman Mike

Strang introduced federal legislation (R.R. 4472) to create a

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.

The proposed National Park would include four segments.

The three reservoirs of the Aspinall Unit and the Curecanti

National Recreation Area would be the upper segment. The existing Black Canyon National Monument would be the second

segment. The third segment of the Park would be the Gunnison

Gorge downstream of the existing Monument to the confluence of

the Gunnison and Smith Fork Rivers. This segment would be designated the Lower Gunnison Wild and Scenic Area. The f ourth

segment of the Park would include lands adjacent to the Wild a nd Scenic Area and would be designated as the Gunnison Gorge

National Recreation Area.

While the agricultural sector of the economy has been

stable or declining, the recreation and tourism industry has been growing at a rapid rate. This rapid growth in the

recreation and tourism sectors had created both new challenges

3 and new opportunities for the traditional water user c onununities. The demands on the water resources of the

Gunnison River have never been greater. The potential and existing conflicts among the stakeholders competing for the water resources of the Gunnison River are numerous. The following is a brief summary of a few of the public policy issues that will be encountered as the recreation industry in the Gunnison River drainage continues to grow:

1. Is it a lake or is it a reservoir? As the recreation

economy around a reservoir develops and expands,

inevitably a conflict is created between releasing stored

water for downstream users and maintaining the reservoir

at levels desirable for recreation purposes. The conflict

is difficult to resolve. Generally, the businesses around

a reservoir do not own the reservoir or the rights to the

water stored in the reservoir. The downstream users own

the reservoir and water but have traditionally not

benefited recreation development on or around their

reservoir.

The demands for Blue Mesa Reservoir water, which include

power generation, upstream depletions, release of stored

water to maintain flows in the Black Canyon, and the

release of stored water to meet the recovery needs of

4 endangered fish species far downstream may exceed the

available supply of stored water. How can the operation

of Blue Mesa Reservoir meet the downstream's demands and

continue to provide quality flatwater recreation in what

would be a National Park?

2. How much water is needed for instream flow purposes?

One of the major issues of debate on the Gunnison River is

the question of how much water is necessary for instream

flow purposes through the Black Canyon of the Gunnison

below the Uncompahgre diversion dam. Presently, the

Bureau of Reclamation operates the Aspinall Unit to

provide a minimum of 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) below

the dam. Congressman Strang's bill creating the National

Park calls for 300 cfs. The Sierra Club is apparently

asking for 600 cfs.

The issue is extremely complex. Flows through the Black

Canyon, impact the operation of Aspinall Unit for power

generation, upstream development, reservoir levels on Blue

Mesa, and the recovery of endangered fish species below

Grand Junction.

5 In stream flow issues go beyond the Black Canyon. What

instream flows are necessary to maintain the world class

fishery in the Taylor River? Are there streams in the

Upper Gunnison where the fishery and recreation opportuni­

ties can be enhanced through the construction of

additional reservoirs?

3. What is the potential for future hydroelectric development

on the Gunnison?

The Gunnison River already provides significant hydro­

electric power, but the river also has the potential to

provide additional hydroelectric development. The City of

Delta and Colorado-Ute Electric Association hold

conditional water rights for hydroelectric power plants in

the proposed National Park. A private developer has

proposed a huge pumped storage project utilizing Taylor

Park Reservoir. The Uncompahgre Water Users are in the

process of developing hydroelectric facilities on their

existing canals. All of these projects will have some

impact on the future of the Gunnison.

The hydroelectric rights in the Gunnison Gorge have

created an interesting challenge. In simple terms, these

projects are not economical in today's market conditions.

6 The cost of developing the resource far exceeds today's

market value of the resource. But will that be the case

20 years from now or 50 years from now? Know one can

answer that question.

Congressman Strang's legislation proposes giving Colorado­

Ute the rights to obtain the power available from

upgrading the existing capacity on the Aspinall Unit in

return for not developing its project in the Lower

Gunnison, but this proposal has been criticized by the

existing users of Colorado River Storage Project power.

Complicating the issue, there have been proposals to sell

of the hydroelectric resources of the Bureau to private

industry to help balance the federal budget. This raises

very interesting questions. Operation of the hydroelec­

tric turbines in the Aspinall Unit are presently driven by

both political and economic realities. Would this still

be the case if an investor owned utility were to purchase

and operate these units?

4. What is the future for water development on the Gunnison

River upstream of Blue Mesa Reservoir?

When the Aspinall Unit was authorized by Congress, it was

anticipated that there would be additional development on

7 the Gunnison River upstream of Blue Mesa Reservoir. Of the 60,000 af of additional depletions anticipated, only a very small amount has actually occurred. The

Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District is now examining methods to develop and finance its water rights in a manner that would enhance the recreation economy in the

Upper Gunnison.

In April, 1986, the City of Aurora, Colorado's third largest city, made a water rights filing for a transmountain diversion project. This proposed project would divert an average of 70,000 acre feet of water from the Upper Gunnison through the Continental Divide and

Arkansas Valley into the Platte River basin.

The threat of transmountain diversions from the Gunnison is not new. Aurora's plans are similar to those proposed in the 40's and 50's, and virtually identical to a transmountain diversion proposal made in the early 70's.

Aurora's plans for a transrnountain diversion from the

Gunnison are driven by realities of economics of supplying water to the Front Range municipalities. The metropolitan

Denver area already receives a majority of its water

supply from the West Slope. But those transmountain

8 diversions that are easy and economical to build have already been built. Future transmountain diversions from the Upper Colorado River are expected to cost tens of thousands of dollars per acre foot to develop. This high cost makes potential transmountain diversions from the Gunnison very attractive alternatives.

Aurora's transmountain diversion project will almost certainly not be the only one proposed.

The possibility of future transmountain diversions raises a whole new series of challenges to the Gunnison River drainage. Can transmountain diversions be built and operated in a manner compatible with the needs of the basin?

9