# Fraser River Deal



## catwoman (Jun 22, 2009)

All in all great news! I bet the Fraser runs raftable flows this year.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

I can't tell if this is good or not. Are they still going to take more water from the Fraser, and just gave up some concessions? 

I highly doubt they are going to fix past mistakes and just put more water in the river.


----------



## LongmontRafter (Jun 12, 2008)

I got this email as well...As much as some good will come of this, I have a problem with the following...



> $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


Why would you do this???...The Colorado river and the Fraser flows into Windy gap...only to be pumped back upstream to Granby...effectively de-watering the Fraser to put more water into the Colorado above Windy Gap...someone thought this was a good deal?

Someone explain this to me


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

LongmontRafter said:


> I got this email as well...As much as some good will come of this, I have a problem with the following...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Windy Gap is not a storage facility. They will allow more water to run in the Fraser while holding more back at Granby their storage facility. They will also pump additional water as needed from Windy Gap to Granby for storage rather than letting it spill as this deal has no impact on downstream colorado conditions. Rather than picking up the water at moffat they will grab it at Windy Gap. Given the water ends up in pipes anyways it's fairly win-win.


----------



## 2kanzam (Aug 1, 2012)

B....b...bu....but TU is the debbil! Their activities only benefit the feeshus and keep us from paddling our favorite runs by restricting stream access!!!

(the above is according to most buzzards on a recent thread apparently)


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

I'll try not to be too pessimistic here; it sounds like TU has gotten as much as they can from DW and postponed the death of that river as a viable aquatic system, but...

I admittedly don't have time to thoroughly read the report right now, but what I took away from it was this:

1) They are going to take more water out of the river and simultaneously increase base flows and increase flushing flows. How does this work?

2) Denver water has to try really hard to meet the flushing around 40% of the time, and relase up to 4 cfs, but not more than 250 af per year if the river gets too hot. If they have let all of their 250 af go already, they must reduce some diversions on tributary creeks. If it is determined the these measure don't work in 20 years, DW must throw some money at the river.

3) DW has to throw some money at CPW to push some rocks around for fish habitat.

4) DW has to throw some money at CPW to restore a cutthroat stream somewhere else.

I applaud TU for their campaign and the results they have achieved, but Denver is still taking 75% of the river. Now they just have to spend lots of money to keep all the fish from dying.

This still means less water for every other inch of the Colorado River System downstream of the Fraiser. That's less water for the Upper Colorado, less water for the Grand Valley, less water in Westwater, less water in Cataract, and less water in the Grand Canyon.

Meanwhile, Colorado has overused its allocation of the Colorado River for the last seven years. 

What is the point in taking more water out of a river system that is entirely used up? Transbasin diversions are just taking water away from other people.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

2kanzam said:


> B....b...bu....but TU is the debbil! Their activities only benefit the feeshus and keep us from paddling our favorite runs by restricting stream access!!!
> 
> (the above is according to most buzzards on a recent thread apparently)


In CO many of TU's projects negatively impact paddlers. I've found the opposite is true in MT. I think the particulars of the local law, needs and user bases in CO just makes for a bad mix. Those with long standing issues in CO are justified even if sometimes TU's efforts come into alignment with paddlers interests.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

mikepart said:


> I'll try not to be too pessimistic here; it sounds like TU has gotten as much as they can from DW and postponed the death of that river as a viable aquatic system, but...
> 
> I admittedly don't have time to thoroughly read the report right now, but what I took away from it was this:
> 
> ...


There are two ways to move the Fraser river water. The first is through the Moffat tunnel and the second is through the Windy Gap diversion scheme. They will continue to take water at Moffat as possible but in order to meet the newly established temperature and flush needs they will move some of the water downstream at Windy Gap. While the stream will have far less water than it would historically, it will have more water than if they pulled everything through Moffat. The same amount of water is pulled it's just a matter of where it's pulled. The deal does not impact downstream flows.


----------



## LongmontRafter (Jun 12, 2008)

> Windy Gap is not a storage facility. They will allow more water to run in the Fraser while holding more back at Granby their storage facility. They will also pump additional water as needed from Windy Gap to Granby for storage rather than letting it spill as this deal has no impact on downstream colorado conditions. Rather than picking up the water at moffat they will grab it at Windy Gap. Given the water ends up in pipes anyways it's fairly win-win.


Thanks for the explanation...This made me take a harder look at how water moves around the state


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

glenn said:


> There are two ways to move the Fraser river water. The first is through the Moffat tunnel and the second is through the Windy Gap diversion scheme. They will continue to take water at Moffat as possible but in order to meet the newly established temperature and flush needs they will move some of the water downstream at Windy Gap. While the stream will have far less water than it would historically, it will have more water than if they pulled everything through Moffat. The same amount of water is pulled it's just a matter of where it's pulled. The deal does not impact downstream flows.


I will try to do some research when I have time, but how does this work? Where does the 18,000 additional acre feet of water for Denver come from? Media reports suggest that this is an augmentation of existing transbasin diversions. Here is a quotation from The Colorado Independent:



> Grand County and Trout Unlimited have agreed to let Denver Water siphon another 18,000 acre feet from the headwaters of the Colorado River


I'm not saying your wrong; obviously you are better educated than I am about this project, but I am still sceptical about what is going on here. Hopefully I can do a little research and prove my concerns unfounded.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

mikepart said:


> I will try to do some research when I have time, but how does this work? Where does the 18,000 additional acre feet of water for Denver come from? Media reports suggest that this is an augmentation of existing transbasin diversions. Here is a quotation from The Colorado Independent:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying your wrong; obviously you are better educated than I am about this project, but I am still sceptical about what is going on here. Hopefully I can do a little research and prove my concerns unfounded.


All I've seen is the above news release I posted. I would not be surprised if the Denver media only reported the water which will now come through the Windy Gap project rather than the balance of water; an increase through Windy Gap and a decrease through Moffat. I'd love to hear what you find though. You may be right.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

My understanding is that the proposed Moffat Collection System increases transbasin diversions (from the Colorado headwaters to the South Platte headwaters), and it does deplete the amount of water available in the Colorado basin. This particular agreement further green-lights the Moffat Collection System, and as such, Denver Water's expansion of Gross Reservoir. 

I thought the article stated that diversions from the Fraser were going to increase from the current 60% to 85%. 

I kind of thought the deal was lose-lose. South Boulder Creek will receive more water... so I guess that's a win... but at further cost to the Colorado River. 

An extra 80cfs to flush sediment is unlikely to create raftable flows on the Fraser, and the extra 6cfs for the fish won't make the base flow any more runnable in the shoulder seasons. Unless I'm reading that wrong...


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Cutch said:


> I thought the article stated that diversions from the Fraser were going to increase from the current 60% to 85%.


My read on this was the increased water use was established prior to this deal. In light of existing problems and increased diversions in the future this plan was brought in place to help mitigate issues.



> I kind of thought the deal was lose-lose. South Boulder Creek will receive more water... so I guess that's a win... but at further cost to the Colorado River.


I'm not sure it's true SBC will receive more water. 



> An extra 80cfs to flush sediment is unlikely to create raftable flows on the Fraser, and the extra 6cfs for the fish won't make the base flow any more runnable in the shoulder seasons. Unless I'm reading that wrong...


Is 80 cfs all?


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

glenn said:


> My read on this was the increased water use was established prior to this deal. In light of existing problems and increased diversions in the future this plan was brought in place to help mitigate issues.
> 
> I'm not sure it's true SBC will receive more water.
> 
> Is 80 cfs all?


I think you are correct that the TU deal to mitigate issues came after the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement was finalized, which happened in fall of 2013. So, I misspoke saying it green-lighted it... it's more that this agreement pretends to make it all okay that the river will be dewatered further because the fish will survive. Part of the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement was that "West Slope Parties" wouldn't oppose the permits for the Moffat Collection System (aka Gross Reservoir Expansion), which although basically approved, is still seeing some opposition. 

My information that the SBC will receive more water was from attending initial meetings about the Moffat Collection System (years ago). Denver Water officials were basically telling me, hey, it's okay that the Fraser won't ever run again, because we are putting this much more water into SBC, thus increasing it's recreational value. Perhaps this deal changes that? I thought the extra water needed to fill an expanded Gross Reservoir was all going through South Boulder Creek. 

80 cfs at most, 3 out of 10 years, if they have water available to release... 

RIP Fraser.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Well shit.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

I know that the fishermen have screwed up the flows on the Arkansas by pushing for early releases, however TU has fought very very hard for water rights for the Fraser. They seem to be more organized and active politically, and they have spent a lot of time and money on this. I believe if it weren't for them this water fight may not have even formed a blip on the radar, so to speak. So thank you TU! 

It does seem that the mitigation is designed to help save the fish, but doesn't really address recreational flows for boaters. I wish this had been addressed more, but boating takes a lot more water than Denver is willing to give up/conserve. Hopefully in a banner snow year like this we'll at least have a few weeks of good boating in the valley, even with all the water diversions.

Kind of off-topic, but the Fraser has a great public take-out, but the put-in situation is sketchy. It would be awesome if we could secure a good public put-in for boaters. If there was one, I have to think more folks would run the Fraser when/if it does flow...... How does one go about this?


----------



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

TU is specifically and singularly focused on fishing. Fair enough and ok for them. They have no interest in boating or paddling. As witnessed by two members of this forum, they actually lobbied to close sections of the Ark, or as a minimum make them permitted sections. I wouldn't hold out many hopes for their support for making the Fraser any more runnable than now.
Not intentionally taking shots at TU, its just their goals have nothing to do with paddling.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

It's great that mitigating negative affects that haven't occurred yet make TU look like a winner with this deal. However, I think the trout are going to be worse off with 16% (? 1% added for releases) of the natural flow as opposed to their current 40% (current as in 2013 levels, not 2014 and beyond). I think this agreement is TU's goal to save face, and back out of an unwinnable fight. When read in context with the Colorado Cooperative River Agreement, this agreement doesn't help the fish, the fisherman, or the Fraser river enthusiast. 

Denver Water is in the business of buying out opposing parties of the Moffat Collection System, in exchange for all sorts of fun improvements/developments/construction projects. Ask them for a boat ramp, and tell them your organization won't oppose the dewatering of the Fraser if they build it for you, and it just might happen.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Not looking for a boat ramp - just a spot without a "no trespassing" sign. But I see your point Kyle. No point in even having access if there is no water to float. My thought is that if no one boats it there won't be anyone fighting for it (except TU of course).... Seems like the Fraser is lost. Go water your lawns down there and rejoice that you have unlimited water for your grass!


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

jennifer said:


> Go water your lawns down there and rejoice that you have unlimited water for your grass!


Again, you can't win a fight if you are focused on the wrong thing. We need to be focusing on the farms, ranchers and their waist. Between 85% and 90% depending on year, of Colorado's water use is agriculture...not residential.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

gretch6364 said:


> Again, you can't win a fight if you are focused on the wrong thing. We need to be focusing on the farms, ranchers and their waist. Between 85% and 90% depending on year, of Colorado's water use is agriculture...not residential.


I've heard that as well, but it's confusing since the farming use in theory should be relatively stagnant as is not a massive boom in AG in Colorado yet the population of the front range is booming. Why the steady increase in water needs then? Let's ignore that for a minute though. What if residential use is 90% waste because of lawns/carwashes? I for one would like 9-14% (yes I know that math isn't perfect) of the water back in the rivers.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

I would like a shit ton more then that back in the rivers, but it seems to me like we should start fighting the biggest uses, since that will be the easiest place to save. Water laws for Ag is so dumb in CO. A lot of times they are just taking the water even if they don't need it, so they reach their historic use levels and don't lose rights to the water in the future. That needs to change, along with incentives for smaller lawns, more desert scape golf courses, parks, and medians.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

formerflatlander said:


> TU is specifically and singularly focused on fishing. Fair enough and ok for them. They have no interest in boating or paddling. As witnessed by two members of this forum, they actually lobbied to close sections of the Ark, or as a minimum make them permitted sections. I wouldn't hold out many hopes for their support for making the Fraser any more runnable than now.
> Not intentionally taking shots at TU, its just their goals have nothing to do with paddling.


Colorado Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect, and restore Colorado's fisheries and their watersheds. 

TU is a conservation organization, solely focused on trying to keep as much water in streams as possible, every single day. There is nothing in our charter or bylaws that mentions the support or promotion of the sport of fishing (fly, bait, or using explosives). Do most members fish? Absolutely - but the purpose of the organization is to conserve rivers and river habitat.

There is a lot of information on the Fraser and the collaborative agreement with Denver Water and Grand County. It is an extremely complicated and delicate issue...we will address more of your concerns going forward. Thanks!

Sinjin Eberle
Immediate Past President, Colorado Trout Unlimited


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

jennifer said:


> I know that the fishermen have screwed up the flows on the Arkansas by pushing for early releases, however TU has fought very very hard for water rights for the Fraser. They seem to be more organized and active politically, and they have spent a lot of time and money on this. I believe if it weren't for them this water fight may not have even formed a blip on the radar, so to speak. So thank you TU!


First, thank you, Jennifer for the acknowledgement - we worked very hard and put everything we had into getting a long-term agreement that works for the river. Is it perfect?? Of course not, but given the situation we think we have made a positive difference for the river in the long run.

In terms of "screwed up the flows on the Ark by pushing for early releases..." While from a boating-only perspective, I can appreciate your point. But from an ecological health and fisheries perspective, we have historically tried to mitigate the unnatural flow regime caused by the dams in order to try to re-create a more natural hydrograph for the aquatic ecosystem. Species need flushing flows in the approximate vicinity of run-off for better reproduction and spawning cycles. We often hear that boaters would love to have a big, consistent flow spring to fall - that's cool if you only care about boating, but it is not the best thing for the aquatic habitat. That is our primary focus and why things have evolved the way they did.

We didn't screw up the flows on the Arkansas, the dams did...all of us are just trying to make the best of the situation we have before us...


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

formerflatlander said:


> As witnessed by two members of this forum, they actually lobbied to close sections of the Ark, or as a minimum make them permitted sections.


I forgot to address this (sorry)...TU has not lobbied to close sections of the Ark. Period. 

A local TU member, who is the ANGLER Rep on the Citizens Task Force, mentioned a closure as a possibility from an angler perspective, but he does not REPRESENT TU in that forum. The local TU chapter president also attends those meetings, and is the primary representative for TU in the valley. The TU chapter has not taken a position on the Angler Rep's statement.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

glenn said:


> In CO many of TU's projects negatively impact paddlers. I've found the opposite is true in MT. I think the particulars of the local law, needs and user bases in CO just makes for a bad mix. Those with long standing issues in CO are justified even if sometimes TU's efforts come into alignment with paddlers interests.


Hi there...I hate to be all picky and stuff, but where exactly has Colorado TU's projects negatively impacted paddlers?? You can certainly argue the point about the early season flows on the Arkansas maybe not being completely in line with paddlers wishes, but other than that??

Colorado TU, and certainly in the past 5 years or so, has been very aggressive in promoting and securing MORE river access for users of all stripes. We have funded and built boat ramps and fishing access in communities across Colorado. And on the Gunnison, we facilitated the removal of a very dangerous irrigation diversion (the Relief Ditch) that DIRECTLY improves boating access and safety on that stretch of river (to the tune of nearly a million dollars!). 

Further, we have been probably the MOST aggressive at supporting whitewater park RICD applications -- and we generally don't even USE whitewater parks! (We do this to help communities secure timeless water rights that keep water in rivers every day and promote the river economies in these towns...)

We even passed a Protect Our Rivers License Plate through the state legislature, which has NO fish on the graphic, nor says TU anywhere on the plate, AND dedicates 100% of the proceeds (dedicated, not optional) to river conservation and restoration efforts (and no, not fishing) in Colorado. You can find and purchase that plate at this link - http://www.protectourrivers.net/

My view is that EVERY river advocate should be promoting these ideals every day - whether you hold a fly rod or a Carlisle oar or a set of binoculars. We all enjoy and appreciate rivers, we should all be working together as closely as possible to make them wetter every day.

So...where have we negatively impacted paddlers??

Sinjin Eberle
Immediate Past President, Colorado TU


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Sinjin Eberle - thank you so much for addressing these issues! I know many people in TU in the Fraser valley and they seem like very reasonable folks with similar interests, so I've been confused by the boater/fisherman hostility recently. 

The bottom line is that in 2012 there were better flows in the dead of winter than in the summer. Essentially there was no boating season... The reason was the reservoirs were drained in Feb. and then there was no snow pack to replace it. TU gets blamed because we would like to see the draining start later to see if there will be enough water. If fishermen did push for this early draining of the reservoirs (based on snow forecast as opposed to actual snow pack) then that is what got so many boaters on edge in the first place (as I understand). Do you agree we should wait until April/May to start draining? Do you agree that actual snow pack should dictate flows more than predictions of snow pack? Do fishermen have any say in the time of drainage, or is this all nonsense? 

I agree, it is unfair to judge TU on one guy's opinion about closing a section to boating if it is not supported by the group, but in life these things happen. If a very vocal kayaker was trying to close the river to fishing, then you'd have to think WTF, right? Maybe someone can talk some sense into him? Think of it this way, if I were a fish, I'd rather a kayak/raft innocuously float by on occasion than be hooked in the mouth and dragged to shore, wouldn't you? We have just as much right to be there AND probably cause less harm to the fish than fishermen. Just a thought... 

Thanks!


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

jennifer said:


> Do fishermen have any say in the time of drainage, or is this all nonsense?
> .................
> Think of it this way, if I were a fish, I'd rather a kayak/raft innocuously float by on occasion than be hooked in the mouth and dragged to shore, wouldn't you? We have just as much right to be there AND probably cause less harm to the fish than fishermen. Just a thought...
> 
> Thanks!


Hey there, Jennifer - thanks for your thoughts as well...

1) TU has no more say in the operation of the drainage in the reservoirs than anyone else. Under the new schemes of both the Windy Gap and the more recent Moffat decisions, TU does have a seat at the table with regards to how the rivers are managed going forwards, but there are a lot of seats, and many other interest groups are represented. Again, our interest lies in the best management for the health of the aquatic ecosystems - that is even bigger than just the fish.

2) With regards to fish poking vs. boating...sure, I can see your point on that. But my point in all of this has been not what sport you participate in, but how much someone contributes to the overall health of the river. TU may have a long history of conservation, coupled closely with trout fishing, but that certainly DOES NOT exclude anyone from participating in advocacy for river health. I have for years wanted to find ways to bring the boating community and the fishing communities together for the common cause of river health, but it's difficult because of perceptions, by BOTH sides, of how the other operates.

TU is fortunate because we have a solid, organized, and active membership and staff that can promote river conservation goals more aggressively and broadly than other interest groups. And we do - to the benefit of both fish and boaters in nearly all cases (whitewater parks, anyone??)

It's pretty dumb to 'take sides' when we are all in this for the same, common, reason.

Thank you!

Sinjin


----------



## GTurp (Mar 2, 2012)

*Moffat Project Final Env Impact Statement due 4-25-14*

The FEIS for this Frasier River/Gross Reservoir exp is due out 4-25-14. It was delayed per DW's rquest to get last minute agreements, such as this one by TU, into the FEIS for the public comment period to follow it's release. I was involved in the "grass roots" efforts in the battle of Two Forks years ago and TU was essential in this fight. Maybe if we agree to never agree about flow preferences, we could work together. If we boaters asked nicely, I'll bet TU would supply resources for info and even coaching for comment letters. Anyone that's never been to one of these type of public hearings which will be scheduled, should go to one. The draft EIS is available thru ACE site or a link thru DW.
Cutch- the co river coop agreement you mentioned is sort of finalized-it has been signed, but is not final until 1) succesful permitting and acceptance of permit by DW. 2)completion of the project 3)nobody fights their conditional water right for 400,000 ac ft from the upper Blue River slated for diversion to future east slope storage. I have other issues with this doc also. The signatories of this agreement have also agreed to not oppose a future east slope storage project, containing no more than 400,000 ac ft at one time of west slope water. Couple this with a 2011 diligence filing for south platte coditional Two Forks water right, where DW spent $640,000 in the previous 8 years to insure these rights, this agreement makes a future project easier. And this new concept "learning by doing" - implies we haven't learned anything by what's been done. 
I think more should be learnd before we do more, but, it's a lot of complicated issues.


----------



## GTurp (Mar 2, 2012)

*Mistake in my previuos post*

The number I stated that DW spent on diligence costs for their Two Forks conditional water rights was 640,000, I left 3 - 0's out. Should read 640 million dollars spent over the 8 year period.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Sinjin Eberle said:


> Hi there...I hate to be all picky and stuff, but where exactly has Colorado TU's projects negatively impacted paddlers?? You can certainly argue the point about the early season flows on the Arkansas maybe not being completely in line with paddlers wishes, but other than that??


The Ark flow issues aren't a small and easily shrugged off by paddlers. The Ark is easily the best and most reliable paddling for CL III-IV paddlers in the state. Mismanagement heavily influenced by the fishing crowd, TU included killed the paddling season in 2012 and threatens the quality of the paddling every year. Also to my recollection TU aggressively supported landowners on the Taylor to refuse access to floaters in order to what they felt was a private fishery private. I spent 3 years in CO and among other reasons left because what I saw as unsustainable and irresponsible water usage. Happy to see TU and paddlers interests come into alignment around conservation and keeping water in the streambeds. 

Mostly I've viewed TU as a powerful ally for paddlers as they have much more pull than paddlers ever will for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

glenn said:


> The Ark flow issues aren't a small and easily shrugged off by paddlers. The Ark is easily the best and most reliable paddling for CL III-IV paddlers in the state. Mismanagement heavily influenced by the fishing crowd, TU included killed the paddling season in 2012 and threatens the quality of the paddling every year. Also to my recollection TU aggressively supported landowners on the Taylor to refuse access to floaters in order to what they felt was a private fishery private. I spent 3 years in CO and among other reasons left because what I saw as unsustainable and irresponsible water usage. Happy to see TU and paddlers interests come into alignment around conservation and keeping water in the streambeds.
> 
> Mostly I've viewed TU as a powerful ally for paddlers as they have much more pull than paddlers ever will for a variety of reasons.


Hi Glenn...

First, thank you for acknowledging where we are doing good and in alignment... 

But...there are a few things here that I will push back on...

1) TU has no more say in how Bureau of Rec operates their flow regimes than anyone else. Do we have a long-time and consistent voice on river issues in the state? Sure, but are we in CONTROL of them? Not by a long shot. Remember that as a conservation organization, more often that not when we are asked to comment on these kinds of operations, it is from the perspective of what is best for the management of the entire aquatic ecosystem - the fishery if you will - not just when would be the best time for FISHING. Flushing flows and trying to mimic a somewhat natural hydrograph in the face of huge trans-basin diversions and dams is a challenge for the ecosystem, regardless of whether or not I can go poke trout at my earliest convenience.

2) With regards to the Taylor, your recollection is flat wrong (sorry). I JUST wrote a post in a different forum that explains that situation from the TU perspective, as I was President of the organization at the time.  You can find that explanation here...

(I hope that worked correctly...)

I also said in a previous post yesterday (I think in this thread) about all of our activity over the years that has directly benefited the boating community, including supporting numerous whitewater park (RICD) proposals, numerous access points and access issues, the huge Upper Colorado campaign that we drove to keep more water in the river and improve habitat and recreation, and even pushing through a license plate that benefits ALL river users in the state.

You cited appreciation for some of our work - and I appreciate THAT, very much. It has long been my position that all of us river people are in this together and we need to keep working that way. The threats to the rivers is too great to be splintered along these silly lines. Just my $.02

Sinjin Eberle
Immediate Past President, Colorado TU


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Sinjin Eberle said:


> Hi Glenn...
> 
> First, thank you for acknowledging where we are doing good and in alignment...
> 
> ...


I think I can safely say TU is more organized, better funded and larger than any paddling advocacy group. That means they have a bigger say.



> 2) With regards to the Taylor, your recollection is flat wrong (sorry). I JUST wrote a post in a different forum that explains that situation from the TU perspective, as I was President of the organization at the time.  You can find that explanation here...


I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I frankly have no horse in this race and have little interest in debating it.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

glenn said:


> I think I can safely say TU is more organized, better funded and larger than any paddling advocacy group. That means they have a bigger say.
> 
> I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I frankly have no horse in this race and have little interest in debating it.


Yeah - fair enough on both points. Certainly on the first, however, it would be much better if we could find areas of alignment BEFORE we are all making official comments on dam operations and staking out positions on flow regimes. I think we would find that we have a lot more in common than we would think.

With regards to Right to Float...it was darn near a nightmare...super tricky, and an extremely contentious issue. We escaped, but it was close to a sure disaster. Yuk.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

1. It seems to me that the bottom line is that boaters want water in the Ark during the summer to float, and TU wants nice fat bugs in the water (ok - a happy aquatic ecosystem). Unfortunately, the times and flows just don't coincide. TU doesn't have the ultimate say, but for all intensive purposes, they've got more than we do, so we may eventually get another year like 2012 where the entire season is bust.... :sad:

2. Fred is "participating in advocacy for river health" by trying to prevent boating on certain sections of the Ark, and TU won't take a position. This is not making the fishermen or TU any friends in the boating community. And I bet it doesn't even have anything to do with us ruining the ecosystem - it just pisses him off when a boater floats by and interrupts his private fishing for a moment.


----------



## Landis (Apr 11, 2008)

*This is a side bar to the Moffat Expansion...*

The Moffat expansion is going to move more water out of the Fraser and to the East Slope. This is bad for all the Coloado drainage and the upper Fraser no matter how much recycling may be done to water between Windy Gap and Granby.

I don't like it.

On Windy Gap the River drops into the pond there then gets pumped out or some gets downstream. There is a pretty good head, maybe 30-40 feet. This would make an EXCELLENT WATER PARK if converted back to a river.

This is a non-navigable section of the river which should have a navigable channel through it. It is very close to Granby and Hot Sulphur Springs and people would paddle there.

Final note. Paddling below Windy Gap. We did this as a family trip a few years back. Folks at the bridge went a yelling at us after we had passed. There was some feeling in our group that a shot had even gone over our heads. 

Its a beautiful run otherwise. We took out at the "soon to be" Hot Sulphur play park. Similar in charachter to the paddling below Byers c down to Parshall. (Grand County, the time has come to let folks know you can actually paddle the Colorado River. It would likely bring a lot more leverage to the desire to maintain some semblance of Stream Flows). 

(Pic attached from Gore circa 1980-81 in my missing Mark IV) - Grand County all whe way.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

We've seen the same thing. Re-establishing the Colorado River at Windy Gap has been a major goal for TU (and also has been pushed by area landowners). The Northern District - operators of Windy Gap - are currently working with TU, Grand County and others on assessing options for reconnecting the river. If we succeed, it will not only re-create about a mile of river where there is a very shallow reservoir now, but will restore fish passage, improve water quality, and allow natural river processes to be restored. One thing that has become clear: the project - in whatever form it may take - will be expensive, several million dollars. Working with Northern and the County, we have gotten $4 million committed (half from Northern, half from the CWCB in response to a funding request from Northern) but that probably isn't even halfway there. Having many partners supporting the effort with other state and federal grants, and with private sector fundraising, will be key ... hopefully that's another place where TU and boaters can find common ground to work on. Imagine the Colorado flowing as a RIVER again at Windy Gap ... it will be awesome!


----------

