A top Colorado water agency in March will consider whether to provide more public money to an irrigation reservoir company that has come under fire for failing to honor promises to aid the Rio Grande.
The San Luis Valley Irrigation District received some $30 million in state loans and grants from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to repair its failing dam in the upper Rio Grande Basin near Creede. The work was completed four years ago, and was part of a high-profile project widely touted as an important example of modern-era, multipurpose water projects designed to benefit Colorado growers, streams and fish.
But promises that were made while the loans and grants were being considered have not been honored, according to environmental groups who monitor the river’s health and locals who rely on the river to support their guiding, kayaking and fishing businesses.
In its latest grant application to the state, the San Luis Valley Irrigation District is asking for an additional $102,595 to study and do preliminary design work on a mechanical upgrade that would allow water to be released from the dam during the winter. The district has committed $92,595 in cash and matching funds of its own to the project. The San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District has also agreed to help, contributing $10,000.
The SLV irrigation district serves farms around Center and has delivered water from the dam since 1912, according to its website. District officials did not respond to a request for comment.
The district said revamping the dam would allow for cold weather releases that would benefit fish, “which is a high priority of local stakeholders for compact compliance flexibility and ecological benefits of increasing winter flows,” the application states. It was referring to the Rio Grande Compact, a federal agreement with New Mexico and Texas which requires Colorado to ensure both of those states receive their legal share of the river’s flows.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board will vote on the new grant application at its meeting March 19, according to Kirk Russell, the agency’s finance section chief.
Russell said it was too early to say whether the board would impose contractual requirements outlining the desired environmental benefits as part of any grant approvals.
Last fall, state officials said they had no authority to require that the restorative efforts occur, despite the promises that had been made, because no language describing those promises was included in the actual loan and grant contracts.
Locals who have been angered by what they see as the irrigation company’s lack of response remain skeptical about its latest plan.
“It looks as if they will go through with some attempt,” said Jim Loud, an organizer of The Committee for a Healthy Rio Grande. “That is just a small part, though, of the promises that were made. The winter release is only one piece of it. The biggest stressor for the fish is in August and July when the water is low and temperatures rise … We need those issues to be addressed as well.
“And I haven’t heard anything about a commitment to actually release water. So I’m skeptical. I don’t have a lot of confidence. I have heard a lot of happy talk over the past 12 years,” Loud said.
But Kevin Terry, southwest program director for Trout Unlimited, said he’s hopeful that the new grant request is a real effort to meet the environmental commitments made to the river.
“I think it’s good news,” he said.