Keep the Poudre River Flowing

"Thornton evaluated a Poudre River Alternative during its initial scoping process and found that the alternative would save the City up to $150 million in pipeline construction costs by avoiding approximately 26 miles of pipeline."

"Thornton argues that Colorado water law prohibits the Board from adopting the Poudre River Alternative. More specifically, Thornton argues that the Board may not adopt the Poudre River Alternative because it would:

· require an unlawful change in the point of withdrawal of its water shares from the Poudre River; and,

· unlawfully diminish water quality when compared to Thornton’s desired point of withdrawal;

· unlawfully diminish water quantity as the water flows down the River.

Thornton’s arguments do not have factual and/or legal support. Instead, both the facts and Colorado water law would allow Thornton to implement the Poudre River Alternative.

Thornton can legally convey its water shares down the Poudre River and can withdraw that water “at any point desired.”  Since the Poudre River Alternative is conceptually authorized by Colorado water law, it is both reasonable and legally available to Thornton."

"Colorado law authorizes this Board to regulate the Thornton Water Project, including requiring an alternate point of withdrawal from the Poudre River. "

"Thornton argues that it has a legal right to water quality at the LCC head gate and or at WSSC #4. Thornton has no legal right to the water quality at either of these locations. First, Thornton did not purchase all of its water shares at the location of the LCC head gate or WSSC#4. It purchased most of its water shares with degraded water quality from farms measurably downstream along the LCC. Second, Colorado water law does not guarantee a degree of water quality when purchasing water shares. .... 

Thornton is at most entitled only the degree of water quality delivered to the farms it purchased."

"Thornton has not proven that any water loss resulting from the Poudre River Alternative would be unreasonable when compared to the water loss historically experienced when its water shares flowed in the canal to farms in eastern Larimer and Weld Counties."

" Thornton has proposed a set of benefits to Larimer County if its Supplement #3 is approved (County Road 56 route). However, many of the proposed “benefits” are actions Thornton already planned to implement. In the December 2018 hearing, the Board noted that the benefits package proposed by Thornton was woefully inadequate."
   

"Ideally, the Board would prefer to issue a 1041 permit that complies with all Land Use Code requirements, minimizes adverse impacts to the County, and confers meaningful and enforceable benefits to the County. Unfortunately, Thornton has failed to present such a 1041 application and may leave the Board with no other option but to deny the 1041 permit application."

TO READ OUR LAWYER'S FULL COMMENT LETTER, EMAIL NO PIPE DREAM AT NOPIPEDREAMFTC@GMAIL.COM AND REQUEST A LINK TO HIS REPORT.