Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand County OKs filing for party status in contested hearing over Shoshone water-rights offer
Summary
The Grand County Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to file for party status in a contested hearing over a proposed Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in‑stream flow interest tied to the Shoshone water rights. Commissioners also directed staff and counsel to prepare prehearing statements if the CWCB grants the hearing request.
The Grand County Board of County Commissioners voted to authorize county staff to file for party status in a contested hearing over a proposed Colorado Water Conservation Board in‑stream flow interest tied to the Shoshone water rights on the Colorado River.
County Manager Moyer told commissioners that front‑range transmountain water providers — including Aurora, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water and Northern Water — had requested a contested hearing after a CWCB staff recommendation to proceed with the in‑stream flow offer. “We are asking the Board of County Commissioners approve Grand County file for party status for the CWCB contested hearing,” Moyer said.
The contested hearing, if granted by the CWCB board, would be scheduled to coincide with the CWCB’s September meeting in Durango. County legal staff said any person or party that wishes to appear as a party must submit written notice of party status to the CWCB by July 9. David Taussig, special legal counsel working with the county, told the board that party status would allow Grand County and affiliated West‑slope entities to coordinate prehearing statements and allocate topics for the September proceeding.
Commissioners and staff described the core dispute as technical and historical: front‑range entities contest whether certain historic supplemental releases (for example, releases from Green Mountain Reservoir) should be counted as part of the Shoshone flow amounts being offered for in‑stream use. The county’s staff summary said the offered in‑stream flow interest includes senior and junior components — the senior right around 1,250 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a junior component around 158 cfs, a combined figure often referred to in discussion as 1,408 cfs.
The board approved a motion to file for party status and gave direction to the county manager and legal counsel to draft any necessary prehearing statements and related filings should the CWCB grant the contested‑hearing request. Commissioners said prehearing filings would be coordinated with other West‑slope entities, and that any finalized prehearing statements would be returned to the BOCC for review before submission.
Commissioners emphasized that the contested hearing process would not substitute for water court litigation and that many of the technical historic‑use arguments ultimately belong in water court. For now, county staff framed the step as preserving Grand County’s ability to present evidence and coordinate West‑slope testimony before the CWCB.
The vote was taken by voice. The board also gave staff direction to prepare documents for review at the next meeting if needed.
Background: the contested hearing arises from an offer by a purchaser of Xcel Energy’s Shoshone hydropower rights; the Colorado River District and CWCB are involved in structuring portions of the purchase and related in‑stream flow interests. The CWCB’s staff recommendation to accept the hearing request and notice requirements triggered the July 9 party‑status deadline and the potential September hearing in Durango.
What’s next: county staff and counsel will draft and, with the board’s review, file the party‑status notice by July 9. If the CWCB schedules the hearing, Grand County will coordinate prehearing statements with partner West‑slope entities and determine who will present on specific topics at the September proceeding.
