Yellowjacket board asks Rio Blanco County to help fund $200,000 feasibility study for Lake Avery enlargement

Yellowjacket Water Conservancy District board members asked Rio Blanco County commissioners at a June work session to consider contributing seed money toward a roughly $200,000 feasibility study to evaluate enlarging Lake Avery and developing an augmentation plan for the White River basin.

The study, described by Yellowjacket representatives as a two-year engineering and feasibility effort, would analyze options ranging from small spillway adjustments that could add a few feet of water storage (an early estimate cited a potential gain of about 2,000 acre-feet for a modest raise) to larger dam-height increases and associated engineering, geologic and permitting challenges.

County commissioners said they were broadly supportive of the goal but declined to make a decision during the work session. Commissioners asked Yellowjacket to provide a written plan and commitments before the county would commit funds, citing several open issues: who would serve as fiscal agent, whether the district could legally accept and hold grant funds without violating TABOR, which entity would assume liability for an enlarged dam, and how any new storage would be governed and released under an augmentation plan.

Why it matters: county officials and district leaders said the White River is central to local agriculture, recreation and tourism. Yellowjacket and other speakers said the river now faces a water-rights “call” that has made augmentation water more important for future residential and agricultural development; speakers also warned that over-appropriation that began on May 1 affects how wells and subdivisions can be permitted.

Discussion highlights

- Funding and timing: Yellowjacket asked the county to help pay part or all of the engineering proposal it recently received; the proposal estimate repeatedly cited during the meeting was about $200,000. Yellowjacket representatives said the district’s annual operating revenue is small (they cited roughly $27,000), and the district cannot absorb large one-time grants without a fiscal partner or a change in its taxing/enterprise status.

- Scope of the feasibility study: Commissioners and Yellowjacket described the study as evaluating multiple enlargement concepts (spillway modifications, small raises of a few feet up to larger dam-height increases), dam stability and geologic suitability, storage volumes for each option, permitting needs and likely cost-range for construction. Participants said the study would identify whether the site is feasible; if it is not, the project would not proceed.

- Governance, liability and operations: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) currently manages Lake Avery and holds some liability for the dam. County commissioners and CPW staff said CPW lacks the manpower to operate an augmentation program and that liability, operation and release authority would need to be resolved if the project moved forward. Commissioners requested written commitments about who would operate and assume liability before funding construction planning.

- Legal and fiscal constraints: Participants discussed TABOR and other statutory constraints on small districts receiving and holding large sums; county legal staff and commissioners said they needed clarity on whether Yellowjacket could serve as fiscal agent or whether another entity (for example, the county or a partner such as the Colorado River District) would need to hold funds. Participants also noted that federal funding, if sought for construction, would trigger NEPA review.

- Impact on residents and wells: Speakers referenced prior engineering work indicating many existing wells could be affected by over-appropriation; an earlier engineering estimate mentioned in the meeting put the number at roughly 400 existing wells within the district that could be affected. Commissioners and speakers said augmentation storage could preserve domestic and agricultural uses and support limited future development, but they cautioned that augmentation water would not fully substitute for all uses and that trade-offs exist.

- Coalition and next steps: Several commissioners urged forming a multi-stakeholder group (a coalition or steering committee) to pursue grants, serve as a fiscal agent, and coordinate partners if the feasibility study shows the site is viable. Yellowjacket board members said they support forming a broader group but want the study to proceed first. Commissioners asked Yellowjacket to draft an MOU or written proposal specifying the study scope, anticipated partners, fiscal arrangements and commitments expected of each party.

Other details and context

- Applegate, an engineering firm referenced in the discussion, previously worked on preliminary analyses for the district; the Yellowjacket board said it recently received an engineering proposal in February to perform the formal feasibility study.

- Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff on the call said they would be willing to discuss liabilities and operational roles after the feasibility study, but CPW staff noted they currently lack capacity to operate an augmentation program.

- Basin roundtable attention: meeting speakers noted the local basin roundtable will conduct a field inspection of Lake Avery on July 9 and that the project is on the roundtable’s agenda.

Outcome and follow-up

No formal vote or commitment was taken at the work session. County commissioners directed staff and Yellowjacket representatives to draft a memorandum of understanding or written proposal with study scope, budget, fiscal-agent options and partner commitments for the commissioners’ board to review. Yellowjacket asked the county to consider seed funding for the $200,000 proposal and offered to work with the county on an MOU and on identifying additional grant partners if the county provided initial support to advance the feasibility analysis.

Ending

Speakers agreed on the central next step: complete the feasibility study and, if it shows the site is viable, convene a broader steering group and finalize governance, fiscal and liability arrangements before the county funds construction planning or commits to long-term financial exposure.