Colorado River District outlines $99 million Shoshone water-rights purchase and broader instream-flow concerns

Colorado River District leaders told Rio Blanco County commissioners on May 20 that the district has contracted to buy Shoshone water rights for $99,000,000 and has formally begun the statutory process for the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to acquire the right to use the water for instream flow purposes.

“We are buying this water right from a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, and we have a contract to buy it for $99,000,000,” Andy Mueller, the district’s general manager, said. He described a formal statutory process that opened “last week,” triggering a 120‑day window that will put the matter on the CWCB’s September meeting agenda.

Mueller and Peter Fleming, the district’s general counsel, said the purchase and the CWCB process have prompted opposition from some Front Range entities that argue the change could amount to an enlargement of existing rights. The Shoshone combined interim flow, they said, is 1,408 cubic feet per second (cfs); district staff said reducing that amount would yield a material benefit to transmountain diverters.

Funding and timing: The River District’s board committed $20,000,000 toward the purchase after voters approved a district tax increase in 2020. The CWCB board later recommended $20,000,000 in the annual projects bill. Local main-stem entities have pledged about $17,200,000 in commitments. The district also said it received an Interior Department IRA award of $40,000,000 that was issued but has since been frozen pending federal review.

Why it matters: District staff said Shoshone supports recreation, agriculture and municipal water uses across Western Colorado and that preserving the water right as an instream flow protects downstream and upstream benefits. “The recreation account is no small thing on the Colorado. It's $4,000,000,000 a year,” Mueller said in explaining economic and community stakes.

Broader instream-flow debate: Several county attendees raised long-standing concerns that new instream-flow appropriations — particularly on reaches where flows are intermittent — can lock existing and future development. Tom Shinfoil, speaking from the conservation district perspective, described past examples where instream-flow approvals prevented proposed projects or made development infeasible. District staff said they have advocated for and sometimes secured “development allowances” in instream-flow appropriations that permit limited new water development without undermining environmental goals; they cited one large loss (a Dolores River appropriation) and several successful, smaller negotiations where allowances were included.

Wilderness-designation concerns: Commissioners and district staff also discussed instream-flow filings in national forest and wilderness areas. Fleming said the district has sometimes supported state instream flows as part of negotiated alternatives to federal wild-and-scenic designations, while cautioning that new wilderness designations and federal reserve water rights raise separate legal complications.

Ending: The River District said it will continue CWCB negotiations and coordinate with local governments. Mueller asked county staff to keep the district informed of filings and local changes so district legal staff can respond during the CWCB notice and water-court processes.