Tag Archives: Eric Kuhn

Eric Kuhn, 2017 Diane Hoppe Leadership Award

TONIGHT, Friday, May 12th, the Colorado Foundation for Water Education will celebrate water education and water leadership at its annual President’s Reception.  Each year, CFWE honors the work of a Coloradoan who has a body of work in the field of water resources benefiting the Colorado public, a reputation among peers and a commitment to balanced and accurate information, with the Diane Hoppe Leadership Award. This year, CFWE will recognize Eric Kuhn with the Colorado River District with this award.

Register here to attend the President’s Reception tonight at 6 p.m. at the Denver Art Museum. We’ll enjoy refreshments, a fun evening with friends, and our first ever LIVE AUCTION. We can’t wait to see you there!

Eric Kuhn, 2017 Diane Hoppe Leadership Award Recipient

By Greg Hobbs

Eric Kuhn WEB 1Eric Kuhn, “big thinker, deep thinker,” is how his colleague Jim Pokrandt describes him. Thirty-six years ago, in the spring of 1981, Kuhn moved from southern California to join the Colorado River District’s staff as assistant secretary engineer. As an electrical engineer, he served as a Navy submarine officer, earned a master’s in business administration from Pepperdine University, and worked with Bechtel Corporation’s power group on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

One of then-secretary engineer Rolly Fischer’s “greatest accomplishments” was hiring Kuhn, writes George Sibley in Water Wranglers a 75th anniversary history of the River District. “Whatever Kuhn might have lacked in water experience, he more than made up with a quiet and quick creative intelligence.” Another district colleague, Chris Treese, credits him with “maintaining harmony” in a 15-county district “naturally divided between tourism-dependent headwaters counties and more traditional ranching and mining counties.”

Harmony? Well, yes, maybe, for sure, and at times! The River District’s 15 board members are appointed by the boards of county commissioners representing a huge expanse of western Colorado, from west of the Divide to the Utah border, from the north slope of the San Juans to the Wyoming border. Differences are sure to arise given the changing needs and desires of sub-basins therein, but having common forums like the River District board is a good way to hash them out.

In 1937, just for such a purpose, the Colorado General Assembly created the Colorado River Water Conservation District together with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Water Conservancy District Act. The River District’s statutory mission is to “safeguard for Colorado, all waters to which the state of Colorado is equitably entitled under the Colorado River Compact.” In my preface to Sibley’s book, I describe this legislative charge as “an unusual example of tucking the outside skin of the fruit into its core and exposing its flesh to potential consumers.”

On becoming the River District’s general manager in 1996, succeeding Rolly Fischer, Kuhn assumed the neck-wrenching duty of keeping one eye on six downstream states and the Republic of Mexico, while keeping his other eye roving up and down Colorado’s Front Range spotting opportunities to protect western Colorado water. When he’s at home in Glenwood Springs, he focuses both eyes on an early morning bike ride along the Roaring Fork River and the Colorado River.

It’s at the conjunction of waters Kuhn works best. As a young River District engineer, he constantly hit the road to becoming an intrastate and interstate water diplomat. As a member of the Western Slope Advisory Council, Kuhn helped former Governor Richard Lamm’s Metropolitan Water Roundtable examine possible alternatives to Denver Water’s proposed transbasin diversion, Two Forks Dam and Reservoir.

Parked in No-Go throughout the 1980s, one of the project’s alternates was an exchange of water up the Blue River through the West Slope’s more senior Green Mountain Reservoir (1935 priority) to Denver’s junior Dillon Reservoir (1946 priority), for transport through Denver’s  Robert’s Tunnel. After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Two Forks veto in 1991, this exchange materialized as a separate project with construction of the River District’s Wolford Mountain Reservoir on Muddy Creek north of Kremmling, completed in 1996. Some of this water goes to protect the endangered Colorado River fish while some goes to Denver by exchange. Some is for West Slope use. Kuhn and former River District engineer Dave Merritt collaborated with Denver Water’s Manager Chips Barry, to get this joint-use project up and running.

The key to the deal was keeping intact the senior downstream Shoshone hydroelectric water right in Glenwood Canyon (1902 priority), in the face of Denver’s multidecadal, unsuccessful federal court effort to assert a domestic preference for the water over West Slope uses. Denver Water and Northern Water’s Municipal Subdistrict (in mitigation for the Windy Gap Project at the junction of the Fraser River and the Colorado) contributed funds to Wolford Mountain Reservoir’s construction and subsequent operation.

None of this was any more complicated than any other matter involving the Colorado River. Protecting Colorado’s water allocation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact requires an ongoing all-Colorado commitment to preserving Lake Powell’s water delivery equalizing function with Lake Mead, while implementing the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Not to be forgotten in this milieu of water governance and politics is the cooperation of environmental groups, the Colorado Water Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation, the seven Colorado River Basin states, the Republic of Mexico, and the U.S. Congress. Healthy-as-can-be riparian habitat up and down the Colorado River, as it runs from Rocky Mountain National Park to the Sea of Cortez through Lake Powell and Lake Mead, is a goal worth pursuing. But achieving this in the midst of wicked drought, like the one we’ve just seen, is daunting.

Colorado’s new water plan, coordinated through the Colorado Water Conservation Board, nine local basin roundtables and a statewide Interbasin Compact Committee, aspires to many more collaborative agreements, like the Wolford Mountain agreement and the more recent Colorado River Cooperative Agreement that Denver Water, the River District and a score of others have entered into. When planning future projects, failure to take into account the risk of even greater droughts risks the state’s future.

This is why Kuhn rides his bike, gaining both a physical workout and thinking time. The Colorado River’s been good to him. He met his wife, Sue, in Glenwood Springs. They’ve raised their beloved daughters Hallie and Kenzie there. It’s a brainy, nuclear family composed of engineering, medical laboratory, bio-tech, climate change problem-solving geeks.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Colorado Foundation for Water Education, Water Education and Resources

A conversation with Jim Lochhead and Eric Kuhn on water supply, transbasin diversions, conservation and more

Transbasin diversions have had a long, changing and important history redistributing water across Colorado.  In partnership, the Colorado Water Congress and Colorado Foundation for Water Education coordinated a series of webinars looking at these projects and exploring questions that are arising in the drafting of Colorado’s Water Plan. The final webinar was a video-cast conversation between Denver Water’s Jim Lochhead and the Colorado River District’s Eric Kuhn. After a lively conversation, a few questions from listeners went unanswered. Below are some thoughts from Jim Lochhead and Eric Kuhn responding to those participant questions. 

Panelists Jim Lochhead and Eric Kuhn, prompted by moderator Dan Luecke, discuss Colorado's transbasin diversions.

Panelists Jim Lochhead and Eric Kuhn, prompted by moderator Dan Luecke, discuss Colorado’s transbasin diversions.

Q: While big projects may be a long way off, the IBCC keeps referencing possible new transbasin diversions on the Yampa, Green or Gunnison. Why spend time on the Seven Points if no big transbasin diversion is really necessary? -Brent Gardner-Smith, Aspen Journalism

Jim Lochhead: The IBCC Seven points offer a framework for discussion, particularly around providing more security for our Colorado River supplies. If we can’t achieve operational security for our Colorado River supplies through the operation of federal Upper Basin reservoirs and management of demands during critically dry periods, then the development of new major transmountain diversions and the dry-up of irrigated agriculture may become necessary. Hopefully an understanding of these issues will allow for more experimentation and piloting of ideas, such as the System Conservation Agreement.

Eric Kuhn: The value of the discussions of the Seven Points on the West Slope has been an increased understanding and sensitivity to the [Colorado River] Compact risk issues. My view is that there has always been (and there may always be) a constituency on the East Slope that believes Colorado’s water problems can be solved by importing water (and thus exporting the problems) from somewhere else. Folks with this view are at the table and have to be a part of the discussion.

Q: Might we consider including those in the regulatory arena in those early, collaborative discussions to expedite the later permitting and review process– Jim Luey, EPA

Jim Lochhead: It is definitely worth exploring whether regulators can be brought into early, collaborative discussions consistent with legal obligations. Ideally, at a minimum, regulators will have a better understanding of the permit applications and environmental compliance and would be able to more quickly develop analysis and work with project proponents and the public.

Eric Kuhn: I agree with Jim. The concept has been discussed for many years, but has proven to be very difficult to implement.

 Q: Is there room for Front Range entities who use West Slope water to adopt a more proactive approach to safeguarding the environmental health of West Slope rivers? Colorado Springs, for example, does not seem to want to talk about the environmental health of the Roaring Fork, even though close to 40 percent of the river’s water is diverted.

Jim Lochhead: I can’t speak for Colorado Springs. At Denver Water, we are acutely aware that the environmental health of the watersheds and rivers that are the sources of our supply is critical to the long-term sustainability of those supplies and our obligation to supply water to our customers. We continually educate our customers about the interconnection between environmental health and their water supply and believe that they support our programs to increase watershed and aquatic health—on both the East and West Slopes.

Eric Kuhn: I agree with Jim’s answer.

Q: Colorado water law and administration tends to encourage people to divert more water than they need to meet their legitimate consumptive uses. Is there a way to change that, perhaps by requiring a transparent public measurement of “current consumptive use” as assessors do with houses and land?

Jim Lochhead: One way to encourage, or even enforce, better and more efficient management is to more forcefully enforce prohibitions against waste by requiring or at a minimum incentivizing greater efficiency. Denver Water’s conservation mantra is “Use Only What You Need,” which should apply across all sectors.

Eric Kuhn: On the West Slope there is too much confusion between diversion “efficiency” and measures that reduce consumptive use. The only real ways to reduce consumptive use are by reducing evapotranspiration by plants and evaporation by the sun. Depending on the location of the diversion, bad “efficiency” is often good for the environment, because the delayed return flows hold up late season stream flows.

Q: Colorado experienced some condiserable rainfall flooding damage in the last couple years on the Front Range especially. Obviously capture and retention of stormwater is an important source of water for domestic usage. The new water plan supports developing new water storage facilities to hold water from winter snow melt to spread water delivery over a longer period than just the natural May, June, July runoff period. I don’t see any reference in the SB 14-115 reports to flood control aspects in these new water storage projects. Flood control has historically been a major reason for creating reservoirs. My question is, why no flood control concepts in the SB 14-115 report and water plan? -Bob Jenkins, Colorado Home Builders

Eric Kuhn: Stormwater is one of those areas where we have become servants of water law (as opposed to it serving us). In over-appropriated basins, like the Platte, the problem is that stormwater management can be viewed as an out of priority diversion. This is an area that requires additional discussions with the State Engineer’s Office. On the flood control question, there is an inherent conflict between operating a reservoir for water storage vs. flood control. For flood control reservoirs, we want to keep them empty because we never know when we’ll get another September 2013 flood. For water storage, we want them full, because we never know when we’ll be entering the next critical drought. Many reservoirs do in-fact have both purposes, but there is a delicate balance and tension between these purposes. The lengthy Chatfield Reservoir reallocation process is a good example of how difficult these issues are to analyze and resolve.

There are 27 transbasin diversions in Colorado that move more than 580,000 acre-feet of water each year from one of Colorado’s four major river basins to another. Read more in CFWE’s Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Transbasin Diversions. And hear more from these speakers Jim Lochhead and Eric Kuhn on a panel at the 2015 Colorado Water Congress Annual Convention.

3 Comments

Filed under Colorado Foundation for Water Education, Colorado's Water Plan, Water Leaders, Water Legislation, Water Supply