Q&A with Renewable Water Resources

Alamosa Citizen: Please give an overview and schedule for your project – total expected cost, total expected water yield, expected construction and delivery schedule for each phase. What are the main permits needed, and when do you expect to get them? Where do you expect to be on this project this summer? By the end of the year? One year from now? When is buildout expected? What deadlines have funders given you?

Renewable Water Resource: To date, Renewable Water Resource (RWR) has invested its time and resources in studying and developing a proposal that we believe is advantageous to the Valley. This includes creating a $50 million community fund, locally run and controlled. The $50 million community fund will be distributed to the community and up to local residents in terms of how the funds will be used. For example – the community fund could fund schools, food banks, senior services, job training programs, to even connecting the Valley via dependable Wi-Fi. 

We have also promised to establish over three thousand acres of new elk habitat, an idea brought forward in one of the more than one hundred meetings RWR has held across the San Luis Valley. 

Our team, including our water engineer, have also profusely studied the aquifer – the source of water for this project. By Colorado law, for water to be developed – it must be retired at the same rate. This is informally known in the water community as the “one-for-one” law. 

Recognizing there is a shallow section of the aquifer, the RWR project aims to accomplish “one-for-one plus.” In other words, we are retiring MORE water than we are developing. 

Specifically, we are developing 22,000 acre-feet of water and retiring 31,000 acre-feet. That surplus of 9,000 acre-feet will go back into the San Luis Valley’s shallow section of the aquifer. (Background: The amount of water we would develop – 22,000 acre-feet – represents 2.5 percent of the aquifer’s annual recharge.)

To reach our desired amount of 22,000 acre-feet, we are investing $68 million to pay local farmers and ranchers who voluntarily wish to retire their water rights above market rate. 

This summer, our time and attention will remain in the Valley. No end user/buyer has been identified yet. Nor have we filed for Colorado Water Court – a process which could take 3 to 5 years. It would be too premature to guess on infrastructure costs or time projections. More so, most infrastructure costs would be on the end user. 

Colorado Water Court is the key arbitrator for this project to move forward.

AC: What is the history of this project – whose idea it was, when did the current management start work on it, did you acquire the rights to this project from someone else? Is it fair to compare it to AWDI? 

RWR: RWR and its team had no involvement in AWDI nor has RWR acquired any rights to this project from anyone at AWDI. Sean Tonner, a key principal for the project, spends significant time in the San Luis Valley meeting with individuals and groups regarding the project as well as managing his ranch and farm assets that employ a number of people with generational ties to the SLV. 

The proposal we are offering today is startlingly different. Our project today is crafted to make it the best proposal for the San Luis Valley, which is why we’ve spent the last two years in the Valley talking and listening to the concerns of locals. 

Points of difference:

• The amount of water that is proposed to be developed in the RWR project is significantly LESS than in previous proposals. In contrast to RWR’s development of 22,000 AF – previous proposals eyed the development of 150,000 AF of water.
• We are retiring MORE water than we are developing – this is in contrast to previous proposals. We propose to develop 22,000 AF, and retire 31,00 AF – the surplus of 9,000 acre-feet will go back into the San Luis Valley’s shallow aquifer.
• The amount of water we would develop – 22,000 acre-feet – represents 2.5 percent of the aquifer’s annual recharge.
• The investment to the local community is MORE than in previous proposals. These investments include:
• A $50 million Community Fund, locally run and controlled. This equates to an infusion of about $3 to $4 million dollars annually into the local economy.
• Investment of $68 million to pay local farmers and ranchers who voluntarily wish to retire their water rights above the market rate.
• We have also promised to establish over three thousand acres of new elk habitat, an idea brought forward in one of the more than one hundred meetings RWR has held across the San Luis Valley.
• Upon the initial of this project, RWR approached the Rio Grande Water Conservation Board asking the Board to be our partner. They declined, and to date, the Rio Grande Water Conservation Board has offered no plan to solve the Valley’s water woes.
• And, much has changed in Colorado since the AWDI days. Documented climate change, a constant and continued population boom in the Front Range, growing pressures on the Colorado and Platte Rivers as well as on the Western Slope – create a myriad of factors that amount to a looming water shortage in the state’s most densely populated areas.

AC: Please provide specifics on where the project will be built and how. Wells? Holding reservoirs? Pumping stations? Pipelines? Where and when will these components be built, and what is the expected cost? Can you provide a project map or schematics? 

RWR: The project proposes a pipeline. No end user/buyer has been identified yet. Nor have we filed for Colorado Water Court – a process which could take 3 to 5 years. It would be too premature to guess on infrastructure costs or build-out dates as all these decisions would be driven by the end user and going through Water Court. 

AC: How much money do you expect to spend in the San Luis Valley on this project via a) water purchases and b)  construction and development. 

RWR: No end user/buyer has been identified yet. We have also not filed for Colorado Water Court – a process which could take 3 to 5 years. It is too early to speculate on construction and development costs. 

Locally, our investment commitments include:

• A $50 million Community Fund, locally run and controlled by San Luis Valley residents. This equates to an infusion of about $3 to $4 million dollars annually into the local economy when accounting for inflation.
• Investment of $68 million to pay local San Luis Valley farmers and ranchers who voluntarily wish to retire their water rights above the market rate.

To give the above numbers some context, the poverty rate of the San Luis Valley is greater than 35 percent and the average median household income is under $26,000. We do believe our commitments to the community will better the Valley.

AC: Can you please provide names and contract information for San Luis Valley locals who support this project? Who are the key people outside the valley supporting this project?

RWR: (RWR answered this question mainly by citing an opinion poll that it refuses to release. The Alamosa Citizen requested a copy of this poll to make sure RWR was accurately reflecting its findings and not cherry-picking responses favorable to the project. RWR said no. As a result, the Alamosa Citizen will not publish references to a poll that remains private.)

Our project will strengthen the local economy, schools, and local area nonprofits and community groups.

. . . local residents are concerned the state will shut down water wells in the San Luis Valley because one section of the valley aquifer is shallow and not meeting sustainability goals set by the state. Our project will help prevent this type of water curtailment, as by developing parts of the deep aquifer, we can help replenish the shallow aquifer. 

We have not identified an end user yet; our efforts have been focused in the Valley for that reason. Once an end user is identified, we will of course continue to do education and outreach in the Valley and where our end use may reside.

AC: What is your best pitch to San Luis Valley locals – why should they support your project? What is your best pitch to Front Range water users for this project? Why is it in the best interest of the state of Colorado to support your project?

RWR: We know San Luis Valley citizens are looking forward to jobs and an uptick in the local economy as a result of our project moving forward. Citizens responded favorably to the more than $50 million community fund – run by the community – that would be created to address critical issues which could include public education, economic diversity, senior assistance programs, conservation efforts, law enforcement, mental health services, and more. 

. . .we also know the overwhelming majority of citizens in the Valley do not believe the county is adequately funded and equipped to manage essential services such as police, mental health, and the provision of K-12 education. Additionally, citizens responded in favor of the prospect of establishing over three thousand acres of new elk habitat, an idea brought forward in one of the more than one hundred meetings RWR has held across the San Luis Valley. 

Colorado itself is facing climate change, intense and growing demands on current water supplies, and a population boom that is not letting up – only expanding. Our state is facing the perfect storm of managing current and future growth and a looming water shortage. Solutions are needed to these complex problems. Our project offers a solution for both the San Luis Valley and the state. 

AC: Please describe where, when, and how water will be delivered. Who do you expect to buy the water? Do you have any legal agreements with water purchasers? What kind of supply is being promised and how much water are you promising – senior rights that deliver water through, say, a 1976-77 drought, or more junior rights that deliver in an average year but not a dry year? 

RWR: The proposed pipeline route would leave the RWR properties NE of Moffat, where the deep aquifer well field would be located, and head along State Highway 17. 

AC: Please describe the money sources behind the project. How much have you raised? Who has given you so much money? How much more do you need? What is the source of your funds? How much do you expect to spend on the purchase of water? How much do you expect to spend on infrastructure to deliver the water? 

RWR: RWR is a private company; we have not and are not seeking to raise venture or angel funding. 

No end user/buyer has been identified yet. Nor have we filed for Colorado Water Court – a process which could take 3 to 5 years. It would be too premature to guess on infrastructure costs. More so, these infrastructure costs would be transferred to the end user. 

AC: Who is the key management behind this project? What is their track record and experience with prior water projects? Why should the San Luis Valley trust you? 

RWR: Colorado Water Court ensures that the San Luis Valley will not lose water. Colorado Water Court requires that any water project does not deplete water resources and does not harm or injure property or people. This is a mandate that is known as “no harm, no injury” for all water projects they review. In other words, state protections are in place to guarantee “no harm, no injury,” to the environment, people, and property. Colorado Water Court is the key arbitrator for this project. Members of the Court are independent judges in their own right, appointed by the Supreme Court. 

It should be known that Colorado has some of the strictest laws in the nation and the San Luis Valley has even stricter laws; this is the rulebook we will follow. 

The key principles behind the project are former Gov. Bill Owens and respected entrepreneur/business leader Sean Tonner, the latter who also served as Owen’s deputy chief of staff. The two solved complex issues for the state of Colorado during Owen’s tenure and understood future problems facing the state – including climate change, continued population growth, and the looming water shortage on the Front Range. 

AC: The conventional wisdom is that there already is a water shortage in the San Luis Valley – farmers already are being forced to cut back water use, especially well water. What is your company seeing in available San Luis Valley water supplies that local farmers and water engineers are missing? 

RWR: The Renewable Water Resources project presents the Valley as an alternative option to water curtailment. 

The aquifer in the Valley is one of the largest in the United States and divided into two sections. The largest section stores one-billion acre-feet of renewable water. (An acre-foot is the amount of water that would fill an acre of land, one foot deep, or enough water to meet the annual needs of two Colorado households.)

Within this aquifer, a small section of the aquifer is shallow. We’ve found a solution to use the larger aquifer to help the smaller aquifer. This is because we are retiring more water than we are developing. And, this surplus of water will help heal the shallow section of the aquifer. (Background: The amount of water we would develop – 22,000 acre-feet – represents 2.5 percent of the aquifer’s annual recharge.) 

Because of our project offerings – with this proposal – we can enrich the local economy, bring more jobs to the area, support essential non-profits and community groups, and improve the health of the area’s aquatic habits and wildlife. 

AC: Many locals worry that your company is being used as a Trojan Horse by Front Range governments unwilling to accept public scrutiny of their pursuit of San Luis Valley water. Do you owe Valley residents and water users transparency in who is behind your project, as well as for the ultimate destination for Valley water? Why or why not? 

RWR:. . . local residents are concerned the state will shut down water wells in the San Luis Valley because one section of the Valley aquifer is shallow and not meeting sustainability goals set by the state. Our project will help prevent this type of water curtailment, as by developing parts of the deep aquifer, we can help replenish the shallow aquifer. 

The key principles behind the project are former Gov. Bill Owens and respected entrepreneur/business leader Sean Tonner, the latter who also served the state as Owen’s deputy chief of staff. The two solved complex issues for the state of Colorado during Owen’s tenure and understood future problems facing the state – including climate change, continued population growth, and the looming water shortage on the Front Range. 

When an end-user is identified, the public and the press will be the first to know. 

Lastly, we have asked the unelected RGWCD Board the following question, “What are you for?” This question has been met with silence other than falling back on the status quo which means higher taxes and more regulation for the Valley’s struggling farms and ranches.