The Steamboat Pilot & Today: Chat with Glenn Porzak

Chat with attorney Glenn Porzak

January 26, 2007

Glenn Porzak is an attorney with the Boulder firm of Porzak Browning & Bushong. He specializes in environmental law and has represented numerous Colorado communities in developing water rights policies. He represented the city of Steamboat Springs in establishing a Recreational In-Channel Diversion water right on the Yampa River and is now working with the city on a Yampa watershed ordinance. He will be available for a chat at 8:30 a.m. Friday.

Moderator: Welcome everyone. I'm Scott Stanford and I will be moderating today's chat with Colorado water attorney Glenn Porzak who represents the cty of Steamboat Springs. Glenn, thanks for joining us. Are you ready to go?

Glenn Porzak: Yes.

sstanford: The city of Steamboat Springs is considering a watershed ordinance that you helped the city develop. In layman's terms, tell us how the ordinance would work?

Glenn Porzak: The ordinance would regulate certain activities within a 5 mile radius of the City's water diversions in order to prevent the City's municipal water supply from being contaminated or otherwise polluted.

sstanford: The ordinance would give the city regulatory authority outside the city limits. This seems like an extreme step that is bound to irritate other agencies, such as the county commissioners. How do you answer those who say the city is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong?

Glenn Porzak: Cities in Colorado have had the authority to regulate activities that are outside their municipal boundaries and that might pollute their water supply for over a hundred years. This is a recognition of the fact that many, if not most, municipal water supplies originate outside city limits. Protection of the City of Steamboat Springs' municipal supply for its citizens and visitors is hardly "sticking its nose where it doesn't belong." To the contrary, the City has an obligation and indeed a fiduciary duty to protect its water supply. In this regard, it should be noted that over 38 cities and towns in Colorado have adopted watershed protection ordinances.

sstanford: Is there evidence that there is a pressing need for a watershed ordinance now or is this merely a case of putting protections in place now to prevent future pollution?

Glenn Porzak: There is both a present need and the need to put protections in place now before the City's supply becomes contaminated. Other infiltration galleries along the Yampa River have already become polluted, and reports have already been issued which discuss proposed major transmountain diversions whose construction activities could cause pollution in the City's watershed. The City needs to be proactive in protecting its water supply as it is far more costly to clean up contamination once it has occurred, as opposed to the cost of preventing the pollution before it occurs.

sstanford: You have helped the city with a recreational in-channel diversion ordinance and now with the watershed ordinance. Are there other water rights issues the city should be looking at on the Yampa?

Glenn Porzak: Those who would seek to develop a major transmountain diversion project from the Yampa River basin have enormous resources and are exploring every conceivable means of tapping the water resources of this basin. The City must be ever vigilant to protect its municipal supply and the recreational opportunities that the Yampa River presents. The recreational in-channel diversion was an important step in protecting the Yampa River through the City. The Watershed Protection Ordinance would be a significant step in protecting the watershed from future pollution. However, the local communities also need to form a coalition to ensure that the State water officials and major east slope cities and water providers do not make the Yampa River the "fall guy" for solving all of Colorado's remaining east slope water supply needs.

sstanford: Talk about the proposed pipeline from Maybell to the Front Range and the impact that could have on water in places like Steamboat and Hayden. Are there things these communities need to be doing to address such massive water projects?

Glenn Porzak: The proposed transmountain diversion project would require a large reservoir in the Yampa River basin, a major pipeline and pumping plants. All of this will have a substantial impact on the basin. One needs only to visit the Homestake transmountain diversion project of Aurora and Colorado Springs near the Holy Cross Wilderness area in Eagle County to get a sense of the potential impact. However, given the magnitude of the pumpback that would be involved with the proposed Maybell project, the Maybell project has the potential for a far greater impact. Moreover, the Homestake project (which is considered a major transmountain diversion) is some 20,000 acre feet. The Maybell project is proposed for 300,000 acre feet. As for what communities need to be doing, one significant step would be for Moffat and Routt Counties to consider adopting 1041 Permit Regulations. Eagle, Summit and Grand Counties have all adopted such regulations to regulate future transmountain diversions. It was the Eagle County 1041 Permit Regulations that prevented a major expansion of the Homestake project. The existing Homestake project was built before the County adopted such regulations. I wish to stress, however, that that is for the Counties to consider. My sole focus is what the City of Steamboat Springs can do to protect the river through the City and to protect its watershed.

sstanford: You're an avid mountain climber, who has summited the highest peaks on all seven continents, including Everest. What kinds of adventures are you undertaking these days?

Glenn Porzak: Trying to keep up skiing and climbing with my 25 year old son who doesn't realize what it's like to ski and climb on 58 year old knees. Dealing with the politics of and opposition to recreational in-channel diversions and watershed protection ordinances is adventurous enough.

sstanford: That concludes our chat. Thanks for your time Glenn.

Glenn Porzak: Thanks very much.