At Home
Advertisement
Steamboat Springs — A leading Northwest Colorado water official received initial support Wednesday to use state funds for a study assessing a potential private reservoir on his family ranch.
T. Wright Dickinson is a rancher, former Moffat County commissioner and a member of Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Committee, which addresses statewide water issues. On Wednesday night at Olympian Hall in Steamboat Springs, Dickinson asked the Yampa/White River Basin Roundtable — a regional water oversight group — to recommend approval of $16,000 in state funding for a feasibility and geotechnical study for Sparks Reservoir. If built, Sparks Reservoir would store 1,200 acre-feet of water on Vermillion Ranch, owned by Dickinson’s family for 123 years. Dickinson is a member of the roundtable but did not vote on the decision.
The roundtable’s recommendation of approval will be included in Dickinson’s application to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which has the final say on such funding allocations.
Steamboat Springs attorney Tom Sharp said Dickinson’s proposal — which would use state funds for a single-entity, private water project — is the first of its kind in the region but complies with state statute.
Vermillion Ranch is more than 50 miles northwest of Maybell in Moffat County and extends into Wyoming and Utah.
“It’s a huge family ranch,” said Sharp, who has served as a director of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District since 1977 and leads the Yampa/White roundtable group.
Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership has 11 holdings of various sizes filed with the Moffat County Assessor’s Office.
Dickinson declined to state the size of his family’s ranch — “That’s not a polite Western question,” he said — but stressed the importance of securing its water future.
“Given the current financial state of agriculture, rising costs and our changing climatic conditions, it is essential for me to try to find a way to shore up my water supplies,” Dickinson said. “SB 179 was developed specifically to address the water needs and assist the water users in the state of Colorado.”
Senate Bill 179, sponsored by Hesperus Democrat Jim Isgar and signed into law by then-Gov. Bill Owens in 2006, uses severance taxes to create a fund for, according to the bill, “the development and conservation of the state’s water resources.”
In a Capitol report to the Cortez Journal in April 2006, Isgar wrote that SB 179 “provides funding to the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that they can make grants or loans to entities that need financial assistance with the upfront costs of water development projects. It is difficult for small entities to fund feasibility studies and environmental permitting costs.”
Conflict question
Roundtable member and Phippsburg resident Dan Craig cast one of three votes against Dickinson’s proposal, citing Dickinson’s influence in regional and state water decisions.
“You’ve got the inside track on all this stuff,” Craig said to Dickinson. “To be honest, I’d be embarrassed to bring one of these (proposals) in here, just because of the conflict of interest.”
Dickinson refuted that idea Thursday morning.
“No, there is no conflict of interest. While the roundtable is a quasi-governmental entity, I followed all the legal and ethical practices of disclosure that is required when a member of a board would benefit by any action taken by that board,” he said. “I am no different than any other citizen of Colorado or water user in the state of Colorado.”
Before the vote, roundtable members acknowledged the proposal could set a precedent.
“We’re going to be opening ourselves up to every private landowner in Northwest Colorado to do the same thing,” roundtable member Geoff Blakeslee said.
But Sharp said Thursday that other proposals are unlikely, given the huge challenges of constructing a reservoir as an economically viable project.
“You can’t afford to build a reservoir for just hay and cows,” Sharp said.
Should Sparks Reservoir be built, Dickinson did not deny the possibility of selling some of its water to rapidly growing energy interests on the Western Slope.
“We’re not at that stage yet. First, I’ve got to see if I’ve got a viable reservoir site,” Dickinson said. “Potentially, these projects can serve multiple uses, yes.”
RSS
Community comments
Note: The Steamboat Pilot & Today doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
justathought (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I sure hope I misread this. They are in support of using Colorado taxpayer funding to do a study for building a reservoir on private property that extends into two other states and could possible sell the water? It says "they can make grants or loans to entities that need financial assistance with the upfront costs of water development projects“, does this include actually building it? You can’t afford to build a reservoir for just hay and cows,” Sharp said, so what are they building it for? They said "these projects can serve multiple uses", I'm sure they'll find plenty of "uses" to make the public pay (again).
grannyrett (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
justathought-That's my take on it too. Maybe I should apply for a grant for something that will make me some money. Anybody got any ideas?
seabirth (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the article states that "Senate Bill 179, sponsored by Hesperus Democrat Jim Isgar and signed into law by then-Gov. Bill Owens in 2006, uses severance taxes to create a fund for, according to the bill, 'the development and conservation of the state’s water resources.'"
and then the article states "Should Sparks Reservoir be built, Dickinson did not deny the possibility of selling some of its water to rapidly growing energy interests on the Western Slope."
that doesn't pass the smell test. conservation and selling the water to energy interests.
and then he has the gall to state questions about his ranch's size are "not a polite Western question." the minute you take public money it becomes a necessary western question. oh wait, he's a rancher and he's used to taking public money.
ColoradoNative (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm.....My vote is no. Especially after a quick google search resulted in this. It appears they are all to familiar with bending the rules. http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2006...
You'd think if they have employees at $2.00-$3.00 they'd be able to afford their own 16k for their own little pond project.
justathought (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
granny, how about applying for money to build a reservoir that will supply water for bloggytown, at the going water rates of course.
oldskoolstmbt (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
go dan craig....at least you tried!!!
dawg (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The land has been in his family for 123 years and he wants the CO taxpayers to foot the bill to see if he has a "viable reservoir site"! T. Wrong Dickinson has my vote to be President of the Good Ol' Boys Network.
oldskoolstmbt (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
123 years with how much equity?????...$16,000.00 would be a drop in the bucket!! or sell 10 acres and pay for it yourself!!
another_local (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Welfare ranchers looking for another handout. I don't think this should be funded with public money. At the very least, if they move forward with this, the ranch should repay the state if they ever derive cash or cash value from the project. i.e., if they sell the water.
SilverSpoon (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
Depending on where the study comes from, it will probably be a procedural waste of time and not use any sound science, just like the current EPA regulations. The former link shows how senator Boxer is overseeing the industry favors given by the bush administration(EPA) to big energy at the expense of american health.
Standing water in a resevoir evaporates more readily that flowing water. I think the stat is 20% of the water is lost to evaporation. Please don't give shell anymore water! We dont' need anymore superfund sites!@
424now (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SB 179
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/s...
RanchHQ (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to sit back and smile; as soon as I read the article I could forsee the remarks from those that do not know a single iota about :
1. Ranching
2. Colorado State Law
3. Colorado Water Law
4. Evaporation Tables.
SilverSpoon, I'm taking away your Beemer till you can support your numbers. Then you can have it back.
It is too bad that it has come to the point that a Colorado Ranching Family should be penalized just for being a Colorado Ranching Family. Ranching Families on The West Slope have been selling their water to Front Range Cities and West Slope Ski Areas (re: Snowmaking) for over 30 years
grannyrett (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
justathought-That may be an idea. Maybe I should build a reservoir in my back yard, they could add a sauna, a hot tub, and changing rooms and I could charge to let people use it.
colowoodsman (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hear you HQ- if the water was for kyakers the City would do a Hundred Thousand Dollar study to determine if water flows downhill. Then hire a dozen layers to make sue they get every drop that no one will ever use. One old timer used to say "Money makes water run uphill"
colowoodsman (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hear you HQ- if the water was for kyakers the City would do a Hundred Thousand Dollar study to determine if water flows downhill. Then hire a dozen layers to make sue they get every drop that no one will ever use. One old timer used to say "Money makes water run uphill"
flotilla (anonymous)
May 9, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe you whiners should attend a couple meetings like some of us have been for years (dan craig excluded, since he does) and then yap about something you know. no one ever agrees on everything so know the facts and make an educated decision and follow colorado water law and procedure for the next few years. You'll find a lot more that is problematic then this case.
spukomy (anonymous)
May 10, 2008 at 2 a.m. (Suggest removal)
flotilla, I think you are right, an education is in order. Hoping you and HQ could tell those (myself included) who know nothing about it, how it all works. On the surface, it looks like a rancher with enormous amounts of land thru three states, wants the roundtable he is seated on to recommend the taxpayers pay for a study on his land that will benefit him, not the taxpayer. Gotta be more to it. Right?
ColoradoNative (anonymous)
May 10, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well maybe all these "experts" will explain this to us.
*waiting*
housepoor (anonymous)
May 10, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
this is just another case of welfare for the rich, just like the ag classification on 35 acre "ranches" where the owner lives cali , maybe it they paid their fair share of taxes we'd be able to maintain our roads, they are also the 1st ones to ask for their road to be paved
colobob (anonymous)
May 10, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Native, Wow, the link you provided was a real eye-opener. That this guy even has the nerve to even utter the word "ethical" is beyond belief!
RanchHQ (anonymous)
May 11, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are gonna hang the Guy 'cause of a 3 year old Lawsuit brought on by a "Legal Defense" bunch outa Denver that we have no idea how it ended. Dickerson has been using the same Visa's since 1980 and never had a complaint. Any of you ever employed anyone on a JH-2 Visa?
He want's to use a perfectly legal course to see if it is feasable to store his water on his property.
He seems to be the type of Guy that spends a whale of a lot of his time serving on Public Boards.
I always enjoy this term "Welfare Rancher". It sits right up there with "Global Warming" and "Too Much Beer". Simply a catch phrase to yank an emotional chain.
His Family being in that country for over 100 years means he has everyone here beat in the "I've been here longer than you" pizzing match that goes on every other week. Putting a San Francisco Liberal in charge of our Energy Policy is like asking for The Queen Mom to join The WWF. I live in her State; visit San Francisco and try to light up a Cigar, on the end of Pier 39!
The day that Barbara Boxer is in charge of overseeing this Nation's Energy Policy is the day that OPEC realizes it can charge any amount they want because American's refuse to harvest the already known quanity of Energy we possess.
Let's see, who provides more Energy to my home, Boxer or Shell?
Who will provide more energy to my Grandchildren, Boxer or Shell?
SilverSpoon, try this on for Water Evaporation Rates: (mass loss rate)/(unit area) = (vapor pressure - ambient partial pressure)*sqrt( (molecular weight)/(2*pi*R*T) ) .
I don't understand it either, it is outa my Pay Scale.
Dawg, any Family that has been around for over 100 years will have a few Good, Old, Boys. That is how you become a GoodOldBoy, not Dickerson's fault.
Housepoor, my bet is that Dickerson has a Corral larger than the 35 acre parcels you are talking about. Sounds like that your beef is with your Board of Supervisors, we aren't talking about an Ag Exemption. Did you know that Storm Mountain Ranch "rents" Cattle to fullfill their Ag Exemption? All 12 "Owners" recieve an Ag Exemption without ever having to step in "it", know of what I mean?
My guess is that Dickerson is very "Land Wealthy" and "Cash Poor". Believe it or not most Colorado Ranchers are in that boat.
Housepoor, define "fair share" of anyone's taxes, then show me where Routt County paves anyones private roads.
And finally, colobob, from what I took outa Native's link was that some little "Legal Defense Fund" whose "Clients" may or may not be in the US, faxed a Press Release to every small town newspaper on The Western Slope looking for a little writeup. The Craig Newspaper bit at the bait. Wonder if they had an axe to gring with a Former Supervisor? It has been known to happen.
Once again, the jest of my origional post was that as I read the article I could just imagen what the responses would be. I was suprised that the "Evil Bovine" was not dragged into the fray.
RanchHQ (anonymous)
May 11, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I had to really edit the above. The "Word Count" deal the Pilot uses does not seem to be functioning.
I would have replied sooner but I have the same profession as Dickerson, weekends are the same as any other day, with the exception of Mothers Day.
Once again, I see no one with any sort of Ranching Experience throwing their hat into this discussion. I do so only after thinking very carefully about it, but somebody has to stand up for an Industry that provides everything from your Dinner to the adhesive in sheetrock, including what is used to make the emory stick to an emory board my Wife reminds me.
From the article in The Pilot I still can't seem to see any "facts" that would preclude Dickerson from proceding, but rather all I see is a calculated attempt at making all of us "feel" there is something wrong.
Between Evil Welfare Ranching, Parking Issues, a Sheriff fighting a DUI charge and a sudden growth in the Energy Sector of the West Slope that was "unexpected" it makes a Guy wonder why anyone would want to play softball around here anymore.
(Requires free registration) Post a comment