This resource—Opening the Tap—outlines Environmental Protection Agency programs established or funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) that provide financial or technical assistance for the many barriers drinking water or basic sanitation. For some communities, this barrier comes in form of non-existent water infrastructure. In others, existing infrastructure is no longer able to function as intended because it is in dire need of repairs or upgrades, or is threatened by disruptive events ranging from deep freezes and droughts to cyberattacks.

Opening the Tap is geared towards local community members and professionals alike who are working to improve access to clean drinking water and basic sanitation services no matter their needs or where they’re located. It provides basic information on whether those programs could apply to your situation, how to access those programs, and where you can turn for more information and assistance.

To ensure that this resource is accessible to everyone, it is organized as follows:

• First, Opening the Tap lists contact information at EPA for specific programs designed to address drinking water or sewer wastewater challenges.
   
• Second, this resource summarizes programs that were established by, or received significant funding from, BIL. The summary highlights potential recipients (for example, Tribes, municipal governments, or non-government organizations), categories of water projects (drinking water versus sewer wastewater), and project stages (for example, preconstruction or construction).
   
• Third, additional information for each program found in the program summary, such as example activities a program is known to support, how to request assistance from those programs, and additional resources like websites or videos that may improve your understanding of the program, is explained in more detail in a series of program profiles.
   
• Lastly, an Appendix lists every project type and activity that has been listed throughout this resource. The Appendix also lists whether that activity may be described with an alternative name (think “environmental review” versus “environmental assessments” versus “environmental evaluations”).

Opening the Tap is also meant to start a dialogue about how these programs can be improved. The projects and activities known to be supported by EPA’s water programs through BIL are listed. Perhaps this reveals that certain activities in popular demand aren’t currently being met by the existing landscape of assistance available. Are certain pockets of communities experiencing water insecurity ineligible for assistance in most of these programs? Are there potential areas of synergy between objectives surrounding water that can be uniquely realized, such as protection endangered species habitat while also protecting source water? To that end, I welcome any comments and questions about this resource. Reach out via gwc@colorado.edu.

Off

In 2024, the Getches-Wilkinson Center and the Boulder Faculty Assembly Climate Science and Education Committee (CSEC) co-chaired a shared governance committee regarding campus energy and climate policy. The Committee was nominated by the University’s Chief Operating Officer to review and, if appropriate, recommend alternatives to the University’s plans to upgrade the Western District Energy Plant (WDEP). The Committee's nomination was followed by an  expressing concerns with the climate impacts of the WDEP upgrade and signed by over 460 �鶹��Ѱ�����community members.

On March 21, 2024, the WDEP Shared Governance Committee submitted its Preliminary Recommendation Report to the Chief Operating Officer. In its Preliminary Report, the Committee recommended that the University not go forward with its original upgrade plan for WDEP, citing the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would result from that plan, and the availability of alternative options to meet campus resilience needs in a cost-feasible way. In July 2024, the University rejected the Committee's recommendation and approved the original WDEP upgrade plan. In October 2024, the Committee released its Final Report, addressing the University's claims and documenting concerns with the University's decision-making process around WDEP. The key findings from that Final Report are reproduced below.

The Committee's reports can be accessed here:

Download the Final Report

Download the Preliminary Recommendation Report 

Download Additional Questions from the Committee

***

Summary Findings from the WDEP Committee Finding Report

1. The University’s original program plan for the WDEP project was written without adequate alternatives analysis, which is essential to adequate environmental decision making.
2. The University’s original WDEP plan (Option 2E) was developed with a lack of understanding of the regulatory flexibility offered by the explicit language of Reg 7. The University’s perception that Option 2E was required to ensure campus resilience likely resulted from that misunderstanding.
3. In its Preliminary Report, the Committee found that Option A1 provides similar resilience benefits to the University’s Option 2E. The University continued to claim that compelling resilience needs required the adoption of Option 2E despite detailed analysis by the Committee to the contrary when considering the regulatory flexibility in Reg 7. The University did not provide the Committee with any data or analysis supporting its claim.
4. The University claims Option 2E is required to protect continuity of mission critical research. Under the University’s own Energy Master Plan, that goal is supposed to be achieved by other means, which the University has not yet implemented.
5. In the program plan it submitted to the �鶹��Ѱ�����Board of Regents (Fall 2023, see here), the University did not take into consideration the additional greenhouse gas emissions that would result from Option 2E relative to the business-as-usual assumptions in its 2024 climate action planning. In this program plan, the University also highlighted carbon reduction benefits of the plan that are “...likely [to] hold true until at least 2030.”2 According to the Committee’s review of the University’s models, those emissions reductions are small and short-lived. Meanwhile, the University did not alert the Board of Regents to more substantial increases in carbon emissions that the plan would represent relative to the business-as-usual scenario in the long-term.
6. The University’s program plan included several additional claims that were incorrect and/or incomplete based on available data. It is possible that if the Regents had received more accurate and complete information, they would have invested greater resources in finding an alternative to the University’s plan. For example:
   • The University claimed that Option 2E will replace “existing 30-year-old combustion turbines” (p. 3), without mentioning the turbines have been rebuilt in 2013, and had very little depreciation on them given minimal use since 2013;
   • The University claimed (p.4) that Option 2E aligns with the University’s 2021 Energy Master Plan (EMP), despite the fact that the EMP explicitly planned to avoid base loaded cogeneration starting 2027, given GHG considerations (see here, p. 52; note that at the time the EMP was finalized, Reg 7 which the University claims precipitated the need for Option 2E was already in force);
   • Under the heading “Sustainable Design”, the University highlighted the possibility of reconfiguring the new turbines “to operate on alternative fuels like hydrogen or other cleaner burning fuel sources” (p. 4), even though it is widely accepted that hydrogen does not provide a feasible source of energy for heating for environmental, economic, and other reasons.
7. Concerns regarding the University’s recent planning to upgrade WDEP should also be understood in the context of WDEP’s role in the University’s failure to achieve its 2020 climate targets. As the Committee noted in its preliminary report (p. 9): “The minimal use of cogen throughout the 2010s substantially contributed to the University’s miss of its 2020 climate target. With the grid expected to become cleaner than cogen by 2029, there is a risk that once again the University will find itself using the less climate friendly option for energy generation. In other words, the University that did not baseload cogeneration when it was climate friendly to do so will shift to baseloaded cogeneration just when it is no longer climate friendly to do so.” The University did not provide the community with adequate transparency regarding the minimal use of cogeneration during the 2010s. That minimal use ran counter to the University’s planning under the 2009 Conceptual Plan for Carbon Neutrality (see Preliminary Report, pp. 4-5).
8. The desire to obtain federal tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was, according to the University, an important factor in its decision to pursue Option 2E, as well as the timing for its decision. Nevertheless, the University did not carry out the necessary analysis regarding eligibility requirement for the credit. To the Committee’s understanding, the University lacked such analysis as late as June 2024, even though concerns were flagged by the Committee in March 2024.
9. The University used contradictory assumptions in its financial analysis and its climate analysis. The contradictory assumptions created a biased impression regarding the financial benefits of the University’s Option 2E. On the one hand, the University claimed its intention to reduce the excess emissions of Option 2E over Option A1 through an early phase-out of baseloaded cogeneration. On the other hand, for its lifecycle cost analysis, the University assumed that baseloaded cogeneration would continue in the long run, resulting in financial benefits to the University over Option A1. The University should not use two contradictory sets of assumptions, one to claim financial advantages (assuming long-term base-loading), then another to try to limit the increase in emissions (assuming a shift away from baseload generation, presumably as early as 2029).
10. The University did not share with the Committee a campus load-curve, which is essential for energy planning. Despite repeated Committee requests, the University did not corroborate its claim regarding peak-load of 200 kpph steam needs.
11. While the University’s Climate Action Plan assumes a 30% decline in campus energy consumption, the University planning for WDEP assumed peak demand would remain constant long into the future. The University was not willing to engage with the Committee regarding options to reduce peak-load through demand-side management.
12. The University’s claims that Option 2E will reduce campus NOx emissions by 50% relative to current emissions has not been supported by data. While the turbines the University plans to install under Option 2E have lower NOx emissions intensity than the existing turbines, the existing turbines are only operated by the University on rare occasions. In distinction, under the University plan, the new turbines will be used continuously for base-loaded cogeneration. The University did not present an analysis of the absolute levels of NO x emissions that would result from its plan to support the claim of 50% reduction.
13. While claiming to be committed to shared-governance principles, the University essentially ignored the Committee’s Preliminary Report, instead repeating claims (including publicly) that were found and documented by the Committee to be incorrect based on available data. The University refused to share relevant planning documents, or to engage the Committee in a meaningful review of the materials that the University developed in April-May 2024.
14. The University’s lack of cooperation with the Committee during April-May 2024, hindered the work of the Committee, and, among other things, hindered the development of additional alternatives to the University’s Option 2E, which may have been even more favorable than Option A1.
15. There was no urgency for the University to finalize its decision by the original April 1 deadline, or by July 2024, as later claimed by the University. Given the regulatory flexibility identified by the Committee, the University’s resiliency needs were met at all times and there was no threat that they would be unmet in the coming years. Further, as discussed in the Preliminary Report, eligibility for tax credits did not present a consideration justifying expediting the decision without appropriate analysis and consideration of alternatives. At the end, the University delayed its decision beyond its original April 1 deadline, but also failed to cooperate with the Committee to develop additional alternatives after April 1.

Off

The GWC in 2024 is working to revitalize the Colorado River Research Group (CRRG), a group of prominent academics and close colleagues offering an “independent, scientific voice” on key Colorado River issues.  The CRRG was formed in 2014, and has produced policy briefs on many salient subjects, including basin hydrology and climatology, reservoir operations, Tribal water rights, environmental restoration, and water conservation.

The most recent CRRG policy brief was issued earlier this month, and is entitled: “Imagining the River We Deserve: How the Post-2026 Rulemaking is Only One Step Towards Sustainability” (CRRG Publications | Getches-Wilkinson Center | �鶹��Ѱ�����). Echoing the theme of the upcoming June conference, the publication acknowledges that the current post-2026 rulemaking is critically important in stabilizing the two big reservoirs on the system. That work should not, however, distract attention from the much grander goals of the Colorado River community for a healthy, sustainable river managed in a holistic fashion.  The Colorado, after all, is the ecological and cultural centerpiece of the Southwest; it’s much more than a plumbing system.  Post-2026, its unclear whether there’s a clear process, or set of processes, for getting all this work done. The CRRG intends to play a role in shaping and informing those discussions.

*Thumbnail photo image by Len Necefer

Off

On April 18, 2024, the Bureau of Land Management issued a final rule that will guide future management of 245 million acres of public land, nearly 1/0^th of the country’s land base. In the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Congress charged BLM with managing public lands for multiple uses and a sustained yield of natural resources for current and future generations. The “” addresses ecological degradation of public lands, which threatens the ability of BLM to achieve the goals of FLPMA, and it focuses on resilience, that is the ability of ecosystems to recover from the threats of disturbances and environmental change.  

GWC is pleased to release a white paper – A Legal Analysis of the Public Lands Rule – in collaboration with the at the S.J. Quinney School of Law. The white paper lays out the overall framework of the Rule and discusses the primary policy tools that are included.

In particular, BLM clarifies in the Rule that “conservation,” which includes both restoration of degraded ecosystems and protection of intact areas, is considered to be a “use” on par with other multiple uses. The Rule also creates “restoration” and “mitigation” leases that can be used to address harms or degradation resulting from other of the uses. 

The white paper also provides detail on the legal foundation of the Rule. The Public Lands Rule is built upon the multiple use and sustained yield mandate in FLPMA, and Congress provided BLM with a conservation mandate to ensure that public lands can provide a sustained yield of services to the public over multiple generations. The Rule is consistent with FLPMA and the discretion that federal courts have provided to BLM to determine how best to balance and manage multiple uses on public lands.

You can read the final rule . You can read the white paper here.

If you have any questions about the Rule or the white paper, please reach out to Chris Winter, Executive Director, chris.winter@colorado.edu.  

Off

GWC Water Law Fellow Frannie Monasterio collaborated with four other attorneys (Elizabeth G. Bentley, Elisabeth Parker, Clifford B. Parkinson, and Heather Tanana) on an  to the Supreme Court filed on behalf of DigDeep and the Utah Tribal Relief Foundation.

Off

Berggren, J., J. Fleck, D. Kenney and Mariana Rivera-Torres. 2022. A Pie No More? Building a More Equitable Colorado River Governance Structure.  IN:  Cornerstone at the Confluence: Navigating the Colorado River Compact’s Next Century (edited by Jason Anthony Robison).  ISBN-13:978-0-8165-4764-7. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 

      In a wide ranging and mostly forward-looking book acknowledging the 100th anniversary of the Colorado River Compact, this chapter revisits the evolution of the Law of the River over that span, and the incremental steps taken to increasingly divide the river and its users into discrete pieces and constituencies.  A consequence of this history is seen in the modern difficulty in scaling back consumption of the increasingly limited water, all overlain by the challenge of reconciling what is equitable with what promises and commitments have already been made.   

Off

 Kenney, Douglas S., Michael Cohen, John Berggren and Regina M. Buono. 2021. The Colorado River Basin. IN: , (edited by Jurgen Schmandt and Aysegul Kibaroglu). ISBN: 9781108417037.  Cambridge University Press.

As part of a volume comparing management of major river basins worldwide, this chapter provides an international audience with an overview of the Colorado River, and the challenges currently facing the Basin.  The authors conclude: “[M]anagement of the Colorado is transitioning from a technical engineering challenge to an institutional challenge, emphasizing the critical role of basin decision-makers in charting an innovative path forward that relies on new rules more than new infrastructure.” 

Off

The Status of Tribal Water Rights in the Colorado River Basin

Water & Tribes Initiative | Colorado River Basin

Introduction
There are 30 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin. Twenty two of these tribes have recognized rights to use 3.2 million-acre feet (maf) of Colorado River system water annually, or approximately 22 to 26 percent of the Basin’s average annual water supply.2 In addition, 12 of the tribes have unresolved water rights claims, which will likely increase the overall volume of tribal water rights in the Basin. Under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decree in Arizona v. California, all tribal water uses are counted against the apportionments made to the states. Tribes’ rights are generally senior to state law-based water rights.

Currently, many tribes are not fully using their recognized rights for several reasons, including lack of necessary infrastructure and funding; antiquated and inefficient The Status of Tribal Water Rights in the Colorado River BasinEnhance Tribal Capacity and Advance Sustainable Water Management | 2 delivery systems; and constraints on off-reservation use. Meanwhile, existing uses of Basin water already exceed reliable supplies.3 With tribes planning to fully develop and use their water rights,4 other water users in the Basin are concerned about how the expanded development of tribal water rights can be integrated with existing and future non-Indian uses of Basin water.

Although there has been some creativity in past decades to find ways to satisfy tribal water right without displacing existing uses, this issue continues to be a concern for many in the Basin. In the course of completing over 100 interviews with tribal and other leaders in the Basin in 2019, the Water & Tribes Initiative found that quantification and development of tribal waterrights consistently ranked among the top issues that need to be addressed in developing the management framework that will replace the 2007 Interim Guidelines and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans for governing the Colorado River system.

This policy brief provides information on the status of the water rights of the 30 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin. It provides context for policy discussions on how to address tribes’ interests in fully developing their water rights and the water scarcity challenges already facing the Basin.

Read the full policy brief here.

Off

This report was produced for the Water & Tribes Initiative: Colorado River Basin by Heather Tanana (Lead Author), JD/MPH, Assistant Professor of Law (Research) & Stegner Fellow, Wallace Stegner Center – S.J. Quinney College of Law – University of Utah; Jaime Garcia, JD, Water Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center – University of Colorado; Ana Olaya, JD/LLM, Managing Director, CK Blueshift, LLC; Chelsea Colwyn, JD/MELP, Water Fellow, Getches- Wilkinson Center – University of Colorado; Hanna Larsen (JD expected 2022), Wallace Stegner Center – S.J. Quinney College of Law – University of Utah; Ryan Williams (JD expected 2022), Wallace Stegner Center – S.J. Quinney College of Law – University of Utah; and Jonathan King, Attorney, Squire Patton Boggs.

There is no official consensus regarding the terminology used related to Indigenous peoples or when to capitalize certain terms. In this report, Native American and American Indian/Alaska Native are used as well as general capitalization of the words Tribe and Tribal as a sign of respect.

Disclaimer: The report is subject to ongoing data collection and may be revised as new information is received. URLs provided were operational at the time of writing but may have subsequently been changed or deactivated.

Off

Kayla Carey and Nathan Stottler are recent graduates of CU’s Masters of the Environment program specializing in environmental policy. They took Professor Sharon Jacobs’ Energy Law and Regulation class this past spring and have prepared their capstone project, Cooperatives at a Crossroads: Identifying the Opportunities and Challenges of Clean Energy in Electric Cooperatives. The report analyzes the Generation & Transmission electricity cooperative model, examines the challenges and opportunities of cooperative exits, and investigates the role of cooperatives in the clean energy transition. The GWC is happy to help them meet their capstone requirements by sharing their work and helping them seek the input of interested parties.

Executive Summary

The electricity sector will require a systemwide approach to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets and avoid the worst possible consequences of climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at least 80% of the world’s electricity must be generated from low-carbon sources by the year 2050. To meet this target, electric utilities across the world must make and meet aggressive decarbonization commitments.

Rural areas need to commit to decarbonization to mitigate the most severe impacts of climate change. Rural communities, and their economies, are heavily reliant on natural resources, and are particularly vulnerable to the volatile ecological impacts of intensified heat, drought, flood, and wildfire. Yet these communities have often been overlooked as major players in the battle against climate change, despite being positioned to make a significant impact.

The purpose of our research is to identify pathways to accelerate the clean energy transition in rural America. Rural residents typically have more costly and carbon intensive energy mixes compared to urban and suburban customers. This report identifies the challenges that are preventing cooperatives (co-ops) from joining the clean energy transition, as well as the opportunities that exist for co-ops to overcome those challenges and achieve a future of clean, affordable electricity.

View the full report.

Off