Friday, February 8, 2008

CWCB instream flow workshop February 13th The Colorado Water Conservation Board plans to discuss state efforts to protect stream environments at their February 13th meeting according to The Summit Daily News "reg". From the article: An instream flow and natural lake level workshop will be the venue for recommending new streams that could be added to the program in coming years. The CWCB's instream flow program acquires water rights in streams to protect the environment "to a reasonable degree."[...] The workshop is an opportunity for state and federal cooperators and all other members of the public to provide detailed instream flow and natural lake level recommendations to the CWCB board and staff and to indicate where they intend to concentrate their data collection efforts in future years. For more information regarding this workshop, contact Jeff Baessler at (303) 866-3906 or (720) 289-1273. For more information about Colorado Water Conservation Board go to: http://cwcb.state.co.us. Workshop details: CWCB instream flow workshop, Feb. 13, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. This workshop will be held at the Colorado History Museum, located at 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203. "colorado water" 7:28:43 AM

SB 08-119 Here's an update on SB 08-119 from The Vail Daily News. From the article: Ever collected rainwater in a bucket to water the garden? There's a law about that in Colorado and, technically, it says you can't. A state senator from Denver wants to make an exception and allow homeowners to collect water that drains off up roofs up to 3,000 square feet so ranchers and farmers could use it to water livestock and metro area residents could use it to water their lawn and garden. Democratic Sen. Chris Romer said the bill, set to have its first hearing Thursday, could also be used to fight fires and prevent the need for more dams and reservoirs. "It will be a way to have microstorage all over the state," said Romer, who would like to install a cistern at the house he's building in Denver. Colorado's water law doesn't specifically talk about buckets or cisterns but the principle of prior appropriation applies. That means water, including whatever falls from the sky and off your roof, must be allowed to flow downstream to those who have a legal right to use it. "When it's in the sky it's fine. But as soon it hits the ground, or on the way to the ground, that's where it kind of changes a little," said Doug Kemper, executive director of the Colorado Water Congress. If a lot of people in the Denver area, for example, starting catching and saving the water that fell on their houses, Kemper said it could lower the amount of water flowing in the South Platte River to farmers on the state's plains and beyond. Since most of the state's rivers and streams have more water rights than water, often people with newer rights don't get all the water they're entitled to as it is, he said. Kemper said he's never heard of anyone actually getting in trouble for having a bucket and collecting water on a small scale. It would be up to the state engineer, who keeps track of the use of the state's water, to decide. A message to his office wasn't immediately returned. There's also the gray area of directing gutter pipe water toward the tomatoes or collecting extra water in the shower with a bucket. Kemper admits he's one of the many people who have directed downspouts across the lawn, which apparently doesn't violate the law since it's just directing, not stopping, the water. The shower question, which he said came up a lot in the 2002 drought, is more tricky because another water principle comes into play. With few exceptions, water law says you can only use water once and then you have to let it go. So Kemper said some people say it's OK to leave a bucket in the shower as you wait to regulate the water temperature because that's like filling it up at the tap. Others think that collecting water while you're in the shower is wrong because the water has already been used once, to wash, and should go down the drain. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. "colorado water" 7:20:33 AM

HB 08-1165 Here's a look at HB 08-1165 from a Southwestern Colorado point of view from The Hub. From the article: The second piece of legislation, also highly controversial, is HB1161, "Strengthen Mining Reclamation Standards." It is being watched closely by the Alliance for Responsible Mining, on whose board Walt Rule of Ouray sits. HB1161 would boost local control and oversight of mining activity. Its application to uranium mining has generated the most attention, but it would also affect hard-rock operations that could spring up in the San Juan Mountains. The same House committee on Wednesday for the second time took testimony on HB1161 (and its companion HB1165) with mining industry representatives in opposition and environmentalist-types in favor. No action was taken. According to Rule, passage of the measure would enhance protection of water quality and give the public the opportunity to comment during the permit process. "Mining can be an important economic component of Colorado communities but local control to prevent unsafe mining practices with their consequent water pollution and site destruction are more important now than ever," said Rule. Rule asserts that with the U.S. Congress "dilly-dallying around" with reforming the still-in-effect 1872 mining laws, local control is needed. Citizens with an interest in either the motorized travel and/or the mining legislation should let their viewpoints be known to [Representative Ray] Rose and [Senator Jim] Isgar, who play key roles in whether they become law. We'll continue to watch with interest these high-country matters. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. "colorado water" 7:08:28 AM

Fountain Creek lawsuit Here's an update on the Sierra Club lawsuit against Colorado Springs over sewage spills in Fountain Creek, from The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article: Colorado Springs Utilities is pouring more than $300 million into preventing sewage spills, its attorney said Thursday in asking a federal judge to deny claims for stiff penalties in a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club. "No other community has a larger stake in ensuring the environmental quality of Fountain Creek," attorney John Walsh said in his closing argument. "That's why Colorado Springs is pouring over a third of a billion dollars into its wastewater system."[..] But the Sierra Club wants U.S. District Court Judge Walker Miller to impose fines of up to $32,500 per day per spill and to order the city to speed up its upgrade plan, which spans the next 16 years. Walsh, a former federal prosecutor representing the city, urged Miller to consider how much Utilities already has done and plans to do without being under a punitive mandatory schedule. He said the city has spent more than $100 million on various projects, among them cleaning pipes every two years instead of every four years at the most. "Colorado Springs very conscientiously went out to identify pipes that need replacing and cleaning," he said. He noted, though, that some spills have been caused by vandalism or severe storms that flood the system, events beyond Utilities' control. While the Sierra Club wants the judge to order a strict schedule for cleaning pipes, among other things, Walsh said, "It's been in place without specific orders from anyone. We are doing what needs to be done to be sure there are not blockages in this system." Walsh noted the city's schedule is more than twice as frequent as the industry average. Another program, which uses robots to inspect pipes, covers up to 12 percent of the system per year, he said. That's also more than twice the industry average. The city's efforts, Walsh said, have caused the number of sanitary sewer overflows to decline from previous years. Walsh also noted a witness for the city, Adrienne Nemura, a water quality expert from Ann Arbor, Mich., testified that even if there was never another Utilities spill, Fountain Creek's water quality has other problems. That's because nearly a dozen other agencies discharge sewage into the stream, and stormwater that carries pollutants from parking lots to cattle pastures affects the creek. But Eric Huber, the Sierra Club's attorney, reminded the judge the Clean Water Act's standard is not how Utilities stacks up against other wastewater operations. "The law requires they have a discharge permit, not that they meet industry standards," Huber said. "Comparing what others are doing isn't the test for whether injunctive relieve should be issued." Huber also noted that while 2007 was "a good year," with 33 sanitary sewer overflows, "one year is not a trend or indicative that this program is working." He noted there were 41 overflows in 2003, followed by a spike of 58 in 2005 and 60 in 2006. "The Clean Water Act doesn't say, 'Do the best you can,'" he said. "We're asking you to assess civil penalties in an amount high enough to deter future spills." Miller gave no time frame for his decision. More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: A judge heard 92 minutes of closing arguments Thursday in the trial of the Sierra Club's lawsuit against Colorado Springs for polluting Fountain Creek. U.S. District Judge Walker Miller only indicated his decision will not come before next month. The judge conducted the eight-day trial without a jury... Miller at one point challenged part of Colorado Springs' position: "It seems to me when you have repeated blockages (in the sewage system) within six months and you keep saying they are accidents, why is that any different than hitting your head on the same cabinet day after day?" After the arguments ended, both sides said they have confidence the judges' decision will likely favor them. "We feel pretty good about (the case)," Huber said. "We felt the evidence came in a compelling fashion to demonstrate the extraordinary efforts that Colorado Springs is giving to ensure its wastewater system complies with the Clean Water Act and will lead the judge to conclude that no further relief is necessary," Walsh said... Walsh contended the evidence refutes Sierra's position that the city "has been dragging its feet and applying Band-Aids." He said Colorado Springs' system is the largest in Colorado and compared with other systems last year had a better record concerning spills. The attorney told the judge he should conclude the city is doing enough "to ensure that its system is complying with the Clean Water Act." Huber responded that Colorado Springs' position is that it has violated the act, is violating the act and will continue to violate the act, and that "this court should do absolutely nothing." He said the spills create irreparable harm because, among other reasons, the sewage gets into creek sediment, staying there for months until it "later gets kicked up." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. "colorado water" 6:53:56 AM

Snowpack news Here's some news about Colorado's snowpack from The Greeley Tribune "reg". They write: Every river basin in the state, with the exception of the South Platte, is above the 30-year average and well above last year's numbers, according to the first physical readings of snow fields in the mountains conducted by officials with the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service. And even the South Platte has moved to near average numbers, thanks to winter storms that battered the mountains in January, said Allen Green, state conservationist who is based in Lakewood... The highest snowpack early in the season is in the southern mountains, which have been above the 30-year average since December. Some basins, Green said, are reporting the highest snowpack for Feb. 1 in recent history, noting the Rio Grande is reporting its highest average in 29 years... Reservoir storage, meanwhile, is at average or better for the season. Storage in the South Platte River is 11 percent above the same period a year ago and is running at 91 percent of the 30-year average. The Colorado River, on the other hand, is at 101 percent of average and 99 percent of the same time a year ago. Statewide reservoir storage is 99 percent of average and 105 percent of last year's volumes. More news from The Sterling Journal-Advocate. From the article: Light, fluffy snow fell here several times in January, but the month's total for the Sterling area ranged from just one inch to about two inches. And because the snow was fluffy and dry, precipitation here for the entire month of January 2008 averaged just .08 of an inch. This is only about one-fourth of the 30-year average of .31 of an inch for January. However, January followed a December that saw above normal precipitation, so the amount that has fallen in these past two winter months totals about average... Mike Gillespie, snow-survey supervisor with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, reported these are the best conditions seen around the state since 1997. Statewide, the snowpack is 132 percent of average. However, the South Platte River basin is essentially average, at just 101 percent. The levels are lower all across the northern Colorado and along the Front Range, running 109 percent in the Yampa and White river basins. "colorado water" 6:43:35 AM

Energy policy: Nuclear Here's another installment of their in-depth coverage of in-situ uranium mining in Texas from Fort Collins Now. From the article: Most of the uranium in that area is gone now, after Uranium Resources Inc., where McCoig works, spent several years coaxing it out of ancient fluvial sand beds. But it will take a long time -- some opponents of URI say forever -- to clean up the groundwater with which they did it. A couple miles up Texas Highway 1118, a muddy field of newly drilled wells is starting work on the same aquifer, pumping oxygen into the groundwater to help bring out more uranium. The wells are pretty unsightly, especially given the mud that encases visitors' feet in three inches of sand-colored sludge. But after a while, the pipes that feed them will be buried under topsoil, and sorghum and cotton can once again grow. It will be harder to hear the wells' airy, gurgling sound, much like the sound of a dentist's tool used to dry out a patient's mouth, and it will be difficult to see the thick yellow cords that power the wells. In Northern Colorado, Powertech Uranium Corp. is a long way from drilling wells like these, which dot parts of Wyoming and South Texas. But once they're drilled, Powertech says its 20-year planned mining operation will barely be noticeable -- only 20 to 40 acres at a time will have well fields, and they will be re-covered with the same scrubby vegetation that grows in rural western Weld County. Many residents in Northern Colorado are opposed to Powertech's plans because the mining operation has to use groundwater from the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, the same aquifer that provides water to domestic and agricultural water wells in the region. But many residents don't know exactly what to expect, having never seen an in-situ uranium mine in person. With that in mind, Fort Collins Now visited Kingsville, Texas, home of URI, to see a uranium mining and milling operation... McCoig, the senior engineer for URI, said some opponents have a "different interpretation" of some regulations, including ones that have changed since URI started mining. He and Craig Bartels, URI's vice president for in-situ mining, said the Earth's chemistry and geographical composition will help the mining companies restore the water to pre-mining conditions. "When we're done, you won't even know we were here," Bartels said. Powertech officials have taken that promise even farther, saying they may leave the aquifer better than when they found it because some dangerous materials will be removed... About 35 million years ago, uranium-loaded volcanic ash, probably from tectonic activity in the Yellowstone National Park area, spewed into the air and settled over Wyoming and the Black Hills. Millions of years of geologic changes, including an ocean over most of the Great Plains, buried those deposits beneath Northern Colorado. The area that is now the north Front Range was a marine barrier island, evidenced by the varying layers of sand, which forms on a shoreline, and shale, which forms as organisms die, fall to the ocean floor and are compressed by heat and time. As the volcanic sediments were eroded away, oxygenated rainwater picked up the uranium on those sediments and carried it along. In-situ mining duplicates this chemical process, by adding oxygen to the groundwater that flows around the uranium. The treated solution is called "lixiviant" and is essentially carbonated water. Powertech officials have even compared it to Perrier. In Kingsville, oxygen lasts about 12 days before it is consumed by the other materials in the rock. Powertech is still completing research to find out those numbers for Northern Colorado, but as in Texas, it will be a relatively short period before reducing agents in the rock bring the uranium back to a solid state. Those reducing agents include metals like iron, which likes oxygen, and microorganisms that use the oxygen for respiration. That might be one reason why uranium is so commonly found in coal or oil deposits, according to Mike Beshore, a Powertech geologist and the company's senior environmental coordinator. Those materials are formed from ancient carbon-based organisms compressed over eons; it's plausible that some of those critters consumed the oxygen the uranium rode in on. When the oxygen was used up in those chemical and organic reactions, the uranium came out of the water. It was left behind in the rock, and the uranium-free water kept on moving. In Northern Colorado, the water moves at a rate of roughly 12 feet per year, and Powertech consultants say it is moving northeast, toward Grover and ultimately Nebraska. The place in the rock where the uranium stopped is called a roll front, and it even looks like a roll in the rock, like a big "C" or a squiggly line of brighter color. It has been there for millions of years, embedded in the same tightly compacted sands that bear the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. Above and beneath the sands are even more tightly packed clays and, in Northern Colorado, that's the ancient marine shale. Powertech engineers say those layers will "confine" the aquifer so no uranium-bearing water will escape above or below the water table. What's more, the lixiviant that picks up the uranium will only take it so far before the carbonaceous material and other metals reduce the oxygen again, causing the uranium to precipitate out of the water... Once Powertech or URI gets the uranium out of the ground, a lengthy, complicated process must take place before it can be used in a nuclear power plant -- or for any other reason. About 99.3 percent of all uranium is U-238, an isotope that means the metal has 238 neutrons. Nature wants entropy to decrease, making things more orderly and as stable as possible, so the atoms want to get rid of their extra neutrons. This is what makes uranium and other heavy metals radioactive. They need to kick off neutrons to decay into a more stable element. Uranium has 14 "daughter products" that are the progeny of this decay. Many of them are also radioactive, like radium and thorium; ultimately, uranium and its progeny decay into lead. It takes a long while for this to happen, and it can be measured in whats called half-life -- it dictates that in a given amount of time, half of the atoms in a given radionuclide will decay. The half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years, which makes it "barely radioactive" in the basic definition of the word. The other 0.7 percent of naturally occurring uranium, U-235, is an isotope with fewer neutrons, and it is much more radioactive -- its half-life is 760 million years. When uranium is taken from the ground and turned into yellowcake, an oxygenated, goldenrod-colored powdery form of uranium, it needs to be enriched so that more of it is made up of U-235. In the end, about 3 percent of the uranium is made into that isotope. Along the way, other potentially helpful radioactive metals are extracted from the enrichment process, like technetium-99 metastable, which is used in medical imaging. What's left can be made into uranium pellets, which are inserted into fuel rods, which go inside a nuclear reactor core. In a power plant, the core heats water that is turned into steam to power a turbine, which generates electricity. Nuclear power plants are far more efficient at making electricity than coal or gas power plants. Read the whole article. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. "2008 pres" 6:40:22 AM

Water quality workshop From The Fort Collins Coloradoan, "On Monday, [League of Women Voters] of Larimer County is presenting AWARE Colorado, a statewide program to educate local communities about the impacts of land-use choices on water quality. The program provides information to help protect Colorado's water and natural resources from polluted runoff through innovative land-use strategies. Residents can learn about what they and local decision-makers can do to protect water quality and prevent pollution. The free meeting is scheduled 7 to 9 p.m. at Plymouth Congregational Church, 916 W. Prospect Road. The Monday program will include water-quality specialists to discuss what government entities are doing to minimize water quality problems." "colorado water" 6:22:47 AM

© Copyright 2009 John Orr. Last update: 3/14/09; 10:07:38 PM.