Saturday, March 1, 2008

? for President? Political Wire: "A new Fox News poll in Ohio shows Sen. Hillary Clinton has an 8-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama, 46% to 38%, 'due largely to the support of white women, seniors and working-class voters.' In Texas, Obama edges Clinton, 48% to 45%, a statistical tie." Political Wire: "Sen. Barack Obama 'is rapidly gaining ground' against Sen. Hillary Clinton in Ohio, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey. Clinton leads Obama among likely voters, 47% to 45%, making it a statistical tie. Key finding: Clinton's lead is now just two points in Ohio, down from five-points in the previous poll, an eight-point advantage last week and fourteen points two weeks ago." Political Wire: "In Texas, Sen. Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 51% to 44%. Clinton leads among self-described Democrats 48% to 46% and Obama leads among self-described independents and Republicans 64% to 32%. Among men, it is Obama 60% and Clinton 32%. Among women, Clinton leads 53% to 44%. Clinton and Obama are tied at 49% each among early voters and Obama leads Clinton 51% to 43% among in-person voters. "In Ohio, Clinton leads 50% to 45%. Clinton leads among self-described Democrats 52% to 42% and Obama leads among independents and Republicans 54% to 42%. Obama leads among men 57% to 36% and Clinton leads among women 62% to 35%. Obama has increased his support among Democrats by 7 percentage points and among men by 8 percentage points since our last survey." Political Wire: "Sen. Barack Obama has taken a slight lead in the Texas for the first time, according to the Belo Texas tracking poll. Obama leads Sen. Hillary Clinton, 46% to 45%, making the race a statistical dead heat. 'The numbers, however, show that Obama is making up ground quickly, gaining three percentage points since Sunday, while Clinton lost a percentage point in that same period.'" "2008 pres" 9:23:31 AM

Climate Change: The earth is a beautifully complex system Here's a look at climate vs. weather from Island of Doubt. From the article: It's almost not worth mentioning, but Mount Kilimanjaro exemplifies the central weakness of the climate change pseudoskeptic's case. Does it matter how much snow lies at the top of Africa's tallest peak? No. And for the same reason that it doesn't matter that this past January was particularly cold in some parts of the world. It all goes back to the difference between climate and weather. So, one more time, here goes. Climate is like a road trip from San Francisco to Denver. Weather is like one hour of that road trip. Some hour you might be driving up a hill, the next you might be driving down one. No single hour will provide you any information about the overall trend in elevation. But eventually it becomes clear that you are gaining elevation. Denver is a lot higher than San Francisco. End of metaphor and end of argument. It's that simple, and yet otherwise intelligent and educated people keep confusing weather with climate. It's happening again with Kilimanjaro, which has been losing snow for years, except when it isn't, that is. An usually heavy dump of snow and rain in2007 left the peak white again. Just like old times. And those who would rather not believe the climate is changing are seizing on the "news" as evidence to support their position. "2008 pres" 9:21:39 AM

HICKENLOOPER: City Announces Permitting & Licensing Process Surrounding 2008 Democratic National Convention From The Cherry Creek News: "The City and County of Denver today declared the 2008 Democratic National Convention an 'extraordinary event" and announced special procedures for permitting and licensing the use of City property and facilities in specific areas from August 15 through August 31. The Convention will run from August 25 through August 28. The declaration, signed by Mayor John Hickenlooper, notes the Convention will be 'an unusually large-scale event of national and international significance, drawing an extraordinary number of visitors to the city, and generating a large number of permit applications[sigma]requiring greater than normal efforts to coordinate city permitting and licensing procedures...Our goal with this process is to ensure fair, equitable and transparent distribution of permits and licenses so that we may allow applicants every possible opportunity for free expression and maximum participation in this exciting, historic event,' added Katherine Archuleta, senior advisor to Mayor Hickenlooper on policy and initiatives." Click through for the details. "2008 pres" 9:18:30 AM

Healthcare Wash Park Prophet: "The Washington Post has a nice comparison of the health care plans of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the two leading Democratic candidates for the Presidential nomination in 2008. Among most people whom I have heard express an opinion on a particular issue that distinguishes the candidates, this has been the most commonly expressed one and the most heart felt concern. Most Democrats whom I have heard express a strong opinion on this prefer Clinton's plan." "2008 pres" 9:14:04 AM

USFS to limit rafting in Shoshone Section of Glenwood Canyon? It seems that most are on board with limiting commercial rafting in the Shoshone Section of Glenwood Canyon. Here's a recap of the comment period for the proposed rules from The Glenwood Springs Post Independent "reg". They write: The Forest Service received just a few public comments about a proposal to cap the number of commercial boating trips through the Shoshone rapids in Glenwood Canyon. A 30-day public comment period on the proposal ended Friday. An outfitter in Glenwood felt the limit was too restrictive. Brian Lloyd, district ranger for the Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River National Forest, said the outfitter doesn't operate on the Colorado River and thought the cap would prevent him from doing so. "His comment was basically that he was being locked out of an opportunity for a permit to run at the river because we're at capacity, basically," Lloyd said. "He said that all the guys on the Colorado are big outfitters and there's no room for small outfitters." A private citizen in Eagle also submitted a public comment saying the proposed cap on commercial user days was too high, Lloyd said. A response from the Western Slope River Guides Association requested more information about the proposal and made it clear the association didn't want a smaller limit, Lloyd said. "It was very sensitive about having the numbers reduced because the demand is there," Lloyd said. Before the public comment period, the Colorado Division of Wildlife told the Forest Service it was concerned about access for fly fisherman at the Grizzly Creek put-in, Lloyd said. At issue was a concrete post on a put-in ramp that fly fisherman weren't able to lift boats over. The post was installed to prevent vehicles from using the ramp due to concerns about pedestrian and bike safety. Lloyd said that in response, river rangers will put in a shorter post each day at 9 a.m. and take it out at 4:30 p.m. during the peak commercial boating season. The DOW also told the Forest Service that the commercial cap was too large. "They thought the cap was more than ample," Lloyd said. "They actually would recommend having a smaller cap." The comments came in response to a Forest Service proposal to cap the number of commercial rafting user days through the Shoshone rapids in Glenwood Canyon at 71,500. There would be another 750 days for commercial kayaking, and 1,100 user days for institutional users such as colleges, that could be applied for on a temporary basis. Those figures, plus an option outfitters have to use up to 10 percent more user days in a year than what is permitted, add up to a proposed "theoretical maximum" of around 81,000 user days per year, Lloyd said. "We've never approached that," he said, adding that in 2007, outfitters used about 65,500 commercial user days. A user day is one person on a guided trip for any part of a day. The only real difference between what's currently permitted by the Forest Service and the proposed cap is the addition of 1,100 institutional user days, Lloyd said. The next step, Lloyd said, is to consider modifying the proposal in response to comments. A decision notice will come out probably within a few weeks. There's a 30-day window to appeal the decision after the notice. "colorado water" 8:50:55 AM

Augmentation for Republican River Compact compliance? Here's an update on efforts by Colorado and Nebraska to come into compliance with the Republican River Compact from The Yuma Pioneer. From the article: Interest seems to be growing among Nebraska natural resource districts (NRDs) in the Republican River Basin and the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in using stream augmentation projects to keep in compliance with the Republican River Compact Settlement (RRCS). Colorado has just announced a $60 million project to deliver about 15,000 acre-feet (AF) of water at the Colorado-Kansas state line to keep that state in compliance with the RRCS. They have purchased the groundwater rights on about 9,600 acres in northeast Colorado and plan to build a 12-mile pipeline to carry pumped water to the state line. An engineering firm is currently conducting a study for the basin NRDs to identify areas that could possibly supply water for augmentation without affecting groundwater supplies. Upper Republican NRD Manager Jasper Fanning told his board during their Feb. 12 meeting that the state is taking a greater interest in augmentation projects. He said he was able to visit with DNR's technical staff during a compact engineering committee meeting in Colorado in mid-January. After hearing about Colorado's plans, Fanning said Nebraska's technical staff seemed to think augmentation hold more hope of what it could do for Nebraska to keep the state in compliance. He said the Colorado approach is different than the approach being studied by the NRDs' engineering firm. However, he said the information could be valuable in expanding the options for augmentation. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. "colorado water" 8:37:47 AM

2008 Governor's Forum on Colorado Agriculture Here's a recap of this week's 2008 Governor's Forum on Colorado Agriculture in Denver, from Fort Collins Now. From the article: To preserve water for agriculture and meet population growth in the future will require additional storage to capture water in a time of plenty to use in times of scarcity. That is the key to a paper [pdf] developed by the Colorado Ag Water Alliance that was released Thursday during the 2008 Governor's Forum on Colorado Agriculture at the Double Tree Hotel in Denver. Don Shawcroft, vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, who farms in the San Luis Valley, released initial findings of the alliance during a forum session. The alliance was developed from a meeting at a November 2005 ag water summit and was organized in February 2006. "It's vision is to empower Colorado ag producers to make informed and viable decisions about ag water," Shawcroft said... Agriculture can create some of those conservation answers, but farmers will need to be paid for those efforts, Shawcroft said, as some of those measures can be addressed by reducing acreage, going to shorter growing season crops, eliminating field evaporation, switching to different crops, and using different irrigation methods. But all those can lead to other problems that can effect not only specific river basins but water compact entitlements, water aquifers and how conserved water can be transferred to other uses. "That's the challenge we face," Shawcroft said. "colorado water" 8:30:40 AM

Wastewater news From The Clear Creek Courant: "Expanding the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District at Downieville to serve all upstream wastewater users in Clear Creek County would cost $16 million, according to a $143,000 report from Arber and Associates of Lakewood, an engineering consulting firm specializing in water, wastewater and water reuse treatment systems. Commissioned by a coalition of water users in Clear Creek County and the foothills cities, including Arvada and Golden, the 'Wastewater Alternatives' report was unveiled at the county commissioners' meeting Wednesday, Feb. 20. The report also included engineering proposals for 10 wastewater districts around the county. The study looked at the idea of hooking up wastewater users in Empire, the Easter Seals Camp, Shadows Ranch, Georgetown and Silver Plume into one sewer district, with the Clear Creek Sanitation District at Downieville as the focal point. The consensus of the commissioners was that the price of centralization was not worth the high cost and that upgrading the existing facilities would cost half as much, as well as preserve the integrity of individual communities. The study was inspired by concerns that more could be done to protect Clear Creek, said Chris Etcheson, environmental health specialist with Clear Creek County." More... The engineering firm estimated that the cost of upgrading both plants at Georgetown and Silver Plume would be about $8 million. The study did not address the option of building a treatment plant at Shadows Ranch, an idea that was proposed in January, too late to be included in the process, Etcheson said. County commissioners said the outcome of the study was consistent with the county's goals as stated in the master plan. "If you have a pipe, then development follows pipeline," Commissioner Kevin O'Malley said. But if the plants are scattered, the buffer between communities can be maintained he said. Official are dealing with conflicting objectives, O'Malley said. "We have a desire to maintain a rural character and at the same time allow economic development to sustain the community." Community development director Bert Weaver said it is important to maintain the option of individual treatment plants without mandating connection to a municipality, as was the case with the Echo Mountain ski area project, which has its own system. The report recommends revising the individual sewage disposal system regulations to include watertight septic tanks, parallel distribution systems, expanded pre-treatment unit use and incorporation of standards on ISDS repairs. "colorado water" 8:16:23 AM

Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel update Here's a look at the recent hullabaloo up in Leadville along with some history from Ed Quillen (via The GOAT Blog). Read the whole thing. Here are a couple of excerpts: Nothing like a crisis to unite a community, right? Well, not if that community is Leadville, Colo., seat of Lake County and the highest incorporated city in the United States at 10,152 feet above sea level. The old mining town has been in the news lately on account of a clogged mine drainage tunnel. There's a water treatment plant at the mouth of the 12,000-foot-long tunnel. But somewhere behind it there's a blockage that may date back to 1995, and contaminated water has accumulated underground. If the growing water pressure pushed through or around the blockage, it might wash out the treatment plant and a nearby mobile-home park, and send a toxic plume down the Arkansas River. Lake County Commissioners despaired that the tunnel's owner, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, would ever get around to fixing the problem. So a month ago, they declared a state of emergency. This worked like the proverbial two-by-four applied to a mule: It got the beast's attention. Even the New York Times has covered the story. As someone who lives 60 miles downstream from Leadville in Salida, it was fine by me. We are dependent on river-related tourism here, and the last thing we need is another (there was one in 1983) big release of orange mine-murk discharge that kills most aquatic life in the river... Mayor Bud Elliott said the county commissioners made a "drastic, unilateral move" that caused "serious and long-term impacts on the image, economy and quality of life in our community." Former Mayor Chet Gaede wrote that the commissioners "chose to cry wolf to the national media" and he feared that "the wolf will come back to bite us all." Restaurant owner Dave Wright had "heard of large numbers of cancellations in local motels/hotels, representing thousands of dollars lost in lodging income and tax," and his establishment had received phone calls from out-of-towners "asking if it's safe to visit here." More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. "colorado water" 7:49:07 AM

Reclamation to release water from Glen Canyon Dam for habitat restoration Coyote Gulch would love to be on hand on Wednesday when Reclamation plans to flood the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam with a 41,000 cfs release from Lake Powell. Hopefully there will be some video. Here's a report from The Deseret Morning News. They write: The Interior Department gave its final OK late Friday for an experiment next week that involves an extremely high-flow release of water through the Glen Canyon Dam in an effort to learn whether the method can be used to rebuild eroded beaches downstream on the Colorado River. Next Wednesday the Bureau of Reclamation will release water from the dam's power plant and bypass tubes at a rate of about 41,000 cubic feet per second for about 60 hours for a total of almost 8.23 million acre-feet of water. Similar releases since 1996 have been at a rate of between 8,000 and 20,000 cubic feet per second. The increased rate of water being released is expected to change river conditions and the availability of campsites along the river. After the release, scientists will study the impact on habitat in and around the river. Already experts agree that more sand is needed to rebuild sandbars along the river's 277-mile stretch through the Grand Canyon National Park. The release will also create backwater habitat used by young humpback chub and other native and nonnative fish. The Interior Department based its final decision on the results of an environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. More coverage from The USGS. They write: The Bureau of Reclamation today released a final environmental assessment (FEA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that authorizes the initiation of an early-March 2008 high-flow test and fall steady flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam downstream through the Grand Canyon. The FEA provides an evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed action and no action, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The FEA evaluates the impact of the proposed experimental flows on a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic resources. Following release of these documents, the high-flow experiment and associated research activities will be undertaken on March 4th cooperatively by scientists and resource managers from Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 2008 high flow test will be similar to the previous high flow experiments conducted by the joint Interior agencies in 2004, but the amount of sediment available for the 2008 experiment is considerably larger. Based on the previous experiments, scientists have concluded that more sand is needed to rebuild sandbars throughout the 277-mile reach of Grand Canyon National Park than was available in 1996 or 2004. Currently, sand supplies in the river are at a 10-year high with a volume about three times greater than in 2004 due to tributary inflows below the dam over the past 16 months. During the high-flow experiment, Reclamation will release water through Glen Canyon Dam's powerplant and bypass tubes to a maximum amount of approximately 41,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) for about 60 hours. Current operational plans call for the experimental flows to begin increasing in the evening on March 4th, with powerplant bypass flows to begin on March 5th. Good luck y'all. Let us know how things go. "colorado water" 7:41:14 AM

Reclamation: Colorado Springs Utilities and Green Mountain Reservoir water contracts meeting From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "Next Thursday, March 6th, we'll be holding a public open house in Silverthorne to start the public comment process on a series of contracts regarding Colorado Springs Utilities and use of Green Mountain Reservoir water. The open house will be at the Silverthorne Library in the Blue River room from 6 p.m. to 8 pm. The press release included in this message has the details. Maybe I'll see you there!" "colorado water" 7:30:16 AM

Southern Delivery System: Reclamation preferred alternative Reclamation has named their preferred alternative -- a route from Lake Pueblo -- for the pipeline for Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: A plan to construct a pipeline from Pueblo Dam to serve Colorado Springs water needs for the next 40 years received preliminary endorsement from the Bureau of Reclamation on Friday. Reclamation chose the proposed route of the Southern Delivery System over six other alternatives - saying all would harm the environment - in a draft environmental impact statement released Friday. It also lists several mitigation measures which must be met to reduce the ill effects... "Reclamation has initially identified the participants' proposed action as the agency preferred alternative," the EIS states. "This alternative would have the lowest total project costs and lowest energy use requirements." The draft EIS is still subject to public review over the next 60 days, and public meetings are being planned for April. A final record of decision is expected in early 2009, according to Kara Lamb, public information officer for Reclamation. After that time, Reclamation could issue contracts and the project could be complete by 2012. Colorado Springs also needs other permits to begin work on the project, including a disputed land-use permit from Pueblo County. The recommendation could change before a final environmental impact statement is issued, Lamb said. "If new scientific evidence is presented that wasn't available before or a new data set, it could change," Lamb said. "That's why we have the public comment period." The EIS and its supporting documents total about 3,000 pages, and have so far cost Colorado Springs more than $13.9 million since 2002 to prepare. The document evaluates a "statement of purpose and need" prepared by Colorado Springs, which said it needs SDS for future growth, to develop its water rights and provide redundancy in its system. The water rights involved are in the 1987 Fountain Creek exchange, a negotiated settlement with Pueblo and Aurora. Colorado Springs plans to gain additional water for SDS by exchanging against return flows from transmountain or fully consumable native water, said John Fredell, SDS project director... The EIS claims Colorado Springs would grow regardless of which alternative is chosen. Natural growth - births minus deaths - accounts for more than half of Colorado Springs growth in recent years and Fort Carson expansion is expected to bring even more families to the city, Fredell said. Currently, Colorado Springs Utilities serves more than 400,000 people, and that number could double by 2050, according to the city's own projections... The EIS does not say the project will not harm the environment. "All alternatives would have adverse environmental effects," the EIS states. However, the alternative from the dam preferred by Colorado Springs is no more or less detrimental than the other alternatives, including a "no-action" alternative of building a pipeline from Fremont County. Mitigation procedures - or steps that must be taken to reduce the negative environmental impacts of the project - are sprinkled throughout the report, but are not yet collected in one place for easy reference. They include improvements on Fountain Creek to stabilize streams and improve wetlands, an agreement on historic sites, recreational impacts, wildlife habitat and numerous other concerns. Flood control - important to reduce the impact of more runoff from new homes - is mentioned in the EIS, although technical documents indicate flood risk would be slightly reduced by the construction of reservoirs on tributaries prone to flooding. The EIS banks on the continuance of a stormwater utility formed in recent years, even though State Rep. Doug Bruce, who as a former county commissioner was often at odds with the city, has launched a petition drive to repeal it... Not considered in the EIS was the reuse of return flows in the potable water system. Colorado Springs already reuses 13 percent of its return flows for public irrigation and in power plants. Potable reuse - treating the return flows to drinking water quality - would have doubled the costs of the project and was removed from the study in December. Cost criteria also eliminated several components that were included in Colorado Springs' 1996 water resources plan, such as a pipeline from Crowley County, where Colorado Springs purchased Colorado Canal water rights in the 1980s, based on what Reclamation determined the public was willing to pay for water, Lamb said... The draft environmental impact statement describes and analyzes the potential effects of seven Southern Delivery System project alternatives, including a no action alternative, on environmental and human resources. The draft EIS tentatively identifies the construction of a pipeline from Pueblo Dam as the preferred alternative. To provide a comment, mail, fax or e-mail to the attention of Kara Lamb at: Bureau of Reclamation 11056 W. County Road 18E Loveland, CO 80537 (fax) 970-663-3212 (e-mail) klamb@gp.usbr.gov Comments must be provided in writing no later than April 29. For more information, contact Kara Lamb at 970-962-4326...Southern Delivery System: http://www.sdseis.com. More coverage from The Colorado Springs Gazette. They write: The Bureau of Reclamation's draft Environmental Impact Statement identified a plan to pipe water from the reservoir along Interstate 25 to the city's northeast side as the "preferred alternative." It concluded the city's Southern Delivery System wouldn't damage the environment any more than other alternatives but would cost less and require the lowest amount of energy, "resulting in the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any alternative." The bureau's endorsement of the city's plan suggests Utilities will get the green light for the $1 billion project late this year or in early 2009. The city needs federal approval, because the bureau operates Pueblo Reservoir, where the city wants a 40-year storage contract... The bureau's environmental study, required under the National Environmental Policy Act, looked at 10 criteria in the seven alternatives, including a "no action" option. Those are: surface water flow, surface water quality, channel stability and morphology, sedimentation, water rights, fish and other aquatic life, wetlands, wildlife, socio-economic conditions, and recreation resources. The bureau found that "all alternatives would have adverse environmental effects" but concluded all six action alternatives are "reasonable." That's music to the ears of Springs Utilities' officials because it translates to flexibility, which is key considering the city's chosen plan faces opposition that could force it to side step Pueblo County... Colorado Springs Vice Mayor Larry Small termed Pueblo County "the biggest obstacle" for the pipeline and predicted the city would soon file a land-use application. But Utilities project director John Fredell wouldn't confirm that, saying only that it is an option. Fredell said it's good news the bureau didn't discount an option to run the pipeline from the Arkansas in Fremont County, avoiding Pueblo County. The city is also working on that project. Utilities water chief Bruce McCormick said the city has factored environmental mitigation into project costs. "Yeah, there's going to be impacts," McCormick said. "But we don't think there's anything in there that says they can't be mitigated. The idea that all six (action alternatives) could be constructed without undue impact is a great thing and allows us flexibility."[...] The bureau's draft environmental statement found: WETLANDS The city's plan would affect 32.2 acres of wetlands, waters of the United States and riparian resources. That's about the same as several alternatives but substantially more than one option that would affect 8.1 acres. The impacts would require temporary and permanent on-site restoration and on-and off-site creation of wetlands to compensate. VEGETATION Of all the plans, the city's plan would have the greatest effect on grassland, shrubland and woodland, affecting 337 acres. Also, the plan would destroy about 5 percent of dwarf milkweed, considered "imperiled" in Colorado, endangering the plant's genetic diversity. WILDLIFE The project would hurt threatened and endangered species, some negligibly, by the permanent and temporary loss of habitat and displacement or disturbance of breeding, feeding and sheltering. The areas at issue are potential habitat for federally listed species: Canada lynx, Preble's meadow jumping mouse and Mexican spotted owl. "All alternatives would permanently affect between 1,278 and 2,410 acres of vegetation communities, which would generally contribute to moderate to major overall adverse effects on wildlife and migratory birds," the agency said. RECREATION The city plan's impact on recreation, notably boating on the Arkansas downstream of Pueblo Dam, would bring "minor to moderate benefits," while the Fremont County option would result in "minor adverse effects to those opportunities," the report said. SOCIO-ECONOMIC The city's proposal would cause Colorado Springs' residential water rates to more than double by 2015, the agency found. The city's project partners, Fountain and Security, would see their rates rise 63 percent and 171 percent, respectively. The bureau used state and local forecasts to project Colorado Springs' annual growth at 1.2 percent between 2000 and 2030, to 518,000 residents; Fountain's at 3.7 percent growth to 53,000 residents, and Security's at 1.4 percent growth to 27,000 residents. Pueblo West, which has a small part of the project, was forecast at 3.5 percent growth to 47,000 residents. CULTURAL RESOURCES The city's plan would affect 84 sites eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. One alternative was found to affect a lower number. More detail from The Colorado Springs Gazette. They write: Pueblo County officials have adopted land-use regulations, called 1041 rules after the House Bill that created such authority, that Springs officials think hinder the project. For example, the rules don't include deadlines for action, which would enable Pueblo County to delay the project. The city recently lost a bid in Pueblo District Court to sidestep the 1041 rules, arguing the land was zoned for utilities in the 1970s but it was changed in 2005 -- some say in efforts to block the water pipeline. City officials have said the rules would make the pipeline more expensive, time consuming and difficult to plan and build. Pueblo County commissioners have declined to comment. The city appealed the District Court's ruling to the Colorado Court of Appeals. If the city wins on appeal, the 1041 issue would be moot. If it loses, it would either file a 1041 application or pursue drawing water from the Arkansas River in Fremont County and routing the pipeline along Colorado Highway 115, avoiding Pueblo County. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. "colorado water" 7:23:24 AM

Cloud-seeding for Uncompahgre Plateau? Cloud-seeding is being pondered for the Uncompaghre Plateau according to The Montrose Daily Press. From the article: A method for increasing precipitation on Grand Mesa and at ski resorts could be brought to the Uncompahgre Plateau with local support. There are about 100 cloud seeding generators in Colorado, serving to provide powder to resorts and snowpack leading to stream flows for irrigation, wildlife and recreation, said Joe Busto, chair of the North American Interstate Weather Modification Council. He said cloud seeding can increase precipitation by up to 10 percent. The seeding procedure common to this area involves burning silver in powder form over a flame. The particles released in the smoke mix with water vapor in the clouds above, stimulating ice crystal growth and snowflakes. "It's gotta be cold and have an awful lot of water vapor," Busto said. Don Griffith, president of North American Weather Consultants, said the plateau would be a good place for a generator. "Storms (are mostly) coming out of the southwest, so air forced right over the plateau forces clouds to form," Griffith said. A report from Bureau of Reclamation in April 2006 lists the plateau as a "potential target area." Both Busto and Griffith said the environmental impacts are negligible according to research dating back to the 1950s. Busto said Colorado's last cloud seeding program started in Gunnison County in 2003. He's part of the Colorado Water Conservation Board's watershed protection and flood mitigation section, an office that issues cloud seeding permits and allocates grants to help finance such projects. He said a generator costs about $60,000. Griffith said the grant assistance the state provides was low until the past few years. He said the Gunnison County program, which he helped start, costs the county about 60 percent with the remainder covered by state grants. Busto said Vail and Beaver Creek are the state's only resorts to bring in cloud seeding, as most are facilitated by municipalities and water users... Griffith, who helped Gunnison County get started, said the initial emphasis for cloud seeding was agriculture and that the emphasis continues to be with agriculture and municipalities rather than ski resorts. Mike Chamberlain of the National Weather Service in Grand Junction said the impacts of cloud seeding aren't on a scale significant enough to impact forecasts. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. "colorado water" 7:11:17 AM

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