Coyote Gulch

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Hagen Springs update

Now we know why Nestle bought Hagen Springs. They have an augmentation problem in California, according to The Environmental News Service. From the article:

The State of California will challenge the environmental plan for a bottled water plant that Nestle Waters North America intends to build in Siskiyou County if the company does not revise its contract to pump water from the McCloud River, says the state's top lawyer.

"It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States," said California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. "Nestle will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles," Brown warned in a letter to the company July 28.

On the same day, the company issued a press release agreeing to a study and evaluation of the intended primary source of water for the project, Squaw Valley Creek, a tributary of the McCloud River. Nestle has contracted with North State Resources to conduct the study, while scientists from the University of California-Berkeley and UC Davis will supply data and oversight of the evaluation. Data on the existing hydrology and biology of the Squaw Valley creek watershed will be used to develop baseline information to improve understanding of the watershed.

Thanks to The Water Information Program for the link. More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
6:40:46 PM

Energy policy: Oil and gas
From The Denver Post: "So how do you figure things in the big debate over leasing and drilling in the West? Do you buy the industry scare tactics over soaring prices at the pump or do you favor some protection for the resource to perpetuate hunting and fishing activities that provide a more enduring boost for the economy?

"The first thing we should remember, at least as far as western Colorado and several other Rocky Mountain states are concerned, is that this is all about natural gas, not petroleum. This is a product in long supply, not short, and what's extracted here is being shipped east. This largely unregulated upheaval of public lands in places such as the Roan Plateau does little to keep our heating bills down and nothing at all for gasoline costs."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"cc"
6:32:14 PM

Grand Lake water quality

From The Sky-Hi Daily News: "Water quality monitoring of Grand Lake may go cutting-edge if NASA approves a grant for a remote sensing project. Remote sensing involves the detection and measurement of radiation of different wavelengths reflected or emitted from distant objects or materials, according to NASA's definition from the online Earth Observatory...As a water quality experiment this year, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Bureau of Reclamation, the partners who operate the C-BT, agreed to alter its operation schedule to theoretically curb algae blooms. Pumping from the Farr pumping plant on Lake Granby has been stopped from Aug. 1 to Aug. 22, which allows 20 cubic feet per second of natural flows from Grand Lake to Shadow Mountain Reservoir through the channel."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
7:23:47 AM

Grants for forest restoration and watershed protection

From The Loveland Reporter-Herald: "As much as $2 million is available in grants to enhance forested areas while protecting water. The Colorado State Forest Service is accepting applications for Colorado Community Forest Restoration grants, which were established by the 2007 Colorado General Assembly. The grants, backed by federal money, are intended to encourage people and organizations to work together to develop forest restoration projects. The plans should protect critical water supplies while reducing wildfire risks, protecting the ecosystem and communities and finding ways to use the resulting wood. Landowners and others with the legal authority to contract for work on properties where projects are being proposed may apply for a grant. Projects must be associated with a completed community wildfire protection plan. Additional consideration will be given to projects that involve an accredited Colorado youth corps. The state share of the total project cost may not exceed 60 percent. Applications are due at 4 p.m. Oct. 10, and awards will be announced in early November. Applications and additional information are available at http://csfs.colostate.edu."
"colorado water"
7:19:17 AM

Ag water in the Arkansas Valley

Here's some history and a look at the value of irrigated farmland in the Arkansas Valley, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

As people began streaming into the Arkansas Valley, nearly 150 years ago, the same pattern existed - except there were hardly any farms. At that time, it was difficult to see how a civilization could spring from what looked like a desert wasteland to European settlers from the East. Yet, a rivulet of water seeping along a rough dirt ditch could transform that same land into a garden that would feed and sustain the newcomers. By the 1870s, Colorado's mining boom was sparking a parallel economy on the plains, and grand irrigation schemes, backed by railroads, land barons and industrialists, were in full bloom.

In the Arkansas Valley in 1873, the Central Colorado Improvement Co. ran a ditch 20 miles through what would become the new town of South Pueblo, the Colorado Coal & Iron Co. and St. Charles Mesa farming district. By June 1888, the Bessemer Ditch was incorporated, with Gen. William Palmer's CC&I holding 10,000 of the 16,000 shares.

Growth was never a straight-line proposition, however, and CC&I went into receivership in 1894, eventually merging into Colorado Fuel & Iron, and leading to separation of water rights from the mill. CF&I built a new diversion, the Minnequa Canal, while the land and water under the Bessemer Ditch was sold and became primarily agricultural. The ditch was expanded to 43 miles, on the south side of the Arkansas River from Pueblo to the Huerfano River. The Bessemer Ditch was rebuilt after the flood on the Arkansas River and Fountain Creek of June 3, 1921, devastated it along with much of Pueblo. It survived the Great Depression, when at one time 45 percent of shareholders were delinquent in payments. In 1957, the ditch voted to support the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which would bring water from the Western Slope into the Arkansas Valley. The decision turned out to be both a blessing and a headache for the ditch. Part of the ditch company's land and its diversion from the Arkansas River were consumed when Pueblo Dam was constructed in the early 1970s as part of the project. The ditch company now diverts directly out of the dam, and as part of the winter water storage program can save water from Nov. 15 to March 15 to use later in the irrigation season. In a dry year, like 2008 has been so far, those flows are important to finishing crops. On the other hand, "clear" water from Pueblo Dam began flowing, reducing the amount of sediment that once flowed in the river. In the 1980s, the federal government and city of Pueblo lined the ditch through Pueblo to reduce leakage, which had seeped into basements throughout the city.

In the mid-1980s, shareholders on the Bessemer Ditch began to think about selling their shares, hearing rumors that Colorado Springs and Aurora were shopping for more water rights. Three years ago, there were reports that Xcel Energy was trying to acquire shares on the Bessemer Ditch. Sales never materialized. However, about 10 percent of the 20,000 shares in the Bessemer Ditch are being converted to domestic use as the St. Charles Mesa Water District acquires them. New development on the Mesa has split up former farms into home sites, and the water district requires water shares as a condition.

Here's the Fall 2007 [pdf] issue of Headwaters magazine from the Colorado Foundation for Water Education which focuses on the Arkansas River.
"colorado water"
7:14:34 AM

Western Resource Advocates challenge Tri-State's water court application over Amity Canal water

Update: Eric Frankowski was identified incorrectly in the original post as working for Western Resource Advocates. That was our mistake. He actually works for Resource Media. We're sorry for the misinformation.

Western Resource Advocates and other environmental groups have asked the water court to dismiss Tri-State's application for a change of use ag to industrial for water they plan to use for power generation, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Western Resource Advocates, representing Environment Colorado, filed a motion to dismiss in Division 2 water court this week, saying Tri-State's plan to convert half of the Amity Canal to industrial use is invalid under Colorado Water Law. The motion, filed by attorney Bart Miller, states that Tri-State has not obtained federal approval, or that of the Arkansas River Compact Administration, for using John Martin Reservoir for an industrial use. Tri-State is violating Colorado water law by failing to meet the "can-and-will" provisions that require applicants to show they are capable of putting the water to beneficial use. If they cannot, they are in violation of a series of cases known as the anti-speculation doctrine, which was cited by Division 2 Water Court Judge Dennis Maes to deny High Plains A&M's application to move water it owned from the Fort Lyon Canal in 2004. The decision was later upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Tri-State has purchased a little more than half of the water rights on Amity Canal, located mostly in Prowers County, to secure about 20,000 acre-feet for power plants at Holly. The association indicated it would build two coal-fired power plants in Southeastern Colorado while soliciting water rights beginning in 2005. Since then, Tri-State was denied an application for a coal-fired plant in Kansas, based upon carbon-dioxide emissions, and has begun exploring building a nuclear power plant at Holly. "We're looking at all options still," spokesman Jim Van Someren said Wednesday. "We are looking at the potential to develop nuclear power, but no final decision has been made." Van Someren said the court filing, which is the first to ask to dismiss the case, won't affect development of the project...

Part of Tri-State's plan calls for storage of up to 70,000 acre-feet in John Martin Reservoir. About 16,200 acres of farmland would be dried up if the application is approved, Miller added in documents supporting the motion. "Removing this extensive acreage from agricultural production would impact the beneficial use of irrigation water in Prowers County and frustrate the congressionally authorized purpose of John Martin to enhance agricultural production in the region," Miller said.

Here's the text of an email from Eric Frankowski of ~~Western Resource Advocates~~ Resource Media:

...[We] Thought you might be interested in the most recent update on Tri-State's application to state water court for permission to dry up more than 16,000 acres of irrigated farmland along the Lower Arkansas River Valley for its so-called Colorado Power Project. Some of this may be old hat to you, but here's the nuts and bolts...

Tri-State applied to state water court last July for rights to change the use of around 20,000 acre-feet of water water from irrigation to industrial use, ostensibly for the CPP, a coal-fired power plant that it has speculated about building near Holly. It also wants to store an accumulated 70,000 acre-feet of water in John Martin Reservoir, a federal reservoir in Bent County that almost dried up over the winter.

The right to use storage capacity in the reservoir, which fell to around only 10 percent of its capacity over the winter, requires approval from Congress, the Army Corps of Engineers and the state of Kansas. And according to a motion filed on Monday with the water court by Western Resource Advocates on behalf of Environment Colorado, since none, let alone all, of those dominoes are likely to line up, Tri-State can't demonstrate it will put the water to beneficial use. Under the state's unambiguous water rules, the motion says, the court must dismiss Tri-State's application.

That could be a deal-breaker for Tri-State, which is now looking more seriously at building the CPP since Kansas denied it a permit for a coal-fired power plant near Holcomb, Kan. last October. No water would mean no coal-fired power plant here, either.

A little more background:

Much of Tri-State's water would come from the Amity Canal in southeastern Colorado. Last year, around the time of Tri-State's rejection by Kansas, the company finished obtaining water rights to more than half the shares of the canal, which would provide about 21,000 acre-feet of water a year. The Colorado Power Project would consume about 20,000 acre-feet a year.

Tri-State filed its application with the water court last July, In addition to its use of John Martin, it also is asking the water court for rights to drill four water well fields along tributaries of the Arkansas and approval for a plan to use water belonging to senior rights holders then replace the depleted water later.

John Martin is a 600,000 acre-foot reservoir near Las Animas. It was built in 1936 and is owned and operated by the Army Corps. It is designed only for irrigation, flood control and wildlife/recreation purposes under its federal decree. According to WRA's motion, it cannot be used for industrial purposes such as running a coal-fired plant.

Tri-State's proposal, according to the motion, "would sharply decrease irrigation in Colorado's Lower Arkansas Valley" and "permanently dry-up and remove from production as much as 16,243.9 acres of land."

"Removing this extensive acreage from agricultural production would impact the beneficial use of irrigation water in Prowers County and frustrate the congressionally authorized purpose of John Martin to enhance agricultural production in the region." Tri-State's plan to store water for a coal-fired power plant would "require a major operational change which the United States Congress is altogether unlikely to approve."

In addition to sign-offs from Congress and the Corps, the federal aspect of Tri-State's proposal for using John Martin for storage also means the plans need to be approved Arkansas River Compact Administration. The ARCA comprises six voting members, three each from Kansas and Colorado, who are appointed by their governors. Decisions by the group require a unanimous vote. Considering that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is strongly opposed to Tri-State's plans to build a coal-fired plant in her state, chances are unlikely that the company would get approval from the state's representatives on the river compact.

Last October, the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment denied a permit for two 700-megawatt coal-fired power units at a facility in Holcomb, Kan., one of which would have been owned and operated by Tri-State. KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby said at the time that "it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing."

During the 2008 Kansas legislative session, Sebelius vetoed three attempts at measures that would have negated Bremby's decision. Tri-State and its partners in Kansas have appealed the permit decision in several different courts.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
7:04:03 AM

e-mail John: