| |
|
Thursday, August 21, 2008
|
|
Independent Ranchmen's Ditch flood-control project
From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: "The Grand Junction City Council postponed awarding a contract Wednesday night to complete a flood-control project because an irrigation company refused to sign off on the work due to concerns about the type of pipe to be used. Council members voted 4-1 to continue a decision until their Sept. 3 meeting to give city public works staff time to negotiate with the Grand Valley Irrigation Co. Councilman Doug Thomason cast the lone dissenting vote. Council members Teresa Coons and Linda Romer Todd were absent from the meeting."
More from the article:
Englewood-based Arapahoe Utilities and Infrastructure Inc. was scheduled to receive a $5.69 million contract to finish the Independent Ranchmen's Ditch flood-control project. The third and final phase of work on the project, also known as the Big Pipe Project, called for constructing 90-inch and 96-inch storm drainage pipes and installing them side-by-side in the ditch along the south side of Patterson Road between 24 1/2 and 25 1/2 roads. Once completed, the $16.6 million project will remove 383 residential and commercial properties from the 100-year floodplain that cuts across the city between First Street and 24 Road and Patterson Road and U.S. Highway 6&50. But Grand Valley Irrigation Co. officials wrote a letter to the city Wednesday indicating they oppose Arapahoe Utilities and Infrastructure's plans to use polymer-coated steel pipe. The irrigation company, which owns the ditch, said it preferred concrete pipe, which was used in the first two phases of the project...
City Engineering Manager Trent Prall said the city has heard concerns that the polymer coating could be scraped off and cause the steel pipe to corrode. But he said the city tested the steel pipe and concluded that's not true. "It's widely accepted," Prall said of the steel pipe, noting it has been used by various state departments of transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration...
Council members also noted a drawn-out battle could jeopardize a $3 million federal grant the city received to help pay for the project. The grant expires in April. The project is slated to be completed in May.
"colorado water"
7:19:31 PM 
|
|
Lower Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company
Here's an update on the Lower Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The president of the Super Ditch, a water marketing group formed by farmers, Wednesday said the group will work to keep water in the Arkansas River basin, even though there have been conversations with Aurora. It also plans to keep fallowed acreage, ground that cannot be planted in order to transfer the consumptive use, to the 25 percent suggested in studies that led to the formation of the Super Ditch. "I still think the biggest and best idea of the whole thing is that we still maintain the ownership of the water down here in the valley," said John Schweizer, a Rocky Ford farmer and president of the Super Ditch...
The Super Ditch pools water from shareholders on six ditches in the Lower Ark Valley to lease water to those who need it. A lease is a one-time sale of water that does not change ownership of water rights. There are still hurdles in water court and with ditch company bylaws to overcome before any leases can be made. The concept Lower Ark officials have pitched is that water in the lease program would be less likely to be sold off the land, as happened in the Rocky Ford Ditch and Colorado Canal transfers to Aurora and Colorado Springs.
The Lower Ark board Wednesday unanimously approved an agreement which defines its role in providing future support - legal, technical and clerical - to Super Ditch. It also approved a conflict of interest policy for Peter Nichols, who is general counsel for Super Ditch and the Lower Ark's water attorney. "I'm real encouraged by the direction the Super Ditch is moving," said John Singletary, Lower Ark chairman. "But I am concerned we don't turn Super Ditch into something it shouldn't be." He directed the remarks at Schweizer, who attended Wednesday's meeting. A recent editorial in The Pueblo Chieftain expressed the fear that the Super Ditch could be a means to divert more water out of the basin, particularly to Aurora. After the meeting, Schweizer reaffirmed the primary purpose of the Super Ditch is to give its shareholders another option besides the all-or-nothing alternatives of farming or buy-and-dry. "We met with Aurora, but they didn't seem too interested," Schweizer said. Other Denver metro users declined to have serious discussions about leases so far, he added...
Mark Pifher, Aurora's deputy director for water, explained to the Arkansas Basin Roundtable last week that the city is banking on a long-term arrangement with the High Line Canal to fulfill its drought-recovery needs, as provided for in a 2003 agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Schweizer, a roundtable member and High Line shareholder, said he thinks Aurora is looking toward the High Line because of an agreement between Aurora and High Line board signed earlier this year. High Line and Aurora negotiated a two-year lease for 2004-05 after drought depleted much of Aurora's water storage. Personally, he's not convinced High Line farmers would get the most for their money from a deal with Aurora, however, and he did not rule out future Super Ditch leases to Aurora or other cities. "It's only my personal opinion, but the cities, that's where the money is to make this deal work," Schweizer said. There are many opportunities to lease within the Arkansas River basin, mostly in El Paso County, Schweizer said. "The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority was real interested," Schweizer said, adding that there are wildlife uses and agricultural uses that can be fulfilled as well. "The water should stay in the valley if at all possible."[...]
The next time push comes to shove, Schweizer said the cities' interests will prevail and ag users have to be ready to react. In a drought year, the water becomes far more valuable to cities than to farmers, who may have trouble finishing crops with reduced supplies. "The only reason the High Line lease went through as fast as it did was that a lot of people were going to be in bad shape without it," Schweizer said. "The people in Aurora needed the water." At the same time, farmers on the High Line are raising crops again. Even in the lease years, enough water to satisfy ag needs remained in the canal because only the consumptive use is leased, Schweizer said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
7:10:28 PM
|
|
Southern Delivery System
Colorado Springs Utilities has filed their application for a 1041 permit with Pueblo County, according to The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:
Colorado Springs Utilities on Wednesday officially asked Pueblo County for permission to build a water pipeline across the county, a long-awaited step that might lead to litigation. "This application took major, major effort," project manager John Fredell said of the paperwork that filled 10 boxes. "It moves us way ahead in the process." The application asks to build the Southern Delivery System, a 66-inch pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir to the El Paso County line that will largely follow Interstate 25. Pueblo County hasn't been friendly to the pipeline project and adopted new land-use rules in recent years after the project was conceived. Utilities officials have said they think the new rules make it tougher to get a permit because they're vague and contain no time requirement for a decision.
Still, Fredell downplayed Pueblo County's expected opposition to the 43-mile pipeline project. "We can stop speculating in terms of a review. We're going to find out," he said. "We need to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they're going to do the right thing." Pueblo County commissioners refuse to comment on the project, citing their quasi-judicial role should the application eventually be presented to them. The city paid $50,000 to cover initial costs of a review, but Pueblo County has 30 days to set a review fee...
Fredell said if Pueblo County is unreasonable in applying its land-use rules, the city could sue, but it doesn't want to. The city already has a case on appeal after a 10th Judicial District Court judge ruled earlier this year Pueblo County has authority over the project.
In another major development, Utilities officials said they're ready to make offers to 34 property owners for 70 parcels for which Utilities expects to pay about $4.6 million. The tracts, ranging in size from less than an acre to 3,700 acres, cover a 30-mile path for the pipeline from the Fountain area to a water treatment plant site in northeast Colorado Springs and also for a distribution line for treated water...
Of the 70 parcels, all but two are easements only. Those two include 40 acres for a pump station and 120 acres for the treatment plant. Only seven tracts are owned by individuals; the rest are in the hands of developers and commercial interests, said Dan Higgins, project construction and delivery manager. Twenty of the 70 tracts are owned by the Banning Lewis Ranch Management Co., he said, which owns most of the 23,000-acre Banning Lewis Ranch. As yet, the ranch is mostly undeveloped but it's a chief reason the pipeline is needed. Higgins said the staff will seek permission next month from the Utilities Board, which comprises City Council, to make offers. Utilities paid a consultant $445,000 for appraisals and other work in drafting offers. Utilities officials didn't say whether the economic slowdown will affect the timing of the project, which is slated to begin delivering water in 2012. The city has spent $79.2 million on the project since 2000.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
6:56:41 PM
|
|
Twilight for Bonny Reservoir?
From The McCook Daily Gazette: "Colorado State Engineer Dick Wolfe has ordered the Bureau of Reclamation to release approximately 2,000 acre feet of water from Bonny Reservoir.
The reservoir, located on the South Fork of the Republican River near Burlington, Colo., just west of the Kansas border, has increased its pool due to heavy rains over the last week. Wolfe explained that the Republican River Compact required the release stating, "Colorado must comply with the compact, and in order to do so, we must release that water."
More from the article:
Wolfe explained that the order slightly modified his previous order of Aug. 9, that the bureau begin releasing water. "We've been working with the bureau for some time on this issue, and have tried to accommodate some of their concerns regarding administration of Bonny Reservoir," Wolfe said. "We will continue to work closely with the Bureau on this difficult issue." Bonny Dam has a limited release capacity and the release of approximately 2,000 acre-feet is expected to take several weeks. Wolfe said that his office will work with the Bureau of Reclamation to assure that the correct volume of water is released and that future inflows into Bonny Reservoir will pass through the reservoir and into the South Fork of the Republican River as quickly as is safe and practicable.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"colorado water"
6:28:18 PM
|
|
Streamline for water court?
Here's an update on the new standing committee for the state water courts. The committee is an outgrowth of an interim committee appointed by Chieft Justice Mary Mullarkey to study streamlining water court processes. The streamline was a recommendation of Governor Ritter's South Platte River Task Force and last summer's Water Futures Panel sponsored by Denver University. From the article:
Making water court proceedings more understandable to the general public and attorneys more informed about water law were 2 of 10 areas identified for improvement by a statewide water court committee that included San Luis Valley Water Judge O. John Kuenhold and attorney for the Valley's Rio Grande Water Conservation District David Robbins. Formed last December and appointed by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, the 21-member Water Court Committee of the Colorado Supreme Court was given an August deadline to come up with recommendations for improving the water court process in Colorado. The committee released its report, "Timely, Fair and Effective Water Courts," right on cue this month. The report's recommendations ranged from housekeeping measures to further reviews of water court procedures and funding.
The committee recommended that a standing water committee continue to serve, and its next meeting is on September 4 in the Colorado Supreme Court conference room. The Water Court Committee also recommended that the state legislature continue to support the development of river basin computational models and other tools. One such model, the Rio Grande Decision Support System, was a key factor in the 2006 confined aquifer rules case trial in the Valley. That computer model continues to undergo revisions and is expected to be a key tool in implementing the water management sub-districts in the San Luis Valley. The state water committee stressed that such tools should be available and usable by the public. One of the recommendations made by the committee was for the State Court Administrator's Office to work with the standing Water Court Committee to prepare a "user-friendly set of materials designed for assisting the public and individuals without attorneys to better understand and participate in water court proceedings."
In addition to assisting the public by making water court proceedings more understandable and user friendly, the committee recommended ongoing education for water attorneys, judges, and other professionals participating in water court proceedings. The committee recommended that the Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado Bar Association and Continuing Legal Education, Inc. of the Colorado Bar Association work together to develop a comprehensive ongoing educational program for attorneys and others involved in the water court process. General recommendations from the committee included: review and revise water court forms; fund the water courts so they can operate effectively and fairly; and review and adjust water court staffings. Specific recommendations included: consider amending state statutes to put the White River/drainage in Water Division 6 instead of Water Division 5; consider amending water court rules (Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 90 and Rule 2, 3, 6, and 11) related to water court filings, water right/change applications, water referee procedures and water trial-related issues such as case management orders and disclosures; and adopt a declaration for all experts to sign in water court proceedings.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"colorado water"
6:09:55 PM
|
|
Supply news
From The Delta County Independent: "A 50-page study that looks at the ground water resources on Rogers Mesa concludes in part that the water table accessed by domestic wells is principally recharged by open irrigation, and also that pumping from domestic wells is a small component of the overall Rogers Mesa aquifer water budget equation. According to the report, current pumping from permitted wells is not a major factor in the mesa's water equation. The report states, 'In 2004, 98 domestic wells, 40 residential wells, 21 irrigation wells, three commercial wells, and one livestock well had permits to pump water from the Rogers Mesa Aquifer. Ground water withdrawals are not routinely monitored or reported. Estimated ground water withdrawal by permitted wells from the Rogers Mesa aquifer was about 1,290 acre-feet per year.'"
More from the article:
Storage capacity of the Rogers Mesa aquifer is estimated at 107,000 acre-feet, not all of which is accessible by well pumping. The annual surface water inflow to the aquifer is estimated at 42,228 acre feet, according to the report. The study has been completed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Some of the study's findings will be used by the county planning commission and the Leroux Creek APC in reviews of rural subdivision applications. The study drew some criticism during a presentation at the Hotchkiss Fire Station on Aug. 12. Data used in the study was limited to what was already existing -- very little new data sampling was conducted. Some of the data are 25 years old, and current sampling information from water sources is not comprehensive. About 25 people including water users from Rogers Mesa attended the presentation. They questioned how the study would be used, and whether and how its methodology and database would be expanded and built upon.
There is a bigger question also: Does the study really give an accurate enough picture of the immensely complicated subject of geology and water resources to serve as a specific policy or planning tool? The study deals with "big picture" issues, and its findings do not always apply to specific, localized conditions. For instance, while domestic well pumping may not be a significant factor in the mesa's overall water equation, well pumping can change the performance of other nearby wells significantly...
The Rogers Mesa groundwater aquifer is comprised of a loose accumulation of sand to large cobble-sized components including crushed shale and other clays and silt.
Analyzed samples showed concentrations of dissolved total nitrogen in the ground water are far below maximum allowed levels, indicating little if any contact with ISDS effluent, animal waste, or chemical fertilizers.
"colorado water"
5:39:45 PM
|
|
McCain: Renegotiate the Colorado River Compact
Here's a recap of yesterday's conference call with the Obama campaign, Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
"My recent remarks may have been mistakenly construed as a call to rescind the Colorado River Compact and commence negotiations for new water allocations," McCain wrote to Allard. "Let me be clear that I do not advocate renegotiation of the compact."[...]
Gov. Bill Ritter and U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, both Democrats, said the bulk of that growth has been in California, Nevada and McCain's home state of Arizona. Opening up the compact would likely result in Colorado losing much of its water rights, they said. The two men said McCain has realized how politically explosive opening up the compact is for Colorado and the other upper basin states - New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming - and is trying to distance himself from the matter. "I think the word, 'renegotiate,' does not have double meaning," Ritter said in a conference call with Salazar and the press on Wednesday. "It is about opening it up and negotiating it again, and the fact that he's willing to do that again has to demonstrate in my mind, given the context of it, a bias for the lower basin states. His desire still to renegotiate it . . . was really pretty direct."
McCain's comments created a firestorm in the state with Democrats and Republicans alike denouncing the notion, saying McCain could lose votes over it in Colorado and New Mexico, which have been called possible swing states in this year's presidential race between McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama. Ritter said that at best, McCain's letter to Allard showed him "flip-flopping" on the issue. "The verbiage with The Pueblo Chieftain was very clear," he said. "This is a reversal of direction, but it's a reversal that I think Colorado voters have to pay clear attention to because on the West Slope, I'm not sure there are more important issues than the issue of the scarcity of water."[...]
Salazar said the reason the compact was drafted in the first place was to protect the less politically powerful upper-basin states from the aggressive water policies of the lower states, particularly Southern California. "The realities of population growth really were the impetus for the creation of the Colorado River compact," the senator said. "The upper basin states recognized that the lower basin states, lead by California, were going to far outgrow our growth. For Senator McCain to suggest that the changes in population growth now would require renegotiation of the contract essentially undercuts the very purpose for which the compact was created." Regardless of McCain's letter to Allard, Democrats plan to continue making his comments a campaign issue. Ritter, Salazar and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, the Democratic contender for U.S. Senate, are holding another press conference in Denver to talk about McCain's comments again.
Meanwhile, the issue has run through the West like a flash flood. In Utah, Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican, told the Salt Lake City Tribune at a watershed symposium on Wednesday that he was open to the idea of renegotiating the compact as long as Western governors have a say. In Arizona, Gov. Nancy Napolitano, a Democrat, told The Associated Press that she hoped McCain misspoke "because he obviously doesn't know that we actually went in and revised that compact and signed that agreement" in 2007.
More coverage from The Casper Star Tribune. From the article:
"I was absolutely astonished that anyone running for president would suggest that," Gov. Dave Freudenthal said during a press conference at the Parkway Plaza Hotel and Convention Centre in Casper. "Now, he's also from Arizona and the lower Colorado River basin states have wanted to reopen that compact for years," he said. "They have only one thing in mind when they say 'reopen,' and it isn't to give more water to the upper basin states. I'm just guessing, but that would be my (thought)."[...]
"This suggestion reflects that not everybody in the West necessarily shares Western values," he said... Wyoming has more than one million acres of water of the Colorado drainage that's undeveloped, Freudenthal said. "So I think its our water they have an eye on." "To some degree, we would better off with somebody who'd never heard of the Colorado River Compact than somebody who has a predisposition about reopening it to the benefit of the Lower (Basin) states," he said.
More coverage from The Greeley Tribune. They write:
Local water users draw an average 220,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River every year through the Colorado-Big Thompson project. It flows to 30 Front Range communities and almost 700,000 acres of irrigated farmland through a massive series of tunnels, reservoirs and pumps. C-BT users' right to take water from the Colorado is secondary to the needs of other states in the river compact. That means any changes, which would conceivably be intended to bring more water to thirsty communities in Arizona and California, would mean less water for Front Range users. "Anything that gets renegotiated and gives the state less water hurts us. That's the real issue for us," said Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which maintains the C-BT project. "But we don't think the renegotiation will happen; they've been talking about this as long as I've been alive."[...]
Allard said Wednesday from Walden, where he was traveling, that Coloradans should be assured that McCain does not want to renegotiate it. "John McCain and I are in agreement. The responsible thing to do is to have constructive dialogue among all the stakeholders that is consistent with the compact," he said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here
"colorado water"
6:22:05 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/14/09; 10:27:15 PM.
|
|
|
