| |
|
Saturday, October 27, 2007
|
|
We lost an entire day of posting yesterday due to server unavailability. It was late evening before we could get to a location with cell coverage and call the backup sysadmin. We're not going to catch up for a couple of days. Today we're heading up into Mesa Verde National Park for a romp around "Farview Reservoir." Tomorrow is a travel day. Posting will be on and off.
10:00:35 AM 
|
|
From The Environmental News Network, "A new partnership has been launched to address the declining state of the world's fresh water supply and the lack of access to clean water services by the world's poorest people. The Global Water Initiative (GWI) brings together a group of seven leading international NGOs, including Action Against Hunger (ACF) [^] USA, CARE, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), The World Conservation Union (IUCN), International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Oxfam America and SOS Sahel - UK. The announcement of the GWI comes at a time when more than one billion people lack access to improved water sources, and more than 2.6 billion people lack adequate sanitation. Water resources are under increasing pressure from human use while communities are frequently affected by floods and droughts."
"colorado water"
9:41:55 AM
|
|
From The Denver Post, "The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District filed suit Wednesday in federal court against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over a deal the government made with Aurora. The 40-year contract allows Aurora to store and purchase up to 10,000 acre-feet of water - about 5 percent of the city's water usage - from the Pueblo Reservoir each year. That water comes from the Arkansas River Basin. A previous deal between Aurora and the government was year-to-year. The lawsuit claims the government didn't conduct proper studies on alternatives to the eventual deal or on how the plan would affect the basin. 'We have to be conservative. We're already 100 percent short of what we need,' said John Singletary, chairman of the conservancy district board."
Here's a look at Aurora's alternatives if the lawsuit over Fry-Ark storage prevails, from The Pueblo Chieftain. They write:
Aurora's alternative is spelled out in the environmental assessment, and plans have not changed, said Jerry Knapp, Aurora's Arkansas Valley operations manager. "It gets pretty hypothetical, because I don't know what the results of the lawsuit would be," Knapp said. "But, those alternatives haven't changed. We would still be looking at new projects." Lower Ark Chairman John Singletary said Aurora's future plans sound more like threats, and should not be viewed as concrete proposals. "To the best of our ability, we're going to watch everything they do and make sure it's done right," Singletary said.
Aurora's plans involve future projects in Pueblo and Lake counties. Pueblo County is in the Lower Ark district and Lake County voters are expected to vote in 2008 for potential inclusion in the district. "They keep threatening us with [OE]here's what we're going to do,'" Singletary said. "I am a little offended by their arrogance and the idea that they think they can come into the valley and bully everybody." In the short term, Aurora would anticipate a five-year period to amend its water right applications in the valley to include additional points of diversion, storing water in Lake Meredith and Lake Henry and exchanging water from there to its accounts in Turquoise and Twin lakes. Although the mountain lakes are operated by the bureau, Aurora has its own accounts in each. It is allowed to use space in Lake Pueblo only through an excess-capacity contract.
The bureau's environmental assessment also notes: "In the interim period before Aurora's decrees could be modified, the associated water rights that cannot be used would likely be traded or sold to other water users." In the long term, Aurora would construct or work in partnership with other interests to build a 10,000 acre-foot reservoir below Pueblo Dam. "It would probably be in Pueblo County," Knapp said. "We would need storage below Pueblo to comply with the Pueblo flow program." Aurora has an option to purchase a gravel pit operation 6 miles east of Pueblo for use as a future reservoir site, and development probably would take about 10 years.
Aurora also is working on a plan to construct the Box Creek Reservoir, between Twin Lakes and Turquoise Lake in Lake County, and possibly could look for other storage upstream of Lake Pueblo, Knapp said. Regardless of whether the bureau's contract stands, Aurora would continue to work with other large water users - ditch companies, Pueblo West, Pueblo Board of Water Works and Colorado Springs - on leases, cooperative agreements and efficiencies, Knapp said.
In 2004-05, Aurora leased water from the High Line Canal, and has filed a water court case seeking to obtain future exchange rights for High Line water. This year, Pueblo West leased some of its transmountain water to Aurora. The Pueblo Board of Water Works has a long-term lease and exchange contract with Aurora. Colorado Springs and Aurora are partners in the Homestake Project, which brings water from the Colorado River into their respective water systems through Turquoise, Twin Lakes, the Otero Pumping Station and Homestake Pipeline. They also are the major shareholders in the Colorado Canal and associated reservoir companies in Crowley County. All four of the municipal suppliers are partners in the Twin Lakes Reservoir Co. and own the overwhelming majority of shares. Aurora also has an intergovernmental agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District that promises to pay $25 million to the district over the life of the contract. The agreement also limits the amount of water Aurora may lease and export in the next 40 years. Aurora has an agreement with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservation District that reduces the water that may be taken from the valley in order to soften the effects of a call on the river to upper basin users and provides $1 million toward Preferred Storage Options Plan development on behalf of the district. There also is a provision for a $2 million payment to help Southeastern and the Upper Ark jointly develop storage after 2028...
The Lower Ark lawsuit claims Aurora will be able to move 14,000 acre-feet more per year than it otherwise could with the bureau contracts, drying up at least 7,000 acres with an economic impact of about $4.3 million per year. The suit claims the contract would damage potential water leasing programs in the valley as well as reducing the availability of water to farmers. Those actions and effects are contrary to the purposes of the Fry-Ark Project, and were approved contrary to federal policy, the lawsuit claims.
More coverage of the lawsuit from The Cañon City Daily Record.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
8:44:32 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:37:48 PM.
|
|
|
