| |
|
Saturday, November 3, 2007
|
|
Here's a look at H.R. 3224, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007 and it's potential effects on the Arkansas River Valley from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Federal authorization of nearly $5 million for dam safety projects in Colorado could help rehabilitate some aging dams, but the state is in good shape overall. "Quite frankly, the state's dams are in excellent shape," said Jack Byers, deputy state engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources. The dams are regularly inspected by highly trained personnel, Byers said. But the potential funding would allow some critical projects to advance, Byers added. U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., sponsored the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act, which passed the House this week. The bill authorizes $200 million over five years to repair aging infrastructure. State or local sponsors must match 35 percent of the funding. Only publicly owned, deficient dams are eligible. Colorado's share of funding would be $4.94 million, Salazar said...
In the Arkansas River basin, two dams are under restriction: Two Buttes Dam, a Division of Wildlife structure south of Lamar; and the Cucharas Dam, an irrigation reservoir northeast of Walsenburg. "There are very few deficient dams that fall in the high hazard category," Byers said. Two Buttes became a concern last spring as snow from winter blizzards melted. Irrigators have tried to advance a plan to rehabilitate Cucharas.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
6:23:15 AM 
|
|
As is usual with water projects and cleanups, costs are escalating for the cleanup of uranium tailings over in Moab, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. From the article:
The cost to clean up uranium waste on the Colorado River's edge has shot up. The U.S. Energy Department said its new estimate for removing the tailings is $635 million to $835 million. "This is a more realistic estimate," said DOE's Don Metzler, who oversees the cleanup, on Friday.
The county, the state and Utah members of Congress are urging the Energy Department to step up the cleanup, bringing it back in line with a previous schedule that would have the job done by 2019 rather than the current projection of 2028. A bill in Congress seeks the quicker cleanup, but the House and Senate have yet to finalize the change. Metzler said he didn't expect there to be any short-term delays in the cleanup even if Congress fails to pass the spending bill. Working off of last year's funding schedule, plus $16 million carried over from last year, will be plenty to keep going, he told the board. Meanwhile, progress continues to be made. Metzler reported that 73 acres already has been cleaned up and 60 revegetated. Also, the Energy Department said it has pumped 100 million gallons of contaminated water from the pile. The Energy Department says this volume is comparable to 151 six-foot deep, Olympic-sized swimming pools. They have captured 449,250 pounds of ammonia and 19,000 pounds of uranium through special extraction/injection wells placed between the pile and the Colorado River.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
5:20:29 AM
|
|
President Bush vetoed H.R. 2242, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, yesterday, according to The Gavel. The Gavel is Speaker Pelosi's weblog. From the weblog post:
By vetoing the Water Resources Development Act, President Bush is attempting to prohibit much-needed investments in our water infrastructure, at a time when many regions in our country face serious threats from natural disasters caused by flooding, storm surge, and hurricanes.
The WRDA bill will help protect Americans from these disasters - repairing a levee or dam can prevent enormous loss of human lives and property by preventing a catastrophic flood. The WRDA bill contains more than 200 projects to protect communities from the devastating effects of flooding by building and repairing floodwalls and levees, as well as restoring wetlands that absorb floodwaters. In New Orleans, where the damage is already done, WRDA is essential to rebuilding that great city.
Because it makes these urgent investments in our infrastructure, WRDA has overwhelming bipartisan support. I urge Congress to vote next week to override the President's veto and ensure that this bill becomes law.
More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain. They write:
Continuing his budget fight with the Democratic majority in Congress, President Bush vetoed the $23 billion Water Resources Development Act on Friday - even though the water-project legislation was approved in both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins. The legislation authorizes water projects in every state, including $79 million for the Arkansas Valley Conduit project as well as directing the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Fountain Creek watershed study. The far-reaching water legislation was approved by the House on a 394-25 vote in April and in the Senate by a 91-4 vote in May.
Stung by criticism from conservative voters last autumn that the White House and the former Republican majority in Congress were overspending, Bush has been aggressive this year in vetoing appropriation bills that exceed his own budget requests. For example, he called for $15 billion in water projects in his budget request, but House and Senate lawmakers added another $8 billion to the water resources bill...
Thus far, however, Democrats have not had a large enough majority to override White House vetoes. But that will change with the water resources act, which contains important water projects for both Democratic and Republican lawmakers across the nation. Reps. John Salazar, D-Colo., and Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., worked together to obtain the $79 million authorization for the Arkansas Valley Conduit project. "Congress will override this irresponsible veto," Salazar said in a statement Friday. "This bill passed Congress with almost unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans and stands as an example of what Congress can do when both sides of the aisle work together."[...]
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said the water legislation not only included money for the conduit and directed the Army to finish the Fountain Creek study, but authorized a $5 million statewide study of selenium in the state's rivers and streams, $13 million for mitigation projects on the South Platte River and $10 million for a pipeline in Boulder County. "This bill will have a substantial impact on very important water projects for Southern Colorado," Salazar said in a statement following the veto. "I look forward to casting my vote to override the president's veto in the near future so we can move forward on these projects that will have a long-lasting impact in Colorado." Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., was one of the few senators to vote against the water resources bill in the Senate, saying it was only adding to a $58 billion list of authorized but unfunded federal water projects.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
5:11:15 AM
|
|
Here's an update on flood control and other infrastructure on Fountain Creek and the Corps of Engineers' current focus, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Army Corps of Engineers is relying heavily on local guidance in prioritizing projects on Fountain Creek, giving more weight to projects that tackle flood control, protect infrastructure or minimize risk to developed areas. Short of more forceful political direction, however, further study of a dam out of its current study appears unlikely. "There is no way a dam meets our criteria under the (benefit-cost) ratio," Charles Wilson of the Corps told the Fountain Creek Watershed Plan technical advisory committee Friday. "The dam would not meet criteria to do a new study. Considering the cost of the project, no other authority anywhere could afford to pay the cost ... If Senator (Ken) Salazar asked us, we would do as directed and look at it." In a draft assessment, the Corps weighed the construction of a dam that would provide water supply, regulate flows and provide recreation, but ranked it low among priorities among other flood control projects...
The Corps is planning to evaluate only the top 10 projects from a list of 46, but will at least mention the other projects in its final report, Wilson said. While the committee did not debate the merits of a dam Friday, it was clear not everyone was ready to immediately dismiss study of a dam, while others had no problem with the suggestion. "It seems you're killing it at two levels," Steve Miller of the Colorado Water Conservation Board said, pointing out the Corps claims it doesn't meet criteria even before doing a benefit-cost analysis. Pueblo Stormwater Director Dennis Maroney made three suggestions that could give a dam more weight under the Corps ranking system - giving more weight to flood control solutions, looking at the size of area served and waiting until the final evaluation to consider costs. Jay Frost, an El Paso County landowner on Fountain Creek interested in preserving land, said smaller dams on tributaries might work, but a big dam would be out of the question...
Under the Corps draft, projects are given equal weight for flood control, ecosystem restoration and channel stability benefits. Among nine projects scored highest for flood risk reduction, the dam placed fifth. The only Pueblo County project to place ahead of it was the dredging and removal of invasive trees in the channel along the Pueblo levees...
El Paso County projects rated ahead of a dam would raise part of U.S. 24 from the floodplain, protect the developed areas in south Colorado Springs and to protect development that has encroached on Cheyenne Creek, a Fountain tributary. Eight projects aimed primarily at restoring the ecosystem were given a higher score than the dam in a draft report, including two in Pueblo County. Five channel stability projects, all in El Paso County, were ranked ahead of a dam. The final ranking of projects is a long way off, Wilson said. No funding sources have been identified. Some projects could be combined for more benefit. The Corps also needs to refine criteria to rate the projects. Once the final 10 projects are identified, the Corps will send teams to look at the sites and make more detailed recommendations of the types of projects that could be accomplished in the affected reaches. No funding for actual projects on Fountain Creek has been authorized.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Meanwhile, in other Fountain Creek news, the Sierra Club's lawsuit against Colorado Springs over water quality issues has hit a financial snag, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A new disclosure by the Sierra Club in its Fountain Creek pollution lawsuit against Colorado Springs has caused a controversy and led to sniping in the case. The environmental group disclosed in a court filing that it did not have "the financial ability" to hire expert witnesses who are necessary for pursuing the case. Sierra said it, instead, was dependent on Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut "to provide the funding" to hire the experts...
Colorado Springs, in a court filing this week, characterized Sierra's new disclosure as a statement "that it would not have chosen to spend its resources on this case without (Thiebaut's) use of public law enforcement dollars." That disclosure "speak(s) volumes about this case," the city told U.S. District Judge Walker Miller in the filing. It did not elaborate about how the disclosure "speaks volumes," but the attorney representing the city explained, in an interview, what he meant. "Doesn't that say something about the Sierra Club's evaluation of the case," Denver attorney John Walsh said about the club's comment on not spending its money. "It is interesting they are taking a position they wouldn't have pursued the case without funding from outside sources," he said...
Sierra Club's attorney on the case, when told about Walsh's comment to The Pueblo Chieftain, responded indignantly. "Mr. Walsh's snide comments are simply wrong," Eric Huber responded. "Mr. Walsh's speculation as to our motivation and finances is, as usual, just wrong."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
4:59:42 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:40:05 PM.
|
|
|
