| |
|
Sunday, April 6, 2008
|
|
New West: "More than 8,000 turned out this morning at the University of Montana in Missoula to see Sen. Barack Obama -- the first event of a packed weekend of presidential campaigning in Montana. Hundreds (best estimate) of the people who didn't get into the Adams Center were taken to the football stadium, where they got a video feed from the rally and a quick stop from Obama after his Adams Center appearance. When we arrived at 7:30 a.m. or so, the line into the stadium zig-zagged the entire width of the south end of campus."
Here's a roundup of the events in Montana from Left in the West.
TalkLeft: "NC Poll - Obama By 9."
"2008 pres"
10:40:31 AM 
|
|
Here's a recap of yesterday's Club 20 meeting from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
Water wars in the East should serve as a warning to Colorado to store more water, Sen. Wayne Alllard, R-Colo., told Western Slope leaders on Saturday. Allard, who is in the final year of his second term as senator, said that droughts have sapped water in the East and that fights such as that between Tennessee and Georgia could be previews to water fights in the West. To avert fights over the state's water, Colorado must immediately figure out how to store the 1.2 million acre-feet the state has been allotted under the compact that divvies up the Colorado River and its tributaries, Allard told Club 20, the Western Slope lobbying and promotional organization...
In the worst case, Congress would draft new laws to make water decisions, or the federal government would mediate water fights among the states, Allard said. "Even the best-case scenario scares me," he said to about 200 people during his keynote speech. "We must increase storage capacity to deal with droughts," Allard said. "The state should move to do so immediately."
Meanwhile U.S. Representative Diana DeGette was pitching for more wilderness according to The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
First District Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat, told the meeting of the Western Slope lobbying and promotional organization that the Colorado Wilderness Bill she has introduced into each session of Congress poses little threat to energy or other development. The bill lists 62 locations encompassing 1.65 million acres and would recognize existing oil and gas leases as well as existing mineral rights, DeGette said. DeGette said she adopted provisions from the establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park that make federal water rights subservient to the state. "I really want to find this balance" allowing oil and gas development and preserving wild places. If the bill passes, 85 percent of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado still would still be open for energy development, she said.
"colorado water"
7:07:42 AM
|
|
Here's an opinion piece about the Aurora long-term contract with Reclamation written by U.S. Representative Mark Udall and published by The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
But whatever the court may decide, Congress still will have a role in determining how Lake Pueblo and the rest of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project are operated and how the project will fulfill its historic mission of supporting a continued agricultural economy in the Arkansas Valley. Water fights are, of course, nothing new in Colorado. But the demise of plans for a Two Forks dam on the South Platte near Denver was followed by a new emphasis on collaboration and interbasin cooperation marked by some big successes like the Wolford Reservoir in Grand County and the Eagle River agreement in Eagle County. On a smaller scale, I worked to make sure all users of Green Mountain Reservoir in Grand County were equally involved in a plan to retain a static pool of water in this reservoir for bank stabilization. The overall theme has been to respect the rights and needs of other regions while responding to the problems of parched communities along the Front Range. Part of what has made these agreements successful is that smaller, rural communities have not been simply run over. Because water is scarce, there will always be tensions and conflicts about its allocation. But that should not mean that an army of high-priced lawyers must be deployed to resolve matters.
That's why I have introduced legislation (H.R. 3465) [Greater Cooperation with Local Governments in Water Project Analysis Act] to make sure local governments always have a say in how best to protect their communities when the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers considers projects that divert water to or from their jurisdictions. It is vitally important that rural communities have a seat at the table when the bureau makes decisions that impact these areas. I also believe that Coloradans want this fairness reflected in law...
So what does this mean for Southern Colorado and, more important, what does it mean for the economic future of the Lower Arkansas? This was the question I posed during the field hearing in Pueblo last year when the Water and Power Subcommittee reviewed the history of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and asked about the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to enter into the proposed 40-year contract with Aurora. We did not get much of an answer from the bureau then, but will likely get a more complete one when the federal court issues its ruling. After that, we will need to consider how to better harmonize the various rights and interests of Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo and the Arkansas Valley. There is reason for optimism, provided we remember that the economic future of rural Colorado is critical to the whole state and all of our people.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"colorado water"
6:50:32 AM
|
|
Tri-State is considering building a nuclear power plant in Prowers County instead of new coal-fired plants, according to The Denver Post. From the article:
Amid growing criticism about its heavy reliance on coal-fired power, the state's second-largest utility is considering the prospect of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association's board of directors voted recently to have its staff study nuclear as a possibility for the site in Prowers County near Holly. The company secured the site and necessary water rights for a plant that could either be coal-fired or nuclear. Tri-State would need a partner on a nuclear plant because of high construction costs. The staff was directed to pursue potential partners.
Right now, coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the company's generation. Going nuclear could blunt some of the criticism about coal's high carbon emissions, while likely opening up an entirely new battleground. At Tri-State's annual meeting at its headquarters in Westminster, board chairman Harold Thompson said the utility is dealing with rising energy costs and a tighter regulatory environment as it prepares for the future...
Environmentalists and some of Tri-State's member electric co-operatives have questioned its proposal to build two new coal-fired units, at a cost of $3.6 billion, at an existing power plant in Kansas. The concerns come in the face of the nation's booming green movement and prospects of a carbon tax. Colorado regulators have zeroed in on the utility since the proposed 1,400-megawatt expansion -- in partnership with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, Kan. -- was shelved because of an air permit denial in October...
Unlike Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest utility, Tri-State is not rate-regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Tri-State sells power to rural electric cooperatives.
The PUC oversees only Tri-State's construction of new plants or transmission lines in the state. But at the request of PUC chairman Ron Binz, Tri-State has agreed to a public hearing, expected to occur within the next two months, to discuss how the company plans to meet consumer electric needs going forward...
Tri-State's backup plan for the Kansas plant is the Prowers County project, dubbed the Colorado Power Project. The company said it secured water rights in 2007 and plans to eventually construct a plant at the site even if the Kansas clean-coal project gains approval. Tri-State's incoming general manager Ken Anderson, currently a senior vice president, will be on the hot seat once he takes over in July. He said he is committed to coal because of its relatively low cost, but is open to other sources of power. "We own coal, we have faith in coal, we know about its reliability," he said. "It's still the proper resource decision for the nature of resources that we need." The company said it has to continue to rely on coal because its rural customers require a constant load and renewables aren't suitable for base-load generation and natural gas prices are too volatile...
That's where nuclear could be a possibility because maintenance and fuel costs have dropped an estimated 30 percent since 1995. Also, nuclear plants emit little, if any, greenhouse gas. But nuclear plants are expensive to build, far exceeding the construction costs of traditional coal and natural-gas-fired plants. The price tag on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant is estimated at roughly $2 billion. And it could take a decade or more to go through the necessary permitting process and complete construction. Concerns also exist over the proper storage of nuclear waste and the safety hazards of using radioactive materials to generate power. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation's power, but no new nuclear plant has come online in the U.S. in more than a decade.
From The Greeley Tribune "reg": "Weld County Commissioner Dave Long has thrown his support to a bill making its way through the Colorado Legislature that would impose stricter standards for uranium mining in Colorado. House Bill 1161 passed the House Monday and has moved on to the Senate. It stipulates that uranium mining companies in Colorado clean up groundwater after they finish mining. A companion bill, HB 1165, was killed by a House committee Wednesday. Long represents northern Weld County where Powertech Uranium Corp. has plans to open a uranium mine near Nunn."
Here's a look at HB 08-1161 from The Telluride Watch. They write:
Republicans tried unsuccessfully on Friday to replace the bill with a one-year moratorium on permitting any new uranium operations to give regulators and legislators more time to study the potential impact of new rules. "What greater protection is there than a moratorium so we can study it," said District 58 Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose. "That's the ultimate protection." Fischer said the mine operators don't want a moratorium because they need to know now what to expect. "Powertech (USA) is up there now doing exploration and spending a tremendous amount of money gathering the information they need to submit their application," Fischer said. "If we change the rules on them next March, they just lost a whole year of time." Fischer also discounted claims the new rules, if they make it through the legislative process to become law, would shut down uranium mining in Colorado. "They always portray this as being totally safe and they won't have any problem restoring the groundwater to existing uses," Fischer said. "If what they are saying is true, they should not really have an issue with this."
Three Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee who endorsed a weakened version of the original bill in committee were livid when Kafalas and Fischer offered the floor amendment that made the bill retroactive to existing uranium mining operations. "We've been blindsided with a new amendment," said Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, in whose district the proposed in-situ mine is located. "We thought we had a solution going to (the) appropriations (committee). I sent a letter (to regulators) asking what more they needed to make sure uranium mining is safe and they said 'right now we need nothing.'" In the end, however, nine mostly rural Republicans, including Sonnenberg, voted for the final bill, largely due to the protections the new regulations would provide for groundwater. The only Democrat against the bill Monday was Rep. Bernie Buescher of Grand Junction...
With Friday's floor amendment, the existing mines would not have to restart the permitting process, but would have to go before the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety with an environmental protection plan. Supporters of the bill said the change was necessary to close an existing gap in the law that threatens to exempt all uranium mines as long as they do not leak acid water. They also claim most companies applying for a new or re-opened uranium mine have willingly complied with DMO status and submitted environmental protection plans.
HB 08-1165 died in committee, according to Fort Collins Now. From the article:
A second bill focused on Colorado standards for uranium mining failed in the House agriculture and natural resources committee Wednesday, after detractors said the bill was too focused on hard-rock mining. House Bill 1165 would have increased transparency about mining operations and strengthened the state's watchdog status over mining operations and prospecting. But some committee members were concerned the measure was too broad because it covered all forms of mineral mining. The bill's sponsors, state Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, both Fort Collins Democrats, said they would continue fighting for stricter oversight of mining operations. "These mines, particularly those that use in-situ leach methods, can be extremely detrimental if they're not vigorously watched," Kefalas said in a statement. "The public has a right to know what is happening in their communities."
"2008 pres"
6:26:59 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 2:18:16 PM.
|
|
|
