Gale Norton will not allow Lake Powell to recharge ahead of Lake Mead, according to the Rocky Mountain News [May 3, 2005, "Norton turns down proposal for Powell"]. From the article, "Last December, Norton warned Western states that they must come up with a drought plan for managing the Colorado River and Lakes Powell and Mead or the federal government would develop a plan for them. But last week the seven Colorado River basin states acknowledged that they could not reach a consensus on long-term drought issues or, in the short term, whether deliveries from Lake Powell should be reduced this year. That failure opens the door to creation of a federal drought plan for the river."
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff laments Norton's decision in today's issue [May 3, 2005, "Gale Norton takes easy way out"]. They write, "Unfortunately, Norton ordered Colorado and its neighbors to stick to the original plan. In a news release Monday, she said she had based her decision on an April-July snowmelt runoff that is predicted to be 106 percent of average. It's true the river this year will receive nearly normal runoff for the first time in six years. But that's precisely why it's a good time to reduce deliveries from Lake Powell. After all, California and other states could tap local water supplies before calling on Colorado River water from Powell."
HB 1177 (water round-tables) won approval from the state senate yesterday, according to the Rocky Mountain News [May 3, 2005, "Senate OKs water roundtables measure"]. From the article, "House Bill 1177, sponsored by Rep. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, would establish regional roundtables representing each of the state's major river basins and Denver's north and south metro areas. Each basin group would be responsible for analyzing local water needs and negotiating with other basins. The idea is to determine publicly and peacefully how remaining water can be shared to protect city dwellers, farmers, resort communities and the environment. The roundtables would be overseen by a supercommittee of 25, which would be responsible for monitoring progress and ensuring each group has the necessary technical data to track water supplies. Six members of the supercommittee would be appointed by the governor, with no more than three coming from the same political party. The committee would report to lawmakers and the governor on progress."
Coyote Gulch is amazed that only in Colorado would legislation be required to get interested parties to sit down and talk about water. He hopes the bill includes a measure requiring participants to check their guns at the door.
Ed Quillen writes about the proposed Union Park Reservoir project in his column in today's Denver Post [May 3, 2005, "Bad projects never die"]. According to Quillen, "The U.S. Department of the Interior met with Western governors yesterday in Las Vegas, trying to find a way to share the pain of a drought-stricken Colorado River basin among its seven states. Meanwhile, a big water diversion from our Western Slope emerged from its coffin. It's generally known as the Union Park Project, and it just got an endorsement from state Sen. Jim Dyer, a Littleton Republican whose district in Arapahoe County could use more water, since the water table has been dropping fast from population growth. Union Park is a basin in Gunnison County. It sits 10,000 feet above sea level, about 5 miles south of Taylor Park Reservoir and 8 miles east of the Continental Divide. Exact plans have varied, but the general idea involves one 575-foot-high dam and several smaller saddle dams to hold perhaps 1.2 million acre-feet of water. That would make it the largest reservoir in the state. The current record-holder is Blue Mesa, about 50 miles downstream; its capacity is 829,500 acre-feet."
Category: Colorado Water
5:42:25 AM 
|
|
