Thursday, October 26, 2006

Meters ordered for the Lower Yampa Watershed Craig Daily Press: "Anyone diverting water from the Lower Yampa Watershed will have to install government-approved measuring devices, the Colorado Division of Water Resources told a group of about 35 people Wednesday at a meeting in Maybell. The decision stems from the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, which is working to save four endangered fish -- the Colorado pike minnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub and bonytail chub. Erin Light, an engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources who requested the installation of the meters and organized the meeting, said the metering flumes are needed to determine how much water is being taken out of the river, as a certain water level is crucial to the fishes' survival. The devices are to be installed by April 1... "Ray Tenney, of the Colorado Water Conservation District, said the district has made $15,000 in grants available to water users in the Lower Yampa. Information on the grant program can be found at www.crwcd.org, and applications will be taken between Nov. 15 and Jan. 31. In addition to the water meters, those who started diverting water after 1988 will have to buy a fish screen; those who started diverting water before 1988 will be paid for by the recovery program." Category: Colorado Water 7:14:31 AM     Fry-Ark water for Aurora? Here's a report on the negotiations between Aurora and Bureau of Reclamation over Fry-Ark water, from the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article, "For Aurora's team, negotiating with the Bureau of Reclamation must have felt like hitting a dam. By the end of Wednesday's opening session on a proposed 40-year contract to store and exchange water in Lake Pueblo when space is available, Aurora and Reclamation were on opposite shores. Throughout the daylong meeting, Reclamation budged only a bit off its initial offer, which would cost Aurora approximately $73 million over the life of the contract, while Aurora tried to sell an approach that would cost only about one-third of that. The money would go toward repaying the cost of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - $88 million is still owed on the original $132 million, and repayment is projected by 2024. Each side gave a little, and by the end of the day, Reclamation's offer to Aurora was down to a $68 million price tag, while Aurora upped its ante to about half that. That's as far as it went, however, as Gerry Knapp, Aurora's basin project manager, requested more time to study the figures. Reclamation Area Manager Fred Ore agreed, saying Reclamation needed time to look at Aurora's approach. "Harvey and Knapp argued that Aurora deserves a discount because it does not fully benefit from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and could lose reliability of its space if other entities begin storing more water. Aurora wants to use storage to move water it purchased in lower parts of the valley to its storage space in Turquoise and Twin Lakes, where the Otero Pipeline and Pumping Station send water over the mountains into the South Platte basin. Unlike members of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District - the beneficiaries of the Fry-Ark Project, Aurora receives no Fry-Ark water, Harvey argued." The publisher of the Pueblo Chieftain spoke out against the potential agreement between Aurora and the Bureau of Reclamation over Fry-Ark water yesterday. From the article, "An impassioned plea to the Bureau of Reclamation to delay action on a proposed contract with Aurora was delivered Wednesday by Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings. Rawlings asked Reclamation officials to put off a decision on a 40-year contract with Aurora to store and exchange water until a study requested by U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., of cumulative impacts of the effects of past water transfers in the Arkansas Valley is complete. 'You don't know the damage that will be done,' Rawlings said. 'Maybe we're naive down here, but when you take contaminated water at Rocky Ford and exchange it for pristine water in the mountains ... you need to study it. Maybe that study will show it's not deleterious, and if it does, we'll get off our horse.' Rawlings was the sole member of the public who spoke at Wednesday's contract negotiations between Reclamation and Aurora... "He called the purchases of water from farmland by Aurora, and Colorado Springs, in the 1980s a 'disaster,' saying the water deals destroyed the livelihoods of business people in the Lower Arkansas Valley. 'It's a disgrace how some of the best farmland in the valley was turned into weed patches,' Rawlings said. While acknowledging the sales of water were legal, if not wise, Rawlings said the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project should not be the vehicle for removing water from the valley. 'Nothing in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Act mandates that these exchanges be given to Aurora,' Rawlings said. 'It's the exchanges that scare me to death.'" Category: Colorado Water 6:54:50 AM     Farm disaster on the South Platte Everyone seems to have something to complain about in the aftermath of the state engineer shutting down wells last spring, according to the Denver Post. From the article, "Attorneys for a group of northern Colorado irrigators accused the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District on Wednesday of failing to take responsibility for the South Platte River crisis. This summer, a group of about 200 farmers who pump groundwater failed to prove in court that they could replace the water they were taking from an aquifer tied to the Platte. The state engineer ordered the shutdown of more than 400 groundwater wells, jeopardizing the future of several family farms. Attorneys for farmers who were adversely affected by excessive groundwater pumping told attendees of a South Platte River forum that it's time the central district stopped blaming others for members' misfortunes... "This week, state engineer Hal Simpson confirmed his office was preparing enforcement actions against nearly 50 farmers for illegal pumping. Those cases were supported by utility records that indicate the farmers turned on the pumps to their wells, Simpson said." More coverage from the Rocky Mountain News. They write, "The head of a water district serving South Platte River farmers lashed out at Boulder and Highlands Ranch on Wednesday, blaming them for "spy campaigns" and water practices that are driving family farms out of business. Tom Cech, manager of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, stirred up an otherwise sedate gathering at the 17th annual South Platte Forum with a speech criticizing efforts by Front Range cities to investigate whether farmers in his district illegally pumped wells... "Carol Ellinghouse, a water official from Boulder, said that Cech is trying to win a public relations war by portraying the issue as one pitting water-rich cities against poor, desperate farmers - an inaccurate view that distorts a complex matter, she said. What's more, she said, Cech's effort to draw sympathy with stories of spies watching water use on family farms is part of a distraction campaign." Category: Colorado Water 6:45:02 AM     Ritter or Beauprez for governor? Bill Ritter and U.S. Congressman Bob Beauprez were at each other again yesterday, according to the Denver Post. From the article, "On one of the debate's key issues - protecting water quality in southeast Colorado - Ritter said he would support a bill that gives water courts the authority to consider how changing water use would affect a community. Beauprez said he wouldn't sign such a bill, which died by one vote in the state legislature this year. 'It's not surprising that one of us wants to push everything into a courtroom,' Beauprez said. On water storage, Ritter said he would require policymakers to consider ways to conserve and reuse existing water at the same time as considering any new efforts to store extra water. Beauprez touted his experience as a federal lawmaker, saying that the source of much of Colorado's water is on federal land in the state... "On protecting water quality "Beauprez: 'We've got a water-quality commission in the state, and I think the important thing is that we make sure that water-quality commission works. We don't necessarily need more government. We need better government.' "Ritter: 'I would sign a bill into law that affects the water quality of all of the basins in the state and allows water judges to take into account water-quality issues when they look at the transfer of use out of one use, an agricultural use, to another, whether it's municipal or industrial.' "On expanding water storage "Beauprez: 'We could store a lot more water than we currently do here. It's fairly straightforward to me. The engineering is difficult but not the most difficult part. It's the politics that have inhibited our ability to move water projects forward for years and years and years ... But I'll say it again, we've got to augment existing storage where and how we can.' "Ritter: 'We have to ensure that we're doing all we can in this state to address climate change. Augmentation of storage - you do whatever you can, have a template in place that looks at how we conserve water, how we get to a different place of sustainability. Storage only happens when we do those things first.'" More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article, "With less than two weeks before the general election, the two candidates showed off their differences, with Ritter saying he would sign a water quality bill similar to one Rep. Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, nearly got through the Colorado Legislature earlier this year, and Beauprez saying he wouldn't. That measure, which narrowly cleared the House but died by one vote in the Senate during this year's legislative session, called for requiring water court judges to consider water quality before approving large transfers of water from or within a river basin... "Beauprez, however, said he would veto such a measure, saying the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission already is responsible for overseeing water quality in the state. The congressman, who represents the 7th Congressional District on Denver's northern environs, attacked Ritter for saying he approved of the idea, saying the former Denver district attorney only wants to clog the state's courts. 'Pushing water into water courts in an already overburdened court system is going to do what? Make it more expensive, create delays, add more bureaucracies, not necessarily protect anybody's water,' he said. 'It's not surprising that one of us wants to push everything into a courtroom and lawyer-up.'" Category: Denver November 2006 Election 6:40:06 AM     Grand Ditch protection? Here's a short update about the Grand Ditch and the wilderness bills winding through Congress to protect Rocky Mountain National Park, from the Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article, "U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar pledged to work with managers of the Grand River Ditch as he pushes a bill to designate Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness. At a public meeting in Loveland, a stockholder of Water Supply and Storage, the Fort Collins company that manages the ditch, said the company wants an 'act of God' clause in the bill. The clause would relieve the company of liability if a landslide or other natural disaster caused the ditch to break and damage the park... "A competing bill by U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, and Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., would grant the ditch company the protection Walker mentioned. Detractors of the bill, however, say it would not provide the park as much protection in other areas by allowing mining and new water storage in the park and because it doesn't protect Rocky under the 1964 Wilderness Act that created such designations... "The federal government sued Water Supply and Storage earlier this year over a May 2003 ditch breach that created a 167-foot-wide, 60-foot deep gully, according to the lawsuit, and dumped 60,000 cubic yards of sediment into the upper Colorado River and wetland areas in the park. The ditch company was liable for the damage, regardless of the cause, based on a 1907 agreement with the National Park Service. The suit could cost the ditch company millions of dollars. The flood damaged an old-growth lodgepole pine and spruce forest as well as trails, bridges and campsites within the park, according to the complaint. A portion of the park was closed to visitors until the flood water subsided." Category: Colorado Water 6:32:38 AM

© Copyright 2006 John Orr. Last update: 12/29/06; 12:22:25 PM.