Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Reorg for COGCC? Here's a look at HB 07-1341 [pdf], Concerning the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, and, In Connection Therewith, Directing the Commission to Foster Oil and Gas Development Consisten with the Protection of the Environment, Wildlife Resources, and Public Health, Safety, and Welfare from the Telluride Watch. From the article, "A long-awaited bill written by the Ritter Administration to change the membership and mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is officially before state lawmakers for their consideration. Department of the Natural Resources Director Harris Sherman said House Bill 1341 is aimed at providing a 'more balanced' approach to dealing with the environmental, health, land disputes and wildlife issues associated with a surge in oil and gas production throughout Colorado... "Sherman also mentioned the increasing number of so-called 'split-estate' disputes, in which owners of surface land complain about damage to their property when the developers drill for the minerals under the surface. The bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Reps. Kathleen Curry of Gunnison and Dan Gibbs of Silverthorne, adds the directors of both DNR and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment or their designees as ex-officio voting members of the commission, and changes the areas of expertise for the other seven. The bill reduces from five to three the number of commission members from the industry. The other four would have expertise on local government issues, environmental or wildlife protection, soil conservation or reclamation, and one actively engaged in agricultural production who also is a royalty owners. The bill is set for its first hearing Wednesday in the House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources, which Curry chairs. If it passes the House, it will be carried in the Senate by Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, whose southwest Colorado District 6 includes Telluride... "Mary Bachrum, identifying herself as an 'environmental health evaluator' for a non-profit group, said she was able to isolate 245 chemicals in 171 products used by the natural gas producers on the Western Slope. 'How can we believe them when they say they are only using water, sand and soap?' she asked. Eastern Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, said he opposed the bill in part because it is being driven by environmental activists who want to stop development of natural resources throughout the county. He specifically referred to Bachrum's testimony. Other opponents said some of the problems could be resolved with better enforcement of existing rules and regulations. Curry, however, said the COGCC has focused more on job safety than public safety in the past 10 years." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 6:41:14 AM     CWQCC allocates money to study oil shale development impact on water supply The Yampa-White-Green River roundtable along with the Colorado River roundtable have received $300,000 for a study of the impact of oil shale development on the water supply, according to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article, "The Colorado Water Conservation Board approved a request Tuesday for $300,000 by the Colorado River Basin Roundtable and the Yampa-White-Green River Basins Roundtable for the river district to conduct the study. Each roundtable requested $150,000 from the board under Senate Bill 179. That law, championed by Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, and signed last year by former Gov. Bill Owens, dedicates $10 million each year to pay for roundtable-supported water projects. The river district estimates that oil shale development alone will increase annual water consumption in northwest Colorado by about 150,000 acre-feet for every 1 million barrels of oil that are produced each day, and the region must be able to provide water for an additional 70,000 oil shale workers, according to the basins' grant application. That's a problem because a 2003 statewide water-needs assessment never accounted for the water requirements of the energy industry... "Rick Brown, the board's section chief for intrastate water management and development, said he is concerned the oil shale industry has been too protective of information about how much water commercial oil shale development will use. 'We ought to meet with the energy industry and talk frankly about what their water needs will be,' Colorado Department of Natural Resources Director Harris Sherman said, adding he's concerned about the lack of information coming from the industry. Jill Davis, spokeswoman for Royal Dutch Shell, which plans to commercially produce oil shale in the Piceance Basin, said it's highly unlikely the company will release information about its long-term water consumption and oil production because such information is speculative. Information about cumulative impacts of oil shale development depends on the market and oil prices, she said... "The board also approved $250,000 for an enlargement of the Eagle Park Reservoir, $40,000 for a Roaring Fork River Watershed assessment, $30,000 for a Grand County stream-flow-management plan and $200,000 for an analysis of upper Colorado River endangered-fish-recovery alternatives. On Monday, the board supported an agreement with three Lower Colorado River Basin states to continue cloud seeding on Grand Mesa, in the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan river watersheds and over the San Juan Mountains in an attempt to bolster Colorado River stream flow into Lower Basin states. Water authorities in Arizona, California and Nevada each agreed to contribute about $36,600 to the effort." Category: Colorado Water 6:22:44 AM     CWQCC votes to toughen ammonia standards for treatment plants From todays Rocky Mountain News, "The state water-quality board on Tuesday approved sweeping new curbs on ammonia in Colorado's waterways, including the South Platte River, to better protect fish. The new state rules, stemming from upgrades to federal pollution regulations, will collectively cost sewage treatment plants across Colorado hundreds of millions of dollars to meet. In many cases, new water- treatment processes must be installed. The nine-member Water Quality Control Commission gave wastewater plants through 2011 to incorporate the changes, although even with that time frame some facilities likely will seek extensions, the board acknowledged." Category: Colorado Water 6:06:21 AM     Whitewater park for Palisade? Say hello to Grand Valley River Park.org. They're trying to raise the necessary dough to build a whitewater park just east of Palisade. They write, "In June the Bureau of Reclamation surprised the recreation communtion by telling us we needed about $2.5 million, not $400,000 to $600,000 listed in the Final Environmental Assessment. AND, we need it within 30 days of bid opening which is around the end of September. It took us two years to raise $600,000, so needless to say it appears the BOR is not very interested in building the Preferred Alternative of fish passage with recreational features, a big surprise to us. We're scrambing to find funds - if you know anyone with an extra $2,000,000, please let us know ASAP. "We never thought the BOR would build the alternative of fish passage without recreational features, but now that this is a possibility, we've begun to take a serious look at this alternative. We believe it is not only unsafe, but ultimately it is unstable and it will eventually fail, causing potential damage to the fish passage it is designed to support. Please see the link below to the Walbridge report for details regarding safety." Thanks to My Fox Colorado for the link. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 5:58:15 AM

© Copyright 2007 John Orr. Last update: 4/1/07; 9:45:57 AM.