Thursday, March 29, 2007

Coyote Gulch hits the big time Wow, Coyote Gulch has hit the big time. We were named the "Best Source of Water News" by Westword in their "Best of Denver 2007." Thanks! Here's what they had to say, "Colorado's water may dry up, but John Orr will keep pouring it on. Orr, who works for the city's wastewater treatment department, started Coyote Gulch in 2002 as a blog about local and national politics but soon started posting about his passion, water. Although he still comments regularly on topics like Barack Obama's campaign and the Iraq War, more often than not he's spouting off about all things hydrated in the Centennial State: well shut-downs on the South Platte River; the thirtieth anniversary of the Big Thompson flood; a proposed Cañon City whitewater park; sex-changing fish in Boulder Creek. If you thirst for knowledge, head to Coyote Gulch." Meanwhile Coyote Gulch turns five years old today. Here's the link to that post. Wow five years. Just to warn you, we're not tired of it yet. We've met so many cool people, in person and on the Internet. The water conversation alone keeps us going. Thanks for all the comments, emails and encouragement over the years. Category: Colorado Water 6:51:21 AM     Snowpack: March has been a particularly devastating month Here's a report on the snowpack from the The Denver Channel. From the article, "With the current snowpack in the high country at 75 percent of average, snow survey experts warn that this summer's water availability is diminishing...USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service snow survey supervisor Mike Gillespie said Wednesday the month of March has been a particularly 'devastating' month. According to Gillespie, in a typical March, Colorado usually receives 20 percent of its maximum snowpack. This March, the state added no snow pack for the month. The good news is South Platte snowpack is 99 percent of average, which should serve Denver and much of the front range well." Category: Colorado Water 6:05:11 AM     Fry-Ark space for Aurora? The Pueblo Chieftain caught up with 3rd Congressional Representative John Salazar, to get his opinion on the 40 year contract for Fry-Ark storage for Aurora. From the article, "A full environmental impact statement is needed on the proposed contract between the Bureau of Reclamation and Aurora, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said Wednesday. The 3rd Congressional District's representative in Washington said the expanded look at the environmental, social and economic impacts is needed to get the full picture of how water transfers have affected the Arkansas Valley. 'I can't understand why people are sweeping things under the rug,' Salazar said. 'How can they say there's not going to be an economic impact on the Arkansas Valley by taking water out of it?'[...] "'They seem to be taking the cities' side in this,' Salazar said. What are people so afraid of? They're afraid we'll uncover the true impacts of moving this water out of the basin.' Salazar asked Reclamation to do a full EIS in his comments last fall, a move that was also requested by both the Lower Arkansas and Upper Arkansas water conservancy districts, Trout Unlimited and numerous citizens. Reclamation replied that the environmental assessment was needed to determine if a full EIS is needed." There you have it. This battle is really about moving water out of basin, water that Aurora has rights to, and can use to extinction if they can move it. From email from Kara Lamb (Bureau of Reclamation): "As the Final EA and FONSI on Aurora circulates, I've been receiving some good questions. An important one I thought might interest everyone has to do with the list of Reasonably Foreseeable Projects included in the cumulative effects analysis. "In that list, we named the original No Action alternative that was under consideration for the proposed Southern Delivery System, 'SDS.' At the end of last month, Reclamation accepted a revised No Action Alternative for Colorado Springs Utilities, one of a possible four participants in SDS. The revised alternative we accepted is different from the original No Action alternative included in the cumulative effects analysis for the Aurora contract that we released last week. "When we designed the model and the studies for the Aurora EA, we used the best information available at that time. Even though the SDS No Action alternative has changed, it changed after the conclusion of our studies. Consequently, the FONSI draws the following conclusions: "1. Beneficiaries and benefits of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will not be negatively impacted by the Aurora Long Term Contract. "2. In-district entities continue to have priority for storage and exchange excess capacity in the Fry-Ark Project. "3. We found no significant impacts resulting from the Aurora Long Term Contract." Category: Colorado Water 5:56:21 AM

© Copyright 2007 John Orr. Last update: 4/1/07; 9:53:42 AM.