|
|
Thursday, December 13, 2007
|
|
| |
Summit County and Breckenridge are going to town on restoration projects, according to The Summit Daily News (free registration required). From the article:
After completing a successful restoration of the Blue River at Fourmile Bridge, the county and Breckenridge are planning an even more ambitious project in the Swan River drainage. Where the valley is now covered with piles of dredge rock up to 50 feet deep, local experts hope to rebuild a naturally functioning stream channel and recreate streamside habitat by planting grass and trees. The conceptual plan for restoration of 1.5 miles of the Swan River has already garnered positive reviews from open space boards and the county commissioners, as well as the Town of Breckenridge. Federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over water quality and wildlife have also expressed support for the project. Open space and trails director Brian Lorch said he plans to issue a request for proposals within the next few months, and work could begin as early as next summer.
Just like long sections of the Blue, the Swan River was intensively dredged for gold in Summit County's mining heyday. Steam-powered barges chewed their way up the valley, scouring te river bottom all the way down to bedrock to glean particles of the precious metal from the deep alluvium. Some work in the Swan River drainage, including restoration of the Royal Tiger mine site, has already been completed, pursuant to a big open space deal that brought thousands of acres of former mining land into county and town ownership. "What can we do to make the rest of it not look like a wasteland," Lorch said, referring to the sprawling piles of bare rock that dominate the landscape. In places, the river is channelized and abuts the road closely. For about half of the length in the planned restoration area, the water disappears completely, flowing beneath the rock piles.
Thanks to Restoring Rivers for the link.
Category: Colorado Water
6:58:06 PM 
|
|
From The Pueblo Chieftain, "A deal to keep water flowing through Lake Minnequa as part of Pueblo's plan to turn it into a stormwater basin and park was completed Wednesday. The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District approved an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Pueblo and the Pueblo Board of Water Works to keep water flowing through the lake, which is located near St. Mary-Corwin Hospital. The district also voted to accept a conservation easement on Lake Minnequa in order to preserve its future use as a public recreation area."
More from the article:
The plan went dormant for a while, because of difficulty in transferring the old CF&I water rights, but was resurrected this year when the water board and Lower Ark stepped in to develop a new plan to bring water to the lake. Under the current plan, the city will buy the land, the water board will provide water to make up evaporative losses and Lower Ark will pass water from Larkspur Ditch and Twin Lakes through Lake Minnequa. The water board and Lower Ark will also do legal work on their respective water portfolios in order to use the water as envisioned in the plan. The water board also is paying $200,000 toward renovation of a feeder ditch, which would carry water through the Minnequa Canal, which diverts near Florence, through the steel company's lakes at Stem Beach. Pueblo and the water board approved the agreement last month as part of a $7.8 million project. Great Outdoors Colorado last week renewed a $2.3 million Legacy Grant that would help Pueblo purchase the lake...
There were questions from the Lower Ark board about the transit loss - water that seeps away en route to its final destination - by running it through the 40-mile-long Minnequa system. "The loss would be minimal," Nichols said. "If we let it sit in Lake Pueblo, there could be more losses from evaporation." Transit losses on the Minnequa Canal are, by agreement, rated at 9 percent, Ward added.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:15:35 PM
|
|
Dirk Kempthore, as expected, inked the drought deal for the Colorado River today, according to The Las Vegas Sun. From the article:
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and officials from seven Western states signed a sweeping agreement Thursday to conserve and share scare Colorado River water, ending a divisive battle among the thirsty rivals. "This is the most important agreement among the seven basin states since the original 1922 compact," Kempthorne said, referring to a water-use agreement covering California, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. The 20-year plan, which took effect with Kempthorne's signature, resolved several legal disputes among water agencies in the states and formalized rules to cooperate during the ongoing drought gripping the region. The states also commit, Kempthorne said, "to address future controversies on the river through consultation and negotiation before ... litigation." Saying he was "determined not to get ensnared in the politics of the issue," Kempthorne called it "a simple fact that the Earth is warming."..."We have to figure out how this is going to affect our water supply," he said.
A cornerstone element of the drought plan affecting more than 30 million people lets the lower-basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona use the vast Lake Mead reservoir behind Hoover Dam to store water they conserve or don't need for use later. For the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, that arrangement could mean storing almost 1.5 million acre-feet of conserved water in Lake Mead, said Timothy F. Brick, the chief of the MWD board. The district is the water wholesaler to 26 cities and water districts serving some 18 million people. "That additional storage is equivalent to building a reservoir that is almost twice the size of Diamond Valley Lake," Brick said, referring to the district's largest reservoir near Hemet in Riverside County.
The agreements - six formal documents bound together by a federal record of decision - fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, with four key elements. They specify how and when agencies will face reductions during drought, and set new rules allowing the reservoirs of lakes Powell and Mead "to rise and fall in tandem, thereby better sharing the risk of drought," Kempthorne said. The agreements also establish rules for handling surplus water in times of plentiful runoff, and they encourage water conservation.
Another agreement lets the Las Vegas-based Southern Nevada Water Authority build a reservoir just north of the U.S. border in California to capture excess water that would otherwise flow into Mexico. In return for funding the project, expected to cost more than $175 million, Las Vegas will be allowed to draw up to 400,000 acre-feet of water to slake the thirst of a fast-growing region that has reached the limit of water it can draw from Lake Mead.
Thanks to the Water Information Program for the link. More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:01:31 PM
|
|
Here's an article about managing the Colorado River if the lower basin states should issue a call on the river from The Durango Herald. From the article:
But now, water officials worry that Colorado is running out of room in the house that [Delph] Carpenter built, and they are delicately working out ways to handle a "call" from downstream - the possibility that Arizona, Nevada or California will demand more water from Colorado and other upriver states. A call could clamp down on most of the people who use the Colorado River's main channel and also its tributaries, like the San Juan, Animas and Dolores rivers. Few think a call is likely within the next five years. But Deputy State Engineer Ken Knox is concerned enough that he's drafting rules on how to handle one. "I do think (a call) will come sometime, but no one knows when," said Knox, who speaks slowly and softly, answering questions with a "sir" or "ma'am." He pledged to hold several public meetings in every river basin to accept comments and criticism of his draft rules. "It warrants careful, thoughtful action. It also takes time to work through," he said. That's because a call would require some people to turn off their water. Crops would die. Reservoirs and fisheries could be sucked dry...
If a major new project - like oil shale or two proposed pipelines from northwestern rivers to the Front Range - claims the rest of the water available under the compact, then new projects couldn't happen in Southwest Colorado. State Sen. Jim Isgar thinks it's time to put conditions on new uses of water. New projects should be put on notice that they could be turned off during dry years in order to meet the compact, he said. "By letting people come in and file (for water rights), we're accelerating the possibility of a compact call. When that happens, we're going to be shutting off post-compact users (rights filed after 1922)," said Isgar, D-Hesperus, chairman of the Senate committee that handles water matters...
A call would happen in slow motion. First, a downstream state like Arizona would file a lawsuit saying the Upper Basin states failed to deliver enough water over a 10-year period. As of 2007, the Upper Basin is well ahead of its 10-year requirement, according to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. So, barring a historic dry-up of the river, a call probably won't happen for at least 10 years. That gives new projects more than a decade to start using water. The long lag is like a broken speedometer that tells you the speed of your car five minutes ago. By the time you realize you're going too fast, you might have blown through a speed trap. "If we overdevelop the river, which seems to be the human condition - it's happened on the Arkansas and other rivers - then we will have to pay the piper later," [Scott] Balcomb said...
In the 1920s, Carpenter was concerned that judges would apply the "first in time, first in right" system to the whole river, leaving the best water rights in the hands of Californians. So he pushed for the compact, which splits the river in half. Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico take 7.5 million acre-feet, and California, Arizona and Nevada get another 7.5 million acre-feet. A 1944 treaty with Mexico sent 1.5 million acre-feet south of the border. But a crucial paragraph in the compact gives priority to the downstream states. Their share has to be satisfied first, and the upstream states get whatever is left. The compact signers thought the river had at least 15 million acre-feet - plenty for everyone. Carpenter didn't know it, but he couldn't have picked a worse time in 400 years to divvy up the river. Tree-ring studies show the 1920s were one of the wettest decades on record in the region. Today, no one knows how much truly is left for Colorado, Balcomb said. "I can't give you a number. There are serious water-user organizations that are concerned about this question now," he said. The Colorado Water Conservation Board is working on a model to give a better answer, but it won't be ready until 2009 at the earliest, said board member Dan McAuliffe...
Not everyone would suffer during a call. While a call would be potentially disastrous for upper-basin states, a select few people would prosper. Water rights claimed before 1922 are not subject to the compact. Those rights would be worth lots of money during a call. In Southwest Colorado, most of the pre-1922 rights belong to farmers. Cities have a mix of senior and junior rights, said Steve Harris, chairman of the Southwest basin water roundtable. Durango is typical of most area towns, Harris said. Its year-round rights on the Florida River were established before 1922. But in the summer, it relies on extra rights on the Animas that could be shut off by a compact call. The Front Range could be in trouble, too. The major tunnels that take water to the east were built after 1922, meaning cities would have to buy senior water rights from Western Slope farmers. Many of those rights exist in the Montezuma Valley, said Eric Kuhn, head of the Colorado River Water Conservation District...
Knox will have to decide how to meet a call. The shortage could be divided by river basin, or the prior-appropriation system could be applied across the whole Western Slope. When John Porter of Cortez started working in the water field, he was taught not to worry about a call because so many of Southwest Colorado's rights are senior compared to the rest of the state. Now, he thinks differently. "We don't have the political clout to cause the state to go by seniority on a statewide basis," said Porter, one of Southwest Colorado's two representatives to the Interbasin Compact Committee. He thinks a call will be allocated by basin, not by seniority. Even so, Southwest Colorado wouldn't suffer greatly, Porter said. Knox isn't favoring one approach, but he thinks prior appropriation has a rich history. "There's some measure of equity. We have a 120-, 130-year history of first in time, first in right," Knox said. Knox is counting on the better side of human nature to help Coloradans get through the compact-call debate. He saw the potential for good during the great drought of 2002, when neighbors helped each other survive. "Water wars - we always talk about the negative. Why? Because there's a lot to talk about," Knox said. "But once in a while, the human spirit can get pretty positive."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:54:40 AM
|
|
Here's an article about S. 2156: Science and Engineering to Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance Water Act [SECURE Water Act], from The Albuquerque Tribune. From the article:
The last time there was a comprehensive federal study of water in the West -- 1978 -- even Al Gore had not yet started talking about global warming. New Mexico's senators, Silver City Democrat Jeff Bingaman and Albuquerque Republican Pete Domenici, want a new survey that will look at the projected impact of climate change on water resources in the West as well as offer new federal aid for communities to conserve and develop water resources. On Tuesday, they held a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on their bill, the Secure Water Act. "Water has always been a priority in the West," Bingaman said. "Nonetheless, the stakes are higher now as the confluence of drought, climate change, population increases and environmental needs are testing water manager sin unprecedented ways."[...]
The government now allocates grants of up to $300,000 to assist western communities with water, but the most that has ever been appropriated for the program is $11 million while there are usually between $30 million and $40 million worth of requests. Although the bill would authorize new federal studies and aid, it would not override any state water laws or jurisdiction. That brought an amen from New Mexico State Engineer John D'Antonio, representing the Western States Water Council, an advisory group to 18 western governors. He said they strongly support provisions for federal grants to assist states in developing a database on water usage and supplies.
The president of the Family Farm Alliance also endorsed the bill. Patrick O'Toole, a farmer from the Wyoming-Colorado border, said, "We're seeing things on the ground that tell me as a farmer that there are changes." Sen. Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, quoted one study as predicting that a two degree increase in temperate would result in a 6 percent increase in drought and a 12 percent decrease in water supply. "The science of the impact of climate change is still in its infancy," said Robert Hirsch, associate director for water for the U. S. Geological Survey.
The only serious objection came from freshman Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican. He said the bill is focused too narrowly on the impact of climate change on water and authorizes too many new federal grant programs -- five. He predicted the measure could lead to environmental lawsuits. Although it's still possible the Energy Committee could act on the bill this year, it's unlikely see any action by the full Senate until next year.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
6:38:51 AM
|
|
Broomfield water rates may be going up, according to The Boulder Daily Camera. From the article:
Broomfield residents could pay more for every flush and flip of the faucet next year, as city leaders mull the sixth increase of water and sewer rates in as many years. The annual increases -- which have ranged from 2 to 4 percent -- are Broomfield's way of avoiding heftier, albeit less-frequent, rate hikes...
Collective increases since 2003 equal 18.3 percent for water and 11 percent for sewer. Broomfield currently charges a flat water fee of $8.53, plus $2.73per thousand gallons used. Sewer fees are $16.07 per month. The proposed increase would raise the flat fee for water to $8.74. The sewer rate would increase to $16.56. Before the council makes a final decision, a public hearing will be held Jan. 8.
More news from The Montrose Daily Press. They write:
Leakage of an estimated 17 gallons per minute from the Montrose Suburban Water Works District's lines has forced rate increases for owners of about 300 taps, according to district volunteer Jerry Trudell. "In the past we've had enough of a bankroll to not raise the rates for the leaks -- but of course in the past we haven't had this much of a leak for this long," he said. Trudell, who has been with the district 30 years, said most people who work for it volunteer and that there are only two salaried positions. He said the water leak became noticeable in June. "We probably found half a dozen or 10 leaks since we started looking," he said, adding that the district has been working to replace its six to 10 miles of aging steel line with PVC pipe. The district was founded in 1922...
Most of the district's users reside west of Chipeta Road, between Spring Creek Road and West Oak Grove Road, Trudell said. His wife, Joann Trudell, is a district board member. "The people that do the book work here get minimal wages. Nobody's getting rich doing anything out here," she said. "In common sense we have to raise it or we're not gonna have any water. Everyone wants to drink, you know." Bill Pyle, also a board member, said a leak discovered a few weeks ago may be the primary source of water loss. Discovered off West Main Street between Chipeta Road and 64.00 Road, the leak was previously overlooked because it was assumed to be irrigation water. "We think we found it -- it was just pouring out water," he said. "It was on the owner's side. The meter was under water so we couldn't get to it to read the meter." The break in piping has been fixed and if it was responsible for most of the water loss, it's possible rates may be reduced. However, they may stay the same because of the city of Montrose "jacking up costs," Pyle said. The district purchases its water from the city because the area it serves is unincorporated. Montrose Spokesman David Spear said the district operates off a 4-inch city water line and that the company is treated similarly to a private line. "Any leak on their line is a private matter they'll have to address," Spear said. The city's residential monthly base rate for water usage is $16.10, plus $2.62 per 1,000 gallons of water usage, according to the city of Montrose Utility Billing Hotline.
Category: Colorado Water
6:19:32 AM
|
|
Here's a look at reaction to Aurora's attempt to join the lawsuit being brought by the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District against Reclamation over the Aurora Long-Term Contract, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Aurora's entry into a federal lawsuit illustrates the fundamental problem with a long-term contract between the city and the Bureau of Reclamation, the chairman of the conservancy district that filed the lawsuit said Wednesday. "I think (Aurora's) attorney hit the nail on the head," said John Singletary, chairman of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. "What the contract would do would set a precedent for other deals up the road." Singletary fears Reclamation intends to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water throughout the state rather than strictly for the benefit of the Arkansas Valley...
Aurora was allowed to intervene in a federal court case because Aurora's interests are separate from the federal government's purposes in the contract, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Edward Nottingham ruled Tuesday. Aurora's lawyer in the case - Stuart Somach, of Sacramento, Calif. - said Aurora's and Reclamation's interests are not the same, since Reclamation faces a challenge to its authority to lease space in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to outsiders on a long-term basis, while Aurora is trying to protect a water source its residents depend on...
Aurora gets 25-40 percent of its water supply from the Arkansas River basin, moving the water from farms it bought in Crowley and Otero counties through the Otero Pipeline and Pumping Station, located in Chaffee County, into its South Platte River basin system. To get the water to Twin Lakes, where it enters the pipeline, Aurora first exchanges the water to Lake Pueblo and then to Twin Lakes or Turquoise Lake, all Reclamation facilities. Its opportunities for physical exchanges - diverting out of priority and replacing the water downstream, are limited to certain high-water periods. The contracts are based on excess capacity in the Fry-Ark system, which is usually available. Since 1975, there has been an average of 130,000 acre-feet of excess capacity annually. Many water users within the basin also use excess-capacity contracts, but Aurora is the only one that removes water from the Arkansas River basin. By approving the long-term contract with Aurora, Reclamation has established a new precedent that could harm the Arkansas Valley in the future, Singletary said. "Their lawyer has said this is a new precedent that goes beyond issuing those contracts for one year at a time," Singletary said.
The issue is also at the heart of the Lower Ark's resistance to the Preferred Storage Options Plan, a proposal by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to study enlargement of Lake Pueblo. Part of PSOP bills which have stalled in Congress since 2001 is a section which grants specific authority to lease to Aurora. "It's unfair to think about enlargement until we learn what could happen with that extra space," Singletary said. "It could have a great impact on the valley." Singletary said allowing Reclamation to enter long-term contracts outside the valley could set the stage for taking more water out of the valley if other communities were to purchase water rights in the basin.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:14:57 AM
|
|
Dirk Kempthorne plans to sign off today on the Colorado River drought management plan worked out by the seven Colorado River Compact States, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. From the article:
A hard-won agreement to manage Colorado River flows during drought is expected to become official this morning when Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne signs the final record of a decision on a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation environmental study. The signing means a major adjustment to the 85-year-old Law of the River to avoid having to renegotiate the agreement between seven states: Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming in the upper basin and California, Arizona and Nevada in the lower basin. The document will manage water sharing between the two basins, with the lower basin having more people and older rights. The Bureau of Reclamation began the environmental study in 1999. Since then, the river basin has experienced the worst drought in 100 years of recorded history, and its two largest reservoirs - Lake Powell and Lake Mead - have gone from being nearly full to just over half-full.
More from the article on the prospects of using increased flows from Glen Canyon Dam to simulate flooding conditions in the Grand Canyon:
Flushing water through the Glen Canyon Dam to try to build up sandbars, beaches and backwaters hasn't worked in the past, but that's not a deterrent to federal scientists who want to try again. Speaking during a meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission, U.S. Geological Survey scientist John Hamill said plans are afoot to release 41,500 cubic feet per second of water from behind the dam into the river below for 60 hours. The release would be a way to incorporate previous results from other experiments to try to find a way to sustain sand flow in a healthy way in the river to discourage exotic invasive vegetation and create safe harbors for species including the endangered humpback chub, said Hamill, chief of the USGS monitoring and research center in Flagstaff, Ariz.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which already has spent more than $200 million seeking ways to counter the dam's downstream damage, is actively planning for the release, even though a 2005 USGS report said 13 years of similar efforts had been unsuccessful. Previous attempts have either blasted away the sand that had accumulated naturally from tributary inflow, or simply didn't deposit any sand. This time, Hamill said, the river below the dam is relatively sandy, and changes in Grand Canyon management have allowed warmer water and more sediments to flow through the dam. The technique is called "adaptive management," kind of a learn-as-you-go series of experiments designed to run over the long term. The 2008 test would be a synthesis of previous experiments, including a test in summer 2000 where dam releases were kept at a steady 8,000 cubic feet per second from June 1 to Sept. 1. Hamill said that resulted in water temperatures in backwaters and shallow shoreline habitats reaching about 50 degrees Fahrenheit - the river below the dam is usually about 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The steady release also limited sand drift downstream and kept healthy a population of humpback chub that had been moved near the mouth of the Little Colorado.
And as Lake Powell sediments become increasingly polluted, just sending them down-river isn't a good answer, either, said Living Rivers director John Weisheit. The only solution, he says, is to remove the dam. Built in 1963, Glen Canyon Dam has provided water and power for the West. The sand-flow issue must be resolved - both because of the need for sandbars in the Grand Canyon, and because the buildup of sediment in Lake Powell will eventually threaten the reservoir and the functions of the already-impaired hydropower plant.
More coverage from The Lake Powell Chronicle. They write:
Lake Powell has been suffering from an eight-year drought. Every year, it drops lower and lower, but the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is about to wrap up guidelines this week that may keep the lake from draining so fast in future years. There are four key elements to the guidelines. The first is to implement a shortage strategy for Lake Mead and the lower basins. These would be rules that could be applied each year, which would tell the bureau what the water supply would be for these basins. The second is to coordinate the operations of Lake Powell and Mead throughout the full range of operations of both lakes. This would be a prescribed approach where they would look at the content of both lakes to determine how much water is released. The third key element would be to establish a mechanism to store and conserve water in Lake Mead's lower basins. The fourth element would complement the surplus guidelines that were put in place in 1999 by modifying and extending them. Boulder Canyon operations office area manager Terry Fulp said the process to develop interim guidelines that determine Colorado River water shortages in the lower Colorado River basin began in May 2005. This was during the driest five-year period that Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs ever had to go through...
Many people felt that the bureau should have intervened and adjusted Lake Powell's release downward so the water could be retained because it had reached within 60 feet elevation of the minimum power pull needed to generate electricity in 2005. The lower basin states, which include parts of Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico, thought the opposite and wanted to continue releasing water from the lake. This was an issue in the bureau's annual [operating] plan in spring 2005. When White House interior secretary Gale Norton was still in office, she dealt with the issue and asked two things: The states must come up with a consensus on how to deal with these issues of the drought situation that is causing the low reservoirs, and she directed the bureau to put a process in place to find solutions. When creating the guidelines, the three most heard responses from stakeholders when trying to create these guidelines were to conserve water, look at the reservoir operation of Lake Powell and Mead through a full range of operations and to use the guidelines to gain operational experience.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:01:36 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
1/1/08; 1:15:07 PM.
|
|
|
