Coyote Gulch's Colorado Water
The health of our waters is the principal measure of how we live on the land. -- Luna Leopold



































































Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
















































































































Subscribe to "Coyote Gulch's Colorado Water" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Monday, December 24, 2007
 

A picture named dustbowl.jpg

Here's a look at the possibility that drought may become the new normal for the southwestern U.S. from The Telluride Watch. From the article:

The Dust Bowl, say climatologists, is unlikely to occur again. Farmers and government scientists learned much from the experience about how to farm the land - and where not to. But drought most certainly will return, perhaps even more harshly. And turning to the American Southwest, a region defined by the Colorado River and its tributaries - including the San Miguel and other rivers originating in the San Juan Mountains - experts say new evidence reveals a clearer picture of extended and sometimes severe droughts in the past 1,100 years that very well may reappear - this time with an overlay of hotter temperatures caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases. What effect these human-caused emissions will have on precipitation is still uncertain. Global warming could produce more rain and snow. Or not. On the matter of temperature, however, nearly all the computer models reach one conclusion: It will get hotter, much hotter, in places like Tucson, Colorado Springs and Reno. And hotter - even if precipitation stays the same - means drier. In other words, the "average" of the future will resemble what in the past we called drought.

Read the whole article. It's a nice synopsis of current science.

Category: Colorado Water
6:01:25 AM    


A picture named unionreservoirexpansion.jpg

Here's an update on the proposed Union Reservoir expansion from The Longmont Daily Times-Call. From the article:

Union Reservoir is surrounded by open fields -- and by contentious debate about a future expansion of the reservoir, planned development on its shores, and how both could affect wildlife and natural habitat in the area. Residents and Longmont City Council members are questioning those factors as the city works to update the Union Reservoir recreation master plan. "This has been a very passionate master plan process," Paula Fitzgerald, city parks and open space manager, told council members as they reviewed the plan last week. "Most of our processes have been a little more positive and not as contentious."

The city first created a master plan for the reservoir's recreation areas in 1989 and began updating it more than a year ago. City parks planners laid out trails, recreation areas and wildlife buffers and outlined uses including picnicking, camping, swimming and wakeless boating. But the plan assumes that Union Reservoir will rise by 13 feet when the city expands it to increase water storage. The plan also assumes that property on the lake's western and southern banks will eventually be developed with high-end homes.

The storage capacity of Union Reservoir could double when the city expands it in 15 to 20 years and adds another 12,000 acre-feet of capacity, city public works and water utilities director Dale Rademacher said. When that happens, the city has two options for the western shorefront, he said: build a berm along it or allow water to flood land along a natural shoreline...

Dozens of residents have questioned the plan and its assumptions and asked the city to slow down. Residents have called for a full ecological study of the area to find out whether eagles use nearby cottonwood trees for nesting and how dependent they are on two neighboring prairie dog colonies. People also worry about destroying wetlands and not keeping large enough buffers between development and wildlife habitat...

Having a plan in place is critical to securing the reservoir as a city resource, Don Bessler, Longmont's director of parks, open space and public facilities, told the council Tuesday night. Whether rows of corn or rows of houses sit west of Union Reservoir, Bessler said, the city needs a plan to know how to handle the reservoir's expansion, possible development around it and environmental concerns.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
5:50:04 AM    


A picture named puebloreservoir.jpg

Here's the second installment of The Pueblo Chieftain's water series "Water Log," dealing with storage in the Arkansas Valley. From the article:

The concept is simple: Make Lake Pueblo bigger to keep more water in wet times to help make it through dry spells. The devil is in the details. Few water plans are as complicated as the Preferred Storage Options Plan, which grew out of a study 10 years ago of potential storage sites in the Arkansas Valley by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The study narrowed choices to the three best options: changing how water is stored in Lake Pueblo, enlarging Lake Pueblo and enlarging Turquoise Lake.

From the first attempt to pass legislation in 2001, there has been controversy, largely because Aurora, a city of 300,000 east of Denver, was using the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the Arkansas Valley. The legal basis of Aurora's presence in a Bureau of Reclamation project intended to help the valley was first challenged by the Southeastern district. That led to a round of negotiations, promises by Aurora to pay $25 million to the Southeastern District, and a 2003 agreement that limited future exports from the valley. In return, a section of PSOP legislation included federal authority to lease storage space to Aurora. When the Pueblo City Council raised concerns about how enlargement could affect Arkansas River flows through the city, which was working on a Legacy River program to improve rafting and fishing, a new round of negotiations resulted in two more intergovernmental agreements related to PSOP in 2004. Several months later, an agreement was reached with the Colorado River Conservation District to allay West Slope concerns.

Objections by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District in late 2004 scuttled an 11th-hour attempt to pass PSOP legislation in Congress as part of a spending bill. Negotiations between the Lower Ark and PSOP participants were kicked off in January 2005, and are still continuing. The Lower Ark is challenging the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to contract with Aurora in federal court, however, and resolution of the issue in the near future is doubtful. Lake and Pitkin counties also are raising new issues related to PSOP...

Meanwhile, other storage options have developed - including speculative plans by private water interests and a water court filing by Aurora for a reservoir at Box Creek in Lake County. The Pueblo water board has moved ahead with a fall-back plan to enlarge Clear Creek in Chaffee County...

In the 1990s, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District developed a Preferred Storage Options Plan that recommended changing operations at Lake Pueblo along with enlargement of Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake as ways to meet part of the valley's future water storage needs.

The issue: Supporters of PSOP say it's the best way to meet future water storage needs with the least environmental disruption, but some worry that increasing storage will benefit cities and make it easier to transfer agricultural water to municipal uses.

What's at stake: If water cannot be stored or put to a beneficial use, it will flow down the river.

Why it matters: Cities could be forced to look at more costly alternatives if Lake Pueblo cannot be safely enlarged.

Who's involved: While the Southeastern district is the primary sponsor, the valley's municipal and domestic water providers have invested time and money in the PSOP process. Agreements attaching conditions to the study have formed a complex web around PSOP. The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District has been in negotiations with PSOP partners since 2005. Congress has failed to approve the PSOP since 2001. U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., is attempting to get negotiators to agree to no-frills legislation that strips the agreements and just studies enlargement of Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Category: Colorado Water
5:33:24 AM    



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2008 John Orr.
Last update: 1/1/08; 1:30:58 PM.
December 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Nov   Jan