Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Groundwater management Here's the 9th installment of The Pueblo Chieftain's series on water issues, "Water Logs." The subject is groundwater and aquifer recharge. From the article: Cities like Denver and Pueblo rose out of the prairies because settlers were attracted to the confluences of Cherry Creek and the South Platte or Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River. What has sustained civilization after a certain point, however, is water extracted from the the ground. Some of it is water that has been trapped in formations underground for eons, while other sources are the alluvial plains associated with rivers, fed by runoff. For the future, water users are looking at ways to actually store water in the ground. Today, about 18 percent of the state's population depends on wells for water supply. In fact, the fastest-growing areas in the state are located above the Denver Basin aquifers, a series of deep underground reserves not physically connected with any of the surface water supplies of the state. The problem is that as the water is used, it is not naturally replenished. Head pressure on the aquifers was once great enough to provide hydraulic pressure for the elevators at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver. Now, the profusion of wells has reduced their yields and water providers who thought they had a 100-year supply of water face a dilemma: Find more water or pay greater energy costs for pumping water. The hunt for water will put more pressure on existing water supplies. A South Metro Water Supply Authority report in June indicated the participating water providers would first look within the South Platte basin for additional water supplies, but may branch out to find sources in the Arkansas Valley or Western Slope as growth continues... Meanwhile, there are several efforts throughout the state to recharge aquifers. The Centennial Water District, which serves Highlands Ranch, is recharging the Denver Basin aquifers by essentially running its pumps in reverse. Cities in the Widefield Aquifer south of Colorado Springs are recharging the alluvial aquifer that provides about half their water supply. Lamar is using former ditch shares to recharge its well field. East of Colorado Springs, water providers are studying whether wastewater return flows could be used to recharge the Upper Black Squirrel Creek designated groundwater basin, basically a giant bathtub filled with gravel. Near Buena Vista, the Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District is looking for potential sites to store water underground as part of an overall augmentation plan... Agriculture and cities throughout the Arkansas Valley are dependent on wells to supply water. * The issue: In the same era that the state has demanded more accountability for pumpers, increasing opportunities for storage are seen. * What's at stake: Groundwater storage is being eyed as an alternative to surface storage, with reduced evaporation. * Why it matters: Wells in the rapidly growing area fed by the Denver Basin aquifers will become more expensive to operate, sending them in search of surface supplies to replenish or replace wells. * Who's involved: Domestic and agricultural water interests from Buena Vista to Lamar and along Fountain Creek are involved in well use and projects. Here's the link to Coyote Gulch's coverage of the conference last fall on groundwater issues and recharge. More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here and here. Category: Colorado Water 8:29:55 PM     Whitewater park for Palisade? Irrigators in the Grand Valley are lining up to oppose Palisade's whitewater park, according to The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article: As Palisade begins work on a $38,000 project to model Colorado River flows for a whitewater park town officials consider harmless, Grand Valley irrigators and some federal agencies say the park could seriously harm endangered fish. Irrigation companies are worried that if the whitewater park is built, it will harm endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker habitat and possibly affect their ability to divert water from the river. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service share the irrigators' concerns about the fish. "If the fish aren't recovered, we could be subject to tougher restrictions and regulations," said Richard Proctor of the Grand Valley Water Users Association. "They're going to have kayakers going through these channels of water that the fish are using to swim upstream. Is there a conflict between recreational use with the recovery of the endangered fish?" Irrigators are asking the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an environmental impact statement for the whitewater park in order to clarify how the park will affect endangered species and the irrigation districts partly because they fear the park will interfere with fish screens and passages required under the Endangered Species Act. "They're putting a package together too fast and not thinking it through," Grand Valley Irrigation Co. Superintendent Phil Bertrand said... Palisade must complete additional river flow modeling before the Army Corps grants the town a permit to build the park. Once the permit is in hand, the town will be ready to begin construction on the park immediately, Town Administrator Tim Sarmo said. In a November letter to the Army Corps, the Grand Valley Irrigation Co. demanded a detailed design for the water park because, Bertrand said, the park proposal is not detailed enough to determine how the park will affect water levels and flows in the Colorado River... The Orchard Mesa Irrigation District objects to the placement of the park downstream of the district's pumping plant and the Grand Valley Power Plant. "If not properly designed, we believe that construction of the whitewater park will result in increased water surface elevations upstream of the proposed park,[per thou] manager Rita Crumpton said in her letter to the Army Corps. The increases in elevation, she said, could reduce the water available for the power plant's turbines and reduce the water available to the district's customers. She said she fears higher river levels caused by the park could damage the Orchard Mesa check structure, which forces water from the river to the Grand Valley Irrigation Company's diversion dam. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 7:32:34 PM     Tamarisk management Tamarisk control is a hot topic across the West. Here's an article about efforts in the Arkansas River Basin from The Pueblo Chieftain. It's the 10th part of the their series "Water Logs." From the article: Tamarisks grow rapidly, spread profusely and compete fiercely with natural vegetation. If there's a drought, they hang on longer. If there's a flood, they spread faster. If there's a fire, they grow back more quickly. You can't just chop them down, because they also regenerate from roots. The roots stretch 100-feet deep and leave salt deposits in the soil. The trees have been spotted as far upstream as Buena Vista in the Arkansas Valley, although they are most prolific in the Lower Arkansas Valley. The valley is the most infested area of the state. The average stand east of Pueblo is about 54 percent infested, according to a mapping project by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. That's bad news because all of those areas will be completely overrun as the tamarisks spread. People have tried practically everything to get rid of the tamarisks. One Pueblo County landowner enlisted a tribe of goats to munch them down. A Prowers County rancher has released some tamarisk-eating beetles, a treatment used with some success by the Bureau of Reclamation below Pueblo Dam. The city of Pueblo tried chopping them down in Fountain Creek, but they regenerated within a year. Bent County has been cutting and spraying the tamarisks choking the Arkansas River channel for nearly three years. A multi-agency effort led by the Natural Resource Conservation Service used aerial spraying to clear 500 acres in five area counties last summer. Several groups have sponsored work days where tamarisks are chopped and sprayed by hand. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District has set up a Web site to share information on tamarisk control efforts and mapping throughout the Arkansas Valley... Also called tamarisk, salt cedars are an invasive plant that crowds out native vegetation, increases salinity and uses greater supplies of water. * The issue: About 43,000 acres of land in the Arkansas River basin below Pueblo Dam is infested with tamarisk. * What's at stake: Right now, the tamarisk are estimated to consume about 58,000 acre-feet of water annually, but as the trees fill in areas where they have invaded, that number will more than double to 130,000 acre-feet - one-fifth of the water in the river at Avondale in an average year. * Why it matters: Some of the water could be put to beneficial use. While tamarisks would be replaced with other plants, they tend to spread to upland areas as well as the streambeds, soaking up more water than the shrubs and grasses they replace. * Who's involved: There are several groups trying to remove stands of tamarisk throughout all parts of the valley. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is attempting to bring together those interests in a valleywide mapping and information sharing project. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 7:00:43 PM     Happy New Year Happy New Year to all you water nuts and political junkies out there. We hope you hit the Powerball (after us of course). Please resolve to be smarter with water in 2008. We're running late today (Dancing until dawn with Mrs. Gulch). 11:48:47 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 1/31/08; 9:08:43 AM.