Thursday, January 3, 2008

Aurora wrestling with water rate structure Aurora is still fighting the battle to fund ongoing operations and pay for their Prairie Water project. Here's an article about a recent focus group on rates from The Aurora Sentinel. From the article: Residents who participated in focus groups last month concerning water rates had many of the same concerns about revamping rates that local lawmakers have expressed, according to a report by Public Opinion Strategies, a company hired by the city. Many residents in the five focus groups said the city's water rates should be fair, predictable and encourage conservation, according to the report... Councilman Larry Beer said the report's findings were reassuring because they showed city council members and residents have many of the same priorities. City council would like to have a new rate structure in place before the summer watering season begins. Lawmakers continue to gather public comments but have three rough alternative rate models: a flat-rate structure that asks every resident to pay the same price for water, a rate structure that charges more for water during summer months, and a block-rate structure where the cost of water rises in correlation to the amount a customer uses. The report recommends rejecting a seasonal rate structure and cautions that some residents will water larger lawns no matter the cost while other residents fear their neighbors with large lots will let the grass die. While many residents were upset by last year's rate hike, there is a silent majority who probably remain oblivious to the controversy, the report notes. Next week, Aurora will hold two meetings for residents and one meeting for homeowner association members to review possible new rate structures. Category: Colorado Water 6:02:31 AM     Energy policy: Nuclear Here's a recap of a meeting abouth Powertech's proposed uranium mine held yesterday up in Fort Collins, from The Rocky Mountain News. From the article: Two sides in the debate over the Centennial Project mine met at a Fort Collins Rotary Club meeting Wednesday afternoon amid growing concerns from neighbors that a mine could harm northern Colorado's water and residents' health... Since the project was first introduced in August, residents have been staunchly against the project, collecting almost 6,000 signatures in oppostion. The Fort Collins City Council has adopted a resolution against the mine, and opponents are trying to get other cities and towns to follow suit. Local legislators have promised legislation this year to protect groundwater by raising mining safety standards. Richard Blaubaugh of Powertech said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said the method Powertech would use to get the uranium out of the ground poses no long-term negative health impacts for people or the environment. But Lilias Jones Jarding, with Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, said the mine will cause health risks to people living near the site. "It's highly unusual for a company to be mining in people's drinking water," said Jarding, who added that Texas environmental officials have found that water at uranium mine sites in that state has never returned to normal... Representatives from Power- tech Uranium Corp. and Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction will attend a public hearing on the proposed uranium mine near Nunn at 6 p.m. Jan. 14 at the Harmony Library, at the corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road in Fort Collins. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: 2008 Presidential Election 5:56:33 AM     Snowpack Here's a report on snowpack from The Denver Post. They write: The storm helped raise Colorado's snowpack to 110 percent of the state average for this time of year. "We're in pretty good shape," Gillespie said Wednesday from his office in Lakewood. "The trend has been well above average in the south and closer to average or slightly below average up north. "It's not all that bad anywhere, and we still have about 60 percent of the winter accumulation period ahead of us."The snow-water equivalent for this time of year ranges from 141 percent of average in the Arkansas River basin to 85 percent in the basin for the Yampa and White rivers. Category: Colorado Water 5:50:33 AM     Aurora long term contract with Reclamation Here's the 12th installment of The Pueblo Chieftain's series "Water Logs," dealing with Aurora's use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and Arkansas River water to satisfy their water needs. From the article: Aurora water officials probably knew, from Day one, there would be a physical challenge to moving the water purchased along with farms in Crowley and Otero counties in the 1980s. They quite likely weren't prepared for the public relations headaches - and costs - that came with it. Aurora has spent more than $100 million in the Arkansas Valley on purchases and agreements that allow the city, in theory, to move more than 20,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Arkansas Valley, on average. So far, the city of 300,000 east of Denver has had to pay even more to take advantage of those water rights. A lease and exchange contract with the Pueblo Board of Water Works has been needed since the 1990s, as well as a series of one-year contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation... Aurora has to move the water first to Lake Pueblo, then to Turquoise or Twin Lakes. To do this, it must use physical exchanges, which are available under court decrees only during the wettest months, or by contract exchange, a paper trade that can be executed whenever each party has water available in the right place. Aurora pumps the water out of the valley through the Homestake Project, which it shares with Colorado Springs, and which shares space in Turquoise Lake with the Bureau of Reclamation. Aurora also owns shares in Twin Lakes, which, like Homestake, imports water from the Colorado River basin and uses Arkansas Valley reservoirs to pass the water through.... In 2007, Reclamation granted a 40-year contract to Aurora to store up to 10,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Pueblo and exchange a like amount upstream. Aurora would trade its water in Lake Pueblo for Fry-Ark water in Twin Lakes or Turquoise Lake... Last year, the Bureau of Reclamation granted Aurora 40-year excess-capacity contract to store and exchange water at Lake Pueblo. The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District filed a lawsuit. - The issue: The Lower Ark district claims Reclamation overstepped its authority to issue a contract with an entity outside the Arkansas Valley. Reclamation claims it is legally entitled to contract with Aurora both on a year-to-year basis, as it has done since 1986, and long term. - What's at stake: The Lower Ark claims that changing conditions on the river, and the need for more exchange capacity in the basin in future years, are too unpredictable to tie up facilities for 40 years. Reclamation claims it can periodically adjust the contract. - Why it matters: Aurora sees denial of the contract as a threat to its future water supply. The Lower Ark says the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project should be used first for the benefit of people in the valley. - Who's involved: Bureau of Reclamation, Aurora and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 5:44:09 AM     Kathleen Curry: You can't separate the growth and land use issues from water demand State Representative Kathleen Curry plans to introduce legislation in this session that would require a sustainable water supply for development prior to construction approval. Here's an article about the subject from The Gunnison County Times. They write: Kathleen Curry is targeting what she believes to be a disconnect between the approval of development and the dependability of water supplies in Colorado. The former Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District manager is polishing a bill she plans to carry this legislative session that could restrict growth in some parts of the state. Largely, the proposed legislation centers on the concept of an "adequate" supply of water, as it's currently vaguely defined in state statute. "The core issue is, do we have adequate water supplies when developments are approved both at the county and municipal level?" Curry posed. Recent growth in some areas of the state lead her to believe that's not always the case, judging by the state of underlying aquifers. "The people who get left holding the bag are the future property owners," she said... The measure could set up a new section in law giving local governments more guidelines for the kind of information they need to request from developers. For those developers - locally, and throughout the state - it may mean a "more rigorous set of requirements" they have to submit to county planners, for example, said Curry. "You can't pick and choose on a bill like this," Curry explained. "They'll have to supply additional information showing the water supply will be there." Curry expects that would create additional reliance on the state water engineer, which will drive a fiscal note on the bill. Chris Treese, spokesman for Colorado River Water Conservation District, who has worked with Curry on the language of the bill, says the measure speaks to development in areas of the state where water supplies are becoming gauntly thin - mostly on the Front Range... New development above aquifers that are plummeting is increasingly forcing Front Range communities to turn to Western Slope water to bail them out. That leads Curry to question whether growth is being approved without adequate water supplies. "You have a thirsty and water short Front Range looking covetously at the Western Slope," added [Chris] Treese. Part of the current problem, Curry believes, is that guidelines for whether a subdivision is approved in unincorporated counties is left largely to the discretion of the individual counties, which make the final determination of whether adequate water exists to sustain development... Municipalities must already certify that they can provide water for any subdivisions they approve. Thus, the approval of subdivisions without adequate supply of water in towns and cities is less likely. Another potential weakness, Curry believes, is where special districts of the state supply water to a county or municipality. The bill will propose that special district's offer a more firm commitment to the users they serve - not simply that they're willing to serve, but how they will do so. "Right now, they provide a willingness to serve letter to the land use authority," Curry explained. "We're putting the burden back on the water supply entity to have an engineer certify that the water is legally available."[...] State statute requires that water supplies for subdivisions are sufficient for "quality, quantity and dependability." "The language is fairly simple," said Treese. "It's not an unreasonable statute, but the question is: how dependable is dependable?" Developers must first submit evidence to the county showing not only that water rights have been secured, but that "public or private water owners can and will supply water to the proposed subdivision stating the amount of water available for use within the subdivision," according to statute. A water supply plan must then be included in the subdivision referrals from counties to the state water engineer. That plan must identify the subdivision's estimated water supply requirements and "demonstrate the adequacy" of the proposed water supply. The state water engineer provides an opinion to the county based on the plan for whether a water supply is adequate for a subdivision. "The real bottom line is we don't do any real detailed analysis," said Colorado Deputy Water Engineer Jack Byers. "It varies from location to location throughout the state. There's really no hard and fast rule about how much water is enough."[...] Curry hopes that the bill will cause leaders throughout Colorado to rethink the connection between water and development. Specifically, that water and land use issues go hand-in-hand. "You can't separate the growth and land use issues from water demand," she said. The greatest opposition to the bill will probably be home builders, contractors and realtors, Curry expects. She also thinks that municipalities and counties "are all going to be looking at it carefully." As for the bill being dubbed "anti-growth," she said: "I'm a growth management person. Talking about whether there's water to meet the growth is a growth management question and not a black and white or either/or." Curry noted, however, that many of the groups that could oppose the bill have supported disclosure measures in the past, which require a purchaser of property to be provided at closing with an informational document identifying the entity that is supplying water. When asked whether she believes the bill, if signed into law, would only further pit the Western Slope against the Front Range, Curry said: "I don't think it's going to help the relationship but we can't live by a double standard. Their land use policies are putting pressure on the water resources in rural Colorado and I want some kind of accountability." Curry has until Jan. 8 to submit a draft of the bill. The session begins Jan. 9. Questions or comments about the proposed legislation should be referred to kathleencurry@montrose.net. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 5:33:21 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 1/31/08; 9:10:18 AM.