|
|
Sunday, January 27, 2008
|
|
| |
Say hello to Aquafornia "The Southern California Water Blog." They're covering the Golden State's water issues. We found them through our referrer log after they linked to us. Thanks!
Category: Colorado Water
10:37:51 AM 
|
|
From The Steamboat Pilot & Today, "City of Steamboat Springs water customers will see their water rates increase next month for the first time since 2001. The Steamboat Springs City Council unanimously approved a 5 percent increase in water service and quantity charges at its meeting Tuesday. There will be no increase in tap fees. Interim Finance Director Bob Litzau referred to the increase as a baby step. 'The 5 percent is really a start in terms of raising rates,' Litzau said. 'I fully expect we will be coming back with a further rate increase.' Higher rates will take effect Feb. 1."
Category: Colorado Water
9:56:10 AM
|
|
From The Pueblo Chieftain, "The Pueblo County Board of Commissioners approved a change to a subdivision near Beulah Tuesday over the objections of area residents who worry there isn't enough water to sustain the project. The commissioners unanimously approved the project and said that while concerns over the water supply might be valid, the board can't do anything about it...But the adequacy of the aquifer is irrelevant according to what the commissioners can consider in their action. Commissioner Jeff Chostner said the board serves as an extension of state government and as long as Twin Buttes complies with state regulations, which it does, the board can't deny the request. 'Statute requires the state water engineer to supply a report that tells you only whether the water source is available and legally tapped,' Chostner said. 'It does not address whether neighbors are affected.' Chostner and Commission Chairman Anthony Nunez said they are trying to work with Pueblo's delegation to the state Legislature to expand the state water engineer's authority, but the county will need a buy-in from the rest of the state before any real progress can be made."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:52:52 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the new regulations drafted by West Slope septage haulers from The Montrose Daily Press. From the article:
Local septic waste haulers recently came together to benefit not only their industry but the region's environment and its inhabitants. "Over four meetings, nine of 11 haulers in our area have come to the table at least once to express their opinion and support," Montrose Roto-Rooter owner Kevin Smith said. Last fall, haulers cooperated with local entities in submitting an audit request to the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA agents spoke in November at a monthly meeting of the representatives of regional governments, waste receivers and haulers. An investigation of the haulers ensued and the results are pending, Montrose County Environmental Health Coordinator Richard Thompson said. The issue of hauler accountability was brought to the parties' attention after a handful of incidents of illegal dumping and a lack of loads being delivered to the waste receivers. The haulers pay an average of about $160 to the receivers when they empty their trucks; this creates an incentive to dump illegally. "I think all of us as an industry would like to operate on a level playing field," Smith said of the haulers who've come together.
Their primary objectives include educating people involved with their industry and the general public; establishing regulations for haulers and ensuring a permanent disposal location. Their efforts led to a draft of regulations derived in part from those of Mesa, Gunnison and Delta counties. Montrose County doesn't have specific regulations for its septic waste haulers. "They've indicated that the (Montrose) county doesn't necessarily have the resources to take a strong hand in it," Smith said. "But I do believe they have some strong role models that will help them and help us get a reasonable set of regulations implemented." Montrose County Sanitarian Greg Pink said it's admirable the haulers have formed an association. He also said establishment of a permanent disposal location is the primary concern. "If it's a fact that we have a major issue with illegal dumping and dumping of septage in places that are going to create health issues, then certainly the county's gonna be looking into that," Pink said. "I haven't been bombed or overwhelmed with calls in the last 10 years."
West Montrose Sanitation District is the county's only official septic waste receiver. The amount of waste it can receive is limited and biosolids must be removed periodically. District Manager Randy See said he's applied for a $100,000 Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs to aid in the removal. "The money will get rid of the biosolids on hand now," See said. "My hope is that we're able to use some new technology that would allow us to get rid of biosolids on a more regular basis." The haulers' association would like a draft of its regulations to be adopted by six counties encompassing the haulers' service area, including Montrose, Delta, Ouray and San Miguel. "I don't believe there's much hope for reciprocity from county to county, but we're hoping for some uniformity," Smith said...
Issues addressed in the haulers' draft include: Licensing of haulers with annual renewal fees; Successful completion of a written test for license applicants; Criteria to ensure septic tanks are sufficiently cleaned; Maintenance of hauler's equipment to prevent spillage.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:43:03 AM
|
|
From The Pueblo Chieftain, "Colorado will spend $300,000 from a legal fund established to protect interstate compacts in an effort to glean data from a project that measures moisture in the soil at the Colorado State University Rocky Ford research station. The funding was approved this week by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, at the request of Attorney General John Suthers, after the board earlier authorized $90,000 last year to help finish construction of a lysimeter to measure water use specific to crops in the Arkansas River Valley. Since 2004, the CWCB has contributed $750,000 to programs designed to use the data from the lysimeter to reduce Colorado's water debt to Kansas."
More from the article:
Colorado hopes to use the data to adjust formulas that measure water use in the Arkansas Valley with more localized crop information. Besides data from the lysimeter, weather data from a network of stations up and down the valley will be factored in as well. The lysimeter is a 10-foot cube of dirt that sits on top of truck scales. The device can weigh the soil and water applied to crops, which are planted on the scale. It can accurately measure how much water evaporates, is used by plants and drains through the soil. Over the next three years, water use by alfalfa - the most widely grown crop in the valley - will be measured. Other crops will be evaluated in future years. Ironically, federally funded lysimeter data from other states, which have different growing conditions than Colorado, were used to determine the formulas for consumptive use agreed to by Kansas and Colorado as part of the Arkansas River Compact settlements in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Part of the $300,000 will also be used to establish a second, smaller lysimeter at Rocky Ford, which will be used in ongoing studies of crop water use. "This part of the project is critical," State Engineer Dick Wolfe told the CWCB. "If we can prove our crop consumption is less than we agreed to, this will reduce our obligation to augment well pumping. If we can show it for alfalfa, it will go a long way toward that goal." Colorado State University pays for the basic operation of the lysimeter, but in order for the data to be meaningful in the compact case, it has to pass professional scrutiny, Miller explained. "We need a peer-reviewed document to submit to arbitration," Miller said...
Kansas v. Colorado is close to being finalized by the U.S. Supreme Court after more than 22 years of litigation. Disputes in the future will be decided by an arbitrator, rather than the contentious court battles and intense arguments before a special master that have marked recent years.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:29:36 AM
|
|
Here's a recap of Thursday's discussion of the Interbasin Compact Commission and basin roundtable process at the Colorado Water Congress' 50th Annual Convention, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Assessing more than two years of meetings, the chairmen of the state's basin roundtables were able to agree on one thing: Their common problems aren't. Each basin faces a different set of challenges and the roundtables, set up by the state Legislature in 2005, have pretty well carved out their own unique set of problems, but are still shy when it comes to working with other basins. Some are givers; some takers; and some loners.
Eight of the nine basin roundtable chairmen spent an hour Thursday discussing their circumstances and progress during a forum moderated by Department of Natural Resources Director Harris Sherman at the 50th annual convention of the Colorado Water Congress. Absent was the North Platte, sparsely populated and more connected to Wyoming and Nebraska than to Colorado by its river. "We're getting to the point where we're willing to talk to each other," said Michelle Pierce, who heads the Gunnison Basin Roundtable. "I haven't heard 'not one more drop,'" quipped John Hendrick, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Roundtable. "The Rio Grande basin is overappropriated," said Mike Gibson, chairman of the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable. "The valley is adamantly opposed to pumping the deep aquifer, so I don't see a need for dealing with the other basins."
On the other hand, the Colorado River Basin, which extends from the Grand Valley to Grand Junction, has been used as often as a tin cup on a pump by Front Range water interests and opened its roundtable to no less than six non-voting outsiders. "We work every day with other Basins," said Dave Merritt, chairman of the Colorado River Basin, who pointed out half the consumptive use of the basin is diverted through transmountain projects. Rather than dream of isolation, Merritt said the Western Slope wants to know what's on the minds of the rest of the state. "I think (the Interbasin Compact Committee) should produce discomfort," Merritt said. "After 2 years of meetings, we need to be pushed."
That's the last thing Tom Sharp, chairman of the Yampa-White Roundtable, wants. The group is so laid-back it meets only quarterly, and thought it was immune from the state's water struggles by the "two-pass rule," Sharp joked. However the Northern Colorado Conservancy District's idea of a pipeline from the Yampa Basin to the Front Range burst that bubble and led to a summit in neutral territory - Walden, on the North Platte - with the South Platte Basin Roundtable last year.
The South Platte is considering such things because it really has only one issue: ag dry-up, said Bill Jerke, chairman of the South Platte group. "Farms are being dried up every day, and thousands of acres are being lost annually," Jerke said. "Our challenge is to look for other sources."[...]
For the Western Slope, unity is elusive, although the four basin roundtables have had one joint meeting. The Southwest Basin Roundtable alone, however, comprises eight watersheds that all drain to the straight line and frequently divert into and out of each other, said Steve Harris, chairman. "We don't so much argue as inform each other," Harris said.
The Arkansas Basin Roundtable could only wish for such a situation, said Gary Barber, chairman. The basin exports, imports and fights about water constantly. "We knew going in there was not much trust," Barber said. "Not everyone had the same information. I've been impressed with the sincerity and interest of the members." Despite its own birthing pains, the roundtable has been able to network with the South Platte and Metro roundtables, coming up with one idea: Find out just how much water can be imported from the Western Slope.
Category: Colorado Water
9:14:01 AM
|
|
Here's a look at Mark Limbaugh's speech last Friday at the Colorado Water Congress' 50th Annual Convention, from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
A former high-ranking Interior Department official said he used to be a naysayer on climate change. Then he delved into the science of global warming, and he became a believer, he said. It's because of global warming that more federal money should be spent on water storage projects in Colorado and elsewhere in the West, Mark Limbaugh told the Colorado Water Congress this past week. But federal money will be hard to come by, so local and state governments will have to spend more on water, Limbaugh added. Limbaugh is a former assistant secretary for water and science. Rising average temperatures in the West and a booming population will put tremendous pressure on water supplies in Colorado, said Limbaugh, who oversaw management of the Colorado River while with the U.S. Department of Interior.
"Are we going to get all our snow and see it evaporate?" he said. "We don't know." If so, more places to store water are needed, he said. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is talking about reducing carbon emissions and trying to stop climate change in its tracks, Limbaugh said. "That's all fine and good, but science also tells us we have 50 years of warming before (those climate change prevention measures) kick in," he said. "In that 50 years, what are we going to do about our water resources?"[...]
"The days of the federal government coming in and building the (water) projects and then being able to get paid over 50 years are just about over," Limbaugh said. "The feds aren't going to have the money unless they raise taxes. That's not real good for the economy." Local communities and states will have to help foot the bill for new reservoirs and other water projects, he said. He urged local and state officials to plan new water projects and for the effects of global warming on water supplies. "This is an opportunity to push for investment on infrastructure as an economic stimulus," [ed. emphasis added] he said. "Regional solutions are going to be the key."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
8:56:32 AM
|
|
The eight day federal trial between the Sierra Club and Colorado Springs starts Monday according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
An eight-day federal trial on the Sierra Club's contention that sewage releases by Colorado Springs violated the federal Clean Water Act will begin Monday. U.S. District Judge Walker Miller scheduled the trial to run Monday through Thursday from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. until Feb. 7, when each side will be allowed up to one hour for closing arguments. There will be no jury. In cases like this, a ruling by the judge is not expected until some time after the trial. Miller in August tossed a parallel lawsuit by Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut. Thursday, he ruled against a motion by Thiebaut to reconsider status in the case, leaving Sierra Club as the sole plaintiff.
The Sierra Club is arguing Colorado Springs violated the Clean Water Act by discharging raw sewage, chlorine and partially reclaimed wastewater into Fountain Creek from 1998-2007 in violation of state permits and the federal law. The group seeking federal penalties of at least $325,000 for at least 37 sewage releases during that period, according to court records. In his ruling Thursday, Miller ruled out penalties for releases of reclaimed wastewater that occurred from 2004-06, but the penalties for sewage releases will be at issue during the trial. The Sierra Club has added numerous releases that have occurred since it filed the case in October of 2005, after two large storm-related pipeline breaks released more than 300,000 gallons of raw sewage into Fountain Creek.
Colorado Springs will argue in the trial that it has already been penalized for the spills with six compliance orders, with more than $394,000 in state fines since 2003. In court filings, Colorado Springs argues the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has been given primary enforcement power of the Clean Water Act by the Environmental Protection Agency. The city also plans to argue that it has spent more than $160 million in improvements to its sewage system over the past 10 years to comply with state requirements, more than doubling its sewer fees over that time. The city cites numerous programs designed to strengthen creek crossings, reduce vandalism and prevent clogged sewer lines. Finally, the city will argue that it reduced spills to just four in 2007, all of which were relatively small and did not greatly impact Fountain Creek, according to court records. Colorado Springs also contends many of the spills which occurred were caused by third parties.
Nevertheless, the Sierra Club is contending Colorado Springs continues to violate the Clean Water Act with releases of sewage, chlorine and partially reclaimed wastewater into Fountain Creek and that penalties have not, so far, stopped the releases.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:44:07 AM
|
|
Here's a opinion piece about HB 08-1137, Concerning the Acquisition of Property by the Wildlife Commisstion [pdf], through the lens of a sportsman, from The Denver Post. From the article:
Simply put, all legislative matters involving hunting, fishing and wildlife are processed through a committee whose chairman invariably is a farmer or rancher. Historically, this composition has not been kind to sportsmen. Often, things get downright ugly. For Exhibit A, we have current House Bill 1137, a mean-spirited document that hamstrings the Colorado Division of Wildlife's efforts to acquire land for recreation or wildlife habitat or water for aquatic resource protection.
Introduced by Jerry Sonnenberg in the House and Greg Brophy in the Senate, the measure would require DOW to surrender the equivalent of any new land or water it acquires before any purchase is made. The bill also would require the wildlife agency to pay fees to local governments. It is no coincidence that Brophy and Sonnenberg are farmers. For all its flaws, the bill serves one purpose. It vividly illustrates the antipathy toward wildlife that endures on these bookend committees in the state Senate and House. The cast of characters changes every few years, but the motives and attitudes endure. It might be argued that certain individuals with this mind-set actually campaign for an Ag Committee appointment just so they can get their licks in. This state of affairs has another, equally perfidious consequence. In their continuing meanness and vindictiveness, these wildlife haters promote an atmosphere of fear among DOW personnel who fear retribution should they cross them.
More coverage from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. They write:
Each session, something controversial bubbles out of the Legislature and this year is no different. A handful of Republican legislators from the eastern plains are pushing House Bill 1137, which would limit the land and water holdings of the Division of Wildlife. Not simply a cap on DOW properties, the bill would force the agency to dispose of some property each time another property is purchased or a conservation easement is signed. As usual, too, these legislators, led by the conservative Republican Senator Greg Brophy of Wray, don't understand what they're dissing. HB 1137 architects Brophy and Reps. Jim Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, and Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, last came to light when they signed an equally ill-designed and researched letter to the DOW over the restoration of Colorado River cutthroat trout. This recent proposal proves they failed to learn the lesson about doing their homework.
Notably, Brophy argues the DOW takes land off public tax rolls. Wrong, the DOW pays Payment in Lieu of Taxes to counties that request those payments. Last year, the DOW paid $200,278 in PILT to 49 counties, said DOW spokesman Tyler Baskfield. The DOW even installed a new Web site, making it easier for counties to receive PILT payments, Baskfield said. What HB 1137 means to the state's 265,000 licensed hunters (as of 2006) and 571,000 licensed anglers is the loss of opportunity in a time when development, especially, but in no way limited to, energy development in western Colorado, threatens to swallow vital wildlife habitat. This bill seems merely to be punitive, a way to ensure that the Division of Wildlife, which is funded by you and I and every license and Habitat Stamp buyer, can't continue to preserve wildlife habitat if there's some one who wants to make a buck off the state's natural resources. As soon as this bill came into view, sportsmen advocates and conservation groups rallied in opposition.
So, too, did the Division of Wildlife, which normally tries to keep itself out of legislative debates for fear of the consequences arising from a dissed-off legislator holding the reins of the DOW budget. But earlier this week, even while debate heated up on this and another controversial bill, SB 28, began in the Capitol, the DOW came out in open opposition to HB 1137. "We're opposed to the bill because it has the potential to seriously impact how we fulfill our mission in terms of perpetuating Colorado's wildlife resources," Baskfield said. "The citizens of Colorado constitutionally have dedicated 25 percent of the GOCO (lottery) funds to wildlife and that's an indication to us they want to see us preserve that wildlife." He said the Division strives for conservation easements rather than fee-title purchase whenever possible. Both easements and purchases "are important economic tools" in preserving wildlife habitat, Baskfield said.
Other vocal opponents include Trout Unlimited and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Dave Petersen, the Durango-based state field director for Trout Unlimited's Public Lands Initiative, blasts the bill a "loser," "ill-conceived," "short-sighted politics," and "counterintuitive." "With all the development happening in our state, and with all the wildlife habitat we're losing, it's important the Division of Wildlife be allowed to function on behalf of hunters and anglers as well as on behalf of wildlife," Petersen said. "If the DOW can't acquire new lands, (they) will have lost the ability to add vital habitat as well as hunting and fishing opportunities as we continue to lose those assets elsewhere." David Lien, co-chair of the Colorado chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, accused lawmakers of "vigorously opposing public lands and wildlife habitat protection." "This opposition stems not from democratic ideology or tradition, but from a troubling combination of extreme libertarianism and the worship of material wealth," Lien said. Most of us take for granted the miles of streams and thousands of acres of state-owned land that offer priceless recreation opportunities for only the price of a fishing or hunting license or even a $10 Habitat Stamp.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:26:41 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
1/31/08; 9:25:06 AM.
|
|
|
