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, January 28, 2008
 

A picture named nukeplantcattenomfrance.jpg

Here's an article in support of expanding nuclear power plants in the U.S. from The Denver Post. They write:

Nuclear energy is the cleanest, most cost-effective large-scale "alternative" energy available. Proponents contend that a significant increase in nuclear power could alleviate higher energy prices, and help chip away at many concerns of environmentalists -- ironically, the same group most stridently opposed to nuclear energy. Fortunately, attitudes are changing. At this point, the public is spoon fed hyped-up quixotic solutions -- ethanol, solar, wind-generated power -- that are economically unfeasible and environmentally inconsequential in the short-term. "Energy independence" might be an effective applause line during a presidential debate, but in reality it's nothing more than platitude-infused wishful thinking...

Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of well-known environmentalist group Greenpeace, was once a critic of nuclear power. He now believes that the impact of popular culture and unfounded fears have led to a multitude of misconceptions. "The fact that nuclear technology was first used to make the bomb had a deep psychological impact on the mass mind," he explains. "Even though I was doing a Ph.D. in science at the time I helped found Greenpeace, I made the same mistake, lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, when one is destructive and the other beneficial." Moore goes on to say that fear is a common public reaction to issues like apocalyptic climate change, genetic modification and chemicals. Or, more specifically, fear of the invisible. "COb, DNA, radiation, and 'parts per billion' are all invisible," he says. "It is fairly easy to make up a story about invisible things because people can't see for themselves. Nuclear energy is by far the safest of the major energy technologies."

Another convert to nuclear energy is author Gwyneth Cravens, whose new book, "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy," began as a pessimistic investigation into nuclear power's dubious future and ended as an ode to the wonders of nuclear fission. Cravens, who says her book is "fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information," spent 10 years reporting from national laboratories, uranium mines and nuclear waste sites. She claims, among other things:

- Nuclear power emits no gases and burns nothing.

- Toxic waste from coal-fired plants kills thousands of Americans annually, but 50 years of nuclear operation have not caused a single death among the public in this country.

- Uranium, when used as energy, is so dense that if "you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can."

- Annual waste from a typical nuclear reactor could fit in the bed of a pickup truck and 50 years of waste from all the reactors in the country would fit in a single football field.

- "A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana."

Proponents of nuclear energy also say that reactors currently operating in the United States prevent emissions of 682 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. As Moore recently explained, the "104 nuclear plants that are operating across the United States are the equivalent of taking 100 million cars off the road." Nuclear energy, in other words, blows away any other alternative source of energy as viable and environmentally friendly.

Three Mile Island, Moore contends, was a success story: "The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do: prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents." Three Mile Island, in fact, is the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy in this country. No one died. Yet, every year, hundreds perish in accidents working with other energy sources. Moreover, a single, relatively isolated accident should not scare a nation, literally, senseless. Fortunately, there may be an attitude adjustment in the works. Recently, the report on global warming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed -- albeit tepidly -- nuclear power. The Department of Energy deadline for nuclear plants seeking federal approval before the end of 2008 is coming. Those approved will be provided with tax credits of up to $125 million for eight years and loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of a plant's cost. Moore believes that his position will win out because it is "based on science and logic." Moore also cites other well-known environmental thinkers like James Lovelock, Stuart Brand, Jared Diamond and Tim Flannery, who have on some level advocated for nuclear energy as a prudent environmental choice.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: 2008 Presidential Election
6:20:36 AM    


A picture named fountaincreek.jpg

Here's a look at the federal trial starting today between the Sierra Club and Colorado Springs over spills into Fountain Creek, from The Colorado Springs Gazette. They write:

Accused of spilling sewage into Fountain Creek in violation of the Clean Water Act, Colorado Springs Utilities will be in federal court today to defend itself against a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club. "This is a major waterway in Colorado, and we believe this is a very important case to protect the public health," said Sierra Club attorney Eric Huber. "We don't want this to continue to be treated like an open sewer."[...]

John Walsh, a former federal prosecutor who represents Utilities, said the city will argue that officials have aggressively sought to improve the city's sewage system and that Fountain Creek's water quality is affected by many problems. "The Colorado Springs system operates at industry standards or better, and they're putting an enormous amount of time, effort and money into making the system even better," Walsh said. "We're doing what we're supposed to do and in many ways better than wastewater utilities of comparable size. There is no need for the judge to take any additional action."[...]

Among the Sierra Club's witnesses:

- Bruce Bell, an environmental engineer from Monroe, N.Y., who has evaluated sewage systems for environmental groups, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department. He'll testify about the system's condition.

- John Woodling, a retired aquatic biologist with the Colorado Division of Wildlife for 35 years, will testify about the spills' impact on fish, wildlife and people.

In addition, an economist will testify about Springs Utilities' ability to pay for faster and more far-reaching upgrades...

Walsh plans to call Michael Rothberg, an engineering consultant from Denver, and George Tchobanaglous, an engineering professor at the University of California-Davis. He said they will testify that Springs Utilities has a zero spill policy, "but the unfortunate reality is that Fountain Creek and its tributaries have problems from a host of different sources."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
6:06:48 AM    


A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

Here's an update on the proposed "Super Ditch" for the Arkansas Valley from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The program would pool water rights to provide annual or long-term leases to municipalities or other users. A lease is a one-time sale of water that does not change ownership of water rights. Singletary explained that the Super Ditch label stuck to the project after a group of farmers from each of the seven ditches envisioned to become part of the program visited the Palo Verde Irrigation District last year...

The difficulty in the Arkansas Valley is that to [operate] that same type of program, farmers in seven canal systems would have to pool their resources, Singletary said. That's easier said than done. The ditches have different priority dates, storage capabilities, consumptive use designations and losses as the water moves down the river. So far, the Lower Ark district has spent more than $600,000 in an attempt to sew the discrepancies into a uniform marketing plan, and more than $200,000 - including a $150,000 state grant - will be spent in the near future. Only two of the ditches allow water to be used outside the system - the Fort Lyon and the High Line canals. The other ditches - Bessemer, Oxford, Otero, Holbrook and Catlin - would have to change their bylaws. In the end, neither the Lower Ark district or the ditch companies are expected to administer the program, but the shareholders themselves...

Still, the Lower Ark district is spearheading a concerted effort to push the Super Ditch, or whatever it will eventually be called, by making plans to run legal interference with the Colorado Division of Water Resources and eventually in court. The district is studying what kind of cooperative structure could be used, and addressing the economic impacts to farmers and the surrounding communities. The district has even reached some preliminary agreements that would connect the farmers to a proposed reservoir near the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Pueblo County and a pipeline that would take water to thirsty water districts and cities in El Paso County. The plan would not only provide a reliable water supply to municipal users, but also the Division of Wildlife and State Parks, which have expanded the need for water from the Arkansas River Headwaters Recreation Area to Lake Pueblo to John Martin Reservoir in recent years, Singletary said...

But the most important impact to the Lower Ark district is keeping water in the lower valley, and the best way to do that is to keep farming viable, Singletary said. "What we've seen in the last few years is that the farmers have had tough times," Singletary said. "If we could provide a lease income, it would keep farm income more substantial." The leasing program could work, with adequate storage, in wet, average and dry years, but would be most beneficial to farmers during droughts, Singletary said. "It gives the ability to put the water to the best use during the dry years when the farmer can't get the water to the end of the rows," Singletary said. The difference between the Super Ditch and past studies of ag water is that the Lower Ark studies are looking at water availability through the eyes of those who now hold the majority of water rights, the farmers, rather than those with growing needs, the cities. "We've uncovered research that shows a benefit to the people who own the water rights, not the people taking it out," Singletary said...

"It's not a ditch," Singletary stressed. "It's a tool to protect rural Colorado. It's a way to keep water in places like Fowler, Manzanola and Rocky Ford."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
5:57:45 AM    


A picture named grizzlyfishing.jpg

According to The Glenwood Springs Post Independent (free registration required) Kathleen Curry opposes HB 08-1137. From the article:

State Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, said Friday that she opposes House Bill 1137, which would require that when the DOW acquires land or water interests, it would have to sell other property within one year so its total property assets would not grow. Curry, whose district includes eastern Garfield County, is the chair of the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee, which will consider the bill. Curry has joined with the DOW in opposing the bill proposed by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling. She said the constituents in her district receive benefits when the DOW acquires land.

Sonnenberg acknowledged the challenge he faces in trying to get the bill passed. "When leadership of the committee and of the House has been swayed, it makes the mountain much steeper to climb," said Sonnenberg. He added the opposition of the DOW is another "stumbling block" for his bill. Sonnenberg said he still plans on trying to persuade committee members to push the bill to the House floor. He said he would cite state statutes, which he said makes conservation land easements and leases the first priority to protect habitats, rather than outright acquisitions...

House Bill 1137 would also require the DOW to pay local governments a payment in "lieu of taxes" equal to the amount of tax the governments would receive annually if the property were owned by a private person or corporation. Further language in the bill would require that any DOW land or water interest purchase be approved by the legislature, according to the text of the bill. Sonnenberg described himself as a hunter and fisherman. "(HB) 1137 has come out of what I deem as the DOW buying more and more land, which has grown immensely over the last several years," said Sonnenberg. "It seems that we are skipping the easement and leases portion and going directly to land acquisitions. Leases and easements are much less expensive to accomplish than fee acquisitions...The DOW has the opportunity to use easements and leases and take twice as much land or more land, protect more habitats than they do now by owning the land," Sonnenberg said. "Leases and easements are less expensive than owning the land." But Curry said many organizations on the Western Slope don't have enough funding to pursue conservation easements on all the property people are selling. "If we didn't have the DOW stepping forward and doing acquisitions, we would see more housing developments," Curry said. "We would see more development on prime agricultural land. I have a lot of support for the DOW's efforts. They have really stepped up and bailed us out when we couldn't (protect lands) locally. That is why I won't be supporting HB 1137."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
5:40:43 AM    



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2008 John Orr.
Last update: 1/31/08; 9:25:32 AM.
January 2008
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    
Dec   Feb