|
|
Thursday, January 31, 2008
|
|
| |
Here's an update on E.coli in Fountain Creek from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A study trying to identify sources of E. coli on Upper Fountain Creek has already isolated and fixed one problem, but it is still more than a year from completion. "The question is: When we find human E. coli at Security, is it coming from Colorado Springs or Green Mountain Falls?" said Don Stoeckel, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist who is coordinating a three-year study of Upper Fountain Creek. The study is co-sponsored by Colorado Springs Utilities, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments. Preliminary results were shared at a meeting in Colorado Springs last week.
Last summer, field workers found a leak at Manitou Springs, west of Colorado Springs. Manitou officials were not aware of the problem, and have corrected it. In addition, Manitou has stepped up efforts to inspect sewage pipelines. While no new leaks were found during winter measurements - a time of year when E. coli levels are generally lower - the USGS will be able to test progress on cleaning up the site next summer. "The proof will be next June, when we find out what concentrations we see," Stoeckel said...
The USGS is sampling at 15 sites along Upper Fountain Creek ranging from Green Mountain Falls to the confluence of Monument Creek. As other sampling up and down the creek has shown, the levels of E. coli - a marker for other potentially harmful bacteria that may be found in the water - increase during wetter, warmer conditions. Part of the problem is caused by animal excrement washing into the creek, but faulty sewer lines and septic systems could also be contributors, Stoeckel said. The study at least supports the state listing of the Upper Fountain as impaired for E. coli, and in the case of Manitou Springs actually was able to identify a source, Stoeckel said.
...more rainfall data will be incorporated to determine when storm events are inflating the E. coli counts. The second is understanding that transients camp along Fountain Creek, and contribute human excrement that create certain "bumps in the data." The USGS is looking for long-term trends and to identify persistent sources, Stoeckel said. Data will be collected until October, with final results published in June 2009.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:31:50 PM 
|
|
Here's a look at La Junta's use of water from the Holbrook canal for augmentation from The La Junta Tribune Democrat. From the article:
In December of 2007, La Junta City Manager Rick Klein signed a contract that entitled the city of La Junta to Holbrook Water rights. According to Joe Kelley, director of Water and Wastewater Management, this purchase will supply the city with enough water to meet its needs, help it meet future economic opportunities and reduce the impact of severe drought. Kelley said that the city was not actively seeking to purchase water at the time that the sellers approached him. The sellers, Jim Foxhoven, Gary Wallace, Elmer Stjernholm, Colman Proctor, Vernon Eckhart and Donna Couch, each owned farms on the Holbrook and asked Kelley about purchasing their water. They negotiated a deal that would allow the city to use the water, providing that payments were made during the time that it took to make the deal. The payments would go toward the final purchase price. The deal took three years to finalize...
When the process to purchase Holbrook water began the city of La Junta needed 1,200 to 1,400 acre feet of water to function, but with the loss of the pickle plant and about 400 in population, the city now needs less. Kelley estimated that with Frying Pan Project water (if the City receives what it is entitled to. In 2002 the city only got 300 acre feet out of the 1,000 to 1,100 acre feet that they are supposed to receive) and Holbrook water, the city will get 2,000 acre feet a year. With more than the minimum, the extra water will help La Junta plan for its future. "You don't want a business to come to you saying that they have 200 jobs and then tell them that you don't have enough water," Kelley said. "Our Frying Pan water plus three years of the Holbrook water over a ten year period should be more than enough to supply our needs. In an emergency we will have the right to take back the water that the farmers are using, but we would have to negotiate."
The Holbrook water purchase will help reduce the impact of severe drought to La Junta. "With potential climate changes there is no guarantee that we won't have to do restrictions, but this gives us a lot better chance to not have to restrict water use. We still encourage wise use of water. We're not going to buy a bunch of water for people to run water anywhere and anytime; we're buying it to make sure there is enough to keep our community from dying out. We still need water for parks and ballfields. When we were on restrictions City Park, the ballfields and the cemetery we're really stressed. It's hard on trees and roots get into the sewer lines. A lot of things can happen," Kelley stated. The city has paid $1.8 million and has the potential of paying another $300,000. This figure does not count ditch assessments.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:20:50 PM
|
|
Fremont County has a lot of interest in Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System. Here's an update from The Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:
The road to the Southern Delivery System runs through Fremont County in four of seven proposed alternatives, and the Fremont County Commissioners ultimately will have a say in the final project if one of those four options is selected. However, District 1 Commissioner Mike Stiehl cautioned Monday afternoon that although the project would be subjected to the county's permitting process, the board may not wield much power. "These are water rights," Stiehl said. "They have a right to develop those." About 30 people attended Monday's meeting to hear the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation explain changes in the Southern Delivery System alternatives. Those modifications now mean four of the seven original alternatives would affect Fremont County, instead of the three options originally under consideration.
Originally, the Colo. 115 alternative was the only option that would have diverted water from the Arkansas River near the Colo. 115 bridge just east of Florence. Now, the "No Action" alternative -- which would leave project participants to independently develop their own water supplies in the absence of a coordinated plan -- also would divert water there. The City of Colorado Springs proposed the changes in the alternatives. "Colorado Springs does not have water rights to Arkansas Water specifically," said Bill Van Derveer, consultant with MWH. He explained if either of those two options were selected, a water exchange would be necessary. Both alternatives that would draw water from the river near Florence would require improvements to Colorado Springs' existing untreated water intake near Buena Vista. Water would be drawn from Turquoise Lake and Twin Lakes and released into the Arkansas River there, and then an equal volume would be diverted near Florence, leaving water flow approximately equal. Two other defined alternatives, the Wetland and the Arkansas River, would divert water from near Pueblo and carry return flows back to the river at the Colo. 115 location. Any one of the four options that involve Fremont County would necessitate the construction of a water pipeline from the river north, approximating the Colo. 115 corridor. None of the alternatives would affect Brush Hollow Reservoir near Penrose.
Will Colon, owner of Raft Masters and proponent of a new whitewater recreation park on the Arkansas River near Cañon City, tried to pin down how the project could affect water flows through Fremont County. However, Jaci Gould of the Bureau of Reclamation said the technical points of all seven SDS proposals were online and not available Monday.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:11:47 PM
|
|
It looks like all our troubles are due to Comcast losing our configuration information during last night's power problems in Denver. It's only cost us 4-5 hours, a new router and getting behind on our posting.
For those of you that are trying to get to Coyote Gulch via coyotegulch.net, please be advised that you can't hit the server because Comcast has goofed up our static IPs.
The Comcast agent at Business Services tonight does not have a clue -- so far. Had to hang up on the dude. We don't think that it's possible that Comcast can't look up the static IPs, etc. that they've assigned to a business account. Terrible service.
We're on hold for the next available agent...hoping to get someone with a clue.
Now we're waiting on hold to talk to the senior technician...
Well now we're totally flabbergasted. The tech told me that the static IP numbers we have are not really static numbers at all but DHCP assigned numbers. Well they've worked for 4 years and we know it's just not possible that the DHCP lease could have lasted that long. we've even changed routers in that time so there would have been a new Mac address..
We started with AT&T because Qwest couldn't keep our DSL up back in the last century. Things changed when Comcast bought 'em out. Our recommendation, if you're looking for service, is to avoid Comcast at all costs. An account that we've had for years now isn't what we thought it was and it's going to cost us more each month now to fix a problem we didn't cause.
Comcast service sucks. A four year DHCP lease. Sheesh.
8:39:04 PM
|
|
Lots of connectivity troubles this morning. A power outage during the night may have taken out our router. If you're reading this things are clearing up.
8:47:44 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
6/22/08; 10:04:17 AM.
|
|
|
