|
|
Sunday, February 10, 2008
|
|
| |
We were able to obtain a copy of the "Healthy Rivers, Healthy Economy" report from Environmental Defense up in Boulder. Contact us at coyotegulch [AT] mac [DOT] com and we'll send you a copy. The report deals with the positive economic impacts that accompany increases in stream flow.
Category: Colorado Water
9:42:51 AM 
|
|
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "Today, we have begun posting the supporting technical documents for our studies under the National Environmental Policy Act for the proposed Southern Delivery System. The reports, studies and other documents are available for your review on our SDS website at www.sdseis.com. We anticipate the Draft Environmental Assessment will be released for public review at the end of February. We are making the technical documents available beginning today to provide those interested additional time for review."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:24:51 AM
|
|
From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):
Reclamation has posted the summary and handouts for the January 17th Aspinall Operations meeting at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/wcao/water/rsvrs/mtgs/amcurrnt.html. The meeting was held in Montrose. Highlights of the operation meeting include:
-January 1 forecast for 2008 spring runoff into Blue Mesa is around 108 percent of average. This forecast is encouraging; however, history has shown that the forecast can change significantly between January and the end of the runoff season because January is still early in the snow accumulation period.
-Based on the January 1 forecast, summer flows downstream from the Gunnison Tunnel should be around 1,100 cfs; a determination of whether water is available for a spring peak will be made on May 1. Blue Mesa is anticipated to fill this year.
-The Colorado Division of Wildlife made an excellent presentation on the Gunnison River trout fishery and the relation of fish populations and river flows. Dan Kowalski, presenter, (970-252-6017) would like to be notified if anyone is going to use portions of this presentation. The presentation can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/wcao/water/rsvrs/mtgs/pdfs/cdow_aspops0108.pdf . There is also a clickable link on Reclamation's website to access the presentation.
-Reclamation is planning an inspection of the Crystal stilling basin in the February-March period. The inspection requires low flow conditions and plans are being made to reduce potential impacts. More information will be provided to interested parties as plans are developed.
Category: Colorado Water
9:20:49 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the effort to streamline state water courts from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A statewide commission looking at possibilities in streamlining water court processes is seeking public input. The commission was formed in December by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mularkey at the suggestion of committees meeting on water difficulties, primarily in the South Platte River Basin. The issue was discussed last summer by the Legislature's interim water committee. "There are a couple of ways to submit comments," said Water Division 2 Engineer Steve Witte. Witte has already met with some water officials, including Division 2 Chief Judge Dennis Maes and Mardell DiDomenico, on the rules, but has asked anyone with concerns in this area to contact him. A public input meeting is scheduled from 3 to 5 p.m. March 10 at the Colorado Judicial Building, 2 E. 14th Ave., fifth floor, Denver. Those wishing a place on the agenda should send a summary of remarks to robert.mccallum@judicial.state.co.us by March 3. Those who wish to make online comments should contact Witte at Steve.Witte@state.co.us .
Category: Colorado Water
8:50:38 AM
|
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the EPA's 2005 "Clean Air Mercury Rule" because it violates the Clean Air Act according to The Environment News Wire. From the article:
Environmental and public health groups as well as 14 states, one city, and native tribes declared victory as a federal appeals court today vacated two rules issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that failed to set strict limits on mercury emissions from power plants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the agency's 2005 "Clean Air Mercury Rule," violates the Clean Air Act by evading mandatory cuts in toxic mercury pollution from power plants that burn coal and oil. The EPA now has two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants. The decision invalidates the EPA's controversial cap-and-trade approach to regulating mercury emissions that would not have taken full effect until well beyond 2020. Cap-and-trade allows power plants to purchase emissions credits from other plants that have cut emissions below targeted levels, rather than installing pollution controls at their own plants. Power plants are sources of mercury, arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, and dioxins. Because these toxic pollutants are all classified as "hazardous," the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to identify their sources and develop the most stringent standards to control emissions from those sources. The court ruled today that the EPA erred when it took power plants off the list of hazardous pollution sources when issuing its Clean Air Mercury Rule. The lawsuit was filed by New Jersey on behalf of the coalition of states.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
8:44:42 AM
|
|
From The Denver Post, "Papers and photos of the late W.D. Farr, a legendary figure in the development of northern Colorado water projects, will be donated to Colorado State University libraries. Farr's documents will join more than 40 other collections in the CSU Water Resources Archive, the university announced Saturday. In the 1930s, Farr worked to promote the Colorado-Big Thompson project, which would bring water from the Colorado River over the Continental Divide to cities and farms in northeastern Colorado. The project, completed in 1947, now brings Colorado River water to 30 Front Range cities and towns and eastern Colorado farms. Farr served for 40 years as a board member of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which oversees the Colorado-Big Thompson system, and the Greeley Water Board. He died in August."
Category: Colorado Water
8:24:12 AM
|
|
Here's an editorial in support of HB 08-1161 and HB 08-1165 from The Greeley Tribune (free registration required). They write:
Time and time again, mining companies have assured their operations would not affect the environment or residents' quality of life. Unfortunately, time and time again, they have failed. Most people probably remember Summitville, the open-pit gold mine in southwestern Colorado. In 1986 the mine opened using cyanide to leach precious metals from ore, pumping the tailings into synthetic-lined leaching ponds that were "guaranteed" not to leak. But almost immediately, a leak was detected. Cyanide and other dangerous trace minerals were released into the Alamosa River system, killing virtually all organisms living in the water. Of course, the mining company abandoned the site, declared bankruptcy and the Environmental Protection Agency was force to take over cleanup under its Superfund program in 1994. The clean up is ongoing and has cost millions. That's why the government must do all it can to protect residents from potentially harmful mining operations. We support two bills currently before the Colorado House that would take a first step toward doing just that.
House Bill 1161 would require that companies such as Powertech clean groundwater to pre-mining quality after it finishes operations. House Bill 1165 would give local governments more control over what sort of mining is allowed in their communities. It is essential that state and local governments have the power to oversee application and operation of mining operations. It must have the power to protect residents. The truth is, we've all paid for bad mining practices in the past through extraordinarily expensive EPA Superfund cleanup efforts, some of which take decades. And their success is still in question. We hope our lawmakers have the foresight to prevent that from happening in Weld County.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:15:30 AM
|
|
Here's a look at uranium mining in Wyoming from The Greeley Tribune (free registration required). From the article:
In Wyoming, there are literally hundreds of abandoned open-pit mines as well as 3,000 open exploratory wells that are 6,800 feet deep, White Face said. Both of these prove a hazard to residents all over eastern Wyoming, she said, where Power Resources Inc. runs the state's only uranium leaching mine. A recent meeting between northern Colorado's Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, who have their own uranium mine worries, and White Face's Defenders of the Black Hills group led to a good dialogue and hopefully a four-state residents' coalition against the mining, White Face said. All the groups are taking a stand against in-situ leaching of uranium, though uranium company officials say it is the most benign way of extracting the uranium ore. Donna Wichers, senior vice president of Uranium One, a company that is applying for permits to run an in-situ uranium mine in northeast Wyoming, said leach mining in Wyoming has been practiced there since the 1970s, and that residents are used to mining's ubiquity in Wyoming since many people rely on the industry for jobs. "People are very familiar with it," Wichers said. "People aren't afraid of it." Moreover, the water that accompanies the uranium deep underground isn't water that people should drink anyway, Wichers said, trying to allay the fears of people who are afraid their wells or groundwater will be polluted by the mining. "The water in the ore body is fairly nasty" to begin with, Wichers said. "So people shouldn't be drinking it anyway." Mark Moxley, with Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality, agreed that the water near the uranium deposits indeed isn't fit for human consumption, but that it doesn't matter anyway since most people don't live near the mines. "In general, most (mines) in Wyoming are not very controversial," Moxley said, adding that in the past six months, Wyoming has gotten three applications for new uranium mining operations. "Most are out in the middle of nowhere."
Here's an in-depth look at nuclear power from The Denver Post. Read the whole thing. Here's an excerpt:
Thirty years since a U.S. nuclear reactor was last ordered and more than a decade since the last plant opened, the controversial energy source is back on the radars of utilities across the country. Federal regulators received four license applications for seven new nuclear power units in 2007 and expect to receive another 15 applications for 22 units this year. Though none of those units is proposed by Xcel Energy or planned for Colorado, the state's largest utility says it will examine the power source in future resource acquisition filings, which detail how the company will meet consumer electric needs years down the road. Xcel announced plans in December to boost generating capacity at its two nuclear plants in Minnesota. "Nuclear power needs to be a part of the nation's portfolio to meet increasing demand for electricity while reducing carbon emissions," Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said. "We have no plans at this time in Colorado to pursue additional nuclear power. But we don't discount its use in the future, and we will at least take a look at it in future resource filings."
Several factors are driving the renewed interest in nuclear energy.
Operations, maintenance and fuel costs for nuclear plants have dropped about 30 percent since 1995, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. At the same time, the cost of operating a coal-fired plant has remained relatively flat, while natural-gas prices have surged. "It's become a matter of economics," said Tom Johnson, an assistant professor in the department of environmental and radiological health sciences at Colorado State University. "Nuclear is starting to become a little bit cheaper than coal." Another factor is the nation's focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, considered the main cause of global warming. Utilities are facing the threat of a tax on carbon emissions. Unlike coal and natural-gas plants, nuclear plants emit little, if any, greenhouse gas. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the federal government offers tax credits and loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear plants. The government also instituted a "Nuclear Power 2010 Program" to streamline the often onerous licensing process and encourage near-term reactor orders. The program also pays for some of the licensing and planning. Still, despite the increase in applications, no new nuclear units have been ordered even as plants have opened around the world at an average rate of four per year since 1996, according to Congressional Research Services, the research arm for Congress.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
8:08:35 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
3/1/08; 10:22:24 AM.
|
|
|
