|
|
Monday, March 3, 2008
|
|
| |
Say hello to Misu Blog: Ripples in the Water. The author, Laura Makar, is a graduate student at the University of Colorado - Boulder. They're pointing to this article Putting a Price on Riparian Corridors as Water Treatment Facilities [pdf]. From Misu Blog:
In the paper, Riley quantifies some of the ecosystem services provided by riparian environments by calculating the costs of building a water treatment plant to provide similar functions. Comparing the annualized cost of a Santa Monica stormwater treatment plant to that of a restoration project on Wildcat Creek in the San Francisco Bay Area over a 20-year period, Riley concludes that the total annual average costs are quite similar. She notes however, that the restoration project will provide benefits on a much greater timescale than the treatment plant (100 years or in perpetuity vs. 20 years).
I recognize the importance of ecosystem services, water quality treatment in this instance, but have always been wary about placing an economic value on the natural functions of such environments. The 1997 Costanza, et. al. paper in Nature estimated the average value of the world's ecosystem services to be around $33 trillion dollars annually (US $). Naturally, there was outcry it had under/overestimated this value. I think there is a real danger in solely assigning monetary values to natural systems. As Riley alludes to in her paper, there are intrinsic values of a natural environment that can not be captured by simply replacing its function with technology.
Thanks to Restoring Rivers for the link.
Category: Colorado Water
6:08:57 PM 
|
|
From Island of Doubt: "An unlikely trio has just made available the results of their quasi-scientific survey of climatologists, who were asked how much they agreed with the latest report from the IPCC. It makes for fascinating reading, even if its response rate of less than 10 % is a bit disappointing. Despite attempts from some quarters at spinning the results to suggest the climate change 'consensus' is weaker than often described, the survey actually finds remarkably strong support for the notion that we are headed for trouble."
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
5:54:52 PM
|
|
Here's a recap of Friday's Colorado Press Association's awards ceremony through the lens of The Denver Post.
Here's the coverage from The Rocky Mountain News along with a list of the editors and reporters results.
Congratulations to all.
6:47:38 AM
|
|
Conservation easements are in the news again, this time because of a loophole in their regulation, according to The Denver Post. From the article:
A loophole in state and county laws could make it tough for Division of Real Estate director Erin Toll to take action against people she has been investigating for alleged abuses to the state's conservation easement program. At issue is the number and size of parcels into which large ranches have been divided. Under the current system, the Division of Real Estate only has jurisdiction over subdivisions that create 20 or more parcels. At the same time, counties have no jurisdiction over parcels that are larger than 35 acres, leaving a segment of properties that fall outside anyone's authority. Toll said she plans to suggest changes to legislation expected to be introduced by state House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, and Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, that will modify subdivision laws to close the loophole as it applies to conservation easements. Gov. Bill Ritter last week said it's possible the attorney general's and district attorney's offices will get involved in the investigation. "We are in discussions with Erin Toll's division and the Department of Revenue for possible referrals," said Nate Strauch, spokesman for the attorney general's office. "We don't have any cases in house yet."[...]
Among the red flags is when land is divided into multiple ownerships before it is put into conservation easements, allowing multiple parties to get the tax benefits. If the land is in fragmented ownership, it won't be managed consistently, said Ariel Steele of Tax Credit Connection Inc., a Longmont firm that advises the buyers and sellers of tax credits. "It's also potential evidence that you weren't planning on making a true donation," Steele said. "If you break it into multiple ownerships, you could be showing the reason that it's done is for tax purposes only."[...]
There are some instances where phasing conservation-easement donations makes sense, experts say. A rancher donating a 1,000-acre easement, for example, may think it's unfair to receive the same tax benefits as one donating a 300-acre easement and may choose to phase it. Toll reported at a conference for the Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts last week that preliminary results from an investigation launched in October show highly suspect transactions. In one instance, a 640-acre ranch was on the market for $1.2 million. Using limited-liability companies, the ranch was transferred and subdivided into 16 40-acre parcels. Multiple owners of one of the limited-liability companies each purchased at least one 40-acre parcel through the company. A conservation easement was then placed on each 40-acre parcel. An appraiser valued each parcel at $650,000, a value that allows for the maximum state tax credit of $375,000. "At the end of the day, property that was on the market for $1.2 million all of a sudden had easements on it valued at $10.4 million for a total property value of around $15.4 million," Toll said. The potential state tax credit is up to $5.2 million for one ranch, she said. "Absent some fact that we missed, such as gold was discovered on the property, I'd say this deal is more than a little bit shady," said Toll, who declined to specify where the ranch in question is located. Overall, the investigation is showing suspect easements valued at $76.5 million, which could lead to illegitimate state tax credits of up to $38.2 million, Toll said. The Division of Real Estate plans to share its findings with the appropriate law enforcement agencies...
Several of the questionable conservation-easement valuations involve subdivision analyses to determine a value. The hitch is that the Division of Real Estate has no jurisdiction to enforce subdivision requirements on property that has been subdivided into fewer than 20 parcels. Counties have no jurisdiction over parcels larger than 35 acres. The investigation has found that conservation easements that used the subdivision analysis divided the property into 35- or 40-acre parcels with fewer than 20 lots.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:40:45 AM
|
|
Here's a look at the General Mining Act of 1872 and the need for its replacement, H.R. 2262 The Hard Rock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, from The Denver Post. They write:
The toxic drainage that threatens Leadville is a story that could easily be repeated in other towns across the West. While Leadville's toxic threat comes from a facility built 60 years ago, the law that governs mining in the West today is more than twice as old. Failure by Congress to change this historic law could lead to environmental problems of historic proportions. The law signed by President Ulysses S. Grant encouraged prospectors to develop the West, offering them the chance to take gold and other precious metals from public lands in unlimited amounts. Mining was done with picks and pans, and towns were few and far between, so mining was given priority on most public lands over almost everything else. But today, a law that gives global companies basically free reign to mine on millions of acres of Western public lands with few restrictions no longer makes sense. Places like Gunnison County, which is more than 80 percent federal land, are particularly vulnerable to the law's effects. Our main source of income, recreational tourism, is dependent upon clean water, clean air and pristine landscapes. Yet we still live with a law that allows hardrock (metal) mining, one of the nation's most toxic industries, to proceed without effective water quality or other conservation safeguards. What's more, local governments and civic-minded groups have little say about the location of mines that could impact their environmental and economic future.
When it comes to protecting our residents from the impacts of mining, the county and town's hands are tied. U.S. Energy and Kobex Resources Ltd., a Canadian company, are now moving forward with a mine less than 3 miles outside of Crested Butte. Unfortunately, a federal court has ruled that under the 1872 law that local communities like ours have no voice in critical decisions about deeding public land over to private mining interests. But help could be on the way. Last fall, the U.S. House passed bipartisan legislation that would allow communities to petition for special lands to be withdrawn from mining and to ensure that mines are well bonded and meet water quality standards. The issue is now under consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where Colorado's Sen. Ken Salazar is expected to play a key role. Time is short. According to a recent analysis of government data by the nonpartisan Environmental Working Group, claims on Colorado federal lands jumped 239 percent from their 2003 levels. Let's learn from Leadville. It's a story we don't want to repeat.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
6:32:56 AM
|
|
Here's a long article about the problems up in Leadville from recently discovered acid mine drainage seeps to the possibility of a blowout of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel, from The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:
Venerable taverns, rickety wooden mine frames and even this mountain town's name serve as a reminder of mining's legacy. Lately, something seeping down from the mountains is reminding people of the ugly side of this legacy. Metal-laden mine water is melting snow and flowing into the Arkansas River, and local officials say it is a warning sign of an underground tunnel blockage and water buildup that threaten catastrophe. In a town that never fully recovered from mining's collapse -- it once had a population of 60,000 and challenged Denver to be Colorado's capital -- some say a Feb. 13 disaster declaration by Lake County commissioners caused hysteria that is damaging tourism, now Leadville's lifeblood. Others say the threat of backed-up water in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel justified the warnings, and it must be fixed to protect life and the Arkansas River, just a few hundred feet from the tunnel's mouth.
All this comes amid optimism about a possible resurgence of mining here. The Climax molybdenum mine -- 13 miles north of town and unconnected to the drainage tunnel -- announced plans in December to resume operations after 25 years. Many here are proud of the town's mining past. The blockage, and the national media attention it caused, has not tempered optimism about Climax reopening. "Once we get the situation taken care of, we get this one part de-watered, maybe another company would start to look at the metals, because two-thirds of the metals are still there," said Brad Littlepage, a former miner and manager of the treatment plant at the tunnel's mouth. Littlepage envisions wellpaying local jobs, so people wouldn't have to commute to the ski resorts of Summit and Eagle counties -- "the slave camps," as he calls them. "We're a bedroom community, and if you think that's any way to make a living, ask some of the people who do it," said Lake County Commissioner Carl Schaefer. "I'd welcome (mining) back."[...]
From 1859 until about 1900, about 550 mines were carved in Lake County, most in a honeycomb network west of Leadville. There was no reclamation, as required with modern mines. They were simply abandoned. The 11,300-foot tunnel was built during World War II to direct water contaminated from mining into the east fork of the Arkansas River, which helped to ensure there was very little life in the upper Arkansas River for decades. The water is heavy with zinc, cadmium and manganese. The tunnel was transferred to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1959, which did little until the treatment plant was built at the tunnel's mouth in 1992. The bureau says its job is to treat the water, not maintain the tunnel. "Nobody has been in the tunnel, really, since 1959," Littlepage said. "There are plenty of engineering reports that said, 'If you don't take care of it, it will fall apart.'" The plant once treated 1,800 gallons a minute, but the flow has been steadily decreasing since 1991. Today, it is 1,000 gallons a minute because of collapses in the tunnel.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:22:53 AM
|
|
Here's an interview with Maude Barlow from AlterNet. Read the whole thing. Here are a couple of excerpts:
PATRICK McCULLY: We're treating the water resources of the planet with contempt, which is just so stupid, because we depend on them. We need water to live. We will only survive for a day or two if we don't have water.
WILLIAM E. MARKS: Scientists, through decades of study and millions and millions of pieces of data, now recognize the fact that we're on the brink of the sixth great mass extinction ever to be experienced on the face of the earth. The fifth mass extinction was the dinosaur age.
MAUDE BARLOW: You know those movies where there's the comet coming at the earth, and all of a sudden the governments of the world say, "Gee, we're not -- our differences aren't so big anymore, because we're about to all die." That's really where we are. There is a comet coming at us. It's called water shortage...
MAUDE BARLOW: There are private corporate interests that have decided that water is going to be put on the open market for sale. It's going to be commodified and treated as any other saleable good...
MAUDE BARLOW: The market is amoral, and it's going to lead you to taking advantage of pollution and scarcity, frankly. It's going to lead you to selling it to those who can buy it but not to those who need it.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
6:05:45 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
4/1/08; 8:06:31 AM.
|
|
|
