|
|
Monday, March 10, 2008
|
|
| |
Here's an update on Colorado's race for U.S. Senator Wayne Allard's open seat from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
Nearly half a decade ago, the Western Slope and a majority of Coloradans rejected Referendum A, a $2 billion water-projects ballot initiative. Since then, nearly every major candidate who opposed what was branded in 2003 as a massive "water grab" -- from Congressman John Salazar, D-Colo., in 2004 to Gov. Bill Ritter in 2006 -- has met success on the Western Slope. Now, conservationists and Democrats hope Referendum A's legacy will again work in their favor in the state's contentious U.S. Senate race between Congressman Mark Udall, D-Colo., and former Congressman Bob Schaffer, R-Colo. Tony Massaro, senior vice president of public affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, said he hopes Western Slope voters see Schaffer's support for the ballot measure in 2003 and ask whether he "gets" the region's issues and character. "It's more kind of that indicator of: Is he in touch with us over here?" he said.
Massaro, a Glenwood Springs native and former director of the Colorado League of Conservation Voters, said Referendum A could put Schaffer "on the defensive" even before his campaign revs into high gear. Water attorney and former state Rep. Matt Smith, R-Grand Junction, said the relevance of a candidate's stance on Referendum A probably will fade over time, but it will not go away altogether. Smith, who led efforts to defeat Referendum A, said candidates' positions on the measure will indicate to voters where they stand on protecting Western Slope water. "I've seen some candidates try and describe why they were on the wrong side of that issue," Smith said. "They have not done well. It branded them, I think, badly on the thoughtlessness of the issue. It's going to be very difficult for them to get away from."[...]
John Redifer, a political science professor at Mesa State College, said he expects water to be an important issue but sees Referendum A for Schaffer and Animas-La Plata for Udall as ancient history to the average voter. "I think Referendum A is old news," Redifer said. "How long can you keep bringing up people's positions on Referendum A before people's eyes start glazing over? Same thing with Animas La-Plata." Redifer, a member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, said national issues are more likely to shape the Senate race, even on the Western Slope. "I would say water is more important than it will be viewed in the eyes of voters," Redifer said. "The reality is the focus of our Senate (race) will play on issues that are important nationally."
Category: Denver November 2008 Election
7:31:51 AM 
|
|
Here's an opinion piece about HB 08-1330 from The Rocky Mountain News. From the article:
House Bill 1330 was introduced in the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee by its sponsor, Rep. Paul Weissmann, D-Boulder. It would have brought these water conservancy districts into the 20th century, to say nothing of the 21st century, by extending the franchise to all registered voters. Get ready for another surprise: The bill was roundly defeated 10-3. Clearly, water and farm lobbyists had had their way with most of the committee well before the hearing. To hear the arguments of committee members opposing HB 1330, one could almost imagine that they had never faced a popular election, were opposed to the concept of representative government and thought our revolutionary history and battle cry of "No taxation without representation" quaint, if not wrongheaded."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:23:22 AM
|
|
From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: "[Debeque] has applied for a Colorado Department of Local Affairs grant of $370,000, plus $370,000 in loans to update its existing sewer plant and sewer-line extension, which will 'allow the town to develop the I-70 interchange area (of 45 1/2 and V roads),' according to the grant application. Final determination on the grant could come by April, said Jack Kirtland, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs."
Category: Colorado Water
7:16:52 AM
|
|
Supply infrastructure the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Many systems across the U.S. contain parts more than 100 years old. We face huge expenses in repairs and moderninzing. Here's an update on this winter's efforts to keep water flowing in Colorado Springs, from The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:
Low temperatures have Colorado Springs Utilities crews scurrying to fix leaky water pipes this winter, a problem officials blame partly on the weather and partly on aging iron and steel pipes. Only a third of the city's water pipes are plastic, which is less likely to burst under frigid conditions. The other 1,253 miles are iron and steel, some dating to the 1800s. A five-year history of water-main breaks and leaks shows that the problem fluctuates, depending on winter weather. There were 388 breaks in 2003, after which the number dropped sharply to 201 in 2005. Last year, crews repaired 336 leaks and breaks. With another month of winterlike weather, Utilities is still tallying this year's problems.
"Colorado Springs experiences a rapid freeze-thaw cycle, which can present additional challenges not faced elsewhere," Utilities spokesman Steve Berry said.
Moisture levels are another influence. When ice and snow melt and seep through cracks, it causes soil to shift, affecting pipes. But he noted the cityowned system compares favorably to other cities' "unmetered water loss." Utilities loses an average of 2 percent of its water, below the national average of 16 percent, according to a 1996 study. But some East Coast cities with soft soil and aging systems have water losses up to 30 percent, he said. But because there's no standardization for how utili- ties calculate water loss, comparisons aren't reliable, Berry said. Though the city estimates it loses 2 percent to leaks and line breaks, that increases to 9 percent with the addition of water used in firefighting, hydrant flushing and some city activities, like street sweeping...
Innovations in detection technology have enabled Utilities to better gauge water flow through pipes and judge where leaks might be located. In 2007, the city replaced about 7.6 miles of pipe. This year, $4 million is allocated to replace mains. An additional $1 million is set aside for small projects, such as valve repairs and replacements. Still another $2.5 million will be spent on the water system to improve the water pressure in pipes that deliver water for firefighting. Utilities officials plan to present a water main report to City Council in May outlining plans for 2009 and beyond.
Here's a look at pharmaceuticals in the nation's water supplies from The Denver Post. They write:
A vast array of pharmaceuticals -- including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones -- has been found in the drinking-water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows. To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe. But the presence of so many prescription drugs -- and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen -- in our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.
In a five-month inquiry, AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking-water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas -- from Southern California to northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky. Denver was among them.
Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings unless pressed, AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed.
How do the drugs get into the water? People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers and lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking-water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue. Researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals. But recent studies have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife. "We recognize it is a growing concern, and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...
Some key test results obtained by AP:
- Officials in Philadelphia said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.
- Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.
- A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.
- Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson.
- Antibiotics were found in Denver's water supply.
The situation is likely worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by AP...
AP's investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation's water supply, also are contaminated. Pharmaceuticals were detected in 28 watersheds of 35 surveyed by AP. In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise.
Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no. "Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby -- director of environmental technology for drugmaker Merck & Co. Inc. -- said, "There's no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment, and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."
So how about the Denver's watershed? Here's a look from The Denver Post:
Denver draws its water supply for more than a million people from Rocky Mountain snow melt, so when traces of antibiotics and other "micro-constituents" were discovered, it was unexpected. "We were surprised that we found anything in the first place, knowing the quality of our watershed," said Brian Good, director of operations and maintenance for the Denver Water Board. "Maybe that says something about how common these things are in our environment." Denver Water continues to support research into contaminants, including efforts to better detect them, determine their potential impacts and filter them, he said. "We don't know what treatment processes remove them very well ... or even what the presence of something like that means," Good said. "Even the best scientists in the world don't know what the presence of these substances means to human health."
A 2004 study by Colorado State University researchers found livestock antibiotics in the Cache la Poudre River, which originates near the Continental Divide in Rocky Mountain National Park and flows to Fort Collins.
Category: Colorado Water
7:00:13 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
4/1/08; 8:09:28 AM.
|
|
|
