Thursday, March 13, 2008

Release from Glen Canyon Dam March 5, 2008 Here's a video report on the big release down the Colorado River at Glen Canyon Dam last week from MSNBC.com. 7:13:13 PM     Aquaculture and agriculture Here'a recap of this week's meeting of the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable from The Valley Courier. From the article: "Traditional agriculture and aquaculture are hand in glove," Trinidad State Junior College Aquaculture Director Ted Smith told members of the Rio Grande Roundtable this week. "The same gallon of water we need for potatoes we could be growing fish in it first," Smith said. Nutrient-rich water from fish farming is recycled onto potato and barley fields in the San Luis Valley. Smith, a fish farmer for 24 years, began the aquaculture program at TSJC about 12 years ago with a geothermal site on Ilene Kerr's property. He described the various methods and types of fish grown in the aquaculture program. The program's "bread and butter" fish is tilapias that are primarily sold to faculty, staff and students with the money going back into the program. Smith said 275 million pounds of tilapia are sold in this country a year with 80-90 percent imported from countries such as China. He added the main market U.S. growers could meet that foreign countries could not was the fresh fish market. Smith said he is acquiring a fish processing grant that would enable the program to market its fish wholesale to area restaurants and incorporate a retail counter for individual customers. In addition to growing food fish such as tilapia the aquaculture program grows bait and ornamental fish and works with agencies such as the Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in recovery efforts for endangered species and species in decline. The program uses both geothermal water and coldwater ponds depending on the type of fish being raised, Smith explained. For example one location using cold water produces 80,000 catchable rainbow trout a year for the Colorado Division of Wildlife to stock into area streams and reservoirs... For more information about the aquaculture program visit the Web site http://valley.trinidadstate.edu/aquaculture/default.html. Thanks to SLV Dweller for the link. Category: Colorado Water 6:36:21 PM     Planning for a 'call' on the Colorado River Here's a look at a possible call on the Colorado River by the lower basin states and how Colorado is planning for the possibility, from The Durango Herald. From the article: Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, wants the state to spend $500,000 to learn about the chance of a "call" on the Colorado River - a demand from downstream states for Colorado to cut back on its water use. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 makes such a call a legal possibility. It would affect all the streams in Western Colorado, including southwestern rivers like the San Juan, Animas and Dolores. A call has never happened in the 85-year history of the compact, and most irrigation districts and city utilities have no plans to deal with a call. "There are a lot of things we don't know, and we've got to start figuring some of that stuff out," Isgar said. Isgar's proposed study would send half a million dollars to the state water engineer to look at which Colorado water users would be cut back to meet a call. The study also seeks ways to avoid a call in the first place. The threat of a call could require some people to cut back on their water use, just as major new water projects are being proposed. For example, a water utility from Northeast Colorado is examining a pipeline from the Yampa River to the Front Range. Isgar's call study signals a major change in the thinking of water experts. "We're kind of approaching a state in our water-supply planning that's unlike anything that's happened in the past," said Doug Kemper, executive director of the Colorado Water Congress, a lobbying group that represents most major water organizations... Isgar's study is part of the annual water-projects bill, a $60 million bill that funds water projects throughout the state. The biggest project this year sends $11 million to the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District to buy land for the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir. Category: Colorado Water 7:25:46 AM     Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel update Here's an update on water quality in lieu of a possible blowout at the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel from The Mountain Mail. They write: Arkansas River users were assured Monday they are safe from a wall of water flooding the Arkansas River resulting from blowout of the blocked Leadville Drainage Tunnel and water quality remains safe. John Engelbrecht, executive director for Heart of the Rockies Chamber of Commerce said, "It's not like the phone lines have lit up, but we have had some calls from people concerned there is contamination in the Arkansas River."[...] Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment communications director Mark Salley suggested people may be comparing the storm surge of Hurricane Katrina taking out dikes in New Orleans with the threat of a drainage tunnel blowout. "Mental pictures of a tunnel blowout aren't what would transpire if there is a surge," Salley said. "Past experience for instance - the Yak Tunnel blowout in 1983. It wasn't as if there was a wall of water. The normal flow increased to only four feet deep," Salley, said. He reassured people the public health department doesn't anticipate river flooding and in the event of a blowout, water would stay within the banks. Steve Gunderson, director of the water quality division of the Colorado Department of Public Health told The Mountain Mail water quality in the river near Leadville meets standards and will continue - as it has since the 1990s - to improve as the Superfund site is cleaned up. Surface water from the ground seeps south of the drainage tunnel indicating water level inside the mountain has risen. "As far as water quality in California Gulch, levels of cadmium and zinc are comparable to what we have had in the past," Gunderson said. He said the chief issue is the possibility of a blowout of the partially blocked Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. "The Arkansas River is meeting (coldwater class I stream) standards. If there were a blowout, that would deteriorate very quickly," he said. "That's why it needs to be fixed." Public health department water quality standards are based upon beneficial use, agricultural, recreational and water supply, for example. Standards for aquatic life such as that in the Arkansas River are usually more stringent. Doug Krieger, Colorado Division of Wildlife senior aquatic biologist, told The Mail, "We have gotten calls from people concerned about the fish," he said. "Obviously it is a concern." Krieger said the division needs to put together several pieces before making any conclusions about health of the aquatic habitat. The division is working closely with the public health department because they take water quality samples and share data... Because of time and money constraints, the division halted annual fish sampling on the Arkansas River a few years ago, Krieger said. Wildlife officials now perform biannual electro-sampling of fish. Sampling continued by outside firms indicates a decrease in numbers of fish just below where California Gulch empties into the river. However, officials said, the numbers may be dropping for any of several reasons. "The fishery data looks a little bit puzzling, but we can't say what it may be," Krieger said. "Part of what we are trying to sort out is natural variation, growth, spawning and other facts. Is this a normal situation or something related to the environment?" Wildlife officials collect fish samples for testing by the health department which checks for mercury and selenium in flesh and muscles of the animals. Mercury is a human health risk. Health department officials normally don't test for other heavy metals such as cadmium and zinc which collect in the liver and kidneys of fish viscera. The health department will continue testing viscera for mercury but will forward the samples to the division lab in Fort Collins where aquatic biologists can determine if they are positive for other heavy metals. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 7:20:02 AM     South Platte Basin Roundtable approves dough for wetlands project From The Greeley Tribune (free registration required): "Initial approval has been given to a project in central Weld County that would provide a new wildlife habitat, provide irrigation water for the Weld Re-1 School District and send water back to the South Platte River. The South Platte Basin Roundtable, meeting in Del Camino Tuesday evening, approved the $42,000 request from Ducks Unlimited from the Water Supply Reserve Account. It now goes to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for final approval, said Harold Evans, a member of the roundtable. The board administers the water reserve account." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 7:12:02 AM     Snowpack news Here's a look at the snowpack from The Craig Daily Press. They write: This December was the wettest in 30 years for the area, bringing more than 33 inches of snowfall, said Graham Roberts, a Trapper Mine environmental health and safety specialist who keeps records of snowfall and precipitation levels at the mine. January and February followed suit, bringing above average snow accumulation, he said. With it, precipitation levels -- or the amount of water produced by the fallen snow -- also increased. Last month brought 1.42 inches of precipitation, Roberts said. The month's 30-year average was 1.16 inches... Across the state, snowpack topped out at 135 percent of average but reached 98 percent of reservoir capacity. At a measuring point near Maybell, the Yampa River currently is holding 111 percent of its average flow, said Mike Gillespie, Conservation Service snow survey supervisor. Category: Colorado Water 7:05:25 AM     Southern Delivery System update Here's an update on Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System as presented at this week's meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: People downstream of Fountain Creek are having a difficult time trying to figure out how the Southern Delivery System will impact them. Even some upstream are struggling with some of the concepts that underpin a Bureau of Reclamation draft environmental statement - details that are discussed over 3,000 pages in the document and supporting technical material. "Our future depends on it," SDS Project Director John Fredell told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable on Wednesday. Colorado Springs, which will pay for and receive 95 percent of the benefit of the project, will seek contracts to store, exchange and move water at Lake Pueblo for the SDS project, requiring federal scrutiny. The bureau has looked at seven alternatives, and rejected many other possibilities. On Feb. 29, the bureau backed Colorado Springs' proposed action, building a 43-mile, 66-inch diameter pipeline from Pueblo Dam, as its choice. By the end of this year, a final EIS is expected, and a record of decision by 2009, Fredell said. If those deadlines are met, the $1.1 billion project could be on line by 2012. The project also includes new reservoirs east of Colorado Springs to store water for use in the water system and hold return flows for exchange on Fountain Creek. Those would be built later in the project. Fredell said Colorado Springs, along with its partners Security, Fountain and Pueblo West, would like to come from the dam because of Lake Pueblo's capacity to store water in the future... "How does this great benefit to Colorado Springs help us downstream?" asked Jane Rawlings, assistant publisher of The Pueblo Chieftain. The bureau has determined there are not "significant impacts" from any of the alternatives, and that any potential impacts must be mitigated, Fredell answered. Actually, the draft EIS states that all alternatives "would have adverse environmental effects," but that the preferred alternative uses the least energy and costs less than the others... "Where's the water coming from?" John Schweizer, an Otero County irrigator, asked. Fredell and Gary Bostrom, Colorado Springs Utilities water supply manager, explained the complicated system of exchanges used to trade flows down Fountain Creek for water diverted upstream. Colorado Springs can exchange against its return flows from transmountain water, Denver Basin aquifers and fully consumable native rights, like those it purchased in Crowley County in the 1980s... "So you don't use all the water? Will there be more water in Fountain Creek?" asked Tom Brubaker, an Otero County sand-and-gravel operation owner. Bostrom said there would be adequate flows to meet minimum river flows in Fremont County, and similar amounts of water at the Avondale gauge east of Pueblo, a point on the Arkansas River after the Fountain Creek confluence. Flows through Pueblo would drop, with a noticeable difference over the next 20 years, Bostrom said. He said the 2004 intergovernmental agreement with Pueblo would protect certain flows through that reach. "We have to keep the river whole," Bostrom said. "We can't damage the river and water rights." Colorado Springs officials also briefed the Pueblo West Metropolitan District Board of Directors this week, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: A Colorado Springs Utilities official spent an hour Tuesday night telling the Pueblo West Metropolitan District Board of Directors how wonderful the Southern Delivery System would be for the community. Others may disagree... The Pueblo West Metro Board already has agreed to be a partner with the utility on the project, in exchange for the opportunity to tap into the pipeline and deliver water to its own growing community... But at least two members of the audience Tuesday reacted to the presentation with skepticism and there was muttering from others who chose not to speak. "I think it would be more appropriate to take from the dirty water you're sending down the river," said Pueblo West resident Alfonso Garcia. "I'm disappointed in the metro board that you're looking at this as an alternative." Another resident, Bill Vickers, asked what route the pipeline would take through the community and both members of the public wondered where the Pueblo County Board of Commissioners stood in relation to land-use permits under 1974 HB1041 for the project. Garcia's comment led to a brief discussion about the utility's attempt to control stormwater runoff from Colorado Springs and fix problems that have led to a number of raw sewage spills into the Fountain... From Pueblo West's perspective, hooking into a pipeline that's running through the community would allow the metro district to save money, which otherwise would be spent building its own connection to Lake Pueblo. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 6:57:56 AM     SB 08-190, Pharmacist Redispense Unused Medications From The Denver Post: "Pharmacies would have to take back hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of unused prescription drugs each year -- saving the medication from the public water cycle -- under a bill that cleared its first legislative hurdle Wednesday. Nursing homes could return unopened pills, lotions and liquids bought by the state with Medicaid dollars, and the pharmacies would have to refund the state's money. Right now, the cash and the unused medicines are flushed down the drain, contributing to a growing water contamination problem caused by medical and household products, said Sen. Lois Tochtrop, sponsor of Senate Bill 190, [Concerning the Requirement that Pharmacists Redispense Certain Unused Medications (pdf)]." Category: Colorado Water 6:47:14 AM     UGRWCD 'abandons' 13 water projects and water rights The Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy has abandoned 13 proposed water projects and is holding out to develop a single project according to The Gunnison Country Times. From the article: A half-century old dream that cost millions of dollars and led to the creation of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (UGRWCD) has come to an end. "Unfortunately, we spent all this money, probably several million dollars trying to find feasible projects and we couldn't find a feasible project," said Dick Bratton, the water district's attorney for the first 40 years of its existence. "It wasn't that the board didn't try. ... We about stood on our head to try to find ways to make it work, we just couldn't find ways." As part of the historic federal push to convert the arid West into verdant green pastures for agriculture, water officials have struggled vigorously since the 1940s to create an array of water storage projects and canals so that agriculture could thrive in the Upper Gunnison Basin. In 1962 the Colorado River Water Conservation District handed 14 conditional water rights to the UGRWCD to develop and manage. As a group, the water rights were dubbed the Upper Gunnison Project (UGP). The local water district worked tirelessly over the years to put those rights to use -or "perfecting" them in legal parlance, and turning the conditional rights to absolute ones. The vision was an assortment of canals and reservoirs along Cochetopa Creek, East River, Ohio Creek and Tomichi Creek. Originally, the reservoirs and canals were meant to keep agricultural land in the Upper Gunnison Basin sufficiently wet in dry years -and to even expand the acreage of irrigated pastures. That goal broadened over the years to include water storage for other uses such as recreation and healthy fish populations -in the event that drought years left creeks dry. At the closing of last year, however, the UGRWCD determined the effort futile. It had tried every avenue it could conjure up and decided to surrender the rights, which totaled approximately 88,000 acre feet of storage rights and 1,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) of direct flow rights. The district will keep the flame lit, however, for one of the proposals. That is for a 302 cfs conditional right near Almont for the Taylor River Canal, meant to divert water from the Gunnison River to Ohio Creek to supplement agriculture and, possibly, domestic use there... The dream for the array of water projects was planted back in the 1940s and '50s by the federal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), which was on a mission to water the parched West. The Colorado River Water Storage Project Act of 1956 authorized four major water storage projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin, including the Aspinall Unit (Blue Mesa, Marrow Point and Crystal Reservoirs). Part of the revenue from these big reservoirs was meant to subsidize a number of smaller "participating projects," including the UGP. At the time, the BOR carried out "reconnaissance level" investigations for the Aspinall Unit and talked with Upper Basin communities. According to the local water district's current attorney, John McClow, some local folks responded with requests for additional smaller projects if the BOR was to build Blue Mesa. In response to those urgings, some political pressure and the BOR's general mission to green the West, the BOR identified the 14 potential projects of the UGP, McClow said. The Colorado River Water Conservation District obtained conditional water rights for the projects and then handed the rights over to the UGRWCD, which was created specifically to bring the projects to fruition. From there, a long effort ignited, and the struggle became even more arduous when the federal government shifted its priorities and funding away from the projects... Proving the feasibility of the projects turned out to be no small task for the district. When the BOR identified the projects, it never studied their feasibility. It simply looked for sites that seemed like good reservoir locations, McClow said. Once the local water district started its studies, it became apparent that many of the sites were geologically unsuitable, too expensive, had low water availability or had land ownership conflicts that made it difficult to bring the projects to reality. The UGRWCD tried various tactics to make the projects work, including trying to change the location of some of the rights. "We wanted to keep them alive as long as we could," Bratton remarked. In 1999, the UGRWCD's window of opportunity for constructing the projects began to close. When it filed a due diligence application, several parties opposed. In response, the water court directed the district in 2001 to "significantly narrow the scope of its project" to the features most feasible for construction. "(The judge) wanted to see us move dirt -or he wasn't going to be interested in extending those rights at the end of the diligence period," McClow explained. The district had until December 2007 to come up with a workable plan. Between 2000 and 2007, the UGRWCD spent $291,000 on 23 new studies, McClow said. The district tried to change locations and uses to make the water rights a better fit, but to no avail. Bratton estimated that the sum totaled a few million dollars from when the UGP first took shape, including money the BOR spent on the project. On Dec. 31, the district filed an application to continue pursuing only one of the water rights, the Taylor River Canal. Shortly thereafter, the water court declared the other rights abandoned. UGRWCD board members emphasized the project did not simply slip through the cracks. "These decisions weren't taken lightly," Redden said. Bratton has no regrets on the money and time spent on the effort. "Would I do it over again? Absolutely," he said. "We firmly believed we could figure out a way to make a project work."[...] The conditional water rights had initially been considered very valuable, since they had the same 1957 priority date as the Aspinall Unit. In Colorado, water users with earlier water rights are considered to have "senior" water rights and receive priority during water shortages. However, the Aspinall Subordination Agreement of 2000, made an exception to that. The locally applauded agreement protects Upper Gunnison Basin water users with rights junior to 1957 from being superseded by Aspinall Unit demands. The agreement makes new water rights in the basin -up to a point -virtually as valuable as the historic conditional rights. Another shift in the Upper Gunnison Basin has also made these historic conditional water rights less useful. "The water user base has changed dramatically since 1960," McClow said. The rights were decreed to focus on agricultural needs when ranching was healthier in the area. Today it is virtually impossible for ranchers to pay for water storage projects. Without the federal subsidy originally planned, the projects are financially unfeasible, according to area ranchers and their advocates. "The economics of ranching and dam construction are such that it's not possible for agriculture to pay for new construction of new storage in 2007," McClow said. This hard reality was highlighted in 2005, when the UGRWCD had a preliminary plan for a reservoir on Long Branch Creek, a tributary of Tomichi Creek near Sargents. The project would have cost $18 million. An acre foot of water from the reservoir would have cost $10,000... The decision to surrender the rights won't mean a huge pool of water is suddenly available, they said. Anyone wishing to pursue a new water right would need to start from scratch, which includes proving the water is available. "If someone comes in now they've got a junior water right," Bratton said. "They start at the bottom of the list in terms of priority. "Once (the conditional water rights) are gone, they're gone." Category: Colorado Water 6:41:22 AM     World Water Week: UNICEF Tap Project Next week is World Water Week. Don't forget to sign up for an event. Denver and other Colorado cities are participating in UNICEF's Tap Project, taking place on World Water Day, March 22nd. Thanks to The Denver Post for the link. Category: 2008 Presidential Election 6:18:46 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 4/1/08; 8:11:27 AM.