|
|
Sunday, March 23, 2008
|
|
| |
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "It's that time of year again. In anticipation of the coming run off, we're moving some water out of Green Mountain Reservoir so we can fill it up when the snow melts. Over the last few days, we've been increasing releases from Green Mountain Dam to the Lower Blue. By afternoon today, Friday March 21, we should have a release of about 490 cfs in the Lower Blue. It's possible there could be another 30 cfs increase over the weekend, so keep an eye on the gage if you plan to head up there."
From The Summit Daily News (free registration required): "Based on snowpack thus far this winter, paddlers and rafters may be able to anticipate a good rafting season, Denver Water engineer Bob Steger said, looking ahead at planned reservoir operations for the next few months. It's still too early to say exactly how and when Denver Water will release stored water from Dillon Reservoir, but Steger said the utility is already running computer models to determine likely scenarios. Those models are based on the current snowpack, plus an estimate of how much more snow may fall based on past weather patterns from March 18 onward. 'We get a bunch of plausible inflow scenarios from the U.S. Geological Survey,' Steger said. That data is combined with weather forecasts for the next several weeks. In a wet spring scenario, Denver Water might have to make larger and earlier releases from the reservoir to make room for snowmelt."
Category: Colorado Water
8:52:10 AM 
|
|
From The Boulder Daily Camera: "Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, will meet at 7 p.m. at the Front Range Meeting Room at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, 1900 Ken Pratt Blvd. The discussion will include the potential hazards of in-situ leach uranium mining, a form of mining that involved pumping solutions into the ground to dissolve and extract metals."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
8:48:55 AM
|
|
Here's Part I of The Pueblo Chieftain's series on Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System. Read the whole thing, there is a lot of detail in there. Here are a few excerpts:
A proposed project called Southern Delivery System has been the center of attention in the Arkansas River valley for the past five years. It has led to court cases, intergovernmental agreements and a level of controversy, and scrutiny, unprecedented in past Arkansas Valley water deals. The main proponent of SDS, Colorado Springs, is asking the Bureau of Reclamation for federal permits to store, convey and exchange water through a 66-inch pipeline which would run 43 miles north from Pueblo Dam, pumping up to 78 million gallons of water per day. The pipeline would not operate at full capacity all of the time, but would, by 2046, reroute about 48,000 acre-feet of water - or 42.8 million gallons per day - through Colorado Springs. In the process, some of the needs of Fountain and Security would be met, and Pueblo West would be able to boost its capacity with a tap that could move up to 18 million gallons per day. Their combined yield from the project is expected to be about 5,100 acre-feet per year. Colorado Springs also would build a 30,000 acre-foot reservoir on Jimmy Camp Creek to store water and a 28,000 acre-foot reservoir on Williams Creek to regulate exchanged flows on Fountain Creek.
Because Colorado Springs is asking to use federal facilities in the project, it requires an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Protection Act. On Feb. 29, Reclamation issued the draft EIS, which tentatively chose the route of the pipeline preferred by the project's participants. The federal agency determined all seven alternatives it identified in the project are "reasonable," even though "all alternatives would have adverse environmental impacts." Reclamation could pick another alternative, or combination of alternatives, if new information is discovered during the public comment period which ends April 29.
That has been questioned by some, like Ross Vincent, senior consultant for the Sierra Club, who said a pipeline route downstream of the Fountain Creek confluence could yield more water for less money per acre-foot in terms of firm yield. "I have a question about to what extent the cost to the proposer is a legitimate issue in an EIS," Vincent said. Colorado Springs, however, argues that the downstream alternative would cost $700 million more and does not fit the needs of the project...
The cost of the project was an issue in narrowing the list of components for the project. Reclamation used a threshold of $25,000 per acre-foot of firm yield, the top cost ratepayers seemed willing to pay for water development in 2005, to screen out other options, including building a pipeline from the east, where Colorado Springs owns water in Crowley County, and to reuse its return flows, rather than exchange them, for drinking water. If alternatives passed that threshold, they were included in the draft EIS, with the exception of the options that diverted water downstream of the Fountain Creek confluence and a route up Highway 115 in Fremont County, which were called too expensive, but included because of public interest. In the draft EIS, the preferred alternative from the dam actually costs a little more than $25,000 per acre-foot to build, while the downstream option costs $18,600 per acre-foot; Highway 115 costs nearly $32,000 per acre-foot. Six alternatives for reuse were considered in December, but rejected because they cost twice as much as other alternatives. Despite applying that criteria, Reclamation looked beyond it in analyzing the seven alternatives. "Once the alternatives screened in, they were fully analyzed under the 10 scoping issues and more," said Kara Lamb, Reclamation spokeswoman. "So, to narrow the focus just to 'firm yield' or 'total cost' skews the analysis and only gives a partial picture."[...]
It does not add new water rights for any of the participants, but will allow them to use water they do not now use. Most of that is the return flows from transmountain water or fully consumable native water. The effects of that vary. Flows on Fountain Creek would certainly increase, while flows on various reaches of the Arkansas River could be greater or less at different times of year. One problem with the EIS, noted by Drew Peternell, director of Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project, is that it measures all of the alternatives against a no-action alternative, which Colorado Springs revised in 2007. The term no-action means no contracts with Reclamation, but does contain an action. Colorado Springs would build a pipeline from Fremont County, instead of from Pueblo Dam. Peternell, at a meeting in Pueblo earlier this month, said the impacts of any of the alternatives should measure how they would change current river conditions...
The draft EIS also mentions Colorado Springs' participation in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which built Pueblo Dam, and said the city and other participants have paid about 73 percent of the project tax revenues. SDS would not be a part of the Fry-Ark Project, and storage of its water would be subject to spill if project water filled Lake Pueblo. The 73 percent figure, often cited by Colorado Springs officials in presentations on SDS, is the percent of ad valorem taxes used to repay the federal debt from building the Fry-Ark Project. While the project cost $585 million to build, the repayment by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is $134 million, or 23 percent of the total project costs. Using those figures, Colorado Springs and its partners have paid about 17 percent of the total project costs.
The Chieftain is also running descriptions of each alternative along with graphics showing the routes and facilities. Hopefully they'll keep this link alive.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:40:47 AM
|
|
Alamosa will start cleaning their water system on Tuesday, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The flush intended to clear the city's coliform-tainted water system will begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday and continue for a minimum of two weeks, officials announced late Friday. Once the flush starts, city officials urge residents, businesses and health-care providers not to drink or wash dishes with water from the tap, regardless of whether it has been boiled. Nor should the tap water be used for food preparation. During the flush the city warns that young children could experience skin, eye or other irritation from the chlorine. Parents are urged to limit their children's exposure to the city water during this period. Health officials say residents will be able to bathe and shower, although they warn not to ingest the water while doing so. County Public Information Officer Connie Ricci said children still could bathe during the flush, although parents should limit the length of bathing. Hand-washing also is allowed with tap water during the flush as long as its accompanied by the use of soap or a sanitizer. Officials say the guidelines above also should be followed for pets.
City Public Works Manager Don Koskelin said Friday the city would inject 25 milligrams per liter of chlorine into the system during the flush. The normal level of chlorine used to treat drinking water is between 0.7 milligrams per liter and 1 milligram per liter...Residents with questions about the flush are urged to call Alamosa County at 719-589-6639 or the state health department at 1-877-462-2911.
Here's the latest from SLV Dweller.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:30:07 AM
|
|
Colorado Springs is looking to find $65 million for rehabilitation of their supply infrastructure from the mountains, according to The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:
Colorado Springs' raw water system - the reservoirs, pipes and pumps that deliver water from the mountains - needs $65 million in upgrades in the next decade. That was one finding in the first comprehensive assessment of cityowned Colorado Springs Utilities' water system. Fixing some of the 50 intakes, 27 reservoirs, 200 miles of tunnels and pipes, 200 vaults and valves and four major pump stations is necessary because of age, water operations manager Scott Campbell told the Utilities Board last week. He said half the intakes are up to 50 years old and nearly 40 percent of the reservoirs are 100 years old. Roughly 60 percent of pipes date to the Eisenhower era, as does 45 percent of other structures. Minor maintenance is needed on 60 percent to 70 percent of the system, while up to 38 percent needs significant maintenance.
Projects range from local systems, such as the Northfield and North Slope watersheds where reservoirs need repair, to the Blue River watershed, where dams need to be fixed. He said taking components out of service for repairs while supplying water is tricky. "We're looking forward to when Southern Delivery is in service so we have redundancy on line," Campbell said...
Campbell said repairs, some scheduled for this year, also will be a challenge as Utilities manages a heavy snowmelt stemming from large snowfall in the mountains. "How do we manage all the water that's coming at us and still manage the work?" he said. The comprehensive assessment also looked at other areas: water treatment plants and distribution storage tanks and the water distribution system. Reports on those aspects will be presented in April and May, respectively.
Category: Colorado Water
8:22:26 AM
|
|
Here's a background piece and update on the proposed Glade Reservoir. from The Denver Post. From the article:
... a massive $431 million dam and reservoir project would take 70 percent of what's left of the Poudre at peak flows. One of the biggest engineering proposals in the dry West and the largest on the Front Range since 1975, the project would fill a valley with a new pool bigger than popular Horsetooth Reservoir, move 7 miles of federal highway and add another major reservoir and pipeline system northeast of Greeley. Builders call it the best way to fill the taps of 40,000 new Front Range homeowners.
"This project covers only half of the projected growth demand," said Carl Brouwer, project manager for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which delivers water to cities serving 770,000 people. "Highways get busy and people notice. Well, we have water traffic jams on the horizon." Opponents add in decades of interest payments and call it a "billion-dollar drain pipe" that would ruin the best feature of a perennial "livable city" pick. They've labeled it an environmental and financial disaster that would force cities to chase development to pay off bonds at a time when the mortgage crisis has frozen the economy. Worst of all, they claim, the project is old-school dam-and-divert, in an era when the new West sought water through conservation instead of construction. Though the Poudre is tame in Fort Collins, its bolder upper reaches make it the only Colorado entry on the federal register of Wild and Scenic Rivers. "We think this project will destroy the Poudre," said Wockner, part of a coalition against the project that includes Save the Poudre, the Sierra Club and the Colorado Environmental Coalition. "It's the biggest environmental disaster facing Fort Collins in its history."
The builders -- the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and 15 cities that have bought shares in the new water -- dismiss the apocalyptic rhetoric. The new reservoir north of Horsetooth could actually put more water in the Poudre during dry months through carefully timed releases. It would create a new recreation lake for boaters who overrun Horsetooth. And this plan -- the Northern Integrated Supply Project -- is the least-damaging way to find new water. They say opponents would rather "buy and dry" farmland and wipe out a way of life on the Eastern Plains. "There is a no-growth contingent that believes water causes growth and all dams are bad," Brouwer said. "To that group, there's not much we can say. We place a high value on irrigated agriculture, and we don't shy away from that."[...]
Objections to the reservoirs focus on three arguments:
* The Poudre is too valuable a resource -- ecologically, aesthetically and financially -- to strangle with a major diversion. High spring and summer flows bring water to cottonwoods, scour silt and algae from pools, and protect the few remaining fish. Fort Collins and support groups have spent millions creating parks and paths along the river, so why dry up the city's prime amenity?
* Northern Colorado lags far behind Denver and other cities in finding new water through conservation efforts, so choking off the Poudre is unnecessary. Moreover, 85 percent to 95 percent of water supplies are spread onto arid farmland; if cities need more water, they should buy up more of that farm water than they have already, or create cooperative exchange agreements with farmers for wet and dry years.
* Going into debt to build a reservoir means chasing new homes that can pay the bill. Local homeowners will pay the massive price tag, in tap fees on new buildings or water rate hikes for all customers. Water planners say they are building reservoirs for only half the 80,000 new residents projected in northern Colorado over the next 40 years. But if the economy stays slow, will cities beg for growth to pay debts?
Opponents point out that Berthoud and other towns have already found the price tag too high, withdrawing from the project before planning fees escalated into design and construction charges. Berthoud spent about $130,000 on the project over the past five years and recently sold its shares to Frederick for $30,000, said Town Manager Jim White. Berthoud's cost share would have ramped up to $800,000 in two or three years, and $8 million by 2011...
Some towns, though, already have the cash on hand and say they need the water.
Lafayette was "the poster child" for parched cities during the 2002-03 drought, said public works manager Doug Short. Lawns scorched under once-a-week watering rules. Since then, the city has shrunk its development footprint; the population will grow from 25,000 to 35,000 at buildout, and only 200 new homes plus 50 affordable homes can start each year. "We actually have the cash in our fund balance right now to pay for this," Short said. "We're in Boulder County -- people want to limit growth; we just want to make sure we have water during a drought."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:03:33 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
4/1/08; 8:16:00 AM.
|
|
|
