|
|
Sunday, April 6, 2008
|
|
| |
Here's an update on the "Healthy Rivers Campaign" from The Pagosa Daily Post. They write:
Colorado legislators passed House Bill 1280 out of the Senate. The measure, sponsored by Senator Gail Schwartz (D-Snowmass) and Representative Randy Fischer (D-Ft. Collins), aims to protect water right holders when they chose to loan or lease water to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for instream flow purposes.
"Our healthy rivers and streams are among our most important natural resources. If we can protect those resources while also protecting water rights, we have truly found a win-win solution," said Jennifer Gimbel, Director of the CWCB...
This legislative session, representatives from a broad coalition, including state leaders, conservation groups, sportsmen, agricultural producers, water right holders, water districts, cities and counties, have all expressed support for the legislation. The group also touted the benefits of instream flows which extend beyond the river banks. "The communities of Grand County, including Granby, depend on healthy streams for our economy and for our drinking water. Protecting water resources is critical for everyone, residents and visitors alike," said Ted Wang, Granby Mayor.
House Bill 1280 is one of four bills designed to reenergize the Colorado's 35 year old instream flow program. In addition to HB 1280, the legislature is considering HB 1346, the CWCB's annual projects bill, which would appropriate $1 million in funding for the Instream flow program; SB 168 [Species Conservation Trust Fund (pdf)], which would provide $500,000 in funding for instream flows via the Species Conservation Trust Fund to help acquire water to prevent further endangered species listings; and, HB 1369 [Incentives For Donation Of Water Rights (pdf)], which would create a tax incentive for instream flow donations to the CWCB.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
9:57:57 AM 
|
|
Here's an update on the Windy Gap Firming Project from The Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:
The draft environmental impact statement for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Windy Gap Firming Project is set to be released in May, when the public will have the chance to weigh in on the district's water plans. The district proposes to "firm up" its water rights and transfer more water than it has been from just below the confluence of the Fraser and Colorado rivers at Windy Gap by creating a place to store the water on the East Slope.
Although Windy Gap is not a main player of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT), Windy Gap water travels through the project to reach municipalities and other water users and providers that service a growing population on Colorado's eastern plain. As many as 14 entities, including 10 cities, the Platt River Power Authority and rural water districts are participating in the firming project. Northern Water has identified its preferred location for storing the water it is entitled to through water rights established in 1967. By building the storage reservoir, this district would be firming those rights. Chimney Hollow Reservoir would store 90,000 acre feet of water, or the maximum amount Windy Gap is permitted to divert in one year. It would be located just west of Carter Lake near Loveland. In comparison, the C-BT's Carter Lake stores 112,000 acre feet. At present, Windy Gap supplies an average of 30,000 acre feet of water annually, according to Jill Boyd, communication specialist for Northern Water. The purpose of the project is to "make Windy Gap's supply more reliable," Boyd said. The storage component of the Windy Gap project was included in plans and agreements prior to when the project was built in 1985, according to Northern Water's General Manager Eric Wilkinson...
The water rights predate the reservoir construction, and the water that would be stored in Chimney Hollow Reservoir is water "that would come through anyway because the demand on the Windy Gap project has matured," Wilkinson said. "In the next five to 10 years, Windy Gap should be in full operation." By agreements established when the West Slope reservoir was constructed, Windy Gap can't take more than 90,000 acre feet in any one year, or 650,000 acre feet in any 10-year period. But the Windy Gap water right is still "fairly junior in the scheme of things," Boyd said, and water would most-likely be captured during wet years so it could be stored to have a supply during dry times.
Grand County took the opportunity to comment on the Bureau's draft EIS for the Windy Gap Firming Project before its scheduled release to the public. According to County Manager Lurline Underbrink Curran, the county commented on reports concerning river flows, aquatics, vegetation and wildlife. As the overseeing agency, BuRec will ultimately issue Northern Water the permit for the firming project and will determine if the county's comments have merit. Specifically how the county reacted to details of the draft EIS is considered "privileged information" among all agencies until the draft EIS is released, Underbrink Curran said. Before the end of the April, Phase 2 of the county's Stream Management Plan will be ready for distribution, she said. The plan can be used as a scientific tool and a jumping off point for discussions with both Denver Water -- with its firming project -- and Northern Water, with Windy Gap. "We believe that in order to address the full extent of the impacts of both projects, we need to specifically say what we need in both reaches," Underbrink Curran said. "And ask ourselves does this have an impact? Or through negotiations with Denver and Northern find out a way to sit down and figure things out. The Stream Management Plan is a defensible way to provide what we see as issues in our streams, through true science. It puts us in a better position to start to be able to talk about those issues."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
Category: Colorado Water
9:34:01 AM
|
|
Wellington Water Works finally got their decree from Colorado Water Court and will start selling produced water from the Wellington Oil and Gas field for supply, according to The North Forty News. From the article:
It's big news for Wellington, the arid West and Wellington farmer Richard Seaworth. After nearly eight years of legal battles and a substantial investment, he and partner Brad Pomeroy of Wellington Water Works got the answers they wanted from the Colorado Water Court in Greeley. On March 10, the court granted WWW two new water decrees, opening the floodgates for the use of produced water--water that is produced along with oil-- in Colorado. This was the first case involving beneficial use of produced water from an oil and gas field in the state, according to WWW's attorney, Steve Bushong. "We're pretty excited about it," Seaworth said of the water court decision. "I think it's a good thing, and I hope we can keep the water in the area. It will be good for the area and the town of Wellington." The Wellington Operating Co. has been purifying produced water for about two years at its plant north of Wellington. WWW plans to use the oil-field water for irrigation, and transfer water rights now used for irrigation to domestic use. The new water decrees provide a green light for both endeavors. The oil-field water will be the first new water source in northeastern Colorado for more than 20 years. The Colorado-Big Thompson project, completed in the mid-1950s, and the Windy Gap project, completed in 1985, both brought west-slope water to the Front Range. The Wellington project has attracted attention from high places. Both Rep. Mark Udall and Sen. Ken Salazar have visited the purification plant in the past year. The water court asked WWW to make some wording changes in one decree. Those have been submitted, Bushong said. The one remaining opposer has an opportunity to respond, but Seaworth expects the official decrees to be issued within a month. Then, WWW can proceed with plans for selling the new water...
Lorentzen said there are several possible routes by which WWW could sell domestic water. Those include forming a metro district within Larimer County, annexing to Wellington and creating a water district, or forming a private water company. Seaworth said he still wants to do some sort of development on his farm property, which would use some of the new water. "How we're going to make that happen I don't know," he said...
Originally, WWW was formed to solve two problems. Seaworth wanted water for a development, and Pomeroy, who operates the Wellington Oil Field, wanted to get rid of some of the wastewater associated with oil production. With older fields such as the one north of Wellington, about 98 percent of the pumped fluid is water. Until the water purification plant was built, the wastewater had to be pumped back into the earth. Now, with less wastewater to contend with, the Wellington Oil Field has begun bringing some inactive oil wells back on line. "At this point in time in the world, we need more sources of water," Seaworth said. "We're now able to put a waste product to beneficial use, and I think that's something that needs to start happening."
Category: Colorado Water
9:22:14 AM
|
|
From The Yuma County Pioneer: "It is time for the RRWCD Board to bring its quarterly meeting to Yuma. The board will meet Thursday, April 10, at the Nazarene Church, 505 E. Beatty Ave. (County Road 39), from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Public comment is scheduled for 1 p.m. The district is considering the possibility of utilizing hydroelectricity generation with the compact compliance pipeline. GEI Consultants will make a presentation on that proposal at the April 10 meeting. Discussion will be held in regards to limits on the pumping from the northernmost wells in the pipeline well field. Other items on the agenda include a grant report by Joel Schneekloth, and a water quality program report by Rob Wawrzynski of the Colorado Department of Agriculture. An executive session possibly will be held. If needing any more information, contact RRWCD General Manager Stan Murphy at 332-3552 or e-mail at rrwcd@centurytel.net."
Category: Colorado Water
8:26:01 AM
|
|
From The Yuma County Pioneer: "The Yuma County Water Authority is closer to becoming a reality. Yuma County Commissioners Robin Wiley, Trent Bushner and Dean Wingfield voted to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement to form the Yuma County Water Authority, during their regular meeting last Friday, March 28. The vote included approval of sending drafts to the three municipalities in the county for their possible approval."
From The Steamboat Pilot & Today: "Oak Creek's ongoing infrastructure projects, including improvements to the town's water and sewer treatment plants, likely will be job No. 1 for the new Town Board..."What the experts are telling us is that we need to split it -- do the wastewater treatment plant this year and have everything in place so they can start with the water plant as soon as the snows come off next year," Elliott said. "It was just too much to get everything done at once." Work at Oak Creek's wastewater treatment plant is due to begin in July, Elliott said."
From The Estes Park Trail: "Estes Park Town trustees will hear testimony on a proposed modification of the Town's connection charges (water tap fees) at their April 22 meeting. Any water customer of the Town may appear, either personally or through counsel, at the public hearing to provide testimony or comment regarding the proposed modifications. All new customers who request water service are required to pay connection charges (tap fees). These one-time charges are a way for the utility to recover a part of the cost for system capacity and water rights obtained for new customers...The HDR water SDC and water rights fees study from December 2007 is available on the Town's website at: website at: http://www.estesnet.com/LightPower/
EstesParkWaterSystemDevelopmentChargesReportFinal1_2_.pdf This hearing will be held at: 7 p.m.,April 22, Town Board Room at Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave."
Category: Colorado Water
8:22:07 AM
|
|
North Sterling Reservoir is full and ready for the irrigation season according to officials of the irrigation district at a recent meeting as reported by The Sterling Journal Advocate. From the article:
The good news for landowners in the North Sterling Irrigation District is that the reservoir is filled...
Back in January, it looked as though the reservoir might not fill this year. Landowners and North Sterling officials had been especially concerned because of a major break in the inlet canal. The company installing the Overland Pass Pipeline bored under the North Sterling inlet canal west of Merino. The bore was 20 feet below the bottom of the canal, but the bottom and one side of the canal collapsed. Many acre feet of water poured out across the countryside, halting the reservoir fill until the canal could be repaired. The pipeline company brought in a number of pieces of heavy equipment and had the canal repaired in just over a week. By that time, however, ice had frozen thicker in the canal and there was concern the inlet might be blocked. It required vigilance and the use of more equipment to work through the ice, and the flow of water to the reservoir was resumed...
Hernandez stated that the meeting was called to discuss the maintenance and operation of the district. He then turned the meeting over to Yahn, who began with a PowerPoint presentation giving an overview of the 2007 water year and an outlook for 2008. Eight new records were set in 2007, Yahn said. He attributed much of this to the direct flow in October 2007. Now prevented from storing water in the North Sterling Reservoir in October, as had been done every year until recently, the district used its senior water rights to "put a call" on the South Platte River. This water then ran directly to landowners in the district, who used it on such crops as winter wheat and alfalfa. This direct flow ran for 23 days in October, adding to the total diversion from the river and the number of acre feet released from the reservoir. Yahn said the total diversion for 2007 was 161,000 acre-feet, total supply was 111,750 acre-feet, with 102,340 acre feet released from the reservoir and 81,470 acre feet delivered to the headgates. One number broke a record for being the smallest -- 20,870 acre feet, or 20.4 percent, which was lost to seepage and evaporation, less than in previous years. Yahn told the landowners that 66,980 acre-feet of water were in storage as of the the March 20 meeting, and that water was being diverted from the river at the rate of 575 cubic feet per second (cfs). At that rate, the reservoir would be full in nine days, which proved to be the case. Yahn also gave an update on the reservoir fill case with the state. Historically, the North Sterling Reservoir had been allowed to start taking in water during October for the next storage year. But in 2004, the previous state engineer ruled that since the state's water year accounting starts Nov. 1, the North Sterling could not begin storing water until that date, regardless of historical precedent. The North Sterling Irrigation Co. filed suit, but the water court ruled in favor of the state engineer's office. The irrigation company appealed, and the case is now going through the appeals process.
Category: Colorado Water
8:19:00 AM
|
|
From Fort Collins Now: "Greeley's annual mandatory lawn-watering restrictions begin April 15. All Greeley water users must refrain from watering between noon and 5 p.m. starting April 15, according to a release. Other times, residents may water their lawns up to three days a week or face possible fines of up to $100 for a first violation. Single family residences and duplexes with address ending in an even number may water Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, while residences with odd numbered addresses may water Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. All other areas, including businesses, multi-family homes, apartments, government properties, common areas of a home owners' association, churches, industries and institutions may water Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays."
Category: Colorado Water
8:05:15 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the temporary pipeline to drain the Leadville Mine Pool from the The Leadville Herald Democrat. From the article:
Stephanie Olsen, wife of Commissioner Ken Olsen, no longer expects $20,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency...Laying this pipe is part of the EPA's temporary solution to the rising mine-pool levels in the mining district that led the Lake County Commissioners to declare a state of emergency. The drilling site is along the Mineral Belt Trail near its northern-most point, so the pipe would have to cross the rail line for the Leadville, Colorado and Southern Railroad, owned by the Olsens. If the Olsens did not let the pipe cross their property, according to Stan Christensen, EPA remedial project manager, it would have been impractical to go around the tracks south of Seventh Street. This could be more than two extra miles of piping. The EPA never had any intention of paying any money for this access, according to Pennock. The EPA has never paid for access onto property. Compensation is not paid unless the EPA impedes the use or access of the property. This will not be the case with the railroad, she said, as the EPA always intended to restore the track to its original condition. Stephanie Olsen said the solution to the access issue was negotiated with the help of State Senator Tom Wiens. The major concern for the railroad, said Stephanie Olsen, was the safety of the passengers and the track. Part of the agreement is that the pipe going under the track will have a steel casing around it, so that the pipe will hold up under the weight of the train. The work should be done, and the track put back to proper condition, before the tourist season starts for the railroad. In a press release Monday, Wiens said that there was "confusion that has been reported in the media concerning the pipeline easement." It went on to quote Wiens as saying, "'Commissioner Ken Olsen has always acted in a way that puts the needs of the people of Lake County first...Commissioner Olsen has acted courageously and selflessly during this emergency situation...'" Last week, Ken Olsen said he believed in the Fifth Amendment, which says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Stephanie Olsen said at the time that she would like $20,000 to reimburse her for having the line run across her property.
The work on the pipeline and the drilling has continued. The bids for drilling the relief well into the LMDT was to be awarded this week.
Here's a look at the need for more dye testing of the flows in the Leadville mine pool from The Leadville Chronicle. From the article:
Though the Lake County Commissioners have recently been pushing for more dye testing regarding the contaminated surface water from Stray Horse Gulch that is diverted to the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not seem willing to oblige--or at least to pay for it. At a March 26 meeting, EPA groundwater expert Mike Wireman said that if another agency wants to do the dye testing, the EPA will certainly look at the data, but that he does not see the need, himself, to do more dye tracing tests. Toward the end of the meeting, EPA remedial site manager Stan Christensen suggested that there may be a way to avoid creating the contaminated surface water in the first place. Years ago, the EPA capped some of the zinc-filled tailings piles in Stray Horse Gulch. Because the Leadville community was so upset by this loss of their mining history, the EPA never capped the remaining piles. Thus, every spring, zinc flows down Stray Horse Gulch. In 2001, the EPA began attempting to collect this water and send it down the Marion standpipe in the mining district. From the Marion, this water is supposed to go to the Robert Emmet shaft, and then to the LMDT Treatment Plant, via the LMDT.
Gareth Davies, of Cambrian Ground Water, Co., who completed previous dye tracing tests, explains that he believes it would be prudent to do another dye tracing study before drilling a well. Because of changing conditions such as rising groundwater, a decrease in metal loading at the LMDT Treatment Plant and a collapse in the Canterbury Tunnel, he thinks conditions underground could have changed. Moreovoer, previous dye tracing studies by him have suggested that Marion water may not always travel within the LMDT, but may instead take a variety of routes to the LMDT treatment plant. His proposed study would make sure the well is being drilled in the right place to collect this contaminated surface water, says Davies...
Davies has submitted a $12,535 proposal to the commissioners for a dye tracing study that he estimates would take a couple of weeks. The study would examine, specifically, whether or not contaminated water from tailings piles in Stray Horse Gulch actually travels down the Marion standpipe, into the Robert Emmet shaft, and through the LMDT to the LMDT Treatment Plant. According to Commissioner Mike Hickman, the commissioners had hoped the EPA would pay for such a study. However, he acknowleged that Mike Wireman did not seem "too excited" about that idea. Though noting that the Marion does contribute a lot of metals to the LMDT Treatment Plant during runoff season, Wireman argued that less that one-half of one-percent of the water that comes out of the portal at the LMDT Treatment Plant is from the Marion. He further argued that the purpose of the pump-and-plug system was to reduce the risk of an unwanted blowout, and so the focus has to be on removing water volumes out of the areas that could collapse. However, Davies believes that that the EPA has not tested often enough to truly understand how much surface water goes into the Marion. He believes that, due to logistical problems, the EPA missed the opportunity to sample during several large snowmelt events. Thus, he argues, they are making assumptions without enough data. But Wireman believes the EPA has performed enough dye tests already. 'We've had 11 dye traces and didn't learn anything very definitive and I'm very reluctant to see how a 12th one is going to be better,[per thou] he said at a presentation to the Lake County Commissioners. But Davies contends that if there is disagreement, the only way to solve it is to do another test...
At the March 26 meeting, Christensen offered an alternative to the dye tests--the very solution that members of the Leadville community rejected many years ago. Christensen suggested that the EPA would be willing to revisit the possibility of capping the contaminated piles in order to eliminate the runoff--making it unnecessary to make sure the runoff will end up at the treatment plant. Though he was careful to point out that the EPA wouldn't do anything without the community's OK, Christensen said that if the community is concerned about the contaminated runoff, capping would be an option that could eliminate it. Davies agrees that removing or capping the piles could "mitigate things somewhat," but he is under the impression that the piles are protected historical artifacts that cannot be moved or altered. Commissioner Mike Hickman said that he would have to learn more about the concept of capping piles before he could decide if doing so was a good idea...
The travel path of Stray Horse Gulch leachate isn't the only EPA assumption being questioned by citizens and officials in the county. At a March 26 meeting with legislative representatives, LMDT Treatment Plant Manager Brad Littlepage, speaking as a citizen, said that he believed the treatment plant, which is 16 years old, was only built to last 20 years. But Peter Soeth, a Public Affairs Specialist for the Bureau of Reclamation, says that regular inspections and replacement of equipment, which Reclamation does when needed, can allow the plant to last much longer than the expected life of 20 years. However, Soeth says that as part of their discussions about the proposed LMDT remedy, Reclamation officials and engineers are examining whether or not the treatment plant may need to be expanded or rebuilt.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:01:18 AM
|
|
From The Montrose Daily Press: "The municipalities of Montrose and Olathe agreed Rachel Kullman will represent them on the Gunnison Basin Roundtable following the Montrose City Council's Thursday night meeting...Kullman is a local water resources consulting engineer whose experience includes state water issues regarding urban growth and agriculture. In a previous meeting, the Montrose council had recommended Montrose municipal services director Jim Hougnon for the seat, with Kullman as an alternate. Olathe recommended Kullman. The roundtable serves to determine the long-term vision of water use in the Gunnison Basin."
Category: Colorado Water
7:49:10 AM
|
|
From The Pueblo Chieftain: "Huerfano County youths turned out this week to help cleanup the Cuchara River during an event sponsored by the county and several youth services organizations. Young work crews arrived Thursday to cut down several old trees along the overgrown river's edge to make way for walking trails behind the Huerfano County Community Center Complex. On Friday, an estimated 30 kids from the Huerfano County 4-H program, the Creative Righteous Educated Little Women club, the Walsenburg Warriors football team, the John Mall High School EPICs club and Teen Court joined to haul away the branches as well as trash and debris."
Category: Colorado Water
7:40:04 AM
|
|
State Senator Chris Romer's plans for residential cisterns are the subject of this article from The Denver Post. From the article:
On Friday the Senate backed a bill that would let up to 10 new developments apply for permission to install cisterns to collect rainwater that drains off rooftops. The water would have to be used on lawns and gardens or to fight potential wildfires. Democratic Sen. Chris Romer's proposal would let the developments try out the idea over the next three years. The aim is to measure whether the cisterns prevent a lot of water from flowing into rivers and streams or whether most of it would have been soaked up by the ground anyway. Rural residents who aren't connected to a water supply would also be able to collect rainwater but they would be allowed to do it permanently...
Only new developments would be allowed to participate because authorities would have to look at how much water was absorbed by the ground before and after buildings and pavements were put in place. Romer said he still hopes some new developments in Denver, such as at the former Stapleton airport, will participate even though he can't.
The measure now moves to the House.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:24:20 AM
|
|
Here's a recap of yesterday's Club 20 meeting from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
Water wars in the East should serve as a warning to Colorado to store more water, Sen. Wayne Alllard, R-Colo., told Western Slope leaders on Saturday. Allard, who is in the final year of his second term as senator, said that droughts have sapped water in the East and that fights such as that between Tennessee and Georgia could be previews to water fights in the West. To avert fights over the state's water, Colorado must immediately figure out how to store the 1.2 million acre-feet the state has been allotted under the compact that divvies up the Colorado River and its tributaries, Allard told Club 20, the Western Slope lobbying and promotional organization...
In the worst case, Congress would draft new laws to make water decisions, or the federal government would mediate water fights among the states, Allard said. "Even the best-case scenario scares me," he said to about 200 people during his keynote speech. "We must increase storage capacity to deal with droughts," Allard said. "The state should move to do so immediately."
Meanwhile U.S. Representative Diana DeGette was pitching for more wilderness according to The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
First District Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat, told the meeting of the Western Slope lobbying and promotional organization that the Colorado Wilderness Bill she has introduced into each session of Congress poses little threat to energy or other development. The bill lists 62 locations encompassing 1.65 million acres and would recognize existing oil and gas leases as well as existing mineral rights, DeGette said. DeGette said she adopted provisions from the establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park that make federal water rights subservient to the state. "I really want to find this balance" allowing oil and gas development and preserving wild places. If the bill passes, 85 percent of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado still would still be open for energy development, she said.
Category: Colorado Water
7:07:42 AM
|
|
Here's some background and a recap of last week's Reclamation open houses for Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Walking along the Arkansas River at Buena Vista, one is struck by the meandering trails, picnic areas and staging area for rafts. In the evening hours, many residents were strolling over the bridge that spans the river, walking their dogs or just taking in the clear mountain air. In Pueblo, the Arkansas River fishery and kayak park are bringing people back to the river, and the improvements have caused the city to again take notice of Fountain Creek, a river channel more feared for its flooding potential than appreciated for its recreational possibilities. Downstream, at La Junta, people were talking about how the river has been slowly filling with sediment over the years, how salt cedars have narrowed the channel and how more and more people upstream are making maintaining water quality a more difficult challenge. Those extremes were mirrored by open houses in three communities along the Arkansas River last week as the Bureau of Reclamation sought public comments on its draft environmental impact statement for the Southern Delivery System. "A number of people who attended the open houses said they had a better understanding of the project and that the open houses helped them decide what to say in their comments," said Kara Lamb, public information officer for Reclamation. "The comments from the public are the whole reason for the open houses."
The concerns at the open houses generally fell into three camps that followed the geography of the river: At Buena Vista on Tuesday, residents were concerned that improving diversions along the river could make it possible to take more water out of the river, depleting flows. Reclamation says SDS is unlikely to do this, but many of the 17 people who attended the open house said the river has become important for recreation as well as the traditional ranching economy of Chaffee County. At Pueblo on Wednesday, concerns for the impact of increasing return flows on Fountain Creek, coupled by more stormwater from the development SDS would support, dominated the conversations. Water quality was also an important issue to many of the 125 who attended. At La Junta on Thursday, downstream users were most concerned by flooding and the movement of sediment down the Arkansas River, which they see as becoming worse as Colorado Springs continues to grow. Most of the 35 people who attended were clearly concerned about the potential for water quality to deteriorate as well.
The exchange of information was a two-way street at the open houses, where a team of experts from Reclamation and the agency's consultant, MWH Engineering, answered questions or explained parts of the draft EIS. Many subsequently filled out comment forms or, in some cases, had testimony transcribed by a court reporter. Others, having learned what they needed to know, took the information home to draft more extensive comments. Understanding the document takes time. Reclamation released 3,000 pages of technical reports one month in advance of the draft EIS. The EIS itself is more than 500 pages, and some of the water resources data is so extensive it is presented as an interactive computer program rather than as a document...
She added that all comments will be answered, if not as a group, then by common themes. "We will answer every comment, but the scoping of this issue is huge," Lamb said. "So far, I think the format we're using has been successful." SDS Project Director John Fredell, who attended all the open houses, agreed. "The turnout was great in Pueblo, and that's exactly what we're looking for," Fredell said. "I wish we could see that many people at all the open houses." Fredell talked to many of the people who attended the open houses, and explained the viewpoint of Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security and Pueblo West in asking to use Lake Pueblo and the municipal outlet at Pueblo Dam as part of the project. While the SDS partners have identified the pipeline from Pueblo Dam as their first choice, Reclamation evaluated seven alternatives under the National Environmental Protection Act. There were few new issues raised, from Fredell's point of view...
Colorado Springs is working with Pueblo on the issue of the joint use manifold, which the Pueblo Board of Water Works fears may be overworked under SDS. "We have identified it with them before as an issue that we will work through," Fredell said. The water board wants the issue to be part of the federal record for the project. Colorado Springs Utilities also is sensitive to the many comments about flooding on Fountain Creek, Fredell said. Utilities does not oppose a study of a dam on Fountain Creek, proposed by U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, but does not think it is a part of the pipeline project. "We're happy to see the study, but we're not going to be out in front with it," Fredell said. "We believe a study is needed to say one way or the other whether it can be done. No, I don't think it is a part of SDS. More information makes for better decisions." Colorado Springs has supported, with personnel and finances, several efforts on Fountain Creek, including the Army Corps of Engineers Fountain Creek Watershed Plan, a DNA study to identify sources of E. coli, the Vision Task Force and the Fountain Creek Master Plan with the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. "We are doing something on Fountain Creek and that's not going to stop," Fredell said.
More coverage of Thursday's meeting in LaJunta from The LaJunta Tribune Democrat. From the article:
Over 1,000 individual components of more than 100 alternatives were whittled down to seven different plans, said Kara Lamb, public information specialist for the Bureau of Reclamation. The alternative chosen out of the seven by the Bureau, which included one where no action would be taken, was proposal number two, which is also preferred by Colorado Springs. The participants, which include Fountain, Security, Colorado Springs and Pueblo West, propose that untreated water would be stored in and diverted from Pueblo Reservoir, stored in a new reservoir on Jimmy Camp creek, treated and distributed to the participant's customers and the return flows from Colorado Springs would be stored in a new reservoir on Williams Creek prior to exchange down Fountain Creek.
"I understand there's obviously different water quality from Fountain Creek to the Lower Arkansas Valley," MWH representative Jerry Gibbons told attendees. Colorado Springs would obtain more water by phasing out certain leases, he said. "They will receive more water by using water they've historically leased out to farmers," Gibbons said. Some attendees expressed frustration with the process, believing the Bureau of Reclamation had already made their decision, but public comments received will be gathered and answered by the Bureau. Those comments will then revise the draft environmental impact statement into a final statement. The final document will then be released to the public and Reclamation will issue a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of the final EIS.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:01:48 AM
|
|
Here's an opinion piece about the Aurora long-term contract with Reclamation written by U.S. Representative Mark Udall and published by The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
But whatever the court may decide, Congress still will have a role in determining how Lake Pueblo and the rest of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project are operated and how the project will fulfill its historic mission of supporting a continued agricultural economy in the Arkansas Valley. Water fights are, of course, nothing new in Colorado. But the demise of plans for a Two Forks dam on the South Platte near Denver was followed by a new emphasis on collaboration and interbasin cooperation marked by some big successes like the Wolford Reservoir in Grand County and the Eagle River agreement in Eagle County. On a smaller scale, I worked to make sure all users of Green Mountain Reservoir in Grand County were equally involved in a plan to retain a static pool of water in this reservoir for bank stabilization. The overall theme has been to respect the rights and needs of other regions while responding to the problems of parched communities along the Front Range. Part of what has made these agreements successful is that smaller, rural communities have not been simply run over. Because water is scarce, there will always be tensions and conflicts about its allocation. But that should not mean that an army of high-priced lawyers must be deployed to resolve matters.
That's why I have introduced legislation (H.R. 3465) [Greater Cooperation with Local Governments in Water Project Analysis Act] to make sure local governments always have a say in how best to protect their communities when the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers considers projects that divert water to or from their jurisdictions. It is vitally important that rural communities have a seat at the table when the bureau makes decisions that impact these areas. I also believe that Coloradans want this fairness reflected in law...
So what does this mean for Southern Colorado and, more important, what does it mean for the economic future of the Lower Arkansas? This was the question I posed during the field hearing in Pueblo last year when the Water and Power Subcommittee reviewed the history of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and asked about the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to enter into the proposed 40-year contract with Aurora. We did not get much of an answer from the bureau then, but will likely get a more complete one when the federal court issues its ruling. After that, we will need to consider how to better harmonize the various rights and interests of Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo and the Arkansas Valley. There is reason for optimism, provided we remember that the economic future of rural Colorado is critical to the whole state and all of our people.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:50:32 AM
|
|
Tri-State is considering building a nuclear power plant in Prowers County instead of new coal-fired plants, according to The Denver Post. From the article:
Amid growing criticism about its heavy reliance on coal-fired power, the state's second-largest utility is considering the prospect of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association's board of directors voted recently to have its staff study nuclear as a possibility for the site in Prowers County near Holly. The company secured the site and necessary water rights for a plant that could either be coal-fired or nuclear. Tri-State would need a partner on a nuclear plant because of high construction costs. The staff was directed to pursue potential partners.
Right now, coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the company's generation. Going nuclear could blunt some of the criticism about coal's high carbon emissions, while likely opening up an entirely new battleground. At Tri-State's annual meeting at its headquarters in Westminster, board chairman Harold Thompson said the utility is dealing with rising energy costs and a tighter regulatory environment as it prepares for the future...
Environmentalists and some of Tri-State's member electric co-operatives have questioned its proposal to build two new coal-fired units, at a cost of $3.6 billion, at an existing power plant in Kansas. The concerns come in the face of the nation's booming green movement and prospects of a carbon tax. Colorado regulators have zeroed in on the utility since the proposed 1,400-megawatt expansion -- in partnership with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, Kan. -- was shelved because of an air permit denial in October...
Unlike Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest utility, Tri-State is not rate-regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Tri-State sells power to rural electric cooperatives.
The PUC oversees only Tri-State's construction of new plants or transmission lines in the state. But at the request of PUC chairman Ron Binz, Tri-State has agreed to a public hearing, expected to occur within the next two months, to discuss how the company plans to meet consumer electric needs going forward...
Tri-State's backup plan for the Kansas plant is the Prowers County project, dubbed the Colorado Power Project. The company said it secured water rights in 2007 and plans to eventually construct a plant at the site even if the Kansas clean-coal project gains approval. Tri-State's incoming general manager Ken Anderson, currently a senior vice president, will be on the hot seat once he takes over in July. He said he is committed to coal because of its relatively low cost, but is open to other sources of power. "We own coal, we have faith in coal, we know about its reliability," he said. "It's still the proper resource decision for the nature of resources that we need." The company said it has to continue to rely on coal because its rural customers require a constant load and renewables aren't suitable for base-load generation and natural gas prices are too volatile...
That's where nuclear could be a possibility because maintenance and fuel costs have dropped an estimated 30 percent since 1995. Also, nuclear plants emit little, if any, greenhouse gas. But nuclear plants are expensive to build, far exceeding the construction costs of traditional coal and natural-gas-fired plants. The price tag on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant is estimated at roughly $2 billion. And it could take a decade or more to go through the necessary permitting process and complete construction. Concerns also exist over the proper storage of nuclear waste and the safety hazards of using radioactive materials to generate power. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation's power, but no new nuclear plant has come online in the U.S. in more than a decade.
From The Greeley Tribune (free registration required): "Weld County Commissioner Dave Long has thrown his support to a bill making its way through the Colorado Legislature that would impose stricter standards for uranium mining in Colorado. House Bill 1161 passed the House Monday and has moved on to the Senate. It stipulates that uranium mining companies in Colorado clean up groundwater after they finish mining. A companion bill, HB 1165, was killed by a House committee Wednesday. Long represents northern Weld County where Powertech Uranium Corp. has plans to open a uranium mine near Nunn."
Here's a look at HB 08-1161 from The Telluride Watch. They write:
Republicans tried unsuccessfully on Friday to replace the bill with a one-year moratorium on permitting any new uranium operations to give regulators and legislators more time to study the potential impact of new rules. "What greater protection is there than a moratorium so we can study it," said District 58 Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose. "That's the ultimate protection." Fischer said the mine operators don't want a moratorium because they need to know now what to expect. "Powertech (USA) is up there now doing exploration and spending a tremendous amount of money gathering the information they need to submit their application," Fischer said. "If we change the rules on them next March, they just lost a whole year of time." Fischer also discounted claims the new rules, if they make it through the legislative process to become law, would shut down uranium mining in Colorado. "They always portray this as being totally safe and they won't have any problem restoring the groundwater to existing uses," Fischer said. "If what they are saying is true, they should not really have an issue with this."
Three Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee who endorsed a weakened version of the original bill in committee were livid when Kafalas and Fischer offered the floor amendment that made the bill retroactive to existing uranium mining operations. "We've been blindsided with a new amendment," said Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, in whose district the proposed in-situ mine is located. "We thought we had a solution going to (the) appropriations (committee). I sent a letter (to regulators) asking what more they needed to make sure uranium mining is safe and they said 'right now we need nothing.'" In the end, however, nine mostly rural Republicans, including Sonnenberg, voted for the final bill, largely due to the protections the new regulations would provide for groundwater. The only Democrat against the bill Monday was Rep. Bernie Buescher of Grand Junction...
With Friday's floor amendment, the existing mines would not have to restart the permitting process, but would have to go before the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety with an environmental protection plan. Supporters of the bill said the change was necessary to close an existing gap in the law that threatens to exempt all uranium mines as long as they do not leak acid water. They also claim most companies applying for a new or re-opened uranium mine have willingly complied with DMO status and submitted environmental protection plans.
HB 08-1165 died in committee, according to Fort Collins Now. From the article:
A second bill focused on Colorado standards for uranium mining failed in the House agriculture and natural resources committee Wednesday, after detractors said the bill was too focused on hard-rock mining. House Bill 1165 would have increased transparency about mining operations and strengthened the state's watchdog status over mining operations and prospecting. But some committee members were concerned the measure was too broad because it covered all forms of mineral mining. The bill's sponsors, state Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, both Fort Collins Democrats, said they would continue fighting for stricter oversight of mining operations. "These mines, particularly those that use in-situ leach methods, can be extremely detrimental if they're not vigorously watched," Kefalas said in a statement. "The public has a right to know what is happening in their communities."
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
6:26:59 AM
|
|
From The Longmont Daily Times-Call: "Although much of the Rocky Mountain region been pounded by snowstorms in March, snowpack levels in the St. Vrain River basin remain below average for this time of year. St. Vrain's snowpack stands at 94 percent of the 30-year average, according to the April 1 snowpack report published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service. Still, the St. Vrain watershed is sitting pretty compared to April of last year -- at 121 percent of the 2007 level. The snowpack at NRCS's Longs Peak site measured 50 inches in depth and contained an equivalent of 13 inches of water. That put the site at 120 percent of average. On the flip side, the Wild Basin site came in at 83 percent of normal."
From The Glenwood Springs Post Independent: "... the snowpack recorded east of Aspen on April 4 this year was the highest for that date in the last 27 years. The "snow water equivalent" -- essentially the measure of moisture in the snowpack -- was at 23.5 inches. In comparison, it was 21.8 inches on that date in 1984, generally regarded as one of Aspen's best winters for skiers. The snowpack produced a snow water equivalent of 21 inches for that date in both 1996 and 1997...the April 4 snowpack level this year isn't an all-time record, according to the NRCS data. The snow kept falling in 1984, boosting the snow water equivalent to 24.1 inches later in April and 26.7 inches in May. The highest snowpack reading for any date in the last 27 years was recorded on May 19, 1995, when the snow water equivalent maxed out at 27.7 inches. That's about 17 percent higher than Aspen's current snowpack.
More snowpack news from The Aspen Daily News (free registration required). From the article:
While snowpack across the state dwindled as a percent of average during March, the snowpack in the Roaring Fork Basin was boosted to nearly twice that of last year[base ']s, according to data from the Lakewood snow survey office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And because Colorado typically reaches its maximum snow totals in April, and snowpack is still above average, it's safe to say runoff will be well above average across the state this year.
March wasn't quite as snowy as previous months, and the statewide snowpack decreased from 135 percent of average on March 1 to 123 percent of average on April 1. The Roaring Fork Basin's snowpack also declined, from 154 percent of average at the beginning of last month to 148 percent of average on April 1. However, it is 191 percent of last year's snowpack, up from 169 percent at the beginning of March. Snowpack on Independence Pass is 153 percent of last year's and 140 percent of average. Throughout the Colorado River basin, the snowpack dropped from 128 percent of average to 123 percent of average in the last month, but is still 151 percent of last year's snowpack...
Runoff is expected to be above average across most of the state. Across northern Colorado, the Colorado, Yampa, White and North and South Platte rivers are expected to produce runoff that ranges from average to 130 percent of average. The highest snowpack totals remain across southern Colorado, and the Gunnison, Rio Grande, Arkansas, San Juan, Animas, Dolores and San Miguel rivers should see volumes of between 130 and 160 percent of average. "Overall, 2008 continues to emerge as the best year for statewide water supplies in more than a decade, especially considering that reservoir storage is currently near average statewide," according to an NRCS press release. The statewide snowpack is the highest measured on April 1 since 1993, when it was 126 percent of average.
More coverage from The Sky-Hi Daily News. They write:
Snowpack in the high-elevation mountains above Middle Park now ranges from 96 percent to 130 percent of the 30-year average. This is similar to 2006, when it was 94 percent to 124 percent of average. It is more than last year, when it was 63 percent to 119 percent of average. Spring runoff is predicted to be average to above average, and will now be governed by temperature, wind and possibly a few late spring storms.
Snow density is averaging 30 percent, which means that each foot of snow contains about 3.6 inches of water. In Colorado, the northern basins are above average, and the southern basins are substantially above average. Reported readings for the major river basins in Colorado are as follows:
- The upper Colorado River Basin 123 percent of average;
- Gunnison River Basin, 133 percent;
- South Platte River Basin, 108 percent;
- Yampa and White River Basins, 107 percent;
- Arkansas River Basin, 141 percent;
- Upper Rio Grande Basin, 140 percent;
- San Miguel, Dolores, Animas, and San Juan River basins 126 percent;
- Laramie and North Platte River Basins, 106 percent of average for this time of year.
Here's a look at Southwestern Colorado snowpack from The Durango Herald. From the article:
Despite a surprisingly dry March that caused snowpack levels to drop by almost 30 percent in Southwest Colorado, expect swollen rivers as testament to one of the snowiest winters in recent memory. After consistently heavy snow in December, January and February, snowpack levels March 1 stood at 155 percent of average in the Animas, Dolores and San Juan river basins. By April 1, the level had dropped 29 percent but was still at 126 percent of average and 217 percent of the level from the same date in 2007. Colorado's total snowpack was 123 percent of average April 1, its highest measured level since 1993. State hydrologists consider the April 1 readings to be the most important snowpack measurements of the year. "Fortunately for the state's water supplies, the areas experiencing the driest conditions during March had already accumulated the greatest snowpack totals during the winter months," said Allen Green, state conservationist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS. Mike Gillespie, a surveyor with the NRCS, said the accumulated snowpack in the high country will have a profound effect on rivers and streams, which could meet or exceed the highest flows in nearly 40 years...
Inflows from the Pine and Florida rivers into Vallecito and Lemon reservoirs are currently 124 percent and 121 percent of average, respectively. Gillespie said the largest increase in flow is expected on the San Juan River near Carracas, in Archuleta County near the Navajo Reservoir, where flows are 153 percent of average. Close behind is the Mancos River at 145 percent of average. If the Animas River hits 9,000 cfs, it will be the highest on record since September 1970, when the recorded flow was 11,600 cfs. The highest flow since 1970 occurred in May 2005, when the flow peaked at 8,550 cfs. The all-time high for the Animas River was 25,000 cfs in October 1911. On Oct. 5, 1911, heavy rains near Durango caused the Animas River to rise to 8 feet above flood stage, according to the National Weather Service.
More snowpack news from Fort Collins Now. They write:
March 2008 wasn't much better than March 2007 when it came to snow in the Colorado mountains. But despite a second consecutive March that is being considered as dry, 2008 continues to be the best year for statewide water supplies in more than a decade, according to surveys taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service of the state's snowpack...
Green, in a press release, said the current snowpack is expected to yield near average to well above average runoff this year, with volumes in the southwest expected to be 130-160 percent of average, while runoff for the South Platte, Yampa, White, Colorado and North Platte rivers are expected to be 100-130 percent of average.
Category: Colorado Water
6:21:14 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
5/1/08; 7:37:56 AM.
|
|
|
