Coyote Gulch's Colorado Water
The health of our waters is the principal measure of how we live on the land. -- Luna Leopold








































































































































































































































Central Colorado Water Conservancy District

Subscribe to "Coyote Gulch's Colorado Water" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Tuesday, April 8, 2008
 

A picture named salmonella.jpg

SLV Dweller: "When clinical microbiologists Jhoanna Aquino and Beth Ingal isolated the first case of salmonella in early March, neither of them noted anything remarkable, but, following procedure, Aquino reported it to Alamosa County Nursing and epidemiologist Bill Brinton, M.D. The sample was then sent to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for further confirmation and typing. The next day, Aquino identified another positive salmonella specimen in the lab."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
6:39:58 PM    


A picture named watersprinkler.jpg

From CBS4Denver.com: "Aurora has decided to stick to restrictions that Denver did away with four years ago...Monday evening, Aurora Water recommended renewing water restrictions from May through October. Residents are limited to outdoor watering only three times per week on designated days. It also means Aurora water police, like earlier in the decade, will still enforce those restrictions. Violators are subject to fines from $250 to $8,000."

Category: Colorado Water
6:57:06 AM    


A picture named southerndeliverysystem.jpg

A coalition of environmental and labor groups are hoping to extend the public comment period for Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System, according to The Pueblo Chieftain

A coalition of 15 environmental and labor groups is asking the Bureau of Reclamation to extend the deadline for comments on the Southern Delivery System draft environmental impact statement. The groups are asking for 60 more days beyond the April 29 deadline, which would push the date to June 27. The groups sent a letter Monday, asking for more time because of the amount of information included in the 550-page draft EIS, as well as more than 3,000 pages of technical reports. "Due to the sheer volume of information, significant time will be required to complete a detailed review of the draft EIS and its appendices and to supply substantive input from the public - input that is at the very core of the public review process embodied in the National Environmental Policy Act," the letter stated.

In addition to commenting on the draft EIS, the groups want to include additional conservation and water supply options. The groups say SDS could impact stream flows, water quality, wetlands, paleontological and geologic sites, habitat areas, plant species and other resources. The letter is signed by representatives from the Colorado Environmental Coalition, Western Resource Advocates, Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project, Sierra Club, High Country Citizens Campaign, Environment Colorado and the Colorado Progressive Coalition. Labor unions signing the letter include International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 113; Laborers International of North America Local 578; United Association of Plumbers Pipefitters & Journeymen Local 58; International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers Local 28; Colorado Statewide Iron Workers, International Union of Operating Engineers; Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 24; and IBEW Local 12...

Reclamation officials have not had adequate time to reply to the letter, but said Monday they understand the need for time to make it through the reports. "We anticipated that people would want a lot of time to look at the information in order to comment on it," said Kara Lamb, public information officer for Reclamation. "That was part of our thought process in releasing the technical reports in January a month ahead of the draft EIS."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
6:47:05 AM    


A picture named reverseosmosis.jpg

Here's some advice on water filters from The Denver Post. They write:

The folks at the Water Quality Association, the trade association representing the water-filter industry, say it's inevitable that some filters will dispatch a measure of the pharmaceutical compounds in drinking water. "The best advice I could give people is use a reverse- osmosis device with activated carbon. You would definitely get a lot of pharmaceuticals out with that technology," says Joseph Harrison, technical director for the association. "We just don't know for sure which ones will be taken out and how completely without testing for it." Right now, he says, his association is working with NSF International, a nonprofit organization that sets standards for a variety of consumer products, including water filters, to establish pharmaceutical standards for filtration systems. Rick Andrew, the operations manager for NSF's water treatment program, says his organization has certified more than 3,000 water-filtration systems, although most fall within several broad technological categories: carbon filtration, reverse osmosis, water softeners, distillation and ultraviolet. As far as Harrison's endorsement of reverse osmosis, Andrew says the technology could work to ferret out pharmaceuticals from drinking water, but it's too early to tell. Reverse osmosis does a fine job of eliminating heavy metals and dissolved solids, among other things, from water.

Of the other technologies, according to Andrew: Carbon filtration is known for its ability to improve taste by eliminating volatile organic chemicals like chlorine; softeners take out the calcium and magnesium, and replace it with sodium; distillation vaporizes the water and then recondenses it, in the process leaving many contaminants behind, including dissolved solids, ionic compounds and some organic contaminants; and ultraviolet technology is excellent for disinfecting water. One of the more popular solutions, the pitcher-style of filter, uses a combination of activated carbon and ion exchange resin that can be effective at filtering a wide range of contaminants, including chlorine, organics such as solvents and even pesticides and herbicides, and such metals as copper, Andrew says. Linden, the water scholar, says the presence of pharmaceutical compounds in water is worrisome, but it's too early to panic. Much more research needs to be done. It could be concentrations are so low they have no effect on humans. Linden treats the water that comes out of his refrigerator tap at home with an activated carbon filter, but not because of pharmaceuticals. He doesn't like the chlorine taste, and he worries about the health impacts of chlorine and its byproducts in drinking water...

Here's what you might pay for filter systems (minus installation):

- Carafe filters range from in price from $15 to $60.
- Faucet-mounted filters are $20-$60 and installation requires minimal effort.
- Countertop filters cost $50 to $300 and don't require plumbing modifications.
- Under-sink filters range from $55 to $350 and do require plumbing modifications.
- Reverse-osmosis filters are $160 to $450 and require plumbing modifications. These filters also create large amounts of waste water for every gallon filtered.
- Whole-house filters range in price from $35 to $80, and require professional installation.
- Distillers range in price between $200 and $1,500 and require professional installation.

Category: Colorado Water
6:35:23 AM    


A picture named nisp2.jpg

Here's a recap of last night's meeting held to discuss Glade Reservoir and the Northern Integrated Supply Project, from The Longmont Reporter-Herald. From the article:

The Fort Collins Regional Library District and Front Range Community College sponsored a panel discussion regarding the Northern Integrated Supply Project on the Poudre River. The 12-member panel represented people on both sides of the argument. "Once the (impact statement) comes out we'll be hearing a lot more about the impacts to biodiversity," said opponent Philip Cafaro, an associate philosophy professor and member of the Audubon Society. However, proponent Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District, said that results aren't going to be what opponents are expecting. "I think you're going to find that it isn't going to be the same impacts you think there are right now," he said.

The Northern Integrated Supply Project was introduced in 2003 as a way for participating jurisdictions to secure water in the future. Currently, there are 15 participants. The project would consist of two reservoirs. The proposed 177,000-acre-foot Glade Reservoir, to be built northwest of Fort Collins near Ted's Place, would provide users 40,000 acre-feet of water a year. Junior water rights on the Poudre River would be used to fill Galeton, a 40,000-acre-foot reservoir to be built northeast of Greeley...

The water would be taken from the river during the spring runoff, which usually occurs in June. It would be diverted at the mouth of the canyon. Opponents fear that taking the water from peak flows will be detrimental to the river because it helps nourish habitats and flush out sediments. After the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers releases the draft environmental impact statement, which will address those issues, there will be a 90-day comment period. "I think a lot of things are going to beyond discussion," said Fort Collins resident Rico Moore, who attended in support of the Save the Poudre Coalition. "It's going to be a pretty significant finding."

More coverage from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write:

A standing-room-crowd of more than 150 people packed a room at the student center of Front Range Community College for a panel discussion that featured Glade opponents and supporters. Audience members heard contradictory and sometimes emotional statements from participants...

Supporters of the reservoir said it is needed to meet the future water needs of growing Northern Colorado communities. If water can't be taken from the river, it will come from agricultural lands, said Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which would build the reservoir. Glade, which would be built north of Ted's Place and draw water from the Poudre using an existing diversion canal, will not have the dire consequences opponents claim, Werner said. "This project can't and won't dry up the Poudre River," he said...

Water would be taken from the river near the mouth of Poudre Canyon through the Poudre Valley Canal during periods of high flow in the late spring and early summer. Water would be carried to a holding bay before being pumped uphill to the reservoir. The reservoir's water would be delivered to participating communities by pipelines or exchanges among Front Range water suppliers. Galeton Reservoir would hold 40,000 acre feet of water pulled from the South Platte River. Part of Galeton's water would be pumped west to irrigation ditches coming off the Poudre River in exchange for water diverted into Glade.

Much of Monday's discussion centered on the impact the project might have on the Poudre as it courses through Fort Collins. Opponents said taking away the high flows would harm the river's ecosystem. "We need to improve the river, not further degrade it at this point," said Mark Easter of the Poudre Canyon Group of the Sierra Club. Supporters, including Bill Brown, a Fort Collins water attorney and member of the conservancy district's board of directors, said the impact of lessened flow could be mitigated in a number of ways.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Category: Colorado Water
6:20:29 AM    



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2008 John Orr.
Last update: 5/1/08; 7:38:51 AM.
April 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Mar   May