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.


Friday, April 11, 2008
 

A picture named coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg

This month's article is up at Colorado Central Magazine. Here's the link to the table of contents. Here's the link to the Coyote Gulch posts we used for the article.

Category: Colorado Water
1:55:15 PM    


A picture named suburbs.jpg

HB 08-1141 has passed the state House of Representatives, according to The Durango Herald. From the article:

In Colorado, urban growth has always been a matter for local governments to decide. But on Wednesday, the House of Representatives declared that the water used by new subdivisions is a matter of statewide concern. The House approved House Bill 1141, which requires developers to prove they have adequate water supplies before city councils give their approvals to build. The bill by Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, was delayed for almost two months while she rewrote it. Although Curry called the bill a "baby step," it drew fire from developers and several Republicans. The current law requires proven water supplies before county commissions, but not city councils. Curry's bill applies to new developments of 50 or more houses...

Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland, who is a land developer, said anti-growth city councils will abuse the bill. "I don't think Representative Curry wants to stop growth, but that's what this bill is going to do," Marostica said. He predicted water prices will spike in the next few days as developers try to protect themselves from Curry's bill. Loveland's master plan already addresses the water supply it will need for its 150,000 future residents, Marostica said. The town had 61,000 in 2006, and 37,000 in 1990, according to the Census Bureau.

Water crises have already struck some Front Range subdivisions. Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, has several constituents who have to truck in water in her Colorado Springs-area district. "We need this bill. I wish this bill would have run 20 years ago," Looper said...

"It seems like what we have here is something that's supposed to provide assurance of a long-term water supply, when it's still speculative about whether that supply will be available," said Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder. Curry, though, said it's best to go one step at a time when talking about local land-use planning. She was happy to finally take the debate to the House of Representatives. "I appreciate the debate. We needed to have this in Colorado for a long time," Curry said. The House approved HB 1141 on a voice vote. It faces one more vote in the House before heading to the Senate.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
7:22:01 AM    


A picture named wetmountainvalley.jpg

From The Wet Mountain Tribune: "The city of Fountain has purchased the aptly named H20 ranch west of Westcliffe for the approximately 700 acre feet of water rights tied to the ranch...Westcliffe real estate agent Bob Senderhauf, who serves on the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, said the sale could set a precedent, because other Front Range municipalities keep a close eye on such transactions and could view this as a foot-in-the-door for other opportunities to have Custer County agriculture water sold for municipal purposes...Senderhauf said it could take between two to five years for Fountain to move the case though water courts.

"Getting the Valley water to Fountain will pose no difficulty: Fountain already has a pipeline that draws water from the Pueblo Reservoir to the city, located southeast of Colorado Springs and about 30 miles north of Pueblo. The city's website says its 22,000 residents receive the majority of their water - some 77 percent - from the Pueblo Reservoir, and that the city distributes about 4.1 million gallons of water daily to its customers...Fountain could have at least a couple of other options to transfer water from here to there. The water courts could potentially allow water to be taken from the Arkansas River upstream near Leadville, and carried via the Otero pumping station to the Colorado Springs area via existing pipelines, though the Otero system is at or near its capacity. (Denver and its suburbs also receive water through the Otero facility.) Additionally, public hearings are currently underway for another pipeline, the Southern Delivery System, which ultimately will transfer water from the Arkansas River to Colorado Springs via a pipeline either along Fountain Creek near Pueblo, or through the Penrose area to holding reservoirs in El Paso County.

Category: Colorado Water
7:14:24 AM    


A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

Aurora has inked a deal to lease some water from the Highline Canal on the Arkansas River, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Aurora and the High Line Canal board of directors signed a 10-year agreement for leasing water in January, apparently without notifying all of the stockholders in the ditch. "No comment," said Stan Fedde, president of the High Line Canal, when asked Thursday about the contract and whether shareholders were noticed. Fedde and Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer signed the contract on Jan. 23. The Pueblo Chieftain obtained a copy of the contract.

The agreement allows Aurora to negotiate with individual shareholders, but does not set up any specific leases. It does not set the amounts Aurora would pay for future leases. It also limits leases to parties other than Aurora in years in which Aurora obtains leases from at least 500 shares, about 22 percent of the ditch's total. The deal caught some shareholders unaware, said Bart Mendenhall, who owns 39.5 shares with family and partners. Mendenhall is also the attorney for the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, which bought a farm on the High Line Canal last year and is awaiting transfer of six shares. "We weren't notified," Mendenhall said. "I've talked to other shareholders who weren't notified." Mendenhall said he is concerned about a couple of portions of the agreement.

One part of the contract prevents the High Line from operating its system in any way that would cause Aurora's if-and-when account in Lake Pueblo to spill during years when Aurora is leasing water. "I'm not sure what that means for High Line's winter water stored in Lake Pueblo," Mendenhall said. Another part of the contract provides for shareholders to lease water to others, but blocks physical and legal means to do that in years when Aurora obtains at least 500 shares in leases. That part of the contract could preclude other actions, such as a proposed Super Ditch being backed by the Lower Ark district. Mendenhall said he is concerned both as the Lower Ark's attorney and as a shareholder in the High Line. "The directors, by this agreement, have imposed conditions that will impair your ability to lease your shares," Mendenhall said. "As a shareholder, I'm upset that the board is making agreements that restrict my water rights."

In 2003, in approving the first lease to Aurora, shareholders changed bylaws to allow leases outside the ditch system and gave the board the power to approve such leases. Aurora has agreed to pay at least $200,000 to High Line through 2018, with an additional $30,000 if it takes water for legal costs. The agreement commits the High Line board and any interested shareholders to file for a change of use in water court. Aurora also has agreed to provide all engineering and technical assistance needed to make the transfers. The High Line board agreed to give Aurora first priority of use of any physical structures it has constructed or will build in the future. There was friction between the High Line and the Lower Ark boards after Lower Ark bought a 55-acre farm on the canal in October, where Fedde went to the Lower Ark meeting in November and accused the board of being the "big gorilla" who bought the farm while a young farmer was trying to buy the land. The Lower Ark board agreed at the meeting to work with the farmer and invited him to talk with them about the farm, but so far it has not heard from him. The Lower Ark board also filed a lawsuit against Reclamation for issuing a 40-year excess-capacity storage and exchange contract to Aurora, a city of 300,000 east of Denver that exports water from the Arkansas Valley. The Lower Ark is claiming Reclamation lacked the authority for the contract, is misusing Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water to fulfill the contract and did not perform an adequate study of environmental impacts.

Category: Colorado Water
7:01:39 AM    


A picture named southerndeliverysystem.jpg

Here's a recap of last night's open house for Colorado Springs proposed Southern Delivery System, from The Pueblo Chieftain. They write:

An agreement signed this week between Fremont County commissioners and Colorado Springs would clear the way for a water pipeline from Fremont County, even though the route appears to be among the least desirable of alternatives. The Fremont County route would add between $130 million and $240 million to the cost of building the $1.1 billion Southern Delivery System without delivering any additional water, and would not benefit from storage in Lake Pueblo.

John Fredell, SDS project director, insisted Thursday the Fremont County option is a viable route and is not being developed to pressure Pueblo County into accepting its preferred alternative from Pueblo Dam. "I'm serious about it. I'm going to get a project," Fredell said Thursday. "Our first preference is still to come from the dam." Fredell was at the last in a series of open houses hosted by the Bureau of Reclamation as part of its public comment process for a draft environmental impact statement. About 85 people attended the open house Thursday at Canon City.

Fremont County Commissioner Ed Norden said he was skeptical about Colorado Springs motives in the agreement, which the commissioners approved Tuesday. "At the first meeting, I was curious if this IGA was simply a political maneuver to get Pueblo to agree to the project," Norden said. "I was told they did not want to lose time on the project. From everything I've heard or read, they still want to come from the dam."

The agreement gives Fremont County $50,000 to pay for staff or consultants to evaluate information for permits, as well as assuring the county Colorado Springs will apply for all necessary permits. Fremont County has never adopted special land use regulations for projects of statewide interest under the 1974 HB1041. Pueblo's revision of 1041 regulations in 2005 continues to be a source of contention for Colorado Springs, which is appealing a decision by Pueblo District Court Chief Judge Dennis Maes. "I think it's important," said Fremont County Commissioner Mike Stiehl, who said he is undecided about whether the route through the county is desirable. "I think with the $50,000, there is also the expectation that we will hire the experts we would need to make a timely turnaround in our decisions." Fremont County has a planning staff of five. "For us, it's important to be able to do a good assessment," Stiehl said. "I'm actually pleased that we were able to be cooperative at this point."

The Fremont County option, proposed in two of the seven alternatives Reclamation is studying, has particularly negative impacts for the reach of river above Lake Pueblo and from Pueblo Dam to Fountain Creek. Reclamation still deems it "reasonable." Dennis Jones, a former Fremont County commissioner, is not convinced the cumulative impact of all exchanges on the river has been adequately studied. As a commissioner, Jones attempted to tie water quality to exchanges in the late 1980s. He is particularly concerned about possible impacts of the project on the reach below the Eastern Fremont County Sanitation District treatment plant, which needs minimum flows to maintain water quality. Jones said he has been trying to find some of the source materials cited in the draft EIS for two weeks, but has so far been unsuccessful in locating them through Colorado Springs Utilities. "What I want to do is find where the science is," Jones said. "They're not modeling all the stuff that's actually occurring on the river."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
6:52:21 AM    


A picture named nisp2.jpg

Here's an editorial in favor of Glade Reservoir and the Northern Integrated Supply Project from The Greeley Tribune (free registration required). From the article:

NISP would build a new reservoir northwest of Fort Collins -- the 170,000 acre-feet Glade Reservoir -- and a companion Galeton Reservoir, which would store 40,000 acre-feet east of Ault. Glade would be five miles long and 260 feet deep just north of Ted's Place, creating a massive new reservoir along the northern Front Range. It has the potential to be a huge recreational and water storage magnet for this entire half of the state. An Environmental Impact Statement for NISP is scheduled to be released by April 30. We'll reserve judgment on this storage project until we hear more details on the environmental impact.

But the simple truth for northern Colorado residents is this: If NISP isn't approved and doesn't move forward in this decade, this may be the last chance we have to add water storage in our region for many decades. And without more storage, water -- or the lack of it -- might put a chokehold on the job growth and agriculture wealth that exists in northern Colorado. Floyd Ciruli, a Denver pollster and political pundit, told the crowd at the water users meeting that Colorado residents have indicated they will support new water storage projects as long as they are associated with conservation and re-use of water. NISP seems to meet those criteria. Ciruli indicated "there will not be any new, major water projects in this state" if NISP cannot get the support of residents and the cooperation of water users in northern Colorado. For those of us who appreciate the importance of agriculture in Weld and across northeastern Colorado, that's a scary thought. "Without NISP, we're looking at 40,000 to 60,000 acres of agricultural land dry-up," said Carl Brouwer, NISP project manager for the conservancy district. We're glad the project is moving forward and we look forward to seeing the details in the environment impact statement.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Category: Colorado Water
6:41:23 AM    



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2008 John Orr.
Last update: 5/1/08; 7:40:14 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