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.


Sunday, April 13, 2008
 

The legislature sent HB 08-1280 (Protect Leased Instream Flow Water Right) to Governor Ritter on April 9th, according to their website. The bill helps protect water rights owners that lease their water to maintain in-stream flows. It's part of the Healthy Rivers Campaign.

Here's a look at potential effects of the law in Grand County, from The Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:

The Colorado Legislature has given final approval to a bill that could benefit the Fraser and Colorado rivers. The legislation would allow water rights owners to leave their water in a stream or river without the risk of losing it, through special circumstances, said Kirk Klancke, Winter Park Ranch Water & Sanitation District manager. "The way Colorado water law works, it's called use-it or lose-it," he said. "If you don't pull your water right out of the river, you lose it, which can be pretty devastating...It will encourage people who don't need all their water to leave it in the stream, and still count as a beneficial use...There's never been a water law that encouraged ranchers (or municipalities) to leave part of their water rights in the river...It's actually legislation that I have been asking for for a couple of years," Klancke said. "One of the most important beneficial uses we have is to leave our water in the stream."

If someone wants to leave a portion of their water in the river they will need to sign a lease to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. "It has to have an environmentally positive impact," he said. "You have to work out a contract with them." It would not be helpful to retain water in areas where rivers flow too high, Klancke said.

Most West Slope rivers would benefit from the law, he said. This could help flush sediment, and lower stream temperatures by adding additional flows, he said. Right now, farmers, ranchers and others feel they have to pull all their irrigation out when it rains, even when they don't need "that much water," he said. Klancke is president of the local chapter of Trout Unlimited, which also testified and helped write the bill.

After Klancke gave a speech about the river at a Trout Unlimited conference in Idaho, a film crew was hired to do a documentary about the river. The film will feature Klancke fishing while talking about river issues and environmental problems. The documentary is set to be released this spring, Klancke said. Trout Unlimited will use the film to educate the public. "The ones that are diverting the water from us are the ones they're going to focus on educating," he said. "Trout Unlimited has spent a fortune on attorney and biologists looking after Grand County's water issues," Klancke said. "It wasn't too long ago that people knew the Fraser River was having trouble." He remembers when the Fraser River had lower temperatures and was healthier. "It keeps me motivated. I know what these rivers are capable of being."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
10:46:17 AM    


A picture named bonnyreservoir.jpg

Here's a look at the shiny new Yuma County Water Authority from The Yuma County Pioneer. They write:

A Yuma County Water Authority will be put into place when and if the effected governmental entities sign an intergovermental agreement. 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 March 28. The vote included approval of sending drafts to the three municipalities in the county -- Eckley, Yuma and Wray -- for their possible approval. The state purpose of the Yuma County Water Authority, according to the intergovernmental agreement is to "develop resources, systems and facilities in whole or in part for the benefit of the individual member jurisdictions, located in the Yuma County Region." It outlines the authorities powers and services to include acquiring, constructing, managing, maintaining or operating water systems, facilities, and works or improvements. It will be allowed to make and enter contracts, take action with real or personal property, incur debt, condemn property for use of right-of-way, among other items.

Commissioner Robin Wiley, who has spearheaded the formation of a water authority, said the way he sees it, any structuring for a long-term debt would have to go to the vote of the people. The Yuma County Water Authority is not initially being set up as a special district with its own taxing authority. At this point all revenues would come out of the general funds of each entity. Wiley said legal counsel told organizers this would be the quickest and easiest way to set up a water authority. It could be converted to a special district later by the vote of the county's residents. The intergovernmental agreement calls for the participating entities to contribute funds to help defray costs. The funding will be outlined in the by-laws formulated by the authority's board of directors. An example of base funding is included in the agreement, calling for a certain dollar amount times the population that live in the member jurisdiction. "Base funding" is defined as day-to-day operations and small capital purchases. The example also states large capital purchases could be funded by the entities at different percentages, based on the importance of the purchase to each member.

There will be nine board members if all four entities sign the agreement. Yuma County gets three members, and Yuma, Eckley and Wray two each. The agreement calls for the board members to come from the elected governing bodies of each entity, and the governing body also may appoint alternates. Member jurisdictions may, by resolution of its board, appoint a senior administrative official to be a designated voting representative, subject to the approval of the Yuma County Water Authority. Participating entities may withdraw from the authority, but as of now the agreement states a six-month notice must be given...

Ratification by each governmental entity is required for the agreement to become effective. If one of the entities decides against signing it, Wiley said it would be taken out of the agreement, which would then reflect just the entities that are going to sign on for the Yuma County Water Authority. All the local government boards are expected to address the intergovernmental agreement at their next meetings. The Eckley Town Board of Trustees has already had its monthly meeting for April, with the Wray and Yuma councils still having a meeting scheduled this month.

Category: Colorado Water
10:29:15 AM    


A picture named studentslesherjhsamples.jpg

The Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District is gearing up for their annual Children's Water Festival according to The Sterling Journal Advocate. From the article:

The Children's Water Festival features many hands-on and small group projects to help eastern Colorado schoolchildren learn about water uses and how to conserve this limited resource.

The festival will be on Tuesday, May 20, this year, which is later than usual, [Joe] Frank told the board members at their meeting Tuesday. The number of children registered so far is about 400, down from the 500 to 600 who attend in an average year. However, calls for reservations were still coming in today. Typically, schools arrange to bring all of the students in a particular grade level to the festival. They may be anywhere from third to sixth graders.

Category: Colorado Water
10:13:03 AM    


A picture named derrick.jpg

From Fort Collins Now: "The Senate has passed a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., that could allow for the recovery of usable water from sources contaminated by oil and gas drilling operations. The More Water, More Energy, Less Waste Act of 2007, will return to the House for procedural approval then be sent to the White House for President Bush's signature. The House passed a similar measure last year, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
10:00:44 AM    


A picture named watersprinkler.jpg

From The Douglas County News-Press: "Historically, the town has used watering restrictions from May 1 through Sept. 30, when residents follow a staggered watering schedule every three days, based on their street address. The town's utilities department proposed changing the restriction dates to May 23 through Aug. 31 to take advantage of May's increased precipitation and the cooler temperatures in September. Town council approved the change April 1...This change is a pilot project for 2008. Its effectiveness will be analyzed to see if the date change will continue beyond this year."

Category: Colorado Water
9:51:32 AM    


A picture named sandcreekaurora.jpg

From The Commerce City Sentinel Express: "More than 100 volunteers from the Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Related Sciences [recently] spent [a] Saturday restoring native habitat along the Sand Creek Regional Greenway in Commerce City at the Dahlia Trailhead at 56th Avenue and Sand Creek Drive. With help of a grant from the Xcel Energy Foundation, the work day is the first in a series or partnership projects. Volunteers worked on removing invasive plants, Russian olive trees, finishing a project that began in January with 15 volunteers using chain saws to cut down the Russian olive trees. The volunteers worked to clear and revegetate nearly two acres along the Sand Creek Greenway."

Category: Colorado Water
9:46:39 AM    


A picture named rockyfordditch.jpg

The Pueblo Board of Water Works has dropped their bid to control the Bessemer Ditch according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Pueblo Board of Water Works has dropped its bid to buy a controlling interest in the Bessemer Ditch. "There was not sufficient interest by the shareholders," said Alan Hamel, executive director of the water board. "We ended the tender period on March 31 and received responses from a very small percentage of the ditch." The water board will not buy any of the shares on the ditch as a result of this bid, and has no immediate intention of offering more for shares, Hamel said. "Certainly, we are disappointed," Hamel said, following an executive session with the water board Thursday. "This process has certainly helped us understand more about the Bessemer Ditch. In our discussion with shareholders, we learned there are many who still want to farm." Hamel said the intent was never to try to force anyone to sell. "There just wasn't enough interest and we respect water rights as a property right," Hamel said...

The water board's long-range water resources plan calls for water rights that have priority dates earlier than 1874 that would be available at Lake Pueblo, Hamel said. That would, generally, mean looking above Lake Pueblo for sources of water. There are no specific proposals to purchase water rights. One of the goals of the long-range plan is to reduce the reliance of Pueblo's water system on West Slope water. When the city's water rights are fully used, about 60 percent would be transmountain water. Uncertainties about the impact of global warming on that supply have convinced the water board to look within the Arkansas River Basin for new supplies...

One of the reasons more Bessemer shareholders did not accept the offer is that farmers were expecting more money, Hamel acknowledged. However, the water board was not willing to increase the offer. Offers ranged from $6,500 to $8,500 per share, which would be higher than agricultural shares have sold for on the ditch. A share would yield a consumptive use of about 1.5 acre-feet. Shares on the ditch that have remained on ag land have sold for $3,500-$4,000. The water board would have to spend $1,500 to $2,000 per share on legal, engineering and other costs to convert the shares to municipal use, Hamel said. Some Bessemer shareholders consider $10,000 per share to be a minimum offer for their water rights. The figure came out of talks with Xcel Energy in 2005, when it was looking for water for its Comanche Power Plant expansion. That offer failed to materialize, however, when Xcel signed a long-term contract with the water board to supply water.

One of the first things the water board will look at is increasing storage, Hamel added. The water board filed an application to enlarge Clear Creek Reservoir in 2004, and Hamel has been a big supporter of studying the enlargement of Lake Pueblo. The water board has also looked at potential storage sites downstream from Pueblo Dam in recent years. "We will continue to look at storage, because that can increase the amount of water we get from our water rights," Hamel said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
9:36:45 AM    


A picture named measuringsnowpack.jpg

From The Monte Vista Journal: "Weather patterns during March changed dramatically from the previous three months across Colorado, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)...Statewide, snow pack totals decreased by 12 percentage points, from 135 percent of average on March 1 to 123 percent of average on April 1. Despite the dry March, Green said show pack totals remained above average in all the state's major river basins on April 1, Green reported, noting that the statewide snow pack currently stands at the highest April 1 measurement since 1993, when it was 126 percent of average...Volumes of 130 to 160 percent of average can b expected in the Rio Grande this year, Green predicted."

Category: Colorado Water
9:26:37 AM    


A picture named climaxmine.jpg

Here's an update on water treatment efforts at the Climax Mine from The Leadville Chronicle. From the article:

Several years ago, Climax did an analysis of their settling ponds and determined that they would be completely filled up before the company was done mining. They soon realized that in order to continue operating the mine, they needed to come up with another way to treat water. So in 2005 they began building a new $23 million water treatment plant, and by last fall it was online. The new plant is located just north of the Climax Mine, on the west side of Highway 91. The new plant takes water from the property and turns it into a "sludge" that is 20 percent solid and 80 percent liquid. But this new fancy sludge densification plant, say officials, does pretty much the same thing as the old settling ponds. In fact, water is still sent to one of the settling ponds to undergo the second phase of treatment: Mayflower Reservoir (which also doubles as a recreational asset for hikers). For the most part, a two-phase system involving the sludge densification plant and Mayflower Reservoir handles all the water on the property, say officials. However, during the six or so weeks of runoff, plant capacity is expected to be exceeded. During those months, Climax will continue to use the old settling ponds to help them manage the higher volume of water.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
9:16:32 AM    


A picture named ldmtcollapse.jpg

Lake County Commissioners are looking at the collapsed Canterbury Tunnel as the source for rising water in the Leadville mine pool. They're hoping to get the state of Colorado to fund efforts for dye tests to determine if this is the case. Here's update from The Leadville Chronicle. They write:

A tale of two tunnels: as experts consider how to best fix the blockage in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel, some locals argue the best solution is actually to fix a nearby tunnel. But state and federal officials want evidence. Lake County Commissioner Mike Hickman complained about the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) to Gov. Bill Ritter on April 1, 2008, expressing his "utter dismay and frustration" with the state agency, which is tasked with studying pumping the Canterbury Tunnel as a potential fix to the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT) blockage. Commissioner Hickman is one of a group of locals who believe that clean water from the Canterbury Tunnel is entering the LMDT, mixing with contaminated water, and causing the head of water behind the blockage to rise.

But rather than promising redoubled efforts, Gov. Bill Ritter responded in support of CDPHE's efforts, noting that he was disappointed by some of the assertions in Commissioner Hickman's letter. Commissioner Hickman's letter had suggested that CDPHE was deliberately avoiding work as it "continues to drag its feet claiming no authority, no funding and no interest in any additional liability." Gov. Ritter countered by stating that there is "conflicting and incomplete" information regarding the hydrological connection between the Canterbury Tunnel and the LMDT that needs to be examined. "Because of the significant costs associated with drilling, operating and maintaining any well in the Canterbury Tunnel...we believe it prudent to first determine whether pumping water from the Canterbury Tunnel would have the desired effect," wrote the governor.

Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Wiens passed Amendment 66 to the Colorado budget on an initial Senate vote; the amendment strongly suggests the Dept. of Local Affairs spend $2 million to fixing the Canterbury Tunnel. The budget still has to go thorough several more stages and the appropriation could well be dropped before the final budget is signed--or the Dept. of Local Affairs could ignore the suggestion. "So we'll have to fight that battle at every turn, but at least we're in the game," said Sen. Wiens. Two earlier Canterbury Tunnel amendments introduced by Sen. Wiens were ruled out of order before Amendment 66 was passed...

The commissioners believe the blockage in this second tunnel is contributing additional clean water to the pool building behind the blockage in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. However, recently several scientists and state officials have argued there is no direct evidence for such an assertion. On March 26, the commissioners spent the morning explaining the Canterbury Tunnel to representatives from the United States congressional delegation and Greg Teter, the general manager of Parkville Water District. Commissioner Ken Olsen argued that pumping clean water out of the Canterbury Tunnel would keep water out of the LMDT, provide more winter drinking water to Leadville, and increase flows in the Arkansas River. But later that afternoon, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional groundwater expert Mike Wireman, who wrote a 2006 study of the LMDT, said he felt that those advocating to pump the Canterbury Tunnel didn't have enough evidence. "I'm not convinced yet, and you're going to have to convince me that pumping water out of the Canterbury will reduce flows into the LMDT," he said...

Lake County resident and retired mining engineer Bob Elder argued that the Canterbury Tunnel would be a great warm water source for the Parkville Water District, who owns the water rights, if only the water could be pumped out. The Canterbury Tunnel, which is located just north of Leadville, on the west side of Hwy 91, was once a winter water supply for Parkville. However, several years ago, a collapse in the tunnel decreased the flow significantly.

But Wireman pointed out that it wasn't the EPA's responsibility to rehabilitate a public water supply: "I understand the problem with the Canterbury and I understand what Parkville is faced with. They have a public water supply that's failing. And it's a good source of water and they need to rehab it. I don't question that for a moment. Our concern is we're reluctant to put money into anything that is not focused on this tunnel[sigma].We have to fix this tunnel because the community has made it clear that this tunnel needs to be fixed," he said. Gareth Davies of Cambrian Ground Water Co., who did the LMDT dye tracing tests for the 2006 EPA study, told this reporter that Canterbury water could be going into the LMDT, but dye tracing tests would have to be performed to know for certain. Moreover, before dye tracing tests could be performed in the Canterbury, a well or wells would have to be drilled where the dye could be injected at the Canterbury's sources. During a March 31 conference call, Bureau of Reclamation assistant regional manager Donald Moomaw said that if tests could show that Canterbury water was entering the LMDT, it would make sense to divert the water. However, he was unwilling to commit to paying for the tests...

Even on March 26, the congressional staffers who visited the commissioners were already thinking beyond assigning the two projects to the EPA, the CDPHE or the Bureau of Reclamation. Andrew Merritt, the state director for Sen. Wayne Allard, explained that trying to give an agency permanent liability for any remedy is such a difficult hurdle that it makes sense to think of other options first. He pointed out that Parkville may be able to find money in other areas, such as the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Fund. And Sen. Wiens says he has been working the Colorado Water Conservation Board and believes Parkville Water District could also use a combination of debt and grant money to fund the pumping of the Canterbury Tunnel. "I do think there's some avenues out there--does Parkville qualify for these types of grants? I don't know...Obviously that good water is going somewhere else and it would have a tremendous benefit to Parkville if they could capture that water," said Commissioner Hickman of the choices.

Here's a look at Lake County Commissioner Mike Hickman's letter to Governor Ritter about the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's response to the rising water in the Leadville mine pool, from The Leadville Herald Democrat. From the article:

In a letter to Ritter, Hickman wrote, "CDPHE continues to drag its feet claiming no authority, no funding and no interest in any additional liability." After declaring a state of emergency in Lake County on Feb. 13, the county asked CDPHE to work on drilling into the Canterbury Tunnel, which also has a collapse, to keep the water in this tunnel from adding to the water behind the blocked Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. The county also asked CDPHE to flume Evans Gulch to keep this clean water on the surface from mixing with the bad water in the mine pool. CDPHE decided to look into the Canterbury Tunnel fix before installing flumes, as it appeared to be the higher priority. These two solutions together are estimated to cost $3.5 million. A letter from CDPHE to the BOCC dated March 5 tried to communicate the reasons it has not made plans to started drilling: authority, funding and added liability. The ownership of the Canterbury Tunnel is unknown. However, Parkville Water District owns most, if not all, of the water rights. Greg Teter, manager of Parkville, has said that the district could gain ownership through a quiet-title action...

There is also no CDPHE program that this project would currently fit into. Without this project fitting into a program, there is no pot of money from which to draw the approximately $2 million for the drilling project. The state cannot just take money from other projects either, said Martha Rudolph, CDPHE director of environmental programs. She would have to be able to look those people in the eye and say that this was really going to work, but she is unable to do that at this time. CDPHE has been getting mixed messages on the effectiveness of this proposed remedy. The EPA is saying there is no connection, but other sources, such as historical records, show a connection. The proposal is for CDPHE to start studying the connection between the Canterbury Tunnel and the LMDT, to have the experts say whether there is a strong connection or not. That way, when CDPHE asks for money, it will be for a sure thing. "That is fiscally responsible," said Rudolph...

Liability, according to Rudolph, goes beyond unknown landowners and injury on the site. While the state has offered to relieve CDPHE of liability, it can't eliminate the liability if the work violates the Clean Water Act or causes a Superfund issue, for example. CDPHE would still be held responsible. CDPHE is working with the federal delegation on these issues, she said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Category: Colorado Water
9:07:18 AM    


A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

Here's a recap of last week's meeting of the Arkansas River Roundtable from The La Junta Tribune-Democrat. From the article:

The Arkansas Basin Roundtable met Wednesday at Colorado State University-Pueblo and accepted recommendations from the Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Committee. The committee identified and mapped recreational and environmental attributes and prioritized those attributes in the Arkansas Basin. After the attributes were gathered by the roundtables, they will become the basis for establishing priorities for the basins.

David Robbins and Dick Wolfe of the Colorado Division of Water Resources spoke Wednesday to the roundtable about the Arkansas River Compact agreement with Kansas. Robbins said he has been asked why the compact can't be revised to allow for more efficient irrigation, but he said there was no way Kansas would give up any rights to water. "We may not undertake development of new or improved construction," he said. New wells and the proliferation of pivot irrigation have raised concerns in Kansas, he said and he won't consider new wells as anything but damaging to Kansas' water rights. The State of Kansas is looking, Robbins said and has already questioned whether the new systems are breaking the compact. "Show us why there hasn't been an increase in consumption," Robbins said Kansas is asking. Next spring, a five-year study is due to be given to Kansas, so that the state may see for itself whether or not the compact has been violated, Robbins said. The study includes aerial maps, and studies of new irrigation sites, some of which Kansas already knows about, he said. "The cat's out of the bag, and it's really going to be out of the bag next spring," he said. Wolfe spoke after Robbins, stating that the State of Colorado isn't against efficiency improvements; it just has an interest in making sure the improvements don't violate the compact. "This is an issue for Colorado and needs to be solved by Colorado and we don't want Kansas telling us what to do," he said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
8:51:32 AM    


A picture named wastewatertreatmentwtext.jpg

Work on Fairplay's shiny new treatment plant may actually start this spring after numerous design and funding problems over the years, according to The Fairplay Flume. From the article:

At the regular Fairplay Sanitation District board meeting on April 1, Andrew Waddoups of the Burns & McDonnell engineering firm reported that plans for the proposed wastewater treatment plant are now at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for review. The $5,084,778 Guaranteed Maximum Price for the plant is contingent on a time schedule that calls for construction to begin on May 1. Waddoups explained that an amount had been added to the GMP to cover the cost of an application for a new discharge permit for the District that must be submitted by May 1. Board member Marie Chisholm agreed to fill out the application for the new permit, so that amount will be reversed from the Burns & McDonnell GMP...

Waddoups explained to a crowd of about 25 people that the cost of the plant was stripped down as much as possible. He stressed that it is critical for the project that the time schedule in the plan is followed, with plant construction to start on May 1 and be completed in November. An Agreement for Construction Project Facilitator between the district and wastewater operator Dave Stanford was approved by the board. The agreement provides that Stanford will monitor the construction project and will facilitate communication between the contractors, engineers and the district board. Under the agreement, Stanford commits to serve as facilitator at no additional charge to the district...

Park County Assessor Dave Wissel distributed information about the potential mill levy impact of the bond debt to be incurred by the District. Wissel based his information on the bond debt figures that were submitted to the county within the district's projected 2008 budget. Wissel stressed that this was only a projection, but was intended to let property owners, especially commercial property owners, know what the impact of the increased debt might have on their tax bills for 2008. If the bond debt fund payments for the year were to be covered totally by property taxes - which they won't - the mill levy would have to increase by 7.617 mills to a level of 24.665 mills. Stanford, who was instrumental in establishing the district's 2008 budget, said the district's property taxes would not have to rise because the additional bond debt would be covered by increased sewer usage fees and tap fees, particularly from the higher rates that are now charged to entities located in the district that are exempt from property taxes, such as the Park County government, the Park County Jail, the Re-2 School District and other public entities. The mill levy just for the sanitation district in 2007 was 16.848, which means taxes of $16.848 for every $1,000 of assessed value. The assessed value for residential properties is 7.96 percent, or $7,960 on a home with an actual value of $100,00. The assessed value on a commercial property is 29 percent, or $29,000 on a commercial property with an actual value of $100,000...

Clay Brown and Greg Winkler from the Department of Local Affairs presented an amended contract for a $500,000 mineral impact assistance grant that was previously approved for the headworks of the wastewater treatment plant. The terms of the grant were changed to add insurance requirements and to name the State of Colorado as an additional insured party; to extend the completion date of the project to August 2009; and to require that all payments going forward be based on reimbursable expenses rather than periodic payments. About $135,000 of the grant has already been spent, leaving a balance of $365,000. Asked about the possibility of a DOLA grant to cover the cost of the lagoons and other construction described in a second phase of the scheduled plant construction, Brown said that a grant might be considered if the board were to require a "second notice to proceed" with phase two. He explained that it is "not easy to get grant approval if the contract has already been let," but if board action is required before the beginning of phase two, the grant could be acceptable. Phase two costs are estimated to be about $240,000.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
8:42:45 AM    


A picture named whoopingcranes.jpg

The U.S. Senate approved the dough to fund the federal share of the Platte River Cooperative Agreement on Thursday, according to The Denver Post. From the article:

The U.S. Senate has approved $157 million to help carry out a three-state agreement to manage the Platte River to accommodate endangered species and the growing number of cities and farmers using the river. The bill's passage Thursday follows approval of the agreement in 2006 by the governors of Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska. The U.S. House previously passed the measure. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said the bill aims to ensure that compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act doesn't stop the water from flowing...

The legislation authorizes the Interior secretary to proceed with the program. The federal and state governments will split the $317 million cost. Negotiations on use of the Platte started in the early 1990s. Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska signed an agreement in 1997 after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said water projects on the river threatened the vulnerable wildlife.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
8:31:49 AM    


State Senator Chris Romer has introduced and new bill to fund watershed protection, SB 08-221, Concerning the Authority of the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to Issue Bonds For Certain Projects [pdf], according to The Denver Post. From the article:

Colorado's forests -- aching after major wildfires and widespread beetle infestation -- have found a new champion: water providers across the state. Under a bill introduced this week in the state legislature, those providers could soon be able to team up and bring millions of new dollars to protect the forests from further harm. The idea, said Sen. Chris Romer, a Denver Democrat and one of the bill's sponsors, is to spend money now to prevent a catastrophic forest fire rather than spend much more money later cleaning up the ash- and debris-filled water that follows such events. "This is an effort to get water users to pay now rather than pay later," Romer said. "The question isn't if it will burn; it's when it will burn." Senate Bill 221 would allow the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to issue bonds on behalf of water providers, acting effectively as a bank giving a loan. That money -- Romer is hoping for as much as $20 million a year -- would be used to remove trees killed by beetles, clear out undergrowth, thin forests and do other fire-mitigation practices in the participating providers' watersheds. The providers would pay back that money to the authority by most likely charging a fee to their customers.

Denver Water manager Chips Barry said in a meeting this week with The Denver Post's editorial board that Denver Water is looking at charging such a "watershed maintenance fee." Denver Water has spent tens of millions of dollars cleaning out debris in its reservoirs that was washed down after 2002's Hayman fire and other major wildfires. "We think we need to get out in front of this," he said. Denver Water Board president Tom Gougeon said discussions of a possible fee are only conceptual and said Denver Water is deciding how best to help the forests that cradle its water. "How you pay isn't the first question," he said. "The first question is, 'What would be effective?' " Because multiple water providers often share the same watershed and could also bear the burden of protecting it, the bill is appealing to small providers that would be able to do only so much to promote forest health on their own, said Gary Severson, executive director of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. "This is very creative," said Severson, whose organization includes 28 local governments and water providers in the northern and central mountains. "It's brand new. We haven't seen anything like this."[...]

[State Senator Dan] Gibbs said he is hopeful that SB 221 will frame the forests' problems in a different way and bring more money to the cause. "This could potentially be a tremendous amount of money to forest health," he said.

Category: Colorado Water
8:22:49 AM    


A picture named purgatoireriver.jpg

From The Trinidad Times: "'Purge the Purgatoire' is the descriptive name for the first community-wide effort scheduled on Saturday, April 19, to clean up and around the river as it flows through the historic core of Trinidad. The volunteer cleanup effort will be spearheaded by the Purgatoire River Reclamation Project, working under the auspices of the Trinidad Community Foundation, and will be assisted by the Purgatoire River Conservancy District and the City of Trinidad. A 'pre-Purge' workday is scheduled Saturday, April 12 for hardy volunteers who are willing to assist in pulling tires and other large debris from the river in advance, as well as with efforts to cut out invasive Russian olive trees that line much of the riverbank. Meet at Cimino Park at 8 a.m. Community volunteers will gather Saturday, April 19, 8 a.m. at Cimino Park for sign-up and team assignment, which includes logging, bagging, muscle, grooming and clean up. Participants will be assigned to a team appropriate to their abilities, and will be provided with a t-shirt, lunch and eligibility in a drawing for prizes donated by numerous local businesses. Booths will be set up for information, food and first aid."

Category: Colorado Water
8:10:24 AM    


A picture named wetlandssouthplatte.jpg

From The Sterling Journal Advocate: "Discussion between the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District and the Julesburg Well Users about the feasibility of transferring the Julesburg Recharge Project has been tabled for the time being. The well users group is a part of the LSPWCD's Julesburg Recharge Project, but some of the well owners decided a few years ago that they could provide better service to their members at a lower cost than LSPWCD does. Those well owners also believe that the Julesburg Recharge Project should be handed over to them. There have been several years of on-and-off discussion, much of it at LSPWCD board meetings."

Category: Colorado Water
7:58:15 AM    


A picture named nukeplantcattenomfrance.jpg

Here's a short look at nuclear power and its potential to help with global warming from The Rocky Mountain News. From the article:

Mother Jones magazine, known for its hard-hitting investigative pieces and coverage of environmental issues, is publishing a cover story on the green benefits of nuclear power. "Whether we like it or not, there is a very lively discussion of nuclear power these days," said Jay Harris, publisher of Mother Jones. "We didn't bring this issue to the table. But it's here." His comments came Friday afternoon at one of the closing sessions of the University of Colorado's Conference on World Affairs. Joining him were longtime No Nukes activist Harvey Wasserman and Mike Moore, retired editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

As the climate warms and levels of greenhouse gases generated by coal and other fossil fuels rise, nuclear energy is being touted more and more often as a way to power the future. Harris, citing statistics published in the upcoming issue, said research shows that nuclear power emits roughly the same amount of carbon as is produced by solar energy. The calculations include the energy it takes to mine and transport uranium and the operations of the plants themselves. But they don't include the emissions generated when the waste from the plants has to be stored and monitored. The viability of nuclear power is cropping up lately as states such as Colorado launch CO2 reduction plans and eye the potential of nuclear power.

Category: Climate Change News
7:44:44 AM    


A picture named lowerarkansasriver.jpg

From The Hays Daily News: " Kansas is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to increase what Colorado must pay it for legal costs stemming from a lawsuit over use of the Arkansas River. In documents filed Thursday, Kansas asked for $9.2 million in legal costs related to the case it filed in 1985 over claims that upstream wells in Colorado were pumping water that legally belonged to Kansas under the 60-year-old Arkansas River Compact...Colorado does not believe it owes Kansas more money and will file a formal response within 30 days, said Dennis Montgomery, attorney for Colorado. 'Colorado has paid the costs,' Montgomery said."

Category: Colorado Water
7:35:32 AM    


A picture named southerndeliverysystem.jpg

Here's an opinion piece about Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System from that hits at one of the major points against the project, namely the continued degradation of Fountain Creek, from The Pueblo Chieftain. Farmer Bill Alt writes:

Obviously, Colorado Springs is going to keep on growing, and SDS is a costly tool. But is it the only solution? I don't think so. SDS probably gets Colorado Springs the most "bang for the bucks," but at what cost to the neighbors? It is my view that Colorado Springs has plenty of water to meet its needs now and in the immediate future if it would recycle the water it has and not release it as sewage into the Fountain. What Colorado Springs Utilities and the city and county elected officials simply do not acknowledge publicly is that it is not what SDS takes out of the watershed that is important. It is what it puts back in that causes the problems. I think they probably do understand and prefer to ignore the non-native flows they put into the Fountain because to continue as they have and increase the size of their waste management plants is cheaper than building a recycling system.

While Colorado Springs Utilities' experts might disagree, somewhere between 60 percent and 80 percent of the daily flows in the Fountain are treated waste from Colorado Springs and other El Paso County users. You don't have to be a certified hydrologist to see this. On a dry day with no heavy snowmelt, look at the Fountain as it enters Colorado Springs from Manitou Springs and then drive down to the Pueblo County line (the Pinon Bridge is a good spot) and see the difference. The average person may well ask, "What difference does it make?"

First of all, nature never meant for the Fountain to carry that extra volume of water. The Fountain, as nature intended it, is an intermittent stream. There shouldn't be water in the lower Fountain 360 days a year. If it's not flooding, you should be able to step across it. But because of the extra water, the river erodes its banks 24/7, 360 days a year, depositing millions of tons of silt into the river which is then transported downstream to degrade sewage plants, ditch head gates and water supplies for farmers and cities in the lower Fountain and Lower Arkansas valleys. This continued erosion also exacerbates flooding in the Fountain, making flood events more violent and destructive. There are a lot of other negative outcomes from dumping non-native water in the Fountain, but for now I think I have made my point.

Mark Udall is on board with an extension of the public comment period for the Southern Deliver System, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has joined others in calling for an extension of the deadline for comments on the Bureau of Reclamation's draft environmental statement for the Southern Delivery System...

"This project could have significant impacts on a variety of economic and environmental values in this region," Udall said. "The draft document is large and will take time to review and analyze. Because of the implication of this project on the Arkansas River Valley and the communities and people who rely upon this river for their livelihood, it is essential that these affected interests be allowed the additional time they need to review this document."[...]

Jaci Gould, area resources manager for the bureau, said no decision has been made on whether to extend the deadline, although the bureau is considering it. "We usually get a lot of comments in the week prior to the deadline," Gould said. "We'll have to see." Last week, Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., asked for an extension of the deadline to June 27, providing an additional 60 days for comments. Salazar also wanted a town hall meeting in Pueblo to hear comments, but the bureau is not interested in participating, said Kara Lamb, Reclamation spokeswoman. A coalition of 15 environmental and labor groups also has requested an extension of the comment deadline...

"I am interested in making sure that the federal government conducts an environmental review process that has the confidence of all parties," Udall said. "The Arkansas River faces many challenges, including downstream sedimentation and increased recreational pressure upstream. There are concerns about flooding in Fountain Creek, and of course, Colorado Springs has water rights that must be respected," Udall said. "In this process, it is essential that federal agencies involved in these projects and proposals provide ample opportunity for affected communities to have a say in their future. Providing more time and full hearings would demonstrate that commitment and respect."

Here's a recap of Thursday's public forum from The Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:

The sixth and final open house was hosted by the Bureau of Reclamation to explain the draft environmental impact statement for SDS, the $1.1 billion project that would provide water to Colorado Springs and its partners for the next 40 years and beyond. A contract to cooperate with the project was signed Tuesday by the Fremont County Commissioners and visibly angered some Penrose residents, who took the board to task for the agreement. "I think they sold us out for $50,000 and whatever else they worked out under the table," said Katie McCallister, who lives with her husband, James, near Brush Hollow Reservoir. As proposed, the project crosses their land, and she believes it could take as much as 25 percent of their 40 acres. The McCallisters have fought the project since its inception. In addition to private property issues, James said he was concerned about the impact the project would have on wildlife habitat, natural vegetation and underground water in the area...

Many residents question the wisdom of removing up to 78 million gallons per day from the Arkansas River near Florence. Joel Bolduc, environmental manager for Holcim (US) Inc., said he was satisfied with the answers he had received, although he still had more questions. "We are most concerned with the minimum flow as it goes by the plant," Bolduc said of the cement plant that sits just east of the preferred site. He was told the current minimum flow of 190 feet per second would continue to be met. "If they maintain the 190, we should not have any issues," Bolduc said. "This was helpful."

District 1 Commissioner Mike Stiehl was on hand to explain the county's involvement with the project. He said the intergovernmental agreement, which included a $50,000 advance to pay for fees and costs incurred during the process, actually protects the county. He said without the contract, Colorado Springs probably would not be required to submit to the county's application processes. "Their water is in the Arkansas River," Stiehl said. "We are in between the city and their water." Legally, Fremont County has no say in multi-jurisdictional agreements because it does not have land-use regulations known as 1041s, named over the House bill that gave counties such power. Pueblo County, the other entity under study for the SDS project, does have the regulations, which could effectively stop Colorado Springs from building the project there.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
7:24:55 AM    



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2008 John Orr.
Last update: 5/1/08; 7:41:49 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