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.


Saturday, April 19, 2008
 

A picture named yamparivereofmaybell.jpg

Here's some runoff news from The Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:

The Little Snake River, in the northernmost part of Routt County, is at 207 percent of its average water content, Vale said. The Elk River has become a significant concern, as well, at 153 percent of average -- a level Vale said was "very abnormal." In 1997, flooding from the Elk River forced a late-night evacuation of people and livestock from Mad Creek to Saddle Mountain Ranch. Closer to Steamboat, the west side of Rabbit Ears Pass is at 129 percent of average water content, and the measuring station in Lynx Pass is at 138 percent of average.

In the greater Steamboat Springs area, close attention will be paid to Walton Creek, Soda Creek, Spring Creek and Hot Springs Creek, as well as the Yampa River south of town near the Super 8 Motel, the Dream Island area and the industrial area west of town near Snow Bowl Plaza. Oak Creek is the biggest flood risk in South Routt. In 1984, the creek spilled over its banks, washing away parts of Decker Park and some nearby homes. Other areas of concern include Cottonwood Creek in Clark and Dry Creek in Hayden. Dry Creek is under close monitoring during a warming trend that is expected to continue through Sunday, which could push its flow up out of its banks as early as Saturday night, Vale said. "A cool April is a troubling May -- history proves that. The current weather that you're seeing proves that," Vale said. "The rest of April, starting Monday afternoon, is going to go right back to cool with increased snow."

Runoff already is flowing into the Stagecoach Reservoir at staggering levels, Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District Manager John Fetcher said. "I'm afraid that in May, Stagecoach is going to spill," Fetcher said. The water level in the reservoir was pulled down 14 feet Monday in anticipation of increased runoff, but as of Thursday morning, inflow levels were up as much as 140 percent, Fetcher said. "Our outflow in the turbines is as high was we can make it," Fetcher said. "How long that buffer is going to last, I don't know."

All eyes are on Oak Creek in Southern Routt County, according to The Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:

Oak Creek's Public Works Department is assessing its sandbag supply in anticipation of high water in South Routt this spring. "It's going to be a different spring than we've had the past few years," Routt County Emergency Management Director Chuck Vale said. "We won't have what most people consider flooding -- there won't be houses floating down the river." But every three to five years, Routt County experiences what Vale calls "high water" on the Elk and Yampa rivers and the area's many creeks. Such conditions are probable in 2008...

The Steam boat Ski Area recorded record snow this season -- 489 inches when the mountain closed April 6 -- and flakes continued to fall in the Yampa Valley last week. The water content in the combined White and Yampa river drainages is 107 percent of average, according to the National Resource Conservation Ser vice. The Elk River is high, at 121 percent of average. Oak Creek is the biggest flood risk in South Routt, Vale said. Other areas of concern in Routt County include Dry Creek in Hayden and Cottonwood Creek in Clark. In the greater Steamboat Springs area, close attention will be paid to Walton Creek, Soda Creek, Spring Creek and Hot Springs Creek, as well as the Yampa River south of town near the Super 8 Motel, the Dream Island area and the industrial area west of town near Snow Bowl, Vale said.

Category: Colorado Water
10:40:45 AM    


A picture named slvdischargerecharge.jpg

The San Luis Valley is celebrating the return of their aquifer. Here's a report from The Pueblo Chieftain:

The confined aquifer under the San Luis Valley is continuing its recovery and may see a brighter future thanks to a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, according to officials with the Rio Grande Water Conservancy District. The confined aquifer is the deeper of the two groundwater formations that run beneath the San Luis Valley and, like the shallower, unconfined aquifer, suffered badly during the drought in the early part of the decade. Allen Davey, a consulting engineer for the district, reviewed well measurements at the board's meeting Tuesday. He said almost every one of the district's monitoring wells showed an improvement of 1 to 2 feet over measurements from the previous year. "There is a continuing recovery in the confined aquifer," he said.

But there is still much that's not known about the confined aquifer's behavior and officials at the district hope to augment the information they get from their own monitoring network. "We still don't understand fully the response of the confined (aquifer) and again, new information would be very helpful," said Steve Vandiver, the district's manager. Tuesday they inquired if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could record basic data from the wells on its refuges to augment information from the other confined wells the district monitors in the valley. Robbins said it would be great just to have data on when the wells start and stop flowing. "You have tons of wells on the (Monte Vista Wildlife Refuge) that probably quit flowing completely for five years," he said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
10:23:13 AM    


A picture named arkansasriverbasin.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain: "The Southeast Colorado Resource Conservation and Development Council is providing a final opportunity for everyone with vested interest in water issues in the Lower Arkansas Valley to review the Watershed Plan Wednesday. Agriculture producers, watershed associations, conservancy districts and others are encouraged to attend this Lower Arkansas River Watershed Planning Meeting from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the Best Western-Bent's Fort Inn in Las Animas."

Category: Colorado Water
10:13:02 AM    


A picture named clearcreekfalls.jpg

Here's a look at the Pueblo Board of Water Works' plans for their trans-mountain water this year, from The Pueblo Chieftain. They write:

The Pueblo Board of Water Works will leave a little of its water on the West Slope this year because water conditions in the Arkansas River basin are expected to be bountiful. Diversions from the Columbine, Wurtz and Busk-Ivanhoe systems will be curtailed this year, Water Resources Specialist Alan Ward told the water board this week. By decree, the amount of water that can be taken from the ditches is limited by long-term averages, Ward explained. "We will limit them, so we can take more in future years," Ward said. "The water lease market is way down this year, so we'll just open the headgates to the West Slope." Two other systems, the Ewing and Wurtz extension, will divert as usual. The Ewing Ditch does not meet its long-term limits. The Wurtz Extension does not have the same sort of long-term limits, Ward said.

The water board's own transmountain diversions were developed over the years as the water board or its predecessors purchased mountain systems that brought water into the valley. Pueblo's storage continues to remain at all-time highs with nearly 42,000 acre-feet in storage in four reservoirs, compared with about 34,000 acre-feet last year. The water board is purposely keeping Clear Creek Reservoir at a lower level in anticipation of a big spring runoff and is looking at ways to keep expected high flows moving through the gates later this spring.

Category: Colorado Water
10:02:11 AM    


A picture named lowerarkansasriver.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain: "A calm, steady voice for farmers on the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District was replaced Thursday by a new director who will continue to carry that torch. Carl Genova, the at-large director from Pueblo County, decided not to reapply for the position on the board after serving 20 years. Kevin Karney, an Otero County commissioner and rancher, was appointed this week by Pueblo Chief District Judge Dennis Maes to take Genova's place."

Category: Colorado Water
9:51:53 AM    


A picture named southerndeliverysystem.jpg

Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner had a lot to say about the water picture in the Arkansas River Basin at a recent working session, as reported by The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner lashed out at El Paso County and Colorado Springs Utilities officials Thursday for actions he said prove their efforts at cooperation are merely affectations. Chostner gave a brief speech at the close of the commissioners' work session, pointing to recent actions by El Paso County communities regarding water, including an attempt by Widefield and Fountain to buy a Custer County ranch for its water rights. Other issues he mentioned included the introduction of a Fremont County option for the Southern Delivery System and Pueblo West's habit of leasing water rights to the city of Aurora. "Their spirit of cooperation is counterbalanced by their scorched earth policy in the courtroom and their actions around the southern part of the state," Chostner said of El Paso County and Colorado Springs Utilities.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Category: Colorado Water
9:45:54 AM    


A picture named arkansasriverleadville.jpg

From The Leadville Chronicle: "In the high water year of 2000, as Turquoise Lake filled, the Bureau of Reclamation decided to release 700 cfs out of the reservoir and into the Lake Fork drainage--wreaking a certain amount of havoc for fish, river vegetation and Lake County Road and Bridge. However, after concerned stakeholders complained, Reclamation promised to keep a tighter rein on releases. They also promised to bring all the stakeholders together before each runoff season, in order to have a conversation about water releases. So on Tuesday, April 8, Turquoise Lake stakeholders, the Lake County Commissioners, and representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation met in Lake County to discuss the water level in Turquoise Lake and the possibility that Reclamation officials may have to release water through the spillway glory hole into Lake Fork this year. At the meeting, representatives promised to try to release no more than 400 cfs at a time, in 50 cfs increments. Releasing at that rate reduces the chances that the flows will hurt fish populations, river vegetation or bridges."

Category: Colorado Water
9:35:58 AM    


A picture named coalfiredpowerplant.jpg

From " Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, today again vetoed legislation that would have overturned a decision of her administration to deny an permit application to build two new coal-fired power plants in western Kansas...The bill Sebelius vetoed today would have permitted the power plants and stripped the state agency of the power to deny such permits in the future if they held utilities to standards stricter than those in the federal Clean Air Act. 'Legislators who promote the expansion of coal-fired plants in Kansas made a strategic decision with SB 148,' said Sebelius. 'Rather than working toward a compromise solution or having any conversation about energy policy, this bill was drafted behind closed doors. It contains the same onerous elements of the previous bill that I vetoed; and again, these are elements I cannot accept and will not support...This maneuver has done nothing to address the issues at hand - developing comprehensive energy policy, providing base-load energy power for Western Kansas, implementing carbon mitigation strategies and capitalizing on our incredible assets for additional wind power,' the governor said. Opponents of the Sunflower project say wind and conservation are better alternatives to new coal plants, which will send 85 percent of their electricity outside the state anyway."

Category: Climate Change News
9:16:04 AM    


A picture named uppersouthplattebasin.jpg

A bit of a water war has broken out near Como, according to The Fairplay Flume. From the article:

The Buffalo Owners Association, the homeowners' association for The Buffalo subdivision southeast of Como, has been a battleground beset with board members accusing each other of wrongdoing and cover-up, controversial water rights, an attempted ouster of two board members, a bankruptcy filing, and the resignation of the coordinator for the board. The situation has gotten so bad that a uniformed security guard has been hired for at least one general membership meeting, and both sides in the dispute have hired lawyers. A central point of dispute is a 1997 agreement between the association and the Division of Water Resources for the State of Colorado. In that agreement, written by Gary Athey - who was president of the association at the time - the BOA agreed that not more than 100 of the 975 lots in the subdivision would be occupied year- round, and that the average occupancy of the remaining lots would not exceed an average of 30 days per year...

According to one lawyer's opinion, it's possible that violations of the 1997 agreement could cause the state engineering office to stop issuing well permits in The Buffalo subdivision and possibly also try to reduce the amount of water pumping from the existing wells...

The water documents were requested to determine whether the water rights in the subdivision are protected and whether future water use is "being handled responsibly and in the best interests of the owners." They wanted the documents relating to Simnioniw, the coordinator, to determine whether she was "acting on behalf of and at the request of the Board of Directors."[...]

Prior to the tangle over access to information, Hahn got in a tussle with the board over water rights on his property. He had applied to the board for water rights to two springs, one of which has its headwater on property owned by the association and adjacent to Hahn's property, according to minutes of the Jan. 28, 2007, owners' association meeting. The board had hired an attorney, Michael Shimmin of Boulder-based Vranesh and Raisch LLP. Shimmin is an expert in water rights, according to the minutes. He reviewed all of the documents and issued a legal analysis of Hahn's water rights filing. One of the documents that Shimmin reviewed that was made available to The Flume was a 1997 agreement between the association and the Division of Water Resources for the State of Colorado. In that agreement, written by Gary Athey, then-president of the association, the BOA agreed that not more than 100 of the 975 lots in the subdivision would be occupied year-round, and that the average occupancy of the remaining lots would not exceed an average of 30 days per year. Also, water is restricted to ordinary household purposes and no outside uses. The BOA agreed to notify the state engineer if water was being used for watering domestic animals or irrigation. The association also agreed to provide the state engineer a list of wells within the subdivision every year.

A letter from Shimmin, dated Nov. 15, 2006, said that the association's covenants "authorize animals, including horses, to be kept on individual lots." However, the agreement with the state engineer prohibited water used for outdoor use, including watering domestic animals. According to the minutes of the January meeting, the association does not need a water augmentation plan, but the minutes said that property owners need to comply with the limitation on water use, including not watering livestock. Property owners who do have livestock must provide a legal source of water. In a letter to property owners dated Jan. 3, 2008, Aranguren stated that the opposition to Hahn's water rights was dropped. In a Dec. 1, 2007, letter to members, the board states that it "entered into a compromise stipulation" with Hahn. The board withdrew its opposition to Hahn's request for a junior water right to the spring on his property, and Hahn withdrew his claim to a junior water right for another spring that was not located on his property, but possibly on one of the outlots owned by the association. Hahn's original application was to "obtain and share ownership with the Buffalo Subdivision on some unclaimed surface water which flows through his property," Aranguren said in a letter to the members dated Jan. 3, 2008. Hahn was "trying to find a source of water for those property owners who have or would like to have horses," because having a legal source of water for horses makes the subdivision more desirable, according to Aranguren's letter.

In July 2007 the association requested an analysis of the implications of not having a water augmentation plan, according to a letter from Shimmin dated July 25, 2007. In the letter, Shimmin stated that the subdivision's water supply plan was "always based on the assumption that, out of the 975 total lots authorized as building sites, no more than 100 would have houses occupied year-round, and that the other 875 would have vacation occupancy averaging 30 days per unit per year." Shimmin stated that, in his opinion, the state engineer believed he was giving the subdivision "the same water supply plan that it would have had if it had been adjudicated in water court." He also indicated that, after a review of the covenants and the by-laws, there was nothing to indicate that the developers or the BOA has made "any specific plans to deal with or implement the limitations of the water supply plan." He added that as long as the BOA remains in compliance with the 1997 agreement, he doesn't believe there will be "any adverse effect on people who have wells, people who don't have wells, or on the Association as an organization." However, because there is not a decreed augmentation plan in place, and well owners in the subdivision are operating "exempt" wells according to Colorado statute, if that statute is changed by the General Assembly, then the rights of property owners could change, said Shimmin. Most homeowners have an exempt well, which does not require an augmentation plan, and are "exempt" from administration in the priority system, according to the Colorado State University Web site. Other wells, such as irrigation wells, are administered with the priority system.

Shimmin also discussed in his letter the possible impact from violations of the 1997 water agreement. It's possible, he stated, that the state engineering office could stop issuing well permits. It's also possible, he added, that the SEO could try to reduce the amount of water pumping from the existing wells. If the number of houses occupied full-time exceeded 100, or the average occupancy of the part-time residences exceeded the average of 30 days per year, it is possible that the SEO would not issue any new well permits, Shimmin added. According to the January 2008 letter from Aranguren, the first time members heard of the 1997 water agreement was at the Oct. 25, 2007 meeting. Webster said that it was only in December 2006 that the homeowners were informed about the water issue for the first time. Shimmin's letters were included with the Dec. 1, 2007, letter from the board to members. "Now you can understand why your properties do not hold their value when compared to our surrounding subdivisions," Aranguren stated in the letter. "More realtors are becoming aware of the limited growth potential of the Buffalo Subdivision."

Shimmin suggested that the BOA be proactive in enforcing the provisions of the water agreement from 1997. If the BOA knowingly allowed an individual member to violate the terms of the agreement, then the board might have some responsibility for not taking action, such as reporting the violator to the SEO. If property owners felt the terms of the 1997 water agreement were too restrictive, Shimmin said, they could develop a new augmentation plan in order to provide for "additional water uses" and bring that to water court for adjudication. However, Shimmin cautioned, a new augmentation plan "would take several years and cost significant amounts of money." He further cautioned against doing anything that would call attention to the existing situation and draw public attention to the subdivision.

Category: 2008 Presidential Election
9:08:47 AM    


A picture named republicanriversouthfork.jpg

Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska officials met again last week to firm up plans to implement their agreement on the Republican River, according to The Wauneta Breeze. From the article:

The three-state Republican River Compact Administration (RRCA) met in Kansas City late last week for the second time in less than a month to address differences on compliance issues. Engineers from the three states will meet again in early May for discussion and exchange of information before a May 15-16 compact and engineering meeting in Lincoln. Jasper Fanning, manager of the Upper Republican Natural Resources District (URNRD) in Imperial, attended last week's meeting. He was joined by the managers of the other two NRDs in the basin...

State Engineer Dick Wolfe, director of Colorado's Division of Water Resources, said it appears that both Kansas and Nebraska have their own conception on how their plan can work. However, neither agrees with the other on their approach. Wolfe, who represents Colorado on the RRCA, said Kansas doesn't see Colorado's effort to come into compliance in the same way Colorado sees it. At the mid-May meeting, Wolfe hopes the RRCA will approve Colorado's $70-million plan for compliance. They plan to pump 15,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the Republican North Fork sub-basin and deliver it to the Nebraska state line through a new pipeline. Colorado believes this will meet their obligation for compliance with Kansas. However, Wolfe said Kansas wants efforts balanced in the Republican's South Fork sub-basin that includes the Bonny Reservoir.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
8:55:05 AM    


A picture named suburbs.jpg

Here's an update on HB 08-1141 from The Glenwood Springs Post Independent (free registration required). From the article:

A bill now in the Colorado Legislature would give local governments an opportunity to determine whether proposed developments of 50 or more single family homes have adequate water supplies. Language in House Bill 1141, which has been drafted by Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, would require developers to demonstrate to local governments, especially municipalities, that the water supply for their proposed development application would be sufficient and stable. Any decision about whether to accept the developers' water plan for a proposed development would be up to the local government, Curry said. Curry's bill cleared the state House last week on a vote of 46 to 18. The bill has been introduced to the state Senate and is assigned to the Local Government committee, she said...

To help local officials make a determination about a proposed development's water supply, developers would have to submit a report that documents the proposed project's water demands and supplies. Information in the reports would have to include an estimate of water demands the development would have when it is built out, a description of the water supply that will serve the project and any water conservation efforts that may be implemented. Those reports would have to be drafted by a professional engineer or a water supply expert, according to text of the legislation. If a proposed development will be served by a local water provider, local governments may allow developers to submit a letter -- which would also be prepared by a professional engineer or water supply expert -- stating "the water supply entity's commitment and ability to provide an adequate water supply for the proposed development." The bill's language said that while local land use and developmental approval decisions are a matter of local concern, ensuring the adequacy of water for new developments is a "matter of statewide concern and necessary for the preservation of public health, safety and welfare and the environment of Colorado."

Garfield County Commissioner John Martin said the proposed legislation would cost the county simply because we are going to "have to have a water engineer and a hydrologist give us a report. "We will also have to depend on the state water engineer to make sure (the water supply for a planned development) is acceptable," said Martin, a Republican. "It is another step, but why not? It is a precaution, I am OK with it." Martin said the Colorado River Water Conservation District is supporting the bill in concept and that Colorado Counties -- a professional organization for the state's county commissioners -- is supporting the bill with a "couple of amendments."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water
8:43:33 AM    


A picture named salmonella.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain: "County health officials confirmed Friday the first death related to the recent salmonella outbreak that has sickened more than 400 people. Julie Geiser, director of the nursing service, would not release the identity, age or gender of the victim, or the date of the death, citing medical privacy laws...Geiser said it was not known how the deceased contracted salmonella. But the strain of salmonella found in the victim was the same as that found in the city's water supply, according to tests by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment."

Alamosans may see a break on their water bills since they were not able to use water during the salmonella outbreak, according to The Valley Courier. From the article:

Alamosa water users may get a break in their water bills because city water was unusable in the aftermath of the salmonella outbreak. The next water bills customers receive will likely reflect a reduced cost because most city water customers used less tap water while the city was under boiled and bottled water orders. The Alamosa City Council on Wednesday talked about also giving water customers a discount or one-time credit but the council chose to wait until next month to make a decision. The councilors met with City Attorney Erich Schwiesow for about half an hour to receive legal advice about water issues and property acquisition before coming out of executive session to discuss the water billing issue. The one-time credit the council is considering is the $5.20 fixed charge on monthly utility bills. Regardless of how much water a customer uses, the customer is charged that $5.20 fixed rate per month, and the council is considering a one-time credit of that fixed rate. To credit that to the approximately 3,000 water users would cost the city about $15,000. The city has about 2,700 residential customers and approximately 300 commercial users...

Another option posed to the city council is a pro-rated reduced water rate for the time period that the city water was unusable. That option would be more difficult for the city to accomplish through its billing system. In either case, if the city gives water customers a break now, it may have to slap them with higher fees in the future to help cover the costs associated with decontaminating the water. "If you give it to them this month, you might have to take it away next month," explained Alamosa City Manager Nathan Cherpeski. He said the city could be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. "Whatever you want to do ... remember at the end of the day it has to cover the operating costs of the water utility," he said. Alamosa Public Works Director Don Koskelin said the enterprise fund that covers water, sewer and trash utilities acts like a cooperative in which the "members" pay for the services they receive. "If you take money from the enterprise fund to give to individuals or the population as a whole, you now are creating a deficit in the fund that has to be replenished," he said, "and the only replenishment source is from the very same customers."

Category: Colorado Water
8:34:18 AM    


A picture named ldmtcollapse.jpg

Lake County Commissioners continues to take heat for their disaster declaration. Ethics Watch is accusing them of violating the open meetings law in Colorado, according to The Leadville Chronicle. From the article:

The nonprofit, nonpartisan Colorado Ethics Watch has requested that the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County (BOCC) hold a new vote on the Declaration of Emergency in recognition of the fact that they may have violated the Open Meeting Law. In an April 7 letter to the commissioners, Colorado Ethics Watch senior counsel Luis Toro wrote that "[t]he evidence...strongly suggests that the February 13 special meeting was merely a staged media event to 'rubber stamp' the decision the commissioners had already made in private...The most compelling evidence that the special meeting was held merely to 'rubber stamp' a decision previously made in secret is the minutes of the meeting itself," wrote Toro. "Those minutes state that 'Commissioner Hickman read aloud a statement by the board explaining the need to declare a disaster.' If the board had a statement prepared before the meeting, 'explaining the need to declare a disaster,' then obviously the decision to declare a disaster was made before the meeting." He also pointed to several other events as evidence that the commissioners had made their decision to declare a State of Emergency long before they did so. Among them were an draft of the speech announcing their decision to raise a "red flag" about the LMDT sent by Brad Littlepage on Feb. 2, the Feb. 9 shooting of a video for State Sen. Tom Wiens' personal website about the LMDT situation, the fact that a transcript of the video was sent to the commissioners so they could edit it before its release, and the fact that the same videographer shot the Feb. 13 meeting.

Toro also pointed to Brad Littlepage's email to the commissioners on the morning of Feb. 13 which proposed wording for "today's declaration of emergency." "It is evident that one or more members of the BOCC advised Mr. Littlepage that an emergency declaration was to be made at the special meeting," he wrote. In his letter, Toro argued that the commissioners had violated the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Law by conducting parts of the policy-making process that led to the disaster declaration without full and timely notice to the public. Toro noted, for example, that Commissioner Mike Hickman had "admitted" in his March 6 letter to the Leadville Herald Democrat that only "[a]fter personal interviews with water experts, engineers, BOR employees and other mining experts" did the BOCC call a public meeting "to allow those experts to publicly brief the BOCC." Toro argued that because any citizen can bring suit against a governmental entity that has violated the Open Meetings Law, it is in the best interest of the county to avoid a potential Open Meetings Law claim. "The court in such an action can declare invalid an action that was taken in violation of the Open Meetings Law and award attorneys' fees to the petitioner,"" wrote Toro. "We hope you will agree that it is not in the best interest of Lake County for its BOCC to become embroiled in Open Meetings Law litigation."

"If [a meeting] avoids a lawsuit, I don't have a problem with it," said Lake County Commissioner Mike Hickman, of the letter. However, he felt it was a moot point to have another meeting to declare a State of Emergency, particularly now that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Environmental Protection Agency are finally working together. He worried that such a meeting would simply be a debate between "a couple of people who are running for office." Moreover, he insisted the commissioners had done nothing wrong. "I'll have any meetings anyone wants to have,"" he said. "I did not violate the Colorado Open Meetings Law." Lake County Commissioner Carl Schaefer thought the best way to handle the letter was to make it an agenda item at the next county commissioners' meeting. "If we want to deal with it, we should deal with it in the public," he pointed out. Lake County Commissioner Ken Olsen also expected the commissioners to discuss the matter at their April 21 meeting.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Category: Colorado Water
8:20:38 AM    


A picture named waterfromtap.jpg

From The Sky-Hi Daily News: "Despite repeated 'flushings' of its water system, the town of Hot Sulphur Springs is still under water restrictions. Since last week, the town has conducted five flushings of its water distribution lines. The flushings, using highly chlorinated water that is run through the lines and expelled through fire hydrants, is meant to disinfect them."[...]Department of Health's order requires all drinking and cooking water to be boiled for at least one minute before use. Water straight from the tap can be used for showering, washing hands and clothing, and flushing toilets. For more information on the water restrictions, call Town Hall, 725-3932."

Here's an update on Crested Butte's work on a new watershed ordinance, from The Crested Butte News. From the article:

A more fine-tuned version of an ordinance designed to protect Crested Butte's watershed from future development got its first airing during a Crested Butte Town Council meeting on Monday, April 7. The Town Council is continuing to tweak the new version of its Watershed Protection Ordinance, which will replace the town's existing ordinance. The new version of the ordinance does not prohibit storage of hazardous and toxic materials in the watershed, as the first draft did, but mandates that no pesticides, petroleum products or like substances may be stored within 500 feet of any water bodies. "We had the feeling that to prohibit it outright made it difficult for an applicant to fit into it," explained town attorney John Belkin. "We're more comfortable with 500 feet from a water body." Like the first draft, the ordinance also forbids any construction in a creek, stream, river or lake, except when it's authorized by the town.

The April 7 meeting was the second opportunity the Crested Butte Town Council had to view its new watershed ordinance, which lets the town take advantage of a state statute that allows towns to prohibit and mitigate impacts to their water supply within a five-mile area. In March, special counsel Barbara Green told the town that the revised ordinance was more stringent than the old version. The ordinance was first amended in 1996 to deal with septic systems. The town has been updating the watershed ordinance for the last year; it adopted a temporary moratorium preventing development within the town's watershed in August 2007. The ordinance essentially requires a permit for land use change activity within the town's watershed, with varying degrees of overview depending on the project.

The new draft ordinance outlines two different permit processes, for major impact and minor impact projects. Minor impact projects would be unlikely to have any impacts on the watershed. If the ordinance is approved, those projects would be approved administratively but would require a public notice. Major impact projects would prompt a much more stringent process, with any permit ultimately approved by the Town Council. The meat of the ordinance is contained in its approval standards to protect the watershed, which the Town Council is currently considering...

Belkin said the town also added provisions that allow the town to hold a parent company of a project applicant financially accountable for actions of the applicant, and allows town staff access to the applicant's property to assess compliance with standards. Belkin explained that this had been requested by town staff on previous occasions. "LC [Adams, former public works director] wanted to be able to access the site anytime he needed to," he said.

The Town Council agreed to set the watershed ordinance, officially Ordinance No. 6, Series 2008, for public hearing on Monday, April 21. A new draft of the ordinance will be available with the changes at that time. The Town Council hopes to have its new watershed ordinance in place by June 1 when the moratorium banning construction in the watershed expires. Some town residents appear to be rallying behind the adoption of the revised watershed ordinance. A group of citizens is organizing a candlelight walk in support of the ordinance on April 21. Residents are asked to gather at the parking lot at First Street and Elk Avenue with their own candles for a procession that will end at Town Council chambers.

From The Montrose Daily Press: "The Project 7 Water Authority's 2007 Consumer Confidence Report released this week shows acceptable substance levels and no violations, though the facility anticipates upgrades this year to accommodate growth."

From The Norwood Post: "Norwood's municipal water users will get another notice in the mail this week saying that the water did not meet the state standards last year, but town officials are hoping it is the last such notice. The town's water system was upgraded this month to help improve its filtration. The notice deals with the annual average of TOC (total organic carbon) removal, from April 2007 until the end of March 2008. While the system has been in compliance since last November, it was out of sync for several months earlier in 2007, and the average came out just three-tenths of a percent shy of the target number. "With the new upgrades, we'll be more consistent," said a cautiously optimistic Tim Lippert, who leads Norwood's Public Works Department."

Category: Colorado Water
8:19:43 AM    

A picture named uraniuminsituleaching.jpg

The Greeley City Council has voted to oppose Powertech's proposed uranium mine in Weld County, according to The Greeley Tribune. From the article:

The Greeley City Council has joined the movement against a proposed Uranium mine near Nunn saying it comes with too many unanswered questions and could hurt people and business in northern Colorado. The council on Tuesday joined the Fort Collins City Council and the boards of trustees for Timnath and Wellington in passing resolutions opposed to the mine -- which would be located between Nunn and Wellington. Several other municipalities in northern Colorado are considering resolutions against the mine including the Board of Larimer County Commissioners and the Nunn Town Board. However, unlike the other elected bodies that passed resolutions opposed to the mine, the Greeley City Council's vote on the resolution was not unanimous. Mayor Ed Clark said he didn't like the wording of the resolution. It passed 5-2 with Clark and Councilman Chuck Archibeque -- who said the mayor's concerns should be addressed before proceeding -- dissenting. Clark didn't elaborate on what wording he didn't like to see in the resolution. Both were overridden eventually by the votes of the other council members who said the council should take a strong stance against the uranium mine now. The uranium mine would "have a mental impact even if it doesn't have a physical impact," said Councilman Carrol Martin, who added that he doesn't believe Powertech Uranium Corp. -- the Canadian company proposing the mine -- can clean up the site like it says it can. "It's like putting a 'no industry' sign up."
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
8:17:54 AM    

A picture named wastewatertreatmentwtext.jpg

Here's a look at Colorado Springs Utilities' and their future capital funding needs, from The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

Colorado Springs' water treatment plants and holding tanks need work - $36 million worth in the next five years. The biggest problem lies with the Mesa Water Treatment Plant, which could soak up $26 million if the city revamps how its oldest water treatment plant does the job. The overview was presented Wednesday to the City Council, meeting as the Utilities Board. It's one of three reports on the water system's needs being given this spring. The city's raw water system - reservoirs, pipes and pumps that deliver water from the mountains - needs $65 million in upgrades in the next decade, a report in March said. Next month, the council will get a forecast for the distribution system.

On Wednesday, treatment plants and tanks were in the spotlight. The city's five treatment facilities - Pine Valley, Mc-Cullough, Mesa, Fountain Valley Authority and Ute Pass - have a capacity of 215.5 million gallons a day. Although the city's usage peaked several years ago at 184 million gallons in a day, conservation steps have caused usage to decline sharply. Last year, the peak was only 140 million gallons. But aging systems need upgrades, and at Mesa, built in 1942, only 28 percent of the plant's components are in good shape. "We found that about 40 percent of the equipment had reached the end of its useful life," water treatment manager Curtis Mitchell said. He said if significant work is needed, it might be time to change Mesa's treatment process to one that will better handle water from Monument and Fountain creeks, which isn't as clean as mountain water. The city's 38 storage tanks are in better shape, said Lisa Barbato, in water planning and design. Only 12 are more than 40 years old and can be expected to last another 35 years, she said.

Erie is in the planning stages for replacing their reuse plant, according to The Erie Review. From the article:

As Erie continues to develop, both commercially and residentially, the town's water reclamation facility is quickly reaching its capacity. As a result, town officials are in the process of designing a new, $20 million facility. The new facility, which will be located north of Highway 52 and east of County Line Road, is expected to be completed sometime in the fourth quarter of 2010. "The footprint at the existing facility doesn't allow us to expand," town spokesman Fred Diehl said. "The new facility will accommodate future residential and commercial development.""[...]

Discussions of a new facility have been taking place since 1999, according to Diehl. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment requires municipalities begin planning for a new facility once one reaches 80 percent capacity. At 90 percent capacity, the state requires construction of the new facility begin. By moving the project forward now, Erie is staying ahead of the state deadlines, Diehl said. Construction of the reclamation facility will begin this fall. In addition to meeting the future demands of the town, the project is also an environmentally conscious one, according to Diehl. "We see this as an environmentally responsible way to conserve water," he said. Use of reclaimed water also cuts down on the amount of water needed to be treated to the extent it is drinkable - an expensive process. The level of treatment required for water to be drinkable is far greater than the standards for water used for irrigation. "We're investing in future savings," Diehl said. "It speaks to our commitment to conservation."

Category: Colorado Water
8:16:51 AM    



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2008 John Orr.
Last update: 5/1/08; 7:44:36 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