Sunday, April 20, 2008

13th Annual Wallace Stegner Symposium Alternative Energy: Seeking Climate Change Solutions The symposium was held in Salt Lake City on March 7th and 8th. There were about 400 people in attendance and the speakers included scientists, economists, utility leaders and authors. The symposium was different from others on the issue of climate change. Very little time was spent trying to convince attendees that the planet is warming, rather, the focus was on what is already happening, the need for the planet to act in a global manner quickly and the technologies and methodologies that can be part of the solution. Action Required If there was one overriding theme to the conference it was that action on global warming must occur soon, in the next few years, to avoid the catastrophic disruptions predicted. For example, biologist Terry Root (Stanford) informed those present that we are witnessing the 6th mass extinction in Earth's history. The extinction rate due to greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will be about 20-30% of species and has started in earnest. Author Bill McKibben was the last speaker on Saturday. He issued a call to those present to kick start a movement to get governments around the world to embrace a 350 ppm ceiling for carbon dioxide. That's a pretty ambitious goal since the world is already at 380 ppm. He bases his call on climatologist James Hansen's (NASA) recent work. They both claim that the current -- possibly not attainable -- ceiling of 450 ppm was chosen capriciously and may not in fact be effective in slowing run away global warming. He also mentioned that species are adapting to warming in ways that are detrimental to humankind. For example, the mosquito that transmits Dengue fever to humans is expanding poleward. As a result, "Dengue is spreading ferociously," he said. Bangladesh recently experienced their first outbreak of the disease. Ironically, according to McKibben, the carbon footprint of Bangladesh is more a less a "rounding error" in overall global carbon emissions and they are suffering due to the actions of wealthy nations. McKibben warned that "The magnitude of this change is coming at us much faster that we could have predicted," and scientists, who are now in a mild state of panic, "Vastly underestimated the planet's response to warming.[per thou] McKibben's new project website is at 350.org. Economist, Brian Murray (Duke), presented some of the economic analysis that he and his colleagues have collected. Global warming skeptics are becoming less numerous and, "The global warming debate is shifting from science to economics," he said. Even the business community -- in greater numbers -- is no longer resisting. He sees a, "Low Carbon Revolution," where, "Those that deliver low carbon will win and those that can't adapt will die." His research shows that global emissions are roughly one third from the U.S., one third from China and one third from the rest of the world. He favors government intervention to set up a "Carbon market," consisting of a, "Cap and trade system." The cap would set an absolute limit in time. Parties should be allowed to trade, or bid amongst themselves, for carbon credits. This worked to reduce SO2 emissions and therefore acid rain. It should work for greenhouse gases as well. Predictability of costs for business is key to getting their support. In addition everyone has to be treated equally by playing under the same rules. For the first time in recent experience he sees a decent chance of legislation coming out of the U.S. Congress. He urged action this year on the Lieberman-Warner "America's Climate Security Act." Nuclear energy is an extremely clean source with respect to CO2. However, waste products and the potential for nations to develop a nuclear arms capability are holding nuclear back as a tool in the global war on carbon. Victor Reis, a senior advisor at the Department of Energy, commented that storage of nuclear waste has a good record and that both short term (dry casks onsite) and long term (storage in geologically stable salt domes) solutions exist. He acknowledges the problem of, "Intergenerational fairness," asking, "What policies need to be in place when we hand off storage to generations in the future?" He recommends a lease program for fissionable material where countries using it to generate electricity would return the waste and plutonium from fission to the producers so it could not be used for weapons production. He would also like to see strong workable treaties reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons. Another piece of the puzzle is an extension of the production tax credit for wind energy. It is set to expire at the end of 2008. The extension has passed the House but failed in the Senate. Engineer, Maureen Hand, from the National Wind Technology Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory advocates for renewal. She told attendees that wind is the fastest growing alternative energy source today but is sensitive to tax credits. She hopes to see the U.S. deploy 300 giga-watts of wind energy by 2030 or 100,000 3 watt turbines. She acknowledged the fact that this will also require investment in additional transmission lines. Action items on the list for solar energy include laws easing requirements to acquire rights of way for new transmission lines, according to Dianne Nielson, energy advisor to Governor John Huntsman of Utah. For solar to succeed the country needs to be able to move electricity from the best sites (currently in the Southwest) to where it's needed. Permitting problems slow the process. According to engineer Chuck Kutscher solar also needs an investment tax credit to help jump start installations. He also maintains that the combination of all renewables together is required to meet carbon goals by 2050. According to law professor, Lincoln Davies, the nation needs to develop strategies to de-couple utility profits from demand if we're going to push conservation. He also emphasizes regulation of greenhouse gases. Policy decisions need to made in light of fact that "Energy use and the environment are inextricably linked." In addition to the actions already mentioned, Ned Farquhar, talking about energy security, listed: Increased fuel efficiency in the transportation sector; Fuel switching to electricity; Reduction in vehicle miles driven; An agreement on trade and energy policy with Mexico and Canada along with the formation of a North American Energy Council; Multi-lateralization of oil defense around the world; Renewed emphasis on energy efficiency (i.e. buildings, appliances, the electric grid); Long-term stable increase in renewables; Practical international carbon limits while rewarding countries for, "Doing it right."; and a freeze on conventional coal until carbon sequestering technologies are available. He also mentioned the need for a carbon market and cap and trade system. Neville Holt spoke about his organization, the Electrical Power Research Institute, and their efforts to develop carbon sequestering technologies by building pilot demonstration projects. He advocates for more funding and research in this area while acknowledging that the technology is largely unproven. In addition he told the attendees, "Carbon capture and storage acceptance liability questions have not been answered." In other words where does the liability lie if a method for sequestration fails? Randy Udall helped frame the need for action on sensible energy policy for the world. "We're in the most magic time in history," he said. We've seen the release of one half of the CO2 in human history, "in the last 25 years," he said, adding, "Can the big bonfire continue?" His answer is no. Peak oil is imminent and coal is getting harder to find and more dangerous to recover (He cited the recent mine disaster in Helper, Utah). "Energy is an IQ test that americans have failed," he said, adding, "Climate change as a framework will not drive energy policy." Optimism prevailed amongst most of the speakers and those in attendance. The need to act soon was acknowledged. Kevin Cummins from Salt Lake said, over lunch one day, "All three presidential candidates, still in the race, are on board," adding that, "We need an effort similar to that at the start of World War II." He thinks that the political will to act is rising. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Climate Change News 5:50:43 PM     New access for Mary Carter Greenway From The Englewood Herald: "Area residents may soon have a new place to enjoy the South Platte River, because South Suburban has proposed a development in north Littleton. The plan, which includes a picnic shelter, parking, and another access point to the Mary Carter Greenway and river, including boat chutes for kayaks and canoes, is still pending a final approval from the Littleton Design Review Committee. The proposed site is 10 acres between Hudson Gardens and Aspen Grove, west of the Meadowood mobile home park, on the east banks of the river." Category: Colorado Water 9:54:56 AM     H.R. 2242, the Clean Water Restoration Act Here's a look at H.R. 2242, the Clean Water Restoration Act, from The Valley Courier. They write: According to U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, the key sponsor of the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act agreed this week to slow down efforts to pass the legislation through Congress. The bill has been criticized for expanding the federal government's jurisdiction over water in the United States. Rep. James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is the prime sponsor of H.R. 2421, the Clean Water Restoration Act, which claims to clarify the federal government's role in dealing with water pollution by saying the feds have oversight on activities that affect "waters of the United States." That's a change from the current language, which says the act applies to "navigable waters." The bill defines "waters of the United States" as "all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments." Water users, including farmers, ranchers, municipalities and sportsmen, claim the new definition is too broad and goes beyond the intent of the original law, the Clean Water Act. It would impede normal agricultural activities and impose mandates on local governments and pre-empt private property rights, according to opponents. "I am pleased Chairman Oberstar has indicated a willingness to explore changes to this legislation. Water is the lifeblood of Colorado and I will do everything in my power to preserve our way of life," said Salazar. "We must be careful in Congress not to cede too much power and control to the federal government, especially when it comes to water. I am afraid the bill as written does just that and I will work to ensure our way of life is not affected."[...] Salazar's principal concerns with Oberstar's bill have been over land and water rights, an expanded definition of waters of the United States, and that the federal government would gain the power to regulate any body of water, including wet meadows, stock ponds, and irrigation ditches. He has raised these concerns over the past months and urged fellow committee members to take a long look at the impacts of the bill. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 9:41:19 AM     Climate Change: The earth is a beautifully complex system From The New York Times: "California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger predicted Friday that an international deadlock over how to deal with global warming will end once President Bush leaves office, while a leading expert warned of dire consequences if urgent action is not taken. Schwarzenegger spoke at a conference at Yale University in which 18 states pledged to take action on climate change. He noted a dispute over whether the U.S. should commit to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions before China and India do the same." Category: Climate Change News 9:31:39 AM     Runoff Will Blue Mesa fill and spill this year? Here's a look at conditions on the Gunnison River from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. They write: On the heels of a seven-year drought and a winter of record snowfalls that caused high-country roofs to collapse, will this year's spring runoff in the Gunnison Basin overwhelm the three Aspinall Unit dams and crash unhindered through the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River? Or will it disappear without a whimper, as did the foretold but never realized runoff of 2005?[...] Hydrologists at the Grand Junction office of the Bureau of Reclamation, aided by constant monitoring of high-country snowpacks and years of accumulated data, make a series of runoff forecasts starting each winter and going into early summer. Snowpack depths and water content are key to what might happen in the future, although the actual downriver flow depends on other factors, including how fast the snow melts and how much of that water the ground inhales before it reaches the stream. Early April indications are that this year's runoff will be the highest in many years. The most recent forecast calls for 1.06 million acre-feet of water to flow into Blue Mesa Reservoir this spring compared to 460,000 acre-feet forecast on April 1 last year. But if Mother Nature throws a week of unseasonably high temperatures at the high country, as she did in 1984, the entire snowpack might rush down in the blink of an eye. Or, conversely, an unseasonably cool spring could slow or even delay the runoff... The three Aspinall Unit dams -- Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal -- were authorized by the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act. Under that act, the three dams (and the other project units, including Flaming Gorge and Navajo dams) were built for flood control, irrigation and generating hydropower. Power generation is mandated by the act, which says, "The Secretary (of the Interior) must operate the authorized hydroelectric power plants and transmission lines ... to produce the greatest practicable amount of power and energy ..." The revenues from the generation pay for the dams' construction. Blue Mesa and Morrow Point are peak-power dams, while Crystal generates constant power. When air conditioners turn on across the West and drain the system, the generators at Blue Mesa and Morrow Point whir into action. Water rushes into the hydroturbines, increasing the river flow downstream of the dams. Those higher flows are moderated by Crystal Dam before they reach the river downstream. The energy is sold on the Western power grid by the Western Area Power Administration, an agency of the Department of Energy. The agency is perhaps the major player in how the dams are operated, since it's the agency's job to make sure any stored water goes first to power generation. The Bureau of Reclamation tries to maintain water for power generation, which means year-round planning on how and where water will be stored. That also means the bureau must make sure there is room each spring in Blue Mesa for runoff, which usually means deciding how much water to release all winter in anticipation of runoff filling the reservoir in the spring. A similar water year, based on snow monitoring reports, was forecast in 2005. The Bureau pulled water out of Blue Mesa, anticipating a runoff that never came. "That was a real heartbreaker," said Dan Crabtree, lead hydrologist for the Bureau's Grand Junction office. This year, with forecasts calling for high runoff, the Gunnison is running higher than it has in nearly a decade. Friday, the gauge just below Crystal Dam was at 2,930 cubic feet per second, compared to one-third or less of that at this time in recent years... The Bureau of Reclamation is not responsible for downstream recreation, in this case the fishery in the Gunnison River. That's an important point, because it's recreational anglers, in particular Trout Unlimited, who are eyeballing the heavy snowpack and saying this is the year the bureau should release extra-high flows to benefit the Gunnison River. "Trout Unlimited's hope is that, under the present snowpack conditions, we would see a real good flush this year," said Drew Peternell, director of the Colorado Water Project with Colorado Trout Unlimited. "We think something around 6,000 (cubic feet per second) or maybe more would be adequate." Adequate, that is, to move out some of the sediment that's settled in the Gunnison River. Much of the sediment apparently came when Crystal Reservoir was drained in 1999 for some maintenance work on the trash racks. Even though the Bureau of Reclamation immediately pushed 5,000 cfs through the canyon, the sediment still clogs parts of the river. Some Trout Unlimited members have been pressuring the bureau into committing to a high flush flow. In an e-mail Peternell sent to several local Trout Unlimited members and to Bart Miller, an attorney with Western Water Resources, Peternell responded to an earlier inquiry by saying, "I do not think we have a cause of action to force the BOR to make larger releases this year." As the runoff forecasts grow, the Bureau of Reclamation has bumped up releases into the Gunnison, a move that Trout Unlimited questions. "Instead of doing that, we would prefer they would have held back some water this winter to provide a big flush sometime late in May," Peternell said... Coll Stanton, a veteran hydrologist with the local Bureau of Reclamation office, said it's possible, if the forecast prediction holds true, there could be an extra 30,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of water flowing into Blue Mesa, which at its maximum holds 829,500 acre-feet..."Even if we go to full bypass, if the model we have holds up, we probably will have some spill, anyway," Stanton said. Officials are busy reducing flows in the Arkansas River in anticipation of the expected strong runoff, according to The Mountain Mail. From the article: Reducing water flow in the Arkansas River was among discussion topics Thursday during the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Citizen Task Force meeting in Salida. Officials reported multi-agency efforts reduced river flow by about 150 cubic feet per second since Tuesday. Monday at Salida the river was at 668 cfs and by Thursday afternoon it was 580 cfs. Colorado Springs Utilities was able to reduce flow by 120 cfs by making a "paper exchange" of 4,300 acre feet from Pueblo Reservoir to Turquoise Lake. In addition, Colorado Springs made a river exchange of 30 cfs to store in Twin Lakes and release from Pueblo Reservoir. The 150 cfs will again be released from upstream by about the end of April, task force member Abby Ortega, said. "It was a great first step by multiple agencies after many different impasses," Rod Patch, task force member, said. "But we still need to do more to bring the level down farther to protect the fish biologically and the fishery." Three sections of the river listed in the advisement are Pine Creek at 1,250 cfs, Numbers 2,400 cfs and the Royal Gorge at 3,200 cfs. If flow reaches those levels at the specified locations, it would be highly recommended that commercial rafters move trips to sites where there would be little impact on other users. Category: Colorado Water 9:26:47 AM     Fountain Creek managment U.S. Representative Mark Udall was hanging out on Fountain Creek recently, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: With members of the Army Corps of Engineers, state health department and the U.S. Geographical Survey in tow, Udall followed the Fountain from Manitou Springs through Colorado Springs and ended at its confluence with the Arkansas River in Salt Creek. Along the way, Udall's stops included the Las Vegas Street Wastewater Treatment Facility in Fountain, the Pinon Bridge north of town near Overton Road and the Pueblo Mall. At the confluence, Gary Soldano, the state health department's local quality control division manager, commented on the view of the green Arkansas mixing with the Fountain, tainted from upstream sewage spills in Colorado Springs. "It's really quite the contrast as the brown mixes with the green," said Soldano... Udall said he can envision Fountain Creek developed as a greenway - similar to the Platte River project in Denver. "I favor this approach passionately. Just the corridor of activity I've seen, from fishing and hiking It has great economic importance. It should be a crown jewel," Udall said. Udall said he is working with U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar on several Fountain-related issues, among them is Salazar's legislation for a study of a dam or series of dams on the river. Udall added he would balance his support with his concerns over flood control, water quality and "how people of the Arkansas Valley are treated." More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 9:11:25 AM     Southern Delivery System Even though Reclamation and Colorado Springs both prefer the route from Pueblo Reservoir for the Southern Delivery System, Colorado Springs signed a deal with Fremont County last week in case that route is chosen. Here's a report from The Pueblo Chieftain: An agreement approved last week by Colorado Springs City Council and earlier this month by Fremont County Commissioners blocks the sort of controversy that Southern Delivery System faces in Pueblo County. It also emphasizes that the route of a pipeline being studied in the Bureau of Reclamation's draft environmental impact statement is not the only route the pipeline could take through Fremont County. Some landowners along a proposed route through Penrose have expressed concerns about the prospect of construction through their property, but last week, SDS Project Director John Fredell said there are several possible routes. He also indicated the construction cost of the project used for comparison in the draft EIS - as much as $1.3 billion, compared to $1.1 billion for a pipeline from Pueblo Dam - would not necessarily be that high. The agreement signed by Fremont County and Colorado Springs specifies that Fremont County would have the opportunity to cooperate in choosing a site for SDS. It also spells out that Colorado Springs wants no friction in coming through Fremont County, in order to avoid the types of criticism and court filings the city has encountered in Pueblo County. "The parties desire ... to prevent controversy and conflict between them, and the mutually agreed upon means of mitigating any adverse impacts," the agreement reads in part. Another section states: "The parties agree to communicate regularly with one another in order to avoid any risk of misunderstanding. In particular, the parties agree to promptly share the occurrence of contacts or meetings with third parties seeking to influence the actions, the decision or activities of either the city or the county." Fremont County does not have the same sorts of rules, allowed by 1974's HB1041, that allow for special regulation of land use for projects of a statewide or regional nature. When Pueblo County revised its 1041 rules in 2005, Colorado Springs filed a court case claiming exemption and bias on the part of Pueblo County Commissioners. Last year, District Judge Dennis Maes ruled in favor of Pueblo County, and Colorado Springs appealed it. Colorado Springs is proceeding on a track to apply for a 1041 permit, setting up pre-application meetings with Pueblo County staff. Colorado Springs does not have to wait for the outcome of the court case to file an application, Fredell said last week... In Fremont County, there are basically four sets of rules Colorado Springs will have to comply with: the 1995 county zoning resolution, the 2001 master plan, county subdivision regulations and septic guidelines. Those could require a special review use permit, site development plan, zone changes and minor subdivisions. Colorado Springs will provide Fremont County with $50,000 to cover the county's costs for reviewing the information needed for permits. The county may also rely on Reclamation's draft EIS for information about the project. Colorado Springs also has agreed to work with Fremont County on taking actions or providing additional funding for mitigation during construction of a pipeline, pumping stations and other structures associated with the project. Mitigation would be provided during construction, rather than in advance, according to the agreement. The agreement also requires that Colorado Springs file for permits in Fremont County within one year and does not obligate Fremont County to approve SDS. Some are watching the conflict over Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System with an eye towards the effects on the Upper Arkansas River, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: Colorado Springs has finalized an agreement with Fremont County for the proposed Southern Delivery System, Fountain and Widefield bought a Custer County ranch for the water and Pueblo West and the Pueblo Board of Water Works indicated they will be looking upstream of Lake Pueblo for future water rights... Most big conversions of water rights from agricultural to municipal in the Arkansas Valley have been downstream from Lake Pueblo, where cities have gone into large mutual ditch systems to purchase water rights. The main exceptions are Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. and Clear Creek, which once benefitted irrigators, but were sold to cities. New interest in the Upper Arkansas has set off alarms for some. At a Bureau of Reclamation open house for the SDS environmental review, Chaffee County Commissioner Jim Osborne worried that the project's operations could increase the net amount of water in the river. Commercial rafting, a growing industry in the county, is dependent on sustainable flows. "The only issue for us is if they take more water out of the river," Osborne said. "We have the biggest water right on the river (a recreational in-channel diversion for kayak courses at Buena Vista and Salida). It's a junior water right, but one that we intend to use and keep hold of. If the cities on the Front Range had their way, they'd dry up every river they could."[...] In the county next door, Custer County Commissioner Dick Downey was equally concerned about the purchase of the H20 Ranch by Fountain and Widefield. "We've heard people saying for a long time they'd be coming after our water," Downey said. "Now, it's happened." Finally, in Fremont County, commissioners have become convinced Colorado Springs is seriously considering an alternate route coming from the Arkansas River near Penrose rather than from the dam. "They've expressed a sense of urgency to put a shovel in the ground by next year," said Fremont County Commissioner Mike Stiehl. So, are water rights in the Upper Arkansas Valley going to be snapped up in a buying frenzy? "My thought is that most of the water rights are small, so there would be large administrative costs in purchasing them," said Terry Scanga, general manager of the Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. "It's going to be very expensive water by the time they take it through water court." That's true - the Fountain-Widefield purchase of a 480-acre ranch will yield 600 acre-feet or less - but there are some large water rights in the Upper Arkansas that may be available in the future. For instance, the Union and Minnequa ditches, which both divert near Florence, have large senior water rights. Rocky Mountain Steel Mills owns Minnequa and a large share of Union. Florence, Williamsburg and Coal Creek have converted some shares in Union Ditch to municipal use. The Upper Ark district has tried to protect water rights by being directly involved in water court cases and by creating value for existing water rights through its augmentation program, Scanga said. "The district is also going to defend any individual's interest in buying or selling a water right, without injury to others," Scanga said. "But I don't think we're going to see a big jump in cases." Several water decrees protect minimum flows on the Upper Arkansas River and its tributaries. There are minimum flow requirements on Lake Fork, Lake Creek and for wastewater treatment plants at Salida and in Fremont County. There is also a voluntary flow management program for the reach of Arkansas River through the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area. The Upper Ark district expanded after a vote last year to include eastern Fremont County, along with the western part of Fremont, Chaffee and Custer counties. Later this year, Lake County is expected to vote on joining the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District in its own attempt to protect water interests. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 8:53:43 AM     Northern Integrated Supply Project Here's a look at the Northern Integrated Supply Project, Glade Reservoir and the Corps of Engineers environmental impact statement due to be released shortly, from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article: Both sides of a debate over the controversial Glade Reservoir expect a key federal agency to support the plan in a long-awaited document that should spark the next round in the fight over the Poudre River. But that support by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bound to carry conditions - steps mitigating the environmental consequences of tapping into the last available flows of the Poudre River - that could spark a long battle over the river's future and the fate of the $405 million proposal that includes the reservoir. Opponents have a team of scientists and lawyers gearing up to review the Corps' draft environmental impact statement, which is expected to be released April 30, and bombard the Corps with comments on the project, potentially delaying a record of decision and a permit to build the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP... Critics of the project are not strictly opposed to growth or dams, said Gary Wockner, a Fort Collins ecologist and spokesman for anti-NISP group Save the Poudre Coalition. But they are drawing the line on taking any more water out of the Poudre... Galeton Reservoir would be about one-quarter the size of Glade. Part of Galeton's water would be pumped west to irrigation ditches coming off the Poudre in exchange for water diverted into Glade. Because water exchanged with the irrigation companies could be drawn for Glade every year, the timeline to fill the reservoir could easily accelerate with a series of average or wet years. A city of Fort Collins analysis of the project last fall suggests that during an average year, peak flows through town would be reduced 30 percent to 40 percent. In wet years with substantial runoff, the reduction could be higher. During dry periods, flows through town would not be affected... Fort Collins city officials have not been privy to many details of the project, including its operational plan, said John Stokes, director of the city's Natural Resource Department. They are prepared to analyze the draft EIS upon its release and to delve into details such as the project's potential impact to city-owned natural areas and Northern Water's proposals for mitigation. What happens to the river matters to Fort Collins residents, Stokes said. The Poudre is "the key natural feature in our landscape," he said, in terms of recreation, natural areas and redevelopment in areas where it traverses the city, particularly downtown... Reducing the river's flow would likely have some affect on the landscape along the river, said Reagan Waskom, director of the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute at CSU. The changes could be subtle. "I think the average Fort Collins resident riding a bike along the Poudre trail is not going to notice much of a difference," he said. The long-running practice of tapping into the Poudre has to end to preserve its health, Wockner said. "It is a working river, and this project will finally work it to death," he said. But it's also possible that the project could bolster Poudre River flows during times of the year when the river typically slows to a trickle, NISP project manager Carl Brouwer said. Better flows would boost efforts by state wildlife officials to improve fishing through Fort Collins, he said. Releases of water from the reservoir back to the river could be negotiated as part of the mitigation required for the project, he said. But it's not clear what the vision is for the river through Fort Collins. "We are certainly interested in working with folks," Brouwer said. "So far all we're hearing from the other side is all or nothing."[...] The Poudre's average flow as measured near the canyon mouth is about 300,000 acre feet a year. Because of the numerous canals and pipelines used to divert water from the river for domestic and agricultural use, by the time it reaches downtown Fort Collins the average flow gets down to about 110,000 acre feet. The river can run dry through Fort Collins during winter months... High flows are critical to the good health of any river ecological system, said Neil Grigg, former director of the water research institute. But being able to capture and store spring runoff from rivers also is important for securing water supplies during times of drought, he said. Water is needed to meet the needs of many different sectors, including recreational, agricultural, industrial and domestic users, he said. "What we're really talking about here is tradeoffs," he said. "We need to find a balance that makes things work out best for all concerned."[...] Colorado's population is expected to keep growing and top 6.5 million by 2025, with most of that growth focused along the Front Range and the South Platte River Basin, he said. Water storage has not kept up with the growth. Grigg said his research indicates statewide storage has dropped from more than five acre feet per capita in 1950 to just over two acre feet in 2000. During the same time in the South Platte Basin, storage has dropped from two acre feet per capita to less than one. Waskom said protecting against drought is critical. Analysis of tree rings indicates the Front Range has experienced prolonged periods of severe drought. The area was particularly hard hit between 1500 and 1700, before Euro-peans arrived and documented conditions on the plains, he said... The Poudre would still flow "bank to bank" through town even when water is being diverted for Glade, said Werner of Northern Water, although the height of the water would be lower than normal. Because of physical limitations on how much water the project can take even during times of unusually high flows brought on by snowmelt, the Poudre would still flood under certain conditions, Werner said. In-stream flow rights, such as those the city of Fort Collins has on the Poudre, would not be damaged by diversions into Glade, he said... Supporters say NISP and Glade Reservoir are needed to meet the future water needs of growing communities in Larimer, Boulder, Weld and Morgan counties. Approximately 200,000 people live in communities that are participating in the project. That number is expected to grow to 425,000 by 2050, Werner said. NISP would meet the water needs of the communities as they grow through about 2030, Werner said. After that, they will have to find other sources, including conservation and buying water owned by farmers and irrigation companies. The Fort Collins Loveland Water District, which covers parts of south Fort Collins as well as Timnath, would garner 3,000 acre feet of water a year from the project, said Mike DiTullio, the district's general manager. The district has about 14,000 customers, DiTullio said. Another 8,000 to 10,000 "taps" are expected to be added by the time the district builds out. That could happen by 2025, DiTullio said, "depending on what happens in Timnath." Without Glade, the district would continue to buy water from other sources, including Northern Water's Colorado-Big Thompson Project, or C-BT, which has carried water from the Western Slope to the Front Range for more than 50 years. Northern Water transfers about 3,000 acre feet of water from agricultural to domestic use each year. All units of C-BT water are expected to be claimed within 10 years, Northern officials say... Before building reservoirs in reaction to growth, water providers should ramp up efforts to conserve water, said Becky Long, water caucus coordinator for the Colorado Environmental Coalition, which opposes Glade. Providers also should work out agreements with farmers through which they share water re-sources, she said. The need for NISP is not as dire as Northern officials claim, she said. "We feel like they are building this on a very shaky foundation," Long said. The communities involved with NISP have had water conservation programs for years, said Dick Leffler, town engineer for Frederick, including mandatory metering, tiered rates and watering restrictions. But conservation isn't enough to meet the need, he said. "The low-hanging fruit is gone," Leffler said. "That's not to say that we shouldn't continue to do our best to conserve water; we don't have a surplus." Proponents of the Northern Integrated Supply Project are pitching the recreation benefits of Glade Reservoir, according to The Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article: When full, the reservoir would be a bit larger than Horsetooth Reservoir. It would offer five miles of flat water for motorboat cruising plus space on its western "thumb" that could be designated as wakeless to cater to paddlers. Larimer County parks would likely manage recreation on and around the reservoir, said Gary Buffington, director of the county natural resources department. The county has had preliminary discussions with Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District officials about recreation at the reservoir, but no plans for the location of facilities, such as boat ramps and campgrounds, have been developed, he said. "I think we would have to do a lot of things before taking this on," he said. "We would have to do a pretty solid feasibility study and get lots of input from our parks board." Critics of the dam say its water level would fluctuate too much for it to be a consistent site for boating or fishing, describing it as little more than a "big mud hole." They also say by diverting the Poudre River's water to supply the reservoir, decreased flows would hamper recreation such as tubing, fishing and paddling downstream in Fort Collins. Northern Water officials counter that water exchanges and agreements with governmental entities could result in more water going downstream during times when the river would typically be low. Here's a look at the associated costs for the Northern Integrated Supply project, from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article: The estimated price tag of the project - currently set at $405 million - would translate to about $10,000 per acre foot of water to the 15 communities and water districts paying for the project...But with water from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project running between $13,000 and $15,000 an acre foot, the price of Glade is "a good deal," said Dick Leffler, town engineer for Frederick. The total cost for Frederick would be about $26 million, he said. The tab would be financed through a long-term loan paid back with development fees and user rates. The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District expects to pay $38 million for its share, general manager Mike DiTullio said. During a recent forum on the Glade project, Fort Collins City Councilman David Roy said the expense of financing the debt for Glade would compel communities to grow rapidly to cover their costs... At the same event, Kathy Peterson of the Left Hand Water District said the project is affordable. The district's tab would be $48 million, but it likely would not need to go into debt. "For us this is the responsible thing to do," she said. "It's responsible financially - we can afford it, growth will pay its way on this." Meanwhile, here's an analysis of how Colorado water law will apply to Glade Reservoir and the Poudre River, from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write: Water rights retain their seniority when they are sold or traded. Poudre water that is claimed but cannot be used or stored flows out of state. One of the rights that would be used to divert water into Glade is considered a "junior" right. It could only be taken during times of high flows on the Poudre, typically during the height of spring runoff also known as the "June rise." The reservoir also would take in water owned by two irrigation ditch companies that already draw from the river. Glade's water right dates to the 1980s and a proposal to build a dam within Poudre Canyon. Senior rights on the river date back to the 1870s. The city of Thornton has a conditional claim to 36,000 acre feet of Poudre water that is junior to the Glade right. If the reservoir is not built, Thornton could at some point exercise its right to the river's water, said Bill Brown, a Fort Collins water attorney and longtime member of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District board of directors. Controversy has followed the project from its inception. Here's a report from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write: Glade Reservoir's roots stretch back more than 20 years to a proposal to build a series of reservoirs and hydro-electrical facilities within Poudre Canyon. The idea was hotly disputed by local residents and led to the formation of anti-dam groups such as Preserve Our Poudre. In 1986, much of the river through the canyon was federally designated as "wild and scenic," taking away the possibility of a dam on the main stem with the exception of the 7-mile stretch below the community of Poudre Park. A water right was set for the so-called Grey Mountain reservoir, but the project was never built. That right would be used to draw water from the Poudre for storage in Glade. But Gary Kimsey, a founder and board member of Friends of the Poudre, said too many questions remain about Glade - and its potential to harm - for river advocates to support it. "I think Glade is not as evil as building a dam on the main stem, but there are still a lot of problems with Glade," he said... The Poudre's water is part of the region's attractiveness and lore. Local historian Wayne Sundberg noted two early visitors to the Poudre Valley offered contrasting descriptions of its landscape in their writings. When J.R. Todd passed through in 1852, he saw a "verdant" valley that was "carpeted by the most luxuriant grasses." The river was crystal clear and full of trout all the way to the South Platte River, he wrote. In 1859, journalist Horace Greeley passed by the Poudre on his way from Denver to Laramie. He noted stands of cottonwood trees along the river, but also that the high prairie along its banks was "thinly, poorly grassed, being of moderate fertility at best, often full of pebbles of the average size of a goose egg, and apparently doomed to sterility by drought." The excerpts show the difference between a dry year and a wet year along the Poudre, Sundberg said. "You wouldn't know it, but they were writing about the exact same place," he said. Here's a short article about relocating highway 287 to accommodate Glade Reservoir's location, from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write: If the reservoir is built as planned, a five-mile section of U.S. Highway 287 north of its intersection with Colorado Highway 14 and Ted's Place would be inundated by Glade's water. Plans for relocating the highway would move it to the other side of a hogback that would be the eastern side of the reservoir. The new highway segment would head north from the LaPorte bypass of U.S. 287 near Overland Trail. From there, it would follow the route of a road used to haul limestone quarried on property formerly owned by Holcim for its cement plant, which was decommissioned in 2004. The haul road is about 4[product] miles long. From the north end of that road, transportation planners are considering two potential routes for tying into the existing U.S. 287. The so-called western alignment would run northwest and through a cut in the hogback. The northern alignment would veer to the northeast until it reaches Owl Canyon Road, which is also Larimer County Road 72, and follow the road to its intersection with the present U.S. 287. The western route would be three miles shorter than the northern route, according to a report issued in August. But it would cost $41.3 million to build compared to $37.7 million for the northern route. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 8:15:44 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 5/1/08; 7:45:04 AM.