|
|
Monday, June 30, 2008
|
|
| |
From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree): "By-pass gate #2 at Crystal Dam has been repaired and was returned to service June 27. Releases are about 2,000 cfs and flow in the Black Canyon and Gunnison Gorge is around 1,300 cfs."
Category: Colorado Water
9:06:21 PM 
|
|
Reclamation has released their risk assessment for the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Here's the press release:
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Risk Assessment Findings Show Residents Are Safe
The Bureau of Reclamation has completed its risk assessment of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel and the study's findings show that the residents of Leadville and the Village at East Fork are safe. The scientific, peer-reviewed risk assessment found that it is highly unlikely that a sudden release of water could occur from either blockage in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel or through the engineered bulkheads installed in the tunnel near the portal. "The most important and welcome news today is that there is no imminent public safety hazard identified by this risk assessment," said Great Plains Regional Director Michael Ryan. "These findings affirm the appropriateness of Reclamation's actions to date and show that no additional emergency actions need to be taken."
The specific findings of the risk assessment are:
It is highly unlikely that the blockage near and below the Pendery Fault will have a sudden release of water. If something were to happen to this upper blockage, it would occur over a period of weeks and months.
Even if the upper blockage failed rapidly, a sudden release of water through the lower blockage and engineered bulkheads is also highly unlikely.
In the unlikely event that the upper blockage were to rapidly fail, the water levels in the lower portion of the tunnel would rise and dissipate in the surrounding gravel and rocks. There would likely be seeps, similar to what has been occurring in the area for years, and the monitoring wells near the portal could experience an artesian flow.
The hillside above and around the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel portal area is quite stable, even if water levels in the hillside were to increase significantly.
The Early Warning System around the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel portal will provide adequate advance warning to permit the safe evacuation of the residents of The Village at East Fork and Reclamation's Water Treatment Plant staff.
This risk assessment utilized a similar process that Reclamation uses to assess risk at its dams, a model that is a global standard for conducting risk assessments. This process included a peer review by an independent team of Reclamation experts and an external independent consultant review board.
The independent consultant review board has completed its review of the risk assessment and concurred with its findings. The panel also provided comments on the risk assessment that have been incorporated into the final draft of the document.
The risk assessment team made two recommendations that Reclamation has accepted and will implement. They are:
Add additional water level monitoring instruments to the current monitoring wells in the lower portion of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel and connect them to the existing Early Warning System to provide additional water level monitoring in the portal area.
Update the Emergency Action Plan to include the new information learned from the risk assessment and establish clear written directions of actions to be taken. The report should then be finalized and exercised.
"Reclamation will continue to pump and treat water from the new well, its other well and what flows though the portal," said Eastern Colorado Area Manager Michael Collins. "We look forward to continuing to work with EPA, the State of Colorado, and Lake County on the long-term issues related to the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel."
The risk assessment is in final draft form. The public and government agencies are invited to submit technical comments to Reclamation by July 31, 2008. Comments may be submitted to Les Stone, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Regional Office, P.O. Box 36900, Billings, MT 59107-6900 or lmdtra@gp.usbr.gov.
Once the comments are received, they will be reviewed, relevant comments incorporated, and the final report released by the end of September, 2008.
The Final Draft Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Risk Assessment will be available at the two informational meetings that Reclamation will host in Leadville at the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum on July 1 at 1 pm and 7 pm. The documents may also be downloaded from the Internet at www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/leadville/leadville.cfm.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:14:03 PM
|
|
Here's an update on the efforts to build a permanent septage disposal site in Montrose County, from The Montrose Daily Press. From the article:
The West Montrose Sanitation District has gained approval for a $100,000 Department of Local Affairs grant that will aid in removing biosolids from its treatment facility. The district was set up several years ago as a temporary septage receiving site; and the grant's approval hinged on the city and county coming together to develop a long-term answer for handling septage. The two government groups are on the way to meeting those needs - ones recognized as critical to accounting for disposed waste. They have agreed to share responsibility for a septage-receiving facility, which is being designed. Officials said the county will pay for construction of a city-managed facility on city property near the treatment plant, south of the Montrose Animal Shelter.
As a condition of the agreement, before septage is received, the county must put in place and enforce regulations governing system cleaners (septic haulers), said Richard Thompson, the county's environmental health specialist. He would like to put these in place by Aug. 1. A meeting to review the regulations is expected to take place in the next several weeks, he said. "It's been a very productive process. Folks working together is a good thing."[...]
This project is an example of why the city's ability to regularly remove biosolids makes it a more appropriate solution for handling county septage, said District Manager Randy See. In contrast, the district's facility stockpiles its biosolids and removes them every 15 to 20 years. Biosolids in storage lagoons at the plant must be removed intermittently and disposed of in an approved manner. An estimated 2.5 half million gallons of biosolids will be removed at an estimated cost of $200,000 to $275,000, See said. The district anticipates removal to happen during the fall.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:12:32 PM
|
|
Coyote Gulch reader Theo sends this press release in email:
Duke Cox, Western Colorado Congress, 970-379-3649
Keith Lambert, Mayor Town of Rifle, 970-319-3758
Bob Elderkin, Colorado Mule Deer Association, 970-948-9081
Congressional advocates for the oil and gas industry today continued their relentless and misleading effort to convince Americans that unproven oil shale technology can help reduce the price of gas at the pump. "The Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008,"" introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell claims that the current a one-year funding limitation amounts to a moratorium on oil shale development.
In fact, oil shale development has been proceeding for decades. The federal government is overseeing a major oil shale research and development program that includes four projects in Colorado. Major proponents of oil shale leasing already control 200,000 acres of oil shale deposits. The Department of Energy estimates that up to 3 million acres of oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are in private hands. However, the leading oil shale companies acknowledge that they won't know if their technology works for several more years. yet none have begun development of commercial production facilities. Significant commercial production, they acknowledge, is more than a decade away. The idea promoted by Congressional oil and gas supporters that leasing up to 2 million acres of public land before oil shale technology proves itself will somehow lower gas prices prompted several Western Coloradans to scoff. "That's bogus," said Rifle Mayor Keith Lambert. "I have had discussions with Shell, who's obviously taken the lead as far as research and development. They have indicated they are not anywhere near ready to go. From that standpoint, I don't know how that will make a bit of difference at the pump in so far as no one is ready to pump oil from the ground."
"Horsefeathers," said Duke Cox, president of Escalante Builders and a member of Western Colorado Congress. "Recently released information from experts in mainstream media indicates that market manipulation by giant hedge funds and banks, many of whom are connected to the oil companies, is responsible for much of the recent price hikes. The new GOP bill, said Cox, "is a blatant effort at extorting the American people into setting up the oil and gas industry to record profits for decades to come. People need to know the truth: Domestic drilling will not lower oil and gasoline prices."
A former BLM employee agreed. "That's a bunch of bull," said Bob Elderkin of Silt, who worked on oil shale development before it crashed during the 1980s. "All Bush wants to do is get these things leased while he's in office. The bottom line right now is that Shell has to take its technology to commercial development, which is a decade away. Nobody's else has got anything." Elderkin said the potential impact of oil shale's development on Northwest Colorado's wildlife has not been properly evaluated. "If Shell went commercial, the impact on our wildlife be huge," said Elderkin, a member of the Colorado Mule Deer Association. "Shell drills on five-foot spacing, which means they have to level the ground for every cell. You can visualize what's going to result -- it's disturbance on a mega-scale. And that's just the surface - we're not even talking about water yet.""
Meanwhile, from The Environmental News Network:
The U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Miami this week adopted a resolution aimed at avoiding the use of high carbon fuels such as tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale. The resolution encourages fuel analyses that include emissions from production, not just from burning the fuel. The resolution calls for the creation of guidelines and purchasing standards to help mayors understand the greenhouse gas emissions of the fuels they purchase through their entire lifecycle from production through consumption. "We don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on fuels that make global warming worse," said Mayor Kitty Piercy, of Eugene, Oregon, who submitted the resolution. "Tar sands oil emits up to three times the greenhouse gases in the production process per barrel as conventional oil production," Piercy said. "Our cities are asking for environmentally sustainable energy and not fuels from dirty sources such as tar sands."
Tar sands are deposits of natural bitumen, a viscous oil that must be treated to convert it into an upgraded crude oil so that it can be used in refineries to produce gasoline and other fuels. Extracting oil from these sands uses more water and requires larger amounts of energy than conventional oil extraction, even though many conventional oil fields also require large amounts of water and energy and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases. Many countries have large deposits of tar sands, including the United States, Russia, and countries in the Middle East. The world's largest deposits are in Canada and Venezuela, both of which have tar sands reserves equal to the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil.
The resolution approved by the mayors expresses concern for Canada's environment, stating, "... the production of tar sands oil from Canada emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as does conventional oil production and significantly damages Canada's Boreal forest ecosystem - the world's largest carbon storehouse ..." "The mayors have once again confirmed that they're serious about combating climate change," said Mayor Marty Blum of Santa Barbara, California. "Not only will we give preference to clean, renewable energy sources, we are standing our ground when it comes to synthetic petroleum-based fuels that exacerbate global warming."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
5:11:14 PM
|
|
Ed Quillen takes up the theme of Colorado as a "National Energy Sacrifice Zone" in his column in yesterday's Denver Post. From the article:
The industry shills are upset about a proposed regulation to protect wildlife by forbidding drilling in certain areas at certain times of the year, like mating and birthing seasons. "It could shut down 30 percent of Colorado's drilling activities for three months every year in the seasonal range of several species, including prairie dogs." Well, yes, it could, unless the drillers consulted with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and prepared comprehensive development plans. In other words, they could act responsibly. Is that expecting too much? Under Colorado law, "All wildlife not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of the state." So, the state acts to protect public property, including those pernicious prairie dogs, and it's doing something evil? Would you say "Go right ahead" to an industry that proposed damaging your personal property? Likely not - so why would you say that to an industry that wants to damage property that we Coloradans hold in common?[...]
They are not drilling to make sure Coloradans stay warm in the winter. For generations, long before the current boom, Colorado has produced more natural gas than it could consume. With the construction of new pipelines, natural gas can be exported to higher-paying markets. The current drilling boom is for gas to go to those markets, which also raises the price we have to pay. Just why our wildlife is supposed to be sacrificed for the benefit of natural-gas customers in California and the Midwest is a question the drillers have neither raised nor answered. Further, the drillers skip around their damage to another public asset. The water of Colorado belongs to the people of Colorado. And thanks to gas drillers, various people of Colorado have found methane and benzene in their water. Let's face it. The drillers are here for one purpose: To make as much money as they can, as fast as they can, just like the earlier gold and silver mine owners. If it's asking too much for them, in the process of sending Colorado natural gas to California, to follow some rules to protect our property - our wildlife and our water - then goodbye and good riddance, the sooner the better.
Meanwhile we received this link in email from Colorado Media Matters:
The Daily Sentinel misleadingly reported that a proposed wildlife habitat rule discussed at a June 10 hearing of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) "would set a moratorium on drilling for at least three months each year, potentially crippling western Colorado's booming energy industry." However, the article omitted that the COGCC issued revised proposed rules, which, as The Daily Sentinel reported on June 18, "make it clear that energy companies have a variety of options to mitigate effects on wildlife near their drilling sites before being slapped with a 90-day drilling moratorium," according to COGCC acting director David Neslin.
Here's a press release from Western Progress on the subject of opening more federal land to oil and gas exploration to help with gasoline prices in the short term and long term:
While Americans suffer sticker shock at the pump and natural gas costs are expected to soar within the next year, the Bush Administration would have us believe that the cure for those skyrocketing prices lies beneath our feet, and above the law.
The source for this political gamesmanshipis the Bureau of Land Management's latest energy report released last month, EPCA III -- an inventory of oil and gas resources on more than 279 million public acres, 43 million of which are in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
The report, required by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and skewed to hasten fossil fuel development at the expense of a healthy environment, doesn't pass the laugh test.
In addressing the industrial favoritism of EPCA III, the Wilderness Society's Nada Culver denounced the BLM and Bush Administration for "manipulat[ing] data to reach a predetermined conclusion that supports the oil and gas industry's desire to open more public lands drilling."
A Wilderness Society analysis of EPCA III shows that some lands listed by the BLM as "inaccessible"" are known to be available for leasing including Alaska's Northeast Planning Area, which was put into the "no leasing"" category even though it has undergone two lease sales and is scheduled for a third in October.
Furthermore, the BLM frequently grants "exceptions" to lease terms written to protect the land, and has issued five new "categorical exclusions"" (under the Energy Policy Act) that exempt drilling projectsfrom environmental review. Look for the new exclusions to boost the number of exempt projects, which totaled more than 1,600 between 2005 and 2007.
The report also identifies vast supplies of oil and gas as off limits to drilling due to "impediments" such as laws protecting clean air, clean water and healthy wildlife populations. Yet much of the report's inventoried acreage protected by these impediments is actually found within national parks, national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas.
Most important, there remains one simple fact that calls into question the entire scope of the BLM report: more than 44 million acres of public lands are already under lease for oil and gas drilling across the country, and yet only 26 percent of those lands are actually in production.
"We have found that the oil industry is sitting on 68 million acres [including off-shore leases] of federal oil and gas leases, the size of Colorado," said Democratic chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee Nick Rahall last Wednesday. "They are stockpiling them. Opening up even more areas only gives them an opportunity to speculate even further."
Rahall and other House members have sensibly introduced legislation that would force block oil and gas companies from getting new leases unless they can demonstrate they are developing the ones they already have.
Meanwhile, the administration wants to sell them even more leases to sit on, by opening up treasured places like Colorado's Roan Plateau.
If increased oil and gas drilling throughout the West and across the country is really the answer to cheaper gasoline prices and lower natural gas bills, shouldn't Americans already be experiencing these rollbacks?
Since 2000, drilling on federal lands has steadily increased while in the last three years gas and oil prices have broken record highs. Under the Bush Administration drilling permit approvals set a new record last year with 7,124, making the total number of permits issued since 2001 just over 35,000. All but about 2,000 of those were in Rocky Mountain states.
In addition, a U.S. Energy Information Association report shows that full oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could save only a few pennies at the pump.
Opening up more public lands - treasured, scenic lands where Americans hunt, fish, hike, and camp - to oil and gas development, especially when 33 million leased acres remain vacant,makes a mockery of the BLM's own mission statement, and keeps the nation on a myopic carbon-based fuel path rather than one of renewable energy development and resource conservation.
Meanwhile, the energy industry speaks (via The Summit Daily News):
A Canadian organization found that new regulations proposed for the state's oil-and-gas industry has made Colorado a much worse place for energy companies to invest. The Fraser Institute, which calls itself a non-partisan group, ranked Colorado as the 29th worst jurisdiction for "upstream" oil-and-gas investment out of 81 international jurisdictions, according to its Global Petroleum Survey 2008. That's because of the prospect of the new rules, according to the institute. But others point out that the same organization determined Colorado was one of the best places in the world for drilling just a short time earlier and note that the energy companies are clammoring to increase their presence in the state...
The Fraser Institute based its report on survey results from industry senior executives and managers who responded to its annual survey of "upstream petroleum companies." "Survey respondents were very concerned with Colorado's changes to drilling permit requirements and other stringent regulations," said Gerry Angevine, Fraser Institute's senior economist and coordinator of its annual petroleum survey. "The Colorado Oil and Gas Association estimates the new rules could increase drilling costs by $60,000 to $600,000 per well."
Meg Collins, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said the study indicated that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and his administration are "sending a clear message to natural-gas and oil companies that Colorado is closing its doors on them." "The Fraser Institute's 2008 report accurately demonstrates the real concern Colorado's natural-gas and oil producers are feeling, given the state's complete rewrite of the rules that govern the industry," she said.
Duke Cox, who has been involved in the rule-making process and is the former director of the Western Colorado Congress, said people should follow what companies say to their investors, rather than what industry may tell the Fraser Institute. Cox specifically referred to what Williams Production RMT [~] one of the largest producers in Garfield County - is telling its investors. Williams, in its most recent Securities Exchange Commission filing this week, said its recent acquisition of 24,000 net acres in the Piceance Basin and the associated increase in drilling activity are the primary drivers of the increase in company's capital expenditure guidance in 2008 and 2009.
Trinidad is on the side of oil and gas developers, according to The Pueblo Chieftain:
Backers of sweeping new state regulations on the energy industry, consumed by a desire to slow natural gas drilling around Rifle and Meeker in the state's northwest corner, continue to pay a price for their tunnel vision. While they weren't looking, Trinidad jumped into the fray. And now, like a pied piper of methane, the small city with a rich energy history of its own is leading a revolt against the new rules. Moreover, the tide of criticism is swelling so big, so fast that some political observers think a possible November ballot question to collect extra tax money from the energy industry may tank. Trinidad leaders are unapologetic. The state's rush to regulate threatened to cripple the economy of Trinidad and a number of other small cities across the state, and all for no good reason, they say. The old approach - local control with an assist from state and federal agencies - worked well, they say. Sweeping new mandates from the state aren't needed, they say.
Las Animas County commissioners summarized their concerns in a complaint filed with the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, the agency drafting the new rules: Coalbed methane development "has made a considerable difference in Las Animas County's economy, leading to a decrease in unemployment rate and an increase in tax revenues. If a proper balance is not reached, the draft rules will have a severe negative impact without significantly protecting public welfare, the environment and wildlife." Left unspoken: Two of the three county commissioners are Democrats, putting them at odds with their party's state leaders, who made the tougher rules a priority after coming to power in Denver...
There's too much uncertainty about the state's motives, [Jay Still, vice president of Pioneer Natural Resources and current chairman of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association] said. "We're still asking, 'What is the problem you're trying to address?'" More time also is needed to study the proposed changes, possibly until year's end, he said. The last time the state's rule book was updated, in the 1990s, the talks lasted five years, he noted. The full-court press by the Trinidad community, the energy industry and speakers such as Still are proving effective at rallying groups around the state, including the Western Slope. Belatedly, regulators moved to relax some rules, including writing into the rules a specific exemption for Las Animas County on new wildlife controls the county considered unnecessary. But now other energy basins are pressing for concessions of their own. Meanwhile, the industry has launched a well-funded statewide advertising campaign to press its case. More recently, the Bureau of Land Management sent notice that, under federal law, the rules will not apply to federal lands. The BLM also noted no problems while working under the state's old system. Right now, the Oil and Gas Commission is still scheduled to adopt a set of rules in August but it's likely that the process will undergo review when the Legislature convenes in January. Even one of the main legislative sponsors of the state's effort, state Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, says she may introduce a new bill to rein in the new rules...
Drilling applications could require aerial photos, detailed topographic maps, access road plans, vegetation and wildlife analysis and a number of mitigation plans, among other documents. The Division of Wildlife would receive new powers to intervene on drilling plans, including the right to potentially call for a 90-day halt to drilling activity in certain energy basins if deemed in the best interest of the breeding and birthing habits of wildlife. Regulators now say they envision the rule seldom coming into play; the industry isn't yet buying the claim. Adjacent landowners would get a bigger say in the permitting process. Regulators shelved an idea of allowing landowners to object outright, but they left in a rule that requires drillers to certify the landowners are notified of the permit process, an invitation for them to find other ways to press their concerns. Another rule calls for a study of methane gas in coal outcrops, or "seeps," including seeps on other people's property, Still says. "What is the problem they want addressed? Have they looked at the economic impact? And how do we gain access to private land?" he asks. Another rule could require drillers to re-inject any water discharges back into the ground rather than to continue using water to stock wildlife and livestock ponds, as many ranchers and wildlife enthusiasts prefer, the industry says. A detailed study by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association reports that few of the new rules are in place in other Western states, including Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, California and one Midwest state surveyed, North Dakota.
New West: "The annual Western Governor's Association meeting kicked off in Jackson Hole Sunday, with the initial discussions focussed on how to protect wildlife amidst the oil-and-gas drilling boom. The Denver Post reports that the governors created a Western Wildlife Council to work on habitat and wildlife corridor issues."
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
5:10:11 PM
|
|
Here's an update about the conservation easements monkey business mess that surfaced last year and the IRS' efforts to track down abusers, from The Denver Post.
The Internal Revenue Service has issued a number of summonses to the Colorado Division of Real Estate in connection with its investigation into the state's conservation easement program. The summonses came after the IRS reviewed the division's findings on real estate appraiser conduct. Division Director Erin Toll invited the IRS to review the records, according to documents obtained by The Denver Post. The IRS has asked the division to produce copies of its investigative files into landowner Russell MacLennan and appraiser William Milenski, who has had his license suspended and is from the town of Swink. Milenski conducted numerous appraisals of conservation easements for the Greenlands Reserve land trust, often involving the valuation of gravel conservation easements. The IRS also is seeking copies of all subpoenas, summonses and document requests the division issued to the Greenlands Reserve and the Colorado Natural Land Trust, formerly Noah Land Trust. The IRS also requested information pertaining to attorney Rodney Atherton and his promotion of conservation easements...
The focus of Toll's investigation is possible abuse when large tracts of land are overvalued, then sliced up into smaller tracts for investors to buy and place into easements. MacLennan parceled out a 2,067-acre hunting club in Adams County among 18 investors. He worked with the Colorado Natural Land Trust. Howard Hallman, president of the Greenlands Reserve, said he was unaware of the summons. Paul Geer, president of the Colorado Natural Land Trust board, referred questions to his attorney, who could not be reached Friday...
A conservation easement is a permanent restriction on some land uses, typically development and subdivision of a property. Ranchers and farmers establish conservation easements on their properties through land trusts such as Greenlands and Colorado Natural Land, nonprofit organizations that work to conserve land.
In exchange for putting land into an easement, owners get federal tax deductions and state tax credits. When there are abuses, as with inflated appraisals, the government gets shorted on taxes. The IRS has been investigating abuses of conservation easements nationally. Of the more than 400 tax returns involving conservation easements that the IRS is investigating nationwide, 290 are in Colorado...
A state grand jury impaneled Monday also will look at how the state's conservation-easement program operated and whether it was abused.
It is expected to focus on possible securities fraud and whether appraisers intentionally inflated land values so clients could unfairly benefit from the state program, people familiar with the investigation said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:09:10 PM
|
|
Here's an update on recharge efforts for the Upper Black Squirrel Basin aquifer, from The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:
Water users and the Colorado Geological Survey are working on a plan to replenish this disappearing aquifer, an ambitious project to pump underground 500,000 acre feet of water - six times what Colorado Springs Utilities customers use in a year - to create Colorado's first manmade underground storage reservoir. In August, the geological agency will release a report on the possibility. Though many legal and practical questions remain - the most important being where the water will come from - geologists are excited about the prospects.
For the water suppliers, the project could mean a cheap alternative to reservoirs, where water could be deposited and withdrawn like a bank account without the fear of evaporation. Most of these suppliers lack the resources to build reservoirs and have no way to store excess water during the slow months to augment supply during heavy summer use. Officials say the aquifer project represents a new approach among the disparate water suppliers of El Paso County: Several oftenfeuding water interests have put their differences aside in support of the project...
Two years ago, state SB193 mandated that Colorado officials study the possibility of underground water storage in the South Platte and Arkansas river basins. The Upper Black Squirrel aquifer was identified as one of the most promising sites. A combination of geology and legality makes it the perfect site, said Ralf Topper, project manager for the Colorado Geological Survey. The Upper Black Squirrel basin is known as an alluvial aquifer, much shallower than the deep bedrock of the Denver Basin. Officials believe it is mostly self-contained, meaning not much water will be lost to seepage. It is a state designated basin, so it isn't tied to any downstream surface water rights. There are water lines in place and water suppliers to use the storage space...
"This would be the first to replace depleted groundwater," Topper said. "(The cost) is much less than building a new reservoir, and much more timely, in terms of its implementation." The Colorado Geological Survey report will cover only the technical feasibility of the Upper Black Squirrel project. If it determines the project is possible, the agency would then seek a water utility to take part in a pilot project to begin injecting water into the aquifer. Gary Barber, manager of the El Paso County Water Authority, sees the project as a move away from the traditional way groundwater is handled here: a patchwork of small water fiefdoms, jealously guarding their own supply. "We're trying to do a common good approach. Let's recharge this for everybody," Barber said. "I personally am pushing this thing and I'm trying to find out how we get to a more utilitarian model." The Cherokee Metropolitan District isn't waiting for the pilot project. The utility is building a new sewage treatment plant and plans to start injecting treated effluent into the aquifer for storage. It has built 11 ponds where the water will percolate down into the aquifer. Wells out of the underground reservoir would be metered, and water users would be limited to taking out what they put in, Petersen said. He believes it can work...
The Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District, appointed by the state to protect the water, fought Cherokee to the state Supreme Court in 2006 over Cherokee's approval of developments. The court agreed Cherokee had promised to provide more water than it could supply and placed limits on how much it can pump from the basin. The district was later critical of a Cherokee plan to pump water from a deeper aquifer. More recently, the Upper Black Squirrel district took a developer and El Paso County to court, claiming the developer did not perform the required number of tests on septic tank seepage and that the county's approval of the Sanctuary in the Pines subdivision in Black Forest was granted without all necessary information. A judge ruled against the district in April, allowing the development to proceed. Such disputes are typical of the piecemeal approach to water development in the unincorporated parts of the county, and it makes the basin a funny place, perhaps, for a project that will take the cooperation of these same agencies...
"From a conceptual perspective, we would support it," said Sandra Martin, president of Protect Our Wells, a group of residents on private wells in El Paso County. She cautioned that an underground reservoir shouldn't be carte blanche for new development in the area. "I think we have a lot of concerns with the water and I don't think there's one answer," Martin said. "It's going to take a lot of options, a lot of collaboration and it's not going to be the silver bullet that fixes all the water issues here."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:32:03 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
7/1/08; 7:51:52 AM.
|
|
|
