Here's an opinion piece about Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System from that hits at one of the major points against the project, namely the continued degradation of Fountain Creek, from The Pueblo Chieftain. Farmer Bill Alt writes:
Obviously, Colorado Springs is going to keep on growing, and SDS is a costly tool. But is it the only solution? I don't think so. SDS probably gets Colorado Springs the most "bang for the bucks," but at what cost to the neighbors? It is my view that Colorado Springs has plenty of water to meet its needs now and in the immediate future if it would recycle the water it has and not release it as sewage into the Fountain. What Colorado Springs Utilities and the city and county elected officials simply do not acknowledge publicly is that it is not what SDS takes out of the watershed that is important. It is what it puts back in that causes the problems. I think they probably do understand and prefer to ignore the non-native flows they put into the Fountain because to continue as they have and increase the size of their waste management plants is cheaper than building a recycling system.
While Colorado Springs Utilities' experts might disagree, somewhere between 60 percent and 80 percent of the daily flows in the Fountain are treated waste from Colorado Springs and other El Paso County users. You don't have to be a certified hydrologist to see this. On a dry day with no heavy snowmelt, look at the Fountain as it enters Colorado Springs from Manitou Springs and then drive down to the Pueblo County line (the Pinon Bridge is a good spot) and see the difference. The average person may well ask, "What difference does it make?"
First of all, nature never meant for the Fountain to carry that extra volume of water. The Fountain, as nature intended it, is an intermittent stream. There shouldn't be water in the lower Fountain 360 days a year. If it's not flooding, you should be able to step across it. But because of the extra water, the river erodes its banks 24/7, 360 days a year, depositing millions of tons of silt into the river which is then transported downstream to degrade sewage plants, ditch head gates and water supplies for farmers and cities in the lower Fountain and Lower Arkansas valleys. This continued erosion also exacerbates flooding in the Fountain, making flood events more violent and destructive. There are a lot of other negative outcomes from dumping non-native water in the Fountain, but for now I think I have made my point.
Mark Udall is on board with an extension of the public comment period for the Southern Deliver System, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has joined others in calling for an extension of the deadline for comments on the Bureau of Reclamation's draft environmental statement for the Southern Delivery System...
"This project could have significant impacts on a variety of economic and environmental values in this region," Udall said. "The draft document is large and will take time to review and analyze. Because of the implication of this project on the Arkansas River Valley and the communities and people who rely upon this river for their livelihood, it is essential that these affected interests be allowed the additional time they need to review this document."[...]
Jaci Gould, area resources manager for the bureau, said no decision has been made on whether to extend the deadline, although the bureau is considering it. "We usually get a lot of comments in the week prior to the deadline," Gould said. "We'll have to see." Last week, Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., asked for an extension of the deadline to June 27, providing an additional 60 days for comments. Salazar also wanted a town hall meeting in Pueblo to hear comments, but the bureau is not interested in participating, said Kara Lamb, Reclamation spokeswoman. A coalition of 15 environmental and labor groups also has requested an extension of the comment deadline...
"I am interested in making sure that the federal government conducts an environmental review process that has the confidence of all parties," Udall said. "The Arkansas River faces many challenges, including downstream sedimentation and increased recreational pressure upstream. There are concerns about flooding in Fountain Creek, and of course, Colorado Springs has water rights that must be respected," Udall said. "In this process, it is essential that federal agencies involved in these projects and proposals provide ample opportunity for affected communities to have a say in their future. Providing more time and full hearings would demonstrate that commitment and respect."
Here's a recap of Thursday's public forum from The Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:
The sixth and final open house was hosted by the Bureau of Reclamation to explain the draft environmental impact statement for SDS, the $1.1 billion project that would provide water to Colorado Springs and its partners for the next 40 years and beyond. A contract to cooperate with the project was signed Tuesday by the Fremont County Commissioners and visibly angered some Penrose residents, who took the board to task for the agreement. "I think they sold us out for $50,000 and whatever else they worked out under the table," said Katie McCallister, who lives with her husband, James, near Brush Hollow Reservoir. As proposed, the project crosses their land, and she believes it could take as much as 25 percent of their 40 acres. The McCallisters have fought the project since its inception. In addition to private property issues, James said he was concerned about the impact the project would have on wildlife habitat, natural vegetation and underground water in the area...
Many residents question the wisdom of removing up to 78 million gallons per day from the Arkansas River near Florence. Joel Bolduc, environmental manager for Holcim (US) Inc., said he was satisfied with the answers he had received, although he still had more questions. "We are most concerned with the minimum flow as it goes by the plant," Bolduc said of the cement plant that sits just east of the preferred site. He was told the current minimum flow of 190 feet per second would continue to be met. "If they maintain the 190, we should not have any issues," Bolduc said. "This was helpful."
District 1 Commissioner Mike Stiehl was on hand to explain the county's involvement with the project. He said the intergovernmental agreement, which included a $50,000 advance to pay for fees and costs incurred during the process, actually protects the county. He said without the contract, Colorado Springs probably would not be required to submit to the county's application processes. "Their water is in the Arkansas River," Stiehl said. "We are in between the city and their water." Legally, Fremont County has no say in multi-jurisdictional agreements because it does not have land-use regulations known as 1041s, named over the House bill that gave counties such power. Pueblo County, the other entity under study for the SDS project, does have the regulations, which could effectively stop Colorado Springs from building the project there.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:24:55 AM 
|
|
