Coyote Gulch's Colorado Water
The health of our waters is the principal measure of how we live on the land. -- Luna Leopold

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.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

A picture named bigthompsonflood073176.jpg

Business Daily: "Flood damages soar when engineering projects reduce the capacity of river channels, block natural drainage, increase the speed of floods, and cause the subsidence of deltas and coastal erosion. In addition, 'hard path' flood control often ruins the ecological health of rivers and estuaries. There is a better way to deal with floods - the 'soft path' of flood risk management. Flood risk management assumes that all anti-flood infrastructure can fail and that this failure must be planned for. The 'soft path' is also based on an understanding that some flooding is essential for the health of riverine ecosystems."

Thanks to restoringrivers for the link.

Category: Colorado Water

6:37:49 PM    

A picture named fens.jpg

Check out the new events calendar from the Water Information Program Website. Here's the RSS Feed.

Category: Colorado Water

7:00:07 AM    

A picture named southerndeliverysystem.jpg

Pueblo County and Colorado Springs Utilities will be in court next week over Pueblo's attempt to use their 1041 authority to regulate land use around the proposed Southern Delivery System, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

A three-day trial has been set next week in a lawsuit that contends Pueblo County cannot impose land-use regulations on a proposed Colorado Springs water pipeline. Pueblo District Judge Dennis Maes will consider several motions on the case and possibly proceed to trial Tuesday. Colorado Springs contends that Pueblo County land-use regulations, which were updated in 2005, don't apply to its proposed Southern Delivery System pipeline. Pueblo County counters that SDS will create new infrastructure, disrupt roadways, cross private property and increase flows on Fountain Creek...

Colorado Springs has not yet filed for a Pueblo County land-use permit, partly because the Bureau of Reclamation has not completed an environmental impact statement, which is looking at seven alternatives. The alignment of the pipeline's path differs among the alternatives, with some east of Pueblo. Two of the alternatives even consider approaches that would put the delivery pipeline in Fremont County, rather than Pueblo County. Colorado Springs filed its lawsuit in El Paso District Court on Nov. 22, 2005, about seven weeks after Pueblo County adopted its revised land-use rules. The regulations - loosely referred to as 1041 rules for the 1974 HB1041 - were updated from 1976 rules to include a new section on efficient use of water resources. Colorado Springs claims the pipeline would be allowed under zoning that was in effect in 1974 and should be exempt from the new rules. In its initial filing, the city claimed the county "expressed and demonstrated unequivocal hostility" toward SDS.

Pueblo County filed a motion to move the trial to Pueblo District Court in early 2006, and the Colorado Supreme Court upheld decisions in both El Paso and Pueblo district courts to move the trial to Pueblo in an October 2006 decision. Pueblo County claims Colorado Springs is subject to regulation under both HB1041 and another 1974 bill, HB1034, which give counties authority to regulate activities such as the proposed pipeline that create an impact in a local area while serving a larger part of the state...

The proposed SDS alternative would cost $127 million - out of a $1 billion budget - for work in Pueblo County. A 42-foot-high, 14,000-square-foot building with seven 3,000-horsepower pumps south of the Arkansas River could be built, with a pipeline under the Arkansas River, four propane tanks and an electrical substation. The pipeline, buried 10 feet deep, would cross 24 roads, 130 parcels (mostly in Pueblo West and one-fifth with homes on them) and 50 drainages. A 100-foot-wide easement over 20 miles would cover 238 acres, and 48 concrete "manways" - 8-foot by 8-foot by 7-foot concrete boxes - would be located every 2,000 feet along the line, according to the Pueblo County filing. There would be 15 additional 7-foot manholes and release valves along the way. Additional land would be required for construction easements. An alternative to take water at the Fountain Creek confluence would cost $142 million and affect 31 road crossings. Pueblo County also claims there would be additional land-use impacts on Fountain Creek from increased return flows of up to 66 million gallons per day by 2046. Colorado Springs owns none of the land in Pueblo County to be used in either alignment, the county added.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Colorado Water

6:10:07 AM    

Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2007 John Orr.
Last update: 11/1/07; 6:40:50 AM.
October 2007
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 31      
Sep   Nov