|
|
Monday, September 8, 2008
|
|
| |
Fort Lupton is moving ahead with a $4.7 million project for the water treatment plane, according to The Greeley Tribune. From the article:
The result is a $4.7 million project that is still in the planning stages. It's a project without a timeline or even a sure plan -- the city may divide the project into stages, for instance -- but it's also a priority for Fort Lupton and its public works department. The project focuses on three major improvements to the water treatment plant:
- Replacing the filters -- This $700,000 project could be carved out and completed sooner than the others. That's one consideration, and it's because replacing the filters would really help the chlorine issue as well as reduce the flow of water to the wastewater treatment plant.
That's important, Knoefal said, because the wastewater treatment plant already is near capacity, and the filters would not only help scrub more of the chlorine byproducts out but reduce the backwash that ultimately gets sent back to the wastewater plant.
"That will not only increase our efficiency," Knoefal said, "it will extend the life of the wastewater plant."
- Build special tanks to settle out the chlorine byproducts even more -- These tanks would help remove the byproducts before the water hit the filters.
- Redesign some of the pumping and storage -- Adding some additional pumping and storage would help make the plant more efficient.
The city would pay for the improvements through some grants it has already received and other ways that officials haven't quite figured out yet. The first step is coming up with a timeline for the project, and officials should present that to council members in the next few months.
Category: Colorado Water
6:30:17 AM 
|
|
From The Summit Daily News: "A local ban on cyanide heap-leach mining will take center stage at the Colorado Supreme Court Tuesday. The seven-judge panel will listen to oral arguments in a case that has been wending through the courts since 2005. The case is set to be heard at 9 a.m...Summit County wants to prohibit the process because of its environmental pitfalls. Backers of the ban say the open-pit process is too risky, with the potential for pollution to reach streams and lakes. The mining industry claims it can minimize risks by using the latest containment technology. A ruling isn't expected for a few months, said Summit County attorney Jeff Huntley. The case is being closely watched statewide for its potentially far-reaching effects. Colorado Counties Inc. filed a brief in support of Summit County's ban. Other counties could pass similar rules if the Supreme Court validates Summit County's regulations."
More from the article:
Summit County enacted the ban in 2004 as part of a wider mining regulation update. The Colorado Mining Association won its initial challenge to the regulations in Summit County District Court in 2005, arguing that state law adequately regulates mining. The Colorado Court of Appeals overturned that decision in 2007, upholding Summit County's ban. The appeals court ruling pointed out that a 1993 amendment to state mining laws specifically requires mining operators to "comply with city, town, county, or city and county land use regulations." The mining industry argued that counties can't ban activities in which the state has a compelling interest, but the appeals court said Summit County's regulations fall "far short" of a complete ban...
Parsons said state lawmakers are also watching the issue carefully. The Colorado Legislature considered a law last year that would spell out local control over mining practices. But when the Supreme Court decided to hear the Summit County case, the proposed law was put on hold. "They wanted to wait for the ruling," Parsons said. Parsons said he anticipates a "fierce reaction" from lawmakers if the Summit County regulations are overturned. "It's a water protection and a local economy issue," Parsons said, explaining that tourism-reliant counties like Summit can't afford the pollution risks associated with cyanide heap-leach mining...
Sanderson said the local regs are a threat to mining in general and a possible first step to more restrictions. Sanderson said his group's challenge to the cyanide ban was not aimed at questioning Summit County's land use authority, but narrowly at the ban itself. Parsons said several small gold mines have started up operations since the Summit County ban was adopted, showing that the rules don't aim to block mining in general.
The mining industry touts modern safeguards against mining accidents, but
environmental activists insist that cyanide heap leach mining remains very
risky. As recently as July 2007, a big rainstorm in Costa Rica led to
concerns about potential water pollution at a cyanide heap-leach operation
run by a Canadian mining company. Mudslides resulted in damage to the
heap-leach pads used to contain ore on the site.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:21:32 AM
|
|
Here's an editorial in opposition to the proposed Glade Reservoir, from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. Glade is a major component of the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project. From the article:
Based on careful analysis done by scientists, economists and other professionals, this project will cost the citizens of Fort Collins plenty while providing us with essentially no benefits. The costs come in many forms, but ultimately, originate from substantially reduced flows of the Poudre River. While what may come to mind is a less attractive and possibly smellier river through our community, the negative effects of these reduced flows are much more extensive - adversely affecting our drinking water quality, wastewater treatment, and flood management ability, in addition to substantial ecological and economic losses. Here's just a small sample of these costs.
Based on rigorous scientific modeling, NISP/Glade will likely degrade the Fort Collins' drinking water quality to a point where the city will have to install advanced water treatment systems. These systems will cost citizens anywhere from $50 million to $90 million in one-time costs, in addition to annual operating expenses of $3 million.
In addition, part of Glade would be built on a former nuclear missile silo that is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent used to clean rocket fuel tanks. Long-term TCE exposure in minute concentrations causes liver damage and cancer. If Glade Reservoir is built, TCE-contaminated groundwater may end up in our drinking water and in the Poudre River. The costs to correct this are potentially enormous.
On the other end of the water spectrum, because of lower flows in the river, the city would most likely have to install advanced wastewater treatment systems at both the Drake and Mulberry plants (reduced flows require cleaner wastewater upon discharge). The cost? Somewhere between $75 million and $125 million plus significant annual operation and maintenance costs.
Also in grave jeopardy would be the riparian vegetation (including the magnificent cottonwood trees), aquatic habitat and wildlife. Recreational opportunities like fishing, kayaking, tubing and bird watching would be greatly diminished. These effects would significantly diminish the value of the city's $30 million investment in parks, natural areas, and trails along the river, in addition to many residents' quality of life.
The river's reduced flows also would endanger plans for continued improvement and revitalization of downtown Fort Collins centered around the Poudre River corridor. Overall, we could lose what the City calls one of its "economic engines".
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:06:00 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
10/1/08; 6:34:14 AM.
|
|
|
