Thursday, September 11, 2008

Energy policy: Oil and gas From The Durango Herald: "La Plata County has released its most recent revision of new gas and oil regulations for the public to comment on ahead of a possible final vote on the rules Sept. 23. The latest version was approved last month by the county's planning commission and requires, among other things, that companies disclose the chemicals they use to the county and emergency medical personnel. The update - the county's first in about a decade - comes as the state is also in the final stages of a major overhaul of its rules to give greater weight to public health and the environment. The two entities' rules could overlap in areas." More from the article: The disclosure of chemicals became a prominent local issue after it was revealed this spring that a Mercy Regional Medical Center nurse had become seriously ill after treating a patient exposed to a proprietary hydraulic fracturing chemical. The new rules would require operators to keep an updated inventory of chemicals and disclose this to the county or emergency medical personnel when requested. Another major change is the right for neighboring landowners to appeal proposed wells. Previously, only surface owners had that right. The recommended draft also changes the definition of a major facility to cover internal-combustion engines with a cumulative horsepower of 200. Before, generators were considered individually, rather than cumulatively, meaning a company could have various types of them on a well pad without being considered a major facility... Josh Joswick, who follows gas and oil issues for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said the environmental group sees the planning commission's version as a step in the right direction. But he would like to see other issues addressed, such as drilling near the Fruitland Outcrop, where dangerous methane seeps are a concern. Christi Zeller, executive director of the pro-industry La Plata County Energy Council, said that it was a mistake for the county to push forward before the state has finished its process because of potential conflicts... The county is accepting comments through Monday. Nau said the deadline could be extended if the Sept. 23 public hearing is changed because a state oil and gas hearing in Denver is on the same day... If you go: A public hearing and possible final vote on La Plata County's revised oil and gas regulations will take place at 7 p.m. Sept. 23 in the Anasazi Room of the county courthouse. A copy of the rules is available at co.laplata.co.us. Public comments can be e-mailed to Oil and Gas Planner Kathleen Murphy at murphyka@co.laplata.co.us. For more information, call Murphy at 382-6269. Category: Climate Change News 6:19:19 PM     Energy policy: Nuclear From The Norwood Post: "The good thing about the proposed uranium mill outside of Naturita is that it is situated far above and away from any water the facility would potentially contaminate. The bad thing about the proposed uranium mill is that it is so far away from water that the water needed to process the uranium will be difficult or expensive to acquire. George Glasier is the CEO of Energy Fuels, the company that is planning the Piñon Ridge uranium mill. He said that the facility would get some of the necessary water from wells dug on his property, and that some of the water would need to be hauled from either the San Miguel or Dolores River. This is no small amount of water -- Glasier and other Energy Fuels representatives confirm that the mill would use an estimated 300 gallons of water, every minute of every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to process the hoped-for 1,000 tons of uranium ore daily." Category: Colorado Water 5:46:24 PM     Windy Gap firming project From The Sky-Hi Daily News: "Rafters, anglers, irrigators, municipalities and citizens who appreciate water in Grand County are being urged to make their voices heard about the state of the area's lakes and rivers. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Windy Gap Firming Project is out. The 2.5-inch thick document studies potential impacts associated with plans to divert more water to the eastern side of the Continental Divide. Some Grand County officials and water defenders plan to read the study cover-to-cover, but citizens may want to opt for the Executive Summary, the 'Cliff Notes' version." More from the article: With that demand, the Northern Water Conservancy District Municipal Subdistrict estimates it will face a shortage of 110,000 acre-feet. Meanwhile, studies say Grand and Summit counties can expect a water demand increase of 17,000 acre-feet by 2030, with a total build-out demand of 32,000 acre feet. "While water conservation is an important strategy used by the participants to improve the efficiency of water use, extend supplies and reduce overall demand, conservation measures will not be sufficient to meet projected water demands," the EIS states. Even with the total amount allowed taken from Windy Gap Reservoir, the subdistrict would still face a 34 percent shortfall, according to the EIS. The Windy Gap Firming Project, pre-empted by drought years early in the decade, represents 10 percent of East Slope participants' water supply needs for the next four-plus decades. But that 10 percent means about 80 percent of Fraser and Colorado river water will end up diverted, and more Big Thompson water will be pumped through Grand Lake. The Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, analyzes different methods of accomplishing the added diversion and the effects each might have. Included in the document is also the option to "do nothing," and keep delivering water by way of the Windy Gap pumping facility the way it's been doing "according to demand, water rights, availability of storage in Granby Reservoir and existing Adams Tunnel Conveyance constraints," the EIS reads. Ralph Price Reservoir in Longmont would enlarge its storage by 13,000 acre feet in the event of "doing nothing." "Windy Gap diversions will increase in the future regardless of whether one of the action alternatives is implemented because of increased demand," the EIS states. That's because East Slope water users have rights to Windy Gap water that they have not yet had to divert to the Front Range. How and when that water is delivered, however, and how its stored is being reviewed from an environmental standpoint. Meanwhile, Grand County has intensified negotiations with the East Slope to secure West Slope interests in keeping rivers and lakes healthy for not just the recreational and economic benefits they provide, but also for expected growth on the Western Slope. Participants in the Windy Gap Firming Project have made their choice, called the "proposed action." It includes construction of a 90,000 acre-foot reservoir called Chimney Hollow on the East Slope. Water would be sent to Chimney Hollow Reservoir by way of a pipeline connection to Colorado-Big Thompson facilities on the East Slope. This reservoir, East Slope stakeholders say, would free up storage in Granby Reservoir for more Windy Gap water... The EIS states that with more water taken from Grand County rivers, the amount and frequency of available fish habitat would decrease under all alternatives. The greatest change would occur under the "action" alternatives, in which rivers may see a 24 percent decrease in adult rainbow trout habitat just upstream of the Williams Fork confluence four out of 10 years. Willow Creek fish habitat would decrease, the EIS states, and rafting conditions in Gore Canyon would diminish in June and July under any of the actions. Grand Lake would also see a greater decrease in water clarity as phosphorous and chlorophyll concentrations in Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Grand Lake increase from more water traveling through the water-delivery system, according to the EIS. And, since levels on Lake Granby would decrease, accessibility to boat ramps at Arapaho Bay, Stillwater and Sunset might become a problem, the document says. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 6:42:18 AM     Fountain Creek management Here's a recap of this week's meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: On Wednesday, Pueblo Planner Scott Hobson asked the Arkansas Basin Roundtable to support a $225,000 grant from the Statewide Water Supply Account that would go toward a $383,000 demonstration project. The roundtable passed the project along to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which will look at funding it in March. The project would use a technology developed by Streamside Systems to remove "bed-load" sediment from the Fountain Creek Channel, Hobson said. "As the sediment is removed and the water goes downstream, will it create a more consistent channel? That's what we're trying to find out," Hobson said. If sedimentation is reduced, it could improve the capacity of the channel to carry floodwater to the Arkansas River and might reduce the tamarisk infestation through the city, Hobson said. Streamside Systems has a patented system - a pre-cast concrete block with tubes and screens - that removes sediment as water flows over. Last year, the company demonstrated its system for one week with a 2-foot-wide collector. The city is proposing a 20-foot-wide collector that would be located at the old railroad bridge about 2,000 feet above the confluence of Fountain Creek at the Arkansas River. "It would remove the bed-load sediments, not the suspended sediments that help seal ditches downstream," Hobson noted. The city would use the sediments, ranging from fines to sand to gravel, but would not sell it. Based on the experience with the 2-foot collector, there could be a large amount of material to deal with, Hobson added. The project has support from the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, which sponsored last year's demonstration. The city has also consulted with state and federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey and a Colorado State University-Pueblo team doing a water quality study of Fountain Creek... Pat Edelmann, head of the Pueblo USGS office, stepped in to explain that part of the reason for the project is to find out how well the collectors, which are used in other parts of the country, will work on Fountain Creek. Hobson said Pueblo has asked communities upstream to help fund other Fountain Creek improvements, such as side detention ponds, but not the collector project... The roundtable also agreed to move an application for $110,000 as part of a $131,000 study of groundwater flows in Upper Black Squirrel Creek in El Paso County. The area is a designated groundwater basin and not tributary to the Arkansas River. The study would look at how water flows through the aquifer in an area that is putting increasing stress on its groundwater supply, said engineer Cristy Radabaugh. It would incorporate the results of an earlier study that looked at artificial recharge of the aquifer. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 6:20:22 AM     Northern Integrated Supply Project: Save the Poudre alternative The groups opposing the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project and Glade Reservoir have come forward with a alternative plan for water suppliers, according to The Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article: The Save the Poudre Coalition provided details for an alternative to the massive reservoir, which would be built north of Ted's Place as part of the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project, at a meeting Wednesday at the Lincoln Center that was attended by more than 100 people. The group's proposal - the Healthy Rivers Alternative - calls for storing water in alluvial aquifers and gravel pits rather than building new reservoirs. It also calls for increased water conservation by municipalities participating in NISP to reduce the demand for water. More water could be made available to the cities through agreements with large blocs of farmers, who would keep water off their fields on a rotating basis and sell it to cities to meet their needs, according to the proposal. Save the Poudre's proposal should be considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as it weighs comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement on NISP, said spokesman Gary Wockner. The draft EIS, which looks at four alternatives, including not building the project, does not meet the requirements of the federal National Environ- mental Policy Act, he said, and should be completely redone. "It is full of errors, glaring omissions and false information," he said. "It does not adequately address the full-range of alternatives." An analysis of the draft EIS by a group of scientist and economists found many problems, Wockner said. The environmental impacts of the project, including water quality, were inadequately researched, he said... The draft EIS overestimates the anticipated growth of the 15 municipalities and water districts that would participate in NISP and pay its bills by more than 100,000 people, he said. Save the Poudre's population estimates were based on updated information from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Colorado state demographer. Fewer people means less demand for water. The draft EIS sets the participant's demand for water at 115,000 acre feet by 2050. Save the Poudre estimates the number to closer to 72,000 acre feet. "We don't think they need near as much water as they say they do," Wockner said. The group's alternative would keep more water in the river and cost participants hundreds of millions of dollars less than NISP as it is described in the draft EIS. In a telephone interview, Northern Water Conservancy District spokesman Brian Werner said ideas such as storing water in aquifers and rotational fallowing on farms were studied by the Corps as part of the EIS process. The concepts were eliminated because of practical or technical problems, such as the lack of aquifers in the Poudre River basin. "I would be surprised if they came up with something that hasn't been looked at before," he said. Update More coverage from The Loveland Daily Reporter Herald. They write: The Save the Poudre Coalition -- a group of thousands of area residents including scientists, economists and land stewards, many with doctoral degrees -- released its own alternative Wednesday to the reservoir Northern Water wants to build northwest of Fort Collins... Today, members will send their Healthy Rivers Alternative, with hundreds of pages of documentation and scientific findings and more than 5,000 signatures on a petition, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ask the decision makers to discard their current environmental evaluation and start over. The Healthy Rivers plan is economically and environmentally viable, Wockner said, showing multiple graphs that depicted cost, conservation and water use. The new plan is based on numbers that Save the Poudre members recalculated because they believe the environmental impact statement for Glade Reservoir relies on flawed population growth estimates and incorrect costs./p> Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and State Demography Office, plus data that shows increasing home foreclosures and decreasing building permits, the coalition says the communities that would draw water from Glade will actually grow by 117,000 fewer people than reported in the environmental impact statement. Also, based on those communities' water use compared to Fort Collins' water use, the coalition members believe residents could use less water, filling some of the need. The rest of the water could be leased from farmers or obtained by a rotational fallowing program, according to Wockner, who said such techniques are successful in California and other states. Through rotational fallowing, about 100 farmers would come together and each agree to farm their land nine of every 10 years; on the off year, their irrigation water would be leased to cities. The farmers get paid, the land gets a one-year rest and the cities get water. This fallowing plan would cost $449 million over four years, higher than the cost Northern Water projects for Glade Reservoir. However, Wockner said the coalition believes the water district's estimate is low. Glade's opponents crunched numbers based on inflation and including finance charges, and claim the reservoir project would actually cost closer to $1 billion -- a number more than twice the $426 million that Northern Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report the project would cost. More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here. Category: Colorado Water 6:11:57 AM     Colorado Supremes: Coal-bed methane produced water Here's a look at today's hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court over the water court ruling about produced water from coal-bed methane wells, from The Aspen Times. From the article: The court [will hear arguments today] in a dispute over water that's pumped from the ground in order to draw natural gas out of coal beds. The justices are expected to rule later. Landowners in southwest Colorado had sued, saying the practice threatens their limited water supplies. They argue that gas companies should defer to water users with older water rights and replace the water they use when it belongs to others. The state engineer, who administers Colorado water law, and BP America Production Co., appealed a ruling last year by a district court in La Plata County that said the water produced while extracting the gas from coal seams is subject to state water law. Pumping groundwater relieves the pressure trapping the methane gas trapped in the coal seams. Other gas drilling might produce water, but not in the volumes that coal-bed methane extraction does. Millions of gallons of water might be pumped over the life of one well. BP America and the state engineer say the water is a waste product of the drilling and should continue to be regulated under state oil and gas rules. BP America re-injects the water into the ground, usually at deeper levels than they draw it. "BP supports the state's position that the current regulatory framework which is based on established Colorado water law adequately protects the water rights in these (coal-bed methane) production areas," BP America spokeswoman Paula Barnett said in a written statement. "We await the court's decision before further commenting on the case." If the lower court decision stands, companies drilling coal-bed methane would have to apply for well permits or replace the water they divert with water they buy elsewhere. "I think it would put energy producers into the lineup with every other water user. That would be a dramatic change," Sarah Klahn, the attorney representing the two ranching families who sued, said after the hearing. A water district and a city in south-central Colorado, where coal-bed methane drilling is on the rise, filed briefs supporting Klahn's clients. Klahn is involved in a similar case in Wyoming, another big coal-bed methane producing area. Colorado Solicitor General Dan Domenico, arguing for the state engineer's office, said making energy companies get well permits for water that is a byproduct of drilling and which the companies don't use is stretching the bounds of state water law. District Court Judge Gregory Lyman in Durango said in his July 2, 2007, ruling that water produced from coal-bed methane drilling fits the definition of water being put to "a beneficial use," the trigger under Colorado law requiring the state engineer to regulate the water use and companies to follow water law. That means the companies would have to defer to users with older water rights or submit a plan to replace water they divert from other users. The families who sued have used springs, seeps and surface water for more than 30 years and are concerned that pumping area groundwater will deplete their sources. The area is in southwest Colorado's San Juan Basin, a major coal-bed methane producer. Water districts and communities in the Raton Basin of south-central Colorado, where coal-bed development is spreading, filed briefs in the case supporting the plaintiffs: William Vance Jr., Elizabeth Vance, James Fitzgerald and Mary Fitzgerald. The briefs by the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District in Colorado Springs and the city of Trinidad say the magnitude and impact of water depletions from coal-bed methane drilling in the Raton Basin appear to be much greater than depletions in southwest Colorado. Meanwhile Las Animas County was at yesterday's meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable arguing for the benefits to the county from produced water from coal-bed methane wells, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: Officials in Las Animas County don't want a one-size-fits-all regulation for water produced by drilling for natural gas. Water users in the county gain millions of gallons of water every day from gas wells, County Commissioner Ken Torres told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable Wednesday. "We need that water," Torres said, recounting the wildfires and water shortages of the 2002 drought. "Without that water, farmers and ranchers lose more and the county loses more." He said the water from gas wells is also a primary source of water for dust and fire suppression in the county. "We don't need a one-size policy," Torres said. "We could lose everything. We're trying to put the water to beneficial use. It's an issue that could affect the county for the next 20 years." The roundtable met in Trinidad specifically to hear about the issues surrounding coal-bed methane produced water. It's an issue that is occupying state attention this week, said Jeris Danielson, general manager of the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District... The district's attorney was meeting with the Division of Water Resources on potential new rules Wednesday. On Thursday, the Colorado Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a Durango-area case, Vance v. Simpson, in which ranchers are claiming coal-bed methane pumping represents a beneficial use of water and has the potential to affect agricultural water rights. Danielson, a former state engineer himself, said there was a prior ruling in the Purgatoire district in Division 2 Water Court, but that the state has chosen not to enforce depletions from gas-well pumping. The district sides with the plaintiffs in the Vance v. Simpson case, he said... "The Purgatoire River district has a decree for 20,000 acre-feet, so a depletion of 1,250 acre-feet is significant," Danielson said. "We have no idea how (drilling) is affecting domestic wells," Torres added. Besides the depletion to the Purgatoire River, there is a similar amount in the Cucharas River from drilling, Topper said. Topper explained that water is considered a waste product in the energy business, one that companies would pay to eliminate. In most natural gas wells, the production of water increases over time as the gas is removed. In coal-bed methane wells, there is more water up front, with gas production increasing over time. The coal-bed methane situation is complicated because the gas well fields are relatively shallow aquifers that are tributary to surface water supplies. The companies producing the water have three options: Putting the water to a beneficial use, releasing it to streams if it is of sufficient quality or re-injecting the water, Topper said. The state's regulation remains a gray area, however, and administration is difficult... Shortly after assuming his new job last year, State Engineer Dick Wolfe told The Pueblo Chieftain that the implications of the current Supreme Court case could affect not only coal-bed methane, but all natural gas wells in the state. He indicated the state would move carefully on regulations. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 6:04:44 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 10/1/08; 6:36:57 AM.