|
|
Friday, September 12, 2008
|
|
| |
Here's a look at what is shaping up to be a battle between Save the Poudre, Fort Collins, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and other supporters of the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project and Glade Reservoir, from Fort Collins Now. From the article:
Comments from supporters and opponents of Glade Reservoir flowed in increasingly contentious torrents in the days before the project's formal review period drew to a close last week.
For one, the water authority that hopes to build the new reservoir north of Fort Collins shot back Tuesday against the City Council's vote to criticize the project. Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, or Northern Water, said the district wanted people to know the project would not cost Fort Collins millions of dollars. "We're hearing from too many people that they've bought into that, that it's going to cost the citizens of Fort Collins hundreds of millions of dollars," he said. "It's not going to cost hundreds of millions. That's probably our bottom line." Should Glade Reservoir require Fort Collins water treatment facilities to be upgraded, the people paying for Glade would pay for that, too, Werner said...
Advocates say the goal is to prevent farms in Weld County from drying up, their water demanded by thirsty growing communities. But opponents, who include conservation groups and environmental advocates, say the harm to the Poudre's ecosystems and Fort Collins' economy would be too great...
"If there are costs associated with it, for, let's say, advanced treatment systems, that's a project cost. That will be part of permit conditions,[per thou] he said. "We want the people of Fort Collins to understand they're not going to have to pay for that." But the Army Corps of Engineers' draft environmental impact statement doesn't say that directly, which city officials cited as a chief concern. John Stokes, director of Fort Collins' Natural Resources Department, said estimates of water infrastructure improvements and associated costs should be addressed in a separate environmental impact statement. "In any permitting process, we would be seeking binding commitments from the Army Corps of Engineers and the proponents to indemnify the city against any fiscal damage, or, for that matter, other kinds of damages, to quality of life issues, wildlife and vegetation," he said. "Right now there is nothing in the written record, in their permit application, that would lead us to believe that we would be indemnified from financial harm." The city has 14 "themes" it will include in its formal comments to the Army Corps, which will be submitted by the end of the week, Stokes said. They include effects on water infrastructure but also on the local economy and on the environment in the river corridor.
The Larimer County Commissioners also weighed in on the environmental impact statement, saying Tuesday it lacked sufficiently deep review of several issues, including moving U.S. 287. Commissioners also said the proposal doesn't comport with land-use guidelines that call for preserving open spaces. "Glade Reservoir is not consistent with these specific plan elements in that it will permanently impact these Important natural resource areas and redefine their place in the county's landscape," the commissioners wrote.
Wockner said it's fairly common for conservation groups to suggest alternatives that would have a smaller environmental footprint. "One of the best ways to defeat a project is to come up with an alternative that better meets the needs that the EIS has set out to do, and we believe we have done that,[per thou] he said. He added that the mission is still to stop the project. "Our goal is to save the Poudre River and get more water back in it rather than drain it, and we're looking at all the options on the table to do that," he said. Those options would ostensibly include a lawsuit.
While anticipating a fight, Northern Water officials want to keep lines of communication open. Werner said correspondence from the city has been null since the environmental study was released April 30, but the district hopes to work with the city to address its concerns. In fact, they'll have to do so before the project can move forward. The Army Corps must react to every substantive question raised during the past few months, according to federal law.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:33:33 AM 
|
|
From The Glenwood Springs Independent: "The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is hosting a series of public input sessions throughout Colorado. The input session for the Colorado River watershed is being held from 10 a.m. to noon Sept. 24, at the Rifle Fire Protection District located at 1850 Railroad Ave. in Rifle. This public input meeting is a result of the 2008 Farm Bill, which became law June 18. As the rule-making process gets under way, the NRCS in Colorado prepares to manage and deliver the conservation programs, many of which include cost-share and other financial assistance. Over the next five years, the NRCS wants to ensure it develops a plan that meets the needs of its customers and addresses the natural resource conservation priorities within the state...NRCS is also planning an informative and highly interactive exchange on the topic, and encourages farmers, ranchers, conservation partners and agricultural landowners within the Colorado River watershed to join them after the first meeting at the RFPD from 1-3 p.m. For more information contact Dennis Davidson at 945-5494, ext. 106."
Category: Colorado Water
6:21:02 AM
|
|
From The Pueblo Chieftain: "A U.S. Senate committee moved a bill authorizing the Arkansas Valley Conduit to the Senate floor Thursday, with strong bipartisan support of the state's senators. While the bill must still pass the entire Senate and House, Thursday's move was hailed as a major step forward. "It's a very big step. We've never been this far," said Bill Long, a Bent County commissioner and president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. "Hopefully, we can get over this hump this year. We don't want to start all over." The Energy and Natural Resources Committee approval Thursday came despite opposition from the Bureau of Reclamation at an earlier hearing. The new bill would clear the way for a 65 percent federal match that would be repaid over time by excess-capacity lease revenues from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project."
More from the article:
The funding method was suggested by Southeastern Executive Director Jim Broderick as an alternative to the 100 percent local funding included in the 1962 Fry-Ark legislation. While the Fountain Valley Authority was able to build a pipeline in 1985 as the area north of Pueblo grew, the area east of Pueblo was never able to afford the conduit. The 130-mile conduit is estimated to cost more than $300 million to construct. It would connect to the Pueblo Dam and serve as many as 42 cities, towns and water districts from St. Charles Mesa to Lamar. Spurs would also serve users in Crowley County and Eads...
The committee's action on Thursday was praised by Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Ken Salazar, D-Colo. Allard has fought for conduit legislation for years, while Salazar is a member of the committee that approved the measure. "Today's action is the culmination of more than four decades of hard work to make this project a reality," said Allard, who will leave the Senate next year. "I am confident that current and future Colorado leaders will continue to carry this torch and ensure that water supply and storage issues in Southern Colorado remain a top priority." "We took a giant step forward today toward fulfilling the promise of the Arkansas Valley Conduit and to deliver the clean drinking water these communities should have," Salazar said. "The conduit will help Southern Colorado communities reduce existing water treatment costs and to better conserve and manage their existing groundwater resources and infrastructure."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:15:08 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the state's decision support system in the Arkansas River Basin, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The work of several agencies will be coordinated as the Colorado Water Conservation Board moves ahead with a decision support system for the Arkansas River basin. The study has been anticipated since the early 1990s, but was never started because of legal issues stemming from the Kansas v. Colorado case over the Arkansas River Compact in the U.S. Supreme Court, Ray Alvarado of the CWCB told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable Wednesday. Since 1992, the CWCB has completed decision support models - basically computer programs that predict the impact of water activities - for the Colorado River and Rio Grande basins. The board is in the process of wrapping up the South Platte River basin model.
Earlier this year, the roundtable approved a $1.65 million grant application from the Statewide Water Supply Reserve Account for an expanded study of the Arkansas Basin by a Colorado State University team led by professor Tim Gates. The CSU researchers have done an intensive study of water use in Lower Arkansas Valley farming districts for the past 10 years. Alvarado said the Gates study would be incorporated into the CWCB study, but probably funded at a lower level. The CWCB will take up that issue next week at its meeting in Alamosa. "Dr. Gates' data can support what we're doing," Alvarado explained. He assured roundtable members that the state is not competing with Gates or trying to minimize CSU efforts, but is looking for the most complete data set it can gather to run the model. Much of the information is already available, but the finished model would provide more complete data, online and periodically update the information. The state intends to spend at least $8 million developing the model...
Other water users in the basin, most notably the Pueblo Board of Water Works and Colorado Springs Utilities, have similar computer models of the river and potential impacts of projects. "This is an important tool," said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. "A lot of us already have these models, but they are proprietary because they might be used in litigation." Hamel offered the assistance of his staff in helping the CWCB develop its model. The CWCB study would also incorporate other water-quality studies on Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River. It would also include a socioeconomic studies now being conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado State University and the Bureau of Reclamation. Meetings on that study have been scheduled for Nov. 3-5 in Lamar. CWCB staffer Andy Moore explained the scope of work for the state model will be developed later this year, while consultants will begin developing the model in 2010. It will take several years after that to complete the model.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:09:20 AM
|
|
Here's an article about a new documentary that highlights the dangers of privatizing water supplies, from The Vineyard Gazette. From the article:
Bottled water is an offense against energy independence, the global environment and personal finances. But, bad as it is, it is only a part of much bigger and more insidious trend -- the worldwide move by major corporations to privatize what was once seen as a common good, plain old H2O. Those companies have realized what most people, particularly in this country, blessed as it is by relatively plentiful supply, have not: fresh water is now a scarce resource. Already the provision of water is the third biggest global industry, behind oil and power generation. It's a $400 billion industry. Water is well on the way to becoming the most precious commodity in the world.
But a new documentary, screening on the Vineyard this weekend as part of the Martha's Vineyard International Film Festival, brings that realization crashing home. See Flow: For Love Of Water, and you may never drink bottled water again. Nor, in the hope of those who made it, will you view the actions of some of our largest corporations and institutions, from Nestle and Coca Cola to the World Bank in the same benign way.
For what the movie depicts is an enormous global tragedy, overlain and in some cases worsened by corporate greed. Poor are often left with unsafe alternatives. Flow is largely the work of Irena Salina, a French-born documentary maker, resident in New York for the past 14 years...
But what she found is indeed mind-blowing. First off, there is the straightforward matter of demand. It has grown to the point where many of the great rivers of the world -- among them Africa's Nile, China's Yellow River, the Colorado in the USA, no longer even reach the sea. All their water is sucked out first. In an effort to supply more water, huge numbers of dams have been built, most of them by the World Bank. In the 20th century somewhere between 40 and 80 million people were displaced and in many cases dispossessed. But dams interrupt the natural water cycle. Organic matter builds up behind them, rots and releases huge quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas far more powerful than carbon dioxide.
Yet despite these efforts, many people still go without clean water. Each day, according to the film, something like 30,000 people, disproportionately young children, die from water-borne disease. Her interviews show how misplaced much of the effort is. The World Bank and its associated entity, the World Water Council, keep delivering macro-projects when what communities in poor countries really need is micro-projects -- local level solutions. The suggestion is that these international efforts to provide clean water to the destitute have been hijacked by vested interests. In places from Bolivia -- which was forced by the World Bank to privatize if it was to get development money from the World Bank -- to India -- where a giant corporation is planning to sell water to people at 10 times its previous cost -- she finds compelling evidence of the malign influence of the corporate sector.
No case study is more powerful than the one from South Africa, where private investment did indeed bring piped water to poor townspeople. But they could only access it by the use of pre-paid water cards, at higher cost than many could afford. Part of the contract was that previously free taps were removed, so the poor were forced to free but unsafe alternatives.
Category: Colorado Water
5:57:58 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
10/1/08; 6:37:45 AM.
|
|
|
