Saturday, September 13, 2008

CWCB: Stream and Lake Protection Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board public meeting From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board: The Stream and Lake Protection Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board will hold a public meeting to discuss proposed revisions to the Rules Concerning the Colorado Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Program. The Rules are being revised, in part, to implement H.B. 08-1280. A copy of the proposed revisions to the Rules can be found on CWCB's website. Following the Rules discussion, there will be a short presentation on the recommendations received this year for new appropriations in Water Division 6. The following stream segments in Water Division 6 are being considered for instream flow protection at this time: Grizzly Creek, Moeller Creek, South Fork Slater Creek, and West Prong South Fork Slater Creek. Detailed information on these streams can be found on the 2009 Instream Flow Appropriations page of CWCB's website. September 23, 2008 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. Steamboat Springs Community Center Community Room East 1605 Lincoln Avenue Steamboat Springs, Colorado Questions may be directed to Linda Bassi at 303-866-3441, ext. 3204 or linda.bassi@state.co.us Category: Colorado Water 3:32:58 PM     EPA: Rapid release of mine pool water unlikely "We experience moments absolutely free from worry. These brief respites are called panic." -- Cullen Hightower This week the Environmental Protection Agency sent Reclamation a letter in response to the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Risk Assessment released by Reclamation on June 30th. You may remember that Reclamation threw the EPA under the bus over the potential for a blowout from the tunnel causing loss of life. The EPA asked the Army Corps of Engineers to assess the risk assessment, including the potential for a catastrophic failure of the tunnel: Based on USACE's review, EPA believes that a catastrophic failure of the LMDT resulting in the rapid release of mine pool water and calloapse debris is unlikely. The Corps' report makes a couple of suggestions for managing the tunnel in the long-term. Chief among them is their backing of the EPA's preferred alternative for Operating Unit 6 of the California Gulch Superfund site. Reclamation and the EPA have essentially been implementing the OU6 preferred alternative since March. The EPA expanded a monitoring well in the LMDT and built a pipeline to the Reclamation treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel. Installation of bulkhead near the blockage in the tunnel has not yet been funded, nor is it clear whether it will be done, or which agency will pay. The EPA is still pretty silent on the history and engineering behind their letter to Reclamation in November, 2007, where they wrote: Due to the unknown condition of the tunnel blockages and the large volume of water behind the blockages and the large volume of water behind the blockages, we are concerned that an uncontrolled, potentially-catastrophic release of water to the Arkansas River from the LMDT is likely at some point. Not only endangering human life (people living at the East Fork Trailer Park and BOR employees), the sudden release of water, rock, sediment, and heavy metals to the Arkansas River would be an environmental disaster. That letter was used as the basis for a local disaster declaration by the Lake County Commissioners in February. Commissioner Hickman told us in Leadville in July that, based on the language in the letter, that he, "would do not do anything differently." Since the disaster declaration some of the residents of the trailer park below the tunnel have been sleeping well, some have not. The original story focused on a flood from the tunnel causing havoc and death in the park. Leadville lost some tourism dough from the bad press and residents are worried about a drop in property values. The health of the Arkansas River is also a concern. It is a fine fishery and recreation river now and no one wants acid mine waste released (again) into the watershed. So it looks like the disaster declaration was all for nought. When we asked about the authorship EPA's November 2007 letter we were told it was a collaboration. We were hoping to determine what had changed at the tunnel to cause the EPA to gin up support for their views about a catastrophic failure. Reclamation (Peter Soeth) told us yesterday in email, We appreciated the review that they and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did and found that there would be no catastrophic failure. We look forward to working with them and others on the long-term remedy for OU-6. Reclamation will continue to take the necessary actions to address public safety issues of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. At least the preferred alternative for OU6 is getting worked on. That's something. As of August, after a few weeks of pumping, the level of water in the mine pool hadn't changed much so there is still the question of the efficacy of using the LMDT to drain it. For copies of the EPA letter and the Corps' assessment of the Reclamation's risk assessment send email to coyotegulch [AT] mac [DOT] com. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 10:42:25 AM     HB 08-1141, Require sufficient water supply The Pueblo County Board of Commissioners were briefed this week on HB 08-1141, Require Sufficient Water Supply, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: HB1141 will give counties and cities authority to consider water supply as a condition for approving land use issues said Pat Ratliff, a lobbyist for Colorado Counties. Before the bill was passed, the county could only require that developers show there was an adequate water supply for subdivisions, but other developments were left alone. Now, nearly every planning issue could be subject to the state regulation said Ratliff, and it will be up to the county's discretion how stringent the regulations will be. The legislation requires counties consider water supply for any development of at least 50 single family units. But the language also includes the phrase "or less," meaning that the county can require proof of water supply for any size of development it considers. "In the conversations I've had when we were looking at rezoning requests, there was nothing in the statute to ask for adequacy of the water supply," said county Planning Director Kim Headley. "So our option was to say a development doesn't appear appropriate for rezoning because it did not have adequate infrastructure, rather than requiring applicant to show they had adequate water supply for the intensity and density of the development. I view (HB1141) almost as an enabling legislation." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 9:38:25 AM     Horsetooth and Carter Lake update From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "It is good news for recreation this weekend at Horsetooth. The determination was made [Friday] to NOT turn the pump back on to Carter. This means the approximate 400 cfs going to Horsetooth will continue, not only through the weekend, but for the next two weeks until September 26. That Friday, the 26th, we are anticipating we will start pumping to Carter again. Meanwhile, both reservoirs are still doing pretty well. Horsetooth is at 5390 with about 400 cfs going in and about 400 going out. All boat ramps remain in the water. Carter is at an elevation of 5702. Both the North Pines and North Ramp are in the water." Category: Colorado Water 9:23:30 AM     Green Mountain Reservoir update From email from Reclamtion (Kara Lamb): "Good news for white water on the Lower Blue this weekend. We will be running about 1000 cfs down the Lower Blue from Green Mountain Dam, most likely through Sunday. aOn Wednesday of this week, we completed some maintenance at the power plant and bumped releases from Green Mountain Reservoir back up to about 830 cfs. Yesterday, we bumped up again, responding to downstream needs, to the 1000 cfs mark." Category: Colorado Water 9:20:51 AM     Zebra mussel update From The Delta County Independent: "Through education and inspection, the rangers at Crawford State Park are trying to keep our water free of dangerous zebra and quagga mussels...If the mussels get into Crawford Reservoir, there is the potential to get mussels transferred to other lakes by boats, alter the ecosystems of other lakes, and water users would have problems with their own boating equipment. It's been so bad in the east, people can't use the beaches because of the multitude of shells from the mussels...At Crawford State Park, two park rangers, Jerry Sanders and Jim Crook, inspect boats prior to allowing them into the reservoir. So far this season, no zebra mussels have been discovered during their inspection process." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 9:14:35 AM     Wiggins project: Council kills the project From The Fort Morgan Times: "The Wiggins Town Council dropped the Wiggins Project plan for replacing its failing water wells during a well-attended meeting Wednesday night." More from the article: Council members voted 4-3 to abandon the Wiggins Project, which would have used the ditch company water shares to augment a well near Empire Reservoir and piped the well water to town. Council members Brad Weese, Stephanie Bates, Vince Longcor and Jim Musgrave voted against buying the water shares. Mayor Mike Bates and Councilmen Richard Vance and Pat Rogers voted to buy the water. In a separate vote after voting down the water purchase, the council voted unanimously not to buy the well site. Longcor was the only one who spoke about why he voted against the Wiggins Project. He said he appreciated all the work a committee of water experts had done for the town, but felt the water shares would not meet Wiggins' long-term needs. It has seemed as if the price for the Wiggins Project has gone up each time the plan is visited, Longcor said. Now it would cost about $92.50 a month per household, and if residents have to pay that much it might be better to do something else. Even the expensive Morgan County Quality Water District might make sense if it is that costly for Wiggins to buy its own water, especially since the town does not have water expertise, he said... Before the vote, water attorney Steve Jeffers had talked about how much the Wiggins Project would cost. Its overall cost for buying the 10 shares, plus other shares from elsewhere to meet the town's needs, would likely run $5.4 million, Jeffers said. If Wiggins was able to access a $1 million government grant, that would mean it would cost each household $72.50 a month added to the Wiggins water fee of $20 a month for the first 5,000 gallons of water, he said. If Wiggins could get $2 million in grants, which is unlikely, the cost would be $59.50 per household plus the $20 Wiggins water fee, Jeffers said. The $5.4 million price tag was up from an initial $4 million estimate, said Mayor Mike Bates, because the 10 shares of water would only augment about a third of what Wiggins would need to draw from the well to completely replace its current diminishing water supply. That means the town would need the additional money to buy more water shares, Jeffers said. The $100,000 price for the well near Empire Reservoir is included in the overall figure, as are the design costs, right of way for a pipeline, construction of a pipeline, the cost of water court and attorney's fees, he said... Wiggins had talked with Fort Morgan about buying Colorado-Big Thompson water from the city recently, but it was simply too expensive. If Fort Morgan charged 1-1/2 times its normal rate -- in order to avoid Wiggins having to do things like join a water association and get its own shares of C-BT water -- it would cost $90 to $103 per household, Jeffers said. That is assuming the Fort Morgan City Council even approved selling at that price, which it might not, he said... Earlier, the Quality Water board had said it would cost $6 million just for water rights, which is already higher than the Wiggins Project, Jeffers said. More would likely have to be paid for another pipeline, since Quality Water's lines are at capacity, Mike Bates said. Longcor agreed the cost for Quality Water would be "astronomical." Nonetheless, several audience members said they would rather have Quality Water, because water will be expensive one way or another and it feels more secure. MCQWD has said it would not cut off Wiggins' water any more than it would its other customers in the event of a drought or other shortage, they said. Visitor Cindy Koch said she already pays $100 a month to Culligan for water and that could be transferred to Quality Water. Also, Quality Water would seem safer than Wiggins going it alone with no guarantee the well would not fail, opponents said. That would be no guarantee of water. No system can guarantee water, Jeffers said. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 9:07:08 AM     Pharmaceuticals in the nation's water supply The AP has a new report out about pharmaceuticals in the country's water supply, according to Water Technology Online. From the article: Recent tests of drinking water supplies, prompted by an Associated Press (AP) report in March that 41 million Americans receive drinking water tainted by trace levels of pharmaceuticals, reveal that the number of Americans affected by meds-in-water is at least 46 million, according to a September 10 AP report. The original AP stories prompted federal and local legislative hearings, brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, and led officials in at least 27 additional metropolitan areas to analyze their drinking water, the AP reported. Positive tests were reported in 17 areas, including Reno, NV; Savannah, GA; Colorado Springs, CO; and Huntsville, AL. Results are pending in three other areas. The most recent test results, added to data disclosed by communities and water utilities for the March AP report, produce the new total of Americans known to be exposed to drinking water that contains trace levels of pharmaceutical compounds. Boston, Phoenix and Seattle found no detections of pharmaceuticals in their drinking water supplies. Cities that reported finding pharmaceuticals in their supplies detected substances similar to those found in other cities' supplies and reported on in March. One such substance is the anti-convulsant carbamazepine. According to AP, the overwhelming majority of US cities have not tested drinking water for pharmaceuticals. One of them, New York City, maintains that testing "is not warranted at this time." More coverage from The Colorado Springs Gazette. They write: Trace amounts of pharmaceuticals are present in Colorado Springs' water supply, testing has shown, but the water is not believed to be harmful based on current science. Colorado Springs and other cities tested their water supplies after The Associated Press investigated the presence of pharmaceuticals in the nation's waterways... Steve Berry, spokesman for Colorado Springs Utilities, said 13 compounds were detected in one of its three water systems, including a tranquilizer, hormone and methadone. Measured in parts per trillion, the amount of the compounds is analogous to one second in 32,000 years. "We don't want to create unnecessary alarm," Berry said, "but at the same time we have a responsibility as a municipal utility to communicate with our customers and let them know." The compounds were found in both the raw and treated water of the Fountain Valley Water system, which brings water from Pueblo Reservoir. The Homestake System, which relies on a reservoir near Leadville, and the Blue River System, which brings water from the Breckenridge area, did not test positive. Berry said that utilities officials were not overly concerned about how Colorado Springs water would fare because so much of it comes from snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains. But Pueblo Reservoir, he said, pulls water from the Arkansas farther downstream, after it passes through several towns, including Cañon City. Despite the findings, Pueblo Reservoir is a clean source of water, he said... Berry said it would be too expensive to eliminate the compounds from the water because the amount is so minute. It is only within the last several years that testing has become advanced enough to detect chemicals at such low levels. Still, he said water suppliers will be discussing what to do with the findings and what they may ultimately mean. The drug residues detected in water supplies are generally flushed into sewers and waterways through human excretion. Many of the pharmaceuticals are known to slip through sewage and drinking water treatment plants. While the comprehensive risks are still unclear, researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species in the wild and impair the workings of human cells in the laboratory... The following compounds were detected in trace amounts in Colorado Springs' water: - Atrazine - Caffeine - Carbamazepine - DEET - Diazepam - Estriol - Fluoxetine - Meprobamate - Methadone - Oxybenzone - Sulfamethoxazole - Testerone - Trimethoprim More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 8:48:38 AM     Fountain Creek management: E.coli study Here's an update on E.coli monitoring in Fountain Creek, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: Scientists looking at DNA samples of contamination in Upper Fountain Creek are finding that separation of human from animal sources is a more difficult task than once supposed... The study began in 2006 as a cooperative effort with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments after Fountain Creek was listed under the federal clean water act as impaired under the federal Clean Water Act. The difficulty in narrowing down sources to humans, cattle, wildlife or pets lies in the nature of the DNA markers that are being studied. The DNA being studied are actually those of bacteria in the digestive tracks of animals, rather than the animals themselves, Stoeckel explained. Because some animals, such as dogs living in the wild, eat the feces of other animals, the results can be mixed. [Don Stoeckel, lead investigator for the U.S. Geological Survey] said the study can readily identify when a source, such as human, is not present, which is useful in addressing the problem. The one finding that is standing up in the USGS study is that E. coli counts increase on Fountain Creek during higher flows in warmer weather, a finding that meshes with other studies by the Pueblo City-County Health Department and Colorado State University-Pueblo. "One of the useful aspects of this study is to demonstrate the seasonality of contamination," Stoeckel said. Right now, the USGS has analyzed samples taken during low-flow periods when E. coli counts did not exceed Colorado recreational standards. Only three of 10 samples have been analyzed. The DNA found in the water are compared to reference samples collected locally to obtain markers for human, cattle, wildlife or pets, Stoeckel said. Earlier in the study, researchers were able to identify one source of contamination, a leaking sewer pipe in Manitou Springs, which the city fixed. While some single-source polluters are known - an apartment building with incorrect pipe hookups or periodic sewer line breaks - the persistent high counts for E. coli are difficult to trace. If human contributions are eliminated as a source in future samples, it could mean most of the elevation in E. coli count is caused by material washing into the stream during storms. That raises other questions, said Pat Edelmann, of the Pueblo USGS office. "The runoff may be the primary source," Edelmann said. "How fast do they die off? Or is there something in the environment that makes them persist longer? We want to look at pathways in the short-term, rather than in the long-term over days and weeks in the entire watershed." Stoeckel said the results of the study are still preliminary, and findings have not been verified. The most informative data, from periods where E. coli counts exceeded state standards, have not yet been analyzed. "We're only halfway through collecting the data, so there's not much data to look at," Stoeckel said. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 8:30:58 AM     Pueblo Board of Water Works water for Southeastern Here's an update on water distribution this summer in the Arkansas Valley, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: In a dry year when transmountain water has been critical for the Arkansas Valley, all deliveries will be made. The Pueblo Board of Water Works will loan the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 5,000 acre-feet of water to make up a shortfall in Fryingpan-Arkansas Project allocations this year, under a plan approved by Southeastern's allocation committee Friday... Water is allocated based on Bureau of Reclamation estimates of runoff in early May. This year, Reclamation estimated 100,000 acre-feet would be brought from the Fryingpan River through the Boustead Tunnel into Turquoise Reservoir near Leadville. Of that, about 83,000 acre-feet were available for allocation after transit loss, evaporation and district obligations were subtracted. Actual diversions totaled about 90,000 acre-feet, said Roy Vaughan, Pueblo manager for Reclamation. That left only about 77,000 acre-feet available for allocation, with a shortfall of 6,100 acre-feet. The district has 1,380 acre-feet in its emergency account, and will use the 5,000 acre-feet from the Board of Water Works account in Lake Pueblo to make up the entire amount already leased. The plan still must be approved by the entire Southeastern board when it meets Thursday. The Pueblo water board is, by court decreed operating principles, entitled to 10 percent of Fry-Ark flows, but did not request any water this year. Since it already has the water stored in Lake Pueblo, it was the most logical source to make up the shortfall, said Bob Hamilton, Southeastern engineering director. The water board has nearly 18,000 acre-feet of Fry-Ark water in Lake Pueblo and almost 40,000 in storage throughout its system. By providing the water, the water board will not have to pay an $11,000 surcharge. It also will recover the water with the first allocation from 2009 imports, under the plan outlined by Hamilton. The repayment of the water would be subtracted from next year's allocations pro-rata, based on the allocations made this year to both municipal and agricultural users. Water users would not have to pay additional fees, since they paid a lease fee this year. Chaffee County Director Reed Dils asked whether other water users who had leased water could choose to "give it back." "Since they told us they had a need, they would have to explain why they don't have a need now," Broderick said. "The reason we went to the water board was they didn't have a need this year and they had the water." Broderick made it clear that the Southeastern district can't count on that availability in future years.There are basically three options open to the district to avoid dealing with a similar shortfall in the future: Making a second allocation after more exact estimates are available. Farmers have criticized this method in the past because it makes planning difficult. Building up reserves beyond present levels to cover future shortfalls. Another larger account in Lake Pueblo could make spills of non-project water more likely. Applying the 80-20 rule - which allows agricultural users to carry over 20 percent of their water until May 1 of the next year - to all allocations with the understanding that some of the water in the latter fifth of the allocation may not be available. Any of the solutions could be applied without the need to rewrite the 1979 allocation principles. Category: Colorado Water 8:04:48 AM     Northern Integrated Supply Project Here's an article about a recent poll on the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project which includes Glade Reservoir from The Loveland Reporter Herald. From the article: More than half of Larimer County voters support the proposed Glade Reservoir, according to an opinion poll commissioned by the backers of the project. Ciruli and Associates, a professional polling company based in Denver, surveyed a random selection of 500 Larimer County residents (about 300 from Fort Collins) in August and asked how they feel about water issues and the proposed reservoir in particular. The result: 63 percent of residents countywide support Glade Reservoir compared to 57 percent in Fort Collins. In Loveland, 75 percent of those polled support the project. However, the margin of error for Loveland alone is higher (10 percent instead of 4.4 percent) because the number polled is smaller, said Floyd Ciruli, a pollster with 30 years of experience. Still, Loveland was more supportive of the reservoir than elsewhere in the county, Ciruli said. The top two reasons for the support, in Loveland and countywide, are a perceived need for more water and water storage, according to the poll. Support for the reservoir was even stronger in Weld County, where much of the water will go to smaller towns and cities. There, pollsters questioned 300 residents. All of the surveys were completed over the telephone, and the questions were written to ensure respondents were not biased by them, said Ciruli... The results of the poll, released Friday, also reflect the opinions of Save the Poudre Coalition, a group of residents who want to stop the project they believe would dry up the Poudre River through Fort Collins. Most of those who said they were against the reservoir believe it will dry up the river, and only 36 percent of everyone polled said the project wouldn't affect water flows in the Poudre Canyon... Of interest to Ciruli is that 93 percent of those polled expressed the importance of keeping the farm economy and 88 percent want to avoid drying up farmland. This shows similar values in those for and against the reservoir, he said. More coverage from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write: Thirty percent of Fort Collins residents oppose NISP, primarily because they believe it would harm the Poudre River, according to the survey. In Weld County, 81 percent of respondents support NISP, which would draw water from the Poudre River and store it in the proposed Glade Reservoir north of Ted's Place. The project also would draw water from the South Platte River for storage in Galeton Reservoir, which would be built near Greeley, to be exchanged with irrigation companies... NISP participants funded the $35,000 survey, which was conducted by Denver-based polling firm Ciruli Associates, Northern Water spokesman Brian Werner said. The random survey of 500 registered voters in Larimer County and 300 in Weld County was conducted in early August. The Larimer County results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points, pollster Floyd Ciruli said. The margin of error for the smaller Weld County sample is 5.7 percentage points... The survey also showed strong support in both counties for protecting agriculture and regional cooperation on water projects. Ciruli told reporters survey respondents were aware and informed about Glade and NISP. More than 50 percent of respondents in Larimer County said they had heard a great deal to some information about the project as opposed to 28 percent in Weld County. The vocal opposition has affected public opinion in Fort Collins, he said, as is evidenced in the difference between results for the city and Larimer County. "There's one solid quarter of the public ... that are absolutely opposed in Larimer County," he said. "They show up in each question. And they correspond to the environmental activist community." More coverage from The Greeley Tribune. They write: Those who support NISP said overwhelmingly that it's because the area needs the water. Those who oppose the project said it was because they thought it would dry up the river or hurt the river. In Larimer, 43 percent of people who oppose NISP said it was because it would hurt the river. In Weld, 28 percent of respondents thought that. More Weld residents who opposed the project believed government should stop building dams and reservoirs: 16 percent said that was why they opposed it. Only 5 percent of people in Larimer believed that. Also of note was the large percentage of Weld residents who either refused to give a reason for their opposition, or said they opposed NISP for a variety of other reasons. Twenty-eight 28 percent of people said one of the following things: the area needed more streams, not reservoirs; Northern Water doesn't have a good track record; they were concerned about eminent domain issues; or they thought the project took the wrong angles. More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here. Category: Colorado Water 7:44:44 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 10/1/08; 6:38:25 AM.