|
|
Sunday, September 14, 2008
|
|
| |
From The Cortez Journal: "Jackson Gulch Reservoir live content stood at 5,785 acre-feet with a 9,948 acre-feet maximum capacity and a 5,366 acre-feet average (1971-2000) end-of-month content. At Jackson Gulch, a daily maximum/minimum of 73/53 cubic-feet-per-second was released into the Mancos River, but 58 acre-feet were released for municipal purposes.
"McPhee Reservoir live content stood at 314,540 acre-feet, with a 381,051 acre-feet maximum capacity and a 311,730 acre-feet average (1986-2000) end-of-month content. At McPhee, 10,944 acre-feet were released into the Dolores River, and 37,028 acre-feet were released for transbasin purposes. At McPhee, a daily maximum/minimum of 258/62 cubic-feet-per-second was released into the Dolores River."
Category: Colorado Water
7:27:54 AM 
|
|
Colorado Springs Utilities sent an application to Fremont County last week as part of the utility's proposed Southern Delivery System, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Fremont County officials on Thursday received an application for a special review use permit from Colorado Springs Utilities for its Southern Delivery System...
As part of a no-action alternative, the most likely course of action if Reclamation permits are denied, Colorado Springs proposes to extract water from the Arkansas River near Florence and pump it up a pipeline following Colorado 115. Return flows would come down Fountain Creek...
Fremont County Commissioner Ed Norden said staff must go through an extensive review process before the permit proposal is set on the agenda for the Fremont County Planning Commission. After the planning commission makes a recommendation, it will be up to the Fremont County Commissioners to make a final decision.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:23:41 AM
|
|
Here's an opinion piece in favor of Amendment 58, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
In November, the state's voters will consider another proposal to aid its colleges and universities: Amendment 58, which is led by Gov. Bill Ritter. If passed, the measure would eliminate a tax credit for large oil and gas companies and use 60 percent of the proceeds to create the Colorado Promise Scholarship. The remaining funds would support renewable energy projects, wildlife habitat and water quality and transportation projects in communities where oil and gas producers operate...
The tax credit in question was enacted in the late 1970s to foster the state's energy industry. The credit allows energy companies to subtract 87.5 percent - roughly $320 million a year - of their property tax bills from the severance taxes they owe on oil and gas extracted in the state. Amendment 58 supporters say the tax credit is no longer necessary, and the state must make investments to assure a competitive economy and livable environment once the current rush on oil and gas dissipates. The measure also would exempt all of the oil and gas severance tax revenue from TABOR restrictions. The measure was introduced by A Smarter Colorado, whose spokesman, George Merritt, said, "They (Big Oil) just had the most profitable quarter in the history of the world ... Colorado taxpayers don't need to be subsidizing this industry that made $50 billion in the last three months."[...]
Coloradans for a Stable Economy, heavily funded by oil and gas, opposes the measure. They are joined by regional organizations Club 20 on the Western Slope, Action 22 in Southern Colorado, and the Denver Metro Club, as well as the Denver Chamber of Commerce. Commissioners in Weld County, home to most of the state's oil and gas wells, also oppose the measure, fearing loss of jobs and revenue. These opponents say eliminating the tax credit would hurt the Colorado economy and increase gas prices. Both the Consumer Federation of America and the Sonoran Institute dispute this claim, saying Colorado produces too little oil to impact the worldwide price. America produces only about 10 percent of the total world oil supply; Colorado accounts for about 0.13 percent. Amendment 58 supporters say even without the subsidy, the oil and gas industry will still pay lower taxes in Colorado than in some neighboring states.
Category: Colorado Water
7:04:27 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the work of an Arkansas Basin Roundtable subcommittee on water transfers, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A committee studying how to make water transfers work better for all involved has completed about two years of work and will ask the Arkansas Basin Roundtable to approve its report next month. "It does not promote water transfers," said Wayne Vanderschuere, a Colorado Springs Utilities executive and committee member. "If the water moves, it looks at moving it in a way that benefits all entities."[...]
The committee began meeting in 2006, following comments made by roundtable member Lawrence Sena, mayor of Las Animas, on the potential impact of continued water sales to cities by farmers. While the report offers general guidelines - a matrix of possible mitigation - it is not designed to answer all questions about water sales, Vanderschuere said. Instead, it has a lengthy section describing how to use the template. "The template is intended to be used not only by buyers and sellers trying to put together a water transfer deal, but by communities and other third parties who would be affected by such a deal," the report states. The size, type and distance involved in a water transfer are all factors that influence the type of mitigation needed, Henrichs said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:56:45 AM
|
|
Here's a look at the 1986 designation of the Poudre River as Wild and Scenic along with the agreement between environmentalists and water providers to get the scenic designation, from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article:
An agreement about the Poudre River made 22 years ago is causing ripples in the current controversy over Glade Reservoir. At issue is whether hard-fought negotiations that resulted in 75 miles of the river in Poudre Canyon receiving federal "wild and scenic" designation in 1986 included an agreement that water projects proposed below the designated area would be accepted by environmental groups.
Former U.S. Sen. Hank Brown, who as a congressman sponsored the legislation establishing the Poudre as wild and scenic, appeared to insinuate as much during recent public discussions about the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Glade Reservoir and the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project. Local environmentalists who were involved in the bruising battle over the designation have bristled at the comment, saying Brown isn't remembering correctly how the discussions went. The designation applies to the river upstream of Poudre Park. The legislation, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan, specifies that the designation cannot be used to preclude development of water rights along the river below the hamlet.
But nothing in the law or the negotiations leading up to its passage stated a dam would be built, said Gary Kimsey, founder of the environmental group Friends of the Poudre. "What we agreed to was that in exchange for having a large segment of the river protected, the lower eight miles would be left open," Kimsey said. "Even then the talk was about a dam. But no one said anything that was proposed wouldn't be subjected to analysis."
In a telephone interview, Brown said there was no written agreement among environmental groups and water providers that a reservoir would be built. But there was "a spirit of cooperation" in the back-and-forth discussions and an understanding that water rights held by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District would be developed in the future. "If we didn't have compromise between the environmental groups and the water providers, the legislation would have never passed," he said. "Either side had the ability to kill it."
Northern Water let go of two prime dam sites because of the wild-and-scenic designation, much to the dismay of some water providers, said Brian Werner, spokesman for the agency. After the designation was established, Northern Water proposed building Grey Mountain Reservoir on the main stem of the Poudre near its confluence with the North Fork to exercise its water rights on the river. Stiff local opposition and a re-evaluation of the project led Northern Water to pursue Glade Reservoir, which would be built north of Ted's Place and inundate land already owned by the district. Water would be drawn from the river using an existing diversion and placed in a forebay below the Glade dam. The water would then be pumped over a hogback to be stored in the reservoir...
Brown acknowledged that the wild-and-scenic designation has not been used by opponents of NISP and Glade Reservoir as an argument against the project. But he added opponents of the project appear to believe not building the project will curtail growth in the region. The growth will still come, he said, but the water to meet its needs would come from irrigated farmland.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:47:04 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
10/1/08; 6:39:04 AM.
|
|
|
