|
|
Saturday, September 27, 2008
|
|
| |
Here's an update on the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir, from The Pagosa Springs Sun. From the article:
Despite court ordered reductions on key project parameters for the Dry Gulch Reservoir project, water district managers and board members are breathing a collective sigh of relief after reviewing the judge's findings issued Sept. 11. "We're generally very happy to have a decision. We've been waiting for one for many months," said Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Assistant Manager Gene Tautges...
But it appears the court has already decided, to some extent, what size Dry Gulch will be. According to District Water Court, Division 7, documents, PAWSD and the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) were decreed a water storage right at the Dry Gulch site for 19,000 acre feet, along with the right to fill and refill the reservoir continuously, with certain stipulations, to accumulate a total annual storage volume of 25,300 acre feet. (The conservancy district holds an existing storage right for 6,300 acre feet.) In addition, District Water Court Judge Gregory Lyman ruled that the total combined diversion for Dry Gulch from all sources shall never exceed 150 cubic feet per second at any give time, and that annual accumulation into Dry Gulch shall not exceed 25,300 acre-feet of water per water year.
There is however, Harris said, a caveat. Although Lyman's decision caps the annual storage right and diversion amount, Harris said the district could take and store more water from the river should senior users or other holders of water rights not exercise -- or "call" -- their water rights. Thus, Harris said, PAWSD could still build Dry Gulch to hold 35,000 acre feet. "The San Juan has a long history of 'no calls,'" said the districts' water attorney Evan Ela. But Ela added, "It is likely the state engineer would enforce this decree of 25,300 acre feet."
Furthermore, depending on data presented during the districts' six-year review period, Ela said the court could reduce Dry Gulch's storage and diversion amounts should actual growth, expected and actual demand, and conservation efforts show that the district is not fully utilizing the water rights granted in the Sept. 11 decree. According to court documents, these are described as "reality checks." By contrast, while the court could reduce the districts' water rights through the six-year review process, Ela said the districts would have to apply for additional water rights in order to secure an enlargement...
Lyman's Sept. 11 decision represents a reduction from the initial 35,000 acre-foot request put forth by PAWSD and the SJWCD Dec. 20, 2004. In 2004, PAWSD and the SJWCD filed a joint application with the water court for conditional water rights for Dry Gulch Reservoir and pumping station. Under the application, the reservoir, which is slated for construction on a 600-plus acre parcel about three miles east of Pagosa Springs, would store 35,000 acre-feet of water and would be filled via a pump and pipeline from the San Juan River. The water districts' application claimed the right to divert 200 cubic feet of water per second from the San Juan as well as storage rights of 35,000 acre-feet and a refill right of 35,000 acre feet for the reservoir -- 35,000 acre-feet is the maximum size reservoir the Dry Gulch property could accommodate. The districts claimed the water rights to serve population growth in Archuleta County through the year 2100.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:25:44 AM 
|
|
Here's Part I and Part II of The Pagosa Daily Post's series Sharing the Pie or Circling the Wagons? dealing with Pagosa Water and Sanitation District fees.
From The Holyoke Enterprise: "A proposal to raise the city's tap fees and line charges was introduced to Holyoke City Council during the regular meeting held Tuesday, Sept. 16. However, discussion on the issue was tabled, as council members feared the timing of the rate increases may deter citizens from passing the city's sales tax ballot issue. The proposal was made by City Supt. Mark Brown, who said the increase in costs of materials and labor made the rate hike necessary. He provided council members a worksheet to compare the current rates with the proposed rates. If approved, the water tap fee would increase from $1,278.74 to $1,480.47. The water line charge per frontage foot of lot would also go up from $13.44 to $17.91. Sewer tap fees would remain the same, however the sewer line charge per frontage foot of lot would be hiked up from $13.17 to $13.69."
Category: Colorado Water
7:16:44 AM
|
|
From The Cañon City Daily Record: "Fremont County Commissioners were hammered with questions on the issue of uranium mining in the Tallahassee area during a candidates forum Tuesday in Florence...Protecting the water was the main reason [Mike Stiehl] said he voted for it and to protect the property owners who have mineral rights and those who do not. "To my knowledge, Fremont County is the only county in the State of Colorado that requires a permit for exploration and prospecting in the 132 years this has been a state," Stiehl said. "I'm proud we did that to take control of those activities and make that a safe practice." Stiehl pointed out that the Black Range Minerals had paid $60,000 to the county to hire an independent hydrologist to come up with a water plan."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.
Category: Climate Change News
7:04:07 AM
|
|
From The Fort Morgan Times: "As usual, someone asked why the town [Wiggins] could not buy into the Morgan County Quality Water District. Then someone asked why the town could not buy water from Fort Morgan. Then someone talked about reverse osmosis. Wiggins had done extensive research into all of those questions and the answers were the same as months ago."
More from the article:
It would cost a minimum of $8.3 million to join Quality Water, which is far more than anyone is willing to pay, said Mayor Mike Bates. Some wanted to know why Quality Water was so expensive for Wiggins when it was less for others, and why the town could not use the nearby Quality Water pipeline. Bates repeated once again that the pipeline is at capacity. Quality Water will not let the town use it. The cost of the water is what Quality Water is charging now, partly due to what it has to pay. Buying water from Fort Morgan would cost a minimum of $7.7 million and it could be much more, the town council has said before. Reverse osmosis means losing a lot of the water and the town has no water to lose, Bates said.
The questions and comments came when the council talked about possibly voting again on whether to go ahead with the Wiggins Project. This project would require the town to buy 10 shares of Weldon Valley Ditch Co. water and use that to augment a well near Empire Reservoir, just as a start. That would provide about a third of the water Wiggins would need to replace its failing wells. The total cost of $5.5 million would pay for the project as well as more water to make up the rest of the town's needs. That does not mean the well near the reservoir can only offer a third of the water. It could fill any amount Wiggins can augment, Bates said. Repeatedly, opponents of the Wiggins Project refused to believe the figures the council quoted, simply saying they disagreed, and voices were raised.
Former Mayor Ron Uhrick said he wanted to find water inside the basin Wiggins sits in and said that would work. Councilman Vince Longcor said the Colorado Water Board had explained that the aquifer is going dry. That means Wiggins will have to deal with the situation -- and not with basin water...
The water in the Thomas well and the Beauprez well has too many nitrates for household use as drinking water, meaning Wiggins would have to treat the water, which will be part of the cost, said Town Administrator Bill Rogers. Some at the meeting denied this water would require treatment, saying evaporation ponds could be used instead, but offering no details. Others brought up the issue of what kind of effect the Empire Dairy has on ground water near the Empire Reservoir. Rogers suggested bringing the issue of Empire Dairy to the health department, but was shouted down by the audience. Until a couple of weeks ago, the Thomas well was off limits by order of the state, which said Wiggins was not allowed to drill deep enough to get to the water. Water Attorney Steve Jeffers told the council at a regular meeting two weeks ago that the state was willing to change that as long as Wiggins did not go over the limit of the water allowed on that well, Bates said. The council decided not to vote again on the Wiggins Project, waiting instead for information on what it would cost for the Beauprez and Thomas wells.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:52:05 AM
|
|
The Colorado Division of Wildlife has found quagga and zebra mussel veligers in 3 more lakes, according to The AP via The Denver Examiner. From the article: "Invasive mussels known for clogging pumps and competing with native aquatic life have been found in three more lakes near Rocky Mountain National Park in the northern Colorado mountains. The Colorado Division of Wildlife said Friday the larvae of two related types of mussels were discovered in Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Willow Creek Reservoir west of the park...The division will offer boat inspections and decontamination on Saturday at Grand Lake's east boat ramp and Lake Granby's Sunset boat ramp."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:25:59 AM
|
|
Here's a recap of Grand Junction's conservation efforts this summer, from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.
Category: Colorado Water
6:15:45 AM
|
|
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "Horsetooth should hit the elevation of 5387 today. We were at 5388 yesterday when we stopped delivering water to the reservoir for two weeks while canal maintenance is under way. The water elevation will continue to drop, probably a little more quickly, depending on demand out of the reservoir. Now that we are into fall, it is maintenance season on the C-BT. Typically, this is when we do the majority of our annual updates and checks across the project. At 5387, most boat ramps still have water on them, although it might be getting close at Satanka on the north end and for the smaller boat ramp on the south end. But, the large 6-lane boat ramp in South Bay has plenty of water."
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "Yesterday afternoon, we dropped releases from Green Mountain down by about 100 cfs. This should remain through the weekend."
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "A slight adjustment was made to the releases yesterday afternoon out of the power plant. Flows in the Fryingpan River this morning should be under 250 cfs."
Category: Colorado Water
6:07:22 AM
|
|
Here's a look at transmountain water in the Arkansas River Basin, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Water imports from the Colorado River basin were about 35 percent above average this year, supplementing an otherwise dry year in the Arkansas River basin. The flows, generated by a big winter snowpack, sustained irrigated farming in the valley and helped fill municipal water reserves. Up until early August, the Arkansas Valley was in the grips of a drought some said was more severe than 2002. Even with more rain since then - even some minor flooding - rainfall totals are about 80 percent of average...
"We've been able to hold the flow at Amity (a ditch in Prowers County with relatively junior rights) all season long, and that's unusual," Water Division 2 Engineer Steve Witte told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board last week.
Arkansas River flows at Avondale so far this year have totaled about 645,470 acre-feet, about 10 percent above normal, said Pat Edelmann, of the Pueblo U.S. Geological Survey office. Much of that has come from two places: Taking water from stored accounts in Lake Pueblo, which has dropped by 66,000 acre-feet since early April, when it was nearly full; Bringing in roughly 190,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River basin, compared to an average that is closer to 140,000 in an average year.
Not all of the water brought over remained in the Arkansas River basin, because Aurora brought in about 15,000 acre-feet through the Homestake Project, and another 3,900 through the Busk-Ivanhoe system. Colorado Springs is a partner in Homestake, while Pueblo owns the other half of the Busk-Ivanhoe. That still left more than 170,000 acre-feet of water for Arkansas Basin water users...
The Fry-Ark Project brought over almost 90,000 acre-feet this year, the third highest year on record. However, estimates in May projected 100,000 acre-feet. The average for imports from 1980-2007 has been about 54,000 acre-feet...
Pueblo is close to maintaining its goal of 40,000 acre-feet in storage, about 60 percent of its maximum capacity, even though Clear Creek Reservoir was drawn down for repairs last year. The water board did not use its entitlement of 10 percent of Fry-Ark imports this year and did not bring over all of the water it could have from its own network of transmountain ditches. The water board brought over about 3,000 acre-feet from the Columbine, Ewing, Wurtz and Busk-Ivanhoe ditches. The average yield from those ditches is about 8,200 acre-feet. The water board decided not to bring over every possible drop of water based on early estimates of tight storage conditions and the need to balance long-term averages on the Western Slope. Pueblo also received about 15,000 acre-feet through the Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co., which brought in more than 60,000 acre-feet of Western Slope water this year. The water board was able to lease about 15,500 acre-feet of water on the spot market, while filling contracts for another 15,000 acre-feet this year.
Colorado Springs Utilities, the largest water user in the Arkansas River basin, is also the most heavily reliant on Western Slope water. Colorado Springs used or stored about 70,000 acre-feet of imported water this year, including its share of Fry-Ark water allocated to the Fountain Valley Conduit, about 21,000 acre-feet; 32,000 through Twin Lakes; 10,740 through Homestake; and 10,700 through the Blue River system, which pipes water from Montgomery Reservoir in the South Platte Basin, after it is brought over from the Blue River in the Colorado River basin. Colorado Springs storage was at 84 percent of capacity as of Wednesday.
The other diversion from the Colorado Basin was the Larkspur Ditch, operated by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, which brought in 426 acre-feet, far better than the 1980-2007 average of 160 acre-feet. The Larkspur takes water from the Gunnison River basin and the district is attempting to purchase it from the Catlin Canal Co.
Category: Colorado Water
5:58:00 AM
|
|
This week the Colorado Springs City Council gave the go ahead for Colorado Springs Utilities to start acquiring rights-of-way and land for the proposed Southern Delivery System, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Colorado Springs City Council gave the go-ahead Tuesday for land and easements acquisition in El Paso County relating to the Southern Delivery System. "It's really just formal authorization from the council to get started on the project," said John Fredell, SDS project manager...
[SDS] would require a terminal storage reservoir in El Paso County, possibly as soon as 2018. Under alternatives being reviewed by the Bureau of Reclamation in an environmental impact statement, the reservoir would be built either in Jimmy Camp Creek or Upper Williams Creek. Colorado Springs Utilities is seeking to purchase or gain easements on about 80 tracts of land and has budgeted $6 million for that purpose, according to action approved at Tuesday's council meeting. Land would be purchased for a pumping station and treatment plant, while the easements would prevent building from occurring along the route of buried pipelines.
Colorado Springs is looking at a new site for the treatment plant that could serve a reservoir at either Jimmy Camp Creek or upper Williams Creek. The easements are for pipeline routes that would be used regardless of whether SDS comes through Pueblo or Fremont County. "We're remaining flexible," Fredell said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:48:06 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the lawsuit seeking to overturn the 40 year long-term storage contract between Aurora and Reclamation for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas project assets to facilitate moving water out of the Arkansas River Basin, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A judge Thursday refused requests to throw out a lawsuit seeking to nullify a federal contract permitting Aurora to store water in Lake Pueblo reservoir. Chief U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham denied the requests of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Aurora to dismiss the case. Instead, he allowed two of four claims in the lawsuit to proceed to the next stage of the litigation.
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District filed the lawsuit late last year. The water district alleged Reclamation lacked statutory authority to enter into the 40-year contract it signed with Aurora in September 2007. The lawsuit also alleged the bureau violated various environmental laws by entering into the contract. The defendants - Reclamation and Aurora - contended the lawsuit should be thrown out on several grounds. A key aspect of the case revolves around the issue of what is the intended purpose of the Frying Pan-Arkansas Project...
The Lower Arkansas district contends it has an interest in the contract because the district has signed a letter of intent to lease water to the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority and is engaged in discussions with other water users. The contract allows Aurora to use Fry-Ark project facilities to store and exchange Arkansas River basin water for export to Aurora, which is outside the boundaries of the project. The district alleges it will be harmed by Aurora's plan because, among other reasons, the district and other water users in the lower valley will not know if they will have sufficient water to plant crops. The lawsuit's first claim for relief seeks a judge's ruling that the contract is not authorized by federal law. The defendants contended the district lacked "standing," the legal right to bring the lawsuit. Nottingham disagreed and allowed the claim to remain as the case moves forward.
The district's second claim for relief seeks a judge's ruling that Reclamation violated a law that requires congressional approval of modifications to a reservoir project which "would seriously affect the purposes for which the project was authorized." The Fry-Ark project was authorized by federal law. The defendants contended Lower Arkansas lacked standing and "failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." The judge disagreed and allowed the second claim to remain in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit's third claim alleged the bureau violated a law by approving the contract without the secretary of the Interior Department making findings that the contract serves the purpose of the Fry-Ark project. The Interior Department is the parent agency of the bureau. Nottingham ruled the secretary's actions, under the law, "are unreviewable" by a judge and he threw out that claim.
The district's fourth claim alleged Reclamation violated an environmental law by, among other reasons, failing to prepare an environmental impact statement. The defendants contended Lower Arkansas lacked standing to bring the claims "because its alleged injuries are not within the 'zone of interest' protected by the law. The judge agreed and threw out that part of the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Judge Nottingham has allowed Arkansas Native to join in the Lower Ark's lawsuit, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Chief U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham's decision allowed Arkansas Native LLC to participate in the case. The case is based on a lawsuit filed late last year by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The city of Aurora soon afterward asked to become a defendant in the case and Nottingham granted the request.
Nottingham, in a 12-page decision Thursday, said Arkansas Native seeks a judge's ruling that Reclamation's approval of the contract violated the law that authorized the Fryingpan-Arkansas project. Lake Pueblo reservoir is part of the project. The judge said Arkansas Native's claim "is the functional equivalent of the two claims" in the Lower Arkansas district's lawsuit that survived after he ruled on requests by the bureau and by Aurora to throw out the lawsuit. Nottingham said the group of water users own water rights supplied by the river between its headwaters and John Martin Reservoir. The district and the water rights owners allege the contract will injure their water rights in the river basin. Arkansas Native alleges it will be injured because the contract will reduce flows in the river, reduce "the physical supply of water or (precipitate) calls from other water rights that would have not existed in the absence" of Aurora's planned exchanges of water from Lake Pueblo and will diminish the quality of the water "within the exchange reach."[...]
The judge allowed intervention for several reasons, including his finding that "Arkansas Native's input would make a significant and useful contribution to the development of the legal issues in this case because it would allow me to decide the merits (of the lawsuit)" based on additional arguments that the group will make. Arkansas Native is owned by Bob Rawlings, publisher of The Pueblo Chieftain; Wally Stealy, former president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Bob Shoemaker, a former state legislator; and Frederick Esgar, a Wiley banker.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:37:17 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
10/1/08; 6:49:08 AM.
|
|
|
