|
|
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
|
|
| |
From The Greeley Tribune: "The Colorado Water Conservation Board has awarded the city of Greeley a grant of nearly $102,000 to support a first-of-its-kind effort to create a shared vision for operation of a proposed reservoir project. The cities of Greeley and Fort Collins are involved in the environmental permitting of proposed expansions of the Halligan and Milton Seaman Reservoirs on the North Fork of the Poudre River, northwest of Fort Collins. Both cities, along with their partners -- the North Weld, East Larimer County, Fort Collins-Loveland water districts, and the North Poudre Irrigation Co. -- are working to determine if expansion of the reservoirs can meet agricultural and municipal needs while improving stream flows on the North Fork and the Poudre, according to a prepared release. The $101,740 grant is for a collaborative effort called Shared Vision Planning which was developed by the Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources and has been used widely throughout the country."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:56:14 PM 
|
|
From The Pueblo Chieftain: "Nearly 600 acres of tamarisk on the Apishapa River drainage were sprayed with chemicals recently in an attempt to control them. Areas in Las Animas, Pueblo and Otero counties were sprayed as part of a $250,000 effort coordinated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and led by J.R. Phillips, Fremont County weed manager...
"Funding came through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program Colorado Invasive Plant Species Program, a voluntary program for landowners who want to improve the productivity of range, restore wildlife habitat, and restore the natural riparian plant community. Tamarisk, also called salt cedar, has infested about 67,000 acres in the Arkansas River basin, soaking up about 76,000 acre-feet more water than native species would consume each year. As tamarisk fills in, that number could climb to nearly 200,000 acre-feet."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:46:52 PM
|
|
From The Pueblo Chieftain: "While evidence of invasive mussels so far has been limited to Lake Pueblo, researchers are keeping an eye out for signs of migration downstream. 'We may not see many larvae right now, but if the little critters start multiplying, we want to be ahead of the game,' said Scott Herrmann, biology professor at Colorado State University-Pueblo. 'Boats aren't the only way they spread.'"
More from the article:
CSU-Pueblo has collected samples and done preliminary analysis monthly since the first discovery of zebra mussel veligers in Lake Pueblo in January. Herrmann and researcher Del Nimmo have swept the water with 8-foot "nets" capable of capturing the veligers, which are about the width of a hair. They sample at six locations from the dam to the west end of Lake Pueblo. They also are sampling the fish hatchery and two sites in the river below the dam. "While we have found the larvae, we haven't located any settlers yet," Herrmann said. From the limited sampling - like trying to find a needle in a haystack in your spare time - few positives have shown up. CSU-Pueblo is using its own equipment, along with microscope accessories furnished by the Pueblo Board of Water Works, to do the analysis. The CSU-Pueblo team also collects other data about numerous water quality factors and conditions that could be valuable in understanding how the mussels are spreading. When positive results do appear, the samples are sent to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Bureau of Reclamation, who use separate independent labs to confirm the mussels by using DNA tests. Herrmann said he would be more comfortable if three separate labs were looking at original samples, but funding has so far been limited.
The Pueblo Board of Water Works is spending $600,000 to upgrade its water filters. Other water intakes that link to Pueblo Dam include the Pueblo West pipeline, the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline, the state fish hatchery and the Bessemer Ditch. Xcel and the Pueblo water board are also watching the intake to the Comanche power plant.
However, Herrmann is primarily concerned about aquatic habitat. As filter feeders, quagga and zebra mussels survive on the same plankton used by other species. So do the Asian clams which earlier invaded Lake Pueblo, but do not pose as great a threat to water infrastructure. The gizzard shad, a source of food for wipers, walleye and even rainbow trout in Lake Pueblo, also feeds on plankton. "If we see the shad population decline, we'll see fewer game fish," Herrmann said. Other species in the lake include many varieties of native clams, including the floater clam. The clams, so named because they are capable of floating in the water from one area of the lake to another, can grow up to 8 inches in diameter. Herrmann introduced about 450 floater clams to Lake Pueblo in 1983 from a population in the CF&I reservoirs and they have thrived since then. Those clams are more valuable to the food chain than zebra or quagga mussels, don't proliferate as quickly and don't cause damage to infrastructure because they do not attach themselves to surfaces.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:40:01 PM
|
|
It looks like Barack Obama's campaign finally read our commentary from The Colorado Independent and is using John McCain's gaffe over renegotiating the Colorado River Compact in ads across the state, reports The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Barack Obama's campaign on Tuesday began running radio ads around the state attacking his Republican opponent over the Colorado River Water Compact...
The ad, which began airing two days before McCain is scheduled to campaign in Colorado for the first time since just after last month's Republican National Convention, begins with an announcer saying that Western states have grown fast, and water demands have grown with their growth. Then it has McCain saying, "The compact that is in effect obviously needs to be renegotiated," a quote that was taken from a recording of the GOP nominee's exclusive interview with The Chieftain. The 60-second spot, which includes the "I approved this message" statement from Obama at the end, later quotes Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar denouncing the idea...
Matt Chandler, spokesman for the Obama camp's Colorado campaign, would not reveal details about the ad, such as how much it cost, what radio stations it would air on and in which markets.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here. And no, we don't really think that the Obama campaign looks to our writing for ad ideas. 
Category: Colorado Water
5:30:06 PM
|
|
Here's an article on oil shale from Colorado Biz Today. Read the whole thing. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Yet such water shortages are becoming the major question as Colorado entertains the latest surge in excitement about its vast deposits of oil shale north and west of Rifle. That excitement is likely to last as long as oil prices remain above $30 a barrel, a bottom-line benchmark once cited by leaseholder Royal Dutch Shell. With commercial production at least a decade away, the company has since backed away from that number even as a barrel of oil remains near $100. Much is still unknown. Oil companies remain tentative about extraction methods, electrical demands and even water needs. For that matter, Colorado is unsure how much water remains available for development under interstate compacts governing the Colorado River Basin."
Some 72 percent of oil shale reserves are located below federal land. In 2005, the Bureau of Land Management offered 160-acre tracts in a three-state area for research, development and demonstration purposes. Leases for six of these sites have been awarded, five of them in Colorado. Royal Dutch Shell has three, Chevron and EGL Resources one each. Those companies that demonstrate commercial viability will be authorized to expand operations to 5,100-acre blocks available for 35 years. At issue is the level of certainty, says Jeremy Boak, from the Colorado School of Mines. "If they expect for the technology to be completely decided upon, they will be waiting for decades," he says. The technology of oil extraction has evolved now for 140 years. Better, he argues, is to define those areas that need regulation. A top item: water availability...
A sticking point is the development of regulations -- including the royalty rates -- governing commercial production. The disagreement is partisan and local. Last year, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) was able to insert a one-year moratorium on adoption of rules governing commercial leases. U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in May attempted to get the moratorium repealed but lost by one vote. "We need the rules and regulations in place first," Allard told an interviewer. "When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need to have some idea what their royalties might be and what their remediation requirements might be."[...]
Salazar's position, however, is supported by a very different group: the Front Range Water Users Council. The council includes most major water agencies servicing cities from Fort Collins to Pueblo, plus farm country spreading outward to Kansas and Nebraska. The central worry is that water and oil won't mix. The organization calls for a go-slower approach until the technology is known. Without that knowledge, informed decisions about commercial leasing, including regulations, cannot be made, said H.J. "Chips" Barry, manager of Denver Water, in a May 14 letter. In July, Salazar argued that oil shale companies already have potential access to 30,000 acres of public land for research and development, along with 200,000 privately owned oil shale lands in Colorado and Utah. "Let's put the horse back in front of the cart," he said. Royalties cannot be determined until the economics of oil shale are clear, Salazar spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley further explained. Too low, and taxpayers will be shortchanged. Royal Dutch Shell counters that it must know the royalty rates and other factors affecting operation to assess the economic viability of its technology on a commercial scale...
The first serious attempt to develop oil shale began in 1890. Oil shale chronicler Andrew Gulliford, in his book "Boomtown Blues: Colorado Oil Shale, 1885-1985," explained that Teddy Roosevelt warned of an impending oil shortage in 1908. That fueled interest, and government surveys from 1914 to 1918 confirmed the richness of the deposits. "Is the United States facing a gasoline famine?" National Geographic asked in a 1918 article. "Shall we be required to forgo automobiling except to meet the stern necessities of war and of utilitarian traffic?" No, the magazine said. Oil shale would guarantee America world dominance for decades to come. Similarly enthusiastic prospectors by 1920 had filed 30,000 claims to 4 million acres in areas near Rifle, Parachute and DeBeque. The shales resisted easy surrender. Not so the underground reservoirs of west Texas. With that Texas-sized boom, Colorado's oil shale industry went bust. Interest waxed again during World War II. In 1958, graduate planning students at Cornell University issued detailed plans for a city of 350,000 to accommodate the oil shale extraction. Oil shale development was imperative, the students said, given the U.S. dependence on imported oil. The warning was prescient. The 1973 Arab oil embargo drove up prices, and in 1980 President Jimmy Carter dangled $20 billion in potential subsidies for oil shale startups. Exxon USA said it needed no help but would invest $5 billion anyway. An entirely new town, Battlement Mesa, resulted. Even then, however, oil prices were dropping, eventually bottoming out at $10 a barrel in the mid-1980s. By then, Exxon was gone. It had suspended oil shale operations on May 2, 1982. Immediately, 2,000 people lost their jobs. Housing prices from Glenwood Springs to Grand Junction tumbled. Slower was the decline of Colorado Ute, an electrical wholesale supplier that had overbuilt in anticipation of oil shale. It eventually went bankrupt. The bust contributed to the economic and social funk of Denver. Oil shale got a real shiner...
Just how much water will be needed for oil shale production is not known. A 2006 study by the Rand Corp. assumed at least three barrels of water will be needed for every barrel of oil produced. However, that estimate is rooted in research done in the 1970s and 1980s and assumes construction of coal-fired power plants, which require large amounts of water. [Tracy] Boyd won't divulge Shell's estimates, suggesting the figure hasn't been firmly quantified. But it's clear that Shell will need less than what Rand estimated, he said. One reason is the electrical generation. Natural gas is a component of the oil shale reserves, and can be used to generate electricity, needing less water to do so. Yes, water will be needed -- and there will likely be the need for additional reservoir storage, he said. But oil shale, "will not dry up the Colorado River Basin, as some have implied."[...]
A conditional water right in Colorado is like getting a place in line. You don't have to actually use it, but every six years you must demonstrate intent to do so. Money spent can be evidence of diligence. That isn't hard to prove when attorneys are involved. Western Resource Advocates, a Boulder-based environmental law and policy organization, has tallied at least 750 conditional water rights owned by oil companies, many filed in the 1940s and 1950s. Many are in the Rifle-to-Grand Junction area. As such, they could -- when perfected -- have higher priority than rights of Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for transmountain diversions from the Dillon and Granby areas. Oil shale companies also have conditional water rights around Meeker. Some of those conditional rights are senior to water diversions from the White River begun in the 1940s to ensure irrigation of hay meadows, [David Smith, 77, a rancher and native of Meeker] says.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Climate Change News
6:45:58 AM
|
|
From an opinion piece about the Windy Gap Firming Project published in The Sky-Hi Daily News:
Water rights. With those two words, we probably lost 90 percent of our readers. As a topic of discussion, water is -- ironically -- dry. To speak in an educated way about water, you must have the mind of a lawyer, the education of an engineer and the savvy of a politician. Which is why, when water comes up in conversation -- most people shut up and shut off.
[Ed. We love Coyote Gulch readers, when we meet face to face, on the phone or online they never shut up and shut off. ].
The article is a call to action for concerned citizens. Here's the information on public meetings for the draft environmental impact statement:
Windy Gap Firming Project meetings
When: 6 to 7 p.m., open house, 7 p.m., public hearing, Tuesday, Oct. 7
Where: McKee Medical Center, 2000 Boise Ave., Loveland
When: 6 to 7 p.m., open house, 7 p.m., public hearing, Thursday, Oct. 9
Where: Inn at Silvercreek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:20:28 AM
|
|
Hydroelectric power is green, in the sense that it uses the flow of water and gravity for generation. The effects on downstream riparian habitat are well known. Loss of peak flows and releases tied to generation needs rather than the natural cycle are also. Here's a look at the potential for hydroelectric power at Wolford Mountain Reservoir, from The Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:
Wolford Mountain Reservoir in Kremmling could one day produce "green energy," says Jim Pokrandt, Colorado River District communications specialist. The district is researching what it would cost to run a hydroelectric energy plant. And how much buyers are willing to pay for it, he said. "It's something that's being considered," Pokrandt said. "There's a keen interest for sure ... There are entities out there who are interested in the green power." If feasible, the plant would benefit the river district and community. "There's awareness and desire for green power," he added. "(But) you don't want it to be a money-loser." The district would also need a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Grand County commissioners before it could proceed. The power would come from water being released through the dam to power a generator.
The district does not know how much the project would cost. It would have to buy and install equipment, maintain and operate it, and transmit the energy from the power plant to an electrical grid. "There could be a cost to put it on the grid and wheel it around to whoever is buying it," Pokrandt said. "When you start generating power it's only good if you can put it on the grid." There is still a lot of work that needs to be done, he said. The reservoir was built in the 1990s. Building the plant has been in the back of officials' minds since then.
Category: Climate Change News
6:12:42 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2009
John Orr.
Last update:
4/4/09; 10:40:10 AM.
|
|
|
