Sunday, October 5, 2008

Windy Gap firming project: Draft environmental impact statement From email from Colorado Trout Unlimited (John Gamble): The Bureau of Reclamation has released the long-awaited Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Windy Gap Firming Project. If approved, the Project will increase transmountain diversions from the headwaters of the Colorado River for storage in Chimney Hollow - a new, 90,000 acre-foot reservoir to be built near Carter Lake. The Project, proposed by the Municipal Subdistrict of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District would then supply water to northern Front Range cities including Longmont, Broomfield, Greeley and Lafayette. The project will move the Colorado River another step closer to being a "flat lined" river, with flows perpetually at low base flow levels. It would divert Colorado River water mainly from May to August; according to the DEIS this would result in declines in monthly flows of as much as 24 percent. This would be in addition to existing diversions from the Colorado, including the Colorado Big-Thompson Project, Denver Water's Moffat Tunnel, and the current Windy Gap Project, which together take over 50 percent of the Colorado's native flows across the Continental Divide. Decades of transmountain diversions by these projects have taken their toll on the river. Algae abounds and high stream temperatures are a continuing threat. In 2006, Trout Unlimited received alarming calls from west-slope irrigators, warning that if they took their water entitlements, sections of the river would go completely dry. TU sounded the alarm with the press, additional reservoir releases were made, and the crisis was averted. However, the events shed light on the plight of the river - even before the new proposed diversions are added to the equation. What can you do? Attend a public meeting to voice your concerns. The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled two public meetings where citizens can offer written and oral comments: one in Loveland on October 7 and one in Granby on October 9. Attending the Loveland meeting is particularly important as the voice of Front Range citizens that use and value the Colorado River is critical and has not yet been heard. The specifics: October 7, 2008, at 7 pm, McKee Conference Center, 2000 Boise Avenue, Loveland, CO 80538, (ph. 970-669-4640). Food, drink, & information will be provided at a 5pm pre-meeting sponsored by CTU and our partners. October 9, 2008, at 6 pm, Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 US Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446, (ph. 970-887-4080) TU realizes that Front Range cities need to provide for future growth, and the Windy Gap Firming Project is listed by the conservation community in Facing Our Future as a workable alternative to other, more damaging water development plans, provided that the project is made "smart." For a project to be considered "smart supply", effective water conservation measures must be in place and potential environmental impacts must be fully analyzed and either prevented or properly mitigated. Unfortunately, as it is now proposed the Windy Gap Firming Project falls short. Some of the participant cities have minimal conservation measures [^] at least one of them is still on a flat water rate system with no price incentive for conservation. Impacts to aquatic resources are masked in the DEIS [^] for example, by focusing on monthly averages and glossing over day-to-day flow conditions that may have major effects on fish. The DEIS offers minimal, if any, prevention or mitigation measures. As it stands, TU opposes the project. The Colorado River is already stressed by low flows and elevated temperatures, and the Windy Gap Firming Project would only increase the periods of time where those conditions exist. A good rule of thumb is: when you find yourself in the bottom of a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. The Colorado River is already suffering, and those issues need to be resolved [^] the last thing we need is to divert even more water and continue to ignore the underlying problems. Can Windy Gap be made environmentally sound? We believe so [^] but until its sponsors take the necessary steps to incorporate meaningful water conservation and to minimize and mitigate environmental impacts to the Colorado River, the project should not be approved. If you cannot make it to the public hearings, you can still help by submitting public comments on the DEIS. Comments are currently due on October 28, 2008, but TU and its partners are seeking a 60-day extension. Our technical advisors are currently reviewing the DEIS, and we will post more detailed information and concerns that emerge from that review on our website, www.cotrout.org, and we will provide details on how to submit comments in a future action alert. Thank you for all you do on behalf of Colorado's trout! More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 9:46:08 AM     Northern Integrated Supply Project Here's an update on Fort Collins' objections to the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project, from The North Forty News. From the article: The Fort Collins City Council in September hammered the Northern Integrated Supply Project, saying the project--as proposed--would have "major adverse impacts" on the portion of the Poudre River that flows through Fort Collins and would potentially cost the city millions in new water and wastewater treatment facilities. Mayor Doug Hutchinson said in a later interview, however, that he could support the project if necessary changes are made. A unanimous resolution by the city council called for a supplemental draft environmental impact statement to be prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers, permitting agency for NISP... Hutchinson said the city acted appropriately in taking its stand, adding that the report was based on a comprehensive study by two independent consultants. "This is responsible governance, to say 'Wait a minute'" when the city sees flaws in a project, he said. "We would be remiss not to oppose it. The best time to fix problems is before you turn that first shovelful of dirt." Nonetheless, Hutchinson said, the city's position has been misrepresented. "I believe the major problems can be solved with mitigations," he said. The city owes future generations a dependable water supply, Hutchison said, just as those who built the Colorado-Big Thompson Project provided water for present-day citizens. Earlier this year, the city allocated $700,000 to study impacts from NISP as outlined in the draft EIS. Major problems identified by consultants included possible degradation of drinking water supplies in Horsetooth Reservoir. If water quality in Horsetooth is degraded, the city might have to spend $100 million to construct a more advanced water treatment system, in addition to about $3 million more in annual operating costs. The report's argument is based on the possibility that a portion of the water in Glade would be piped to Horsetooth Reservoir. Since most of the water in Glade would be taken from the Poudre during the spring runoff, it would contain high levels of total organic carbon. TOC has to be removed in the treatment process to satisfy federal requirements, so higher levels in Horsetooth would require more treatment... The Northern Water Conservancy District, sponsor of the project, has talked about mitigations, Hutchinson noted, but these must be spelled out in detail. The city's report to the Army Corps contained comments around several different themes, including water management, environmental concerns, recreation issues, aesthetic impacts, climate change and air quality, impacts on future Fort Collins projects, mitigation, and errors and omissions in the EIS. Details include impacts on fish habitat, the possibility of increased flooding risks from sedimentation in the river and impacts on vegetation and wetlands along the river. The city's full report can be accessed online at www.fcgov.com/nispreview. Hutchinson said he is proud of the city council's handling of "a very emotional issue." More coverage of opposition from The North Forty News. They write: A coalition of 14 groups opposed to building a new Glade Reservoir near the mouth of the Poudre Canyon has decided to offer alternatives along with its criticism. Calling its plan the Healthy River Alternative, the Save the Poudre Coalition is among the many who turned in official comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by the mid-September deadline. The Corps is the permitting agency for the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project, of which Glade Reservoir is one of the alternatives. In addition to debunking population growth estimates and calling for more water conservation, the coalition proposes an alternative water sharing arrangement with agriculture called rotational fallowing agreements... Save the Poudre, however, is suggesting fallowing agreements that keep the water rights under agricultural ownership with leases to municipalities. "A recent survey of South Platte basin irrigators found that 63 percent of interviewed farmers would be willing to participate in a rotational land fallowing program, if compensated adequately," Save the Poudre said in its comments to the Corps. A spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Brian Werner, responded that the concept was already studied and rejected. Werner said Northern Water looked at fallowing in the mid-1990s, but very few utilities want to base future water supply on a lease arrangement. "We found that what cities are willing to pay is less than what farmers wanted," he added. "It's unrealistic." On the topic of costs, the coalition contends that the draft EIS cost estimate for NISP--$426 million--is severely understated because it does not include loan finance costs nor the costs of impact mitigations being sought through the environmental review process. After reviewing comments from the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley, which are concerned that Glade's water diversions could increase their water treatments costs, Save the Poudre is contending NISP costs could hit $1.2 billion to provide 40,000 acre-feet of water. The coalition also contends that the draft EIS does not meet the basic requirements of the federal National Environmental Policy Act or the Federal Clean Water Act, so it is calling on the Corps to start over with a new analysis of alternatives. Methods of analysis used for the draft EIS "guaranteed that a combination of small, flexible, less expensive, and incremental water supply projects would never be seriously considered," Save the Poudre wrote. "Being blind to small-scale, appropriate development is a recipe for unsustainable water projects and, as our analysis shows, failed to identify a suitable alternative that would preserve what is left of the Cache la Poudre River." Save the Poudre is further advocating that the region should look for ways to restore the river rather than diverting more water. The concept includes new programs that would give tax credits for water donations or loans used to restore river flow and new policies that would raise the legal standing of water quality issues. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 8:29:04 AM     Silt: Tamarisk removal From The Glenwood Springs Post Independent: "Twenty-five volunteers are needed to help Saturday, Oct. 11 in Silt for a tamarisk removal work day, sponsored by Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers and the town of Silt. Volunteers will help continue the effort to remove tamarisk and Russian olive noxious weeds from the banks of the Colorado River and the town of Silt's island in the Colorado River. This is the largest remaining patch between Rifle and Glenwood Springs. These invasive weeds choke river banks and crowd native vegetation in the riparian zone, a critical habitat for 80 percent of wildlife. Volunteers for this project must be 14 or older, but less active volunteers could help with the kitchen crew. RFOV always treats volunteers to breakfast snacks, an end-of-the-workday meal and a chance at prizes. Sign up to volunteer online at www.rfov.org, e-mail rfov@sopris.net or call 927-8241." Category: Colorado Water 8:10:20 AM     Grand Country watershed planning Here's a look at managing the Colorado River under the pressure of transmountain diversions, from The Denver Post. From the article: The two sides of the Continental Divide are engaged in a first-of-its-kind negotiation over moving more water to the Front Range -- the two water companies [Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District] are planning $410 million in new projects to provide an extra 16 billion gallons -- while protecting the mountain streams and rivers. "It is a change of mind-set on both the east and west slopes," said Grand County Commissioner James Newberry. For Denver Water it is the first time the utility has "been willing to sit down and discuss this," said Dave Little, manager of water-resource planning. "The question is how to do what we need to do with a lighter footprint," Little said. Denver needs the water to meet projections showing the city's thirst will exceed its supply in eight years -- with demand growing 50 percent to 375,000 acre-feet. And without new water, growing northern suburbs such as Broomfield will be unable to turn large, open tracts into homes. For Grand County -- where fishing, kayaking, skiing and tourism generated almost $170 million in revenue in 2003 -- maintaining the health and flow of streams is an economic concern as well as environmental one. As it is, about 60 percent of the county's waters measured at the confluence of the Colorado and Fraser were shipped to the Front Range between 1991 and 2001, according to a Northwest Colorado Council of Governments analysis. The new projects would remove another 10 percent. "We are at a tipping point," Newberry said. "We can't have any more diversions without some mitigation."[...] Denver Water is looking to expand its Moffat Tunnel diversions by 18,000 acre-feet during wet periods...The utility also wants to expand its Gross Reservoir near Boulder at a cost of $140 million. With a bigger reservoir, Denver Water would move the water in wet periods and store it for use during dry spells. During the 2002 drought, the Moffat collection system almost ran dry, which would have shut one of the utility's three water-treatment plants and jeopardized supplies to Arvada, Westminster and Boulder, Little said. In 1985, the northern district completed its Windy Gap Project, which was designed to bring water to communities such as Loveland and Longmont. The small Windy Gap Reservoir and pump, however, are dependent on getting water over the mountains through the older, bigger Colorado-Big Thompson Project. When that system is full, the Windy Gap water cannot move. The northern district is now proposing a $270 million project to build a new connection to the Colorado-Big Thompson and a new 90,000 acre-foot reservoir near Carter Lake. The northern district, like Denver, plans to ship water during wetter periods and be able to guarantee, or "firm," the water allocations. Thirteen water providers with about 426,000 residents and the Platte River Power Authority are participating in and financing the project. "We can't sell taps until we have a reliable supply," said Mike Bartleson, a consultant for Broomfield, the biggest participant in the project. "That water is a resource for future development."[...] Denver and the northern district have the water rights to take those 48,000 acre-feet from the streams and rivers of Grand County. "For years Denver Water's position was: 'These are our water rights; we're exercising them,' " said Kirk Klancke, manager of the Winter Park Ranch Water and Sewer District. "So this dialogue is a big step." What Grand County officials are seeking are ways to soften and manage the impacts of removing more water. The county has spent $800,000 on a stream-management plan that indicates what a healthy flow would be for each reach of stream and river flowing through the county. The towns of Winter Park and Fraser, in cooperation with Trout Unlimited, initiated a $750,000 project to reconfigure a stretch of the Fraser River so it would run faster and have deeper pools for fish. The county spent $60,000 this summer to pump an additional 1,500 acre-feet of water into Lake Granby so it could be released this fall to help buck-up the Colorado and prevent another Labor Day dry-out. In September, Streamside Systems, a company with new technology to vacuum sediments from stream beds, did a demonstration project on Ranch Creek, a Fraser River tributary. Sediment buildup is a problem in low-flow streams, but the cost of the service is about $2,400 a day, according to Randall Tucker, Streamside president. "We believe through better management of the water and mitigation we can have healthy streams and the West Slope can get its water," Newberry said... Denver Water is prepared to take voluntary actions, Little said. But if Grand County tries to set exact stream flows, the Denver utility would balk. "We'll see what we can do to put in water to help out the fish," Little said. The fish are valuable even to a cattle rancher, because fishing lodges, fishing clubs and fishing leases bring in money... In 2002, fishing brought more than $12 million in direct expenditures in the county, according to a state Division of Wildlife study. Rafting and kayaking annually add another $6 million a year on the upper Colorado, according to the Colorado River Outfitters Association. "People on the Front Range need the water," said Winter Park's Klancke. "We get that. But those same people like to come up to the mountains to fish and kayak, which is hard if there is no water in the river." More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: Colorado Water 8:07:18 AM     Pueblo: Looking for water for the future Here's a look at the Pueblo Board of Water Works' quest for new water supplies to serve growth, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: Last month, the Pueblo Board of Water Works reaffirmed the need for more water acquisition even as it was dusting itself off from a failed attempt last year to purchase a controlling interest in the Bessemer Ditch. A 100-year plan to provide water for a population of 300,000 by the next century is being developed. There also needs to be enough water to support new industry... The water board is looking at the purchase of some shares of Bessemer Ditch water, even though it might not mean a majority interest, along with other options. It's not the first time the water board has been interested in taking agricultural water and converting it to municipal use... From the earliest days, Pueblo had two water systems serving communities north and south of the Arkansas River. Water was used both in homes and to grow gardens or trees... The Arkansas River was always the primary source of water for both the North and South Side systems, although the North Side briefly flirted with using the "underflow" of Fountain Creek. In a project financed primarily by the Ball brothers of Muncie, Ind. - the same company that made canning jars and aerospace equipment - two reservoirs were built north of Pueblo. The water was undrinkable, however, and the project never resurrected. Water was either taken from the Arkansas River or from wells near the river by the North Side system during low flows until the drought of the 1930s when the river flow failed and both systems faltered. Attorneys for the two water companies agreed on apportionment of the river in 1932, but each group began looking at buying ag rights to supplement their own direct flows from the river. The South Side was able to purchase some local rights, but the North Side ran into conflict with Fremont County irrigators and looked farther upriver. In 1938, the North Side board bought a ditch at Tennessee Pass in Lake County constructed by Warren Wurtz a decade earlier to bring ag water across the Continental Divide. The purchase came after Pueblo interests looked at and rejected a transmountain tunnel at Independence Pass. That tunnel was completed in the same era by the Crowley County farmers who ran the Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. The next foray into buying up ag rights came during the next dry spell, in the 1950s. It was a time when the city was merging its two water systems, and some upstream rights were available for sale. In 1953, the board purchased the Columbine Ditch, which brought over water near Fremont Pass and was used to irrigate various tracts along the Arkansas River. The next year, the water board acquired the Ewing Ditch, constructed in 1880 to bring water from the Western Slope, and Clear Creek Reservoir from the Otero Canal Co... It was also during that period that Pueblo businessmen were leading the charge to build the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Frying pans painted gold were sold up and down the Arkansas Valley to finance trips to Washington to convince Congress to pass the measure. When it finally was approved in 1962, Pueblo was just beginning another push to acquire more water. A new reservoir west of Pueblo promised to provide much-needed storage, and the Pueblo water board worked to secure allocations as well as early as 1963. When the project was first envisioned, it was thought that the majority of water would go to agriculture, with smaller amounts set aside for Colorado Springs and Pueblo. A pipeline would also serve the Lower Arkansas Valley cities and water districts, and Pueblo was developing plans that would allow it to treat the water from the dam if that was what the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District wanted. According to water board minutes from 1964, Pueblo asked for 5,000 acre-feet and Colorado Springs 10,000 acre-feet, even though Pueblo had a slightly larger population at the time. At an earlier meeting, the Pueblo request was scaled back to 3,000 acre-feet because it was developing other resources. In discussions with Southeastern General Manager Charles Boustead, Carl Dincler, president of the water board in 1964, asked if Pueblo could request 9,000 acre-feet instead. "If the board could show they need it and could pay for it," Boustead answered. The water board took those words to heart and in 1968 completed a water resources study that was to become a blueprint for future water development... "In 1969-70, Kodak looked at coming to Pueblo, but we didn't have the water," Hamel said. "They went to Windsor instead." That set off the most intense era of water buys for Pueblo. In 1970, Pueblo purchased the Booth-Orchard Grove Ditch east of Pueblo and the Hobson Ditch west of Pueblo West. In 1971, the water board acquired half of the High Line Canal's Busk-Ivanhoe system, which brings water through the old Carlton Railroad Tunnel into Turquoise Lake. Aurora later purchased the other half of the diversion. In 1972, Pueblo began buying shares in Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., acquiring 23 percent in competition with Colorado Springs, which bought 54 percent. Pueblo West and Aurora also acquired their own shares in Twin Lakes. By 1974, the Pueblo Dam was completed and the Southeastern District began trying to determine how Fry-Ark flows would be allocated. The Pueblo water board's 1968 study specifically said Pueblo would need more than the 3,000 acre-feet that had become ensconced in official Fry-Ark documents... Foster Burba, the executive director of the water board during that time, first asked for 14,000 acre-feet of Fry-Ark Water in 1969. When Colorado Springs later upped its request to 36,000 acre-feet, Pueblo wanted 17,000 acre-feet. At one point in late 1974, Burba cited the 1968 report and said Pueblo would need 22,600 acre-feet. At some point in 1974, the Southeastern translated the acre-feet into percentages, based on what was then believed to be an average yield of 80,000 acre-feet. Colorado Springs, which was by then double Pueblo's size, wanted 40 percent, while Pueblo tried to hold their neighbor to the north to 18 percent. Pueblo had, at least, increased its own share, which was always at 10-12 percent in the preliminary discussions. In July, when the district first advanced its allocation principles, Colorado Springs other El Paso County users wound up with 25 percent; the Arkansas Valley Conduit, 12 percent; Pueblo, 10 percent; and communities west of Pueblo, 4 percent. Agriculture's share was 49 percent, because Western Slope interests had insisted the Fry-Ark remain primarily for municipal use - probably in hopes of staving off future raids. That basic formula remained intact until the court case over the allocation principles was ultimately settled in 1979. In rolling out the plan to buy a controlling interest in the Bessemer Ditch a year ago, Hamel stressed the fact the Pueblo has spent the last 25 years trying to secure and protect the water rights it already owned. Because of uncertainty of the transmountain supply - both from potential downstream demands on the Colorado River and climate change - the water board began new long-range planning that will mean more use of ag water. The drought of 2002 also showed Pueblo's supply was not as reliable as once assumed and highlighted the need to obtain more water, Hamel said. The board recently approved a major expansion of water supply lines to a new industrial park on former CF&I land south of Pueblo. Vestas has since announced its plans to build a plant to make towers for wind turbines at the new site. The water board also is looking at the need to provide water to Pueblo Springs Ranch, a 24,000-acre subdivision planned north of Pueblo. More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here and here. Category: Colorado Water 7:51:11 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 11/1/08; 7:45:09 PM.