|
|
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
|
|
| |
Here's an update on the State Engineer's efforts at establishing new irrigation rules for the Arkansas Valley, from the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
State Engineer Dick Wolfe wants some form of rules governing consumptive use changes caused by surface irrigation efficiency before the Arkansas River Compact Administration meets in December. Farmers still aren't convinced the rules are needed. Wolfe and a 32-member committee continued to hash out changes in the rules Wednesday at Otero Junior College. The group has set one more meeting, Nov. 13 in Pueblo, to grind off the rough edges of the rules before the compact meeting in Lamar, and Wolfe is optimistic the task can be accomplished. "We're going to make this work, to get plans lined up ahead of time so you don't run into a compact violation," Wolfe said.
The state Division of Water Resources, which Wolfe heads, is looking at the rules as a pre-emptive strike against Kansas in ongoing disputes over the Arkansas River Compact. Kansas has told Colorado that the efficiencies made in irrigation systems - particularly sprinklers - since a 1999 agreement could be increasing consumptive use and reducing return flows to the Arkansas River...
Farmers are not happy with the prospect of new rules and weren't shy about letting Wolfe know that on Wednesday. "I'm pretty uneasy about giving any more authority to someone to tell what can and can't be done," said Colin Thompson, an officer of the Amity Canal and a member of the compact commission...
In the latest draft, the proposed state rules have already bent to incorporate some of the concerns that have been brought up during two earlier committee meetings. The rules now exclude virtually all on-farm improvements other than sprinklers and drip systems fed by ponds on individual farms. That means pipe, concrete ditch lining, water scheduling, seed selection, fertilization practices and other improvements will not be monitored by the state. Wells are already covered. Lining of the main ditches in the valley's irrigation canals is still subject to the rules. The new rules exclude the Purgatoire watershed, which already has federal rules on water use, and provide general permits rather than engineering requirements for sprinklers above Lake Pueblo and on tributaries like Fountain Creek. The ditches below Lake Pueblo would be subject to engineering guidelines that conform to models approved by the Supreme Court in the Kansas v. Colorado case...
Bill Tyner, assistant engineer in Water Division 2, reviewed a proposed model that looked at what the maximum impact of improvements made from 1999-2006 would have been each year from 1997-2006 had they been in place. The total impact or return flows to the river was 11,000 acre-feet - or 1,100 acre-feet per year - under Tyner's model. Farmers said what happened on the ground is totally different from what Tyner's model showed. The largest deficits would have occurred during the wettest years under the model, but farmers say they let water flow by unused during that time because of the abundance of water...
Mauch said it is difficult for farmers to understand the state's goals in achieving compact compliance since it often doesn't match what is happening. During severe drought years like 2002 and 2003, when most ditches were running only a fraction of water normally available, the models would show pond-fed sprinklers were more efficient than sprinklers fed by wells, Mauch said. Mauch, along with others, also criticized the state for using general permits for parts of the basin while insisting on engineering for the Lower Arkansas Valley.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:48:43 PM 
|
|
Here's a recap of the second day of court proceedings over the rules for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District's groundwater Sub-district #1, from the Valley Courier. From the article:
Lynn Kopfman, vice president of the first sub-district's board of managers, concluded his testimony on Tuesday morning. He testified about the work that went into the management plan and about the importance of the plan to farmers like himself. He said the board of managers who drafted the plan is comprised of farmers and producers "so anything that we have done or will do affects each and every one of us as well as it does our neighbors and friends." Kopfman reiterated his testimony from Monday that the sub-district board's first priority is to address depletions to surface water users. He also addressed a potential concern that the sub-district would use fees from sub-district landowners to purchase water that might be re-sold. Kopfman said any water bought by the sub-district would be for the purpose of enhancing the Valley's water supply. "We are not here to sell water to Denver or some other outside water scheme," he said.
Second witness Steven Vandiver took the stand on Tuesday to describe the sub-district plan's chronology and purpose. Vandiver is the general manager for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. Under the auspices of host Rio Grande Water Conservation District, the sub-district is designed to reduce groundwater pumping through economic incentives to achieve the three-pronged goal of aquifer restoration, senior surface water depletion replenishment and Rio Grande Compact support. Vandiver testified that the sub-district's board of managers "kept their eye on the ball" regarding the sub-district goals throughout the process of developing a water management plan. He also testified that the sub-district board amended its original plan in response to concerns raised by people affected by the plan...
Vandiver told the judge he believed time was of the essence for the sub-district plan's final approval because "we need to get funding streams available to the board of managers so the business of the board of managers can begin in earnest ... and certainly to get on with the business the sub-district was formed for and that is to address the depletions from the wells and get the system operating as it should." Vandiver estimated that the first sub-district, lying in the Valley's closed basin, encompasses about 3,200 wells including about 100 wells in the confined or deeper aquifer and the remainder in the unconfined or shallower aquifer. He said there are provisions in the sub-district management plan for the confined aquifer wells to opt out. He said discussions have been held regarding formation of a sub-district solely for confined aquifer well owners in the Valley...
Testimony and discussion among attorneys and Judge Kuenhold on Tuesday addressed the court's continuing involvement in that ongoing work. RGWCD Attorney David Robbins told the judge there is an obligation by this court to retain jurisdiction over all facets of the sub-district. He said no one needs to be concerned about future due process because any of the current clients before the court are free to come before the court at any time in the future. He said if/once the court approves the management plan, "the court retains jurisdiction over it."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:30:48 PM
|
|
From the Pueblo Chieftain: "After years of study and tests, work will begin in January to clean up two of the major sources of groundwater pollution at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. Members of the depot's Restoration Advisory Board heard a report this week from Andrew Ellison of Shaw Environmental Inc. about how the company will use bacteria, along with nutrients for the organisms, to break down the residue from chrome-plating operations and a munitions washout area. Shaw has been hired by the Army to conduct cleanup of two plumes, one in the south central terrace of the depot and the other in the southwest terrace. The contract, valued at just under $20 million, will span 10 years on a pay-for-performance basis as the firm works to eliminate the contaminated water."
Category: Colorado Water
6:42:18 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the real estate costs associated with Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System, from the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Colorado Springs has budgeted $22.5 million for property acquisition and easements during the first phase of the proposed $1.1 billion Southern Delivery System. Only about $4.9 million of that would go for the raw water pipeline and pump stations, about half of which would be in Pueblo County if the route from Pueblo Dam is chosen. About $15.3 million is set aside for reservoir and treatment plant sites, while another $2.3 million would be available for the finished water pipeline and pump station land acquisition, said Dan Higgins of Colorado Springs Utilities...
SDS officials said at Monday's meeting that only one property, a house on Industrial Boulevard, of the 140 along the route in Pueblo County would have to be purchased to obtain a 100-foot-wide path through Pueblo West. Several others could be purchased, because some structures are within the pipeline path. The 66-inch diameter pipeline would be buried 12-15 feet deep in a trench through Pueblo West, with only structures like vents, drains and manholes visible from the surface, said Bruce Spiller of CH2MHill, project manager. The 100-foot wide easement is needed to allow room for equipment and staging of the project. The pipeline would cross 21 roads in Pueblo West, and most would be closed for short periods. Crews would tunnel under major roads like U.S. 50.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:39:01 AM
|
|
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb): "[Tuesday] morning we began scaling back releases from Green Mountain Dam to the Lower Blue. We dropped 150 cfs...Currently, there should be about 650 cfs in the Lower Blue. [Tuesday] afternoon around 4 p.m., we will drop releases by another 150 cfs, bringing the Lower Blue to 500 cfs through tonight. [Wednesday] morning, we will drop releases again, this time by 100 cfs. Putting the Lower Blue at 400 cfs through the day. At 4 p.m. [Wednesday] afternoon, we will drop releases for the last time by one more 100 cfs increment, leaving it at 300 cfs by the end of Wednesday night and through the weekend."
Category: Colorado Water
6:35:23 AM
|
|
Reclamation has extended the comment period for the Windy Gap environmental impact statement, according to the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:
The Windy Gap Firming Project draft environmental impact statement comment period has been extended.
The original deadline set for today, Oct. 29, has been lengthened by 62 more days, to Dec. 29, according to Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman Kara Lamb.
Various requests with reasons to prolong the comment period delivered from agencies, environmental groups and individuals influenced the decision to extend it, Lamb said.
"It's a good example of how the National Environmental Protection Act process works," she said. "It's important we get those comments so they may be included in the Environmental Impact Statement."
Comments may be sent to the Reclamation in writing by e-mail, fax or written letter. If sending comments by e-mail, the Reclamation asks that "Windy Gap EIS Comment" be indicated in the subject line.
Mail: Will Tully, Bureau of Reclamation
11056 West County Rd. 18E
Loveland, CO 80537
Fax: Will Tully, (970) 663-3212
E-mail: wtully@gp.usbr.gov (subject line "Windy Gap EIS Comment")
Copies of the draft EIS are available at local libraries for review, online at www.usbr.gov/gp/nepa/quarterly.cfm#ecao, or paper copies may be obtained by calling Kara Lamb at (970) 962-4326.
Abbreviated versions of the full-length report are found in the Executive Summary of the draft EIS.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:28:48 AM
|
|
Charlie Meyers takes on Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 in his column in today's Denver Post. From the article:
The intent of Amendment 52 perhaps is most venal of all because its purpose is not mere profit, but raw politics. No one should wonder at Big Energy telling more lies to make a buck. What we shouldn't expect is a push by alleged public servants to skin us as well. Under the guise of diverting money for repairs and improvement along Interstate 70, the measure would strip funding from watershed protection programs, forest health and the Species Conservation Trust Fund.
Now for the real rub. At the bottom of all this we find state Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, a staunch Big Energy ally and wildlife antagonist. Penry has a burning ambition to be our next governor, sooner the better. To achieve this, he must discredit the Democratic incumbent Bill Ritter, leading proponent of Amendment 58. Initiative 52 is worded to create conflicts with 58, particularly concerning natural resource affairs. Debate rages over which article will trump; court battles loom if both pass next Tuesday. Penry's ploy is so blatant that even staunch Republicans have rushed to excoriate him. "This is not where you do cutesy partisan tricks; you don't do that with our constitution," thundered Don Ament, a former Republican state senator and secretary of agriculture in the Bill Owens administration. A long list of organizations that includes every major wildlife organization, the Farm Bureau, Colorado Forum, Colorado Center on Law and Policy and virtually every water conservancy districts on both sides of the Continental Divide oppose Amendment 52. So should we all.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:20:03 AM
|
|
From the Aspen Times:
Now to the tax questions. With Referendum 1A, the county wishes to raise sales taxes by 1/10 of a penny, or 1 cent for every $10 spent, and create a Healthy Rivers and Streams fund. With a sales tax, of course, both locals and visitors contribute; the tax would produce about $1 million annually.
The fund would be used to help ensure minimum flows in local waterways -- to preserve trout populations, to protect riparian ecology and to guarantee water for snowmaking, rafting, angling and other activities that buttress our tourism-based economy. As Colorado's population approaches 5 million and there are more demands on our limited water supplies, from Front Range real estate interests to Western Slope energy development, it makes absolute sense for Pitkin County to have money set aside (and administered by a citizen board, like the county's open space program) to protect our water; this could mean partnering with other entities to buy or lease water rights, or just helping to ensure a seat at the table when water lawyers gather to discuss the state's next storage project or transmountain diversion.
Yes, this is a new function for the county, and an expansion of the local government. But if not the county, then who? It may not feel urgent now, but it will be someday.
Category: Colorado Water
6:15:04 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
11/1/08; 8:17:21 PM.
|
|
|
