Veterans Day

Take the time today to thank a veteran for their service.

Coyote Gulch outage

I’m heading down the two-lane blacktop with Mrs. Gulch for a little business and a little R&R. Posting may be intermittent until next Monday.

2009 Ag Water Summit

From The Fence Post:

The 2009 Ag Water Summit will be Dec. 1 at the Jefferson County Fairgounds, 15200 W. 6th Ave., Golden. The summit will be presented by the Colorado Ag Water Alliance, Colorado Ag Council and the Jefferson County office of Colorado State University Extension. It will begin the evening before with a network reception at the Marriott Denver West where Gov. Bill Ritter has been invited to speak. The summit will feature a keynote by Pat O’Toole, president of the Family Farm Alliance and will include legislative and budget issues, optimizing irrigation water, “new water” needs, alternatives to ag transfers and alternatives to “buy and dry.”

Registration deadline is Nov. 20; cost is $50 for ag producers, $75 for nonproducers. For registration and other information, call Crystal Korrey (303) 749-7502 or e-mail ckorrey@colofb.com.

More Colorado water coverage here.

Old Dillon Reservoir expansion update

From the Summit Daily News (Bob Berwyn):

Completion of the environmental analysis is a huge step forward for the $6.4 million project. The agency will take public comment on the environmental analysis for 30 days. Local officials hope to begin construction next summer. Dillon, Silverthorne and Summit County will share the cost of the project, which, first and foremost, would help bolster Dillon’s water supplies. The town relies mainly on surface water from Straight Creek, a source that’s susceptible to pollution. The town also felt a pinch during the 2002 drought, when Straight Creek flows dropped to record low levels.

The proposed project includes seven elements:

— enlarging the existing reservoir from 62 acre-feet to 288 acre-feet (an acre-foot is 326,000 gallons, so the capacity would go from a little over 2 million gallons to about 10.5 million gallons);

— restoring the outlet from ODR to the south to the Blue River (now Dillon Reservoir);

— reconstructing the head gate on Salt Lick Gulch and piping the entire length of the Dillon Ditch to serve the enlarged reservoir and improving the siphon under I-70;

— rehabilitating the outlet to Salt Lick Gulch;

— temporary road access improvements;

— burying existing overhead utility lines around Old Dillon Reservor; and

— wetland creation.

About 20 acres of wetlands would be affected by the reservoir enlargement, but the impacts would be addressed by adding new wetland on the southwest shorelines of the reservoir. In the long run, there would no net impact to recreational uses in the area, according to Paul Semmer, land specialist with the Dillon Ranger District. The enlargement of the reservoir would actually decrease total diversions from the Salt Lick Gulch drainage from 573 acre feet to 450 acre feet. The reservoir and dams would permanently impact 10.1 acres of forest and meadow habitat in the project area, according to the draft study.

More Old Dillon Reservoir coverage here.

Colorado Springs City Council moving to dissolve stormwater enterprise fund

After last week’s election Colorado Springs Mayor Rivera claimed that Issue 300 would have no effect on the city’s stormwater enterprise fund. This week he’s saying that the people have spoken and that controlling stormwater runoff should be borne by the city’s general fund. Here’s a report from Daniel Chaćon writing for The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

“I’m convinced that when people were voting on it, their primary vote was to eliminate or phase out the Stormwater Enterprise,” said Mayor Lionel Rivera, who previously maintained that Issue 300 would not affect the Stormwater Enterprise. The council’s about-face followed last week’s crushing defeat on Election Day, when voters slammed the door on a proposed property tax increase while approving a measure anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce succeeded in placing on the ballot that phases out payments to the city from city-owned enterprises. Although some city officials had questioned whether Bruce’s measure affected fees collected from residents for the Stormwater Enterprise’s drainage projects, the council Monday told the city manager to prepare a recommendation on how to do away with the enterprise and associated fee with critical projects still in the pipeline.

More stormwater coverage here.

Fort Morgan: Emergency teams train to respond to chlorine leak

From The Fort Morgan Times (Dan Barker):

This was not a real leak, but a training exercise meant to prepare those at the water plant and emergency responders in case there is ever a leak of the deadly gas, and a chance to see how well everyone had prepared for it. Tanks of liquid and gaseous chlorine are stored in an air-tight bay at the plant, used to make sure bacteria are killed before water goes to users in Fort Morgan, said employee Matt Padgett.

More water treatment coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County Commissioners vote to oppose S. 1215, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act

From the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Garfield County commissioners voted 2–1 Monday in opposition to legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver. The bill would subject fracturing to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and require disclosure of chemicals used in the process. The vote disappointed several county residents who attended Monday’s commissioner meeting and fear fracturing could contaminate drinking water. But Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin said the oil and gas industry is better off being regulated at the state level…

But fellow Commissioner Tresi Houpt, who also sits on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, questioned the contention that the bill would drive up costs. She added, “Why are we talking about costs? Why aren’t we talking about safety and health and welfare?”[...]

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association said in a news release that Garfield County joins Delta, Mesa, Moffat, Morgan, Rio Blanco, Washington, Weld and Yuma counties in opposing DeGette’s bill. The nine counties represent nearly 44 percent of the state’s gas production. By contrast, the two counties that have supported the legislation, Pitkin and San Miguel, are responsible for less than 1 percent of statewide production, the association says. Industry officials worry that the federal regulation could result in fees of up to $100,000 per well and in lengthy permitting delays that would harm domestic production…

The industry says there’s never been a documented case of fracturing contaminating groundwater. Rifle-area resident Jim Golden said he’s tired of hearing the argument that contamination is just anecdotal, and said Garfield commissioners have heard from plenty of people who are suffering as a result of drilling. “It’s absolutely horrible to have to stand up to our own local government to fight for your health and safety,” he told the commissioners…

[Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin], both Republicans, won elections last November after benefiting from independent campaign expenditures from energy-related interests. For Samson, a newcomer to office, Monday was perhaps his most significant energy-related vote to date. All three commissioners said they heard from numerous constituents regarding the fracturing legislation, and county staff members told commissioners they received thousands of comments.

More coverage from the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson) via The Aspen Times. From the article:

Despite evidence of significant sentiment to the contrary among the electorate, two Garfield County commissioners voted this week to oppose federal legislation which would put the oil and gas industry partly under the control of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Commissioner Trési Houpt, the lone Democrat on the county board, said she supported what is known as the FRAC (for Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, introduced in both houses of Congress last summer. But Republican Commissioners John Martin and Mike Samson cast the deciding votes for a resolution that endorses a continued exemption for the gas drilling industry from the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, which is administered by the EPA…

Residents in Colorado and other states, living near the drilling operations, have reported getting sick themselves, watching livestock die and experiencing everything from exploding domestic water wells to finding foul-smelling slicks covering nearby waterways — all of which they believe are related to the drilling activities and the chemicals used in the frac’ing process. The energy companies, however, argue that there have never been “documented” cases of groundwater contaminated by drilling rigs, and that the FRAC Act would cause regulatory delays and increased costs for their activities.

In a wide-ranging discussion before the vote, Martin and Samson framed their decision in terms of upholding states rights against unwanted federal interference, arguing that the state could regulate the industry better. At one point Martin said that the state’s right to regulate the state’s waters goes all the way back to an 18th century “navigable waters” law passed by an early Congress. “Do you want to have the federal government come in and tell you what’s going to happen?” he asked the crowd of 25 or so at the meeting, or should it be left to what he called “the local voice”? Samson, who represents voters on the western end of the county, submitted a resolution that essentially mimicked a resolution adopted on Sept. 11, 2009, by Club 20, a Western Slope business organization. The organization lists a number of well-known energy companies as its sponsors, and nine of its 22 member counties have come out against the FRAC Act…

Paul Light of the [Grand Valley Citizens Alliance], pointing to a recent poll indicating that a majority of the region’s voters favor increased regulation of the industry, added that “the real battle is [not between federal and state regulators, but] between the industry and the people trying to drink the water.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Parker: Rueter-Hess Reservoir update

So far Parker and its partners in Rueter-Hess Reservoir — currently under construction southwest of the city — do not have enough surface water to fill the 77,000 acre-feet reservoir. Here’s a report from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

The prospect of what critics call an empty bathtub is generating anxiety around Colorado as water managers clash over the last unclaimed mountain river flows. Most water to fill the Rueter-Hess reservoir “will have to be imported,” said Frank Jaeger, manager of the Parker Water and Sanitation District, who for 25 years has led the effort to supply 450,000 suburban residents. Importing water would require multibillion-dollar pumping and piping from rivers running down the western side of the Continental Divide, such as the Colorado, back across mountains to Front Range residents, Jaeger said. Though huge, the costs likely would be less than for alternatives such as trapping and treating contaminated water from the South Platte or Arkansas rivers, he said. The option Jaeger and a Colorado-Wyoming coalition of municipal suppliers favor — one of four being considered by state natural resources officials — would divert water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in western Wyoming along Interstate 80 to Colorado…

Yet Colorado Western Slope leaders see the $230 million Rueter-Hess reservoir as folly — and bristle at talk of diverting more water across the mountains to fill it. The reservoir “is 20 times more expensive, and 10 times as big as they need. It’s going to be a little bit of water in a big bathtub,” said Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, based in Glenwood Springs. The financing, based on tap fees from anticipated housing construction, “is the water equivalent of a Ponzi scheme,” Kuhn said…”There’s a very good chance that, in the long run, there’s not going to be any more water available on the Western Slope. And, if they’re having trouble now paying for Rueter-Hess, how are they going to pay for moving water from the Western Slope? That’s why I say this is a fairy tale,” Kuhn said…

This month, more construction vehicles are rolling into action to build up the 7,700-foot-wide Frank Jaeger Dam at the reservoir. Critics “can make their claims,” but the reservoir will be crucial to sustain population growth, Jaeger said. Paying off the debt for the construction now underway all depends on tax revenues from future growth, he said. “To say, ‘We’ll just shut off growth’ will only exacerbate problems,” he said. “If you don’t pay off debt, what do you do? What does that do to the economy of the whole state? We need steady, controlled growth. All our needs for a reasonable lifestyle are tied into this.”

More Rueter-Hess coverage here and here.

Town of Fraser to absorb newly dissolved Fraser Sanitation District operations

From…[T]he Sky-Hi Daily News (Reid Armstrong):

the Town of Fraser has a little less than eight weeks to accomplish a laundry list of items required to absorb the district. Failing to meet this deadline could cost the town $100,000 said town manager Jeff Durbin…

Whereas the district’s employees are currently responsible for both the wastewater collections system and operations at the plant, all three employees will now be exclusively in charge of plant management and operations, Durbin said. The towns’ department of public works will dedicate an existing employee to deal with the wastewater collections system.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to host celebration for $5 million in funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit Friday November 13

From the La Junta Tribune-Democrat:

It will be on the south bank of the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam. People are asked to arrive by 10:45 a.m. by traveling west on Colorado Highway 96, turning right on Juniper Road and following directions to the park and event site. The public is invited to participate in the event.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

America’s most toxic cities

Many Coyote Gulch readers live in the Denver metro area. You’ll be happy to know that according to Forbes you live in the 27th most contaminated area in the U.S. — amongst the 40 largest metropolitan areas — based on poor air quality, lack of clean water and a high rate of environmental hazards. Here’s the report from Francesca Levy writing for Forbes. From the article:

To determine which cities are most toxic, Forbes looked at the country’s 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas–geographic entities that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines and uses in collecting statistics–based on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area’s principal city. The reports vary in seriousness, and not all require clean-up action from the EPA.

More water pollution coverage here.

CWCB: Live Water Supply Briefing — 2009 Water Year Review and 2010 Look Ahead, November 10

From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Ben Wade):

In lieu of a Water Availability Task Force meeting this month CWCB will be partnering with The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) for a Live Water Supply Briefing: 2009 Water Year Review and 2010 Look Ahead. Following the basin wide discussion there will be a Colorado specific presentation which will examine the current situation in Western Colorado, soil moisture conditions and a seasonal outlook. The entire webinar will last about two hours.

This first hour will take a basin wide look and will have two foci: (1) a review of the 2009 water year and an evaluation of the 2009 water supply forecasts and (2) a look ahead to 2010 including plans for future webinars and forecast services. The second hour, immediately following, will be led by Colorado Climate Center and the National Integrated Drought Information Service (NIDIS) and will focus on Western Colorado conditions as well as the NIDIS Upper Colorado River pilot project underway.

The briefing is composed of two parts, a telephone conference call and a web-based presentation. The conference call can be accessed by dialing 1-877-929-0660 a few minutes prior to the start of the call and entering the access code of 1706374. To view the web-based presentation, you will need to sign up prior to the briefing by clicking on REGISTER to sign up. A confirmation email will be sent to you and you can follow instructions from there to join the webinar.

For those unable to view the web-based presentation, you can follow the presentation by clicking web links that will be posted on the CBRFC site prior to the call.

Please contact Ben Wade atBen.Wade@state.co.usor 303-866-3441 ext. 3238 with any questions.

Here’s the link to the Interbasin Compact Committee Annual Report (pdf) published October 30. Here’s the link to the Water Supply Reserve Account Annual Report (pdf) also published on October 30.

More CWCB coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease 799.2 acres near Mt. Princeton hot springs for geothermal exploration on November 12

Update: From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times:

The Bureau of Land Management had planned to offer 800 acres of public property for geothermal during its auction this month, but will postpone action on the proposed lease until its February auction. Federal officials want more time to study the potential effects of geothermal development on water and property rights.

From The Chaffee County Times (Danny Bay):

According to the SRHA, anyone has the right to enter these federally owned sub-surface lands, prospect, and file a mining claim and plan of operation. Since the geothermal resource sits underground, it is sub-surface land. This is the basis for the sale on Nov. 12, the first geothermal lease to be auctioned by the BLM in the state of Colorado. It is open to anyone who chooses to register. Henderson said that the new owner of the federal lease will only have up to one year to create what will lead to the development of the resource. “They can’t sit on it indefinitely,” Henderson said.

But what [Buena Vista resident Steve] Glover said horrifies him is that if a developer does begin commercial production of electricity, the lease becomes open permanently. “They can ramp it up from a small project and no one could do a blessed thing about it,” he said, adding that it has the potential to expand vastly and turn one of the most aesthetically beautiful parts of Colorado into a semi-permanent industrial area…

Bill Bennett, energy use adviser for Sangre De Cristo Electric Association, said he thinks a plant could be hidden very well by building it inside, like something similar to a greenhouse or by putting bunkers around it to shield the noise. “Geothermal can run 24 hours with no down capacity. A 10-megawatt plant could supply 84 percent of all the electricity we supply all year. There are people who understand that it has no consumption, no combustion and no pollution, but they just don’t want to look at it,” Bennett said.

In response to this, Glover referenced a Salt Lake Tribune article about a 10-megawatt geothermal plant in Utah that, after six months of generating power, produces only one megawatt of net energy and buys almost as much electricity to keep the plant running as the plant produces. “There seems to be a real rush to do this. There’s a lot of ego involved in being the first to do it and I understand this. But it could come at a great cost and it should be carefully considered,” Glover said. “It would be a shame to so easily allow this to go forward.”

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Leadville residents want everyone to have a voice in California Gulch superfund operations

From the Leadville Herald Democrat (Ann E. Wibbenmeyer):

Members of the Citizens’ Advisory Group, appointed by the Lake County commissioners to advise the county on Superfund issues, were vocal in their demand for a non-appointed board for an as-yet-unformed Community Advisory Group during another formation meeting on Oct. 27. The guidelines for forming the latter group were given to Mayor Bud Elliott and Commissioner Mike Bordogna by Jennifer Lane, community involvement coordinator for the Environmental Protection Agency. Bordogna and Elliott wanted to make sure that the community had a say in pending decisions about the California Gulch Superfund Site. A Community Advisory Group, or CAG, is the EPA’s structure for ensuring community participation in EPA decisions, according to Lane. The first formation meeting was held in August, with renewed community interest in the issues. The group agreed to hire a facilitator to help structure the process of creating the group that would advise the EPA of the Lake County input on Superfund issues.

At the Oct. 27 meeting, with about 40 people in attendance, the people from the county-appointed group argued that anyone who showed up to any future meeting should be able to vote on the decisions, as opposed to just having certain people appointed to the committee. According to Bill Klauber, who is with the county-appointed group, this is the only way to ensure that every voice is heard. If a person doesn’t have a vote at the table, then that person’s voice is not being heard, he said.

More California Gulch coverage here and here.

Colorado State Parks to close most reservoirs to boating this winter to aid in the fight against invasive mussels

From the Northern Colorado Business Report:

Parks that have already closed ramps include: Barr Lake, Bonny Lake, Crawford, Elkhead Reservoir, Harvey Gap, Highline Lake, Lathrop, Mancos, John Martin Reservoir, North Sterling, Paonia, Pearl Lake, Ridgway, Rifle Gap, San Luis, Stagecoach, Sweitzer and Vega. Steamboat Lake State Park closed its ramps Friday. State parks with ramps closing Dec. 1 include Boyd Lake, Chatfield, Cherry Creek, Eleven Mile, Jackson Lake, Navajo, Spinney Mountain and Trinidad Lake. However, those ramps could close earlier if the lakes freeze.

More invasive species coverage here and here.

Uncompahgre River: Montrose River Corridor Work Group reaches consensus on recommendations for the riparian environmnent

From the Montrose Daily Press (Katie O’Hare):

Thursday — after five, two-hour meetings spanning over the past few months – the work group presented their recommendations to Montrose City Council during its work session. “It was a balance between property rights and protecting the river,” said group member Shawn Lund, a local boater and teacher. The group was able to reach a major agreement, being that a river buffer was needed in Montrose to preserve the river and riparian environment, protect water quality and wildlife habitat, preserve the view shed and to provide clarity and guidance to future development, said group member Ben Tisdel, local developer and member of Friends of the River Uncompahgre (FORU)…

The group agreed that there should be an overall buffer of 100 feet from the average yearly high water mark (HWM), and within that 100-foot buffer, there’s to be two different zones, a “no-go zone” and “slow-go zone.” (Disagreements arose on the width of the no-go zone.) The no-go zone would be 40 feet from the HWM. Within this area, there would be no buildings, linear trials or disturbance of native riparian vegetation allowed. However, short-distance, soft surface trails and usual, customary uses, such as a boat ramp, would be allowed. The slow-go zone would be the area between 40 feet and 100 feet. To develop within this zone, a person would need to obtain city permission, such as a special use permit. The method would be decided by city staff, Tisdel said, and could be processed through the planning commission similar to other permits. Any development within the slow-go zone must enhance the river corridor, such as a business that faces the river with a patio. Those that to not enhance the river corridor, such as a warehouse, would need to be screened. The group recommended that there be stricter “performance standard” as one gets closer to the 40-foot zone and that city staff work out such details, like requiring a building to sit as far back on the lot as possible. Residential single-family homes are exempt from the screening requirement.

More Uncompahgre River watershed coverage here and here.

Erie: New wastewater treatment plant

From the Erie Review (Chalan Harper):

On Nov. 9, city officials will gather to break ground on the town’s next significant upgrade — a 3.5 million gallons-per-day wastewater treatment facility. When the facility opens — construction is set to be completed by April 2011, according to officials — it will begin operation with a 1.5 million gallons-per-day capacity which will be increased over time. The planned facility will be constructed on an 11-acre plot north of State Highway 52 and east of County Line Road. The site will also include 51 acres for a reclaimed water reservoir and an additional 23-acre open space buffer. The building has also been designed to have a low impact, in case of future development in surrounding areas. “We’re going with a low-impact, ranch-style design that will fit in with the environment,” town spokesperson Fred Diehl said. The project has been in the works for about five or six years, Diehl said this week. Recently, the town’s trustees accepted a proposal for a guaranteed maximum price of $20,112,262 for the facility.

More wastewater coverage here.

Colorado Supreme Court rules against Pagosa Water and Sanitation District conditional water rights while holding that a 2055 planning horizon is reasonable

From The Pagosa Springs Sun (Chuck McGuire):

In this most recent ruling, the high court upheld the districts’ 50-year planning horizon decreed by Judge Gregory G. Lyman of District Court, Water Division 7 in a September 2008 ruling, and endorsed the districts’ planning approach to maintain a one-year water safety supply margin in its storage reservoirs. For a second time, however, the Supreme Court also remanded the case back to the District 7 Water Court for additional evidence regarding specified decree provisions and determination of “water amounts reasonably necessary to serve the districts’ reasonably anticipated needs in the 2055 period, above its current water supply.”[...]

In a press release issued Tuesday, a districts representative stated, “In its opinion, the Supreme Court endorsed statewide water rights planning efforts recently coordinated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Supreme Court opinion also linked land use planning requirements recently enacted by the Colorado General Assembly to water court determinations of conditional water rights. In doing so, the Court introduced unprecedented legal elements into future water court determinations. “Additional trial before the Water Court will enable the Districts to extend their evidence of long-term growth patterns within Archuleta County in support of their 50-year water rights planning horizon and to demonstrate the actual reliability of water rights upon which the Districts currently depend.”[...]

From TU’s point of view, however, the Supreme Court decision reinforced the principle that Colorado municipalities must base water projects on clearly demonstrated and credible projections of future need. “The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that it will not tolerate public utilities speculating in water,” said Drew Peternell, director of TU’s Colorado Water Project, who argued the case before the state’s highest court. “This is a victory for reality-based water planning.”[...]

In its most recent appeal, TU argued that the districts’ revised figures were still not in line with credible future water use projections and amounted to speculation. In Monday’s decision, the high court unanimously agreed, finding insufficient evidence to support the quantities of water Lyman awarded, either in direct flow rights or storage. In its decree, the Supreme Court ruled that the 23,500-acre-foot size approved by the water court is based on “speculative claims, at least in part.” In response, TU insists that, “Unless the Pagosa districts can now demonstrate a ‘substantial probability’ that a reservoir of that size is needed to meet future needs, the water court must reduce the amount of their claimed water.”

More water law coverage here.

Meanwhile, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District board approved a change in the diversion plan for Dry Gulch Reservoir recently. Here’s a report from Chuck McQuire writing for The Pagosa Springs Sun. From the article:

According to engineers, the modified plan will reduce water treatment costs while meeting current and short-term future demands, preserve senior West Fork water rights and allow incremental system development as needed…

As designed, Option 6A involves reconstruction of the Snowball pipeline from the West Fork diversion to a proposed treatment plant at Dry Gulch. Until development of the Dry Gulch plant is necessary, the Snowball treatment plant will be upgraded and expanded, while a segment of the Snowball pipeline (leading to the Snowball plant) is maintained. As the Dry Gulch plant is eventually built, workers will connect both plants with a new pipeline, and construct the pipeline from Dry Gulch to the cemetery tank. Meanwhile, as engineers further scrutinized the original options, they also realized that the quality of water coming from the West Fork was notably superior to that found in the main stem of the San Juan. By continuing to utilize West Fork water, PAWSD could reduce projected water purification costs, while maintaining stringent water quality requirements. Also, because the elevation of the West Fork diversion is hundreds of feet higher than the proposed Dry Gulch treatment plant, it will naturally pressurize the plant, thereby reducing the cost of building and operating expensive pumps. Too, building a new diversion at the Dry Gulch site would require transfer of the Snowball water rights from the West Fork to the main stem, through a Colorado Water Conservation Board in-stream flow water right. Based on discussions with the CWCB, doing so would likely result in subordinating the Snowball rights to the CWCB right, thus removing them from priority much of the year. The end result would be a less-than-firm water supply for District Two. According to PAWSD, Option 6A will allow system development in stages, as funding and demand dictates. An upgraded Snowball treatment plant and a newly-aligned Snowball pipeline segment around the Jackson Mountain slide area would come first, with an upgraded stretch between the slide area and the West Fork diversion next. Eventually, as the Dry Gulch treatment plant is built, an extended line would connect it and the Snowball treatment plant.

More Dry Gulch Reservoir coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Sheep Mountain Alliance files lawsuit against Montrose County Commissioners over Piñon Ridge uranium mill special use permit

From The Telluride Watch (Karen James):

In a complaint filed in District Court last week local conservation group Sheep Mountain Alliance alleged that the Montrose County Commissioners violated county zoning rules and abused their discretion when in September they unanimously approved a special use permit allowing the construction and operation of a uranium mill on 880 acres in Paradox Valley zoned for agricultural use. “Our main point is the industrial use in an agricultural zone,” said plaintiff’s attorney Travis Stills of the Durango-based Energy Minerals Law Center describing the grounds for the lawsuit against Chairman David White, Vice Chairman Gary Ellis, and Commissioner Ron Henderson…

The suit also charged that Montrose County Planning and Development Director Steve White abused his discretion and acted beyond his authority when making decisions regarding the special use permit application filed in July 2008 by Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Toronto-based Energy Fuels Inc…

Finally the complaint alleges that a meeting took place in March 2008 between EFRC representatives, the BOCC, three Montrose County employees, a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment employee, and one member of the public in violation of state open meetings laws. At that meeting transportation, water, use of uranium, jobs and salaries, and the contents of the special use permit application were discussed, according to the complaint. The Colorado Sunshine Law states that, “All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” Although no minutes were taken nor a recording made, the BOCC made several decisions regarding the proposed mill at that meeting including one to seek a special use permit for the agricultural district as a means to approve the EFRC proposal, according to the complaint. “As best as we can tell the decisions were arrived at outside the public process,” said Stills, who wrote in the court filing that “These decisions predetermined the outcome of the challenged [special use permit] proceedings and constitute an abuse of discretion and actions in exceedance of authority.”

Meanwhile, nuclear power plant developer Alternate Energy Holdings is shopping a combination nuclear/solar plant to state lawmakers, according to The Durango Telegraph. From the article:

The company has spotlighted Colorado because of its commitment to clean energy and replacing aging coal plants. Alternate Energy Holdings CEO Don Gillispie told Colorado Energy News, said the company was encouraged by the support from businessmen, labor leaders, politicians and members of the state’s administration. “They clearly understand that nuclear plants not only create clean power necessary to help with environmental challenges, but low-cost, reliable energy to stabilize the electric grid while creating thousands of high-paying jobs,” he said.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

CWCB meeting November 16-18 in Denver

From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Lisa Barr):

The Colorado Water Conservation Board is meeting on November 16-18, 2009, at the CWCB Offices, 1580 Logan Street, Suite 610, Denver, CO 80203.

The agenda is available on the CWCB website. CWCB staff memos and other materials will be available November 13, 2009, on our website.

The meeting will be “streamed” via the internet through the CWCB’s website. Click on the “Listen to the meeting LIVE!” link, found on our home page.

If you need more information about this Board meeting, please contact Lisa Barr at lisa.barr@state.co.us.

More CWCB coverage here.

Public comment sought on Moffat Project

Here’s the release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney):

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project, which proposes to enlarge Gross Reservoir north of Boulder.

Denver Water is proposing the project to help resolve three major water supply challenges it is facing:

1. the risk of a near-term water supply shortfall;
2. the risk of running out of water in the north end of its system during a single dry year;
3. and a serious imbalance in its water collection system, in which about 80 percent of the supply exists on the south side of the system.

The project is part of Denver Water’s multi-pronged water strategy to increase supply and decrease demand by implementing an aggressive conservation plan, completing and expanding its recycled water distribution system and developing additional water supply.

“Our customers have done an excellent job of conserving water, and we have been completing our recycled water system,” said David Little, director of planning. “These strategies are helping extend our supplies into the future. It is imperative, however, that we develop additional supply to correct the imbalance in our system and secure water for our future. We believe the best solution is to produce new water supply by expanding an existing reservoir instead of building a new reservoir.”

The Moffat Collection System Project proposes raising Gross Dam by approximately 125 feet. Gross Reservoir is fed by tributaries of the Colorado River and South Boulder Creek, and feeds the north side of Denver Water’s system. If approved, the Moffat Project would produce 18,000 acre-feet of new supply — enough water for roughly 45,000 households annually.

“We have been working with interest groups and local agencies to develop plans to offset environmental impacts of the Moffat Project and to provide significant environmental enhancements for the communities affected by the project,” said Little. “Denver Water is committed to encouraging wise use of the water we serve and to using our facilities and resources to enhance the environment in the watersheds we use.”

Denver Water, Grand County, the cities of Boulder and Lafayette, environmental groups and others still are discussing the proposed environmental enhancements, which go far beyond what the Corps requires for mitigating impacts caused by the Moffat Collection System Project. These enhancements will benefit tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand County and South Boulder Creek in Boulder County, among other locations.

The enhancements offered by Denver Water include:

- up to 2,000 acre-feet of additional water for augmenting streamflow in Grand County;
- $2 million for improving water quality in Grand County;
- $2 million for stream modifications to improve aquatic habitat in Grand County; and
- a partnership with Boulder and Lafayette to provide 5,000 acre-feet of storage space in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to improve aquatic habitat in South Boulder Creek.

Denver Water is encouraging public participation in the two federal regulatory processes occurring for the Moffat Collection System Project. The two processes are:

An amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Gross Reservoir hydropower license<br.
An application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Draft EIS and Draft FERC Hydropower License Amendment were published Friday, Oct. 30. Each document has a 90-day comment period ending Jan. 28, 2010.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold three Public Hearings on the Draft EIS. At each location, Denver Water will hold an Open House from 4 to 6 p.m. The Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.:

Tues., Dec. 1 — Boulder Country Club, 7350 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, CO 80301
Wed., Dec. 2 — Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446
Thurs., Dec. 3 — Doubletree Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207

See more information on how to comment on the Draft EIS and Draft FERC Amendment.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Colorado Springs and El Paso County disagree over measures to collect from Stormwater scofflaws

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Eileen Welsome):

The city wants to turn over nearly 10,000 past-due accounts to the county treasurer for collection by mid-November, but the treasurer is being cautioned against putting them on the 2010 property tax bills.

County Attorney William Louis sent a letter to County Treasurer Sandra Damron on Oct. 30, warning that the city-owned Stormwater Enterprise, which residents voted to phase out in Tuesday’s election, might not be entitled to use the county treasurer’s office to collect the fees. “Although hospitals and golf courses are operated by the private sector as well as by the public sector, there is no private sector hospital or golf course that can avail itself of this coercive power,” the letter states.

Normally, the county treasurer simply acts as a middleman, collecting the taxes and then passing them back to municipalities. But if the stormwater fees are, in fact, a fee and not a tax, the city should be barred from using “government’s most coercive powers, the tax lien collection process,” to collect payments, Louis writes.

More stormwater coverage here and here.

Did the Zipingpu Reservoir cause the devastating 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China?

From Trak.in News:

To evaluate the possible effect of the Zipingpu Reservoir on the Wenchuan earthquake, Shemin Ge from the University of Colorado and his team constructed a two-dimensional model to study how the reservoir changed the stresses on the nearby faults. The researchers considered changes in static stress due to weight of the water and changes in pore pressure in the rocks beneath the reservoir due to fluid diffusion. They estimated that the Zipingpu reservoir increased stress on the nearby faults by enough to have speeded up their rupture by tens to hundreds of years. The researchers pointed out that resolving the question of whether the Zipingpu Reservoir contributed to the Wenchuan earthquake is important for understanding reservoir and earthquake hazards, especially in regions where dams are being rapidly built near faults.

Nitrogen and high mountain lakes

From the Associated Press (Judith Kohler) via CBS4Denver.com:

Airborne nitrogen pollution from vehicle exhaust and farm fertilizer is turning algae in the alpine lakes of Rocky Mountain National Park into junk food for fish, a study says…

Arizona State University professor James Elser, the study’s lead author, said the effect of airborne nitrogen on once-pristine lakes is greater than previously believed. The nitrogen’s sources include vehicle exhaust, fertilizer used on farms and livestock feed lots and power plant emissions. More nitrogen can reduce long-term lake biodiversity because algae become poor food for other microscopic organisms and, ultimately, fish. The algae are high in nitrogen, but low in phosphorous and less nutritious. Previous studies have documented rising nitrogen levels in Rocky Mountain National Park, 70 miles northwest of Denver. Elser likened the algae to junk food. “It’s like eating marshmallows all day and expecting to grow. You can’t do it,” he said Thursday.

Colorado Division of Wildlife Native Species Hatchery sends 3,000 Roundtail chubs to San Juan River

From the Associated Press via The Durango Herald:

The New Mexico Game and Fish Department announced Wednesday that the fish were released into the river in late October. Roundtail chub were once found throughout the Colorado River basin, including the San Juan River and its tributaries in New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. The species was listed as threatened under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act in 1975 and uplisted to endangered in 1996.

They were stocked in the San Juan near the confluence with the Animas River, high in the system in the hope that they will disperse downstream into suitable habitat.

More endangered species coverage here and here.