HB 10-1159 dies on the state house floor

From The Greeley Tribune:

Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, right, said had the bill passed, it would have hurt farmers along the South Platte River. The bill, introduced by Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, was defeated by a 40-21 vote. “If this bill passes you just as well paint a big red target on the back of farmers in eastern Colorado,” Sonnenberg argued during the debate last Friday. “Anytime you add more hurdles when trying to move Colorado’s water, you make it more difficult and cities will take the path of least resistance to obtain their needs. That path is ag water,” Sonnenberg said in a press release.

More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: Chaffee County update

From The Denver Post (Mark Jaffe):

The Bureau of Land Management last month postponed the geothermal-lease sale scheduled for Thursday of 800 acres in Chaffee County to do further environmental reviews. It was the third time the bureau has postponed the sale. “They keep changing the rules,” said James Jones, the oil-and-gas landman who nominated the parcel for lease sale.

The outpouring of opposition — more than 240 protest letters and a five-hour meeting with 170 area residents — prompted the delay, said Lynn Rust, the bureau’s state deputy director for lands, energy and minerals. “Mr. Jones has expressed his concerns,” said Rust. “We just feel we have to go in and deal with public concerns.”

Jones said he nominated the area in the Chalk Creek Valley based on Colorado Geological Survey data. “It is the hottest and most active site in the state,” said Jones, who switched to developing geothermal resources when the oil-and- gas industry declined. Many issues opponents are raising cannot be addressed until after a lease is issued and there is a proposed project, said Jones, adding: “I will not be the man to ruin the Chalk Creek Valley.”[...]

The November sale was postponed, [Fred Henderson, head of locally based Mount Princeton Geothermal LLC] said, because the bureau and the state had not worked out an agreement on regulating geothermal wells — which fall under Colorado water law. The bureau and the state Department of Natural Resources are still negotiating that water agreement. “This has become a quagmire,” said Syd Schieren, who lives in the valley and operates a commercial geothermal greenhouse and hot-springs vacation cabins. The reason, Schieren said, is the bureau’s failure to do proper public outreach and adequately assess the site — which encompasses steep cliffs and a flood plain. “They really didn’t do an on-site analysis,” Schieren said. “They tried to go too fast.”

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek: Environmental groups, Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner and Pueblo Councilor Larry Atencio pushing for stricter state standards

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The [Colorado Water Quality Control Commission] voted to keep Fountain Creek impaired for selenium from Colorado 47 to its confluence with the Arkansas River and added a seasonal impairment, from May to October, for E. coli. The portion of Fountain Creek from the Monument Creek confluence to Colorado 47 was deemed impaired year-round for E. coli, but received no designation for selenium. “There just wasn’t enough data in order to list selenium on the upper reach,” said John Klomp, a member of the commission from Pueblo.

The decision represents a partial victory for environmental groups that argued for impairment of both reaches for E. coli and selenium, based on data that show Fountain Creek is nearing annual limits. After meetings with various parties, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division revised its initial recommendations to make the standards tougher for E. coli north of Pueblo and to retain selenium as a listed contaminant. “We heard a lot of testimony at the hearing and I feel comfortable with the decision we made,” Klomp said. “In particular, I’m glad we decided to continue listing E. coli annually with the problems we’ve seen downstream in Pueblo.”[...]

Colorado Springs Utilities supported the initial recommendations of Colorado Water Quality Control Division staff to list E. coli as a seasonal impairment for just six months and to not list selenium on both stretches. E. coli is an indicator of the presence of bacteria in the water, and some studies have shown the major causes may be from nonpoint sources other than sewer plants. For instance, a study by the U.S. Geological Survey completed on Upper Fountain Creek (above the Monument Creek confluence) concluded pigeons in Manitou Springs were the most probable source of bacteria in the way. Source studies have not been completed on the reaches of Fountain Creek affected by Monday’s decision, however. Data compiled by the state and other agencies show the levels of E. coli are highest in warmer months when there is more water in the creek. Selenium is an element essential to life but toxic in high concentrations. Studies show it probably loads as water passes over Pierre shale formations that are found throughout the Pueblo area.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission on Monday heard arguments about a state proposal to list Fountain Creek from its confluence with Monument Creek to the Arkansas River as only seasonally impaired for E. coli and not impaired for selenium.

The Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition, Sierra Club and Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut are challenging the proposal, saying the creek should be listed as impaired for E. coli, an indicator of potentially harmful bacteria, and selenium, a necessary element for living things that is harmful or deadly in elevated concentrations. Their arguments center on the potential for future limits on wastewater discharges to increase. Atencio and Chostner, both members of the newly formed Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District board, point to plans that would increase future recreational use of Fountain Creek in Pueblo and urged the Water Quality Commission to adopt the stricter standards.

The city is working with Colorado Springs and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District to develop a park at the confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River. They said this will lead to year-round use, not just the May-October recreation season Colorado Springs attorney Richard Griffith argued for in a Jan. 27 statement. “Contrary to the statements made by Colorado Springs Utilities . . . we envision that, in the near future, Confluence Park will support recreational activities such as kayaking and canoeing, fishing, wading or just leisurely enjoy(ing) a walk by the creek,” Chostner and Atencio wrote in a joint letter last week to the commission. They also alluded to two recent decisions that “call into question El Paso County’s commitment to water quality on Fountain Creek” — the demise of Colorado Springs stormwater enterprise and the decision by El Paso County commissioners to allow a gravel pit opposed by the Fountain Creek district. “Water quality standards cannot be relaxed,” Chostner and Atencio told the water quality board. “Your action is vital in improving water quality in Fountain Creek, given the recent indifference shown by upstream users.”

Colorado Springs also answered charges by the environmental groups, in a motion last week from Kenneth Burgess, deputy city attorney for Utilities. Burgess took issue with the environmental groups’ interpretation of how discharge permits would be applied, saying the issue has been subject to differing federal court opinions, which have not been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Courts reached vastly different opinions on how total maximum daily limits, or TMDLs, are applied in cases from Arizona, Arkansas and Minnesota. In some cases, courts ruled pollution, as measured by TMDLs, could be offset by reductions of nonpoint sources, while others prohibit adding more of a pollutant to an impaired stream. Burgess said the issues would apply statewide if the Water Quality Control Commission chose to act on it, and others have not been given adequate notice. “These issues are not within the scope of this proceeding, and in addition were raised too late in this proceeding and should be stricken,” Burgess said…

Colorado Springs Utilities also took issue with published statements by local Sierra Club Chairman Ross Vincent last week saying the change in seasonal levels for standards would allow for elevated discharges in winter months once the Southern Delivery System is built. Colorado Springs and other sewer plants on Fountain Creek would still be limited to TMDLs, under the Clean Water Act, said Keith Riley, SDS planning manager.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Snowpack news: Gunnison Basin at 93%

From the Montrose Daily Press (Katharhynn Heidelberg):

The Montrose area is sitting at around 80 percent of normal snowpack, as storm after storm gave us a miss this winter, instead socking it to locations to the south. Information from the National Weather Service’s Colorado River Basin Forecast Center shows that, because of “below average seasonal precipitation,” the April through July streamflow volume forecasts are also below average for the Lower Gunnison Basin. “We’re not as dry as we could be. We’re not as wet as we want to be,” said Marc Catlin, manager for the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association. “There is enough snow (in the basin) to raise a crop, but it’s really the type of spring season and the snowmelt. If nature will help us, it could be pretty much a normal year.”[...]

The district manages Ridgway Reservoir. Berry said that 80 percent of normal snowpack for the reservoir gives it around 80,000 acre feet of water. “We only have about 15,000 acre feet to fill the reservoir. If it quit snowing today, we could be down significantly by the first of May, when the real demand starts for irrigators out there.” he said. “But, I’m confident we can fill the reservoir, given an 80-percent snowpack.”

A warm spring (particularly warm nighttime temperatures), wind, and dust can quickly reduce even a large snowpack. So far this winter, it’s been quite cold in the area, and those temperatures “froze the snow down tight,” Catlin said.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Loretta Sword):

“It’s not sloppy wet, but there’s a fair amount of moisture to go with this one,” said meteorologist Randy Gray of Pueblo’s National Weather Service office, adding that scant accumulations contained about three times the average measurable precipitation as most snowfalls this time of year. In the Rocky Mountain region, Gray said, it typically takes 20-30 inches of snowfall to produce an inch of water, but the storm that settled in Sunday and hung around through most of Monday produced a snow-to-water ratio of 10 to 1. “Sometimes, depending on other conditions and the time of year, even if it’s cold, the moisture has a way of coming out of the snow before it can pile up,” Gray said. “That’s what happened with this one.” Although it wasn’t a huge storm, it likely brought enough moisture to meet or top the average for all of February, which is 3.6 inches of snow containing 0.26 inches of water…

The Monarch Pass area was hit the hardest with snowfall overnight Sunday where Maysville residents reported 5 inches of new snow…

Up to 8 inches of snow fell in the foothills along the east side of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.

Update: From The Denver Post (Yesnia Robles):

The snowstorm that started over the weekend brought about 4 inches of snow to the metro area but less than half an inch of moisture. National Weather Service meteorologist Robert Koopmeiners said moisture in the snow is determined by temperature. When the air mass is cold, he said, the snow doesn’t hold as much moisture…

Mike Gillespie, snow-survey supervisor with the NRCS, said playing catch-up [on the Colorado snowpack] will likely require more than 30 inches of snow each month for the next 2 1/2 months.

Update: From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):

Snowfall began Sunday morning, tapering off midmorning. The area saw precipitation begin again in earnest late Sunday afternoon, continuing into the evening. Monday morning found Cortez and the surrounding area under a blanket of heavy, wet snow. “Out of this storm we got 8.1 inches of snow,” said local weather observer Jim Andrus…

Southwest Colorado has seen a number of storm systems move through the area this winter, all of which have produced measurable amounts of snow. “Our total snowfall for this winter is now 46.9 inches – almost four feet,” Andrus said. “We’ve had 63 days in a row of measurable snowfall on the ground. That is the longest stretch I’ve ever been able to report. From Dec. 8 through (Monday) morning.”[...]

“Our precipitation total for February is really impressive,” Andrus said. “We have .98 inches (of precipitation), and normal for the entire month is .95 (inches). So, we are 103 percent of normal for February already after only the first week of the month. “Total precipitation for the year has been 2.76 inches; normal through the end of February is 1.96 inches so that is already 141 percent of normal. It has been a really wet winter.”

HB 10-1188 — Clarify River Outfitter Navigation Right passes out of committee

From The Denver Post (Steven K. Paulson):

At a rally at the state Capitol, Duke Bradford, owner of Arkansas Valley Adventures, said his company guides about 23,000 tourists a year down five Colorado rivers. He is worried that a threat by Lewis Shaw II, president of Jackson-Shaw developers of Dallas, to file a civil suit would shut down a $142 million industry. Bradford said Colorado law reserves the use of Colorado rivers for the people, not for landowners. The state attorney general has ruled commercial rafters cannot be prosecuted for trespassing, but that didn’t settle the civil dispute. “He says we’re compromising his property rights. He’s coming to Colorado from another state and disputing our historical use of the river, threatening to shut us down,” Bradford said…

The bill would give commercial rafters the right to navigate rivers in Colorado and limited rights to use the river banks to avoid obstacles. The House Judiciary Committee approved it on a 7-3 vote after seven hours of testimony Monday and sent it to the full House for debate…

Rep. Kathleen Curry, an unaffiliated lawmaker from Gunnison, said North Dakota and Colorado are the only two states west of the Mississippi River that don’t have strict protection for commercial rafters. She said Utah clarified its rules four years ago, making it clear rafters have access. Curry acknowledged that rafters can interfere with fishermen and she said both sides need to respect each other’s rights. She said this issue has rippled throughout the West for decades, but states and the federal government have learned how to deal with it. “I’d say rafting and fishing can coexist. That’s been out there for years, even though they might not be the best of friends,” she said.

More coverage from the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The six Democrats sitting on the judiciary committee last night voted for the bill, while three of the four Republicans voted against the bill. The committee members heard testimony for over five hours Monday night from advocates for private property rights, including complex examinations of ancient English law and what constitutes a “navigable” river.

And they heard from commercial rafting outfitters who said their livelihoods would be threatened without their right to float being clearly defined as it is in most other Western states, including Wyoming and Utah. Others testified that the bill did not go far enough because it did not give private boaters the same clear rights it was attempting to give to commercial outfitters.

For more than 30 years, both private and commercial rafters kayakers have generally understood that Colorado law gives boaters the right to float down any river or stream past private property as long as they don’t get out and touch the river bank…

But a bevy of experts testified that giving commercial rafters specific rights relating to private lands would constitute a taking that would require “just compensation.” “The right to exclude others is one of the most important sticks in the bundle that we know of as property rights,” said John Hill, an attorney with Bratton and Hill who represents Lewis Shaw and the Jackson-Shaw/Taylor River Ranch, LLC. “This bill is a taking of the right to exclude others.” Other groups that testified against the bill included the Colorado Cattleman’s Association, Club 20, and the Colorado Water Congress.

Update: More coverage from The Durango Herald (Joe Hanel). From the article:

Right now, Colorado law allows people to pass through private property on a river as long as they don’t touch the bottom or the banks. “Anybody who boats in this state knows that you can’t boat anywhere without touching something,” said the sponsor of HB 1188, Rep. Kathleen Curry, I-Gunnison.

Curry’s bill draws on the right of navigation in English common law, a body of law that lawyers imported to America during colonial times…

On the Animas River – one of the state’s four busiest for rafting – property owners usually don’t try to get in the way of rafting, said Bob Hamel, chairman of the Colorado River Outfitters Association. But outfitters on the less-traveled San Juan and Piedra rivers potentially could have trouble, Hamel said…

Opponents argued that the bill would take away their property rights. “It’s a piece of legislation that strikes at the very core of property ownership,” said Terry Fankhauser of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association.

The bill would add rights only for licensed commercial outfitters. It says nothing about private boaters, tubers and kayakers. They still could be found guilty of trespassing even if the bill passes. The bill also applies only to stretches of river that commercial outfitters have used in the last two years.

More coverage from the Summit Daily News (Julie Sutor):

About two dozen Colorado rafters, many from Summit County, grabbed their boats, paddles and PFD’s Monday morning and gathered in the State Capitol in support of the measure, House Bill 1188. “We’ve already lost one river in Gunnison County,” said Mark Schumacher, owner of Three Rivers Outfitting. “We don’t want to lose another.”[...]

“I realized we had a statewide problem,” bill co-sponsor, state Rep. Kathleen Curry of Gunnison said Monday morning in front of the crowd of rafters. “We do need to tackle this issue in this building.” The bill is co-sponsored by state Rep. Christine Scanlan, who represents Summit County.

More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Basalt may build micro-hydroelectric plant

From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon) via the Vail Daily:

The town is studying the construction of a micro-hydro plant that would supply enough power to offset use of 30 average homes, according to Town Manager Bill Kane. The micro-hydro project could pro vide up to 40 kilowatts, he said. The town this spring will apply for a $350,000 grant from the state of Colorado, which has focused on clean energy proj ects under Gov. Bill Ritter’s leadership the past three years. The town might pursue the project even if it doesn’t receive state funds, Kane said. The town has a dedicat ed water fund that it would tap for the proj ect, so it wouldn’t require a new tax. Final design and cost estimates aren’t available yet. The concept would be to use the pipelines that deliver water from Lucksinger Springs, and possibly Basalt Springs, both of which are on Basalt Moun tain, downhill to the town’s water filtration plant. A hydroelectric turbine and genera tor, possibly two, would be added to the delivery lines, according to a prospectus. The power produced from the systems would be connected to the Holy Cross Energy grid.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Aspinall Operations update

From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):

is a summary of our January 21, 2010 meeting to coordinate Reclamation’s operation of the Aspinall Unit. The meeting was held in Montrose. Handouts and presentations from the meeting can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/wcao/water/rsvrs/mtgs/amcurrnt.html . As an update, the February 1 Blue Mesa Reservoir April through July inflow forecast is 600,000 ac-ft. The resultant 24 hour Black Canyon peak called for in the Federal Reserved Water Right is 4,492 cfs. At this time, it is Reclamation’s intent to operate the Unit to allow the water right to continue to be met. Highlights of the meeting include:

- January 1 forecast for 2010 spring runoff into Blue Mesa is around 80 percent of average. History has shown that the forecast can change significantly between January and the end of the runoff season because January is still early in the snow accumulation period. Currently El Nino conditions are present in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. El Nino years have resulted in drier winter hydrology followed by wetter than average spring conditions in years past.
- Based on the January 1 forecast, summer flows downstream from the Gunnison Tunnel should be between 600 cfs and 1000 cfs. A determination of the magnitude of the spring peak for the Black Canyon water right will be made on May 1. Blue Mesa is anticipated to fill this year.
- The Colorado Division of Wildlife made a presentation on the Gunnison River trout fishery and the relation of fish populations and river flows (link to presentation will be available on the operations summary website

If you have any suggestions on improving the operation meetings or summaries, please let us know. The next operation meeting will be on Thursday, April 22, 2010 in Grand Junction at the Western Colorado Area Office. If you have any questions, please call me at 970 248-0652.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.

IBCC: Non-consumptive needs assessment meeting February 10 in Silverthorne

From email from the Interbasin Compact Committee (Jacob Bernstein):

The CWCB is extremely interested in projects and planning efforts that you have completed to protect environmental and recreational values in your watershed. We would also like to know what projects and planning efforts you have in mind to complete in the future (e.g. restoration projects, voluntary flow agreements, studies, instream flows, etc.). The CWCB will create a master list of past projects and planned projects. This will help us focus funding towards what you are planning and where additional resources are needed.

We would also like to invite you to this meeting, taking place from 10am to 3pm [February 10] at the Silverthorne Pavilion in Silverthorne to learn more about the nonconsumptive needs process, next steps, and information, seek input from you, and continuation of getting clarification and follow-up on the nonconsumptive planned and existing projects, methods, and studies.

Please RSVP to Jacob Bornstein (Jacob.bornstein@state.co.us; 303-866-3441 x3248). If you have questions, or wish to send your survey responses back (whether or not you attend the meeting).

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Flaming Gorge pipeline: A look at Larimer County’s interest in the project

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

In letters written to Million in January, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the East Larimer County Water District both said they each want 5,000 acre-feet of water from the pipeline annually. In his Jan. 5 letter, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District general manager Michael DiTullio said water use in the district is expected to increase from 10,000 acre-feet per year to 17,000 acre-feet annually, and Million’s pipeline would help the district meet that demand. DiTullio said the district can’t commit to the pipeline water until a price can be negotiated. “What that letter says is we’re interested in any water storage project that could bring additional waters to Northern Colorado,” DiTullio said Thursday.

Loren Maxey, president of the East Larimer County Water District, or ELCO, said his district is interested in water from the project because the district’s water demand is expected to grow from 3,700 acre-feet per year to 11,000 acre-feet per year within the next 40 years.

The city of Brighton and a handful of other water users in northeast Colorado and in Adams, Douglas and El Paso counties also have said they are interested in Green River water…

Because it’s so unclear how much water is left to be developed in the Colorado River, Million’s project has the potential to create friction among people with different ideas about how to use the river’s remaining water. “That’s the center of our concern,” said Chris Treese of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. “How do we develop whatever’s left, or do we rush headlong into pursuing and approving very large projects that race us off the edge of the cliff before we know how close we are with regard to the Colorado River Compact? You don’t want to ever be in a deficit position. The Million project is perhaps taking us over the edge of that cliff.” Treese said he also wonders how the project can be regulated because Colorado has no power to control or regulate the pipeline’s diversion of the Green River’s water because it’s occurring in a different state.

More Flaming Gorge coverage here and here.

Piping ditches

Here’s what Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company did on the Mary Lateral, from Gerald W. Knudsen, P.E. writing for Environmental Protection. From the article:

The pipe system has 45 branches off the main supply line, which ranges from 12 to 36 inches in diameter and from 30 to 50 pounds-per-square-inch high density polyethylene (HDPE). The turnout pipes that serve each shareholder are also HDPE with a transition to polyvinyl chloride. Turnout pipe diameters range from 4 to 8 inches. Each branch turnout is supplied with an ultrasonic flow meter and two butterfly valves. The meter measures the amount of water passing through the turnout. MVIC controls the first butterfly valve, setting flows according to the number of shares of water allocated The shareholder uses the second butterfly valve to shut off or reduce water volume. Each meter is either solar or battery powered.

On older parts of the system, MVIC is using impeller flow meters that require annual maintenance and are subject to plugging. To reduce maintenance and eliminate plugging problems, the team decided to use a non-intrusive flow meter.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Powertech aquifer pump test approval due by mid-April

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

If approved, Powertech will be allowed to test the feasibility of in situ leach mining for uranium at the Centennial Project site. The test could help regulators find answers to questions about how the underlying aquifer works and how any contamination from the mine could move through it and affect groundwater elsewhere…

The mining could have the greatest impact on the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, which many surrounding landowners have tapped for their well water.

The councils of most of the surrounding cities and towns, including Fort Collins and Greeley, have said they oppose the mine, partly for fear it could pollute the groundwater.

How far any pollution from the mine could spread within the aquifer and how that could affect water wells in the area isn’t well understood, but the pump test could shed some light on the matter, according to the EPA…

Information about the hydrogeology of the aquifer is sparse, and few people have studied how fast water moves in the aquifer to determine how pollutants could spread…

Vincent Matthews, state geologist and director of the Colorado Geological Survey, pointed only to a 1980 CGS study of hydrogeology and uranium resources northeast of the Centennial Project site, written at a time when Unocal and other companies were planning uranium exploration projects near Keota in Weld County. The state sampled 104 water wells — many of which tapped the Fox Hills formation — near uranium deposits in northern Weld County. The study showed that the well water quality was extremely poor and much of the water contained high levels of uranium and vanadium. The closer a well was to a uranium deposit, the more contaminated it was. But, Matthews said, the study doesn’t say much about what’s happening in the same aquifer and rock formations near Nunn…

The USGS has no specific data on the Fox Hills aquifer near the Centennial Project, and any other studies conducted in the area wouldn’t apply to that spot because each site has its own unique characteristics, said James K. Otton, a USGS geologist specializing in uranium. Otton last year wrote a brief on in situ leach uranium mining, saying the mines have always left increasing contamination behind and no one has ever succeeded at fully cleaning up the groundwater after an in situ mine has shut down.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County is doing research before accepting discarded pit liners at the landfill

From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The county is looking at a price tag of nearly $2 million to build a landfill cell capable of accepting the liners, which can be fouled by oil and gas contaminants. New state rules generally require that the liners be removed when a pit is closed rather than being buried on site. But they currently must be shipped outside the county for disposal. County manager Ed Green said the landfill cell would cost about four times as much as a normal cell because it would need to have a liner with leak-detection equipment beneath it and at liner seams. It’s also possible the liners could be characterized as hazardous waste, which would trigger state and federal rules and add to costs. Garfield is the state’s most active county for drilling, and Green said a local disposal site can be an attractive option to help companies comply with the law.

County staff targeted $1,000 as a presumably palatable price to charge companies to accept and bundle a liner at the landfill. However, it’s been projected that the cost to the county could be $1,750 per liner, including cell construction and operation costs.

At a meeting Tuesday, county commissioners expressed discomfort with the possible expense involved. Commissioner Tresi Houpt, who also is a member of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which implemented the new pit liner rule, questioned the idea of asking taxpayers to subsidize drilling expenses.

More oil and gas coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: Chaffee County geothermal update

Here’s an update on the geothermal picture in Chaffee County, from Ron Sering writing for Colorado Central Magazine. It’s a long piece so click through and read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:

New technology makes it possible to generate power with water at a temperature below 400 degrees. These plants pump the water to the surface, where it passes through a heat exchanger containing a binary fluid that boils at a lower temperature than water. This in turn produces the steam that drives the generators…

The extent of Chaffee County’s geothermal resources was measured by Amax Exploration in the 1970s. The effort ceased with the return of cheap petroleum in the 80s, and because the technology of the time required natural steam to generate power, rather than the hot water found in Colorado. Subsequent research in the area around Mt. Princeton by the Colorado School of Mines indicate favorable potential for geothermal development using binary technology. “It is an area of exceptional heat flow,” [Matt Sares, Deputy Director of the Colorado Geological Survey] said.

More geothermal coverage here and here. Disclaimer: I write a water column for the print edition of Colorado Central.

Coyote Gulch archives

It looks like the scare over losing my archives from the old weblog http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/ is over. Jake Savin was able to transfer all of the Radio Userland hosted weblogs over to a new domain hosted by WordPress in a deal worked out by Dave Winer the former CEO of Userland Software.

You can still use the Google search text box on the home page at the old Coyote Gulch to search the archives. The calendar works as well if you just want to stroll backwards or forwards in time through the archives. I’m pretty happy that the situation has worked out so well. Thanks Dave and Jake. You guys are the best.

SB 10-025: Extend Funding Water Efficiency Grants

From The Durango Herald (State Senator Bruce Whitehead):

I’m happy to report Senate bill 25…[SB 10-025: Concerning the Long-term Funding of the Water Efficiency Grant Program extends the long-term funding of the water efficiency grant program to 2020 (currently set to expire in 2012).

More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Sheep Mountain Alliance files statement of opposition in water court case for proposed Piñon Ridge Mill

From the Montrose Daily Press (Dick Kamp):

The filing of a “statement of opposition” by Sheep Mountain Alliance (SMA) of Telluride, preceded a separate filing last Tuesday by two groups in Moab, Utah based on similar issues…

Excerpting from Colorado state statutes, the law requires that “Applicants must demonstrate the legal and physical availability of the water -(show that rights are not) speculative -prove that waters can and will be diverted, stored or otherwise captured, possessed and controlled and will be beneficially used – with diligence within a reasonable time under their claimed conditional water rights..”

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Glenwood Springs: Glenwood Whitewater Events is huddling up with the city council over the hosting the 2013 World Freestyle Kayaking Championships

From The Aspen Times (John Gardner):

President of Glenwood Whitewater Events, Davis Farrar, and Bob Campbell, managing director for Whitewater Parks International, which is also based in Glenwood Springs, asked for the City Council’s support in applying for the pinnacle event of the kayaking world. “This is a partnership,” Farrar said. “It’s a big project. We are excited about it and we think that we can pull it off, but we will need some excited partners.”

While council members were excited at the prospect of Glenwood hosting a world championship, they were also concerned that, without having ever held an event as large as the world championships, it’s hard to know if Glenwood is ready. “I really would like to host a world-class event in Glenwood,” said Councilwoman Shelley Kaup. “But I have to question if we are ready for that yet.”

Glenwood could expect more than 300 competitors from 40 participating countries, five days of competition, one week of training prior to the event, and a minimum of 3,000 spectators at the site each day, according to Campbell’s calculations. The park is located on the Colorado River, on Glenwood’s west side…

Campbell estimated the cost of hosting the world championships at about $430,000, of which the city would be responsible for $160,000 up front; the rest would possibly be paid by sponsors. However, the city could be on the hook for more if sponsors didn’t ante up. That did not set well with Councilman Matt Steckler.

More whitewater coverage here.

Consumptive use primer

When changing agricultural water to municipal use the water courts require an analysis of historical consumptive use. Here’s a report on the difficulties of obtaining that information, from Bill Jackson writing for The Greeley Tribune. From the article:

The [New Cache la Poudre Irrigating Co. and Reservoir Co] recently released a draft report on a ditchwide historical use analysis, which Don Magnuson, superintendent, said will probably become necessary for all irrigation companies in the future. The report, he told members of the Greeley Chamber of Commerce Agriculture Committee last week, really focused on consumptive use of water, which he predicted will become more important in future years. “The true value of water is how much you consume and not what is diverted,” Magnuson said. So that becomes even more important when that water is changed from agricultural to another use, and that change drove the need for the analysis.

Consumptive use is that water consumed by plants in a given field. Typically, under a flood irrigation system, about 50 percent of irrigation water is consumed while the other 50 percent either runs off the end of a field, evaporates or escapes past the root zone of the plants and goes into an aquifer. However, each crop consumes different amounts of water. Eventually, that water not consumed by plants returns to streams and rivers both on the surface and through aquifers. But the time that takes varies widely, from a matter of a few hours in the case of surface runoff to months or even years through an aquifer.

Over a 15-year period, the analysis tracked water requirements by crop type throughout the Cache la Poudre system. Those figures show the complicated job of growing and irrigating crops. Over that 15-year period, water requirements, on average, for alfalfa were slightly more than 26 inches through the season, grain corn about 18 inches, dry beans about 10.5 inches, grass more than 26 inches, small vegetables 13 inches, spring grain 17.5 inches and sugar beets 20 inches. The average annual combined diversion and reservoir releases for the study period was about 57,900 acre-feet, or about 1.79 acre-feet per irrigated acre. The average consumptive use was about 26,900 acre-feet or about 0.8 of an acre-foot per acre, so that means a lot of water went downstream for someone else to use. An acre-foot is about the equivalent of covering a football field with 12 inches of water. Throw into the mix the different types of soils, weather conditions and increased demands from growth, and things just get more complicated.

More South Platte River Basin coverage here.

Snowpack news: First rumblings about summer shortages from the Vail Valley

From the Vail Daily (Lauren Glendenning):

Vail Mountain snowpack is at 57 percent of last year’s level, and 69 percent of average levels. Beaver Creek’s snowpack is at 45 percent of last year’s level, and 72 percent of average levels…

“I think it’s kind of time to get concerned about this low of a snowpack for this time of year,” said Mike Gillespie, the snow survey supervisor for the Natural Resources Conservation Service. “It’s considerably below average.”[...]

The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District analysts aren’t as concerned with snow depths as they are with snow water equivalents, or the amount of moisture found in snow. The District measures levels at each of the snow survey stations that directly affect local water supplies, with Vail Mountain’s site as one of them. The survey station on Vail Mountain just hit the 2002 drought level, meaning levels have been less than they were in 2002 until now, where they’re about even. The District compares levels to 2002 because that was a really dry year. A graph showing both 2002 and current levels proves there’s something to be concerned about.

Gillespie thinks this year is starting to look like 2002, but there’s still some room for hope. “The wild card is still for what El Nino could bring to the state in the late spring,” Gillespie said.

More coverage from NBC11News.com (James Hopkins):

The majority of the storms this winter have favored the south west mountain ranges leaving the rest of the state wanting. “The central mountains are around 80% of snow pack and the northern mountains tend to be 70–75 percent of normal,” says Brian Lawrence of the National Weather Service. Weather patterns, like the ones we are seeing this winter, are typical of an El Nino pattern. The sub–tropical jet, which normally tracks right through Colorado, pushes to the south. “Bringing quite a bit of precipitation to the southern mountains, while the northern mountains miss out on a lot of the action,” says Lawrence.

This pattern, not only benefits the Grand Valley when it comes to skiing in the winter , but also this coming spring. “So far we’re looking pretty good, kinda running along average, we’re at about 94%,” says Bret Guillory. Guillory is the Grand Junction Utility Engineer and his job is to keep a close eye on the city’s water supply. While the rest of the state is relatively dry, it’s a different story on the western slope. “The city of Grand Junction’s water shed is very healthy,” says Guillory.

Fort Morgan: CDPHE individual sewage disposal system stakeholder process meeting recap

From The Fort Morgan Times (John La Porte):

The Fort Morgan meeting was part of an individual sewage disposal system stakeholder process coordinated by the state health department. Numerous committees with representatives from all over the state have been meeting, and plans call for making a recommendation for state legislation. Some involved in septic system installation and inspection, and some local government officials, believe state officials have their minds made up to adopt statewide regulations. “There’s a large group of people that think the die is cast on the direction that this group is going and the direction that the Department of Health is going,” said Dave Akers of the water quality control division of the state health department. The department’s goals, he said, are to protect ground water and public health…

“No matter how you look at it, you’re looking at an increased cost to the homeowner,” Carlson said. He asked about the possibility of tax credits to help defray those costs. Digging up septic systems for inspections could cost $1,500 to $1,800, excluding any landscaping costs, one Northeast Colorado Health Department official said…

Certification, licensing and registration of people involved in installing, inspecting and repairing systems is under study, said Kim Seipp, co-chair of the training and certification committee. She noted that many agencies have run into homeowners who are unaware of how a septic system works…

Costs, administration and implementation would be the big obstacles to a statewide licensing or certification system, she said. There is also concern that with increased requirements, some contractors who do a variety of jobs might drop septic systems, reducing the number of firms available to do them. That could hike costs. Several audience members indicated that inspections might help people buying homes to do so more confidently, knowing that the septic system was operating properly. Seipp said such inspections would present opportunities to educate homeowners on how to take care of a septic system. Some agencies think that inspections at the time of sale of a property would be a good idea.

More wastewater coverage here.

Special meeting of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District board Monday

From the Pagosa Sun:

A special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District has been scheduled for 9:15 a.m. Monday, Feb. 8. The primary purpose of this meeting is for discussions with the Board of Directors of the San Juan Water Conservancy District on water matters and the development of raw water projects. Towards the end of the meeting, the boards of directors are expected to enter into executive session for the purposes of conferences with legal counsel for receiving legal advice on litigation and discussing matters related to land acquisition for development of raw water facilities and other matters subject to negotiation involving both districts pursuant to Sections 24-6-402(4)(a), 24-6-402(4)(b), and 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S. The meeting will be held at the district’s administrative office located at 100 Lyn Ave.

More Pagosa Springs coverage here and here.

HB 10-1159 dies on the state house floor

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Patrick Malone):

Rep. Sal Pace’s HB1159 was killed on second reading, with 23 members in support and 36 opposed. Two members were absent, and Pace said they may have voted on his side, but wouldn’t have affected the outcome…

Pace hurried the bill along this week. He wanted it to move quickly because he said he was losing votes with each passing day as metropolitan water interests lobbied lawmakers against it. “I think about 10 (representatives) understood the bill,” Pace said. “(Denver legislators) acted like they were deeply concerned for (what the bill would do to) their districts, but they couldn’t say why.”[...]

Pace said the bill would have extended the same consideration to mitigation statewide that presently exists only in transfers that come from the Western Slope to the Front Range and Eastern Plains under the 1937 Conservancy District Act. Opponents said sufficient mechanisms are in place to address mitigation through the roundtables established by legislation five years ago. Pace countered that the roundtables would continue, and only be enhanced by his proposal…

With overwhelming opposition from metro lawmakers in the Legislature, Pace said he believes a ballot initiative, though challenging from a standpoint of expense, might be the most likely way to affect change in the way water transfers impact communities in the state. He cited a poll that shows state residents are more receptive to such changes than the Legislature is.

More coverage from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Charles Ashby):

…that was because Denver Water lobbied hard against the bill and managed to turn some lawmakers to its side, said Rep. Sal Pace, who introduced House Bill 1159…

The issue is not a new one for the Legislature, but each time it comes up, urban lawmakers along the Front Range and even rural ones on the South Platte River Basin manage to find ways to kill it, Western Slope lawmakers said. “We on the Western Slope have seen how the water’s been taken and used, so we’re just trying to get some mitigation things going here,” said Rep. Randy Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs. “We’re really concerned about the amount of water that leaves our districts and goes to other areas, and we’re just trying to protect those interests.”

Opponents of the measure said that’s all they’re trying to do, too. Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said the bill’s true intent was to end all transmountain water diversions in the state, which would put more pressure on smaller communities downstream of the Denver metropolitan area.

More coverage from The Durango Herald (Joe Hanel):

[State Representative Sal Pace] got help from the strangest coalition the Legislature has seen this year. Supporters included local Republicans Ellen Roberts of Durango and Scott Tipton of Cortez, the other Republicans and Democrats on the Western Slope, and environmentalist Democrats from Boulder and Denver.

But a larger coalition opposed the bill, including many Denver Democrats plus Republicans from the suburbs and Eastern Plains. Major metro utilities like Denver Water and Aurora Water lobbied against the bill. The bill failed 40-21. Pace decided to ask for a vote Friday, even though he didn’t have commitments from the 33 lawmakers needed to pass a bill. “Every day, I was losing votes to Denver Water. It was better to do it quicker,” Pace said.

More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Colorado Farm Bureau weblog

Say hello to the The Pulse of Colorado Farm Bureau weblog. They’ve been around since March according to their archives. Here’s the link to their water category RSS feed.

Energy policy — oil and gas: The Thompson Divide Coalition still pushing the area for exclusion from oil and gas exploration and production

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Stroud):

The Thompson Divide Coalition (TDC), in cooperation with the Roaring Fork Conservancy, will take a second water sample this week from locations in both the Thompson Creek and Fourmile Creek watersheds. Two more samples will be taken later this year, said Lisa Moreno, TDC campaign director.

Carbondale trustees on Tuesday agreed to fund half of the remaining $13,970 to complete the $79,000 study. An anonymous donor has agreed to match the town’s share, Moreno said. Other organizations financing the study include the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Program, the Aspen Skiing Company Environment Foundation, outdoor gear company Patagonia and the Brown Foundation. A funding request is also before the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Moreno said. The TDC, which includes area ranchers, recreation and environmental groups, formed in the fall of 2008 in an attempt to protect federal lands in the Thompson Divide area west of Carbondale from oil and gas development.

The group is currently working with mineral leaseholders to retire the existing leases, and is seeking federal legislation to withdraw the area from the future leasing. “We have talked to the lease holders, and one is willing to talk,” Moreno reported to the Carbondale board. “The other one says it has plans for those leases.”

In the meantime, the group is working to collect baseline water quality data for the watershed to have on hand when and if drilling activity does take place.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Two Moab conservation groups are challenging Piñon Ridge groundwater permits

From the Montrose Daily Press (Katharhynn Heidelberg):

Red Rock Forests and Living Rivers filed a statement of opposition to three of EF’s water-permit applications for groundwater that is tributary to the Dolores River. The water would be used for Energy Fuels’ proposed Piñon Ridge Uranium Mill near Paradox.

More coverage from The Grand Junctional Daily Sentinel:

[Energy Fuels Resources LLC] is seeking 500 acre-feet of water that feeds into to the Dolores River for milling at the proposed Pi&#241on Ridge Uranium Mill near Paradox and 500 acre-feet in the form of captured rainwater needed to prevent water discharges from the site. Red Rock Forests is concerned about the “speculative nature of uranium mining and milling” in the region and whether Energy Fuels Resources will hold the water right without developing the mill, acting Director Harold Shepherd said…

The Bureau of Land Management is considering the Dolores River for status as a wild and scenic river, and diverting water for the mill could threaten that, said John Weisheit, conservation director for Living Rivers.

More nuclear coverage here and here.