Southern Delivery System: Fremont County alternative

Here’s a look at the discussion prompted by Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System route through Fremont County, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

If the westerly route is chosen over the proposed action at Pueblo Dam, water providers in Fremont County could benefit, said Bruce McCormick, Colorado Springs water services chief. How, exactly, they can benefit is still a matter of negotiations that were occurring on the eve of the Fremont County hearing and will continue over at least the next two weeks. “We feel it’s best to meet with stakeholders and get down to their concerns,” said John Fredell, SDS project director. Colorado Springs verbally committed to adding hydrants for fire protection and improving Florence’s river park as benefits to Fremont County at the public hearing last week. Holcim Cement concerns were mollified. Minimum flows in the Arkansas River for a regional sanitation plant and for rafters seem to be assured.

Some tougher questions loomed. The toughest dealt with the possibility of adding the Penrose Water District to the SDS line. Colorado Springs amended its plan in Pueblo County in 2007 to include a tap for Pueblo West if the project comes from Pueblo Dam. That change allowed full evaluation of Pueblo West as an SDS partner under the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental impact statement. It also provided a tangible benefit for ‘Pueblo County that is missing in Fremont County. Pueblo West is contributing just $1 million toward SDS under its 2007 agreement with Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain to participate in the project. The cost of building a river intake if the pipeline goes to Fremont County could be as much as $8 million.

The Penrose Water District could realize a similar savings. In 2006, the district bought water rights from Denzel Goodwin, a western Fremont County rancher. It applied for, and received, an $8.9 million loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board toward a $9.7 million project to develop a well field, pipeline and storage for the water that it would gain. SDS would be a much more attractive option. It would be relatively simple and less costly for the Penrose Water District to tap into the pipeline or share the intake at the Lester-Atterbury Ditch. The Penrose district has little money to put toward SDS or the revised EIS that would be needed should it become a partner, said Lissa Pinello, president of the district. Additionally, the district’s board had not formally met on a course of action.

The Beaver Park Water District, which has 530 shareholders and sells water for Penrose is further along in negotiations, said Gary Ratkovich, president. The district and Colorado Springs are talking about ways to bring water into Penrose from the Arkansas River as well as the Beaver Park drainage. One sticking point has been money, since Beaver Park also would have to pay to play in the SDS project. Beaver Park has a history of dealing with Colorado Springs, purchasing the Golden Cycle water rights it now owns from Colorado Springs in 1976. Ratkovich asked commissioners for a two-week delay to give the district time to negotiate a contract with Colorado Springs that would include both supply options and conditions for future water district projects.

Commissioners also had a late request from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a federal agency, to coordinate proposed flood protection projects in the Penrose area that in some cases share a footprint with the pipeline.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Stagecoach Dam to be raised by 4 feet

The Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District plans to raise the level of Stagecoach Reservoir 4 feet, according to a report from Melinda Dudley writing for the Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:

The Upper Yampa Water Con servancy District is awaiting permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Routt County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to raise the water level in Stagecoach Reservoir by 4 feet. If the permitting process goes through without any hitches the dam-raising would take place this fall, though delays could push it back another year, [Kevin McBride, district manager of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District] said.

“I’ve learned not to second-guess the permitting process,” McBride said Thursday, sitting in Fetcher’s office in the Mount Werner Water and Sanitation District building…

To raise the water level of Stagecoach Reservoir, construction to the dam itself will be pretty simple, requiring a 4-foot cap to be placed on top of the dam’s existing spillway, McBride said. Raising the water level by 4 feet will increase Stagecoach Reservoir’s capacity from 33,273 acre-feet to 36,460 acre-feet, McBride said…

The surface area of the reservoir will increase from 771 acres to 819 acres, and the water will encroach anywhere from 4 to 40 feet on the existing shoreline, depending on terrain, McBride said.

Expanding the footprint of the reservoir will require a wide range of mitigation work on the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District’s dime, including infrastructure work for Stagecoach State Park, raising the boat ramps, and wildlife, wetland and waterfowl mitigation projects. The district worked extensively with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on wildlife mitigation plans. The water district will reconstruct some of the existing wetlands around the reservoir — which will be inundated when the water level rises — develop a new waterfowl habitat area and do preventative work to discourage pike breeding, McBride said.

Raising the water level in Stagecoach Reservoir and the associated mitigation projects will cost a total of about $3 million, McBride said. Because of the uncertain economy, the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy Dis trict has not determined exactly how the project will be financed, though McBride said the district can fund it almost entirely out of reserves if need be.

Four years of Wyoming cloud-seeding efforts

Here’s an update on Wyoming’s 5 year cloud-seeding project, from Wes Smalling writing for the Casper Star Tribune. From the article:

[Bruce] Boe is one of several scientists working on the five-year Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Project, an $8.8 million research program funded by the state of Wyoming. The project’s scientists, along with state water managers, hope to find proof of whether the decades-old practice of seeding clouds — trying to squeeze more precipitation out of passing storms — actually works and that it’s a practical option for increasing the state’s water supply. Members of the world’s science community — cloud-seeing advocates and skeptics alike — are watching the project closely. “For a scientist doing research, this is it. As far as in terms of the research, it is the biggest in the United States by far,” Boe said…

The Wyoming project is in its fourth year, only the second winter in which cloud seeding in earnest has actually been performed. The first two years involved mostly taking measurements and weather readings, obtaining permits from the U.S. Forest Service, gathering other statistical data and getting equipment in place…

While Boe’s company is contracted to perform the cloud-seeding operations, independent teams of scientists from the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Desert Research Institute in Nevada are independently evaluating whether any increases in precipitation that occur are from cloud seeding or from just normal variations in the weather. That’s the real trick to proving if it works. Cloud-seeding scientists estimate that, if done properly, pumping silver iodide into a cloud will increase snowfall in most cases by about 10 to 15 percent. That’s roughly the same percentage of natural variability possible in normal weather patterns…

It’s too early to say with any certainty that Wyoming’s cloud seeding is working to make more snow, but the scientists are beginning to amass a massive amount of vital information from the project. They still have much more data to collect. They conducted 26 four-hour seeding events in southern Wyoming last winter and more than 30 this winter. Ideally, they would like to have more than 200 cases to examine by the end of the five-year project…

While clouds are often seeded from airplanes, the seeding on the Wyoming project this winter is all being done from the ground by generators on 20-foot towers. Inside a generator placed upwind, a propane flame heats the silver iodide solution, and a nozzle sprays it into the air. It rises into the cloud and is carried by the wind to a target area, which is where the scientists want it to snow. There are eight generators in each mountain range, the Snowies and the Medicine Bows, and another seeding site on the west side of the Wind River Range that has 10 generators.

Meteorologists determine when conditions are right for seeding and tell the technicians which generators to turn on. The technicians, sitting many miles away at computers, activate the generators remotely through satellite modems. Boe, using a machine in his cabin called an acoustic ice nucleus counter, checks the outside air during seeding operations to detect the presence of silver iodide to make sure the particles are reaching the target area…

Before, during and after seeding events, the weather is monitored closely. Independent evaluation teams from NCAR and DRI check the snow for the presence of silver iodide and to collect other statistical data. Seed generators are never turned on at the same time in both the Snowy Range and Medicine Bow Mountains — only randomly either in one mountain range or the other. The forecasters and evaluators are not told which mountain range was seeded, which should eliminate any bias in their predictions and conclusions, said Dan Breed, lead scientist for NCAR. Seeding only one range at a time also allows researchers to collect a double dose of data from each storm — one from a seeded mountain range and one that only received natural snowfall. Comparing results between the two ranges could help determine if increases in snow were a result of seeding or that ever-elusive variability that occurs with natural snowfall…

Periodically this winter, [University of Wyoming] professor Bart Geerts and graduate students will fly over snowstorms in a Kingair research aircraft as cloud-seeding experiments are going on to study how the clouds are affected. Using technologies called cloud radar and LINAR, short for Light Detection and Ranging, the crew will take snapshots of the clouds similar to the three-dimensional slices of a medical MRI scan. “We are basically trying to look at it in the finest detail in time and space. We’re actually looking at the cloud as it is injected with silver iodide,” Geerts said. When a cloud is seeded, “The idea is that silver iodide injected into a cloud is going to turn all that liquid water into ice pretty quickly. We want to see if that really happens.”[...]

University of Tennessee professor Glen Tootle is leading a study on the effects of an increased snowpack on spring and summer runoff. The university experiment could determine what a small snowpack increase in the Medicine Bow Mountains would mean for the North Platte River drainage. No one knows for sure if 10 percent more snow created from cloud seeding would necessarily produce 10 percent more water for the state’s supply. “Those basic questions have not been answered,” Geerts said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Eastern Fremont election to join Upper Ark upheld

Here’s an update on Eastern Fremont County’s voters approval for joining the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, from Rod Sering writing for The Mountain Mail. From the article:

Inclusion of eastern Fremont County in the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District was confirmed by the recent Colorado Supreme Court dismissal of a contested election suit, district directors learned Thursday. Julianne Woldridge, attorney for the water district, told directors during their regular meeting, “The inclusion was confirmed and is still in effect. I believe we are done with litigation in this. “The court made a very brief decision and dismissed the case because it was untimely.”

More coverage from the Cañon City Daily Record (Charlotte Burrous):

The Colorado Supreme Court recently dismissed the case, virtually upholding the election results of 4,680 for the inclusion to 2,274 against it. “The Supreme Court found in our favor,” said Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District general manager Terry Scanga. “The decision was two lines. The first sentence said the court agreed to jurisdiction over the case. The second sentence was a dismissal of the appeal because (Ivan Widom and Mark Emmer) filed too late. That ended it right there.”[...]

After the 2007 election, Cañon City resident Widom and Salida resident Emmer argued through their attorney, Bill Alderton, that the election was illegal. “They protested the vote because they said we didn’t” follow the election statues or TABOR rules, Sandefur said. “But the Upper Arkansas is a special district. Special districts are not under TABOR.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Standley Lake/Clear Creek Source Water Protection Planning group meeting

From YourHub:

The Standley Lake/Clear Creek Source Water Protection Planning group is having its first stakeholder meeting on behalf of the Standley Lake cities and the broader Clear Creek Watershed. It will be from 10 a.m. to noon, Thursday, Feb. 19, at Consolidated Mutual Water District, 12700 W. 127th Ave., in Lakewood. The group is developing the Clear Creek Watershed Source Water Protection Plan, which aims to identify sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the water and ways to limit these pollutants from entering Clear Creek.

More than 18 public water suppliers treat water received from Standley Lake and Clear Creek. Some of the recipients of this water include residents of Arvada, Idaho Springs, Georgetown, Golden, Northglenn, Thornton and Westminster. The group will present information about the different levels and sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Clear Creek watershed. The public is welcome to ask questions or give their opinions on how to voluntarily limit these pollutants…

For more information on the project and future meetings, go to www.standleyswp.com.

Water Tables 2009

Here’s a press release from Colorado State University for the their Water Tables 2009 fundraiser for the Water Resource Archives:

Colorado State University Libraries will host Water Tables 2009, its annual fundraiser for the Water Resources Archive at 5 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 21. The event starts with a reception and tour of the Archives at the Library before moving to the Lory Student Center main ballroom for dinner.

The theme of this year’s event is “Compact Issues and Conflict Resolution,” with Stewart Environmental Consultants Inc. as the presenting sponsor. Nineteen water experts will host tables discussing relevant topics while a gourmet meal is served. The evening will begin with a reception and open house for the Water Resources Archive in Colorado State’s Morgan Library…

Reservations can be made online at http://lib.colostate.edu/watertables09 or by calling (970) 491-1833. Reservations will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis; limited seating is available.

For more information about the event contact Jane Barber at (970) 491-5712 or jane.barber@colostate.edu.

Northern Integrated Supply Project: Participants plan greater push during supplemental EIS

According to this report from John Brennan writing for the Fort Morgan Times the 15 participants in the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project plan to be much more proactive while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are issuing their supplement environmental impact statement for the project. From the article:

The 15 participants in the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) plan to take a more proactive and aggressive approach to generating support than they did the first time around. NISP will be going through a supplemental draft environmental impact statement (EIS) process, Carl Brouwer of the Northern Water Conservancy District told the Fort Morgan Water Advisory Board at its meeting Thursday. That process, which involves more study of specific issues raised in the initial draft EIS process as well as another round of public comments and hearings, will delay the project, said Brouwer, the project manager for NISP. Under a previous timeline, Northern Water had projected starting construction in 2011, but that has been pushed back until at least 2013, Brouwer said…

The supplemental draft EIS should be completed late this year or in early 2010, he said, with the comment period likely to be in the spring of ’10. The NCWCD now hopes to have a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers by the end of 2010…

While the delay pushes back Fort Morgan’s financial obligation for NISP — projected at more than $36 million over the next 14 years — the uncertainty of whether NISP will ever actually be built leaves the city wondering about its water future. Mayor Jack Darnell said at Thursday’s meeting that his question is whether Fort Morgan needs to be more aggressive in buying up more Colorado-Big Thompson water, which is most of its current supply. “Should we go out and get a loan to buy more?” Darnell asked Brouwer. Darnell said the city has been budgeting for about $500,000 a year to buy C-BT water, which will only buy 40 to 60 units. At that rate, Darnell said, “it will take a long time to get where we need to be.”

Brouwer said Fort Morgan’s long-range water needs, including new growth, have been estimated at about 9,500 acre-feet, and the city currently owns rights to about half that amount. C-BT units are roughly an acre-foot each, but because those units are distributed subject to annual “quotas” based on snowpack, runoff and other factors, each unit yields only a percentage of an acre-foot that can vary from 40 to 70 percent. Brouwer said the city might need about 9,000 more C-BT units to meet its long-range needs…

Fort Morgan would get about 3,600 acre-feet — without quotas — from NISP, in which it is the third-largest participant in terms of investment and share of water, according to figures presented by Brouwer. Brouwer also mentioned that if an Army Corps permit is denied, the Glade Reservoir portion of NISP could be moved to Cactus Hill, which the Corps has said is “non-jurisdictional” and would not require a permit…

Brouwer said the 15 NISP participants, which include municipalities as well as water districts including Morgan County Quality Water, will soon be asked to become part of a formal association that will work for approval of the permit. “The message will be to let the science work and protect the Corps from the politics,” he said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

State budget crisis effecting DNR water enforcement

The Colorado Department of Water Resources is cutting back on overtime for and new hires, according to a report from Charles Ashby writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Department of Natural Resources wants to hike water permit fees to raise nearly $2.5 million. At the same time, it’s proposing not to fund about $250,000 in overtime pay for its 120 water commissioners around the state at a time when a freeze in new hires has prevented the Division of Water Resources from filling 25 positions, including nine ditch riders whose jobs are to ensure that everyone’s water rights are respected. The proposed fee increases, which could go into effect as early as next month, had several state lawmakers up in arms when they first learned about them Wednesday…

Theo Stein, spokesman for the department, said that the bad economy and the need for all of state government to make more than $1 billion in cuts this year and next is driving these proposals. “DNR is looking at some very difficult decisions on how to allocate limited resources,” he said. “The overtime, it’s probably one of those programs that in a tough year you have to take a second look at.”

Meanwhile, the department is proposing a slew of fee increases – including hiking new well fees from $300 to $665 and general substitute water supply plan fees from $300 to $2,000 – but that additional revenue is not being directed toward the water commissioners. Other proposed fee increases include late registration, monitoring well and change permit fees, which can be as low as $60, would go to as high as $665. The department also is proposing to hike fees for extensions and requests to determine water rights from $60 to $760. Lawmakers said that while some fee increases may be appropriate, these seemed exorbitant.

In addition to the nine water commissioner positions that have been frozen, the division also has openings for division engineers, well inspectors, hydrologists and other support staff that are subject to the hiring freeze.

Aurora’s bid for Columbine Ditch rejected

Aurora will not be purchasing the Columbine Ditch, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Aurora’s bids failed to meet the minimum price criteria outlined for both the sale and the lease according to staff recommendations that the board will see at its meeting Tuesday. Instead, staff is recommending approval of two other bids to lease water at the minimum price specified in the bids and selling the Columbine Ditch to Ginn Development Co., which is developing a world-class ski area near Minturn…

Ginn bid the minimum $30.48 million for the Columbine Ditch, which brings water across the Continental Divide about 15 miles north of Leadville. Minturn is located in the Eagle River basin and Ginn would, presumably, leave the water in the watershed. Aurora bid $30.5 million for the ditch, but its payment proposal of six years did not meet the time frame of the water board, according to the staff report. Alternatively, Aurora offered $25 million immediately. Ginn, on the other hand, offered immediate payment of the entire amount. Aurora also bid only $250 per acre-foot in a 20-year long-term lease of up to 3,000 acre-feet of water. By the end of 20 years, the price would escalate to $350 per acre-foot. The water board specified minimum bids of $350 per acre-foot for up to 5,000 acre-feet of water. Bidders who met the minimum requirements were the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District and Evergreen Land Development for use on the Mount Massive Golf Course near Leadville.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Fremont County alternative

Here’s an update on the deliberations over Colorado Springs’ proposal to run the Southern Delivery System through Fremont County, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

That left commissioners in Fremont County – the fallback option for Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain – wondering when the mitigation for impacts in their county would be developed. “How do these mitigations transfer to Fremont County?” asked Mike Stiehl, chairman of the Fremont County commissioners. “Many would stay the same,” explained Keith Riley, a Colorado Springs Utilities staffer working on SDS. Riley said parts of the EIS might have to be written if Colorado Springs chooses to run the pipeline through Fremont County, an alternative it is considering if it becomes too difficult to obtain a 1041 land-use permit in Pueblo County…

Stiehl closed public comment on the application for the project after Tuesday’s hearing and noted commissioners have 45 days to make a decision under their own guidelines. Commissioners will meet again on the issue on Feb. 24. Pueblo County commissioners will next take up deliberations on the 1041 permit at 6 p.m. Feb. 25 at the Pueblo County Courthouse.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

The San Luis Valley Agricultural Conference and Trade Fair recap

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide): “The final session was scheduled to discuss the status of the Valley’s first water management sub-district, but the group still had no decision from District Judge O. John Kuenhold regarding the sub-district’s management plan that was the issue of a trial before Kuenhold last year. Earlier this week Rio Grande Inter Basin Roundtable Chairman Mike Gibson told that group that in a recent lunch with Kuenhold, the judge had told him he was not yet ready to release his decision but when he did, nobody would be happy with the result.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

San Luis Valley Advisory Committee appointments

Here’s the list of apponitments for the advisory committe Dick Wolfe is forming. He hopes that the committee will generate a bottom-up solution for pumping that will help protect senior rights holders and Colorado’s responsibilities under the Rio Grande Compact. Thanks to the State Engineer’s office for the information.

Appointees to the Rio Grande Basin Well Administration Rules Advisory Committee

1)The Advisory Committee shall be composed of representatives nominated by appropriators and entities including:

a)One representative from each of the following Districts:

Alamosa – La Jara Water Conservancy District – John Shawcroft – Alternate – Dwight Martin
Conejos Water Conservancy District – Mike Willett
Rio Grande Water Conservation District – Steve Vandiver – Alternates – Ray Wright, Lewis Entz
San Luis Valley Irrigation District – Michael Entz – Alternate – John Slane
San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District – Dee Greeman – Alternate – Chuck Lavry
Trinchera Water Conservancy District – Monty Smith – Alternate – Alvin Kunigi

b)One representative from each of the following geographic areas or water user associations:

Acequia Preservation Association – Kelly Sowards – Alternate – Tom Martinez
Alamosa-La Jara area – Allen Miller
Carnero/La Garita area – Mike Spearman
Costilla/Culebra area – Harold Anderson
Saguache area – Tim Lovato – Alternate – Ed Nielsen
Rio Grande Senior Water Users – Cory Off – Alternate – Rick Davie
San Luis Valley Well Users Association – Kirk Thompson – Alternate – John Shawcroft
Rio Grande Water Users Association – Doug Shriver
Empire Canal Water Users – Lawrence Crowder
Rio Grande Canal Water Users Association – Clay Corzine
Trinchera Irrigation Company – Conrad Trujillo – Alternate – Ty Ryland
Costilla Acequia Association – Joe Gallegos
Sanchez Ditch and Reservoir Company – Jerry Lorenz – Alternate – Tom Caldon

c)Up to one representative from county commissioners from each of the following counties in Water Division 3:

Alamosa – Greg Higel
Conejos – Lawrence Gallegos
Costilla – Franklin Kuhn
Mineral – Zeke Ward
Rio Grande – Doug Davie
Saguache – Mike Spearman

d)Up to one representative of each of the following State and Federal agencies:

Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service – Bruce Rittenhouse – Alternate – Roy Smith
Colorado Division of Wildlife – Ed Perkins – Alternate – Jay Skinner
National Parks Service – Great Sand Dunes National Park – Andrew Valdez – Alternate – Fred Burch
Natural Resources Conservation Service – Frank Riggle – Alternate – Rodney Clark
United States Fish and Wildlife Service – Meg Estep – Alternate – Mike Blenden, Clarke Dirks
Bureau of Reclamation – Ken Beck
Colorado Water Conservation Board – Travis Smith

e)Up to one representative from each of the following municipalities:

Alamosa – Don Koskelin
Ft. Garland – Stan Allaart
Blanca – Rodger Wakasugi
Creede – John Mattingly – Alternate – Clyde Dooley
Saguache – Dan Pacheco
Sanford – Vaughn Miller
Romeo – Don Martinez
La Jara – Bill Yohey

f)And, at least five additional appropriators of waters of the Rio Grande basin in Colorado, engineers, or water attorneys who practice in Water Division 3, to be selected by the State Engineer.

Romero Ditch Co. – Sam Vance
Engineer – Alan Davey
Prairie Ditch – Bill Mckinley II
Manassa Land & Irrigation Co. – Nathan Coombs
Alamosa River – Rod Reinhart
At large – Amy Kunugi
At large – Robert Mathis
At large – Tim Walters
At large – Leroy Salazar

At large – Norman Slade

At large – Tom Corzine
At large – Lynn Kopfman, Alternate – Lynn McCullogh
Attorney – Erich Schwiesow
Attorney – Tim Buchanan
Attorney – Bill Paddock

Here’s a report from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier From the article:

Deputy State Engineer Michael Sullivan, promoted last year from division engineer of the Rio Grande Basin (Water Division 3), told water users attending the agricultural conference in Monte Vista on Friday that the state engineer had pared down a list of 90-100 nominees to 56 people who will serve on an advisory committee to assist the state in coming months.

“We decided to focus on folks that could help us represent a large constituency,” Sullivan said.

He said the group will help State Engineer Dick Wolfe answer a multitude of questions as Wolfe crafts rules to govern groundwater use in this basin. Sullivan said the committee is so large because the state wanted to incorporate representatives from as many different groups as possible. He added that all of the advisory committee’s meetings will be open to the public, and the first one will likely be held in a location such as Ski Hi Park that will afford enough space for all those wishing to attend. The group’s first meeting date has not yet been set.

Committee members were just notified this week of their appointments.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

SB09-141, Fountain Creek Watershed District

Senator Tapia’s bill to establish the Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway district was approved by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearing yesterday, according to Charles Ashby writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The 60-page bill creates a district that has four boundaries, each with varying degrees of authority. The full boundaries of the district include all of El Paso and Pueblo counties, but the fee and taxing area called for in the bill is smaller than that, but larger than the actual Fountain Creek basin. The last, and smallest boundary is the flood plain area, a narrow strip that is nearly equal on both sides of the county line that extends from the south end of Fountain to Pueblo’s northern side. Only there would the district have powers over land-use issues.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Stimulus bill dough has lots of uses in Colorado

Here’s an update on the stimulus bill’s effects on Colorado water projects, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

About $30 million is being sought from the federal economic stimulus package by Colorado Springs for water projects already on the drawing board. Statewide requests from large cities total for at least $67 million in water projects, including about $32 million from Denver Water. The state has identified $180 million in shovel-ready projects and the Colorado Municipal League says more than $750 million in projects for 439 communities under 5,000 population are waiting in the wings. There are no guarantees that any of the requests would be funded, as the stimulus package would provide about $6.4 billion for water projects nationwide. Colorado already is dealing with the possibility of a $30 million cutback in mineral severance funding for water projects. On the other hand, the state is holding open its funds for water and wastewater projects until the stimulus impacts are clear…

The largest chunk requested from the economic stimulus pool by Colorado Springs is $13.3 million to maintain, rehabilitate and replace 20 wastewater crossings on tributaries to Fountain Creek. The crossings are in danger of overflows that could affect water quality. Colorado Springs also is asking for $5.8 million to improve a three-mile stretch of Fountain Creek at Clear Springs Ranch, located about 15 miles south of Colorado Springs. The project, one of four identified as part of the Corridor Master Plan, would improve conditions for fish, stabilize banks, protect wetlands and provide minor flood detention basins. The Clear Springs Project and stream crossings stabilization have been identified as part of SDS mitigation. Colorado Springs also has asked for $10 million to expand its nonpotable water system in the northern part of the city, increasing the reuse of water. Finally, Colorado Springs has asked the federal government for $600,000 for a low-impact development project that would show how designing subdivisions and lots could reduce runoff…

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is requesting $1 million toward its $330 million Arkansas Valley Conduit, said Executive Director Jim Broderick. The money would go toward investigating the alignment and rights of way needed for the project, which would provide drinking water from Pueblo Dam for 42 communities between Pueblo and Lamar. It would also free up some funds from an existing federal grant to be used for other purposes, Broderick said. The conduit is included in public lands bill that was to be considered this week, but was pushed back as Congress focused on the stimulus package.

Wiggins June referendum to decide strategy for sustainable water supply

The Wiggins Town Council is going the populist route and letting voters decide the towns strategy for a sustainable water supply. Here’s a report from Dan Barker writing for the Fort Morgan Times. From the article:

Mayor Mike Bates said he met with Fort Morgan city officials Monday to clear up what the city is willing to offer in terms of cost to buy water. The Fort Morgan City Council seems to be behind the latest offer. However, the Wiggins council seems to be “spinning its wheels,” so it would be better to have an election to let Wiggins voters decide between three different options, Bates said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

New home for Coyote Gulch

Hi all. I’m moving in here since Radio Userland — running on my home server — is broken.

I’ve always wanted to host my own data so Radio was a great program for that, except that a restore from backup didn’t work tonight.

New home for Coyote Gulch: http://coyotegulch.wordpress.com/