Southern Delivery System: Critics say Pueblo County permit conditions don’t do enough to protect the county
March 22, 2009
Not everyone is happy with the conditions attached to the approval of permits for Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Critics of Pueblo County’s proposed conditions for the Southern Delivery System say they don’t go far enough to protect the county from future ill effects of the $1.1 billion pipeline project…
District Attorney Bill Thiebaut wanted to add eight conditions to the list, primarily aimed at protecting Fountain Creek. Thiebaut filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado Springs in 2005 after repeated sewer line breaks and spills into the Fountain. While his suit was thrown out, a federal judge is still deliberating a parallel suit filed by the Sierra Club. “As district attorney, it is my duty to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Pueblo County and to ensure that laws are being enforced,” Thiebaut said in written testimony to commissioners. Thiebaut said commissioners should require Colorado Springs to build ponds and reservoirs along Fountain Creek; prove the effectiveness of stream crossings of sewer lines against stormwater; prove its sewage treatment plants, collection system and lift stations can handle the additional flows of SDS; provide information about its sewage system to Pueblo; and fully comply with future conditions and rules…
“The terms and conditions do not provide any assurance that sewage collection system stream crossings in the city of Colorado Springs are capable of accommodating the additional stream flows contemplated by SDS,” Thiebaut said. In addition to the $50 million for improvements and $75 million for upgrades to sewers, the county conditions include an adaptive management plan on Fountain Creek, as well as some other specific improvements, such as dredging at Clear Springs Ranch and in the Pueblo levee system as needed. Thiebaut said that isn’t enough. “The terms and conditions do not assure that additional sewage volume into CSU’s sewage collection system will not cause swage pipe failure or overflow from the antiquated vitrified clay sewage pipe which comprises approximately 80 percent of the Colorado Springs sewage collection system,” Thiebaut said…
At Wednesday’s hearing, the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition also asked for eight additional restrictions on Colorado Springs if it builds a pipeline through Pueblo County. The coalition’s first choice would be to deny the permit, but the conditions would be needed for approval, said attorney Joe Santarella. The coalition presented an even longer list at a hearing in December. “Most of these conditions have not been adopted in the mitigation plan, but are needed to protect the welfare and environment of Pueblo County and its residents,” Santarella told commissioners. Conditions included restriction of the amount of water pumped through the pipeline to current needs of applicants; creating a trust fund for compensating property owners in the Fountain Creek watershed; removing vegetation at reservoir sites to prevent mercury contamination of Fountain Creek; implementation of conservation ordinances; land use requirements to minimize runoff; use of conservation techniques during construction; use of renewable energy and recycling wastes during construction; and establishing a trust fund to compensate for nuisances during construction. “Most importantly, the commissioners must limit the amount of water diverted from the Arkansas River basin by the SDS pipeline through clear and enforceable regulations,” Santarella said.
Neal Hall, business manager for the Colorado Building Trades and Construction Council, said there should be requirements to assure that contractors on SDS paid a liveable wage to workers. C. Jacob Hobson, president of the Pueblo County Farm Bureau, said the loss of farmland and impact on downstream water users are not addressed in the conditions.
FEMA to modernize Pueblo flood plain maps
March 22, 2009
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Jeff Tucker): “The Federal Emergency Management Agency is working to modernize the flood plain maps for the city of Pueblo, and the city’s levees probably will need to be certified during the process. Dawn Gladwell, mapping project manager for FEMA’s Region 8, said the agency is nearing the end of a process of converting paper flood maps to digital content…
“Gladwell said the agency is in the process of collecting data about the flood maps, checking new development and its effects on runoff and looking over other topographic issues. She said the three levee systems the agency is interested in are those along the Arkansas River and Fountain and Wild Horse Dry creeks. Gladwell said the city may hire an engineer or the Army Corps of Engineers to study the levees at any time in the process, but she couldn’t provide an estimate on the costs. Going without a certification could be costly for property owners throughout the Downtown and East Side neighborhoods. ‘Without a certification, that would technically mean the levee cannot hold the water it was designed for,’ Gladwell said. ‘I don’t know the extent or how it would change the map.’”
John Salazar: I’m not sure I’m happy about this stuff
March 22, 2009
Part of the settlement announced last week by the Lower Arkansas Valley Conservancy District and Reclamation hinges on authorizing legislation that would allow Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin. The Lower Ark and Reclamation should have talked to Colorado’s congressional delegation before they struck the deal. Congressman John Salazar is opposed to Aurora moving the water out of basin. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
At least one lawmaker was caught off-guard by the proposal, and raised doubts about whether he could support such legislation in any form. “It upsets me and maybe gives me just cause to not support any legislation,” U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said Friday. Other lawmakers in the area’s congressional delegation have not yet weighed in on the deal.
Salazar acknowledged that he had not seen the agreement, but he made it clear that Aurora has little say in whether the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million water supply pipeline for the lower valley, is approved in Congress. Support for the conduit is one piece of the new agreement, but Salazar said it appears the conduit is being “held hostage” by the two groups.
Legislation which should move to the house floor next week has been suggested by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and would use excess-capacity revenues – including Aurora’s lease, but with many more leases within the Arkansas Valley – to repay construction costs of the conduit. Salazar said if legislation is introduced, it should be written so that Aurora is not able to take any more water from the valley. “If we continue bleeding the Arkansas basin, it will just be Pueblo and Colorado Springs left,” Salazar said. While the agreement would provide opportunity for the Super Ditch, a corporation formed by farmers with the help of the Lower Ark district to lease water, Salazar said he is concerned about the impact of taking more water out of the river and what that will do to local economies. “I still have concerns with the Super Ditch concept,” Salazar said. “I’m not sure I’m happy about this stuff.”
More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The authorization, which would be only for Aurora and no other out-of-basin water user, has not been introduced in Congress, but Lower Ark and Aurora officials plan to talk to members of Congress about it later this month. The authorization would remove the two key elements of a 2007 federal lawsuit filed against Reclamation by the Lower Ark district that challenges Aurora’s ability to use the Fry-Ark Project because it was not authorized in either the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Act or the 1958 Water Supply Act. “We have not been asked to, and I’m not sure we’d be willing to support that agreement,” Salazar said Thursday. “We were caught off-guard that it was even in the works.”
The agreement is the culmination of four years of on-again, off-again negotiations related to the Preferred Storage Options Plan between Aurora and the Lower Ark that Salazar and his brother, former U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, helped launch in 2005. Lower Ark attorney Peter Nichols explained Wednesday that talks had broken several times over the four-year period, most recently last June. Talks restarted in January, leading to the agreement approved this week. Any new legislation should not be used to give Aurora more water and the conditions in the agreement unnecessarily link the Arkansas Valley Conduit’s future to Aurora’s ability to move water. “I believe at the very least, there would not be a single drop of more water going to Aurora through this proposed legislation,” Salazar said. “I have serious concerns that there are no conditions in this agreement to stop any more water from leaving the Arkansas Valley.”
Salazar said the Arkansas Valley Conduit would continue to move through Congress as part of the Public Lands Bill that won Senate approval for the second time Thursday. The bill will go back to the House, where it failed for lack of a two-thirds vote last week, and will only need a simple majority to pass…
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, sponsors of the Fry-Ark project, the conduit and PSOP, was supportive of the Aurora-Lower Ark agreement during a brief presentation Thursday, and some expressed hope that PSOP might be resurrected as a result. Aurora could pay more than $50 million over 40 years under excess-capacity contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation signed in 2007. The conduit legislation proposes using those revenues, along with other excess-capacity contracts, to repay construction costs of the conduit and other underfunded parts of the Fry-Ark project. District officials have said Aurora’s participation is helpful, but not necessary to make the plan work. The agreement between Aurora and the Lower Ark would put the federal lawsuit on hold for up to two years until legislation could be adopted, at which time, the Lower Ark would move to dismiss the case with prejudice, Nichols said. That means the Lower Ark could not file another lawsuit over the contract.
More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Peter Roper):
The $300 million pipeline project [Arkansas Valley Conduit] that Colorado lawmakers have been prodding through Congress is just one item in a lengthy public lands bill that the Senate approved on a 77-20 vote Thursday. It was the second time since January that the Senate approved the legislation, but the public lands package was rejected in the House just a week ago. That’s not expected to happen a second time. Hoping for fast action, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had brought the bill to a vote on “special consideration” – a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority – and House Republicans, plus some Democrats, stopped the bill by keeping the final tally two votes short of two-thirds. Pelosi has said she will bring the measure back for another vote soon and a simple majority will be all that’s needed. It passing is very likely given the Democratic majority in the House.
More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Last week’s potential settlement of a federal lawsuit about using a project intended to provide more water to the Arkansas River basin to move water from the basin stirs long-standing issues with yet another agreement…
In late 2004, and often since then, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District ook a hard line opposing the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley…
In 2007, after Reclamation approved a 40-year deal for Aurora to store and move water upstream, the Lower Ark dug its heels in and filed a federal lawsuit against Reclamation. The suit was joined by Aurora and Arkansas Valley Native, a group of four influential men who own water rights and also opposed the contract. It was the most rigorous challenge to the deals with Aurora since 1986, when Reclamation began leasing excess-capacity space in Lake Pueblo to the city of 300,000 east of Denver…
With the federal court challenge, however, it became evident there was never clear authority for Aurora’s involvement in the Fry-Ark Project. While Reclamation claimed the authority has always been implicit in federal statutes, the Lower Ark challenged the leases under specific legislation by Congress in 1958 and 1962. The [Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District] was never comfortable with Aurora’s participation in the Fry-Ark Project – which dates back to the beginnings of the Homestake Project in the 1950s – and sought to incorporate formal authority as part of its suggested Preferred Storage Options Plan legislation, which continually failed in Congress.
However, Aurora is able, under the agreement, to buy new water rights in the valley if a new pipeline that would take water out of the valley is built. The Southern Delivery System, still in the permit process, is not counted as a new pipeline under the agreement. The agreement reads: “Should additional delivery systems, which are neither promoted, financed nor used by Aurora, become operational that allow for the delivery of additional agricultural water rights from the mainstem of the Arkansas River for use in other locations, the parties recognize that the competition for agricultural water rights will increase significantly and that it is in the best interests of the owners of such rights to maximize the market for such water.”[...]
While the Lower Ark has spent much of the last five years fighting Aurora, Lower Ark officials believe they may have enlisted an ally in keeping other water interests outside the valley at bay. “We continuously worry about Aurora, but what about Denver and the South Metro District?” asked Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district. “This agreement with Aurora will help keep other pipelines out of the basin.” Provisions requiring Aurora’s support for studies of past water transfers, water quality in the Arkansas River basin and regional water management are also important to preserving water for the basin, Winner said. Aurora’s support on the conduit legislation is needed to assure the project will continue to move smoothly through Congress and into reality, he added…
Beyond the old fight with Aurora, there are numerous opportunities for partnerships built into the agreement. Besides the water leasing and studies, there are provisions that allow the Lower Ark, primarily on behalf of the Super Ditch, to gain storage space in existing reservoirs like Lake Henry and Lake Meredith in Crowley County, and in future projects like Box Creek Reservoir in Lake County. Aurora will also share the expertise it has gained in its farming programs under the Rocky Ford Ditch – where it worked with farmers to study drip irrigation and alternative cropping – with the rest of the valley. Aurora also committed to working with Crowley County on revegetation. The city revegetated lands under its court decree for shares of the Colorado Canal it purchased in the 1980s. However, over time and especially following the 2002 drought, weeds overcame the dried-up farmland, creating conditions for a tragic brush fire last year. While the negotiations for the current deal occurred out of the public eye – they’ve been going on with staff and lawyers since January, but were not discussed in an open meeting until last week – it’s no secret that Aurora and the Lower Ark have had on-again, off-again talks since 2005…
“We are confident that our agreement with Aurora Water mitigates our concerns and we are pleased to have their financial and technical support for future projects that benefit the Lower Arkansas Valley,” said Pete Moore of Crowley County, who was elected chairman of the Lower Ark board in January.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
SB09-141: Fountain Creek Watershed District
March 21, 2009
SB09-141 cleared the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee this week, according to a report from Charles Ashby writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
House members from Pueblo and El Paso counties applauded Wednesday’s vote by the Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee in support of the flood- and water-quality district. “We have all sorts of issues that have needed to be addressed over the many years but, because it was difficult to get many of the stakeholders on the same page, we were not able to address those issues,” said Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, who’s carrying the bill in the House with Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo. “But Representative Pace and I, along with the elected officials (from both counties), can say those days are behind us,” she added. “Those communities, El Paso County and Pueblo County, have joined together in this extremely important piece of legislation to move those counties forward.” The 60-page measure, which Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, ushered through the Senate last month, would establish a nine-member board that would oversee the flood plain from Fountain to Pueblo.
From the Telluride Watch: “Ridgway’s Public Works Director/Engineer Joanne Fagan will have an engineering report on the town’s waterline replacement project soon so it may be considered for federal stimulus money, she told the Ridgway Town Council at its March 11 meeting. ‘We think the waterline replacement project may qualify for stimulus money,’ she said. ‘I am hoping to have an engineering report ready by next week.’ Fagan said the report needs to be in Denver by March 23 and that construction for the upgrade will need to begin by Sept. 30 in order to receive the funding. It is unclear how much federal stimulus money the town could get for the waterline upgrade. But at some point, the town’s lateral waterlines must be replaced. There is also need for a new pressure zone pump on the west side of town. Fagain said the Vista Terrace water tank is in need of improvements, as well, but she said that project would be put on hold until money is secured for the waterline improvements. Last November it was reported that the scope of the water distribution system improvements could come at a cost of approximately $750,000.”
From the Aurora Sentinel (Adam Goldstein): “The Aurora City Council approved a settlement in litigation relating to its use of excess water capacity in a project in the Arkansas River Basin during a special meeting held Wednesday, March 18. The litigation related to a 40-year contract between the city and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, an agreement that saw Aurora end its use of year-to-year contracts with the Bureau for use of extra capacity in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in the Arkansas River Basin for storing excess water. The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, along with local landowners, filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the Bureau did not have the authority to negotiate the 40-year agreement and citing potential negative impacts to the local economy. Council unanimously approved a settlement on Wednesday that confirmed the Bureau’s right to negotiate with an outside entity, following a similar ruling by the Bureau earlier in the day.”
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From the Fort Morgan Times (Jesse Chaney): “As area onion farmers prepared for one of the driest planting seasons seen in years, irrigation sprinklers were running throughout Morgan County even before the first seed went into the ground. ‘We’ve had to run the sprinklers before we could even plant,’ said Larry Jensen of Jensen Farms Inc. ‘There’s good moisture down underneath, but on top with all this wind, it’s dried the top moisture out pretty bad.’ The ground required moisture because planting equipment does not work properly in powdery topsoil, Jensen said. ‘The planter units slip in the dirt, and then you don’t get a good population,’ he said.”
Pagosa Springs “Davey Wave” whitewater feature is gone and work is complete in the town’s whitewater park. Here’s a report from Bill Hudson writing for the Pagosa Daily Post. From the article:
I happened to run into Town of Pagosa Springs Parks Director Jim Miller at the overlook parking lot Wednesday morning, and we paused for a moment to lean on the log rail fence and admire the Town’s new white water wave feature, bubbling and tumbling in front of the Bob Hand Visitors Center. The new rock-and-cement structure looked very reminiscent of the now departed “Davey Wave” — except it had its “dropped” low area on its eastern side, instead of on the western side as with the Davey Wave. The visual similarity no doubt had something to do with the fact that both white water structures — the old Davey Wave and this new, as-yet-unnamed feature, were designed by Boulder engineer Gary Lacy, of Recreational Engineering and Planning (REP). But I had a sense that the new feature was slightly less “artificial” looking — perhaps as a result of using more rock and less concrete…
Perhaps the new feature’s superior appearance also had something to do with the amount of time spent planning for it. The Davey Wave, built back in March 2005, had been installed under Lacy’s direction almost before the ink was dry on REP’s contract with then Town manager Mark Garcia — and before the project had even obtained the proper government permits. This new feature, meanwhile, was the result of four years of haggling and negotiations with the federal Army Corps of Engineers and the state Division of Wildlife.
Avon: Waterwise Wednesday
March 21, 2009
From the Vail Daily: “The number of brown trout in the Eagle River in Avon has dropped since 2005 and the health of a once badly polluted stretch near Minturn in Colorado’s Vail Valley is again in question. “The Eagle River may be a reflection of the national economy, a time for troubled waters,” said Dr. John Woodling, who has spent many years studying the river. Woodling will talk about the changes to the river at the next Waterwise Wednesday session at 5 p.m., Wednesday at the Avon library.”
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project: County commissioners wading through 1041 application process
March 21, 2009
The Chaffee County Commissioners have postponed deliberations on Nestlé Waters North America’s plans to move water out of the Arkansas River Basin to a bottling plant in Denver until April 21st to make sure that they have enough time to review all public comments and submitted site plans and other material. Organized opposition to the project — while coming in a bit late in the process — is growing by leaps and bounds. Here’s a report from Jennifer Denevan writing for The Mountain Mail:
Additional information for the 1041 application deals with site plans for Bighorn and Ruby Mountain springs, the Colorado Division of Wildlife plan, weed management and more. It was requested for use by planning commission members, but will also be distributed to commissioners, county staff members and county consultants for review. It’s unclear when county planners will meet regarding the 1041 application, but their next regular meeting is March 31 and they may set a date then. County commissioners will reopen the continued public hearing at 1 p.m. April 21 in the Buena Vista American Legion Hall for more public comment and possibly a decision regarding the permit applications. Commissioners extended hearings because they have massive amounts of information – including public comments – to sift through.
About 30 speakers, mostly in opposition, addressed commissioners Wednesday night. Comments against approval included lack of economic development for the county, potential environmental harm, traffic issues and the Nestlé company history with similar projects in other states. Several residents said they believe Nestlé will benefit from the project more than Chaffee County.
More coverage of Wednesday’s meeting from Jennifer Denevan writing for The Mountain Mail:
After hearing from about 30 residents during a 3½ hour public hearing Wednesday night, Chaffee County Commissioners unanimously approved continuing the event to 1 p.m. April 21 for additional comments. Commissioners said they would try to hold the hearing in Buena Vista to allow easier access by residents there if a large enough venue can be found. Several comments Wednesday indicated need for a hearing in the northern end of the county. Continuing the hearing, commissioners said, would allow time to get necessary information from Nestlé and understand information offered so far. It also allows time for county personnel and planning and zoning members to review information and comment…
Several comments were offered supporting the Nestlé application. Reasons ranged from educational opportunities for students to Nestlé giving a good report and fulfilling application requirements. Frank McMurry of Nathrop said although he typically resists change in the county, as do many residents, the project – done correctly – may be an open invitation to others which could attract more industry.
Opposing comments focused on negative environmental impact from the project, negative publicity regarding similar Nestlé projects in other locations and potential safety hazards on U.S. 285 caused by increased truck traffic and inclement weather. Other opposition focused on conflicting information between studies completed by Nestlé and reports from county consultants regarding environmental impact.
Here’s an update on the homeowner near Fort Lupton whose well water is contaminated with natural gas, from Jordan Steffen writing for the Greeley Tribune. From the article:
Amee Ellsworth met with representatives from Noble Energy and Anadarko. The two companies own the eight natural gas wells near Ellsworth’s home; one well may be contaminating Ellsworth’s water supply with flammable gas. Representatives met with Ellsworth and her husband at their home, and collaborated to provide them with safe living conditions. Ellsworth said she was glad to see the two companies working together to create solutions for her home. She worries, however, that their proposals do not offer answers for both sides of the problem. “Overall the problem is we want safe and clean water. They’ve addressed the clean part, but not the safe” part, Ellsworth said. She said that a treatment unit will provide clean drinking water, but she still worries about the buildup of the dangerous gas.
John Christiansen, a representative for Anadarko, said the two companies are working together to find a way to help Ellsworth. The exact cause of the contamination has not been determined, Christiansen said. Anadarko is responsible for three of the eight wells that may be responsible for the leak. Christiansen said the wells were tested in October 2008, and no malfunction was found. Testing will continue and rigs to monitor the wells will be put in place next week, he said. Nobel Energy representative Stephen Flaherty said that Noble is working hard with Anadarko to make sure the family is safe. Noble also will place monitoring rigs on their wells, he said. Both companies will continue to look for long-term solutions, Flaherty said.
Pueblo West was hoping to get an exemption from the Pueblo flow program (which they declined to participate in earlier in the program’s history) in conjunction with Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. An exemption is not in the cards according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
On the one hand, [Pueblo West] the community of about 30,000 would bear the brunt of visible impacts from the pipeline through Pueblo County, with disruption of roads, property and schedules looming during the construction phase. The benefit is that Pueblo West would save millions of dollars in meeting its future needs by hooking into the proposed pipeline as it leaves Pueblo Dam. By hooking into the SDS pipeline to deliver up to 18 million gallons per day, it will pay $1 million, compared with up to $8 million if it built its own river intake below Pueblo Dam. So, officials reasoned, it ought to be easy to catch a break on a provision of terms and conditions that requires participants to abide by the rules of the Pueblo flow program, which limits exchanges during certain times in order to meet minimum flow targets for the Arkansas River to meet the needs of fish and kayakers. Not so, Pueblo West learned this week. Pueblo County commissioners were unwilling to budge on a request to exempt Pueblo West from the flow program at a hearing Wednesday…
Two of the partners, Colorado Springs and Fountain, are already signed on with the flow program, and it won’t have any significant impact on the remaining partner, Security. There is no sympathy among the group toward the pleadings made by Pueblo West at the hearing. “We can’t be sponsors of an exception to a program we are complying with,” said Colorado Springs attorney David Robbins. “We are under an obligation to comply with the flow program.”
Pueblo West declined to participate in the flow maintenance program set up under a six-party intergovernmental agreement that includes Pueblo, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado Springs, Fountain, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Aurora, Robbins said. On the other hand, Pueblo West signed an agreement to support all permit activities, under the lead of Colorado Springs, under a 2007 IGA. The 1041 land-use application to Pueblo County is one of those permits. And, as approved by commissioners, it says Pueblo West must commit to the flow program.
“We were never part of the flow management program because it was generally accepted that we never had an effect on the river,” said Steve Harrison, Pueblo West Metro District utilities director. Harrison, supported by attorneys for the metro district, told the commissioners that Lake Pueblo is the terminal storage for Pueblo West’s water supply. The water comes mainly from Twin Lakes, so it was never part of the flow to the Arkansas River. Twin Lakes brings water into the Arkansas River basin from the Colorado River basin. Pueblo West releases water down Wild Horse Dry Creek, which enters the Arkansas River about 5 miles east of the Pueblo Dam. Pueblo West can exchange those flows, which are reusable under state water law, by storing water out of priority in its Lake Pueblo account.
The members of the flow management program say that while Pueblo West is entitled to reuse its transmountain flows, it needs native water to complete the exchange. “We disagree that the exchange doesn’t deplete the river,” said Alan Ward, water resources administrator for the Pueblo Board of Water Works. “The flow management partners all lose water.”
As of last year, the partners in the program let about 30,000 acre-feet of water — a little more than a year’s supply for Pueblo’s potable water system — flow downriver, either through curtailing exchanges or releasing water for special events at Pueblo Whitewater Park. Through a recovery of yield program, about 71 percent has been recovered. The water is captured at Holbrook Reservoir, under a contract, and used for later exchanges. If Pueblo West were participating in the program now, it would lose only about 92 acre-feet per year, Ward estimated, based on information provided by Pueblo West.
Snowpack news
March 21, 2009
From the Aspen Times: “Overall, the snowpack for the Roaring Fork River basin is 12 percent above average, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, an agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Data collected at seven locations in the Roaring Fork River basin showed on Friday that the snowpack was 21 percent above average at Schofield Pass in the Crystal Valley drainage. The snowpack east of Aspen near Grizzly Reservoir was 15 percent above average, the NRCS reported. The average amount water equivalent held in the snowpack at that site is 15.2 inches on the first day of spring. It was 17.5 inches this year. The snowpack is holding up better in the Crystal Valley than the Fryingpan Valley, according to the conservation service’s measurements. Along with the Schofield site, the snowpack is 14 percent above average at North Lost Trail near Marble and 3 percent above average at McClure Pass. In the Fryingpan Valley, the snowpack is 2 percent above average at the Ivanhoe site and right at average for March 20 at the Kiln site. The snowpack is 9 percent above average at the Nast site…
“The Gunnison River basin’s snowpack is 98 percent of average; the Dolores/San Miguel is 95 percent of average; the San Juan basin is at 96 percent; and the Animas is at 90 percent, according to the conservation service.”
From the Denver Post: “For the meteorological record, March and April usually deliver Denver’s heaviest, wettest snows. But the National Weather Service points to La Niña, the Pacific Ocean weather phenomenon, for keeping the snow at bay this year. Since July, Denver’s snowfall is just 14 percent of the 61.7 inches normally recorded in the July 1-June 30 monitoring period. March 2 saw a record high temperature of 74 in Denver, breaking a 1901 mark.”
Colorado infrastructure needs
March 20, 2009
Here’s a look at the federal stimulus bill and projected shortfalls in funding for infrastructure in Colorado, from David Olinger writing for the Denver Post. From the article:
• Colorado now has 395 wastewater projects in need of state or federal assistance, including $444 million in new projects from cities hoping for economic stimulus money. The new total: $2.6 billion. The highest-priority projects alone total $202 million, almost seven times the amount coming to Colorado from the federal government…
• Statewide, the capacities of 169 dams have been restricted until repairs can be made. Colorado’s dam safety program has prepared a list of 30 “shovel-ready” repair projects that could be carried out for $11 million. Eight are “high-hazard” dams, meaning human lives probably would be lost if they failed. But the stimulus bill did not set money aside to repair state-regulated dams…
Statewide, there were 600,000 septic systems in Colorado as of 2002, serving one-fourth of Colorado residents, and thousands have been built yearly since then. Twenty-two stretches of rivers and creeks — from Fountain Creek and its tributaries north of Colorado Springs to mountain streams feeding the South Platte River — have tested positive for E. coli bacteria, an indication that fresh fecal matter is polluting them. In most cases, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment officials say they have not pinpointed the sources of these bacteria. But they suspect septic systems are fouling some of these streams. “Certainly, some of the problems we’re seeing in Fountain Creek, that’s what we’re thinking,” said Steve Gunderson, the state’s water quality director. Infrastructure: The word invites a yawn. Its nature invites neglect. Who sees the pipes that deliver and dispose of water, the undersides of bridges, the road beneath a cosmetic coat of asphalt, the seepage trickling from the wall of a dam? Yet in Colorado, and across the nation, the remarkable infrastructure systems our grandparents built are slowly crumbling, sometimes with devastating consequences. Some Colorado towns and unincorporated communities have been waiting years for a basic infrastructure component: their first sewer system…
[Jennifer] Williford, her husband and their two daughters live in Carter Lake Heights — a neighborhood built on a steep, rocky hillside in Larimer County…When her family moved in, they had to agree to temporarily put all their wastewater in a sealed tank until a sewer system was built. That was four years ago, and no sewer plan exists today.For decades, Larimer County permitted septic tanks and leach fields to dispose of wastewater at Carter Lake Heights. County health officials halted those permits before the Willifords moved in, citing septic-system failures that left sewage leaking above ground and across the neighborhood’s dirt roads. The only option: sealed vaults. In a septic system, solids accumulate in the tank, but the liquids from toilets, dishwashers, showers and washing machines flow into an adjacent leach field. In a sealed vault, nothing leaves. It must be pumped out whenever wastewater fills it, or sewage will back up into the house. For the Willifords, the charge is $280 per visit, plus $100 if the driver has to chain up in the snow. They do all they can to avoid putting water in their sealed tank. Flush for solids only. Never use the Jacuzzi tub. Take short showers…
State health officials intend to assist sewer projects that benefit public health first, but only if they’re ready for construction. Preliminary engineering drawings are due this month, final applications next month, for sewer construction projects that could begin by September. Projects costing $2.6 billion must compete for $30 million in federal funds.
More coverage from the Denver Post (David Olinger):
Colorado has minimized the risk of catastrophic failures with a highly regarded dam-inspection program. One consequence: In a state with a growing population and recurring water shortages, the safety program has restricted the storage capacity of 169 dams, including 21 high-hazard dams.
There is one federal dam in Colorado whose adequacy is debated — and whose failure would be catastrophic. It’s the reservoir in Cherry Creek State Park…Fourteen years ago, a study for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers led to this startling conclusion: The “probable maximum precipitation” event in the Cherry Creek basin could put a 2-foot wall of water over the dam. A subsequent study for the state envisioned a smaller maximum potential rainstorm — and concluded the dam would hold the runoff. “Depending on the figure you choose, the spillway is adequate or inadequate,” said Mark Haynes, the chief of Colorado’s dam-safety program. “We do not have any problems with the hydrological adequacy.” The Corps of Engineers study defined the maximum storm as dumping 17 inches of rain in nine hours after other storms had partially filled the Cherry Creek reservoir — in short, much worse than any storm in Denver’s recorded history…
The probable maximum storm “is a once-in-forever type of event. Worldwide, there have been dams that have seen that event,” said John Palensky, the Cherry Creek dam-safety study manager at the Corps. “We have to live in that world where you look at the improbable.” Palensky said the Cherry Creek dam is structurally sound, and he would not worry about living downstream. But the capacity question, combined with extraordinary population growth below the dam since the 1940s, led the Corps to consider safety options, from raising the dam or enlarging its spillway to storing more water upstream. As of the 1990s, the Corps estimated more than 120,000 people and $30 billion worth of property were below this dam. Interstate 225 passes directly adjacent to the dam; southeast Denver and Aurora lie downstream. Under the Corps’ rules, dams must be large enough to hold 100 percent of the water from a probable maximum precipitation event, and in that event, “there is a potential that the Cherry Creek dam could overtop,” Palensky said. In a Corps region that covers parts of six states, other federal dams are in worse condition. Yet the Cherry Creek dam, “out of all of our dams, is our highest dam-safety priority,” he said. The downstream population “puts it as the No. 1 on our priority list.”
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and the Bureau of Reclamation have reached a settlement over the long-term “if and when” contract awarded to Aurora for storage in Lake Pueblo. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board of directors, which filed the lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation and its Aurora contract, approved the settlement on a 7-0 vote. Aurora’s City Council was expected to approve the deal later in the day.
Under the settlement, the Lower Ark agreed to “park” its federal lawsuit for up to two years to allow Congress time to pass legislation authorizing both the Aurora water contract and an Arkansas Valley Conduit funding mechanism, Lower Ark attorney Peter Nichols said. If the legislation passes, Aurora agrees to then pay $2 million over several years toward additional Lower Ark projects such as Super Ditch and Fountain Creek upgrades, cooperate in Arkansas River basin water quality studies and support regional planning efforts.
Elsewhere, the agreement restricts Aurora from obtaining new water rights in the valley as long as the Super Ditch is viable and no new pipelines out of the valley are constructed – a move that goes a step beyond a 2003 agreement in which Aurora pledges not to buy additional water rights for 40 years. The Lower Ark for its part agreed not to contest Aurora’s ongoing lease agreements with the High Line Canal and the Pueblo Board of Water Works, in exchange for Aurora’s pledge of cooperation with the Super Ditch. The Lower Ark also would settle several state water court cases in which the agency is an objector, Nichols said.
The Lower Ark also can choose to participate in future Aurora storage projects like Box Creek in Lake County, as well as gain space not being used by Aurora in Lake Henry and Lake Meredith in Crowley County. That storage could benefit Super Ditch, a corporation formed to market farm water that keeps water rights in the hands of irrigators…
The Lower Ark’s lawsuit was filed in 2007 after the Bureau of Reclamation awarded a 40-year contract to Aurora to store water in Lake Pueblo and make a paper trade of water it owns to move the water to Twin Lakes. Aurora takes water from the Arkansas Valley through the Otero Pumping Station at Twin Lakes and moves it into its system at Spinney Lake through the Homestake Pipeline. The suit remains active on two points: the legality of the contract under both the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act and the 1958 Water Supply Act.
The suit was joined by Aurora on Reclamation’s side and on the other side by the Arkansas Valley Native, made up of Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings, former lawmaker Bob Shoemaker of Canon City, former Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District President Wally Stealey and Wiley banker Fred Esgar. Arkansas Valley Native was not a party to the agreement approved Wednesday, has not seen any details and is reviewing its role in the case, a group spokesman said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Lower South Platte Water Symposium recap
March 19, 2009
Here’s a recap of the recent Lower South Platte Water Symposium, from Judy Debus writing for the Sterling Journal Advocate. From the article:
What is happening to the water supply in northeastern Colorado now and what can be expected in the future was the topic of the day for the Lower South Platte Water Symposium at Northeastern Junior College. Attending were farmers, ranchers, government representatives, conservation groups, legislators and others concerned with what is going to happen to the Colorado water supply.
Presentations by Jim Hall, division engineer of the State Engineer’s Office; Jerry Kinny of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program; Greg Kernohan of Ducks Unlimited; Peter Walker of the Colorado Division of Wildlife; Nolan Doesken and Neil Hansen of Colorado State University; Rod Kuharich and Jim Yahn, members of the Colorado Water Roundtables; and Eric Hecox of the Colorado Water Conservation Board offered the attendees an overview what is happening and what can be expected in the future…
Hall addressed the increased municipal demand because of growth, regardless of the economy, that is going to put pressure on the water system. If projects aren’t approved like the Northern project or the Windy Gap project and other projects that are proposed, the water will have to come from somewhere. “That water is going to come from somewhere and it will probably come from agriculture” he said. As far as future administration of water, Hall spoke of the continuing drop in irrigated acres in the state. In 1976, there were approximately one million irrigated acres as opposed to 838,000 acres in 2005. In 1956, there were no sprinklers; in 1976, 15 percent of the land was sprinkler irrigated; and in 2005, 40 percent was sprinkler irrigated. Cities are also lining gravel pits to store more water, mainly for reusable water that has historically gone into the river so in the future there will be less flow in the river due to that.
Snake River: Some heavy metals in stream naturally occuring
March 19, 2009
Here’s an analysis of a study released today for the Snake River watershed, from Bob Berwyn writing for the Summit Daily News. From the article:
A significant part of the heavy metal contamination in the Snake comes from natural sources, said Jim Shaw, a local engineer who recently completed a watershed plan for the river. After walking along nearly every mile of every stream in the basin, Shaw said he found natural springs, “where man has never tread,” with high levels of zinc and acid-tinged water…
Zinc is poisonous to trout at concentrations that aren’t harmful to humans. Several recent experiments showed that zinc levels in the Snake River near Keystone are high enough to kill trout in just a few days. Farther downstream, the metals are more diluted, with some trout surviving a short distance upstream of Dillon Reservoir. “There’s a reason it was mined,” Shaw said, referring to the high level of naturally occurring minerals in the rock. “It’ll never be a fishery,” he said of the Snake River. Even cleaning up every single source of mine-related pollution wouldn’t be enough to reach existing water quality standards, he said.
The abandoned Pennsylvania Mine has been the key focus for various parties working on a cleanup plan. But Shaw’s plan goes beyond the Pennsylvania Mine, identifying numerous additional sources of metals in many of the river’s smaller tributaries. The watershed plan, to be unveiled Thursday at a Blue River Watershed Group forum in Frisco, prioritizes cleanup sites.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From the Fort Morgan Times: “Because area residents, farming operations and entire subdivisions rely on the Morgan County Quality Water District for their primary source of water, a team of stakeholders met for the first time Tuesday to assemble a source water protection plan for the district.”
[More...]
“It’s critical that we maintain the kind of water supply and the quality that we currently have,” said MCQWD General Manager Mark Kokes. Spearheading the planning project is Colleen Williams of the Colorado Rural Water Association, who completed the process for the city of Brush just three months ago. Williams works to create source water protection plans in three communities each year, she said.”[...]
The district currently serves customers from three aquifers, Kokes said. The district is also taking delivery of Colorado-Big Thompson water through its San Arroyo Project, he said, and it plans to participate in the Northern Integrated Supply Project. The source water plan will help the district protect all sources of water, Williams said, including any ground water, aquifers, watersheds and well heads…
The first step to preserving source water is to form a planning team, Williams said, which was accomplished at the first meeting. The team included area residents and representatives from local businesses, agencies, government departments and other interested entities.
The second step is to determine a source water protection area, Williams said. The state has completed an assessment of the area, she said, but this was likely formed using outdated or incorrect data.
For step three, Williams said, the team should take an inventory of potential contamination sources of water. Contamination may come from landfills, storage tanks, gas stations, septic tanks or spills of oil, chemicals or biodiesel, she said.
The fourth step is to develop a management plan, Williams said. The plan will outline regulatory or non-regulatory approaches to meet short-term and long-term goals, she said.
For the fifth step, she said, the team should plan for emergencies. This contingency plan should establish a chain of command and identify any alternative water supplies, she said.
The sixth and final step requires the formation of a steering committee, which will commit to implementing the source water protection plan. The final plan will not simply be handed to the water district, she said, but will be carried out by a team of stakeholders.
From KDVR-TV via the Associated Press: ” A woman said she lives in constant fear and is terrified her home could blow up because of natural gas that has managed to seep into her water supply. Amee Ellsworth can turn on a faucet in her kitchen or bathroom, flick a lighter and watch flames shoot up from the sink. And Ellsworth said she’s afraid she or her neighbors are at imminent risk of an explosion. Dave Neslin from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission said the gas is likely coming from a leaking well, but there are eight wells located within a half-mile of Ellsworth’s home. The wells are owned by two different energy companies.”
Update: More coverage from the Greeley Tribune including a link to Fox 31 video:
[Amee] Ellsworth and [Renee] McClure’s water wells tap into an aquifer that probably provides water for as many as a hundred homes, Ellsworth said. Ellsworth worries that natural gas will build up in her home and explode after a spark, she said. She showers in the dark to avoid switching on the light and inadvertently cause a spark. Dark showers are not the only negative effect. The contaminated water makes Ellsworth’s home nearly impossible to sell. Her homeowner’s insurance will likely be canceled, she said…
The state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is continuing its investigation. It is also working with the two companies responsible for natural gas wells in the area, Noble Energy and Anadarko. Spokespeople from Noble Energy and Anadarko declined to answer questions about the incident but said they were concerned for the families’ health and working to solve the problem. Today, Ellsworth will meet with representatives from both gas companies, according to Neslin. Ellsworth said Anadarko has made no contact with her. Noble Energy has offered to install a water treatment unit at Ellsworth’s home, she said. Ellsworth, however, worries that a water treatment unit is not a long-term answer. After consulting Boulder GNC Water Well, Ellsworth worries that the natural gas will continue to vent from the ground and accumulate in her home.
Here’s a look at Western Resource Advocate’s report “Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in Colorado” released yesterday, from the Daily Sentinel:
A commercial oil-shale industry in western Colorado has the potential to be the biggest water guzzler this region has ever seen, sucking up much of the water now flowing to agriculture and possibly impacting water availability for cities and towns in Colorado. Understanding that there are numerous uncertainties regarding how much water oil companies may actually use in oil-shale development, Western Resource Advocates in Boulder looked at the water issue from a different angle: How much water have they applied for legally? The numbers are eye-catching, to say the least. Six oil companies already have filed for water rights on the Colorado and White rivers totaling more than 7.2 million acre feet. That’s the entire annual allocation for the four states in the Upper Colorado River Basin, including Colorado. Those filings don’t mean the entire Upper Colorado Basin would be dried up to serve oil shale. Many of the filings are for conditional rights that might only be available in years with heavy spring runoff. Others might never be used, as oil companies develop technologies that require less water…
As Chris Treese of the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District put it, “Any large transfer of water to oil shale would shift the West Slope landscape from an agricultural landscape to an industrial one.”
More coverage from Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
Karin P. Sheldon, the group’s executive director, said energy companies essentially have cornered the market on Western Slope water rights. Exercising these rights for large-scale commercial oil shale development would jeopardize many agricultural uses involving junior water rights and water now leased from energy companies, and harm the ability of Western Slope and Front Range communities to meet future water needs, the group said. It found that ExxonMobil owns the most rights, with 49 conditional claims and ownership in 48 irrigation ditches. Shell holds 31 conditional rights, has ownership in five irrigation ditches and is in the process of securing rights on the Yampa River. Several other companies have water rights holdings. Among them, Chevron has 28 conditional rights and ownership in 24 irrigation ditches, and its Unocal subsidiary possesses absolute rights to another 48 wells and springs and owns 13 ditches…
The report says a Bureau of Land Management analysis of water needs associated with commercial oil shale development on public land is deficient. BLM spokesman David Boyd said the agency acknowledged last year that more study on impacts will be needed once the technology for developing oil shale is known. That study would occur before any commercial leasing takes place, he said. Boyd said that acknowledgment was made in its programmatic environmental impact statement on oil shale development. Shell is researching oil shale development technology in Rio Blanco County. Shell spokesman Tracy Boyd said he hadn’t looked at the new report in detail, but that the report bases water use estimates on another study that makes an unrealistic assumption of an industry producing 1.5 million barrels of oil per day from shale by 2036. It also overstates associated water use, he said.
Pueblo County laid out their requirements for Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System yesterday, according to a report from Debbie Bell writing for the Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:
A lengthy list of terms and conditions — some quite costly — received a stamp of approval Wednesday evening from the Pueblo County Commissioners. Even though the preferred route of the Colorado Springs Utilities project is from Pueblo Reservoir north, the decision-making work now begins in earnest. “The heavy lifting really begins now, in terms of our management and our council making a good business decision,” SDS Project Manager John Fredell said this morning. Fredell said the Colorado Springs City Council, which also sits as the board of directors of CSU, will make the final determination after it receives a recommendation from utilities management…
Pueblo slapped on conditions, including a $50 million investment in Fountain Creek over the next five years and another $75 million in sanitary sewer system upgrades…
Fredell said the determination will not be made on final costs alone. Colorado Springs also must consider the project’s time frame and anticipated demand for water. If Colorado Springs Council accepts the conditions from Pueblo County, SDS workers will prepare comparisons for the two alternatives [ed. Fremont County has approved the project route through the county] to present to utilities management and council. “They’ll make a business decision at that point in terms of which alternative they want to pursue,” Fredell said. “That could take two to three months.” Fredell expects a final decision by summer.
More coverage from the Colorado Springs Gazette:
The conditions are meant to mitigate the environmental impacts of taking more water from Pueblo Reservoir and sending more treated effluent down Fountain Creek. Utilities has agreed to pay $50 million for improvements to the creek and $75 million to upgrades its wastewater or water reuse systems. While dozens of permits are required, approval from Pueblo County is the most significant hurdle. At one point in the long history of the pipeline, which would bring 78 million gallons a day to Colorado Springs, opposition in Pueblo seemed so great, Utilities sought approval from Fremont County for a backup plan.
Wednesday night, Colorado Springs officials embraced each other and their Pueblo County counterparts. “(I am) just ecstatic, like everything I’ve done in the last 8 years was worth it,” said Colorado Springs councilwoman Margaret Radford, who leaves office next month after working for years to get the pipeline approved…
The money must be used for erosion, sedimentation, flood control and water quality projects on Fountain Creek. Other Colorado Springs officials heralded the finalizing of conditions as a new direction in relations between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, which have long been divided over water issues, including water quality and flooding on Fountain Creek below Colorado Springs…
[Mayor Lionel Rivera] said the city will hold a public hearing in Colorado Springs to let residents comment on the conditions. No date has been set. Pueblo commissioners set April 2 as a date for a final decision on a 1041 land-use permit, though Rivera doubts a hearing and council vote can take place by then.
While Pueblo County officials allowed Utilities’ attorney to make minor semantic changes to the conditions Wednesday, Commissioner Jeff Chostner said the tenets of the conditions are not negotiable. “This is an unalterable document that you take to your city council,” Chostner said…
To see a complete list of the county’s SDS conditions, visit www.co.pueblo.co.us.
More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
It won’t be a straight-up decision for Colorado Springs, since council will need to review both the Pueblo County and Fremont County options for its proposed $1.1 billion pipeline project. “It is partly a business decision and a political decision,” Rivera said, saying the relative costs of coming through either county must be weighed. “Business is a huge factor, but you’ve got to remember it’s a 40-year project. We have to do what’s best for the community.”[...]
The conditions set up new water quality monitoring sites on Fountain Creek, controlling storm water, dredging the creek to preserve the effectiveness of Pueblo levees and places some restrictions on how new water or new users could be added to the pipeline. The conditions include $6 million for repairing roads, $2,000 per acre for revegetation and construction procedures like dust control or road closures…
The strongest objection to approving SDS at the hearing was voiced by Joe Santarella of the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition. He recommended denial or at least adding eight more stringent conditions to limit depletion of the Arkansas River through the pipeline. “Water is too precious of a resource and valuable of a commodity and the impacts on Pueblo County and its residents are far too pervasive and significant to allow CSU to sell the excess water as a water broker to the highest bidders throughout El Paso and Teller counties,” Santarella said. He also said Colorado Springs is “trying to play you with an empty hand” by holding out Fremont County as a realistic option.
Snowpack news
March 19, 2009
Colorado’s statewide snowpack dipped to 99% of average this week. Here’s a report from Bob Berwyn writing for the Summit Daily News. From the article:
“It’s not encouraging. It’s definitely been a warm and dry month,” said Mike Gillespie, snow survey supervisor for the federal Natural Resources Soil Conservation Service. “There are definitely some increasing concerns on the Eastern Plains about drought-like conditions and emerging drought issues in some parts of the state,” Gillespie said. And things don’t appear to be getting better anytime soon. “The long-term forecast doesn’t bode well for accumulating more snowpack or maintaining what we have,” said local water commissioner Scott Hummer. Wednesday’s high temperature in Dillon was a relatively warm 49 degrees, and Hummer said those conditions are causing the snow to simply evaporate, rather than melting and running off into local streams. The 90-day outlook is for above-normal temperatures and below-normal precipitation, he added…
Snowpack in the Colorado River Basin is the highest in the state, at 105 percent of average. But in other parts of the state, levels have dropped to 20 percent below average…
Of special concern is the South Platte Basin, at 86 percent of normal as of March 19. Denver Water relies on the South Platte as one of its key supply sources…
But statewide reservoir levels remain in good shape, with plenty of storage, even under a dry scenario. With average precipitation through the spring, the water level in Dillon Reservoir is slowly dropping. On March 19, Denver water dropped the outflow to the Blue River to 50 cubic feet per second. At the same time, the water agency is taking 72 cfs through the Roberts Tunnel. Inflow to the reservoir is about 90 cfs.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan: “Fort Collins has gotten little more than a half-inch of moisture this year, less than 40 percent what it typically has by now.”
Pipeline from the Mississippi river to eastern Colorado?
March 19, 2009
The Denver Post (John Ingold) caught up with hay farmer Gary Hausler to talk over the practicality of building a pipeline from the Kentucky side of the Mississippi River to Colorado, with stops in all the states in between. I like this idea since it’s doesn’t require moving out of basin water. I don’t like the idea because of the costs and energy requirements. Could some of the water be use to recharge the Ogallala aquifer? Still it’s interesting. From the article:
His plan: Build a two-story-tall, 1,200-mile-long pipeline from the Mississippi River to Colorado’s Front Range to slake the state’s thirst…
“It’s completely different than anyone’s ever talked about before,” Hausler, a rancher and former mining engineer from Gunnison, said. “It’s traditional in Colorado when you need water on the eastern slope, you go to the Western Slope.” Hausler is pushing this pipeline idea on his own, traveling to water roundtables, river districts and other members of the state’s water establishment to make presentations on his idea. He gave a presentation to a state legislative committee and to staffers at Denver Water on Wednesday.
Lawmakers were, uh, intrigued. “I appreciate your thinking outside the box,” said Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling. “I don’t know if we can get it done, but if I can help . . .” Hausler said that’s the way a lot of responses have gone lately as more people seem open to new ideas when confronting the coming water shortfall.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Northern to hold storage briefing
March 18, 2009
From the Northern Colorado Business Report: ” The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District will discuss the status of current water supplies in Northern Colorado and why additional infrastructure is needed at a presentation at The Ranch on March 19.
“Brian Werner, water district spokesman, will talk about two projects now on the drawing board — the Northern Integrated Supply Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project — during a presentation called ‘Water Storage for the Future’ to be held from 7:30 to 9 a.m. at the Budweiser Events Center.
“Walk-in registration for the event costs $15 for district members and $25 for nonmembers. For more information, call Stephanie Clouatre at 303-388-2422.”
SB09-216, Increase Cash Funds Div Water Resources
March 18, 2009
From the Durango Herald (Joe Hanel): “The Legislature’s budget committee wanted to increase well fees to $665 starting March 1, a dramatic and sudden jump from the current $100. Senate Bill 216 was the last and most controversial part of the budget-balancing package for the 2008-09 year. Rural lawmakers forced the bill to be sent to the House Agriculture Committee, which voted 9-4 against the fees Tuesday. Instead, the bill now takes about $530,000 out of the Governor’s Energy Office to make up this year’s deficit in the State Engineer’s Office, which administers water rights…
“The fight is far from over. The full House and full Senate have to approve the Agriculture Committee’s action on SB 216, and even then, the bill doesn’t provide enough money to hire more water commissioners who will be needed this spring, said State Engineer Dick Wolfe. And Wolfe’s office is $2.5 million short for the next budget year, which starts July 1. Curry’s Agriculture Committee will continue to work on providing funds for the State Engineer’s Office budget today.
“The Colorado Water Congress supported a smaller fee increase, and several representatives said Tuesday that water fees will have to increase in the future to keep the State Engineer’s Office properly funded.”
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
