Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: Memorial Day weekend coordinated water releases
May 25, 2009
Here’s some background on the coordinated release from six dams in the Upper Colorado River Basin designed to provide an approximation of historical spring streamflows to improve habitat for the endangered natives in the river system, from Mark Jaffe writing for the Denver Post. From the article:
The releases from Granby, Ruedi, Windy Gap, Williams Wolford Mountain, Dillon and Green Mountain reservoirs are designed to replicate spring peak flows on the Colorado before the dams were built. “This is a valuable step in in helping to restore these endangered species,” said Angela Kantula, assistant director of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
The extra water will flush sediment and build sandbars to improve the mating habitat for four endangered fish species — the Colorado pikeminnow, the bonytail, razorback sucker and the humpback chub — along a 15-mile stretch of the river near Grand Junction. The releases raised the flow of the river about 15 percent, to a peak of 20,000 cubic feet per second, according to the recovery program. Although the reservoir release program was developed in 1995, there has only been enough water in the reservoirs for the releases in five years, Kantula said…
The releases, which began in mid- May, sent a cue to fish that it was mating season, along with cleaning the riverbed cobbles, where the eggs are laid, and creating sandbars, behind which pockets of calm water offer habitat for the fry, Kantula said…
Between 1989 and 2008, $187 million has been spent on the recovery program, with about 80 percent coming from the federal government and funds from hydropower generators. Colorado has contributed $16 million.
From the Pueblo Chieftain (James Amos):
Pueblo West Metropolitan District board members will discuss several items in open session before going behind closed doors Tuesday to talk with lawyers about negotiations over Colorado Springs’ water pipeline. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the district’s headquarters, 109 E. Industrial Blvd.
Pueblo West, which wants water from the pipeline, has sued Pueblo County over whether it should have to contribute water to a separate program that allows water to run through Pueblo’s kayak course in the Arkansas River. Other pipeline participants have pledged to supply water, but Pueblo West did not and argues that it can’t be forced to now.
From the Steamboat Pilot & Today (Blythe Terrell):
They’re sharing a wide-ranging water conservation plan with the public this week. Their first goal is to slash peak water use in the Steamboat Springs area by 10 percent by 2015. Lyn Halliday, principal of Environmental Solutions Un limited, has worked with city officials and the Mount Werner Water and Sanitation District to create a plan to hit that goal. The team will show the plan to the public and seek feedback Wednesday at Centennial Hall…
The 63-page plan serves a couple of purposes, said Jay Gallagher, general manager of Mount Werner Water. Water officials want to be able to respond to water emergencies such as droughts or wildfires. Also, the Colorado Water Conservation Act requires entities that supply at least 2,000 acre-feet of water a year to have a conservation plan…
The plan includes asking people not to water outside between the hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and to use landscaping that doesn’t require much water. It includes stages with more severe conservation measures to be put in place during water emergencies. Gallagher; Halliday; Public Works Director Philo Shelton; Joe Zimmerman, water and sewer systems supervisor; and Senior City Planner Bob Keenan put together the plan, which they presented to the Steamboat Springs City Council in April. Wednesday’s event will include an open house that starts at 4 p.m. The plan creators will do a presentation at 5 p.m.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Yampa River Festival: Riverboarding demo
May 24, 2009
Here’s a recap of yesterday’s riverboarding demo at the Yampa River Festival, from Joel Reichenberger writing for the Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:
On Saturday, as [Danny Tebbenkamp] demonstrated the boards at the Yampa River Festival, it led to a seemingly endless line of questions from perplexed onlookers. Tebbenkamp first refers to a riverboard as a “boogie board that helps an adventure-minded soul ride the river.” Put away that first thought, though — these boards bear nothing in common with the thin panel of Styrofoam available for $2 on beaches across the world. The devices look more like a kneeboard meant to be dragged behind a boat than a traditional boogie board. A plethora of handles offer enough places to grab hold, and the boards are plenty light enough to haul around and buoyant enough to survive the rushing water of the Yampa.
Runoff news: Cache la Poudre surging
May 24, 2009
Here’s the link the the USGS Water Watch map for Colorado for your surfing pleasure.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Trevor Hughes):
In a week, the river level at the Poudre Canyon has jumped from about 300 cubic feet per second to a peak of about 1,600 cfs, driven by fast-melting snow and recent rains. Based on 127 years of historical data from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the river averages about 1,200 cfs this time of year.
From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dave Buchanan):
Water flow data from the U.S. Geological Service shows the Gunnison dropping faster than the Rockies’ playoff hopes. Flows that climbed as high as 5,400 cfs a week ago from Crystal Dam have fallen to 1,890 cfs by mid-afternoon Friday, with more reductions on the way.
From the Loveland Reporter Herald (Jon Pilsner):
The water in the Big Thompson in Loveland was flowing at an average of 373 cubic feet per second, said Kevin Johnston with the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management team. Normally this time of the year, the average is close to 100 cfs, Johnston said. Kara Lamb with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said water levels on the river below Olympus Dam east of Estes Park were as high as 250 cubic feet per second, but they will drop to about 175 this weekend…
Carter Lake is about full and will remain so over the weekend, according to numbers provided by Lamb. The water at Horsetooth Reservoir is a foot higher than it was at this time a year ago, and it will continue to climb this weekend, Lamb said.
Pueblo Board of Water Works to meet Thursday to finalize contract for sale of Columbine Ditch
May 24, 2009
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Ginn Development, which plans to build Battle Mountain Ski Resort near Minturn, bid $30.48 million for the ditch in February. The bid was accepted by the water board. Ginn indicated in its bid that it would pay the full amount as soon as a contract is finalized. The city of Aurora bid less for the ditch, but will have 60 days to match the offer in the final contract under an earlier agreement signed with the Pueblo water board. Ginn and the water board have agreed on terms for the purchase and barring any unforeseen changes in the next week should be able to sign a contract, said Alan Hamel, executive director of the water board…
The Columbine Ditch was constructed 13 miles north of Leadville on Fremont Pass in 1931 to bring agricultural water into the Arkansas Valley from the Eagle River basin. The Pueblo water board purchased it in 1953. The ditch would yield about 1,300 acre-feet annually under limits in water court decrees, although its average yield to date has been 1,700 acre-feet per year. The amount of water that can be brought over is limited by 20- and 60-year caps. The water also comes mainly during the spring, and must be stored in order to be used by Pueblo. Ginn would be able to use the water rights within the Eagle River basin.
Arkansas Valley: New irrigation rules on track
May 24, 2009
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The state is proposing the rules to ensure that irrigation improvements using surface supplies – sprinklers, ditch lining or pipes – don’t increase consumptive use. If they do, supplies to downstream users within the state and across the Kansas border could be reduced, raising the specter of more legal action over the Arkansas River Compact. The rules would cover improvements made in the Arkansas Valley since 1999, when Kansas and Arkansas reached agreement on historic consumptive use – the amount of water crops consume. The last committee meeting will be at 1 p.m. June 22 at the Pueblo Board of Water Works conference room, [State Engineer Dick Wolfe] said. By then, Kansas will have reviewed the rules a second time, and the state can consider those comments along with the concerns of in-state irrigators…
The state is not relying on the data from 40-50 years ago that was used in the Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit to build the new computer model for changes in consumptive use for surface irrigation improvements, Wolfe said. The state is using data from a lysimeter – a mechanical means of measuring how much water is used to grow a crop – and studying weather patterns to fine-tune the model accepted by both states in the Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit. Wolfe bristled at the notion that the problem is a small one. “Yes, it’s only 1,000 acre-feet now, but we want these rules in place as we move forward so people have certainty,” Wolfe said. “We’re trying to avoid another compact violation, as we have continued to point out.”
The state has proposed two basic ways to account for how water use changes when improvements are added. The first would require farmers to show how they have reduced acreage or are bypassing flows to account for higher consumptive use because of increased efficiency. The second are blanket plans that cover wider areas using models to account for impacts over entire ditch systems or laterals.
Here’s an update on the recall petition for Parker Water and Sanitation board members, from Chris Michlewicz writing for the Parker Chronicle. From the article:
Transparency Advocates for Parker Water and Sanitation filed an appeal earlier this month to have a Douglas County District Court judge review whether there was a legal basis for throwing out the petition, which contained more than 500 signatures. Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Jack Arrowsmith ruled that false or misleading information was used when the group was circulating the petition. Now the Transparency Advocates are challenging the grounds for the dismissal because they say county officials misinterpreted the scope of their duties. “It pains me to point the finger at Jack Arrowsmith because I think he relied on faulty legal advice,” said Merlin Klotz, a member of the recall group.
In one claim, TAPWS did not accuse the water board members of legal wrongdoing, but rather suggested that they violated the public trust by circumventing Colorado’s open meetings law. The law requires public notice when three or more board members meet to discuss business. Some board members have admitted to speaking individually with one another about rescinding a water rate increase that was approved in December. The group says Arrowsmith should not have reviewed the allegation and dismissed the petition because his ruling stated that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the law was broken.
Arrowsmith could have scheduled a recall election that enables the public to decide whether four out of the five Parker Water and Sanitation District board members should be unseated…
The petitioners said Arrowsmith also failed to notify the recall petition targets on the day the petition was approved. The letters to the board members about the approval were dated March 11, four weeks later than required by law.
In its appeal to Douglas County District Court Judge Vincent White, TAPWS outlined several other examples of what it calls improper interpretations of the law when deciding to throw out the petition, which was submitted in February. Klotz said the clerk and county attorneys might have used the dismissal to cover up possible legal errors. County officials declined to address any specific allegations in the pending case. Arrowsmith dismissed the petition April 23 after finding that information on the opposition group’s Web site could have unfairly swayed the opinions of those who signed it. TAPWS maintains that the information was accurate.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From the Fairplay Flume (Linda Bjorklund):
Dave Stanford, owner of H2O Consultants, has been selected as wastewater operator of the new plant at the Fairplay Sanitation District. A $60,000-per-year bid submitted by him and Kaupus Laboratories Water Specialists was selected by the district board at its May 14 meeting. It was one of four proposals. Two other bidders proposed rates of $72,000 a year and $85,000 per year. The difference was in the hourly rates, which were quoted at $65 an hour for H2O and $90 for Kaupus. Board members said Stanford’s proposed rate was lower, and he had been doing the actual work on the plant during the construction period and had proven that he could do the job.
Meeker: Oil shale conference Tuesday
May 23, 2009
From the Craig Daily Press:
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Northwest Colorado Farmers Union, the Douglas Creek Conservation District and White River Conservation District will host a conference Tuesday in Meeker about how oil shale will affect the Western Slope’s water supply, agriculture and local communities. The conference will feature a presentation about oil shale’s suspected impacts to western Colorado, including reports by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Yampa/White/Green River Basin Roundtable, Western Resource Advocates and Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado.
After the presentation, a panel featuring a local agriculture producer, a Rio Blanco County commissioner and a representative from the Colorado River District to discuss the issues. A representative from Shell Oil Company also will be there to provide an industry perspective and share some of its plans for western Colorado. Audience members will be allowed to ask questions of the presenters after the panel discussion.
The conference is scheduled for 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Old Public Library at the Fairfield center, 200 Main St. in Meeker. Sandwiches and drinks will be provided.
Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority: Suite of potential water supply options to choose from
May 23, 2009
The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority is discussing their options for a sustainable water supply. They could be customers of any number of projects including, the Super Ditch Companay, a Flaming Gorge Pipeline(either Aaron Million’s or the Colorado-Wyoming Coalition) or Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from Nicole Chillino writing for The Tri-Lakes Tribune. From the article:
The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority continued discussions about its options for a future water source and it appears it will be a while before it can determine what its best course will be…Regardless of which project or projects the authority ultimately chooses, it will need to find a place to store the water. The authority has a few options, including the Pueblo Reservoir, but no storage location has been finalized.
Here’s a recap of this week’s Chaffee County Commissioner’s hearing on Nestlé Waters North America proposed Chaffee County Project, from Christopher Kolomitz writing for The Mountain Mail. From the article:
Submission of written comment ended earlier this month and the public’s chance to comment ended Thursday. “I think it’s a violation of the process,” Jay Hake, a Salida lawyer said. “When people haven’t had a chance to review (newly submitted Nestlé documents), I think it’s a serious problem.” He also pointed to new information county officials provide and the lack of public opportunity to comment and review. More criticism was aimed at multiple changes made in the Nestlé project since it was first submitted in November…
Additional arrows were aimed at the company, its testing, officials and the plan. Chip Cutler, a lawyer who lives in Howard, said the Nestlé’ pump testing should have been done at high levels replicating proposed pumping. Howard resident Alan Rule said he feared the burden of monitoring the Nestlé project would fall upon Chaffee County officials, something for which the county may not be prepared. Michele Riggo, member of a Salida sustainability group, asked if Nestlé’s commitment to a $500,000 endowment was in writing…
Daniel Zetler, another local lawyer, said he felt Nestlé tactics have been to offer as little information as possible and “throw bones” to the county when opposition arises. He said Nestlé has misled commissioners about property tax revenue generated by the project and had a goal of draining the local aquifer.
More coverage from The Mountain Mail (Paul Goetz):
Public testimony closed at 11:35 p.m. Thursday and Chaffee County Commissioners set a June 16 date to deliberate whether Nestlé’s 1041 application and special land use permit will be approved. Closing the comment period ended the seventh public meeting held on the issue which began at 1 p.m.
At the meeting Nestlé officials said the Bighorn Spring would be withdrawn from proposed development. Bruce Lauerman, natural resource manager for Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. western division, made the announcement to an audience of more than 150 at the Salida Steam Plant Theater. Lauerman said Nestlé remains committed to the Bighorn site, but water production would be from the Ruby Mountain Spring at about 124 gallons per minute. Lauerman said Nestlé will place both spring sites into a conservation easement. “Easements are not part of getting the permits,” he said, or that would negate the charitable act and spirit of an easement. In addition, Lauerman said Nestlé would allow in-stream fishing access only at both sites. However, “If it becomes problematic, we will reserve the right to shut it down.”
Don Reimer, county engineer and planning director, spoke about outstanding issues. Economic and water issues remained at the forefront of discussion. County economic impact consultant Jean Townsend of Coley Forrest told commissioners additional information provided by Lauerman early in the meeting will cause reduction of the assessed value. She said the assessed property is $6,300 for property tax and $10,500 for school tax. Nestlé consultants THK Associates estimate the county would receive about $375 per year for the highway users tax fund, and would receive $8,200 in property tax…
Commissioner Tim Glenn asked about the strength of the trucking company commitments to hire 50 percent locally. Lauerman said advertisements in the local newspaper were successful. He said if the company was to hire today, they would be able to hire seven local drivers. “Logistics people tell me we need about 15 drivers,” Lauerman said.
Glenn later questioned Jon Hollenbeck of ACA Products about the number of employees and duration they would be working on the project. Hollenbeck said the jobs would be temporary, and 10-12 people would be working…
County water consultant Jim Culichia of Felt, Monson and Culichia, said Nestlé will be subject to the same scrutiny as Coors. Nestlé will file in water court which will take about six months. It will take water court about five years to finish the application. In the interim, Nestlé will be allowed to transport water. Fairchild asked about exporting water outside Colorado before going to water court. She asked if the public trust doctrine mattered. Steve Sims, water attorney for Nestlé said there is no “public trust doctrine in Colorado.” Sims said, “If water court didn’t approve, Nestlé would not be able to pump.”
Several people asked about the cone of depression – whether the well (used to pump water from the spring source) would take water from the river. Lauerman said Nestlé specifically does not want river water, adding, “These springs are buffered, protected sites.”
Nestlé officials have collected data from a downstream weir for the past year, and were agreeable to adding a second weir and drilling a monitoring well if the trench were ever reclaimed to the wetland project. Lauerman was opposed to gathering more data, and said, “We have collected the data. I will strongly object for our project to be postponed while we collect more data.”
Here’s the link to the USGS Water Watch map for Colorado for your surfing pleasure.
From the Aspen Times (John Colson):
According to Ted Hinricks, a Colorado River ranger for the U.S. Forest Service stationed in Eagle County, the Colorado River surged on Monday to around 10,000 cubic-feet-per-second at a gauge station at Dotsero, near the eastern end of Glenwood Canyon…
The Roaring Fork River reportedly was flowing at around 2,400 cfs as of Monday afternoon at a gauge station near Emma, but by the time it got to Glenwood Springs, it was flowing at 6,700 cfs, according to Tom Trowbridge of Roaring Fork Anglers, who read the river gauge early on Tuesday…
Officials have said that the Crystal River is nearing the flood stage, but Ellen Anderson, emergency services manager for Pitkin County, said no serious problems are anticipated. “It looks as though we’re going to get to bankfull, but not much more,” Anderson said on Tuesday.
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):
The [Arkansas River] level was running at a healthy 3,330 cubic feet per second Friday morning at the Parkdale gauge just west of Canon City, prompting the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area to issue a high water advisory.
The new wastewater treatment plant for Pagosa Springs — originally scheduled for a 2008 completion — still lacks complete funding. Here’s a report from Jim McQuiggin writing for the Pagosa Sun. From the article:
Those discussions, in the form of a conference call held May 6 that included Starks, Pagosa Springs Mayor Ross Aragon, Town Manager David Mitchem and representatives from the Colorado Health Department, the USDA, the Department of Local Affairs, and the Water and Power Authority, kick-started the arduous process of chasing down necessary additional funding for the project. Although both the mayor and Mitchem reported the outcome of the call was “very productive,” both conceded the call was only a first step towards acquiring those funds.
Following up on the call, Aragon and Mitchem met with USDA representatives Tuesday morning to learn what steps would be needed to grab federal money.
“They want us to jump through hoops,” the mayor said, “but they have the money we need. There’s still a lot we have to discuss.”
Aragon reported that the USDA representatives brought up the possibility of a rate hike (one of several ideas) but said, “That’s not really an option, as far as I’m concerned. We’ve already gone up sixty-seven percent, and that’s much more than I wanted.”
The mayor also stated that, although the idea of scaling back the project was floated by the USDA representatives, the town would continue with the current scope of the project, adding, “We don’t want to build it and then find that, five years down the road, we need something bigger.”
No less sanguine regarding the conversation with the USDA representatives, Mitchem was nonetheless optimistic that the town could meet federal benchmarks set out by the USDA. “We’re going to move ahead with our preliminary plans,” he said, “We’re going to refine some of the engineering, review our current environmental studies and fine tune the flood plain mapping. We’re under a tight deadline from the feds. Everything has to be approved by Washington by October 1.”
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From the Pagosa Sun (Chuck McGuire):
Effective May 12, a long-standing ranching family and two area water districts entered into an agreement with a local land trust to explore the feasibility of conservation easements on some or all of approximately 140 acres located nearly two miles northeast of Pagosa Springs. As Dry Gulch is now planned, a portion of the acreage will eventually lie beneath the waterline, while the remainder will become lakefront property.
The land in question is part of several hundred acres currently owned by the Laverty family, including Kitzel Farrah, Kurt Laverty and Steve Laverty. Entities hoping to acquire that portion of the Laverty property include the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) and the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD), herein referred to as “the districts.”
Though the Lavertys have been reluctant to sell property to accommodate the reservoir, they are apparently willing to part with that which will ultimately be flooded, while preferably maintaining ownership of the rest. They are also reportedly inclined to donate certain property rights to the public (in the form of conservation easements), in order to preserve and protect the shoreline, view shed and water quality.
Of course, filling Dry Gulch may be possible without the Lavertys having to sell any land at all. According to Southwest Land Alliance (SLA) Executive Director Michael Whiting, many reservoirs exist over land permanently protected by more restrictive easements. Depending on the answers to a number of relative questions, the Lavertys might end up selling the districts all or a portion of the land, or simply holding on to it, while implementing multiple easements.
To answer questions and eliminate all doubt, the Lavertys, SLA and the districts agreed to investigate whether some combination of conservation easements and/or fee title acquisition would satisfy the districts needs, while also benefiting the Lavertys and the community overall.
From the Journal of Climate:
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.2°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a much smaller probability of warming less than 2.4°C, than implied by the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median project
Here’s an update on the San Luis Valley Irrigation District’s plans to enlarge Rio Grande Reservoir, from Alex Rice writing for The Mineral County Miner. From the article:
The final design stage is in the fourth of five phases of the project, which would expand the large reservoir approximately 20 miles southwest of Creede by 10,000 acre-feet. The fifth stage would include the expansion of the reservoir, which is near the headwaters of the Rio Grande…
Currently in the third phase, the district is looking at its Reservoir Allocation Enhancement Model, which deals with how to operate the reservoir once the expansion project is completed, specific to the needs of the district and its water users, along with compact and direct flow storage. Smith, also the chairman of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and its representative on the Rio Grande Roundtable, said that this third phase will cost $100,000, and is being funded through the CWCB’s water supply reserve account. The district is currently consulting with the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the District 20 Water Commissioners, the Rio Grande Water Users Association, the Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited on the expansion project.
“It’s a 100-year-old reservoir, and it needs a fix,” Smith said when asked why the SLVID undertook the project in the spring of 2002. “It has physical repair issues that need to be addressed so you have a reservoir to meet the needs of the next 100 years.”
San Luis Valley: State engineer approves amendments to groundwater sub-district #1 management rules
May 22, 2009
The state engineer has approved proposed changes to the management rules for the San Luis Valley’s groundwater sub-district #1. Here’s a report from Matt Hildner writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The revisions, posted (pdf) on the conservation district’s Web site Tuesday, include a revised plan of water management and appendices for an annual replacement plan, surface water credit calculation, an index of the subdistrict’s wells, budget plan and operational timelines. The replacement plan also includes provisions for the subdistrict to deliver water downstream when senior surface water users are curtailed under the Rio Grande Compact at a rate equal to or greater than the injurious depletions caused by pumping.
During a Tuesday hearing on the course of management for the September trial, Kuenhold ordered additional information be included on how the subdistrict plans to use the Rio Grande Decision Support System, a computer modeling program, to calculate depletions. He also agreed with the plan’s supporters to limit the issues that any new interveners in the case might raise, avoiding the risk of re-trying matters the court previously covered.
CWCB awards grants for tamarisk removal
May 22, 2009
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The largest grant, $150,000, went to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s Arkansas River Invasive Plants Plan, to provide demonstration projects on 985 acres of river area in Pueblo, Otero, Bent and Prowers counties. The grant request was for $200,000, which would go toward the estimated $500,000 cost of the program. “The four projects included in this proposal were prioritized due to a high potential of flooding, to provide good demonstration sites for control, restoration and maintenance methods and to show collaboration between the states of Kansas and Colorado in order to increase future federal funding,” wrote Jean Van Pelt, Southeastern’s conservation coordinator, in the application. The project areas include Fountain Creek through Pueblo; the Arkansas River through La Junta and Las Animas, where tamarisks have clogged the channel and increased the risk for flooding; and a large area to be sprayed by air between Holly and the Kansas state line, in cooperation with Kansas.
Another grant for $100,000 was approved for the Branson-Trinchera Conservation District to treat areas near Trinidad. The district had requested $200,000 as part of a $400,000 project to control tamarisk on mostly private land in the Purgatoire River watershed. The project would aim at removing tamarisk from lightly infested areas.
The final award was $75,000 for the Sangre de Cristo Resource Conservation and Development Council for areas within Fremont and Chaffee County. The group requested $131,000 toward a $375,000 project. The project calls for demonstration projects on 400 acres.
CWCB staffer Steve Miller will work with applicants to determine if the partial funding would allow the projects to move forward and report back to the board at its July meeting.
Gunnison County rancher Nick Hughes sued the IRS over their devaluation of his conservation easement and has won, mostly. He still will have to pay an additional $437,153 since the value of his land was determined to be less than the $3 million originally determined. Here’s a report from Seth Mensing writing for the Crested Butte News. From the article:
The IRS had audited Hughes after he filed his 2000 taxes with a $3.1 million charitable contribution for 2,413 acres he had donated to Black Canyon Land Trust Inc. The land was placed in a conservation easement to protect it from future development.
The IRS countered that the donated land was worth between $0 and $238,135, and not more than $3 million as claimed by Hughes, according to expert testimony from the IRS included in the ruling. But Judge Wherry disagreed and overruled the IRS, placing a value of $2 million on the land. Hughes will now have to pay taxes on the remaining $1.1 million. Hughes’ attorney Joseph Thibodeau told the Denver Post, “It was a given that the contribution was allowable. The only issue was the amount [the land was worth].”[...]Lucy Goehl, executive director of Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy, said there have been several audits of conservation easements conducted by the IRS in Gunnison County, “but they’re all over the state and Gunnison County is not exempt from that.”
The ruling pointed out that the IRS engineers evaluating conservation easements are not certified appraisers, who are the only professionals able to place a value on property donated as a conservation easement. “I think the fact that the court gave very little weight to the matrix the IRS was using in valuing the land makes this an encouraging decision,” said Goehl. In response to that part of the ruling, the IRS asked the Colorado Division of Real Estate to grant their engineers certified appraiser status.Ann Johnston, executive director of Crested Butte Land Trust, thinks the ruling will have an indirect affect on the trust’s efforts to preserve open space by giving legitimacy to the idea that land held in a conservation easement still has value. “What I’m hoping will happen here is that when these programs in Colorado go through cases like this, it’s showing that the programs are valuable and it could encourage people to donate land,” she said.
From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Rob Viehl):
The Stream and Lake Protection Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board is meeting with interested parties to discuss recommendations received for potential Division 4 Instream Flow appropriations in 2010 on Alpine Gulch, Big Dominguez Creek, Blue Creek (increase), Cebolla Creek, Cochetopa Creek, East Beaver Creek, Little Dominguez Creek, North Tabeguache Creek, Red Canyon Creek, San Miguel River, Spring Creek, Tabeguache Creek, and Willow Creek.
Two separate public meetings are scheduled on May 27th to discuss the proposed recommendations.
9:00 AM to Noon
Montrose County Administration Building
BOCC Board Room
161 S. Townsend Ave
Montrose, CO 814015:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Lake City School
614 North Silver St.
Lake City, CO 81235The Stream and Lake Protection staff will provide a brief presentation on the ISF program as a background for the discussion. For additional information on these segments, please visit the CWCB’s website at: http://cwcb.state.co.us/StreamAndLake/NewAppropriations/ISFAppropriationNotices/2010ProposedAppropriations/2010Appropriations.htm
Questions about new appropriations may be directed to Jeff Baessler at 303-866-3441 ext 3202 or Jeffrey.Baessler@state.co.us
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Alamosa: Salmonella outbreak lawsuits
May 22, 2009
From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):
The Marler Clark law firm out of Seattle, Wash., is handling most of the 40-plus claims for damages ranging from $100 to $1 million that the city received last year. None of the claims have yet turned into a lawsuit but claimants have up to two years from the March 2008 incident to file a lawsuit. The claims being handled by Marler Clark, in addition to a $1 million claim from Velasquez’s widow, involve claims for 14 minor children and seek upwards of $50,000 in damages per claimant.
Five other claims were submitted from folks not represented by Marler Clark – two family claims and three business losses attributed to the water crisis…
[City Attorney Erich Schwiesow] said in talking with the lead attorney on the phone recently, the attorney told Schwiesow he hoped the city would look at the information the firm had sent the city and think about paying off some of these people. “I told him I did not believe there’s negligence on the part of the city,” Schwiesow said. He said the attorney suggested otherwise…
In a drinking water report from the City of Alamosa this week the city told citizens that the new water treatment plant put into service last year to meet new arsenic standards and an ongoing enhanced testing program of Alamosa’s municipal supply would ensure that an outbreak like salmonella will not occur again. “The source of the contamination has not been determined and the investigation continues [to] identify possible ways in which it could have occurred,” the city report stated.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The $148,975 grant to the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District was approved after the Arkansas Basin Roundtable gave it the nod in March. It is one of the few grants which has been awarded through the Water Supply Reserve Account for a strictly nonconsumptive use…
The grant also includes wetlands on Fountain Creek already being studied by the Lower Ark district through a cooperative project with Colorado Springs. They were included primarily to fulfill a requirement for local cost-share. The grant would include in-kind contributions from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Audubon Colorado.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Here’s a recap of the special board meeting held on Monday for the Republican River Water Conservation District, from Tony Rayl writing for the Yuma Pioneer. From the article:
Mike Sullivan, who was promoted to deputy state engineer last October, was in attendance at the special meeting, held at the Church of the Nazarene. He told the board the state has revamped a settlement agreement that is hopefully agreeable to all three states. Colorado’s leaders are having a private meeting with counterparts from Kansas and Nebraska today, May 21. He said Colorado will see if the other two states will accept what’s being offered. It possibly will be decided then when to continue the Republican River Compact Administration meeting that was continued from April 28, when Kansas and Nebraska representatives both stated they would continue to vote against the compact compliance pipeline due to issues the states cannot agree on. Sullivan said he feels good about a settlement eventually being reached, because Kansas and Nebraska cannot be unreasonable in their opposition to Colorado’s plans for coming into compliance with the Republican River Compact. A sticking point in Kansas approving the pipeline is the claim Colorado does not pass the “sub-basin” test on the South Fork of the Republican, and that a pipeline sending water into the North Fork will not satisfy the South Fork issue…
The RRWCD has taken the stance it will not move forward with the pipeline if the South Fork still remains a problem. Plus, there is the fact irrigated farmers along the South Fork are paying the same assessment fee as everyone else to pay for the pipeline, but could end up having their wells curtailed because of the sub-basin issue. If the wells in the South Fork sub-basin are shut down, which account for approximately one-half of Colorado’s wells in the Republican River Basin, that means the remaining well users will have to take on an even greater burden of paying for the pipeline project…
District engineer Jim Slattery said Monday draining Bonny is the only way to come into compliance on the South Fork — if Kansas is right in its assertion that the South Fork shortfall cannot be made up by the North Fork pipeline. Even, it would take years before Colorado would be in compliance on the South Fork. Sullivan said draining Bonny would help with the sub-basin test, but not on overall compliance. Board member Jack Dowell of Yuma told Sullivan that the state could recoup the revenue it loses from Bonny from other sources in the state, but that the farmers and communities in the region would be left high and dry with no chance to recoup losses if the wells are shut down so Bonny can remain open. Sullivan noted loans and grants have been used for work done at Bonny, and the state needs to make sure it does not hinder future efforts to receive federal funds before closing down Bonny…
Board President Dennis Coryell expressed frustrations that the RRWCD’s pipeline project has been delayed by nearly one year now because of the South Fork issue. Meanwhile, all irrigators are paying the new $14.50 per acre assessment fee for a pipeline that is not being built. He also noted the people in the basin are not getting much information from the state regarding the pipeline negotiations. He urged the state be as transparent as possible in the process so the locals can be informed…
Other discussion included options besides draining Bonny Reservoir. Sullivan said the only other is the “nuclear” option — shutting down all wells. (It has been shown even doing that would not get Colorado into compliance.) Reopening the compact also was brought up. Sullivan said doing so would mean it would have to be open to all parties, meaning even more entities could step in asking for a portion of the water. RRWCD legal counsel David Robbins said Colorado getting more water out of a renegotiated compact would mean convincing Kansas and Nebraska to give up water. He said Colorado would run the fundamental risk of ending up with even less water because the upstream states already are using all they are entitled to, and could very well seek more water out of a new compact…
Coryell noted that in an ag-driven economy, issues at Bonny Reservoir do not speak loudly. “It is not going to be a pretty thing if the South Fork wells are curtailed in order to keep open a facility that has seen its better days,” he said.
Bonny Reservoir: Test release of 900 acre-feet
May 22, 2009
From the Yuma Pioneer (Tony Rayl):
[State Engineer Dick] Wolfe ordered the release on May 4, and then ordered it stopped on May 11. About 900 acre feet was released during that time into the South Fork of the Republican River. The board was told at its regular meeting in April that there was an extra 3,992 acre feet of storage in Bonny. Therefore, many were left scratching their heads last week when the release was stopped while there was 3,000 acre feet left to drain. “We wanted to see what kind of response we got out of that (initial release),” Wolfe said. He explained the state did not want to release all the extra water only to find out it was not reaching the gage at Benkelman. It turns out that it was. In fact, approximately 50 percent of the released water was reaching Benkleman, which Wolfe said was very good…
Wolfe said it takes about two weeks to fully measure the impact the release is having a the gage. He said his office will meet with the Bureau of Reclamation on June 3 to evaluate the May 4-11 release and then decide when and if to release more of the “out of priority” water in Bonny…
He said the state could, conceivably, be in compliance with the Republican River Compact if the water released from Bonny keeps getting to Benkelman. However, he said there are a lot of factors to consider, noting that if Colorado experiences a wet year, the extra storage in Bonny would not be needed, and a lot of people would be questioning why the water was released. As for the RRWCD’s call to drain Bonny, Wolfe said “There are a lot of issues on the table to decide what to do long-term with Bonny.”
