The United States and Canada decided Saturday to update a key agreement that protects the Great Lakes from invasive species, climate change and other threats to the fresh water system, Associated Press reported. In a ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, together with Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, said the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which was last amended in 1987, was no longer adequate. “[The treaty] is a living instrument of our cooperation and partnership,” Clinton said during a press conference. “It has provided an effective framework for the last 100 years, but now we have to take stock of where we are and how we’re going to be proceeding with confidence and effectiveness into the future.” The agreement pledges the United States and Canada to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. Since its signing in 1972, levels of pollutants have dropped, and species like the bald eagle have made a comeback.
Circle of Blue: Google Brings Water Data to Life
June 21, 2009
With all the power of 21st century collaboration technology, nothing to date has tamed the massive amounts of disparate water information locked away in diverse database systems. But that may have changed last week when Google Labs launched Fusion Tables, a powerful new online research and data organizing tool that makes it much easier to share and navigate the world’s digital science and technical archives.
Fusion Tables, which was developed by Google engineers using sample research data about the global fresh water crisis provided by the Pacific Institute and Circle of Blue, is specifically designed to unlock a treasure trove of facts, trends, and scientific findings that until now have been sequestered in databases and spreadsheets not easily shared.
The new Google technology provides users a rare opportunity to share critical data, probe them, organize pertinent information and generate design elements — charts and graphs — that translate complex information into much more digestible trends. The intent is to enable online collaborators to study and understand in new dimensions the world’s complex problems — the fresh water crisis among them — discern the salient details and organize those scientifically confirmed facts. They can be used to tell stories, offer insights, and propose solutions that heretofore were largely the purview of scholars and scientific experts.
Thanks to Loretta Lohman for the link.
Aspen to collect pharmaceuticals
June 21, 2009
From the Aspen Times:
The city is organizing its first Pharmaceutical Take-Back, offering an environmentally conscious way for residents to dispose of unwanted prescription and over-the-counter medications. The event will take place Thursday, June 25 at Connor Park, behind Aspen City Hall, from 3 to 7 p.m. It’s free and open to Aspen residents.
S. 787: Clean Water Restoration Act
June 21, 2009
Here’s a release from Trout Unlimited:
For immediate release
June 18, 2009For more information:
Melinda Kassen, (303) 440-2937, x 100, mkassen@tu.org
Bruce Farling, (406) 543-0054, bruce@montanatu.org
Steve Moyer, (703) 284-9406, smoyer@tu.org
Clean Water Restoration Act moves forward
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday approved the Clean Water Restoration Act, a move hailed by conservation and sportsmen groups.
“This is a great step forward in restoring common sense protection to our nation’s waterways and wildlife habitat,” said Trout Unlimited Chief Operating Officer Chris Wood.
The bill now goes to the full Senate for consideration.
CWRA would restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act, which in recent years has been weakened by Supreme Court rulings that distorted the language of the law and drastically reduced its scope. The resulting legal confusion has stripped Clean Water Act protections from some 20 million acres of wetlands and millions of miles of streams.
A number of the bill’s critics claim that it overreaches and vastly expands federal jurisdiction. Ranking Committee Member Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, declared that rural America should “watch out” for the Clean Water Restoration Act, and called it “the biggest bureaucratic power grab in a generation.”
Critics’ sensationalist claims bear little relation to reality. When given the facts about CWRA, farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and others who care about stewardship of rural America’s land and water are supporting this responsible legislation.
Fact: Senate Environment and Public Works committee members, including Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Chairwoman Barbara Boxer of California, have worked hard in recent weeks to meet the concerns of rural stakeholders about the CWRA. The resulting compromise language has cleared up confusion about the CWRA’s impact on rural areas.
As a statement by the Montana Grain Growers Association puts it, “Senator Baucus’ substitute amendment addresses several concerns of production agriculture and makes it explicitly clear that this bill will not expand the scope of jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act beyond the original intent of Congress.”
Fact: Critics portray CWRA as a federal power grab, but the bill merely restores the protections that our nation’s waterways enjoyed for more than a quarter century, before recent misguided Supreme Court rulings stripped protections from millions of miles of streams. A key clarification at the heart of the bill—changing the phrase “navigable waters” to “waters of the United States”—follows the interpretation long used by the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency for decades.
Fact: The Clean Water Restoration Act would not apply to any water body that was not historically covered under the Clean Water Act for more than 25 years, prior to the 2001 Supreme Court SWAANC decision. The Clean Water Act did not apply to gutters, puddles or other insignificant accumulations of water—and neither would the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Moreover, the Clean Water Restoration Act preserves all existing agricultural exemptions under the law, such as for return flows and construction and maintenance of irrigation ditches and farm ponds.
“Rural America can live with the Clean Water Restoration Act – because rural America already has lived with and benefited from these protections for decades,” said Melinda Kassen, director of TU’s Western Water Project.
Fact: About 60 percent of America’s streams are intermittent and could lose protection without the CWRA—these same streams are a drinking water source for more than 110 million Americans, in rural and urban areas alike.
Hunters, anglers and other outdoors enthusiasts have lined up to support CWRA. Field and Stream magazine recently called CWRA passage a top legislative priority for sportsmen, citing its protection of “temporary and isolated wetlands, among the most important habitats for waterfowl and a host of other wildlife.”
“The CWRA compromise bill approved Thursday is pragmatic, balanced legislation that protects America’s rivers and streams while preserving existing farm and ranch operations,” said Steve Moyer, vice president of government affairs at Trout Unlimited. “This is a bill that rural America can support.”
A majority of Americans surveyed in a recent Gallup poll indicated that they worry “a great deal” about the water quality of our nation’s streams and rivers. They don’t want to go back to a past when our country’s rivers and streams were dumping grounds for pollution.
The CWRA will help ensure that our nation’s rivers and streams remain clean, swimmable and fishable.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Tom Tidwell named to lead U.S. Forest Service
June 21, 2009
From the Denver Post:
Montana forester Tom Tidwell is the new head of the U.S. Forest Service. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday that Tidwell will replace Gail Kimbell, who had led the Forest Service since 2007. Tidwell is a 32-year Forest Service employee and now supervises national forests through northern Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas.
Some Colorado residents still have to haul water. Here’s a report on efforts to end the need down in Montezuma County from Kristen Plank writing for the Cortez Journal. From the article:
An election was held Tuesday at the Montezuma County Courthouse. Property owners and residents of the Goodman Point area voted whether or not to form their own district. People who live in the Goodman Point area have to haul water from a water filling station beside Cortez City Park and back home again, a distance that can reach 15 miles one way. Residents hope to have their own water system installed. Roughly 70 percent of the area’s residents showed up for the special election. Every single resident voted “yes” to forming their own water district, Goodman Point Water Association President J.R. Berry said. “It was fantastic,” he said. “It was the next big step for us. We’re 90 percent of the way there.”
Voters also elected the water district’s board of directors, which includes Berry, Rodney L. Evans, Wanda Shorelene Oliver, Linda Carter and Teri Chappell.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $1.1 million, but approximately $300,000 of that has already been funded through grants, Berry said. The next step is to get a bond written and find a purchaser to fund the construction. The bond issue or mill levy, which will generate the rest of the construction money, will come up in front of the Goodman Point residents in the November election. Montezuma Water Co. is beginning to look into construction plans for the project. Plans include connecting 11 miles of water line, with hydrants, to Montezuma Water Co.’s 4-inch pipeline on the eastern portion of Goodman Point. A 50,000-gallon water storage tank and a pump station also would be installed. Water would be pumped to 35 residences, and the system could service up to 200 homes, but additional residences would have to go through a separate permitting process…
Should the process move along without any kinks, construction will begin in spring 2010, Berry said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Here’s a look at the need for new storage to capture runoff in years like 2009, from Rebecca Boyle writing in the Greeley Tribune. From the article:
While NISP is not nearly as complex as the [Colorado-Big Thompson], it, too, involves two rivers, multiple pipelines and new reservoirs located along the Great Hogback and on the Great Plains.
In the NISP version of this story, our drops of water fall as snow at Cameron Pass, later melting into a tributary of the main Poudre River. Along the way, they would avoid being caught in Long Draw, Halligan and Seaman reservoirs, and they would help buoy kayakers and trout making their way through the Poudre River Canyon. The drops of water would travel along the state’s only federally designated Wild and Scenic river, all the way to the canyon mouth. There, they would enter the North Poudre Supply Canal, an existing structure that would be augmented to fill a brand-new reservoir north of Ted’s Place, near the intersection of U.S. 287 and Colo. 14 northwest of Fort Collins. The new reservoir, called Glade, would require the relocation of U.S. 287 and would be slightly bigger than Horsetooth Reservoir to the south. Only when the Poudre carries extra water — like it is right now — could our drops make their way into Glade Reservoir.
Glade’s companion, Galeton Reservoir, built near the town that shares its name, would allow that to happen. The Larimer & Weld Canal and the New Cache Canal both take water off the Poudre near Fort Collins — the latter south of the town, close to Windsor, and the former north of the city, near Laporte. But Glade would take about one-fourth of that water before the canals’ headgates, so the canal owners would have to be reimbursed somehow. Galeton would fill with extra South Platte River water, to which the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District owns a very junior water right. It would fill in the winter, perhaps, or during very wet years. Two pipelines, called the South Platte Water Conservation Project, would be built to bring water from Galeton back to those two canals. The pipeline would meet the Larimer & Weld Canal near Ault, and the New Cache Canal would fill up in an area between Greeley and Eaton. “We will deliver the remaining one-fourth back to (the canal owners) from Galeton,” said Brian Werner, spokesman for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “Everybody else has to get satisfied before we take the water.”
He noted that during a wet spring like this past one, everybody is already satisfied and there’s plenty of extra water in the Poudre. “None of the ditch companies are taking water right now. It’s going past us; no farmers are taking it,” Werner said. Last week, 3,000 cubic feet of water per second crossed the Colorado-Nebraska state line in the South Platte River. The state is only required to send over 200 cubic feet per second. “This is water that we’re losing to Nebraska right now that the state has rights to,” Werner said. “There is nowhere else to put it. This is a good year to illustrate why we want to have the storage.”
More coverage from the Greeley Tribune (Rebecca Boyle):
Without the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, “Big Tom,” debates about the proposed Glade Reservoir project northwest of Fort Collins would be moot — there probably wouldn’t be anyone demanding that extra water, because there would never have been enough to stay here in the first place. The C-BT cost $164 million in the 1950s, when a new home cost less than $4,000. The water it carries would be worth more than $3 billion on today’s market, according to one estimate from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “It wouldn’t be built today,” said Neil Grigg, a longtime water resources professor at Colorado State University and the rivermaster of the Pecos River. The sheer magnitude would render it nearly impossible, both financially and politically, he said.
New reservoirs east of Pueblo?
June 21, 2009
Here’s a look at new proposed water storage east of Pueblo, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
John Sliman, owner of Southwest Farms, and Bob Beltramo, who operates the Blue Grass gravel pits just going in on the property, want to develop 13,000 acre-feet of storage on the property, located near 39th Lane and U.S. 50…
The proposed reservoirs are in the same area as Stonewall Springs, a project by Colorado Springs developers Mark and Jim Morley that would also provide storage. Both projects are similar in concept because they could be gravity-fed from the Excelsior Ditch and would involve storage of water from rights owned by third parties, rather than direct purchase of water rights. The Arkansas Valley Groundwater Users Association, a well-augmentation group, owns about 54 percent of the ditch, while the Morleys have 46 percent.
The area has long been eyed by the partners in the Recovery of Yield program set up under the 2004 intergovernmental agreement among Pueblo, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado Springs, Fountain, Aurora and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The group needs storage downstream of Pueblo Reservoir to capture flows that are released from Pueblo Dam to maintain flows in the Arkansas River through Pueblo. Currently water is recaptured at Lake Meredith, largely owned by Colorado Springs and Aurora, and Holbrook Lake in Otero County. In 2005, the ROY partners considered buying the Stonewall Springs site near the Pueblo Chemical Depot from Dick Evans, but pulled out of the deal after an appraisal showed the asking price was too high. The Morleys bought it soon afterward. Others who would be interested in water storage in the area include the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch and some electric power generation start-up companies, Sliman and Beltramo said. They have had preliminary discussions with some of those who might be interested in using the site.
The Blue Grass sites – two 180-acre gravel licenses just south of U.S. 50 near 39th Lane – could begin their transformation into water storage reservoirs immediately if needed, Sliman said. “We have the ability to fast-track the project and for cell sizing,” Sliman said. Eventually, there is the possibility of developing up to 20,000 acre-feet of storage on the site, and Sliman thinks there would be enough demand to move forward with both the Blue Grass and Stonewall proposals.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Runoff news (snowpack news)
June 21, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The Boustead Tunnel, which brings Fry-Ark water into the valley, was still flowing heavily Thursday but starting to slow down. The melting snowpack was augmented by a week of rain showers in the mountains, [Roy Vaughan, Bureau of Reclamation manager for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project] said. That means the rivers on the Western Slope are flowing at levels high enough to satisfy local demands and diversions into the Arkansas River basin can continue.
To date, more than 56,000 acre-feet of water have come into the tunnel through Boustead into Turquoise Lake. Storage in all three project reservoirs – Pueblo, Turquoise and Twin Lakes – is well above normal, but there is still room for nearly 20,000 acre-feet in the upper reservoirs. The imports are about 4,000 acre-feet higher than average and nearly to the level projected in early May. Projections have shifted after alternating wet and dry stretches this winter and spring, an early spring runoff and heavy late spring precipitation.
Wary of running into another shortfall like the one that occurred in 2008, the Southeastern district last month trimmed allocations of project water to about 29,500 acre-feet. The district had to repay the Pueblo Board of Water Works 5,000 acre-feet loaned last year to meet the district’s obligations.
From The Fairplay Flume (Debra Orecchio):
Five locations within [Park] county posted snowfalls last winter that ranged from 16 percent below average in Fairplay to 36 percent below average in Lake George. Lake George, in southeastern Park County, was also the only location of the five to have below-average snowfall in the winter of 2007-2008…
According to data on the National Weather Service Web site, the Bailey snowfall for this past winter of 2008-2009 year was 62.5 inches, which is 14.12 inches, or about 19 percent below average…
Snowfall in Antero, near Antero Reservoir in southwest Park County, was also below average. Only 38.5 inches of snow fell this past winter, which was 8.3 inches, or about 18 percent, below the 48-winter average of 46.83…
The Flume obtained data for Fairplay, in northwest Park County, that goes back only 21 winters. This past winter’s snowfall of 75.8 inches was 14 inches, or about 16 percent, below the 89.83-inch average over 21 winters…
The snowfall in Grant, which is 10 miles northwest of Bailey in northeast Park County, was 79.8 inches in the winter of 2008-2009, which was 15.5 inches, or 16 percent, below the 46-winter average of 95.3 inches per winter…
The Lake George area fared the worst this past winter for snowfall, getting 36 inches of snow. That was 36 percent below the 49-winter average of 56.28 inches.
FIBArk festival: Hooligan Race recap
June 21, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tom Purfield):
The Hooligan Race, which features any type non-boating craft that daredevils attempt to float through the Salida Whitewater Park, is one of the premier events of the festival that’s in its 61st year. It’s popularity was surely evident, as an estimated 10,000 people lined the banks of the Arkansas River and the F Street Bridge on Saturday to witness the carnage and comedy that the Hooligan offers. “It’s really cool. The whole day is a fun time. I can’t think of anything I would have rather done with my Saturday,” Scott Taylor said. “All your fellow boaters, everybody who’s down here is wonderful people. It’s a great, positive experience and it makes me glad to be alive.”[...]
Jackson Kayak sponsored the Foam Boat World Championships on Saturday, and J.P. Griffith took the title. Kids crafted their own mini boats and kayakers out of foam and floated them down a creek that led to the Arkansas. There were downriver, freestyle and best of show categories. “It feels cool, I guess,” Griffith said. “I formed my foamie after the Jackson kayak, so that did well. I just got really big air.”
Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County D.A. opposes Corps permit over Fountain Creek concerns
June 21, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“Instead of prioritizing maintenance and repair of its existing infrastructure, Colorado Springs Utilities now wants to build a similar pipeline and infrastructure that will be vulnerable to the same problems that exist with its current infrastructure,” Thiebaut wrote in comments submitted to the Corps on Friday. “CSU should not be able to expand its water system until it has eliminated spills from its current system.”[...]
Thiebaut also is concerned about the additional volume of water that SDS would contribute to Fountain Creek, saying it would exacerbate existing water quality problems both for potential wastewater spills and through increased stormwater runoff. Along with the Sierra Club, Thiebaut sued Colorado Springs over sewer spills into Fountain Creek in 2005. Although a federal judge removed him from the case in 2007, Thiebaut has continued to challenge Colorado Springs during the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental review and Pueblo County’s 1041 permit hearings…
In his statement to the Corps, Thiebaut contends Colorado Springs has not addressed concerns raised by environmental groups, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and the Environmental Protection Agency during Reclamation’s review.
Meanwhile the Colorado Springs Stormwater Utility, Gold Hill Mesa and Department of Transportation are kicking off a $2.7 million effort along Fountain Creek, according to Danielle Leigh writing for the Colorado Connection. From the article:
They hope to reduce flooding and erosion, improve water quality by reducing pollution, and stabilize the overall condition of the creek and surrounding area. Through the mud, water, and plants, these volunteers fished out all the trash they could find during Saturday’s groundbreaking event…
In addition to picking up the junk, the storm water enterprise will be stabilizing the river bank. “There is so much damage through there. There is a lot of flooding and they are trying to minimize that,” Besse said. “We’re using some concrete rubble so we can bury it underneath, and put dirt above it so we can actually grow vegetation on top of it, and stabilize the bank,” Sampley said. The end goal is to give back to the environment…
There are actually 56 drainage basins and waterways you can sign up to adopt. To get involved you can call Jeff Besse at (719) 385-5566, or visit www.springsgov.com/stormwater.
Meanwhile, the Pueblo West Metro Board has decided to oppose the Corps permit unless Pueblo County drops the requirement for Pueblo West to join the Pueblo flow program, according to Mike Spence writing for the Pueblo West View. From the article:
Metro board members voted on June 9 to send a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opposing the wetlands permit (known as a 404 permit) needed to build the Southern Delivery System pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs…
In the letter, the metro district says the permit should not be issued until Pueblo County withdraws its flow management program requirements on Pueblo West. The letter outlines why the county’s requirements for Pueblo West’s participation in the flow management program are not in the public interest for several reasons:
- It does not protect, and in fact removes the utility of, Pueblo West’s water rights.
- It destroys the balance between the costs and benefits of SDS for Pueblo West.
- The portion of the project intended for use by Pueblo West is entirely on federal property over which Pueblo County has no authority to impose an exaction of water rights.
- The flow management program discourages investment in water efficiency and reuse. Pueblo West’s reuse and pump-back project are harmed by the county’s open-ended flow requirements in the county’s 1041 permit.
- Pueblo County’s claims that the final environmental impact statement requires Pueblo West to be a part of the flow management program is inaccurate, based on pages 65 and 618 of the report.
- If Pueblo West is unable to participate in the project because of the flow management program, it will still need to construct pipelines of its won to move its water from the foot of Pueblo Reservoir to its water treatment plant causing environmental impacts in addition those of the SDS.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District meeting recap
June 21, 2009
Here’s a recap of last week’s meeting of the Lower Ark, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“Our research shows some major downstream impacts relative to the Fountain Creek drainage and the Lower Arkansas River,” Colorado State University-Pueblo biology professor Scott Herrmann told the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District last week. Herrmann thanked the Lower Ark board for its support of the studies over the last three years in purchasing equipment and supporting research on Fountain Creek. The board has provided $375,000 for the Fountain Creek studies. The Lower Ark board helped to purchase an inductively coupled mass spectrometer for the university. The equipment is critical to timely measurement of trace metals in water, plants, animals, insects and other life on the creek…
“They came back for $100,000 this year, and we’re hoping they can find more funding,” said Jay Winner, Lower Ark general manager. “We just don’t have the money.”
The work includes five projects on Fountain Creek that look at levels of metals, bacteria and other contaminants both in the water and in aquatic life along the creek. During the studies, a sewer line leak was found and corrected in Manitou Springs. Most recently, traces of mercury were found in Fountain Creek water where none had been previously been detected. The CSU-Pueblo team plans to begin a sixth project to analyze municipal, industrial and agricultural releases of organic compounds in Fountain Creek and downstream.
More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta decided that the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act is correct and no permit is required to transfer water from one area to another. The decision, which is likely to face appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, overturned a Miami federal judge’s ruling in a case where environmental groups Miccosukee Indian tribe had sued the South Florida Water Management District for its practice of pumping contaminated farm water into Lake Okeechobee. Nichols and other lawyers in the case were surprised that all three judges supported the decision in the case, which has already moved to the Supreme Court and back on some points. “This is important to the Western United States, but it’s not over yet,” [Water attorney Peter] Nichols said.
Subjecting transfers of water, including transmountain diversions, to water quality permits could end up costing Colorado water suppliers millions of dollars. Water providers could be required to build treatment plants if the Miami ruling were upheld. “The Colorado-Big Thompson Project has 17 diversions and plants would cost $3 million each,” Nichols said. “Colorado has 105,000 miles of mountain streams and not one foot is affected by this issue.” Nichols said the issues in the Eastern United States are different than in Colorado and other Western States. “In the Eastern states, they are concerned about flooding, while the West moves water to where it is needed,” Nichols said. “There is no evidence that transfers cause the same sorts of problems in the Western United States.”
More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
This spring, the city of Pueblo removed about 30 acres of tamarisk and Russian olive trees that were blocking access to the lake, said Scott Hobson, city planner. “The lake has nice shoreline areas that were being blocked by about 16 acres of tamarisk and 17 acres of Russian olive,” Hobson told the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board at its monthly meeting this week. “A year ago you could not see the lake. The lake area has opened up.”
City crews cut out the trees – invasive species which use large amounts of water – at a cost of about $90,000, Hobson said. The city has followed up with the release of beetles last week in an effort to knock back tamarisks, or salt cedars, not only at Lake Minnequa, but along the Arkansas River and Fountain Creek. The $5.2 million park project is being funded by a combination of Great Outdoors Colorado and federal grants, as well as from collections of the stormwater utility fee. Bids were opened Thursday for the next phase of projects to improve wetlands, extend a road into the park, build basketball courts, create a playground area and build a trail around the lake. Council is expected to act on the bids at its meeting Monday. The next phase will cost $3.5 million, mostly for earth-moving and restoration projects, and must be completed by the end of the year to meet the conditions of the state grant, Hobson said…
The city already has spent $1.5 million for land acquisition and water piping needed to channel stormwater into the lake and connect it with existing stormwater lines. The 100-acre lake will have a base pool of about 600 acre-feet, which will be supplied by the Lower Ark and supplemented by the Pueblo Board of Water Works under an agreement reached last year. It also will have the capacity to detain up to a 100-year flood and release that volume of water back into the Arkansas River over a 96-hour period, Hobson said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Brush: Groundwater level causing concern
June 20, 2009
From the Fort Morgan Times (Jesse Chaney):
The Brush City Council on Monday will hear the concerns of landowners about water issues related to the Prairie Ponds and Bolinger and Henry Discharge. In a letter to the city, Arla, Herman and Jeff Cook said the water table at the northwest corner of their family farm has risen considerably. The water table is now six feet below ground, they said, and they are concerned that their profitable land is being threatened.
Red Cliff: Where’s the stimulus dough?
June 20, 2009
From the Vail Daily:
Tom Johnson, Eagle County’s facilities director, said he’s 98 percent sure Red Cliff is going to get $2 million in federal stimulus to help fix its wastewater treatment plant. “It looks pretty positive, there’s just a couple of small hurdles,” Johnson said.
Southern Delivery System: Sierra Club asks for more time to comment along with a public hearing
June 20, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“There is no doubt that construction and operation of the proposed Southern Delivery System project, as proposed, will have significant impact on water quality and quantity in Fountain Creek and its tributaries, as well as the Lower Arkansas River,” Ross Vincent, chairman of the Sangre de Cristo group wrote in comments delivered to the Army Corps of Engineers this week.
Here’s a release from the Town of Castle Rock via YourHub.com:
Town Council approved June 16 the proposed residential water budget, putting it on schedule to come back to Town Council for second and final reading July 7.
To encourage conservation and enable the Town to provide water at a reasonable rate, Town staff is proposing a water budget for residents. Conserving water is an important element in the Town’s Water Resources Strategic Master Plan, which was approved in 2006 and calls for the community to reduce water consumption by 18 percent. The less water used, the less the Town must acquire through purchasing from renewable water sources or pulling more out of the ground. The proposal calls for each resident to receive a personalized monthly water budget, based primarily on indoor water use, the square footage of irrigated property and each month’s historical evapotransporation rate. The budget is personalized for residents with up to 7,000 square feet of irrigated land. The average Castle Rock customer has an irrigated area of 2,700 square feet, and 96 percent of customers fall within the 7,000 cap. Those with more irrigated space will need to use stronger conservation techniques, such as xeriscaping, to hit their budget targets. Utilities staff will contact these larger property owners to work with them on what they can do to remain within their budgets. The proposal increases the threshold of when a customer is charged a conservation surcharge from 30,000 to 40,000 gallons per month, which will be of particular assistance to those with larger irrigated areas. “For the average customer, there will be no increase in their water bill,assuming usage within their water budget,” said Assistant Utilities Director Rick Wilkey.
The average residential customer – with the 2,700 square feet of irrigated space – use about 13,000 gallons of water each month during the irrigation season, and 5,000 gallons in off-season months. The plan also calls for an easier-to-read water bill, which will feature a 13-month historical graph showing water consumption at your address. The water budget is divided into four blocks. Block No. 1 is a single-family residential customer’s average consumption for December through March. Each April, the customer’s average consumption will be reset to reflect most recent consumption. The water budget allocated to Block No. 2 during irrigation season will be 80 percent of the amount of water required to maintain a maximum 7,000 square feet of irrigated area. Block No. 3 is consumption over water budget until reaching the 40,000-gallon threshold for the Block No. 4 surcharge. The water budget concept and how it is calculated can seem confusing, and staff is working to educate residents about the proposal. All Town residents should have received a large postcard inviting them to workshops designed to show residents how the water budget affects them and their water bills. The next workshop is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Saturday, June 27, in Council Chambers at Town Hall, 100 N. Wilcox St.
Should Town Council give final approval to the budget, numerous water budget workshops will be held at multiple locations inviting residents to a more detailed meeting on what the new water budget rate structure means to them. Attendees will be provided an annual bill comparison for typical small, medium and large irrigated areas. This comparison will show typical usage and monthly costs for the 2008 rate structure as compared to the 2009 water budget rate structure. A limited number of residential audits also will be offered at no charge through Slow the Flow Colorado.
Town Council is scheduled to consider the water budget during its July 7 meeting, which begins at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers at Town Hall, 100 N. Wilcox St. The public is encouraged to attend to provide input.
If you have questions about the proposed water budget, call 720-733-6091 or e-mail waterbudget@CRgov.com.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Runoff news: FIBArk events
June 19, 2009
Here’s an update on streamflow in the Arkansas River for the annual FIBArk festival, from Christopher Kolomitz writing for The Mountain Mail. From the article:
Arkansas River flow is about 1,700 cubic feet per second at Salida and with warm weather forecast, runoff may approach 2,000 cfs in time for key FIBArk events. Dramatically higher water levels may lead to faster times in the downriver race or a wave that becomes more difficult in which to score points during freestyle kayak competitions. During the previous two years flow was about 2,800 cfs and 2,000 cfs during FIBArk event…
Because of early warm-up and snow melt, the river peaked May 23 at more than 2,700 cfs in Salida. Cooler weather arrived and river flow fell to about 1,600 cfs May 29. It rallied, reaching 2,300 cfs about June 4, but remains below the 100-year average of about 2,000 cfs since. Flow reached a spring low of about 1,400 cfs June 11-12 and has since been on gentle, steady rise. The rise may be attributed to factors including warmer high altitude weather and the Colorado Springs Utilities decision to move 190 cfs from Turquoise Reservoir to Pueblo Reservoir. Utilities officials said if warmer weather arrives today and Friday, they may increase the amount of water they move by 100 cfs.
Colorado Springs Utilities is looking for partners for the north outlet works at Pueblo Dam
June 19, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
he North Outlet Works, added to SDS as a primary feature last fall, would give redundancy to those water users who now use the Joint Use Manifold on the south side of Pueblo Dam. Colorado Springs Utilities, the major partner in SDS, is trying to find out who else might be interested in using the new connection in order to design it to the right size now, Dan Higgins, project construction manager, told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board Thursday…
“This is a great opportunity for everyone to get on board,” said Roy Vaughan, manager of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for Reclamation. “There are costs associated with this, but there would be greater costs later on.” The North Outlet Works would back up existing deliveries from the dam at the Joint Use Manifold should it be necessary to shut down the south outlet because of zebra mussels, or any other reason. Repairs for such a shutdown could take months, Vaughan pointed out. The Joint Use Manifold is shared by the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Fountain Valley Authority, Pueblo West and the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a proposed project by the Southeastern district…
The project has several components, including a large concrete platform that would tow into the base of the dam, a pipeline that would connect to two gates within the dam and a junction box that would send water either into the Arkansas River or toward the proposed SDS pumping station north of the river, Higgins said. Tests by Reclamation showed the new equipment would have to be able to meet the full rate of evacuation from the outlet for the dam – 1,100 cubic feet per second – making the engineering specifications critical to the evaluation, Higgins added. The cost for the project, as designed so far by Colorado Springs, would be about $14 million. It would cost about $1 million for others to hook on, Higgins said.
Republican River Water Conservation District $49.1 million purchase of groundwater rights may close soon
June 18, 2009
The RRWCD is trying to save a little groundwater pumping by buying up wells and pumping their output to the Nebraska border. Nebraska and Kansas so far haven’t agreed that the pipeline will make the river whole. Here’s a report from Tony Rayl writing for the Yuma Pioneer. From the article:
The groundwater, representing about 50 wells, will be used for the proposed compact compliance pipeline, if Colorado can get approval from Kansas and Nebraska through the Republican River Compact Administration (RRCA).
Meanwhile, State Engineer Dick Wolfe has stated the continuation of the Special RRCA Meeting that began in May has not been scheduled yet as the three states are continuing settlement negotiations in regards to Colorado’s proposed compact compliance pipeline. Wolfe, in an e-mail to the Pioneer, reported the hope is to set the date soon. However, he added Colorado did not want to set the continuation until the state knows it has a deal with Nebraska and Kansas, or that it is determined the states definitely are at an impasse. At that point, a final vote would be needed to initiate the arbitration process.
Precipitation news
June 18, 2009
From the Yuma Pioneer:
Yuma itself has mostly experienced relatively gentle rainfall, though it did come down hard and heavy late Sunday afternoon when Yuma officially received .55 of an inch. Once again, the real “gully-washers” occurred elsewhere, such as the Wiggins area reportedly receiving 6 inches of rain Sunday. Total rainfall in Yuma was up to 3.47 inches after Monday’s light rain, according to the official weather station at the W-Y Combined Communications Center. The most that has come down in any one day was 1.10 inches on June 2, when it rained most of the day. Yuma now has received 5.84 inches of precipitation since May 1, most of that falling since May 21, which marked the beginning of a prolonged wet, cool and cloudy period that lasted more than three weeks…
Total precipitation in Yuma now is up to 8.83 inches to date in 2009.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project: Reservoir status
June 18, 2009
From email from Reclamation (Michael Odle):
- Estes Powerplant will have 250 acre-feet of water available for power generation on Friday. That is an increase of 50 acre-feet from previous days.
- The Adams Tunnel diversion od 200 cfs will continue until tomorrow night. That means that the Marys Powerplant will have water available for power generation the entire day tomorrow.
- Olympus Tunnel flow will continue set at 500 cfs tomorrow.
- The Dille Tunnel flow will be adjusted to 68 cfs tomorrow morning.
- The Big Thompson Powerplant flow will be increased to 394 cfs tomorrow morning.
Water authority for the lower Arkansas Valley?
June 18, 2009
Small water districts are feeling the crush of dealing with tighter federal and state standards along with the cost to replace or rehabilitate older systems. Regional water authorities where they can pool their infrastructure resources are one answer. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District voted unanimously Wednesday to provide up to $14,000 to look at the possibility of forming a water authority for small districts in the valley. There are 26 small water companies or districts in Otero County, some that serve only a few families, and a preliminary meeting last week with some of the water providers indicated some interest in an umbrella organization. Half of the districts serve less than 200 people. “These are run by people who have full-time jobs who are struggling just to keep the leaks fixed and generating enough money to pay the electric bill to keep water coming out of the tap,” said Bill Hancock, conservation director for the Lower Ark. Hancock’s family runs one of the small districts as well. An authority was brought up following a meeting with the Colorado Water Quality Division two months ago, where many of the water companies experienced sticker shock over the cost of recommended upgrades to their systems…
The water providers are facing new water quality regulations on radionuclides in well water that could require millions of dollars to meet. At the same time, they are working with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District on the $300 million Arkansas Valley Conduit, a water supply line that would solve many of their problems. However, since many are private companies, they are not eligible for public funding, and connecting to a public source can be expensive.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Here’s a look at the historic preservation side of the argument against Greeley’s new supply pipeline through Larimer County, from Monte Whaley writing for the Denver Post. From the article:
Brinks and Humstone bristle at the thought that a survey crew dared to show up on their land two years ago without permission. That was their first clue of Greeley’s intentions, and since then, they have allowed walking tours and nothing else. That has led Greeley to file for condemnation proceedings against Brinks, Humstone and one other property owner. The city wants a Larimer County judge to seize the properties to allow crews to do exploratory drilling, seismic surveys and other field work on what’s left of the grade, including 100 yards of track. This would lead to laying in a pipe of 5 feet diameter, 10 feet deep along a nearly 200-foot-wide right of way.
The women say the work would destroy the last remnants of northern Colorado’s railroad history. The grade, which dates to 1881, is on the National Register of Historic Places and was on Colorado Preservation Inc.’s 2009 list of endangered places.
Update: Here’s a look at the project through the eyes of Greeley’s Director of Water and Sewer, Jon Monson writing in the Fort Collins Coloradoan:
The Northern Segment is between northern Fort Collins and the Bellvue filter plant. The route that ranked best in minimizing cost, environmental impact and land use disruption bypasses much of LaPorte to the south. The other routes examined would have impacted up to 150 residences and businesses. Unfortunately, the best route we found could impact structures now on the National Historic Register. We are working with property owners and state and federal agencies to assess any potential impacts. If there are any adverse impacts to the structures, Greeley will seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts in accordance with federal law.
