1976 Big Thompson Flood 33rd anniversary
July 31, 2009
Today is the 33rd anniversary of the Big Thompson Flood. According to the Fort Collins Coloradoan there will be a ceremony tonight at to reflect on the tragic events of that day and the loss of 140 lives. From the article:
At 7 p.m. tonight, members of the Big Thompson Canyon Flood Memorial board of directors will again host a ceremony to recognize the devastation of the flood and share memories of tragedy and triumph. During the ceremony, four college students who lost their grandparents in the flood will be presented scholarships in memory of their loved ones…
For many Colorado residents, the memories of that devastating day in 1976 remain forever etched in our minds. For others, the impact of that tragic day does not truly resonate until they see the roadside memorial or read excerpts of books made available by people dedicated to ensuring the flood will never be forgotten.
As I remember it (highly unreliable), Mrs. Gulch and I had spent a week or so swimming through all the rain up in the Flat Tops Wilderness and were holed up that night in Steamboat Springs.
Southern Delivery System: 1041 lawsuit tab $420,000 for Colorado Springs Utilities and $440,000 for Pueblo County
July 31, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Each side will pay its own costs in the lawsuit, which was settled by an agreement this week. The suit was dismissed Tuesday in Pueblo District Court and both sides have asked the Colorado Court of Appeals to remand an appeal of District Judge Dennis Maes’ 2007 decision in the case. Colorado Springs released the figure for its costs on Thursday, while Pueblo provided numbers Wednesday…
Colorado Springs filed the lawsuit in El Paso County District Court in 2005, claiming SDS should be exempt from 1041 regulation. The case was heard in Pueblo District Court in 2007 after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled it was the proper venue…
As part of the agreement, Colorado Springs no longer will contest Pueblo County authority over the project.
More Coyote Gulch Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.
Republican River Basin: Kansas and Nebraska respond to arbitrators ruling in Republican River spat
July 30, 2009
From the Omaha World Herald (David Hendee):
Kansas Attorney General Steve Six said Nebraska’s overuse of Republican River water is unacceptable.
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said he remains hopeful that despite differences with “our neighbors, this matter can be settled outside of court.”
Both states accepted some parts of the decision and rejected others.
Nebraska agreed that it owed Kansas a token $10,000 in damages for farmer’s overuse of Republican River water in 2005 and 2006. Kansas once claimed $72 million in damages.
Kansas rejected the arbitrator’s recommendations limiting damages, on a proposed remedy and that sanctions must await additional violations by Nebraska.
Kansas accepted the arbitrator’s statement that Nebraska’s attempts to comply are inadequate and that Nebraska should further reduce the amount of groundwater farmers pump to irrigate crops.
Nebraska rejected the arbitrator’s recommendation that Nebraska and the Upper, Middle and Lower Republican Natural Resources Districts should make deeper cutbacks in the amount of groundwater pumped.
And Nebraska rejected the idea that a federal river master should take control of water use in the Republican valley.
More Coyote Gulch Republican River Basin coverage here.
Here’s a look at the aftermath of the big storm in Wheat Ridge, from Jeff Francis writing for the Wheat Ridge News. From the article:
[Councilwoman Karen Adams] pushed through the rain and hail and into her garage, just a minute before the power went out. Upstairs, her husband took shelter in a closet after the windows blew out. She comforted the family dog in the basement. Even though they were in the same house, the noise and chaos of the storm, along with the darkness, meant each didn’t even know if the other was home.
From The Yuma Pioneer (Tony Rayl):
Moisture has added up to 4.65 inches in Yuma for July. Last Thursday’s hail storm left 0.85 of an inch, followed by more rainfall Monday evening and again at midnight and into the early morning hours of Tuesday. Then came thunderstorms late Tuesday, stretching into the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday, dumping another one-half inch. Total precipitation in Yuma for 2009 now is up 14.15 inches. Of that amount, 11.12 inches have fallen since May 1. The current wet period really seemed to kick in on May 21, the last day of school in Yuma when it remained rainy and cloudy all day. Yuma has received 10.41 inches of rain in the 10 weeks since May 21. If one prorated that pace of precipitation over a full year (52 weeks), Yuma would end up with 54.13 inches…
The new storm drainage pond north of the city of Yuma’s ball field complex, at the east end of town, has been an effective addition during this wet summer. However, there has been so much rain the last two months — at least for a place that basically is a desert — that the storm runoff is about to be maxed out.
Here’s a look at Denver’s rainfall in July from TheDenverChannel.com (Corey Christiansen):
This July is now just 0.18 inches away from being one of the top ten wettest July ever in Denver. As of Thursday, the Denver International Airport had recorded 3.53 inches of rain for the month. With all the extra rainfall, homeowners are seeing green in more places than just their lawns.
From the Boulder Daily Camera (Heath Urie):
At a study session Tuesday night, several council members indicated they wouldn’t support a proposal to increase the rates for water, wastewater and stormwater management beginning next year.
The Boulder Water Resources Advisory Board is recommending an increase of 3 percent on water bills, 2 percent for wastewater and 1 percent for stormwater. Together, the increases would mean most residential customers would pay $1.40 more a month — or about $17 more annually. Under the recommendations, water bills for businesses, such as restaurants, would increase about $162 a year, while heavy industrial uses would go up by $5,100.
While the City Council won’t make any formal decisions about the rates until September, Councilwoman Susan Osborne said she wouldn’t support increasing the rates this year because of the downtrodden state of the economy.
More Coyote Gulch infrastructure coverage here.
From The Fort Morgan Times (John La Porte):
Having the plan will help the district have an “in” to be informed of any new proposed land uses in areas affecting its well fields and an opportunity for input regarding such changes, said MCQWD manager Mark Kokes. Those areas include the Hay Gulch area west of Wiggins hill and the San Arroyo and Beaver Creek drainages. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment has reviewed those areas, Kokes noted. The area of most immediate concern, Kokes said, is Hay Gulch, which is the most economically feasible area for underground storage.
Front Range interests, including the city of Parker, have been buying up water in Morgan County and other northeastern Colorado counties for possible underground storage and eventual transport to their facilities via pipelines, Kokes and Brush landowner Steve Treadway said. Underground storage has a couple of advantages — storage for later use with minimal loss to evaporation and built-in pre-treatment of the water, with some impurities taken out as the water percolates through the ground, Kokes said.
Water district officials and others are concerned, however, about possible degradation of water in their well fields as other water is brought in. Water taken from the South Platte River is high in nitrates and total dissolved solids, and the impurities grow worse as one moves downstream, Kokes said. “The further downstream you get, the less desirable the water is,” he stated…
Oil and gas activity is less of a concern than degradation due to inferior water being stored near well fields, Kokes said, pointing out that oil and gas is heavily regulated. Steve Enfante, county emergency management coordinator, noted that regulations on hazardous materials spills include requirements to report and clean up any spill of more than 25 gallons of any petroleum-based product. For crude oil, reporting and cleanup requirements start at five gallons, said Ken Strauch of the Northeast Chapter of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
Surprisingly, Kokes said, there is not much agricultural activity or many septic tanks near the district’s well fields.
More Coyote Gulch Morgan County coverage here.
From The Durango Herald (Jason Gonzales):
The amendments adhere to state standards, which address a few key points, said Kinsey Holton, storm-water quality program coordinator for the city:
•A permit now can be issued to a developer or general contractor along with the property owner.
•A lot without landscaping that is sold to a homeowner can be removed from storm-water management coverage.
•The city now has the power to enforce a fee schedule. The fee schedule will allow inspectors to cite permit holders without stopping work entirely, Holton said.
“It gives us an alternate tool instead of having to issue a stop-work order for a site that isn’t in compliance,” he said. “When stop-work orders are issued it sends everyone home, from the electrician to the plumbers who don’t have anything to do with the regulations.”
More Coyote Gulch stormwater coverage here.
Here’s an opinion piece from Carol Rush outlining the League’s opposition to Powertech’s plans to mine uranium from the aquifers under Weld County. From the article:
There are potential public health and economic impacts of the Centennial Project. Both the Larimer County Medical Society and the Colorado Medical Society wrote resolutions opposing in situ mining because of the potential health impact of radioactively contaminated water on our agriculture, livestock and civilian population. The League of Women Voters of Larimer County has concluded that in situ leach mining should not be done in this area because of the health and environmental risks it poses to the Northern Colorado Front Range. The league agrees with more than 11,000 local residents who signed petitions opposing the Centennial Project as well as the 80 municipalities, public entities and businesses who have signed resolutions opposing it.
More Coyote Gulch energy policy nuclear coverage here and here.
From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):
Colorado Springs Utilities sued in November 2005, challenging the right of Pueblo County to require a 1041 land-use permit, named for the legislation that gives counties authority over multi-jurisdictional projects. At the time, there was opposition to the pipeline in Pueblo, and a permit seemed unlikely. The $1.4 billion pipeline is expected to deliver 10 million gallons a day from Pueblo Reservoir starting in 2016 and will eventually bring 78 million gallons a day to a new reservoir southeast of Colorado Springs.
More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The action ends nearly four years of litigation, after Colorado Springs filed the lawsuit in 2005, centering on Southern Delivery System, a $1 billion-plus pipeline project that will affect Pueblo Dam, land in Pueblo West, Walker Ranches and numerous county roads. Pueblo County spent nearly $440,000 on the lawsuit and an appeal, which will not be recoverable, said Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek. Kogovsek explained the only way to have recovered the payments for lawyers and cost of depositions would be if the lawsuit were determined to be frivolous. “We discussed it, but just because we won the lawsuit does not mean it was frivolous,” Kogovsek explained…
Colorado Springs agreed not to contest Pueblo County’s authority to regulate SDS in the future, said Ray Petros, special counsel on land-use issues for the county…
In 2007, Chief District Judge Dennis Maes ruled in favor of Pueblo County’s position that its land-use regulations written under 1974’s HB1041 were applicable to SDS. Colorado Springs argued that they were not, because the project was not substantially different than other, existing utility corridors in the county. Colorado Springs appealed the decision, but the appellate court has not issued its opinion. The city and county have asked the case be remanded to district court. Colorado Springs applied for a 1041 permit in 2008 anyway, and received the permit in April. Last week, Colorado Springs City Council gave its blessing to the Pueblo County route over an alternative through Fremont County.
More Coyote Gulch Southern Delivery System coverage here.
CWCB: Division 6 Instream Flow appropriations in 2010
July 29, 2009
From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Rob Viehl):
The Stream and Lake Protection Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board is giving a presentation at the Routt County Commissioner meeting to discuss recommendations received for potential Division 6 Instream Flow appropriations in 2010. These streams include: Big Beaver Creek, Grizzly Creek, Indian Creek, Moeller Creek, Morrison Creek, North Fork North Platte River, Piceance Creek, South Fork Big Creek, South Fork Slater Creek, West Prong South Fork Slater Creek, Wheeler Creek, and Yellow Creek. The Stream and Lake Protection staff will provide a brief presentation on the ISF program as a background for 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
The meeting will take place at 11:00 a.m. on August 4th, 2009, and will be held in the Routt County Courthouse Commissioners’ hearing room, 522 Lincoln Avenue on the 3rd floor, Steamboat Springs. Questions about new appropriations may be directed to Jeff Baessler at 303-866-3441 ext 3202 orJeffrey.Baessler@state.co.us
More Coyote Gulch CWCB coverage here.
Grizzly Creek: Home for greenback cutthroat?
July 29, 2009
Charlies Meyers (The Denver Post) is always looking for a new trout stream. He reports that a stretch of Grizzly Creek is above a stream full of mine runoff. That effectively blocks other species from the stretch. Here’s the report. From the article:
Janowsky is leading a broad- based team of experts poised to begin restoration on more than 2 miles of a creek whose sparkling headwaters rise off the flank of 14,267-foot Torreys Peak, a popular climbers’ destination just south of the Bakerville interchange off I-70. Funded in large part by MillerCoors, the Forest Service and Trout Unlimited and bolstered by a small army of volunteers, the effort will begin the first week of August with a launch of equipment and materials that will make the creek suitable for fish while erasing a rash of environmental scars. A buck-and-rail fence will be installed to prevent motorized incursion, while a mile of unauthorized road will be obliterated to further aid in stream protection. At the same time, a single-track trail will be maintained for hiking and other backcountry uses. Design and construction will be managed by Frontier Environmental Services, the firm that earlier was contracted by West Denver TU to design and build the so-called Golden Mile on Clear Creek. The Clear Creek Watershed Foundation will oversee the project once it has been completed, an effort that includes on-ground remediation and metals reduction…
“It’s the perfect chemical barrier to keep fish from coming in from down below,” said Paul Winkle, area biologist with the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
More Coyote Gulch conservation coverage here.
Runoff (storage) news: Pueblo Board of Water Works has a record amount of storage for the year
July 29, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The water board has about 50,000 acre-feet of water in storage now, nearly a two-year supply of potable water for the city. The water board supplies about 28,000 acre-feet annually for potable use, or about 9 billion gallons. However, much of the water in storage is needed to fulfill contracts for outside water sales and would be needed for the future growth of the city, Ward said. “If we get below 16,500 acre-feet in storage, then we start thinking about water restrictions,” [Alan Ward, water resources administrator for the Pueblo Board of Water Works] said. “Right now, that would take several years of severe drought. Our target is twice the minimum, or about 33,000 acre-feet. We’re in a position where we can do that, but we wouldn’t have that luxury in the future because we don’t have the storage.”[...]
Right now, Pueblo has about 66,000 acre-feet capacity in storage accounts in four reservoirs. That number could increase by another 9,000 acre-feet by 2025 under a federal contract to use excess capacity at Lake Pueblo. The water board also has filed an application in Division 2 Water Court to triple the size of its Clear Creek Reservoir in northern Chaffee County and has been among those pushing for a study on the enlargement of Lake Pueblo. Pueblo supplies Comanche Power Plant with about 8,000 acre-feet of water annually, and the water board is obligated to provide another 5,000 acre-feet annually for the third unit under a 2005 contract. Pueblo also sells about 5,000 acre-feet of water annually to Aurora, under a lease agreement that can be suspended during a drought, as it was in 2002…
The water supply this year is swollen for several reasons, Ward said. The largest factor is boosting the amount in storage to supply Comanche. The water board also benefitted from a healthy spring runoff – Twin Lakes brought over 120 percent of average. The volume of the runoff surprised everyone and was bolstered by frequent storm systems during June. Finally, farmers who are leasing water from the Pueblo water board are delaying when they take the water, leaving it in storage longer.
Meanwhile the Pueblo City Council has approved the board’s sale of the Columbine Ditch to Aurora. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Columbine Ditch is located 13 miles north of Leadville on Fremont Pass and brings over water from the Eagle River basin. Council’s approval was the last piece needed for the sale, which already has been approved by the Aurora City Council and Climax. Money from the sale will help buy shares on the Bessemer Ditch. Mike Occhiato and Ray Aguilera voted against the sale at Monday’s City Council meeting, saying the water board should look for better alternatives in purchasing Bessemer shares. “Anytime I hear the word Aurora with the sale of water, it makes the back of my hair curl,” Aguilera said. “Anytime you sell water to Aurora from this basin, it doesn’t wash with me.”
The $30.48 million from the sale should be received in the near future, but details are still being worked out. The money from the sale will go toward $60 million the water board needs to complete its purchase of 5,200 shares of the Bessemer Ditch, about 25 percent of the total. The water board may not need the water for at least 20 years, and has agreed to lease water back to farmers for the cost of assessments during that time. It also has agreed to lease excess water from the sale to Pueblo County interests first and not to lease the water outside the Arkansas River basin. Other shareholders in the Bessemer Ditch would not be restricted from selling their shares to users outside the Arkansas Valley under changes in the Bessemer Ditch bylaws approved in May. However, Aurora – the only outside water provider that currently has the ability to move water out of the Arkansas Valley – is restricted from obtaining new water rights in the valley under several intergovernmental agreements. Last week, the water board entered financial contracts to issue $22 million in bonds to help finance the deal. The rest of the money would come from the water development fund and new long-term lease agreements for outside water sales. The water board is expected to discuss the amount of rate hike needed to finance the bonds at its Aug. 25 meeting and is looking for ways to minimize the increase in water rates.
Runoff news: Ruedi Reservoir update
July 28, 2009
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):
This evening, we are bumping up releases from Ruedi by about 30 cfs. We anticipate inflows might rise slightly over night. As a result, later this evening, flows in the Fryingpan will be around 275 cfs.
From the Cañon City Daily Record (Debbie Bell):
The Fremont Sanitation District will begin digging on Red Canyon Road, about 400 feet north of South Street. Red Canyon Road will remain open to local traffic only while the district extends the sewer main to High Street. “There is already an existing manhole there,” Brian Hagenau, district engineer tech, said Thursday afternoon. “We’re going to start there and work north.”[...]
The work is being done because the majority of residents in the area requested to be connected to the local sanitation district. For years, raw sewage has percolated out of the ground, caused by high water tables and poor soil conditions. Septic maintenance and failures have proven costly and have created many public health problems. “There are a lot of septics in that area failing because of the soil conditions,” Hagenau said.
From the Cañon City Daily Record (Debbie Bell):
Three months ahead of schedule, work on the city’s water transmission main project is complete.
Cañon City Engineer Adam Lancaster said all water line work on the project wrapped up this week. “Surface restoration on N. Fifth Street is all that remains,” Lancaster said Friday. “Public Works crews will start again on this next month and will likely be done in September.” The city began work on the massive project, which affected Main Street, U.S. 50, First Street and Fifth Street, in January. At $2.6 million, the venture was one of five major projects in the city’s $11 million water infrastructure update funded by a 20 percent water rate increase in January 2008.
More Coyote Gulch infrastructure coverage here.
From the Boulder Daily Camera (Heath Urie):
According to a memo being presented to the City Council during a Tuesday night study session, the Boulder Water Resources Advisory Board is recommending an increase in water, wastewater and stormwater rates. The proposal calls for an increase of 3 percent on water bills, 2 percent for wastewater and 1 percent for stormwater. Together, the increases would mean most residential customers would pay $1.40 more each month — or about $17 more annually. Water bills for businesses, such as restaurants, would increase about $162 per year, while heavy industrial uses would go up by $5,100.
More Coyote Gulch infrastructure coverage here.
Flaming Gorge pipeline: Wyoming Governor Freudenthal urges slow going to protect state water supplies
July 28, 2009
From the Associated Press via LocalNews8.com (Idaho Falls):
Freudenthal submitted written comments Monday to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, urging the agency to carefully scrutinize the proposal by Aaron Million. He wrote that he remains opposed to the project…The Wyoming governor says federal review of the proposal should include potential impacts on wildlife and endangered species.
More Coyote Gulch Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here.
Aspen: Smart grid installation underway
July 28, 2009
From Smart Meters:
Aspen, Colorado has taken the first step towards implementing a smart grid that will take both electrical and water usage into account. The goal is to allow residents of the world-renowned ski resort to know how much energy or water they are using before they get their monthly bill while saving operational costs and increasing the reliability of the entire system. So far, smart electric services have become available. “We recently purchased about 150 new electric smart meters that can communicate information about how much energy a person is using and when,” said Lee Ledesma, utility operations manager for the city of Aspen, in an interview with the Aspen Times. “Your usage can be managed before the bill goes out.” So far, the city-owned utility has installed more than 200 smart meters mostly within an affordable housing development. Eventually, the smart meters will connect over the Internet with a Web portal that will allow utility customers to log in remotely and monitor their energy consumption in real time. At the present, homeowners that have a smart meter installed can call the billing department and ask for a report to be sent to them that details energy usage. “This is really the first step in transitioning to a smart grid system, which will increase response time for outages in addition to clueing customers and the city into energy and water consumption histories,” added Ledesma. He said that Aspen also has about 100 smart water meters available.
More Coyote Gulch conservation news here.
Precipitation news: Pueblo Board of Water Works says Lawn irrigation sales down for summer
July 28, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“We won’t know what effect [lowered water sales] will have until the end of the year,” said Terry Book, deputy executive director at the Pueblo Board of Water Works. “You never can guess. We live off our (lawn) irrigation revenue. It’s been a steady year so far, but if we have a dry August, we may make it back.” Metered water sales revenue was only at 41 percent through the first half of the year, according to the most recent budget report. Water consumption within the system is nearly 2 percent below the five-year average, continuing a trend of lower per capita use that began in 2000…
First-half revenues were held down by a cool spring and frequent rains after temperatures finally warmed up, Book said. As of Monday, Pueblo officially had recorded 8.38 inches of rain, about an inch above average for the year. Other factors include conservation, either because of the change in attitudes found in the 2008 study, or because the city raised sewer rates, which are not set by the water board, but still appear on the same bill. Book said the peak days of usage reached all-time highs of more than 63 million gallons per day in 1997. This year, the highest reading has been 48 million gallons per day.
Coyote Gulch readers are an interesting lot. Greg sends this link to an article about the perils of using herbicides in rangeland restoration, from Don Comis writing for the USDA. From the article:
Cattle grazing can help native forbs thrive because cattle prefer grasses over forbs, and cattle trample soil, loosening soil for seeds that the animals inadvertently plant when seeds are caught in their hooves or fur. That said, when herbicide wasn’t used, most native forbs did as well with or without cattle grazing.
Herbicide caused the native plants Missouri goldenrod and yarrow to become rarer over the 16-year study period. Barring herbicides, these two species proved capable of co-existing indefinitely with the exotics.
Four native perennials became rarer in sprayed plots, but only when grazing was excluded: velvety goldenrod, white prairie aster, vetch, and prairie sagewort. Herbicide spraying caused no long-term harm to four other native perennials. Rockjasmine and other plants belonging to the Androsace spp. group were not affected by the herbicide even initially.
That says a lot for the argument against tampering with the land — it’s damn hard to put things back. Another point to consider: There was only one application. What happens to the natives and spurge with multiple applications?
In other cattle business news the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has come out against S. 787 the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009. Here’s a release from the organization via the Oregon Natural Resource Report:
Under the Act, family ranchers and farmers may be required to obtain permits from the EPA or Corps before conducting common, everyday operations, like watering their cattle or farming their land. The federal government is already struggling to handle a backlog of 15,000 to 20,000 existing section 404 permit requests. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the average applicant for an individual Clean Water Act permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in complying with the current process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit currently spends 313 days and $28,915 – not counting the substantial costs of mitigation or design changes (Rapanos, 447 U.S. at 719, plurality opinion). Considering U.S. farmers and ranchers own and manage approximately 666.4 million acres of the 1.938 billion acres of the contiguous U.S. land mass, the massive new permitting requirements under this Act would be an unmanageable burden for the government, and could literally bring farming operations to a standstill.
Chilton shared from personal experience about a time his family ranch had to apply for a 404 permit to construct a road across a dry wash on their private property. The regulatory approval process took over a year and cost his family nearly $40,000.
“As a rancher, I wholeheartedly understand the critical importance of a clean water supply; it’s necessary for the health of my animals and my land,” said Chilton. “Federal agencies have ample authority under existing law to protect water quality, and it’s essential that the partnership between the federal and state levels of government be maintained so states can continue to have the essential flexibility to do their own land and water use planning.”
Megan Graham named to lead San Juan Citizen’s Alliance
July 27, 2009
From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):
Graham, 35, bested about 30 other applicants from far and wide, Joe Griffith, chairman of the organization’s board, said Friday. [Mark] Pearson’s last day is July 31. Graham will start Aug. 17…
Graham knew how to answer questions – deep answers – and she knew when to stop, Griffith saida. Graham’s work as a director of membership and communications for the Colorado Environmental Coalition prepared her to work with the players she’ll be rubbing elbows with now. Writing editorials allowed her to master local, state and national issues, he said…
Graham has been in Durango since 1995. She earned a degree in communications at Fort Lewis College and was a reporter and editor at Herald from 1998 through 2000. In 2001, she started a five-year stint with the Colorado Environmental Coalition. She left the organization to return to the Herald as an editorial writer. “I want to continue Mark’s programs and expand the presence of the organization in the community,” Graham said. “I want to engage a broad cross-section of the San Juan Basin in our work.” Griffith said Graham’s immediate challenges are two:•Learn in depth the issues related to each staff member’s assigned field. Staff members handle specific issues such as water, federal land and environmental policies or gas and oil.
More Coyote Gulch San Juan Basin coverage here.
CWCB: Front Range water suppliers asking for top-down planning (and modification of environmental protections)
July 27, 2009
Large Front Range water suppliers wrote a letter to the Colorado Water Conservation Board on July 15 asking for a review of regional water planning to date. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A July 15 letter from the major importers of Western Slope water – Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, Pueblo Board of Water Works and the Southeastern and Northern water conservancy districts – outlines the concerns about water planning in the state. The letter was to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Interbasin Compact Committee. It included a review of regional cooperative water planning to date and a “white paper” of suggested future actions.
“A major (although not exclusive) water supply challenge facing Colorado is the projected gap in water supply needed for the growing population in the Front Range urban corridor from Fort Collins to Pueblo,” the letter signed by managers of the six water providers states. “Unfortunately, the ability of Front Range water supply agencies to meet this water supply gap is complicated by a variety of political, institutional and regulatory factors that significantly hamper the ability to pursue new supply alternatives.”
However, each of the six water suppliers currently are moving their own projects forward, including the Southern Delivery System by Colorado Springs, Bessemer Ditch purchases by the Pueblo water board and the Arkansas Valley Conduit by the Southeastern district in the Arkansas Valley alone. [ed. Add the Windy Gap Firming Project, Northern Integrated Supply Project, Moffat System expansion, Colorado-Wyoming Coalition.]
“The prospects for arriving at a statewide consensus on the right timing and mix of water supply and demand management alternatives is further hampered by Colorado’s balkanized water supply and development framework,” the letter states. The letter goes on to call for CWCB and IBCC leadership to confront the political or legal obstacles to develop water projects in an “efficient and cost-effective manner.”
While commending the Front Range providers for taking a “positive step” toward resolution of problems, Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River District, said it is important to continue addressing the underlying conflicts, in a letter he wrote on July 17. “I believe without airing . . . underlying conflicts on (identified) projects, reaching a consensus on longer term projects is going to be impossible,” Kuhn wrote. “Without a resolution of the issues and inherent conflicts among (identified projects), how can there possibly be a consensus on the next generation of projects.” There is a “cultural divide” between the Front Range and the rest of the state which places the water needs of outlying areas as subordinate to those of the Front Range, Kuhn said. “Overcoming this cultural gap is very critical to establishing a positive environment that will open the door for the roundtable to succeed,” Kuhn wrote…
The list of “obstacles” the water providers included in their white paper included the Endangered Species Act, wild and scenic designation, wilderness designation, the National Environmental Policy Act, the need for “reform” of county land reviews under 1974’s HB1041, clean water certification, reuse regulations, water court decrees, recreational in-channel diversions and use of water in energy development.
Meanwhile, here’s a report on the current state of the roundtable process, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Meeting over the past four years, the IBCC and nine basin roundtables have yet to produce any agreements that would lead to a new transbasin water project. In fact, there are as often comments that such projects are no longer possible suggestions about how to move them forward. [Harris Sherman, Department of Natural Resources director], taking over the job as Gov. Bill Ritter’s appointee in 2007, redirected the IBCC to think in terms of a 50-year vision, looking toward the best possible future for all. “As we double our population in the next 50 years, it’s not a question of if we grow, but how we grow,” Sherman said. “The 2005 HB1177 (which set up the IBCC and roundtables) was a way to look at a future not as destructive to agricultural communities.”
The need for Front Range growth is frequently questioned, but big water interests counter they are merely preparing for an inevitable surge of urban population growth. The Western Slope has revived the specter of oil shale, which could drink up the remaining allocation of water to Colorado under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Many are skeptical because the energy and water costs of producing oil shale are so high, no matter what price is set by the world market. Without a new transmountain project using unclaimed flows, agriculture would be dried up. There are studies about how to make the transfer of water easier, and what happens to local economies if all the water is taken from one area. It appears to be taboo to suggest that any Western Slope agriculture be diminished, however. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for this group to write the death knell for agriculture,” said T. Wright Dickinson, a northwestern Colorado rancher…
The lines of the problem have been clearly drawn and haven’t changed in the last four years. The IBCC and roundtables were created in 2005 after the worst annual drought in state history in 2002, a failed ballot measure to build unspecified big water projects in 2003 and a study revealing a gap in municipal water needs in 2004. The state has between 445,000 and 1.438 million acre-feet of water to develop from the Colorado River basin under the Colorado River Compact, although prolonged drought or climate change could affect the amount. The state demographer says the state’s population will double to 10 million people by 2050, with most of the growth occurring in the Pueblo-Fort Collins corridor. Right now, the state uses 1.2 million acre-feet for treated water supplies, and will need at least 2 million acre-feet by 2050. Only about one-third of the new supply will be developed under identified projects such as Colorado Springs Southern Delivery System, the Arkansas Valley Conduit, the Northern Integrated Supply Project, Aurora’s Prairie Waters or the Windy Gap water supply firming project. Oil shale development could require as much as 500,000 acre-feet of water, if it ever happens.
“There are no single or simple solutions. It’s all about trade-offs,” Kuhn said. “The more water we develop, the greater the risk. This is as much about risk management as water development.”
More Coyote Gulch Colorado water coverage here.
Brush/Fort Morgan: Effluent mixing study on tap?
July 26, 2009
From The Fort Morgan Times (Jesse Chaney):
The study would help the cities determine whether to send effluent from their wastewater treatment facilities through a mixer before releasing it into the South Platte River. The mixer would disperse the water, which could prevent the effluent from releasing a potentially harmful plume into the river, said Brush Clerk Cathy Smith. The city of Brush has already budgeted for its portion of the study, she said.
More Coyote Gulch wastewater coverage here.
From the Steamboat Pilot & Today (Blythe Terrell):
According to numbers from 2005 through 2008, the town is producing more water than residents are paying for. Hayden Town Council members discussed the problem at their meeting Thursday, as well as issues related to money shortfalls in the town’s sewer and water fund. They couldn’t come up with clear answers…
Scott Price, the town’s water/wastewater plant operator, provided graphs and figures relating to the possible water losses at the Thursday meeting. His research showed that there doesn’t appear to be a seasonal variation or a change in loss between high- and low-use periods. “There’s a lot of variables in there, and that’s kind of why we’ve got to look at the averages,” Price said. The typical municipality experiences 16 percent water loss, Price said, suggesting that Hayden shoot for 10 percent…
Hayden is trying to refinance its debt on the water plant it built in 2003-04. So far, Martin and his staff members haven’t negotiated a better deal on interest rates. If they can’t do so, the town might take out a line of credit to pay bills and improve cash flow. That would be a temporary solution, Martin said. “It’s actually not a bad situation; it’s just like any business trying to figure out how you get through a period of time,” he said. “Because the water fund is a business, and right now it’s not making enough money to cover its bills, and that’s not a good thing.” Hayden town officials are working with bankers to figure out the next step for the enterprise fund. Martin said Town Council members probably would consider rate increases in coming months. The town can specify whose rates increase, leaving out senior citizens, for example, he said.
More Coyote Gulch infrastructure coverage here.
Crested Butte: Western State College water workshop
July 25, 2009
Here’s a recap of this week’s workshop from Evan Dawson writing for the Crested Butte News. From the article:
While the meetings took place in the Upper Gunnison River Basin, there wasn’t much discussion of Gunnison-specific issues. Instead, the resounding topic across all the meetings was a dwindling water supply and growing demand for water all across Colorado…
[Peter Nichols, one of Governor Bill Ritter’s appointments to the IBCC] said it would take many years of problem-solving to find the 800,000 acre-feet of demand projected for the future of Colorado. Colorado Department of Natural Resources executive director Harris Sherman said, “it’s not a question of whether we grow or not. It’s how we grow.”
More coverage from the Crested Butte News (Evan Dawson):
Both the Mt. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District and Crested Butte Mountain Resort have plans for reservoirs to be built in Mt. Crested Butte, and both in nearly the same location, on the northwest side of town. But the plans were developed separately, and now the two groups must decide if the two reservoirs are compatible together—or if there could simply be one. The Water and Sanitation District discussed the reservoir during a meeting on Monday, July 13.
More Coyote Gulch infrastructure coverage here.
Storage (runoff) news: Lake Nighthorse 20% full
July 25, 2009
From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):
As of Wednesday the dam was holding back 25,000 acre-feet of water, slightly more than 20 percent of its capacity. The deepest point in the lake was 95 feet, with 87 vertical feet to go, Artichoker said. The amount of water the Bureau of Reclamation can take from the Animas River for Lake Nighthorse, one component of the Animas-La Plata Project, depends on the flow in the river. From April through September the agency must allow a minimum flow of 225 cubic feet per second below the pumping plant to satisfy the demands of downstream water-right holders and provide water for fish species; in October and November, the minimum flow is 160 cfs; and December through March, 125 cfs.
On Wednesday, the Animas flow peaked at 483 cfs, down from 766 cfs a week ago, 1,110 cfs two weeks ago and 2,110 cfs on July 1. Since frequent rain has done little to boost the flow, the Bureau of Reclamation has limited the amount it pumps to Lake Nighthorse, just over a ridge to the southwest from Bodo Industrial Park. The current 225 cfs downstream demand would allow the agency to pump considerably more than the 110 cfs it was taking on Wednesday.
Pumping into Lake Nighthorse will cease in August for 30 days. The hiatus will allow for saturation of the core of the earth-filled dam and give engineers a chance to check filling criteria devised by dam designers and safety engineers. “We don’t want to shock the dam by putting a big load on it all of a sudden,” Artichoker said. “We want to ease the dam into its function.” Piezometers will measure water level; inclinometers will show if there is settling or bending in the structure; brass embankment measurement points on the top of the dam also measure settlement; and a toe-drain system on the downstream side of the dam will indicate if there is seepage. “Information so far tells us that this dam is really tight, but we want to see if it’s performing as anticipated,” Artichoker said. “There won’t be any pumping, but there will be monitoring done 24/7.”
More Coyote Gulch Animas River watershed coverage here and here.
