Here’s an update on the efforts by Front Range and west slope water providers to provide the necessary water to further the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:
The Colorado River District has taken on the role of fundraising organizer, asking town boards and water districts to contribute money so the West Slope complies to a federal fish recovery program. A pledge, said Daniel Birch of the Colorado River District to Granby and Grand Lake town boards last week, would help the West Slope meet its first obligation of National Environmental Policy Act permitting. The West Slope and East Slope are sharing the cost of $550,000 as each enters the process. Colorado River District fundraising on behalf of the West Slope already has raised just more than $200,000 in commitments. The River District approached 40 water users in the Grand Valley into Summit and Eagle counties…
As part of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, East and West Slope diverters committed to supplying 10,825 acre-feet of water in late summer, evenly split among the two regions. As a temporary solution, Denver Water has been releasing flows from Williams Fork Reservoir to comply; meanwhile, the Colorado River Water Conservation District has been releasing from Wolford Mountain Reservoir for the West Slope’s share. By the end of 2009, however, stakeholders must arrive at a more permanent solution mandated in the program.
Negotiations have led to supplying half of the 10,825 acre-feet out of Granby Reservoir sourced from the Northern Water Conservancy District’s Red Top Ditch Shares (about a $17 million solution) for the East Slope’s share. The other half would come out of Ruedi Reservoir near Basalt for the West Slope’s share. The plan also includes using excess storage capacity in the Green Mountain Reservoir. Contracting with the federal government to have water shepherded from Ruedi to the critical section of the Colorado could cost West Slope water users about $8 million, according to the Colorado River District. For this reason, the district is working on legislation it plans to introduce to Congress, asking for forgiveness of that cost…
Both the Towns of Grand Lake and Granby agreed to consider the $5,000 while crafting next year’s budget, a process starting in August. Grand County Water and Sanitation No.1 and the Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District have also made commitments, according to Birch.
Uncompahgre River: Second annual Ridgway River Festival
July 19, 2009
From the Ouray News:
The Watershed Education tent was operated by the Uncompahgre Watershed Planning Partnership, Mountain Studies Institute and Southwest Conservation Corps (all non-profits). They gave out valuable information on initiatives to protect and restore our local waterways, while the silent auction raised money to benefit service projects along the Uncompahgre river corridor.
Festival participants lined the Uncompahgre to watch the day’s exciting river events.
The Mosaic Community Project (MCP), a local not for profit organization, organized the river festival as a free community event.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Halligan Reservoir Expansion project: Fort Collins’ council weighing environmental impact
July 19, 2009
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Kevin Duggan):
some City Council members said Tuesday they want to make sure the proposed expansion, which would increase the reservoir’s capacity more than six times, meets city needs without causing excessive environmental harm…
Council members received an update on the project, which has been in various stages of planning for 20 years. The expansion would provide the city with enough water to serve its population at “build out” and provide protection against drought, officials say. The project would expand the reservoir from 6,500 acre feet to 40,000 acre feet. An acre foot of water is enough to meet the annual needs of two or three urban households. Partners with Fort Collins in the Halligan project are North Poudre Irrigation Co., North Weld County Water District, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the East Larimer Water District. The estimated cost of the project is $60 million. The city’s share would be $21 million.
Greeley has proposed expanding its nearby Seaman Reservoir from 5,000 to 53,000 acre feet. The Halligan-Seaman projects are being reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers through a single environmental impact statement process.
If permitted by the Corps late next year, the enlarged Halligan could be operational by 2015.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From the Cortez Journal (Kristen Plank):
The project, which began roughly one year ago, is expanding the plant. Officials at MWC have employed their own workers to install a new pump station and add larger pumps. This upgrade will allow the facility to pump to the higher service areas, like Summit Ridge, said Mike Bauer, manager at MWC. “Our pumps are getting close to their capacity,” Bauer said, noting the capacity runs at 4 million gallons of water per day. “So what we are doing is getting larger pumps (for the plant). We’re also adding some new backwash pumps, which are used to clean the filters.” The cost for phase one has been approximately $1.4 million. No loans have been taken out to pay for the first part of the project, Bauer said…
Montezuma Water Co. provides rural water to three counties, including Montezuma, Dolores and parts of San Miguel. The water treatment plant provides a relatively unique way of filtering water. Microsand is injected into the system, which then rapidly cleans out the “heavy organics,” Bauer said. This process, which extends the life of the water treatment filters, is becoming more and more popular at other water treatment facilities.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Say hello to Colorado’s WellView Web brought to you by the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
Thanks to The Mountain Mail (Ron Sering) for the link.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
S. 787, Clean Water Restoration Act
July 19, 2009
From The Durango Telegraph:
The tides appear to be turning against hardrock mining. This week, a breakthrough step was taken by the U.S. Senate on reforming the 1872 mining law and protecting the Colorado landscape. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered to develop rules that will ensure mining companies will again never dodge environmental cleanup in the future. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., chaired a Tuesday hearing on mining reform in the U.S. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. The session marks the first time federal mining reform legislation has been introduced in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate since 1993. In recent years, hardrock mining soared throughout the nation with uranium claims alone jumping 239 percent from 2003-09. Meanwhile, the 1872 mining law places the development of hardrock minerals as the best use of public lands, often creating irrational public land use decisions. Threats to communities are just one of the reasons why 20 state legislators and county commissioners in 11 counties submitted letters to Sen. Udall supporting strong mining reform. “A lot has changed since 1872. The West is settled, and agriculture, tourism and outdoor recreation are primary economic drivers for mountain towns,” said Colorado Sen. Gail Schwartz. “We need sensible mining policy. Colorado has taken steps toward reform.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Senator Udall and Representative Lamborn have companion bills in the congress to grease the wheels of pumping from above the collapse in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Here’s a report from Ann E. Wibbenmeyer writing for the Leadville Herald Democrat. From the article:
Two bills have been introduced in this current legislative session. Lamborn introduced H.R.3123 and Udall introduced S.1417. Just like federal legislation introduced last year during the state of emergency, these are companion bills clarifying BOR responsibility for the tunnel and the water inside. Last year, the bill introduced in the Senate by former Senator Ken Salazar was halted by opposition from the BOR. The bill introduced jointly by the Congressman Udall and Congressman Lamborn made it to a vote in the House of Representatives. “The clock ran out,” said Udall about the lack of movement on this bill after the vote sent the bill to the Senate. The election loomed and the senate had a lot on its plate, and the bill was introduced rather late, he added.
From The Yuma Pioneer (Tony Rayl):
RRCA’s annual meeting will be August 11-12 in Lincoln, Nebraska. If the pipeline is voted down, Colorado will begin the arbitration process. Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas have been holding closed door negotiations on the pipeline for months. Colorado called for a special meeting in late April, at which point Kansas and Nebraska each indicated there still were issues to resolve. That meeting was continued, and negotiations have done the same. [Peter Ampe with the Colorado Attorney General's Office] told the RRWCD Board that Colorado has a revised proposal before the RRCA.
The RRWCD is not privy to the details due to confidentiality rules.
Runoff news: Lake Granby at highest level in years
July 19, 2009
From the Sky-Hi Daily News (Tonya Bina):
At present, the lake is at an elevation of 8,276 feet, or about 4 feet (about 29,000 acre feet) from being full, according to Noble Underbrink, department manager of the Farr Pumping Plant of Lake Granby. The last time the reservoir was in that range was in 2000. Prior to that, the lake was close to or above that level each year. “This puts us back to normal since the perceived drought of 2001,” Underbrink said. In years since, the lake elevation was about 10 feet below where it is now, a level that can make a drastic difference to reservoir shores. Precipitation on the Front Range where water is delivered from Lake Granby, he added, decreased the need to draw water. The plant is pumping water at night to maintain elevation levels in Grand Lake; meanwhile Lake Granby remains stable, fluctuating by about 100th of 1 foot. Underbrink said he doesn’t expect Lake Granby to spill this year, unless there is an abundance of rain during the remainder of the summer. The last time the reservoir was completely full was in 1998.
From The Mountain Mail (Christopher Kolomitz):
It reached 3,250 cubic feet per second in Salida Monday and flow of about 3,500 cfs was recorded downriver. Heat, sun angle, rain and need to move water owned by municipalities and irrigation companies to downstream reservoirs are reasons behind the increase, officials said. It’s the second flow peak on the river since runoff began in early May. May 23 the river reached about 2,700 cfs in Salida. Flow was below 1,500 cfs around June 12 and has been on a steady climb since. The most recent big increase started June 26 when river flow at the Salida gauge jumped from 2,250 cfs to almost 3,000 cfs. “It’s a pretty unusual situation to have two significant peaks 30 days apart,” Greg Felt, owner of Ark Anglers and a member of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District board of directors said Monday…
Twin Lakes Reservoir is 90 percent full and Turquoise Reservoir is 98 percent full. Both reservoirs are in Lake County and water owners are looking downriver to Pueblo Reservoir which is 67 percent full for more space…
[Linda Hopkins, hydrologic technician with the Bureau of Reclamation] said the 54,000 acre feet of canal company storage in Twin Lakes is full…
Monday 439 cfs was being moved from the West Slope through the Boustead Tunnel into Turquoise Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation which operates the tunnel, collection systems and reservoirs, is moving 250 cfs into Pueblo Reservoir, Hopkins said. Felt noted it’s been raining in the high country and at lower elevations, leading to an increase of 200-300 cfs.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Up until this week, river flows were up 30-40 percent above natural levels because of releases from accounts in reservoirs. Those releases are being cut back this week as transmountain flows slow, Vaughan said. “Basically, everyone’s moving water to where they have space,” Vaughan said. The Fry-Ark Project has moved about 81,000 acre-feet through the Boustead Tunnel this year, far exceeding projections of about 54,000 acre-feet – close to average – in May. There were three peaks to the runoff and frequent storms added to snowpack or runoff during the last two months. The tunnel is still carrying about 200 acre-feet per day, but Reclamation is cutting off its releases from Twin Lakes today because there should be adequate storage space in that reservoir and Turquoise Lake, [Roy Vaughan, manager of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for Reclamation] said. The runoff also came two weeks early in May, in the middle of a dry stretch…
[Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District] Total allocations will be about 65,500 acre-feet, which is based on the total amount brought over less transit loss, evaporation and balancing accounts with the Twin Lakes Canal & Reservoir Co. The committee will look at a staff proposal to allocate another 19,000 acre-feet to agriculture and municipal users, on top of 29,500 acre-feet already allocated. “We’re going to be able to fill everyone’s allocations, if they still want the water,” Hamilton said, explaining the additional water could arrive too late to use it this season for some irrigators. The allocations come with a small price tag, $7 an acre-foot for agricultural users, and has to be used within certain time frames that have been shortened by the late delivery. The district also has repaid the Pueblo Board of Water Works loan of 5,000 acre-feet to cover 2008 shortfalls.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):
The sale of troubled Lake Durango Water Co. to the Lake Durango Water Authority for $2.45 million closed Wednesday, ending years of controversy over the quantity and quality of water and the number of customers served. The utility serves the Durango West I and II subdivisions along U.S. Highway 160 west of Durango, and the Shenandoah, Rafter J and Trappers Crossing developments along Wildcat Canyon Road (County Road 141) – 1,435 taps in all. Lake Durango is fed by the Pine Ridge Ditch off La Plata River…
Durango attorney Bud Smith, who represents the water authority, said the sale price covered $1.75 million for the land and $700,000 for the treatment plant, pipelines and other related equipment.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
President Obama nominates Marcia McNutt to lead the USGS
July 19, 2009
From The Stanford Daily (Emily Zheng):
President Obama announced last week that he will nominate Marcia McNutt, professor of geophysics at Stanford, as the next director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and science advisor to the Secretary of the Interior. “Marcia is a strong and experienced leader and a great scientist, and she understands the breath of issues that the USGS deals with,” said Pamela Matson, dean of the School of Earth Sciences. “She’s a perfect choice.”[...]
A member of the University’s faculty for over 20 years, McNutt has worked in the past with the USGS at its Menlo Park branch on earthquake studies, in particular regarding quake prediction. She has also been the president and chief executive officer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) since 1997.
Here’s a release from the USGS via CBS7.com (Midland/Odessa):
Water produced by the High Plains aquifer, which provides water to eight states, is generally acceptable for human consumption, irrigation, and livestock watering, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study highlighted at the summer meeting of the Western States Water Council in Park City, Utah.
The study warns, however, that heavy use of water for irrigation and public supply and leakage down inactive irrigation wells are resulting in long-term gradual increases in concentrations of contaminants such as nitrate and dissolved solids from the water table to deeper parts of the aquifer where drinking-water wells are screened.
“This increase in contaminant concentrations over time has important implications for the long-term sustainability of the High Plains aquifer as a source of drinking water,” said lead author of the USGS study, Dr. Jason Gurdak. “Once contaminated, the aquifer is unlikely to be remediated quickly because of slow rates of contaminant degradation and slow groundwater travel times in the aquifer; deep water in some parts of the aquifer is about 10,000 years old.”
The High Plains aquifer, also known as the Ogallala aquifer, is the Nation’s most heavily used groundwater resource. The majority is used for irrigation, but nearly two million people also depend on the aquifer as a source of drinking water. The eight states that use water from the High Plains aquifer include Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. Nebraska hosts the largest segment and square mileage of the water source.
USGS scientists analyzed water for more than 180 chemical compounds and physical properties in about 300 private domestic wells, 70 public-supply wells, 50 irrigation wells, and 160 shallow monitoring wells sampled between 1999 and 2004. The study also assessed the transport of water and contaminants from land surface to the water table and deeper zones used for supply, to predict changes in concentrations over time.
Currently, water quality is generally acceptable for drinking. More than 85 percent of the 370 wells used for drinking met federal drinking-water standards. Nitrate, which is derived mostly from human sources such as fertilizer applications, was greater than the federal drinking-water standard of 10 parts per million in about six percent of the drinking-water wells. None of the pesticides or volatile organic compounds detected exceeded drinking-water standards.
”Most of the contaminants that exceeded drinking-water standards were of natural origin such as arsenic, dissolved solids, fluoride, iron, and manganese,” Gurdak said.
The report, “Water Quality in the High Plains Aquifer, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, 1999–2004,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 2009-1337, is available online at pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1337/.
South Fork: Get to know South Fork Water
July 19, 2009
From The South Fork Times (Stan Moyer):
Residents and business owners in the South Fork area are facing a definite need to make decisions about water use and methods of supply in the relatively near future, according to several experts in the field who made presentations to an estimated fifty to sixty attending a “Get to Know South Fork Water” meeting at the Community Center on Highway 149 the evening of Monday, July 13. Although it would be nice to say, the issues discussed at the get-together promoted by Town Manager Todd Wright are not simple. The free handouts alone available at the meeting total 34 pages of detailed information from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, and the District Court, Water Division No. 3, State of Colorado…
No political stand absolutely dictating one solution or another to South Fork future water supply problems was made by experts Mike Gibson, Manager of the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, headquartered in Alamosa, along with other presenters seemed to emphasize that the town needs to have either a large, centralized water system or a smaller alternative system to ensure that the town has a water supply at a reasonable cost in the near future. Estimates for a residential water bill ranged from $44 to $84 a month, as an average figure, depending on the size of the water distribution system.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Energy policy — oil and gas: Evaporation pond complex in Delta County draws crowd to meeting
July 19, 2009
From the Delta County Independent (Hank Lohmeyer):
A public information forum held at the Bill Heddles Recreation Center last week and jointly sponsored by Delta County Economic Development (DCED, the former DADI) and the Western Slope Environmental Research Council (WSERC) held the prospect of softening some of Delta County’s rancorous disagreements over development and land use issues. Calling the event an “historic joining of hands of the two groups,” session moderator Tom Huerkamp said that he hoped a new sense of cooperation between the business development community and the environmental group could result. Delta County Economic Development and WSERC came together to host the forum and provide information on the proposed Wells Gulch Evap, Inc., non-hazardous solid waste disposal facility in remote western Delta County. Key design and operational details of Wells Gulch Evap’s plans have already been covered in detail by the DCI in a previous article (July 1, page 1A). Last week’s session at Heddles was intended to provide a face-to-face forum for exchange of information and views between county residents with environmental concerns and company officials who are working to address them.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Fountain Creek watershed: Conservation easements key to protecting the riparian environment
July 19, 2009
Here’s a recap of an event last week sponsored by conservation groups on Fountain Creek, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Unfortunately, development in Colorado is heaviest along the sides of those streams, called riparian areas, and is putting pressure on the most productive wild environments in the state. “Whatever you’ve been doing here is great,” Rondeau told Ann Hanna, who like her late husband, Kirk, has continued to put the environment first in running the ranch on Fountain Creek. “It is a lot different than the river looks in Colorado Springs.” Despite a few invasive salt cedars, there are both large and small cottonwoods and a thick mix of undergrowth near the creek on the Hanna Ranch. On the ground were signs of all sorts of wildlife moving through the area. Bugs were everywhere. Those are all good signs, since species diversity in Colorado is highest among riparian corridors…
“These riparian zones face the greatest pressure,” Rondeau said. That is amply illustrated on the Hanna Ranch, located halfway between Colorado Springs and Pueblo in El Paso County. Once it was a sprawling spread that stretched from the foothills of Pikes Peak to the short-grass prairie and Tepee Buttes – volcanic vents that were part of the ocean floor in the ancient past. In the 1960s, the ranch was split by Interstate 25. Much of it was sold to Colorado Springs, which uses some of the land for the Ray Nixon Power Plant. The Clear Springs Ranch, on the west side of Fountain Creek, was a wildlife viewing area badly damaged by the 1999 flood and Colorado Springs Utilities plans to rejuvenate it as part of the corridor master plan with a fish diversion, trail, wetlands. camping areas and ponds. Hanna has kept the ranch going and continues to train hunter and jumper horses. She is working on a conservation easement that will set aside about 460 acres along Fountain Creek with Great Outdoors Colorado purchasing the development rights. “It was a struggle just to keep the ranch,” Hanna said. Her relatives, Jay Frost and Ferris Frost, own an adjacent ranch, which already has a 900-acre conservation easement.
Meanwhile, development edges ever closer. Pikes Peak International Raceway is due west. Trains barrel through several times a day. Power corridors, toll roads, extensions of city streets, more power plants, gravel pits and wastewater treatment plants have all been proposed for the area in recent years. The Southern Delivery System pipeline will cut through the ranch at some point, although no one’s quite sure where yet, and that’s the least of worries for Hanna. “At least it will be underground when it’s done,” she said…
“The Hannas and the Frosts, like a lot of families, have worked with conservation trusts very fiercely trying to protect their ranches,” said Dan Pike, executive director of Colorado Open Lands, which has obtained a $4.7 million legacy grant from GOCo for its Peak to Prairie program. Its partners include the Nature Conservancy, the Conservation Fund, Colorado Conservation Trust, the Trust for Public Land and Conserving Land for People, which collectively have formed Keep it Colorado. Pike said the public funds available for protecting ranches pale when compared to the money available for development…
Overall, about 114,000 acres in a 2.2 million-acre area have been preserved at a cost of $32.69 million, about two-thirds funded by public funds. The goal of the project is not to stop or even curtail development, but to preserve enough land to maintain wildlife corridors and encourage strategic planning, Pike said. The short-grass prairie, like most riparian environments, is not greatly respected by the public, Rondeau said. “It’s under-known, under-conserved and under-appreciated. No other ecosystem is as converted to other uses as our grassland,” Rondeau said. “Ninety percent is privately owned. You can’t buy it all; that would be ridiculous. We want to work with the people who own it to preserve it.”
More coverage from R. Scott Rappold writing for The Colorado Springs Gazette:
…the Peak to Prairie program, which uses lottery funds and private donations to buy easements, has preserved 114,773 acres of prairie in the Pikes Peak region. That now includes 460 acres of the Hanna Ranch, which county property records show covers more than 4,200 acres.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Rio Grande Basin: Cottonwood Creek desecrated?
July 18, 2009
From the Center Post Dispatch (Teresa L. Benns):
Baca Grande property owner Terrell Tucker filed a civil lawsuit last August over construction of dams on Cottonwood Creek running through the Baca Grande Subdivision and now is considering a class action suit. According to Tucker, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) now apparently admits there was a violation of the Clean Water Act violation last year when a 75-foot long, 18-foot wide road was constructed on property owned by Chuck and Esther Grant adjacent to Tucker’s property. The almost seven-foot deep road was built by dredging an estimated 330 tons of earth from Cottonwood Creek, which runs through Tucker’s property and that of his neighbors, the Mathesons. Tucker and other property owners protested at that time that they had not been properly notified concerning the variance to construct the dam. Later another culvert was erected on Lot 183 in the subdivision.
The Mathesons and Tucker last year described the creek as “desecrated” by the road construction, noting that frogs, toads, lizards, ducks and other wildlife species have been adversely impacted by the dredging and the placement of the culvert. Tucker said the original POA covenants were established to, “preserve the natural environment and to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, wildlife corridors and stream beds.”
More Coyote Gulch coverage of the Rio Grande Basin here.
From The Fairplay Flume:
The plans were delayed due to the company needing a Park County Special Use 1041 permit, according to Conifer Water LLC Managing Partner John McMichael. McMichael told the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District board members at their July meeting that construction of the pipeline will begin in November if the company obtains the Park County 1041 permit by then. The Park County 1041 permit application has been completed but not yet filed with Park County. McMichael said obtaining additional funding partners should be completed in July. Then the application and the $25,000 fee would be submitted.
The company plans on taking 3.9 cubic feet per second of water out of the North Fork of the South Platte at a diversion point in Bailey. That water is not part of Bailey Water and Sanitation District’s decreed water rights.
McMichael said the company is negotiating with the Bailey Water and Sanitation District to become a wastewater customer. The tap fee would be enough for the district to build a new state of the art treatment facility to process wastewater, similar to the one at the new Safeway-anchored Conifer Town Center, McMichael said.
He estimated a new facility would cost about $3.5 million to treat 500,000 gallons of wastewater per day…
At the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District meeting, McMichael said that Conifer Water did not plan to obtain water rights but would use its customers’ water rights and augmentation plans. The company would only service water and sanitation districts as customers. McMichael said the goal is to get districts off water wells as a source of water and use surface water instead. Each district would remove solids from the wastewater, and any final treatment needed would be accomplished at the new Bailey wastewater treatment plant…
McMichael said the company would need to construct a water storage tank somewhere along the 13.3-mile route as well as lift stations for eight-inch diameter water and sewer pipelines. The company is currently considering land on Richmond Hill for a storage tank. A construction permit would be needed from Jefferson County for the storage tank. Burke McHugh, chief executive officer for Conifer Water, said the initial money needed for the project was estimated at $24 million. Of that, $18 million would be obtained through debt and $6 million from the company. He did not say whether the money would be obtained through loans, bonds or certificates of participation (a type of municipal bond often used to finance capital improvement projects or equipment). McHugh said the project was a 15- to 30-year plan. “In the long run, it will be better than adding new wells (to serve developments),” McHugh said…
Will-O-Wisp Metro District President Rick Angelica said the district had told McMichael that it was not interested for several reasons. First the district had plenty of water, including surface water. The district had no interest in spending money to change its water source, discharge point and water augmentation plan in water court. It has no intention of giving the control of its water rights and augmentation plan to a for-profit company. Lastly, the contract Conifer Water offered the district would increase the cost of providing water and sewer to district customers six to ten times over Will-O-Wisp’s current cost. “I told them ‘You’re about five years too late’,” Angelica told The Flume.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Mesa County: Water supply systems
July 18, 2009
Here’s a short primer with details for water supply in Mesa County, from Michelle Will writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinal. From the article:
Here in the Grand Valley, we rely on snowpack for our water storage and supply. If you live in Mesa County, the water providers are the city of Grand Junction, Clifton Water District, the town of Palisade and the Ute Water Conservancy District. Although these water providers all serve residents of the Grand Valley, even their source waters can vary.
• The city of Grand Junction’s source water comes from Juniata Reservoir, the Kannah Creek Basin, the North Fork of Kannah Creek and Purdy Mesa Reservoir, all of which store runoff from the forests on Grand Mesa.
• The Clifton Water District’s sources are tributaries that flow into the Colorado River, including the Blue River, the Eagle River and the Roaring Fork River.
• The town of Palisade’s source water comes from Cottonwood Creek, Kruzen Springs, Rapid Creek and Cabin Reservoir, all on Grand Mesa. Approximately 25 springs contribute to the town’s water supply.
• Ute Water’s source is snowmelt surface water on the north-facing slopes of Grand Mesa. More specifically, the water travels from Coon Creek, Mesa Creek, Plateau Creek and Rapid Creek, as well as the Jerry Creek Reservoirs. Ute Water also can supplement its water sources with diversions from the Colorado River.
Most people don’t realize that a large part of all the lakes, rivers, creeks and streams located on Grand Mesa constitute a majority of the Mesa County water provider’s watershed. For additional information on where your water comes from, contact your individual water provider.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Susan’s purse-making caddisfly: Scott Hoffman Black ‘We sure feel that if any animal deserves it, it’s this one.’
July 18, 2009
From The Fairplay Flume (Danny Ramey):
The Susan’s purse-making caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) is found in just two places – Trout Creek Spring in Chaffee County and High Creek Fen in Park County.
The High Creek Fen is made up of 1,147 acres of wetland in western Park County, about 8.5 miles south of Fairplay. It is primarily owned by The Nature Conservancy and the Colorado State Land Board, as well as private landowners, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
An EPA document tied to the petition states that the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly is a small, hairy, brown caddisfly in the family Hydroptilidae. and adult forewings are 2 millimeters, or 0.08 inches, in length.
The rarity of the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly was one of the main factors motivating the petition, said Scott Hoffman Black, the executive director of the Xerces Society. “When you’re an animal that lives in only two places, if one of those places is destroyed, you’re in trouble,” he said. The petition also cited threats such as grazing animals, logging, roadbuilding, fires, water use, and camping and hiking as dangerous to the caddisfly and its habitat, said Gelatt. Along with its rarity, the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly should be put on the list because of its importance to its ecosystem, said Black. It is not only a vital part of the food chain but also a good indicator of how the ecosystem is doing. “When you see that they [the caddisflies] are declining, the ecosystem isn’t doing well,” said Black.
With the petition approved, the process will now move into the status review phase. During this phase, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will begin examining whether or not the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly requires protection under the Endangered Species Act. A 60-day public comment period began on July 8, to receive feedback from both scientific experts and normal citizens. The period will end on Sept. 7, said Gelatt.
Once the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has researched the threats to the caddisfly, it will receive one of three designations, said Diane Katzenberger, a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The first is that the threats to the caddisfly do not warrant a place on the list, which would end the process. It could also be found that the threats warrant a place on the list for the caddisfly. At that point, work on a proposal would begin. Finally, it could also be found that while a place on the list is warranted, it could be “precluded by listing actions of higher priority,” said Katzenberger. If that happened, the caddisfly would be put on a candidate list.
Black is confident that the caddisfly will find its way onto the endangered species list. “We sure feel that if any animal deserves it, it’s this one,” he said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Durango: New stormwater regulations in the offing?
July 18, 2009
From The Durango Herald (Shane Benjamin):
On Friday, the city held a public meeting at the Durango Community Recreation Center to discuss the proposed changes. About 45 people attended, including contractors and a representative from the Colorado Department of Public Health’s Water Quality Control Division, which is charged with monitoring water quality and control throughout the state. The Planning Department is expected to vote on the proposed changes at its regular meeting July 27. The proposed changes will then go to the City Council for consideration…
The proposed revisions to the city code help clarify the permitting process and largely reflect the state’s permitting standards, Holton said.
The most notable changes include:
•The implementation of a fine structure for violations. The city is proposing a $250 fine per violation, per site visit. That amount can be increased up to $1,000 for subsequent violations or noncompliance.
•As it is now, property owners are required to have a stormwater permit. But property owners are often ignorant of stormwater requirements or don’t live here and can’t monitor mitigation practices. So the city proposes allowing contractors to obtain the permits.
•As it is now, construction on lots a half-acre in size or larger requires a stormwater permit. The city proposes increasing the lot size to one acre.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Arkansas Valley: Tamarisk control
July 18, 2009
Officials are getting ready to release tamarisk leaf beetles in several areas in the Arkansas River Valley next week with hope that the critters will establish well and control tamarisk. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The beetle Ñ technically, diorhabda carinulata Ñ was released in Utah several years ago and migrated into Colorado. It is thriving in every river basin on the Western Slope, but has been slow to take hold in the Arkansas Valley, which is the most heavily infected region of the state when it comes to the invasive trees. This week, thousands of beetles were harvested along the Dolores River in the Southwest corner of the state for release next week on Fountain Creek and other tributaries, and at Boone, Fowler, Rocky Ford, Two Buttes, Granada and Holly.
Bean and his staff will also be checking up on beetles that have established themselves on Beaver Creek in Fremont County. There is also a small population established below Pueblo Dam as the result of another strain of beetles from western China tested by the Bureau of Reclamation several years ago. “There are already major efforts to remove tamarisk in the Arkansas Valley, and the beetles are a supplement to those other efforts,” Bean said. Some theories speculated that the beetles, from Kazakhstan, would have trouble thriving at lower latitudes. Kazakhstan lies entirely above the 40th parallel, while Colorado is further south, resulting in fewer hours of daylight during the summer months. Still, in the Dolores basin, there are millions of beetles that have knocked back thousands of acres of tamarisk. The beetles have also decimated tamarisk in the Colorado, Green and Yampa basins, Bean said…
One of the reasons for next week’s releases will be to track how well the beetles can establish themselves in the Arkansas River basin…
The beetles will eat the leaves – and more importantly the flowers which contain seeds – of the older tamarisk as well. This makes them an effective biocontrol for the trees, but not a way to eliminate tamarisk altogether, Bean said. “In the long run, if they’re established in the basin, we’ll have a background population that will keep tamarisk under control,” Bean said.
More coverage from the Ag Journal (David Vickers):
[Dr. Dan Bean, the state’s top expert in using insects to control invasive plant species like tamarisk] manages the Colorado State Department of Agriculture’s Plant Industry Division Insectary at Palisade. He spent three days, July 7-9, working along the Apishipa and Purgatoire rivers in Las Animas County to release beetles that will devour tamarisk, also known as salt cedar. Patty Knupp, a private land and wildlife biologist, said 1,000 beetles were released July 7 in two locations along Chacuco Creek, a tributary of the Purgatoire River. On July 8, four more releases of beetles were conducted along the Purgatoire River and two releases were made on the Apishipa River. Then, on July 9, the tamarisk eating beetles were released on the main stem of the Arkansas River near Fowler…
Ants and Asian ladybugs are natural predators of tamarisk beetles and can be particularly tough on a population.
“We’ve found that the beetles don’t do especially well below the 38th parallel,” she noted. “The number of daylight hours have an impact on whether they flourish.” But there have been some fairly significant success stories, especially with aerial application of herbicide. Since 2005, more than 2,000 acres along the Apishipa River drainage have been sprayed.
Here’s an update on actions up in Creede to restore the floodplain between the town and the Rio Grande, from Matt Hildner writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The board adopted a land-use plan and agreed to a memorandum of understanding with the property’s owners. The agreement with Creede Resources, which owns 156 acres south of town, was approved unanimously and calls for the company to request annexation for 94 acres of flood plain by Oct. 1 and submit an application to the Colorado Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Program.
The floodplain – a 1.5-mile stretch between Creede and the creek’s confluence with the Rio Grande that greets visitors as they enter the town on Colorado 149 – has been left largely barren and incapable of naturally restoring itself after nearly a century of mining in the former boomtown. While the Willow Creek Reclamation Committee and, more recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have tackled cleanup of the mining district north of town, the floodplain has been largely untouched with the exception of the southwestern corner that was reclaimed for the Mineral County Fairgrounds. “It’s been a long time getting to this point,” Mayor Rex Shepperd said. The land-use plan adopted by the city calls for leaving most of the floodplain as open space suitable for parks, trails and recreation.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Coyote Gulch outage
July 15, 2009
I’ve got a deadline at Colorado Central Magazine. I’ll see you on Saturday.
Here’s a look at the shiny new Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“The district was created faster than any of us anticipated, so we are experiencing growing pains,” said Cole Emmons, assistant El Paso County attorney. “This group plays a role, particularly when it comes to land use, very akin to a planning commission.”
That brought immediate questions from members of the committee, most of whom have met for years in a similar role as part of efforts to improve Fountain Creek, about what its basis for making decisions should be. “Do we need a public hearing process to adopt land-use regulations?” asked Kim Headley, Pueblo County planning director. “The board adopted the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force strategic plan and the Army Corps of Engineers plan. Are they the foundation for our decisions?” asked Dennis Maroney, Pueblo stormwater director. “We need to clarify what the true limits of our jurisdiction are in reality, or the two cities could meet at the county line and this district could go away,” said Duane Greenwood, Fountain planning director. “That’s not the intent of the state law.”
Here’s a release from the Environmental Protection Agency:
In a move that stands to create jobs, boost local economies, improve aging water infrastructure and protect human health and the environment for the people of Colorado, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded $ 27,481,600 to the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. This new infusion of money provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will help the state and local governments finance many of the overdue improvements to water projects that are essential to protecting public health and the environment across the state.
“EPA is pleased to provide more than $27 million in Recovery Act funds for much needed improvements to Colorado’s water infrastructure that will benefit the state for decades to come,” said Carol Rushin, EPA’s Acting Regional Administrator in Denver. “This funding will protect public health and improve water quality while creating hundreds of jobs in Colorado.”
The Recovery Act funds will go to the State’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program provides low-interest loans for drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements. The program also emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. An unprecedented $2 billion dollars will be awarded to fund drinking water infrastructure projects across the country under the Recovery Act in the form of low-interest loans, principal forgiveness and grants.
At least 20 percent of the funds provided under the Recovery Act are to be used for green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency improvements and other environmentally innovative projects. EPA expects to provide this portion, nearly $7 million, to Colorado within the next few weeks, bringing the total amount awarded for drinking water infrastructure projects in the state to $34,352,000.
Since the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program began in 1997, EPA has awarded more than $8 billion in grants, which states have turned into $15 billion of financial assistance to fund drinking water projects. The revolving nature of the program ensures drinking water projects will be funded for generations to come.
EPA is also awarding $317,100 in Recovery Act funds for Water Quality Management Planning (WQMP) in Colorado. Planning is an important step in EPA’s goal to improve water quality in America’s lakes, rivers and streams. WQMP grants support a broad range of activities, such as setting standards, monitoring the quality of the water, developing plans to restore polluted waters, and identifying ways to protect healthy waters from becoming polluted. States are also encouraged to use these funds for more innovative planning activities, such as developing plans to adapt to climate change, analyzing trends in water availability and use, and creating low-impact development programs. Grants are awarded to state agencies and some of the funds can be awarded to regional and interstate planning organizations.
President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on February 17, 2009 and has directed that the Recovery Act be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability. To that end, the American people can see how every dollar is being invested at Recovery.gov.
Information on EPA’s implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, visit http://www.epa.gov/recovery
Information on the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
