Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009
October 31, 2009
From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):
Colorado U.S. Sen. Mark Udall Wednesday took his boldest step yet on the road to a national nuclear renaissance as part of a program designed to combat global warming. He introduced the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009 in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor in which he acknowledged he was likely stepping on an environmental landmine. “For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark – and perhaps unpleasant – surprise. But I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of nuclear power has changed,” Udall said…
The Senate bill, co-sponsored by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would clear the way for the U.S. Department of Energy to engage in research into modular and small-scale nuclear reactors, cost-efficient manufacturing for nuclear power facilities and enhanced proliferation controls…
Keith Hay, energy advocate for Denver-based Environment Colorado, said Udall’s own state would bear the environmental brunt of a revival of the nation’s nuclear power industry, which currently accounts for a about 20 percent of the nation’s electrical power, although no new nuclear plants have come online since the Three Mile Island disaster. “We don’t think that renewable energy is a silver bullet; we just think that there are some things that shouldn’t be part of the buckshot going forward, and nuclear [power] certainly shouldn’t be part of that buck shot,” Hay said. “We certainly agree with Sen. Udall that climate change is important and a pressing need, but we clearly disagree with Sen. Udall on the path forward.”
Northern Integrated Supply Project: Save the Poudre’s Gary Wockner pitches Fort Morgan City Council
October 31, 2009
From the Fort Morgan Times (John Brennan):
Gary Wockner of the Save the Poudre Coalition said it is the goal of his group to stop the project. Wockner said Save the Poudre comprises 16 environmental groups and represents 3 million U.S. citizens. He thanked the council for inviting him to speak at Tuesday’s meeting. “We’ve been doing this for several years, and Fort Morgan is the first NISP participant to ask us to do this,” he said. The anti-NISP group also hopes to offer better alternatives for the cities and towns that need water and to propose a river restoration plan for the future, Wockner said…
Gary Dreessen, the city’s water resources director and a strong proponent of NISP, asked some pointed questions of Wockner after his presentation. “All this water that you want to go down the Poudre — where do you want it to go?” Dreessen asked. Wockner said Save the Poudre believes there aren’t any high flows in the river…
Wockner said Save the Poudre will do anything it can to stop NISP, including legal action, but that a long process lies ahead before the project could become a reality. He said the Corps of Engineers permitting process could drag on for another two years, and then the EPA will have to sign off on the project and participants will have to figure out how to pay for it. “Anyone can object at any stage,” he said. “It could go five to 20 years.”
Northern Water officials have said they expect a permit to be issued for NISP sometime in 2010, with construction expected to begin the following year.
More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here.
Colorado State University scores $1.2 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fund water resources research
October 31, 2009
Here’s the release from CSU. Here’s an excerpt:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has awarded Colorado State University two grants totaling $1.2 million to aid in research addressing critical water resource issues – the only university in Colorado to receive part of the $11 million distributed by the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The grants are distributed through the National Integrated Water Quality Program, which aims to address issues such as water quality protection and water conservation. “Cities, communities and rural areas across the nation depend on a safe and abundant supply of water for drinking and cooking,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a USDA news release. “This research will play a vital role in our understanding of the part water plays in the ecosystem and developing tools and strategies to effectively manage our water resources.” The National Integrated Water Quality Program addresses critical water resource issues in agricultural, rural and urban watersheds through research, education and extension projects and programs.
From the Montrose Daily Press:
Stevens Creek boat ramp will remain closed to vessel launching and retrieval. Elk Creek and Lake Fork boat ramp hours are 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. Inspections continue at the Elk Creek Marina, rather than at the campground entrance. Vessels that have been slipped or on the water for more than 24 hours must go through a high-risk inspection and possible decontamination, which will take longer than a standard inspection. No motorized or trailered vessel launching or retrieval is allowed outside of the Elk Creek and Lake Fork boat ramps. Only hand-launched water craft may launch outside of these locations and their trailers may not enter the water. Boat decontamination is no longer available at Lake Fork, due to nighttime temperatures that are below freezing, and the potential for water lines and portable decontamination units to freeze. Boats needing decontamination will be sent to Elk Creek. Boaters can prevent the need for decontamination by keeping craft clean, drained and dried of any standing water upon arrival at Blue Mesa Reservoir. Cooler temperatures and reduced staff means decontamination might not be immediately available to vessels with attached adult mussels. Such vessels may be denied access to the lake until they are decontaminated elsewhere. The reservoir and inspection stations remain open until the water at Elk Creek and Lake Fork boat ramps freezes. Hours will again be reduced in late November or early December.
Antero Reservoir boating closure
October 31, 2009
Here’s the release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney):
Beginning Sunday, Nov. 1, Antero Reservoir will be closed to trailered and motorized boating. Hand-launched craft, such as canoes, kayaks and bellyboats will be allowed until the reservoir is iced over. The anticipated reopening of trailered and/or motorized boating is May 1, 2010.
More South Platte Basin coverage here.
Denver Water raises rates for 2010
October 31, 2009
Here’s the release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney):
Denver’s Board of Water Commissioners approved an adjustment in water rates for 2010 to help fund the utility’s 10-year capital plan. The new rates will take effect Feb. 3, 2010.
Denver Water’s 10-year plan includes 300 projects, including upgrades to aging infrastructure to prevent putting reliable water service at risk. The plan also calls for expansion of the utility’s system capacity to meet the future needs of its customers. Over the next 10 years, the utility plans to expand its recycled water system, enlarge Gross Reservoir by 18,000 acre-feet, finish developing gravel pits that store reusable water, and explore ways to work with other water providers to bring more supplies to its system.
Denver Water has determined the cost of making repairs and replacements to its aging infrastructure and building new supply within its system will total $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. “We need to be more proactive in our work to repair, maintain and upgrade our aging water system. Some of our facilities are more than 100 years old,” said Brian Good, director of operations and maintenance. “Next year, you will see us doing more water main replacements, more cement mortar lining of pipes to extend their useful life and upgrading underground vaults. We also will be doing major upgrades at the Marston Treatment Plant, replacing gates at Cheesman Dam that date back to the early 1900s, and installing a new hydropower turbine at Williams Fork Reservoir.” In 2010 the water department will need an additional $13.3 million in revenue to cover rising costs associated with maintaining and improving the city’s water system. Denver Water owns and maintains 2,800 miles of distribution pipe — enough to stretch from Los Angeles to New York — as well as 12 raw water reservoirs, 22 pump stations and four treatment plants. Rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure is needed throughout the water distribution system, much of which dates back to the World War II era or earlier.
Typical Denver residential customers will see their bills increase by about $40 a year — an average of $3.30 per month, or about $12 on a summer bill. Typical suburban residential customers served by Denver Water will see an increase of $51 per year — an average of $4.30 per month, or about $16 on a summer bill. The effects of the proposed changes on customer bills will vary depending upon the amount of water the customer uses and whether the customer lives in Denver or is served by a suburban distributor under contract with Denver Water; the more customers use, the more they will pay. Commercial, industrial and government customers will see adjustments in rates, as well. Rates for Denver Water customers living inside the city remain among the lowest in the metro area, while rates for Denver Water residential customers in the suburbs still fall at or below the median among area water providers.
Denver Water is funded through rates, new tap fees and the sale of hydropower, not taxes. Its rates are designed to recover the costs of providing reliable, high-quality water service and to encourage efficiency by charging higher prices for increased water use. Most of Denver Water’s costs are fixed and include maintenance of the system’s distribution pipes, reservoirs, pump stations and treatment plants. Denver Water also examines and adjusts its capital plan as necessary each year.
Details of the 2010 rates will be posted on Denver Water’s Web site within the next few days. Members of the public who have questions about the proposed rate adjustment may call 303-893-2444.
More coverage from The Denver Post (Colleen O’Connor). From the article:
Residential bills vary according to how much water is used per household, but the increase for typical Denver residents will amount to about $40 annually, or $3.30 a month; during the summer irrigation season, bills probably will increase about $12 a month. In the past decade, the amount Denver Water charges its residential customers per 1,000 gallons of water will have doubled to $3.50 in 2010 from $1.75 in 2000. Rates for suburban customers will increase about $51 a year, or about $4.30 a month and about $16 a month in summer. In 10 years, the rate per 1,000 gallons for suburban customers will have increased 81 percent, to $4.80 in 2010 from $2.65 in 2000. Commercial, government and industrial users also will see rate increases of about 4.1 percent, Denver Water rate manager John Wright said. The monthly service charge Denver Water adds to each customer’s bill will increase to $5.58 from $4.41, or about 26.5 percent.
More Denver Water coverage here.
Durango: Study of sediment sources in Lightner Creek underway
October 31, 2009
From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):
A coalition of public agencies has acquired funding for a three-phase hydrological study to answer questions that have stumped observers for years: Where does the sediment that Lightner Creek periodically dumps into the Animas River come from, and why? Field work on the study, begun this week, could be done by the end of the year and lead to answers to an environmental problem seen as a potential source of harm to renowned fishing waters. “Sediment comes and goes, but no one knows whether it’s natural or human-induced,” Meghan Maloney, river campaign director at the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said recently. “The reason for concern is that Lightner Creek runs into the Animas at the head of a trout fishery that the Colorado Division of Wildlife gives its highest rating – gold medal.”[...]
Three organizations put up funding for a study – Trout Unlimited $1,000, the Colorado Water Conservation Board $5,000 and the Southwestern Water Conservation District $2,600 – to hire Mark Oliver of Basin Hydrology. Oliver started his field work this week. “I started at the mouth where Lightner Creek runs into the Animas and I’m working my way upstream,” Oliver said. “I’m looking at the channel and flood plain for sediment sources that could come from bank erosion or land-use modification. “The Tech Center watershed and Perins Canyon seem likely sources of silt,” Oliver said. “But my study will confirm whether the deposition is coming from there.” At certain points, Oliver will do sieve analysis – measuring the size of sediment particles. Along with a cross-section analysis of the channel – width, depth and slope – he can determine the movement of sediment. “I’ll focus on sediment sources and the mechanics of how sediment gets to the mouth,” Oliver said. “Then I’ll try to determine if the sediment is natural or caused by people – for example, the landfill above the Tech Center.”
From Colorado Trout Unlimited:
The Cutthroat Chapter of Trout Unlimited will hold its Annual Conservation Auction on Tuesday, November 17. The doors will open at 6:30 pm. Admission is free. The event will help raise funds for the chapter’s conservation activities such as Cheeseman Canyon trail maintenance, help fund a graduate fellowship at Colorado State University Department of Fish Biology and Wildlife, and the chapter’s stream improvement activities. More than 150 items will be available for bid through a silent auction and a traditional verbal auction. Items to auctioned include fishing trips, fishing equipment, professionally tied flies, art items, and much more. The event will be held at Terrace Gardens, 13065 East Briarwood Avenue in Englewood (just south of Arapahoe Road, 2 miles east of I-25). Please contact Bill Richards at 303-909-1375 or go to www.cutthroatctu.org for more information or directions.
More conservation coverage here.
San Luis Valley: Final arguments heard in trial over first groundwater sub-district
October 31, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):
Attorneys argued for four hours in a packed courtroom over which sources of water the subdistrict could use to replace injuries to senior surface users, how proposed computer modeling could accurately monitor them and to what extent past injury to seniors should be compensated. Attorney William Paddock, who represents the Rio Grande Water Users Association, argued that compensating for past depletions from the Rio Grande that project to cause injury into the future would be unfair to well users who were operating legally in the past. Judge O. John Kuenhold, who questioned each of the six attorneys who presented arguments, asked if not doing so would be fair to the senior surface water users, who’ve born the demands of delivering water downstream under the Rio Grande Compact since the 1960s while wells went unregulated. “Is it fair to wait 40 years for something?” he asked, while clarifying later in the proceedings that attorneys should not take his questioning as an indication of how he would rule.
The plan, which would take in roughly 174,000 acres of irrigated land and 3,000 irrigation wells, are an alternative to the rules and regulations currently being formulated by the Office of the State Engineer. Either of those two plans, should they go in effect, would represent the first regulation of the valley’s wells.
Tim Buchanan, an attorney representing 11 objectors, criticized the computer model that would be used to project depletions, noting that there were more than 200,000 acre-feet in groundwater depletions that resulted in only a 3-percent depletion to the Rio Grande. “Is it math or is it voodoo,” he asked. Buchanan and Erich Schwiesow, an attorney for one other objector, also questioned the subdistrict’s plans to attribute the recharge decrees of ditch companies in the subdistrict toward replacement water. Buchanan argued that the subdistrict didn’t have the authority to utilize the property rights of ditch shareholders in that manner. Paddock countered, noting that the decrees for two of the larger ditches in question, allowed water to be reallocated should they come under new regulation from the state.
Meanwhile, not content to wait for Judge Kuenhold’s ruling, the Rio Grande Water Conservation District board voted this week to move ahead with implementing assessments for the management of the groundwater sub-district. Here’s a report from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:
Well owners within the geographic area of the sub-district will pay fees to operate and manage the sub-district. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District (RGWCD) has been footing the bills for developing its sub-district to this point. The water management sub-district is designed to reduce well pumping in order to alleviate injuries to senior surface water rights, replenish the underground aquifer and ensure the basin complies with the Rio Grande Compact. The water court approved the sub-district, but the sub-district’s management plan is currently under dispute and judicial review…
RGWCD District Engineer Allen Davey asked the board on Tuesday if Sub-district #1 should prepare to submit the administrative fee documentation to the Rio Grande County treasurer. He said the process of preparing the documentation will cost some money, and the district would be risking the loss of those funds if the sub-district plan is denied by the courts. RGWCD Board President Ray Wright said the illness at the conclusion of the trial delayed closing arguments to the end of October, and the judge would undoubtedly take time to render a thorough decision after that time. He said it is a judgment call at this point whether the judge’s ruling will be made in time to begin assessments in 2010. Davey added that even if the judge makes a favorable ruling, an appeal could be filed that could last another year or more.
RGWCD Attorney Ingrid Barrier said, “I am fairly confident if we get such a ruling, we will have an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.” She said Kuenhold is well aware of the district’s time constraints regarding the fee collections, but there is also no question the judge will be determined to fashion a comprehensive decision taking into account the proposals of all the parties involved. “I think it is wise for us to move forward as if we are able to collect this fee … because if we do not do that, that’s another year off.” She said the administrative fees could be placed in an escrow account so in the event the Supreme Court denied the sub-district plan, the fees could be given back. Barrier said that completing the process to begin collecting fees would make it easier in the future to repeat the process. Several other sub-districts are in the works throughout the San Luis Valley…
Barrier also reviewed the major arguments from the principal attorney for the opponents, Tim Buchanan who represents a group of senior surface water owners. Barrier said the opposing arguments include: sub-district not entitled to use any water from the Closed Basin Project to replenish depletions; likewise with recharge water; the plan is not specific enough in how it will protect senior water rights; the plan is invalid because no rules/regulations are in place regarding contracts with well users outside the sub-district area; and the time period to begin replacing injurious depletions is in dispute. The sub-district board proposes to replace depletions in January of the year following the plan’s approval, while opponents believe the depletions should be retroactive.
Reclamation Hosting Public Open Houses on Water Users’ Commitment to Provide Water for Endangered Fish
October 30, 2009
Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):
Reclamation Hosting Public Open Houses on Water Users’ Commitment to Provide Water for Endangered Fish
The Bureau of Reclamation is hosting two public open houses as part of the public scoping process for its Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the effects of entering into three potential long-term water contracts. Reclamation will be accepting public comments until November 18, 2009.
The first open house will be November 4 in Basalt, Colo. at the Basalt Middle School. The second open house will be November 5 in Granby, Colo. at the Inn at Silver Creek. Both open houses will run from 6-8 p.m.
At the request of east and west slope water users of the Colorado River, Reclamation is considering entering into three proposed long-term water contracts that would provide 10,825 acre-feet of water from Ruedi, Granby, and to a lesser extent, Green Mountain reservoirs to the 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River – critical habitat already identified for the endangered fish.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Reclamation is preparing the EA to determine what effects might result from the three proposed contracts. Comments received from the public will help Reclamation identify the scope of the EA.
Comments must be submitted in writing via e-mail to 10825EA@mwhglobal.com, or by hard copy. Hard copy letters or comment cards will be accepted at the public open houses, but may also be mailed to: Attn: 10825 EA, MWH, 1110 Elkton Drive, Suite B, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80907. Comments must be received by November 18, 2009.</p
For additional questions about the public open houses and scoping process, please contact Kara Lamb at (970) 962-4326 or klamb@usbr.gov.
More endangered species coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The water board has purchased more than a quarter of the Bessemer Ditch, although some contracts have been extended beyond today’s deadline. The board has spent more than $53 million so far, including $30.45 million from the sale of the Columbine Ditch to Aurora and Climax Mines and $23.37 million in revenue bonds. The board expects to spend $60 million on the ditch shares, using money from its water development fund – from outside water sales, also called leases – to make up the difference. Pueblo water rates are expected to be hiked 5 percent, with 3.5 percent going to refinance the bonds. The final rate will be set at a Nov. 17 budget hearing. As of Thursday, the board had wrapped up 62 purchases totaling more than 5,220 Bessemer Ditch shares, said Executive Director Alan Hamel. The board paid $10,150 per share. Four contracts for about 100 shares were extended to give the board and sellers time to work out details, Hamel said…
Every contract came with an option to lease the shares back from the water board for the cost of ditch assessments for up to 20 years. Hamel told shareholders in May that the water board probably won’t need the water for another 20-30 years, barring a severe drought. Water from 84 acres of the total will not be leased back, giving the board an opportunity to test conditions in Pueblo County for revegetation – something that will have to be done on all the farms in the purchase eventually. “In 2010, we will begin to put together a revegetation plan,” Hamel said. “Aurora has done a lot of work on its farms down in Rocky Ford, but conditions here aren’t necessarily the same.” At any time during the 20 years, irrigators can choose not to lease the water. In that case, the shares could still be used within the lateral or the ditch as a whole…
The water board still must take the shares to court to change them to municipal and other uses before it can directly use the water. The change case should be filed within 18 months to two years, Hamel said. “We still have engineering work to do, and we’re looking at a Pueblo County 1041 application,” Hamel explained. It won’t be the first time a change case has been filed on Bessemer shares. The St. Charles Mesa Water District has purchased about 2,000 shares, 10 percent of the ditch, and is converting them at this time. Its service area lies mostly within the Bessemer Ditch boundaries…
The board expects to net about 1.5 acre-feet per share – about 8,000 acre-feet total – based on the average annual historic use for crops. That number will be refined by engineering reports on each property…
The Bessemer Ditch was started in 1873 as a town ditch for South Pueblo. It was owned for a time by Colorado Coal & Iron, but incorporated as a shareholder-owned mutual ditch company in 1894. About 43 miles long, it irrigates nearly 20,000 acres, mostly east of Pueblo, although there are couple laterals west of the city. All of the water board’s purchases are east of Pueblo, Hamel said. The Bessemer Ditch has water rights dating back to 1861, and diverts its water directly from Pueblo Dam. It also has some storage rights in Lake Pueblo through the winter water program.
Governor Ritter names Jim Martin to lead the Colorado Department of Natural Resources
October 29, 2009
From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):
Members of Colorado’s environmental community liked the selection Monday by Gov. Bill Ritter of Jim Martin, head of the Department of Public Health and Environment, to take over for Harris Sherman as executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
“Martin’s leadership on the state air commission was essential to cutting mercury pollution 90 percent from coal-fired power plants in 2007,” Environment Colorado advocate Matt Garrington said in a statement. “As head of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Martin was key to protecting our drinking water and making sure oil and gas development is done right.”
More Colorado water coverage here.
CWCB: Montrose County instream flow water rights public meeting
October 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 holding a public meeting to discuss the potential appropriation by the Board of new instream flow water rights in 2010 in Montrose County, and the current status of the Board’s acquisition of the UMETCO water rights.
The following stream segments in Montrose County are being considered for instream flow protection at this time: North Fork Tabeguache Creek, Red Canyon Creek, San Miguel River, and Tabeguache Creek.
Additional streams that are being considered for appropriation in 2010 in Water Division 4 include: Alpine Gulch, Big Dominguez Creek, Blue Creek (Increase), Cebolla Creek, Cochetopa Creek, East Beaver Creek, Little Dominguez Creek, Spring Creek, and Willow Creek.
Detailed information concerning these proposed instream flow water rights can be found at: http://cwcb.state.co.us/StreamAndLake/NewAppropriations/ISFAppropriationNotices/2010ProposedAppropriations/
The meeting will take place at 7:00 p.m. on November 5, 2009, and will be held in the Norwood Town Hall/Community Room, 1670 Naturita Street, Norwood, Colorado. Questions may be directed to Jeff Baessler at 303-866-3441.
USGS: Groundwater withdrawals decline from 2000 to 2005
October 29, 2009
Here’s the release from the USGS:
Estimates of water use in the United States indicate that about 410 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d) were withdrawn in 2005 for all categories summarized in this report. This total is slightly less than the estimate for 2000, and about 5 percent less than total withdrawals in the peak year of 1980. Freshwater withdrawals in 2005 were 349 Bgal/d, or 85 percent of the total freshwater and saline-water withdrawals. Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 Bgal/day in 2005 were about 5 percent less than in 2000, and fresh surface-water withdrawals of 270 Bgal/day were about the same as in 2000. Withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation and irrigation, the two largest uses of water, have stabilized or decreased since 1980. Withdrawals for public-supply and domestic uses have increased steadily since estimates began.
Thermoelectric-power generation water withdrawals were an estimated 201 Bgal/d in 2005, about 3 percent more than in 2000. In 2005, thermoelectric freshwater withdrawals accounted for 41 percent of all freshwater withdrawals. Nearly all of the water withdrawn for thermoelectric power was surface water used for once-through cooling at power plants. Twenty-nine percent of thermoelectric-power withdrawals were saline water from oceans and brackish coastal water bodies.
Withdrawals for irrigation in 2005 were 128 Bgal/d, about 8 percent less than in 2000 and approximately equal to estimates of irrigation water use in 1970. In 2005, irrigation withdrawals accounted for 37 percent of all freshwater withdrawals and 62 percent of all freshwater withdrawals excluding thermoelectric withdrawals. Irrigated acreage increased from 25 million acres in 1950 to 58 million acres in 1980, then remained fairly constant before increasing in 2000 and 2005 to more than 60 million acres. The number of acres irrigated using sprinkler and microirrigation systems has continued to increase and in 2005 accounted for 56 percent of the total irrigated acreage.
Water withdrawals for public supply were 44.2 Bgal/d in 2005, which is 2 percent more than in 2000, although the population increased by more than 5 percent during that time. Public supply accounted for 13 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in 2005 and 21 percent of all freshwater withdrawals excluding thermoelectric withdrawals. The percentage of the U.S. population obtaining drinking water from public suppliers has increased steadily from 62 percent in 1950 to 86 percent in 2005. Most of the population providing their own household water obtained their supplies from groundwater sources.
Self-supplied industrial water withdrawals continued to decline in 2005, as they have since their peak in 1970. Self-supplied industrial withdrawals were an estimated 18.2 Bgal/d in 2005, a 30-percent decrease from 1985. An estimated 4.02 Bgal/d were withdrawn for mining in 2005, which is 11 percent less than in 2000, and 18 percent less than in 1990. Withdrawals for mining were only 58 percent freshwater.
Livestock water use was estimated to be 2.14 Bgal/d in 2005, which is the smallest estimate since 1975, possibly due to the use of standardized coefficients for estimation of animal water needs. Water use for aquaculture was an estimated 8.78 Bgal/d in 2005, nearly four times the amount estimated in 1985. Part of this increase is due to the inclusion of more facilities in the estimates in 2005, and the use of standardized coefficients for estimating aquaculture use from other data.
Fresh surface water was the source for a majority of the public-supply, irrigation, aquaculture, thermoelectric, and industrial withdrawals. Nearly 30 percent of all fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005 occurred in five States. In California, Idaho, and Colorado, most of the fresh surface-water withdrawals were for irrigation. In Texas and Illinois, most of the fresh surface-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric power generation.
About 67 percent of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation, and 18 percent were for public supply. More than half of fresh groundwater withdrawals in the United States in 2005 occurred in six States. In California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho, most of the fresh groundwater withdrawals were for irrigation. In Florida, 52 percent of all fresh groundwater withdrawals were for public supply, and 34 percent were for irrigation.
New energy efficient desalination technology drives costs down
October 29, 2009
From the Economist:
Ben Sparrow and Joshua Zoshi met at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, while completing their MBAs. Their company, Saltworks Technologies, has set up a test plant beside the sea in Vancouver and will open for business in November.
Existing desalination plants work in one of two ways. Some distil seawater by heating it up to evaporate part of it. They then condense the vapour—a process that requires electricity. The other plants use reverse osmosis. This employs high-pressure pumps to force the water from brine through a membrane that is impermeable to salt. That, too, needs electricity. Even the best reverse-osmosis plants require 3.7 kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy to produce 1,000 litres of drinking water.
Mr Sparrow and Mr Zoshi, by contrast, reckon they can produce that much fresh water with less than 1 kWh of electricity, and no other paid-for source of power is needed. Their process is fuelled by concentration gradients of salinity between different vessels of brine. These different salinities are brought about by evaporation.
The process begins by spraying seawater into a shallow, black-bottomed pond, where it absorbs heat from the atmosphere. The resulting evaporation increases the concentration of salt in the water from its natural level of 3.5% to as much as 20%. Low-pressure pumps are then used to pipe this concentrated seawater, along with three other streams of untreated seawater, into the desalting unit. As the diagram explains, what Mr Sparrow and Mr Zoshi create by doing this is a type of electrical circuit. Instead of electrons carrying the current, though, it is carried by electrically charged atoms called ions.
Salt is made of two ions: positively charged sodium and negatively charged chloride. These flow in opposite directions around the circuit. Each of the four streams of water is connected to two neighbours by what are known as ion bridges. These are pathways made of polystyrene that has been treated so it will allow the passage of only one sort of ion—either sodium or chloride. Sodium and chloride ions pass out of the concentrated solution to the neighbouring weak ones by diffusion though these bridges (any chemical will diffuse from a high to a low concentration in this way). The trick is that as they do so, they make the low-concentration streams of water electrically charged. The one that is positive, because it has too much sodium, thus draws chloride ions from the stream that is to be purified. Meanwhile, the negative, chloride-rich stream draws in sodium ions. The result is that the fourth stream is stripped of its ions and emerges pure and fresh.
Here’s the release from Saltworks Technologies.
More water treatment coverage here.
Groups hope to get U.S. Representative Markey to introduce companion to U.S. Senate Clean Water Restoration Act in the U.S. House of Representatives
October 29, 2009
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
Colorado Trout Unlimited and Clean Water Action say they fear pollution could threaten trout habitat and drinking water for cities along the Front Range because some of the region’s water supply originates in streams that may be unregulated because the streams can’t be navigated by boat and are dry some of the year. Some of those streams may be in the Poudre River watershed, the National Wildlife Federation and the Izaak Walton League said in early October. The concern stems from a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the kinds of streams that can be protected under the Clean Water Act. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, only those rivers and streams that affect interstate commerce – streams navigable by boat or are connected to such streams – are protected under the act. Some of those streams that might have lost protection could be polluted by mining and other development. In response to the 2006 decision and another ruling earlier in the decade also limiting the Clean Water Act, a bill was introduced in the Senate in April to restore some of the lost protections. The Clean Water Restoration Act is now in committee in the Senate.
But local groups are hoping Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., will support a House version of the bill. “We’re trying to get back to where we were before the two Supreme Court decisions,” said Melinda Kassen of Trout Unlimited. “It is going to take the word ‘navigable’ from the act. Technically, the only navigable river is (the Colorado River) from Grand Junction to the state line.” Trout Unlimited wants to ensure that wetlands and high mountain streams that are trout spawning grounds but are dry some of the year are protected from pollution under the Clean Water Act, she said, adding that she hopes a bill can be introduced next month.
Pueblo West: Looking at options to enable reuse of effluent
October 29, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Pueblo West indicated it would still submit a site application to the state for a $6.5 million project to discharge sewer flows into a wash two miles above Lake Pueblo near the golf course, even after the Pueblo Area Council of Governments rejected the proposal on an 11-1 vote earlier this month. “We don’t know what’s going to transpire with the lawsuit against the county,” said Steve Harrison, Pueblo West utilities director. “In case we can’t come to some sort of agreement, we are applying for the site application.”
PACOG rejected the proposal because it goes against county regulations on Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1993. Pueblo West would pursue the plan because it offers the best solution for future water needs. The 208 regulations are being applied to the metro district selectively and are out of date, Harrison said.
Most of Pueblo West water comes from the Colorado River Basin, which means the community can reuse the non-native flows to extinction. Currently, Pueblo West reuses the water by exchange, sending its treated sewer flows down Wild Horse Dry Creek, and recapturing about 30 percent of them after transit losses. Pueblo West estimates it could recapture 98 percent of flows with a direct exchange into Lake Pueblo.
But other water users like the Pueblo Board of Water Works and the Fountain Valley Authority are concerned that nutrient loading from the proposed pumpback could upset the biological balance of the reservoir and create new water quality issues. There is also growing pressure to regulate traces of compounds from pharmaceuticals, detergents and fertilizers that would be more likely to make their way into the water supply. “We have serious concerns for the health of the reservoir, not only in terms of water quality, but taste and odor issues as well,” said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. “Pueblo Reservoir is also the most-used recreational facility in the state.”[...]
Wild Horse Dry Creek discharges into the Arkansas River about six miles downstream of a river gauge critical to the flow program, and about one mile above the river intake for the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo and Black Hills Energy. It is a significant source of selenium loading, probably because of the geology of the area – water running over shale formations.
Among the alternatives that have surfaced are:
-Building a discharge pipeline to discharge just below Pueblo Dam above the river gauge.
-Building a discharge pipeline to carry effluent to the Wild Horse confluence at the Arkansas River.
-Creating a trade with the Pueblo water board to use Pueblo West effluent to supply the Comanche Power Plant, with the water board providing water to Pueblo West. The water would still get payments from outside water sales.
-Possibly developing a cooperative arrangement among Pueblo West, Colorado Springs and the Pueblo water board to recapture flows downstream.
-Maintaining the status quo, which could leave Pueblo West in the position of having to buy new water rights if its other plans fail or with a pumpback plan in place despite the local objections…
The State Department of Public Health and Environment would have to buck the PACOG recommendation if it approves the site application…
Pueblo County also has notified Pueblo West that it would require a 1041 permit for the pumpback plan, since Pueblo West identified it as a water supply issue, Headley said.
More Pueblo West coverage here.
Avon: Town Council approves water rate hike
October 28, 2009
From the Vail Daily (Sarah Mausolf):
The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority had asked for permission for a $3.91 increase to the monthly water bill for homes 3,000 square feet or smaller, and more for larger homes…
The water bill increase applies to the base fee for water use, and would equate to $3.91 per month per single family equivalent. The proposal also includes the Arrowhead, Eagle-Vail, Edwards, Berry Creek and Beaver Creek metropolitan districts.
More infrastructure here.
Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area update
October 28, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The recreation area stretches 148 miles along the Arkansas River from Lake County to Lake Pueblo and now includes a couple of dozen launch sites along the way. There are restrooms, improved access from U.S. 50 and a lot less hurt feelings. Rafters, kayakers, fishermen, rock climbers, photographers and wildlife watchers have learned to share the canyon. “The most important thing we’ve done is the partnerships we’ve formed,” said Rose Bayless, who has worked for the recreation area since it was created in 1989 in an agreement that allowed the BLM to maintain ownership, but put management in the hands of Colorado State Parks. “In this way, we can preserve the natural resources and invite people to use the river.”
More Arkansas Basin coverage here.
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: New Clifton wastewater plant should meet water quality effluent standards
October 28, 2009
From the Grand Junction Free Press (Sharon Sullivan):
The three huge lagoons used by the former wastewater treatment plant serving Clifton no longer exist. Instead the Clifton Sanitation District, 3217 D Road, has a new system which treats wastewater in a more controlled environment, using less space, less energy, and with fewer odors. Clifton Sanitation Districts I and II consolidated to create a new wastewater treatment plant that complies with water quality standards mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Colorado. A federal mandate to protect four endangered fish species is what drove the project, said manager Brain Woods.
More endangered species coverage here.
Nevada: Judge blocks the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s groundwater pipeline project project
October 28, 2009
From the Las Vegas Review Journal (Henry Brean):
For the moment at least, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has lost the water it hoped to pump to Las Vegas in the first phase of its proposed pipeline across eastern Nevada.
In a strongly worded order issued last week, a district judge overturned a 2008 state ruling that granted the authority permission to tap groundwater from three valleys in central Lincoln County. Judge Norman Robison ruled that State Engineer Tracy Taylor “abused his discretion” and “acted arbitrarily, capriciously and oppressively” when he cleared the authority to pump more than 6 billion gallons of groundwater a year from Cave, Delamar and Dry Lake valleys.
The senior judge from Gardnerville wrote that the state’s chief water regulator traditionally requires “specific empirical data” before allowing groundwater to be transferred out of a basin. This time, though, the state engineer is “simply hoping for the best while committing to undo his decision if the worst occurs,” Robison wrote.
Elkhead Valley: 617 acres put into conservation easement
October 28, 2009
From the Steamboat Pilot & Today (Brandon Gee):
The Routt County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday approved spending $250,000 to help conserve more than 600 acres in West Routt County’s Elkhead Valley. The money comes from the county’s Purchase of Develop ment Rights program. The Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricul tural Land Trust will hold the conservation easement on 617 acres of the Howe Ranch on Routt County Road 56 north of Hayden…
The Howe Ranch includes irrigated hay meadows, riparian areas along Calf Creek and sage-dominated rangelands, according to a news release, which states that the ranch also provides important habitat for species including elk, deer, pronghorn, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, fox, sandhill cranes, greater sage grouse and Columbian sharp-tail grouse…
The PDR program is funded by a 1.5-mill property tax approved in 2006, nine years after the program first was approved for a 10-year period. The 2006 renewal is good for 20 years…
To date, the PDR program has completed 24 projects protecting 14,670 acres at a cost of more than $6 million. Six more projects totaling 3,219 acres are under negotiation.
From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):
The proposed Piñon Ridge mill awaits approval by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Montrose County commissioners, after 25 hours of hearings, last month issued a local permit. Federal environmental regulators will leave the decision to the state. Energy Fuels executives are preparing to submit a 12-volume application to state health regulators, triggering a technical review.
Here’s the post from October 4 announcing the county’s approval.
The town of Rifle is keeping a close watch on oil and gas exploration in the Beaver Creek Watershed
October 27, 2009
From the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
The Rifle City Council on Wednesday agreed to let Laramie Energy II build two additional drilling pads in the Beaver Creek drainage, where the council last year issued a watershed permit for five Laramie pads, pipelines and associated facilities.
Beaver Creek, south of Rifle, is the city’s best and oldest water supply, said council member Alan Lambert. He said protecting it from Laramie’s operations has been a concern for council members, but Laramie has gone far to address those concerns.
Key steps have included putting in the monitoring system and relocating Beaver Creek Road away from the creek to provide a buffer from possible spills.
Arkansas Valley: It was a good year for moisture overall
October 27, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
There has been more precipitation this year, so far, than any year since 1990, as measured at the official National Weather Service station at the Pueblo Memorial Airport. In fact, 2009 is on pace to be at least the seventh wettest year on record with more than 15 inches of precipitation so far. The rain has come in bands of storms sweeping across the Rockies onto the Plains since late spring after an abnormally dry April…
This year the runoff peaked three times, creating steady high flows rather than sudden high rushes. The dry years earlier this decade – only 3.94 inches fell in 2002 – left a water deficit that is still be being refilled. Statistically, the average precipitation for this time of year is 11.28 inches. The 15.5 inches Pueblo has received so far this year is almost 6 inches greater than last year’s total at this time. Pueblo averages 12.39 inches per year, with about an inch coming in the final two months.
