Norwood Water Commission switching to chloramines instead of free chlorine for disinfection
February 20, 2010
From The Norwood Post (Ellen Metrick):
In order to increase the quality of drinking water in the Norwood water district, the commission will stop using chlorine to disinfect water. On March 3, chloramines will be introduced into the system, which will reduce the amount of trihalomethanes, a carcinogenic by-product that occurs when chlorine is mixed with the organic matter in water…
The public is invited to an information session on Feb. 23, at 7 p.m., at the Norwood Community Center.
Telluride Town Council approves statement of opposition to San Miguel Valley Corp’s water court application for raw water facilities
February 20, 2010
From the Telluride Watch:
The filing concerns conditional water rights SMVC alleges it retained when the town acquired the 572-acre parcel in June 2008 after a lengthy condemnation battle. “It is SMVC’s understanding, based upon relevant case law concerning the use and enjoyment of water rights, that it therefore has retained all land use interests necessary for the full use and enjoyment of SMVC’s retained water rights, including the SMVC Conditional Water Rights,” attorneys for the company notified the town last February in a letter obtained by The Watch through a public records request. In essence, the company is putting forth a legal argument that maintains it has the right to access the Valley Floor and to construct whatever facilities there it deems necessary in order to exercise its water rights – including buildings or reservoirs.
More coverage from The Telluride Daily Planet (Katie Klingsporn):
In January, SMVC filed an application with the District Water Court seeking to make changes regarding points of diversion, conditional water rights, ground water rights and others on the Valley Floor. And on Tuesday afternoon, the Telluride Town Council voted unanimously to file a statement of opposition in the case. The town has until the end of February to file its statement.
The statement of opposition is a legal maneuver that makes the town a party to the proceedings. In water court proceedings, it doesn’t necessarily indicate a dispute. However in this instance, the town is opposed to some of SMVC’s assertions in the application about its water rights on the Valley Floor, according to Town Attorney Kevin Geiger. SMVC may have had water rights on paper that were proposed for the land at one time, Geiger said. But “now that they don’t own that property anymore, it seems highly doubtful that they can move forward on that.”[...]
[Chris Cummins, an attorney who represents SMVC] said the purpose of the application is to make changes to SMVC’s conditional water rights in light of the town’s condemnation. He did not comment on the disagreements the town and SMVC have over those rights.
Flaming Gorge pipeline: Fort Collins opposes route through the city’s new Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch
February 20, 2010
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
In a July 2009 letter made public Tuesday by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Collins City Manager Darin Atteberry wrote that, in its environmental review of Million’s project, the Army Corps should seriously consider the harm the pipeline would do to Soapstone Prairie, which was opened as a city natural area just last year. “At Meadow Springs Ranch, the proposed (pipeline) routing could seriously impact water infrastructure critical to ranch cattle operations and would traverse acreage included in a formal watershed protection program designed to protect the local aquifer as a drinking water source,” Atteberry wrote.
He said the city believes the pipeline would be “highly detrimental” to natural resource values at Soapstone Prairie and threaten endangered species and archaeological sites. The city, he said, recommends the pipeline be routed away from Soapstone Prairie. “In short, it makes little sense to bisect the heart of a previously undisturbed area with a major pipeline when viable alternatives exist,” Atteberry wrote.
More coverage from the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
In letters written to Million in January, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the East Larimer County Water District both said they each want 5,000 acre-feet of water from the pipeline annually…
After the city raised concerns about the pipeline’s impact on Soapstone Prairie, Million said he offered to move the pipeline around the natural area. “He indicated he would try to do that,” said John Stokes, Fort Collins Natural Resources director. “If he can do that, that would be great, if in fact they ever build the project.”
HB 10-1188 passes the State House of Representatives 40-25 and moves on the State Senate
February 20, 2010
Bump and update: From The Durango Herald (Joe Hanel):
In a 40-25 vote, the House approved a bill that allows licensed river outfitters to briefly touch the riverbanks and portage around obstacles when streams flow through private land. Republicans Ellen Roberts of Durango and Scott Tipton of Cortez voted no because of concerns the bill could violate private property rights…
Two Durango-based rafting companies applauded the decision Tuesday. “I have had problems with landowners and various things they do like stringing fences across the river,” said Stephen Saltsman, who with Robin Fritch owns Flexible Flyers Rafting Co. Saltsman, who is also a landowner along the Animas River, said he understands the property-rights arguments, but he doesn’t have a problem if someone needs to portage around an obstacle in the river…
Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, spoke for many bill opponents. “We can’t have it both ways. Either we understand the value of property rights, or we don’t,” Sonnenberg said.
Agricultural groups oppose HB 1188, and some predicted grave harm to Colorado ranchers. But all other Western states have greater rights for public use of rivers than Curry’s bill would establish, and agriculture is alive and well in those states, Curry said. “In fact, in Montana you can get out of the boat and wade-fish on private land,” Curry said.
From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):
“Today’s vote shows that 1188 is a bipartisan solution,” said Ben Davis, spokesman for the Colorado River Outfitters Association, who noted that the House Minority Leader, Republican Mike May, voted for the bill. “Everyone wants to see Colorado’s rivers stay open for business.”
But certainly not everyone thinks HB 10-1188 is a good idea. The bill has attracted the attention and opposition of private-property advocates, including the Colorado Farm Bureau and the Colorado Cattleman’s Association because it gives commercial rafting companies the right to portage across private land to avoid hazards in the river, such as a low bridge or a tree across the river. “It’s not about floating the river, it is about trespassing outside of the river,” Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, a Republican and a rancher, said on the House floor while urging a “no” vote on the bill.
The bill also gives commercial rafting companies the right to continue to run stretches of river that have been run the last two years on a commercial basis, and it prevents private landowners from blocking their passage down the river, as a landowner along the Taylor River near Gunnison has threatened to do this summer to two rafting companies. The bill requires that commercial rafting companies clearly number their boats so that property owners can identify individual boats if they feel there has been a problem. And it limits liability to landowners from boaters portaging over their land.
The bill is silent on the rights, or lack thereof, of private boaters passing private land…
But Rep. Christine Scanlan, a Democrat representing Eagle, Lake and Summit counties, said on the House floor Tuesday that “you do actually have a right to float in Colorado,” citing language in the state Constitution that “the water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public …”
But Rep. Gardner said it was important to read the entire constitutional clause that Rep. Scanlan referred to, which is in a section on mining and irrigation rights. He said the Constitution deals with water rights and did not provide a right to float…
[State Representative Kathleen Curry] remarked on the House floor that she has heard from a lot of landowners “who’ve had bad experiences with commercial outfitters” and that she hoped “we can all be honorable and respectful of others.” She also said that there are broader rights to float, and wade, in other Western states such as Montana, Wyoming and Utah and that the agricultural industry in those states has not suffered because it gives boaters those rights. And Curry pointed out that the Supreme Court in People v. Emmert stated that “if the increasing demand for recreational space on the waters of this state is to be accommodated, the legislative process is the proper method to achieve this end.”
More coverage from The Crested Butte News (Seth Manning):
The bill, H.B.10-1188, passed through the subcommittee after three readings on a 7-3 vote and made it out of the House with 40 votes in favor and 25 votes against. Now it is up to the Senate, which hasn’t yet assigned the bill to a subcommittee, to turn Gunnison Rep. Kathleen Curry’s so called “Commercial Rafting Viability Act” into law…
The only stretches of river locally that have been used by outfitters historically and would be affected by the bill would be the Lake Fork from Lake City to Curecanti, the Taylor River from Lotus Creek to Almont and the Gunnison River from Gunnison to Blue Mesa Reservoir.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Patrick Malone):
Sponsored by state Rep. Kathleen Curry, unaffiliated-Gunnison, HB1188 sparked debate over commercial rafters’ rights to travel public waterways and the rights of property owners. In the end, rafters won out, as the bill passed 40-25…
Opponents of the bill said it strips property owners to their right of exclusion. State Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said allowing rafters portage is akin to setting aside circumstances that allow trespassing through one’s house, yard or car. “Once you allow government to start saying who can and cannot come on your property, that’s a very dangerous door,” Sonnenberg said…
The bill makes no provision for private rafters or others to float down the state’s rivers, and they are still subject to prosecution for trespassing.
More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.
Bump and update: From The Durango Herald editorial board:
If they are smart, members of the Durango Water Commission will take Fred Kroeger out to lunch once in a while. That is because his roots in La Plata County are deep, and what he did not experience in local leadership roles after returning from service in World War II, he learned from the older generation. Hearing his perspectives on Durango’s growth and the role water played will always be valuable to younger decision-makers.
From The Durango Herald (Garrett Andrews):
Kroeger, 92 this month, will step down from the city’s Water Commission after 64 years advocating for agricultural and Native American water rights. When asked why he decided to step away from public service, Kroeger was succinct: “I’m 92. I’ve been on some of these boards for 40, 50 years, and I thought maybe it’s time to take a break and let someone else do the right things.”
From The Durango Herald via an old Coyote Gulch post:
Fred Kroeger, a longtime advocate for the project, said he attended his first meeting to discuss future water needs in 1947, and in numerous subsequent meetings, the idea for the A-LP was born. “I think it’s wonderful,” Kroeger said. “It is tremendous for our community.” A groundbreaking was held in 1991, but because of delays due to environmental impacts, work did not start until 2002. In addition to the dam, other major components of the project include a 2[product]-mile, 76-inch pipeline between the pumping station next to the Animas River and the reservoir, and the Navajo Nation municipal pipeline from Farmington to Shiprock, a distance of about 22 miles.
Snowpack news
February 19, 2010
From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
With snowpack levels below average in the Upper Colorado River Basin, the forecast is for runoff from melting snow to range from 70 to 90 percent of average within much of the river and its tributaries. The volume at Cameo is projected to be 75 percent of average, and the volume forecast for the Gunnison River in Grand Junction is 83 percent of average. Flows into Lake Powell are expected to be 70 to 75 percent of normal…
Snow levels on Grand Mesa, which supplies municipal water to Grand Junction and Palisade, also are in decent shape, [Bryon Lawrence, a hydrologist with the National Weather Service in Grand Junction] said. The snowpack level at Mesa Lakes on Thursday was 88 percent of normal, the Conservation Service reports.
From the Telluride Daily Planet (Matthew Beaudin):
According to a report released by the National Weather Service’s Grand Junction hydrologist, the San Juan Mountains are holding slightly more snow than normal but the water tables north of here aren’t as set, with roughly 25 percent less snowpack than normal. “It’s been a moderately strong El Niño, which has peaked and is starting to weaken,” said Bryon Lawrence, the service hydrologist for the NWS in Grand Junction. “Most of western Colorado, despite the drier conditions, is still in pretty good shape.”[...]
According to the report, runoff volumes in early spring will range from 70-90 percent of normal in the Upper Colorado River and its tributaries across the central and northern mountains, such as the Yampa River near Steamboat Springs. South of there, though, flows are expected to be at or above average. The San Juan should run at about 102 percent of normal and the Animas at 93 percent. The San Miguel and Dolores rivers are anticipated to run at 95 percent of normal…
Southeastern Utah has seen a monster winter, and its snowpack is at 150 percent of normal in the Abajo mountains. Spring inflows into Lake Powell are expected to come in at about 70 percent of normal. Lawrence said that in spite of the below-average snowfall across the state, reservoirs are full because Colorado enjoyed a few years of above-average precipitation.
From the Indy Blog (Pam Zubeck):
Although some portions of the Rockies are less snowy than normal, Pikes Peak received 187 percent of its normal precipitation from Feb. 1 to 15. That, coupled with higher-than-usual storage, makes for a sunny outlook for water supply, Colorado Springs Utilities water expert Kevin Lusk said Wednesday…
He said the Springs’ storage of water stands at 76 percent capacity, compared to the 34-year average of 63 percent this time of year. Rampart Reservoir is at 90 percent capacity and Pikes Peak storage at 78 percent of capacity.
Arkansas Valley Conduit update: $3 million in President Obama’s budget will enable the final design by 2013
February 19, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“It will allow us to finish the preliminary work to get to the final design by January 2013. Then we can move into land acquisition and construction,” Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, said Thursday…
The conduit received $5 million in funding this year, and funding for $3 million is included in President Barack Obama’s budget for next year. The Southeastern district is trying to convince members of Congress to add an additional $5 million in the 2010-11 fiscal year. The district is working with the Bureau of Reclamation to “fast-track” the project, allowing the environmental review and conceptual design to move ahead on parallel tracks. Meanwhile, the district is wrapping up its $1 million project to develop baseline engineering data for the conduit, said consultant Kevin Meador.
HB 10-1197: Reduce Conservation Easement Cap Amount
February 19, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“This will give us the ability to mold easements in the future,” [Jay Winner, the general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District] said Wednesday. “It should also give the landowners surety in an easement that was not there in the past.” The Lower Ark district has a big stake in making easements work as part of its mission to protect water in the Lower Ark Valley. The district has received about 50 conservation easements since it was formed by voters in five counties in 2002. Winner has been working with a state oversight commission through the Division of Real Estate to clean up a system that has been plagued by improper appraisals and tax credits which cannot be marketed because of the cloud of suspicion surrounding conservation easements statewide.
Last week, the state House passed the legislation, HB1197. It has moved to the state Senate. The legislation would cap tax credits at $135,000, rather than the $375,000 currently allowed, at 50 percent of the fair market value. It also would limit the impact to the state budget to $26 million. In 2008, $63 million in tax credits were claimed. To sort out conservation easement claims, the Division of Real Estate would be given the power to promulgate rules and issue certificates for easement claims. The Department of Revenue would make quarterly reports to the Legislature on the amount of net gain to state revenue, under the assumption that claims would have remained at 2008 levels. Tax credits would be based on a first-come, first-served basis of approved certificates.
More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here. More conservation easement coverage here and here.
Aspinall Unit update
February 19, 2010
From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):
Due to dryer than average conditions in the Gunnison Basin, flows from the Aspinall Unit will be reduced by 200 cfs, from 800 cfs to 600 cfs. This change will be achieved through two 100 cfs cuts occurring on Sunday, February 21.
More Aspinall Unit coverage here.
From the Cortez Journal (Joe Hanel):
[Senate Bill 10-165] (pdf) passed the Senate Agriculture Committee 6-0 on Wednesday. Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus, voted yes… SB165 extends the [March 31 deadline to file a substitute water supply plan] until August, because the state engineer’s office was facing a flood of paperwork.
Meanwhile the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s construction fund avoided being dried up completely as the legislature moves to pass a budget bill. Here’s a report from Joe Hanel writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:
A year ago, the Colorado Water Conservation Board had two of the richest bank accounts in the state government. But after the recession arrived, the Legislature took $107 million from the accounts. Today the balance stands at about $19 million, and the Legislature’s budget writers had plans to take that, too…
But Gov. Bill Ritter’s Department of Natural Resources rebelled, and a bipartisan group of representatives joined to defeat the effort on a 39-22 vote…
The spat was a sideshow to the major work the House did Wednesday – cutting hundreds of millions out of this year’s budget. Wednesday’s bills bring the total cuts to about $2 billion. And there’s more to come. In March, the Legislature will take up the 2010-11 budget, which needs an added $1 billion in cuts. For the most part, Wednesday’s work formalized cuts that Gov. Bill Ritter proposed last year. The savings come from eight unpaid days off for state workers and cuts in payments to Medicaid doctors and caretakers of disabled people. The plan also takes $64 million in gas and oil taxes that had been earmarked for local governments.
More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.
Energy policy — nuclear: President Obama promises $8.3 billion for new nuclear facilities
February 18, 2010
From USA Today (Julie Schmit):
The guarantees will help fund two reactors in eastern Georgia which, if licensed and built, could begin running in 2016 and 2017, supplying electricity to 1.4 million people. More money is coming. The Department of Energy has $18 billion to dole out, and Obama, in his 2011 budget, asked that the number be tripled to $54.5 billion, enough to help fund six to 10 reactors. Obama says more nuclear power, which doesn’t emit greenhouse gases and produces 20% of the nation’s electricity, is needed for the U.S. to meet greenhouse gas emission goals and keep pace with others, such as China, Japan and France, which are investing heavily in nuclear.
New construction in the U.S. nuclear industry stopped after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. But Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that the U.S. pioneered nuclear energy and has sat on the sidelines for too long. “It’s time to take the lead once again,” he said…
Opponents also say that federal subsidies should be reserved for new industries. Nuclear “should be able to stand on its own feet,” says Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. He fears a repeat of the 1970s and early 1980s, when the industry overstated power demands and underestimated costs, resulting in dozens of canceled plants. Of 26 new nuclear reactor license applications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2007, 19 have been delayed or canceled, says Mark Cooper, senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. “The technologies aren’t ready for prime time, and the economics aren’t there,” he says.
Flaming Gorge pipeline: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers releases report on the public comment period
February 17, 2010
Bump and update: More coverage from The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):
Although he declined to provide details, Million said Tuesday that he has lined up financing for construction, which he said could start in 2013. He estimated total costs at $2.2 billion to $2.8 billion. Million has applied for a federal permit to move up to 225,000 acre-feet per year more than 400 miles from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the Green River in Wyoming…
Water providers in Douglas County, Brighton, Fort Collins, Loveland, Cheyenne and agricultural areas along the way have indicated interest in buying water from the Million Conservation Resource Group, according to letters filed with federal authorities.
Those potential customers’ projected water demands — and conservation practices — will be reviewed and verified to determine “how much is truly needed,” said Rena Brand, a regulatory specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers.In its summary of the comments received from people in Wyoming, Colorado and downriver states such as Utah and Arizona that depend on Colorado River Basin water, the Corps of Engineers concluded there are major concerns about the effects of diverting water from prime Wyoming fishing and recreation areas.
“They’re concerned that the project would result in a lower elevation (of water) in Flaming Gorge Reservoir, which would impact fisheries,” Brand said. “I received very few favorable comments. Most people just had a lot of questions.”All this “is as it should be,” Million said. “We’ve had the same concerns on our side — which we’ve looked at for the last four years,” he said. “The public should have the right and obligation to weigh in on the project.”
Update: More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The Corps released the comments Tuesday on its Web site as it continues the five-year process of developing an environmental impact statement for the controversial proposal…
More than 1,500 comments were received in writing; another 500 gathered at Corp-hosted public meetings last year. About 63 percent of the comments are from Wyoming, where cities, counties, conservancy districts, businesses, recreation groups and environmental or wildlife advocates oppose the project. Another 27 percent of the comments are from Colorado, where many of the same groups also oppose or raise questions about the project. Even Front Range cities like Fort Collins, where Million lives, object to the proposed pipeline route. Five percent of the comments that object or raise concerns are from Utah, where the Green River flows after leaving Flaming Gorge…
The most frequent issue cited in the comments (18 percent) is the actual availability of water for the project. The Green River and Flaming Gorge are part of the Colorado River watershed, and diversions proposed by Million could impact the seven-state Colorado River Compact, many of the comments state. Wyoming interests want to preserve development opportunities within their home state. “Any one change could upset the balance that has successfully maintained since the development of the river,” said Kenneth Fackrell, manager of the Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District.
Wyoming counties are firmly united in opposition to Million’s project, with several filing lengthy objections to it. “A trans-basin diversion of this magnitude will mean a perpetual shortage of water for basin users,” said Joe Evans, executive director of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, who cites a 30-year record of opposition by Green River users to the leasing water to the lower basin state of California.
Socioeconomic factors were cited in about 13 percent of the comments, according to the Corps tabulation. Recreation, particularly in western Wyoming on Flaming Gorge Reservoir, was cited in 7 percent of the comments, while water rights and wildlife issues were each brought up in 5 percent of the comments. The withdrawal of water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir could hurt power production at the dam, said Pacificorp Energy Managing Director Bob Aramel…
The Corps now is verifying the potential water customers and needs submitted by Million in response to some of the comments that there were no end users identified in the proposal, said Rena Brand, regulatory specialist.
From the Associated Press via KJCT8.com:
The Corps of Engineers on Tuesday said it received more than 1,500 written public comments and more than 570 comments at public meetings about the pipeline…
The Corps took public comment on what issues it should consider in a forthcoming environmental study. Some local governments in southwestern Wyoming are opposing the project, saying it threatens fishing and recreation. Some Colorado municipalities and irrigation districts say they could use the water.
HB 10-1188 passes the State House of Representatives 40-25 and moves on the State Senate
February 17, 2010
Bump and update: From The Durango Herald (Joe Hanel):
In a 40-25 vote, the House approved a bill that allows licensed river outfitters to briefly touch the riverbanks and portage around obstacles when streams flow through private land. Republicans Ellen Roberts of Durango and Scott Tipton of Cortez voted no because of concerns the bill could violate private property rights…
Two Durango-based rafting companies applauded the decision Tuesday. “I have had problems with landowners and various things they do like stringing fences across the river,” said Stephen Saltsman, who with Robin Fritch owns Flexible Flyers Rafting Co. Saltsman, who is also a landowner along the Animas River, said he understands the property-rights arguments, but he doesn’t have a problem if someone needs to portage around an obstacle in the river…
Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, spoke for many bill opponents. “We can’t have it both ways. Either we understand the value of property rights, or we don’t,” Sonnenberg said.
Agricultural groups oppose HB 1188, and some predicted grave harm to Colorado ranchers. But all other Western states have greater rights for public use of rivers than Curry’s bill would establish, and agriculture is alive and well in those states, Curry said. “In fact, in Montana you can get out of the boat and wade-fish on private land,” Curry said.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Patrick Malone):
Sponsored by state Rep. Kathleen Curry, unaffiliated-Gunnison, HB1188 sparked debate over commercial rafters’ rights to travel public waterways and the rights of property owners. In the end, rafters won out, as the bill passed 40-25…
Opponents of the bill said it strips property owners to their right of exclusion. State Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said allowing rafters portage is akin to setting aside circumstances that allow trespassing through one’s house, yard or car. “Once you allow government to start saying who can and cannot come on your property, that’s a very dangerous door,” Sonnenberg said…
The bill makes no provision for private rafters or others to float down the state’s rivers, and they are still subject to prosecution for trespassing.
More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.
Palisade: Replacement of water lines now the town’s maintenance priority
February 16, 2010
From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Mike Wiggins):
Town Public Works Director Frank Watt estimates roughly half of the 20 miles worth of old, small water lines within the town’s service area need to be replaced within the next 10 years. “We know that we have got substandard water lines or aging water lines in places,” Town Administrator Tim Sarmo said. Watt said many of the lines in town are 50 to 60 years old, too small to accommodate modern fire hydrants and made out of cast iron, which can rust and deteriorate. He said the new lines will be made of plastic, which is more durable, and the 2-inch lines will be replaced with 6-inch lines. Watt said the town will add more valves to the lines so that if there is a break, he can shut off water in smaller areas so that fewer residents would be affected. The town also will rely more heavily on its own funds for line replacements than in the past, and it will do the work in-house rather than contract it out…
For the first time, Watt set aside money in this year’s budget specifically for line replacements. He plans to spend the $150,000 to replace a line as part of the reconstruction of Kluge Avenue as well as a yet-to-be-determined line.
More infrastructure coverage here.
Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company files exchange case to enable leasing of water to municipalities
February 16, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The application would cover exchanges of water from points along a 75-mile reach of the Arkansas River from Pueblo Dam to the Fort Lyon Canal headgate, and would allow shareholders from seven canal companies to move water into Lake Pueblo, where it could be moved into municipal water systems. “We figured it was time to file,” said John Schweizer, Super Ditch president. “We can’t do much until we get this done. There are still a lot of other things to get done as well.”
The exchanges are needed in order to store water so the users can move it into their systems, because there is no other way to move the water upstream from its historic use. The application names Colorado Springs, Aurora and the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority as potential customers. “Adjudication of changes in the type and place of use of the water rights to be used for substitution and exchange is not a purpose of and not requested in this application,” said Peter Nichols, Super Ditch attorney. “The applicants anticipate that they will file one or more applications in the future to change the types and place of use and to quantify the consumptive use.” Right now, the only agreement the Super Ditch board has reached to sell water is with the Pikes Peak group — Fountain, Cherokee, Donala, Monument, Palmer Lake, Triview, Woodmen Hills and Woodmoor water providers in El Paso County. Deliveries of up to 2,000 acre-feet at $500 per acre-foot could begin as soon as 2011 under the agreement…
The application claims 58,000 acre-feet of exchanges — about twice Pueblo’s annual potable water use — but acknowledges there is probably not the capacity in the Arkansas River to take advantage of them all. The exchanges would make use of structures — including at least one reservoir that has not been built — which are not owned by the individual irrigators who would be making the leases. “Applicants will operate the exchanges when there is exchange potential available,” the application stated. “Applicants may operate exchanges continuously for a few hours or days whenever exchange potential is available, which will generally be during spring runoff and following major precipitation events.” There are also release points named in the application such as Lake Meredith or Stonewall Springs on the Excelsior Ditch where water could be released to satisfy the water rights of downstream users…
The 58,000 acre-feet equals the maximum historical diversion of every canal, including the Fort Lyon storage canal, and the “reasonably anticipated demands” of those buying the water, according to the filing. “The claimed exchange rates will allow all shareholders of all Lower (Arkansas) Valley ditches an equal opportunity to voluntarily lease their water,” the application stated.
How can the Arkansas Valley keep agriculture along the Bessemer Ditch now the the Pueblo Board of Water Works is the largest water rights holder on the ditch?
February 15, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“There needs to be strong incentives to preserve agriculture,” [Mike Bartolo, a small farmer on the Bessemer Ditch] said. That could mean new crops, new ways of sharing water or new uses for crops, such as biofuels, he said…
Using the models, which broadly project effects under uncertain scenarios, Bartolo wants to find out if the crop mix on the Bessemer Ditch could be changed in the future to benefit Pueblo. “We’re looking at what happens when you change the crop mix. For instance, growing canola to make biodiesel for the Pueblo transportation system,” Bartolo said. “We’ve got to have alternatives to prevent buy-and-dry, and look at new partnerships. The city could look at the ag industry as getting a new Vestas plant. It could have that kind of economic impact.”
More Arkansas Basin coverage here.
From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):
The Colorado House approved House Bill 10-1188 on a voice vote Friday to clarify that commercial rafting companies have the right to float down a historically run stretch of river, even if they have incidental contact with rocks and the river banks, and that they have the right to portage across private property to avoid hazardous obstacles in the river. Third and final reading of the bill is expected to take place on Monday…
The House chamber was lively during the debate Friday on HB 10-1188, and several members made jokes, including a quip about people who portage frequently needing a “porta-potty” and a proposed amendment with a reference to the controversial abortion decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. The joke was relevant to the debate, however, as it begs the question of whether wading fishermen would have the same rights to a river as rowing boaters. The amendment, which was withdrawn when the laughter died down, said “if you have the opportunity to row, you have the opportunity to wade.”
More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.
SB 10-115: Facilities May Donate Unused Medications
February 15, 2010
From The Denver Post (Monte Whaley):
Senate Bill 115, which would allow facilities such as nursing homes and hospitals to donate unused — but still good — medications to nonprofit organizations such as Project CURE or Doctors Without Borders or to redispense the drugs to needy patients in Colorado.
[SB 10-115] (pdf), co-sponsored by Rep. Dianne Primavera, D-Broomfield, and Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, passed unanimously in the Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the House. If approved, the bill would allow a licensed health care facility to redispense or donate unused medications without getting permission from a patient’s family member. The law would allow the unused medications to be given to another patient in the facility or to be donated to a nonprofit serving disaster victims. All donations to a nonprofit, say the lawmakers, are to be reviewed by a licensed pharmacist. However, some drugs could not be redistributed, such as narcotics, medications removed from their original packaging and dispensed in child-resistant “amber” bottles, and medications that need refrigeration.
More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.
La Junta area water providers plan further discussions around forming a regional water authority
February 15, 2010
From the La Junta Tribune Democrat (Dave Vickers):
Area water providers will meet Tuesday evening at Otero Junior College to take the discussion of forming a regional water authority to the next level. The meeting will run from 6 to 8 p.m. and be hosted by Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. Bill Hancock, conservation program manager for LAVWCD, conducted a similar meeting in Lamar recently with water providers in that area. But there are 27 separate water providers in Otero County alone, necessitating a meeting of representatives from those companies on the west end of the Lower Arkansas Valley…
Significant changes have occurred in the Lower Arkansas Valley in the past year that will make a regional authority necessary if water systems are going to be improved. Not only do water users in the valley want improvements in the supply of water, they also know that quality of drinking water must be improved to meet safe standards. These changes have included federal funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit project, a pipeline to improve water quantity and quality in the Lower Arkansas Valley, and the emergence of the Super Ditch consortium, which has been developed to help farmers utilize their water rights to a higher degree without selling outright to thirsty cities along the Front Range.
But the third significant development has been the focus on CO-RADS, or radionuclides in the drinking water supplies. Most of the drinking water in Southeastern Colorado contains radionuclides, a byproduct of naturally occurring uranium deposits in the valley. Health officials now believe long-term exposure to uranium in drinking water might cause toxic effects to the kidney, and can lead to cancer. Tuesday night’s meeting will have experts from the state health department, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, LAVWCD and Otero County who can address the ongoing efforts to deal with CO-RADS and demands of the EPA.
More Arkansas Basin coverage here.
From the Englewood Herald (Tom Munds):
Jeff Shoemaker, chairman of the foundation, talked about the work of the organization to representatives of Englewood, Littleton, Sheridan and Arapahoe County at the Feb. 5 Tri-Cities meeting. Since the foundation was formed in 1974, it has overseen an estimated $100 million in environmental, aquatic, recreational and open-space improvements along the South Platte rivers and its tributaries as they flow through portions of the Denver metro area. “We seek to improve and enhance the urban river environment all along the waterways,” Shoemaker said. “We estimate the $100 million in environmental improvements multiplies to almost $10 billion in economic development.”
He later explained that, if the banks of the South Platte and Cherry Creek had remained as they were 35 years ago, it is very unlikely those areas would have been chosen for the development stretching on the banks of the waterways from Invesco Field to Coors Field. He said the same it true farther south with the development of South Platte Park, the RiverPoint at Sheridan development and the new housing development on the site of the former Cinderella Twin Drive In.
More South Platte Basin coverage here.
Happy Presidents Day
February 15, 2010
Happy Presidents Day to all you presidents out there. You know who you are.
Saint Vrain River: Rubicon gate installed on Oligarchy Ditch as part of the Saint Vrain Corridor Committee winter minimum streamflow program
February 15, 2010
From Colorado Trout Unlimited:
We are pleased to announce that one of the rubicon gates is fully operational on the Oligarchy Ditch and the remaining two are partially installed on the Palmerton and Highland Ditches. The ditches should be fully operational by late Spring if all goes well. Maintaining consistent flows in the St. Vrain river is the first step in strengthening the health of the river and the fish and animal life that depend upon the St. Vrain.
More instream flow coverage here.
Southern Rocky Mountain Agricultural Conference and Trade Fair recap
February 15, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):
He noted that the efforts of the ancients in both Peru and the Four Corners region were plagued by dry times and wet times, according to ice-core data. “Life in the Americas, including the Americas we live in, is flood and drought,” he said.
Hobbs’ slide show featured pictures of canals at Machu Picchu and the work of an archaeological crew that excavated the water collection systems that were found at Mesa Verde National Park. Moving to the state’s modern history, Hobbs noted that Hispanic settlers in San Luis, borrowing on centuries-old traditions from southern Spain, carved out the first irrigation ditch recognized by the state’s courts with an 1852 priority date…
“The priority system is a system of scarcity,” he said. “There’s no value to a senior right when you don’t enforce priority.”
More coverage from the Valley Courier (Julia Wilson):
“I think it went very, very well,” Lyons said. “I was busy making coffee and hauling garbage, but it looked like everybody enjoyed it, vendors and farmers.”[...]
There were around 70 vendors and between 300 and 350 people every day. “We did our head count based on how many lunches we served,” Lyons said. “We wanted it to be relaxed, so farmers could have plenty of time to visit and go enjoy the speakers. The educational part is very important.”
Northern plans to kick off their Regional Pool Program to expand leasing for Colorado Big-Thompson Project water
February 15, 2010
From The Fence Post:
Allocation of RPP water may come as soon as Friday, Feb. 12, when the Northern Water Board of Directors will decide whether to implement the program this year and, if so, how much water to place up for bid. Uncertainty about 2010 runoff potential might prompt the Board to postpone a decision until its March 12 meeting. RPP water is C-BT water that wasn’t needed by C-BT water users the year before. The Board allocates a quota of C-BT water each year for allottees, or unit holders. When allottees don’t use all their quota water, they can preserve, or carry over, some of it. If more remains, it automatically goes into the RPP and in certain circumstances can be leased the following year…
People who want to stay informed about the RPP can sign up for updates by e-mailing RegionalPool@NCWCD.org, check www.NorthernWater.org for the latest RPP news or call the Northern Water Distribution Systems Department at (970) 292-2500.
More Colorado-Big Thompson coverage here.
Groundwater contamination primer
February 15, 2010
Here’s a primer of sorts about the spread of groundwater pollution, from the Environmental News Network via Loretta Lohman at Nonpoint Source Colorado.
