Energy policy — solar: Central City Town Council approves solar installation for the water treatment plant

From the Weekly Register-Call/ Gilpin County News (Lynn Volkens):

The Aldermen approved a purchasing agreement with Sun Spot Solar, LLC to install and maintain solar panels at the Boodle Mill site to power the City’s water treatment plant which is adjacent to the Boodle. 312 panels, each about 3’ x 5’ will cover approximately 6,000 square feet of surface area. The solar system is designed to generate 135,000 Kilowatt hours per year (Kwh/yr), 125% of the monthly average energy consumption needed to operate the water plant. The 70 Kilowatt system will cost $285,000 which the City will pay to Sun Spot over a five year period. The City expects to save 57% in energy costs over the five year period ($10,499 per year, totaling $52,494). At the end of the five year period, the City will purchase the system for $9,975 (3.5% of the installation cost). Energy costs, after purchasing the system, are reduced to $0.00 (based on current consumption). The life cycle of the system is 20-25 years. The water plant remains connected to XCEL as a back-up so the plant will never be without power, however, while the solar panels generate energy, all excess power reversed the XCEL energy meter at the plant and build up a credit that the City can use if needed. With this system the City will pay a fixed rate of approximately 6.5 cents kwh ($7,935 annually) compared to the 2010 XCEL rate of 15.056 cents kwh…

Last October the Council directed the City Manager to look into outsourcing day-to-day operations of the City’s water system. The Council considered two companies and ultimately selected Ramey Environmental Compliance, Inc. (REC) to take over operations of the water plant, pumps, reservoirs and general water distribution system. REC is a Colorado certified operator. The City will pay REC $8,050 per month until the contract is terminated, which can be done by either party with 30 days’ notice. REC is to provide a certified operator daily who is to prepare a hand written report and each visit. The operator will also assist in budget preparation. Operations had been handled by an employee of the City’s Public Works Department. That employee will return to duties with that department.

Thanks to Loretta Lohman at Nonpoint Source Colorado for the link.

More solar coverage here and here.

South Grand Mesa Planning Team is forming to draft a source water protection plan

From the Delta County Independent (Hank Lohmeyer):

The objective of the effort is to create an official, documented record of watershed areas which are of critical concern to the domestic water providers in the Surface Creek and Ward Creek drainages. Then, with their watershed areas of interest clearly defined, it is hoped the group will continue working cooperatively to identify and mitigate potential impacts to the quality of their domestic source water supplies.

Representatives of a steering committee that will take the work forward, once a final plan is completed, is expected to include representatives from the following domestic water suppliers and others: The towns of Cedaredge and Orchard City, Upper Surface Creek Domestic Water Users Association, Coalby Domestic Water Company, Grand Mesa Water Conservancy District, Grand Valley Ranger District, and WSERC.

According to a draft of the source water protection plan which was distributed last week, the planning team identified the following issues of concern to water quality within the South Grand Mesa source water protection area: agricultural practices, oil and gas development and operations, septic systems, transportation on gravel roads and unimproved trails, private water wells, residential landscaping practices and chemicals, zebra and quagga mussels, reservoir operations and repairs, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, livestock grazing, various routine forestry practices including logging for needed timber sales, recreational vehicle use, wild land fires, above ground fuel storage tanks, Sudden Aspen Decline Syndrome and spruce beetle infestation on Grand Mesa old growth forest, and forest land management practices.

More Gunnison River Basin coverage here.

Durango: East Animas Road mudslide video

Check out the video of the mudslide that has East Animas road in La Plata County closed indefinitely, from The Durango Herald (Garrett Andrews).

Durango: City Council is considering drying up the Animas River through town — proposed river floating rules would ban alcohol

From The Durango Telegraph:

In a study session next Tuesday, the Durango City Council will consider changes to existing city ordinance that would ban alcohol on the river and at the put-ins and take-outs; put and end to late-night boating missions; and require personal flotation devices for all private boaters. The City is pursuing the clampdown in light of the exploding number of private boaters, most notably tubers, and escalating tensions between them and residents, particularly at the 32nd Street put in. There are also safety concerns over unprepared or inebriated boaters. Over the last few years, Durango Fire and Rescue has responded to a growing number of stranded river users, most of who are not wearing PFDs or proper foot wear.

If commercial traffic is any indication, the Animas River was the third-busiest in the state last year, with 42,000 paying to get their feet wet. Commercial outfitters were not the only ones keeping busy. In 2009, Durango police arrested 38 people at the 32nd Street put-in and issued 68 citations for everything from drunk and disorderly to open container, indecent exposure and littering. “For a while, it’s been unclear if the river is considered a public place where you can’t have an open container,” said Durango Director of Parks and Recreation Cathy Metz. “These proposed changes would make it clear that, yes, it is a public place.”[...]

And while tubers and rafters can expect big changes this summer, kayakers awaiting the much-talked about Whitewater Park upgrades shouldn’t hold their breath. Although hope was to begin construction late this summer, work on the park has been pushed back, possibly as far as 2012 “We haven’t budgeted yet for 2011, but there is a chance the city might not be able to afford it in 2011 because of budget constraints,” said Metz.

In addition to funding, work on the Whitewater Park is also dependent on approval of a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The City is in the process of making revisions to the final permit application and hopes to resubmit it this spring. Metz said the permit is for in-stream work as well as work along the eroded river left bank, paralleling the Animas River Trail. “The plan calls for bank enhancement between the river and trail to stabilize the bank, re-vegetate it and provide better access,” she said. Money for the park, expected to cost upwards to $2 million, would come from the ¼-cent sales tax for park improvements approved by city voters in 2005. The City set aside $550,000 for the project in 2010.

As per provisions of the city’s recreational in-channel diversion water rights, which were secured in 2007, the city must build permanent structures to direct the flow. With its RICD, Durango is allowed use of 185 to 1,400 cubic feet per second, depending on time of year, for the 1,200-foot stretch from Smelter Rapid down.

The design includes four river-wide features as well as various smaller ones, was the end result of numerous public meetings and river-user input, and was completed by Scott Shipley, of S20 Engineering, in Boulder.

More Animas River watershed coverage here and here.

Pagosa Springs: Dry Gulch Reservoir update

From the Pagosa Sun (Chuck McGuire):

The San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) and Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) boards of directors met in joint session Monday afternoon, with talks centering around acquiring rights to flood land owned by the Laverty family two miles northeast of Pagosa Springs. While uncertainty appeared paramount throughout the discussion, both boards and their attending legal counsel appeared intent on assisting the Lavertys in creating two separate conservation easements on their property, with hope of eventually acquiring fee title ownership of the inundated portion…

By agreeing to conservation easements on Laverty land, Whiting said the districts will also gain the right to store water up to the 7,400-foot contour line — a level that would constitute a reservoir of 35,300 acre feet. Though few people envision the need for an impoundment of that size in the foreseeable future, the districts feel it prudent to plan for the maximum allowed by court decree.

Problem is, the original court decree, which initially granted the districts sufficient water rights to develop a 35,300-acre-foot lake, has been appealed by Trout Unlimited multiple times. While both sides await yet another decision by Judge Gregory G. Lyman of District Court, Water Division 7, State of Colorado, the court has already reduced district water rights to allow a reservoir of just 25,300 acre feet, including 6,300 acre feet currently held by the SJWCD. Nevertheless, as previously guided by former SJWCD board president Fred Schmidt, the districts believe they must secure a site adequate for expansion, should future growth dictate a need for additional water storage. To do so, according to Whiting, the districts’ only two options have always been to either grab the Laverty land through eminent domain, or agree to conservation easements that will prohibit any future development, other than the reservoir…

On Tuesday, [Southwest Land Alliance (SLA) Executive Director Michael Whiting] insisted easements will give the districts what they need, while avoiding higher costs and the pubic relations nightmares associated with taking land through eminent domain. Given two separate easements, they could eventually flood the portion up to the 7,400 contour line, while resting assured the land above 7,400 feet would not bring residential or commercial development along the Dry Gulch shoreline…

At Monday’s meeting, however, districts’ attorney Evan Ela expressed concern with what he envisioned as their agreeing to a “partner in their lake.” While referring to the SLA, who will hold, maintain and enforce the easements in perpetuity, he feared an SLA board 20 or 30 years down the road that could interpret the agreement terms differently. Further, he suggested the districts try and find some way of eventually “purchasing” the easement on the inundated portion from the SLA. With that, they could eventually gain fee title ownership.

But, Whiting insists that’s not possible. “Only a land trust can hold whatever easements are created,” he said. “The Lavertys selected the Southwest Land Alliance to do these easements. They could’ve used another land trust, but we’re the only game in town. “The districts are a developer,” he continued. “No developers can ever hold an easement that encumbers a property that they themselves would develop, it’s illegal. Water districts can hold easements, but not on property they will develop, and Dry Gulch will be a development of that land.” That said, it appears the only real option the districts have in eventually developing Dry Gulch to the fullest extent possible is to agree to the conservation easements as proposed.

Meanwhile here’s Part VII of Bill Hudson’s series PAWSD Gets Called on the Carpet which is running in the Pagosa Daily Post. From the article:

As we will see in today’s article, the numbers that PAWSD shows us — or that it shows to lenders like the Colorado Water Conservation Board — are never complete numbers, nor are they always “up to date” numbers. PAWSD has at hand numerous reports and studies, dating from various years, and is able to select projections and water usage data as needed from those various reports.

Our readers may have noticed in yesterday’s article that the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District put the district’s taxpayers another $11 million in debt by submitting a 2008 loan application to the CWCB — and then used most of that money to pay off a previous loan they’d already used to purchase land for their proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir, to be built, PAWSD says, some time in the next 50 years.

Here’s Part IV of the series.

Here’s Part V of the series.

Here’s Part VI of the series.

Here’s Part VIII of the series.

More Dry Gulch coverage here and here.

Beautiful snow

Beautiful wet snow is falling this morning in Denver. Water watchers have great hopes for this storm. Some mountain locations are hoping for a foot or more. That should bolster the low snowpack over the northern part of the state.

Aurora: Prairie Waters Project update

From the Aurora Sentinel (Sara Castellanos):

Once it’s completed later this year, city officials guarantee that Aurora residents will have enough water to sustain them during droughts for decades…

The goal of the project, which broke ground in July 2007, is to collect water from the South Platte River in Brighton and deliver it to the city through a 34-mile-long pipeline, while using state-of-the-art technology to purify the water to the highest degree. When the project is completed in a few weeks, it could increase Aurora’s water supply by 20 percent and deliver up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year…

The project was funded by raising residential water prices and tap fees, and by issuing $450 million in bonds to be repaid over 30 years. The total estimated cost of the project at completion is $659 million, lower than the original projections of $755 million. “We were the beneficiary of an unfortunate deep recession,” said Pifher, who became the city’s water director in 2008 following Peter Binney, who originally conceptualized the Prairie Waters Project. “As a consequence of the recession there were many contractors out there looking for work and they were going to bid as low as they could just to keep their people gainfully employed.”[...]

Much of the project also uses new ideas, Pifher said, not only in terms of the technology that was implemented, but also because the water department found a way to maximize its water rights to the full extent. “The water resource is so scarce today in the arid part of the West that you can’t just go out and appropriate new water,” he said. “So you have to find a way to make use of what you have. That in itself is sort of cutting edge. When you combine all these cutting edge concepts, you do have a state-of-the-art facility and I think this will become the model for similar projects in the West.”

Other counties in the state in search of alternative water sources, such as Douglas County, would also be able to lease some of the excess water that would be produced as a result of the project, he said…

The project begins north of Brighton, off of State Highway 8 and County Road 85, at the site of the South Platte River. The first step in purifying the water from the South Platte River takes place underneath more than 100 acres of open space, where only a few, small man-made structures hint to what’s happening underneath your feet. “If you drove past this, you would never know this is where Prairie Waters begins,” said Greg Baker, spokesman for the water department. “And that was the idea.” More than 22 tunnels were constructed under roadways, waterways and railroad crossings so nearby people, wildlife and environment wouldn’t be disrupted. Water travels from the river through gravel and sand, which are natural filters, to 17 wells located about 300 feet from the river. The gravel and sand act as purifiers that filter out pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Baker said the project was designed so that the filtration systems from Brighton to Aurora would thoroughly remove pharmaceutical products, as city officials expect that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will make that a requirement in the near future. Water samples have already been taken from the wells and studies by the Colorado School of Mines show that about 90 percent of the purification process occurs from the river to the wells. “That’s the neatest thing, as far as I’m concerned,” Baker said. “We’re not using any high technology, we’re not using a tremendous amount of energy to do this, and yet we’re addressing probably one of the biggest issues in water today which is the pharmaceutical industry.”[...]

From the North Campus, the water will flow along the pipeline that largely follows the E-470 highway. The pumping stations are located in Brighton, Commerce City and Aurora, and each station has one 1,250 horsepower pump and one 600 horsepower pump to push the water to Aurora over a nearly 1,000-foot increase in elevation. The water will then flow to the Peter D. Binney Water Purification Facility, where the water is further filtered using 14 ultraviolet reactors and activated charcoal to destroy unwanted contaminants.

More Prairie Water Project coverage here and here.

Lake Pueblo: Flood control waiver from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Aurora’s water may not spill this spring, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Under operational rules, Lake Pueblo’s elevation must be lowered by April 15 to provide space to contain flood waters. About 3,000 acre-feet of water could be spilled. The water spilled would be in excess-capacity accounts held by users outside the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and spilled on a pro-rata basis. The largest account is Aurora’s, but the Round Mountain Water District in Custer County and the town of Victor in Teller County also have water storage in Lake Pueblo. If snowpack upstream of Lake Pueblo remains below average, however, water users will be granted a two-week extension to move water out of the reservoir under the agreement between the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Lake Pueblo. The agreement allows storage of up to 10,000 acre-feet above flood-control levels until May 1, said Ray Vaughan, manager of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. “This is a one-time, temporary, two-week extension,” Vaughan told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board Thursday.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Orchard City: $2 million in new debt for water system repairs

From the Delta County Independent (Hank Lohmeyer):

The Orchard City Town Board learned at its March 10 regular meeting that a loan request for $2 million has been approved by a state agency. That loan money, combined with $750,000 cash from the town’s own Water Fund, will hopefully complete 60 percent of the needed replacement work on the West Side Main transmission line. The leak prone water line is blamed for a large portion of the up to 30-percent treated water loss that has been reported in the Orchard City water delivery system in recent years.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Colorado River District: It’s the same water. It’s all connected

Here’s the release from the district:

That’s the water conservation message now being seen in a billboard and bus stop bench campaign unveiled in the Denver metro area by the Colorado River District, which is based in Glenwood Springs, Colo., and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, based in Silverthorne, Colo.

“It’s the same water. Conserve it!” is overprinted on images of mountains, a skier, a lawn sprinkler and a woman taking a shower.

The first billboard was recently placed on Interstate 70 near the top of Floyd Hill in Clear Creek County to catch the attention of eastbound traffic heading back to the Front Range from the mountain ski areas. The message is also featured on 200 bus stop benches in the Denver metro area.

While the message is primarily directed at residents living on the Front Range, it applies equally to those living on the West Slope. Billboards will go up in western Colorado this summer to broaden the audience and the water education message.

Up to 25 percent of the state’s share of Colorado River water is diverted to the Front Range through transmountain diversions. Water planners are searching for more water supplies as Colorado’s population is predicted to double to 10 million people by 2050. Water conservation and awareness that water largely comes from rivers, not spigots, are important elements in the challenge to develop water supplies.

The campaign features a smartphone compatible website www.itsthesamewater.com, containing a wealth of information on water use, conservation and less-water-intensive landscaping. Much of the web information comes from Denver Water. The state’s largest water utility is widely recognized for its conservation efforts.

More conservation coverage here.

Prowers County: Tamarisk control update

From The Lamar Ledger:

Grant funding in the amount of $24,343.65 from the Colorado Water Conservancy Board is available, but funding from the county, Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentive Program (NRCS EQIP), NRCS Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP),State Land Board and Colorado Division of Wildlife funding is yet to be defined. In 2009, 1,414 acres of Tamarisk were sprayed at a cost of $116,748.60. Of that amount, $83,686.86 came from the NRCS EQIP, $7,500 came from NRCS WHIP, $7,405 from the State Land Board, $2,949.69 from the Division of Wildlife and $13,156 from the Colorado Water Conservancy Board. Per acre, tamarisk spraying cost $82.57…

Areas under consideration for tamarisk removal include the Clay Creek tributary and the Arkansas River west between Holly and Granada.

More tamarisk control coverage here and here.

SB 10-027 (Fine Illegal Surface Water Diversions): Bill passes the state house 63-1

From the Cortez Journal (Joe Hanel):

Senate Bill 27 allows the attorney general to slap a $500 per day fine on people who illegally use surface water. The fine matches the penalty for illegal use of groundwater that is already in place. The House passed it 63-1. In testimony on the bill last week, Assistant Attorney General Chad Wallace said his office usually negotiates a much lower fine and only uses the threat of fines when a water user has flaunted water rules laid down by the state engineer.

The state senate repassed the bill and now it moves on to Governor Ritter for his signature.

More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.

HB 10-1188: Rafting bill scheduled for second reading tomorrow

The rafting bill is scheduled for the second reading tomorrow (March 19) according to a legislative aide I spoke to this morning. Meanwhile, heres an update from Julie Sutor writing for the Summit Daily News. From the article:

The state Senate Judiciary Committee gave its approval on Monday to a bill that would guarantee rafters’ right to continue using Colorado rivers after supporters and opponents packed a hearing at the state Capitol. Proponents had worried about the bill’s fate in the committee, but it passed on a vote of 4-3. The bill was amended to include all rafters, not just commercial outfitters. Lawmakers also removed a provision that would allow portages on private land. The bill now goes to the full Senate for debate…

Greg Felt, a whitewater guide and fishing guide, told the committee both sports can coexist.

“We’re not here to undermine agriculture, we’re not here to undermine private property rights, and we’re not here to upset what has been, by and large, a pretty positive working relationship between agriculture and recreation. What we’re here to do is to try and preserve the status quo in face of attacks from various quarters throughout the state,” he told lawmakers.

Christian “Campy” Campton, owner of Frisco-based Kodi Rafting, said relations between the agriculture and rafting communities have historically been very positive for the most part. “We’ve always been able to work it out and be responsive to each other’s needs, Campton said. “It’s when they sell the ranches to developers that it becomes a problem.”[...]

The dispute escalated in December, when Shaw’s company sent commercial rafters a letter saying “there is no credible interpretation of legal statute, case or authorization permitting rafting, floating or any transit through or over private property.” Shaw threatened legal action if rafters or their customers touched the riverbanks or river bottom while on their property. The property has been developed as a fishing resort on the banks of the Taylor River near Gunnison, and the company contends rafters interfere with fishing. Shaw said he gave rafters permission to use his property last year based on guarantees they would not interfere with fishermen. He said he was disappointed when hundreds of them took advantage of his offer, disrupting the fishermen, and he notified them he would not renew his offer this year…

Club 20 opposes the expansion of the bill to include private boaters in addition to commercial rafters. “It’s effectively impossible to regulate individual behavior,” Brown said. “If you own a piece of property, and a commercial rafting party goes through, and they stop on the bank, throw out a bunch of trash, defecate on your property and take off, you know who they are. Their vessel is marked. That scenario never happens, because commercial rafters have something at stake — their license. “By contrast, if you allow every individual to float, you have no clue who that is. You have no recourse,” Brown added.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Patrick Malone).

More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Animas-La Plata project: Reclamation fires up the pumps again to continue filling Lake Nighthorse

From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):

Pumping began in May 2009 but stopped in July when the flow in the Animas River dropped to the minimum required to protect downstream fish habitat and satisfy landowner water rights…

“We’re just getting going again,” Jim Gates, a geologist and technical service manager with the bureau, said Wednesday of the pumping. “We started pumping on March 5 and have continued sporadically since.” Until April 1, the flow in the Animas must be at least 125 cubic feet per second, Gates said. On April 1 when, theoretically at least, melting snow will increase the flow, there must be 225 cfs to satisfy downstream needs. The Animas was flowing at 185 cfs in Durango on Wednesday.

Gates said the pumping station, on the west side of the Animas near Santa Rita Park, has been pumping a maximum of 42 cfs to the reservoir. The station has eight pumps – two each with capacity of 14, two each with a capacity of 28 cfs and four that each can move 56 cfs.

More Animas River watershed coverage here and here.

Snowpack news: South Platte Basin at 80%

If you know of a way to squeeze more moisture out of the clouds, and you live in northern Colorado, you need to get to work. The South Platte Basin is sitting at 80% with the Upper Colorado River Basin at 78%. The Yampa/White and North Platte are at 74% and 75% respectively.

In southern Colorado snowpack is above normal with the Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel at 102% while the Rio Grande is at 109% and the Arkansas at 106%. The Gunnison Basin comes in near average at 95%.

Click here to view snotel data from your favorite snotel site.

Coyote Gulch outage

I have a deadline at Colorado Central Magazine. I’ll be back Thursday morning.

Aurora: Prairie Waters Project update

From The Denver Post (Carlos Illescas):

Prairie Waters, the city’s new $659 million water-purification and -recycling system, will be completed ahead of schedule and almost $100 million under budget. Project managers attribute the savings to good planning and trimming nonessential features from the plant. They also say the bad economy helped ratchet costs down. Contractors desperate for work submitted low bids for many of the jobs in the construction of the system, Aurora Water spokesman Greg Baker said. “We took advantage of a strong bidding environment,” he said…

The city has raised residential water prices, nearly quadrupled tap fees and issued $450 million in bonds to pay for the project…

In good-water years, Aurora could lease water to communities such as Douglas County that are searching for new water sources. “Aurora Water has found something that of course will answer their concerns but also something to help the metropolitan area,” said Rocky Wiley, a former water-management planner for Denver Water who now works for a consulting firm. “It’s a viable answer, and it’s wet water,” Wiley said…

Up to 50 million gallons of water a day will be treated at the purification facility. During peak-demand periods, water treated at the facility will be mixed with mountain water and piped to homes.
“You’re always planning for the hottest day in July, when people are watering their lawns, taking showers, washing their cars, when every spigot is open,” Baker said. “We had to make sure our water supply would meet that demand.”

Aurora Water officials expect to dedicate the facility in September and will begin testing the system by December. It is scheduled to be running in full by the late spring or early summer of next year.

More Prairie Waters coverage here and here.

Jackson Lake open to boaters

From The Greeley Tribune:

The reservoir is free of ice and the boating dock is installed. All vessels will need to be inspected for aquatic nuisance species before launching. That station will open at 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on the weekends. The water temperature is in the low 40s, which is dangerous for long-term exposure, so boaters should take precautions. Camping is also open and the shower buildings will open in the beginning of April. Bald eagles have also been spotted at the park lately. Contact Jackson Lake State Park for more information at (970) 645-2551.

HB 10-1188 (Clarify River Outfitter Navigation Right) makes it out of the Senate Judiciary committee 4-3

From The Durango Herald (Joe Hanel):

Only a last-second decision by Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, kept the bill alive. “I was undecided until the very last second. I’m not kidding you,” Hudak told reporters moments after the vote on House Bill 1188. The bill has pitted rafting companies against private property owners in a legal entanglement that is more than three decades old. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-3 for HB 1188. It now goes to the full Senate…

Hudak said she remains very concerned that the bill could hurt private property rights. She voted yes only because she thinks the public believes people have a right to float. “This bill is a bad bill, but to kill it is probably bad as well,” Hudak said.

Testimony stretched for more than seven hours, much of it from ranchers and other landowners who argued the bill took away their property rights. Opposition also came from lawyers for a Gunnison developer who is blocking rafting companies from floating a river through his property. Mike Feeley, who represented the developer, said there is no such thing as a “right to float.”[...]

Colorado’s boating law is clear as mud. The constitution specifies that the waters of the state belong to the people. A state Supreme Court case in 1979 found a man guilty of trespassing for treading on the riverbed. In the same decision, the court encouraged the Legislature to clarify the law – something it has not done. The House already has passed HB 1188 in a much different form. Originally, it extended rights only to commercial rafting companies.

Major changes to the bill Monday night were:

- Removing references to English Common Law on the right to navigate rivers.

- Removing the right to portage around obstacles.

- Expanding the scope of the bill to any river that has been floated by a commercial company at any time since 2000.

- Including private boaters among the people with a right to float.

A University of Colorado law professor and several of his students spoke for the rights of private boaters. But the professor, Mark Squillace, wasn’t satisfied with Monday’s changes because the bill does not fully recognize a constitutional right to use the rivers. Colorado has one of the country’s most restrictive floating laws, Squillace said. “Private property rights are alive and well in many other states that recognize broad rights of access – Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico,” he said.

More coverage from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Charles Ashby):

The measure cleared the Colorado House last month almost entirely on a 40-25 party-line vote, with Democrats arguing that rafters have a right to float, while Republicans said it violated the property rights of local landowners. On a similar party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee sided 4-3 with the floaters’ argument, saying the bill struck a good balance between the two. As a result, some long-establish rafting companies along the Taylor River in Gunnison County said the bill could help keep them from being forced out of business…

Lori Potter, an attorney for the Colorado River Outfitters’ Association, said 42 other states have right-to-float laws, all broader than this bill. “Many (other states) allow fishing, many allow stream access for fishing, some allow hunting,” Potter said. “(HB) 1188 is much more limited … and still ensures that these two rights, the rights of the boater and the rights of the landowner, could still exist.”

More coverage from The Pulse- of Colorado Farm Bureau (Garin Vorthmann):

Amendment language was added to the bill that broadened the bill to include all boaters, not just commercial outfitters. The amendment also expanded the bill to affect more waterways – those that have been commercially ran at least once between the years 2000-2009. Controversial language regarding portaging was removed from the bill but boaters will now be able to get away with incidental touch in order to continue to have forward progress on the river. The right-to-float was also codified in the bill with the new amendment language. The bill was passed 4-3 with Senators Renfroe, King and Lundberg voting in opposition. Colorado Farm Bureau continues to OPPOSE HB 1188 as amended…

Testimony that was given by CFB members was extremely helpful in highlighting the problems with the proposal. Without your help, the bill would have likely passed by a much greater margin.

More coverage from The Denver Post (Jessica Fender):

Kayakers, anglers and all variety of private and commercial boaters could gain the right to float through private land after a state Senate committee on Monday overhauled a bill that has pitted property owners against outdoor enthusiasts. The last-minute amendment addressed a concern of Front Range Democrats, whose constituents’ biggest complaints have been that the original version of House Bill 1188 unfairly applied to commercial outfitters only. But the sweeping changes may have lost the legislation some Republican support in the House. In the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, the revised proposal passed on a 4-3 party-line vote after more than seven hours of debate.

Landowners argued it will be too easy for a stretch of river to be open to public traffic and predicted a deluge of new boaters damaging their property, their river improvements and the businesses they run along Colorado’s waterways. Rafters and other users said that without the legislation, property owners could close off a stretch of river by buying both banks. That could jeopardize the industry and enjoyment of boaters elsewhere, said Jack Bombardier, a landowner and river guide. “This says you can’t be sued and eliminated,” Bombardier said. “That’s all that we’re hoping. The bill will stop the lawsuits, stop the controversy.”

Under the amended HB 1188, river users would not be able to touch the bottom or banks, except to free themselves from snags or to bypass bridges and other obstacles spanning the water. And as amended, any stretch of river that was commercially rafted at least once between 2000 and 2009 would be affected. Bill backers were unclear on whether a state agency or courts through civil lawsuits would ultimately decide which sections qualify…

At one point, Democratic Sen. Linda Newell of Littleton seemed to agree that the complex legal matter deserved a more in-depth look. “What’s working now is fine. It’s my understanding we’re here because of one landowner,” she said during committee. “Why are we creating a law (because of) one landowner?”

More HB 10-1188 coverage here. More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Hayman Restoration Partnership update

From the Pikes Peak Courier (Norma Engelberg):

Workers from the Coalition for the Upper South Platte are clearing woody debris left by severe flooding last year. They’re hoping to complete the work before another flood washes the jumbled timbers downstream where it can wipe out the bridge at Deckers. Clearing debris along streams in and near the Hayman Fire burn area is the immediate goal chosen by a recently formed Hayman Restoration Partnership that includes Vail Resorts, the National Forest Foundation and the U.S. Forest Service and smaller local organization such as CUSP. The partnership has, so far, infused $4 million into the Hayman watershed recovery effort. Over the next three years the partnership will focus on meeting its long term goal of stabilizing and restoring the streams in the burn area. Forest service project manager Brian Banks said Horse Creek is emblematic of the what has happened to the forest and waterways after the Hayman Fire in 2002…

Eventually, the sediment washed down during floods will end up in reservoirs, displacing drinking water, he said. “Were taking a holistic approach to the problem,” said forest service project coordinator Bob Leaverton. “We’ll do a variety of things — removing debris, riparian planting, bank stabilization — but we’ll also look up slope where the erosion is happening and at the roads and trails that might be adding to the problem.” Bob Cole, representing the National Forest Foundation, explained that the foundation is the nonprofit arm of the U.S. Forest Service…

Carol Ekarius, director of the Coalition for the Upper South Platte said the four-person crew working in the creek bed is part of the coalition’s paid staff. “We have a thousand volunteers but we don’t let the volunteers play with chainsaws,” she said. She explained that some of the larger pieces of debris will be piled up at the edge of the alluvial fans where sediment is deposited at the mouth of ravines leading into the main stream. The timbers will stabilize the fans’ edges and will later be used to restore the stream banks. She explained that restoration will include placing timbers and J-shaped lines of rocks in places at the edges of the stream. These structures will direct the water and its energy into the middle of the stream, instead of allowing it to spread out and eat away at the banks. Nationally renowned hydrologist Dave Rosgen has been hired to work with the project. “Rosgen literally wrote the book on hydrology,” Ekarius said. “We’re lucky to have him. CUSP couldn’t have afforded him. Even the forest service couldn’t afford a guy like him.”

More restoration coverage here.

Arkansas River streamflow update

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

On Sunday, gates on Lake Pueblo dam were releasing about 70 cubic feet per second, while another 36 cfs came through the Pueblo State Fish Hatchery. Monday, the gates were pouring 250 cfs into the river. Winter water is a court-decreed program that allows farmers to store water from Nov. 15-March 15 instead of irrigating fields. This year, about 150,000 acre-feet of water was stored in Lake Pueblo dam, John Martin Reservoir and reservoirs operated by the Colorado, Holbrook, Fort Lyon and Amity canals. That was above the 20-year average of about 143,000 acre-feet. As of Monday, the priority in the Arkansas River was at March 1, 1887, at the Fort Lyon headgate, Witte said…

Releasing water from Lake Pueblo dam will begin to lower the lake’s elevation to flood-control levels by May 1. This month, Lake Pueblo dam reached its highest volume of water in the past 10 years, causing concern that water stored by Aurora in its excess-capacity account might be spilled.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Pueblo Board of Water Works agrees to supply new Black Hills Energy power plant

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The agreement will mean $5.6 million in revenues to the Pueblo water board, as well as construction of water lines and a backup pumping station at Black Hills’ expense. The water board is expected to approve the agreement at its meeting today. Black Hills plans to have the plant running by June 2011, but there are provisions in the agreement that could lead to some sales of water later this year. Water is used for steam and cooling in electric generation. By 2012, the water board could be realizing more than $1 million a year in revenue for water service to the plant. The initial term of the contract is 20 years, but there are provisions for two 10-year extensions. “We don’t know yet what the demand will be,” said Terry Book, deputy executive director of the water board. Black Hills could take up to 2,530 acre-feet a year under the contract, but would be obligated to “take or pay” for 1,440 acre-feet, Book said. There would be a reservation fee as well for the full amount in case it is needed…

The water used in the Black Hills operation will be fully consumable, either from transmountain supplies or sources within the basin where the consumptive use has been transferred from agricultural purposes.

More coal coverage here.

Snowpack news: Upper Ark and the Spanish Valley get a dumping

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon/Anthony A. Mestas):

Canon City residents awoke Monday to 2-3 inches of snow which yielded 0.63 of an inch of moisture. Custer County residents in the Westcliffe area also reported 3 inches of snow.

Salida residents also measured 3 inches of heavy, wet snow. Monarch Mountain reported 5 inches of new snow providing a nice cushion on the 77-inch base of snow ideal for spring skiers and snowboarders. Monarch has received a total of 275 inches of snow so far this season or nearly 23 feet of snow in five months.

Residents in the Spanish Peaks area were greeted with a white blanket of wet snow Monday morning. A weather spotter in Trinidad reported 4 inches of snow falling overnight Sunday. Residents in Cuchara reported more than 8 inches of snow. Nearby Walsenburg picked up about 6 inches of snow by early Monday.

What is the strategy for Arkansas Valley agriculture?

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

[Retired Lamar Community College teacher Fred Heckman of McClave] has been attending water meetings throughout the Arkansas Valley on behalf of the Fort Lyon Canal Co. for several years, with one goal in mind: To make better use of water. The idea was first proposed at a Fort Lyon meeting in 2004, by Heckman’s son Bert and others in an independent shareholders group that resisted selling to High Plains A&M (now Pure Cycle), but liked the idea of finding more profitable uses for water. The stated goal of High Plains, which had purchased about one-quarter of the ditch’s shares by 2003, was to move water to growing Front Range communities through a pipeline. Pure Cycle has continued with that goal, but has been more open to efforts like Super Ditch that could use its water resources within the valley. The shareholders group from the beginning wanted to expand the horizons of Fort Lyon shareholders beyond the flood irrigation that has dominated valley agriculture for more than 140 years…

Heckman is among those who have joined Super Ditch, a water leasing cooperative that would allow farmers to hold onto their water rights while selling some of the water under contract. “Leasing water would put a cushion of income under the farming operation to help the farmer withstand weather losses and variable prices,” Heckman said. Heckman is wary of new state consumption rules that target improvements on farms like sprinklers and drip irrigation using surface water. The rules ultimately will add costs for farmers who already operate on a thin margin. “Government involvement, no matter what department it comes from, is as much a threat to the farmers survival as the weather and price variation,” Heckman said. “Micro-managing the farmer is coming.”

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen city council approves $2.3 million for Castle Creek hydropower project

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

The council approved a contract with Denver-based Western Summit Constructors to build a pipeline that will deliver water from Castle Creek via the Thomas Reservoir to the plant, which will be located below the Castle Creek bridge.

The city plans to circumvent a full-blown environmental analysis and instead apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for what’s called a “conduit exemption” to build the hydroelectric plant once the pipeline is under construction. Officials say by delivering water from the reservoir to the plant, the city can take advantage of water for hydropower while providing needed flood protection to properties downhill of the Thomas Reservoir, such as the hospital.

The council also approved a $48,400 contract with Miller Ecological Associates to conduct an aquatic biology study to determine the effects of taking water from the creek. The study was requested by the Colorado Division of Wildlife to evaluate the effect of stream-flow changes between the point of diversion and the point of return in the creek…

Several people said they were concerned about a decreased flow in Castle and Maroon creeks because water will be drained out of both to generate power. Under an agreement with the state, the city of Aspen would never go below 12 cfs in Castle Creek and 14 cfs in Maroon Creek…

If approved, the water would travel down a 42-inch pipe, supplying the hydro plant with approximately 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) coming from Castle Creek and 60 cfs out of Maroon Creek. The city diverts water from both creeks for the primary purpose of supplying municipal water and maintains the in-stream flow of 12 and 14 cfs. The third priority would be for hydroelectricity, but if there isn’t enough water available in a dry year or during certain times of the year, it wouldn’t be diverted, officials have said. The project would utilize existing water rights, head gates and water storage of the original Castle Creek hydroelectric plant, which met all of Aspen’s electric power needs from 1892 through 1958, when the plant was decommissioned…

The electricity would be placed on the city’s grid and taken up to the water treatment campus to power those facilities, and to potentially produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles. When completed, the 1.05 mega-watt facility is expected to increase electric production by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That power production will prevent more than 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, officials said. It would generate renewable energy for the city and increase its supplies by 8 percent over its current level of about 75 percent. City officials say that switching from primarily coal-fired energy purchases to hydroelectric power production would represent a 0.6 percent community-wide reduction in carbon emissions based on a 2004 greenhouse gas emission inventory.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.