Rocky Mountain Arsenal superfund site cleanup update

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley) via the Sky-Hi Daily News:

For half a century, the arsenal at Denver’s northeast edge loomed as a secretive complex of more than 250 buildings with signs around it warning “Use of Deadly Force Authorized.” There, the Army made chemical weapons and later, Shell made pesticides. Residential and commercial development gradually encroached on the site. Today, 47 bison roam, raptors circle and badgers burrow on recovering short-grass prairie 10 miles from downtown Denver. “We’ve transformed a very highly contaminated site into a beautiful prairie landscape,” said Carol Campbell, the EPA’s assistant regional administrator handling Superfund cleanups and other officials. “Because it is something that people now can go to and enjoy, it is different from other Superfund cleanup sites.”

The Army still will be responsible for 725 acres of fenced-off land where toxic materials were consolidated and buried. Devices called lysimeters, about 6 feet beneath the clay and dirt, are supposed to verify that surface water isn’t reaching the waste. In addition, monitoring of the already-contaminated groundwater at the arsenal must continue to ensure that lethal chemicals don’t spread farther toward the South Platte River…

Once, homesteading farmers and ranchers lived here. In 1942, the Army established the arsenal to make mustard gas and blister agent to deter Japan and Germany. Then, during the Cold War, factory workers in body suits and gas masks produced thousands of tons of napalm and sarin nerve gas, which was stuffed into bomblets that were placed in Honest John rocket warheads.

Army leaders later leased the site to private companies, including Shell, which arrived in 1952 and for three decades produced chemical pesticides, such as dieldrin, that Shell sold worldwide for agriculture. The liquid waste was dumped in evaporation ponds. Solid waste was dumped into trenches. More than 600 lethal chemicals spread through the soil into groundwater.

More South Platte Basin coverage here.

‘Save the Colorado’ donates to several efforts

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

A campaign to help save the Colorado River is supplying $40,000 to causes that aim to protect the Upper Colorado River. Of that money, three-fourths has been donated to the Colorado Environmental Coalition to address new transbasin diversion threats “which have given the Upper Colorado River the dubious distinction of being named one of the ‘Most Endangered Rivers in America’ for 2010.” The Coalition’s “Colorado River Protection Campaign” will “aggressively promote water conservation in Denver and Front Range cities as an alternative water supply source.”

Meanwhile, about $10,000 was donated to the American Whitewater Association, “to protect streamflows — thus boating opportunities — in the Upper Colorado River.”

Called “The Save the Colorado River Campaign Fund,” the nonprofit Colorado River advocacy organization announced its grants for 2010, totaling $150,000 donated to 10 environmental groups from the top of the river basin all the way to the bottom — all working to protect and restore the Colorado River…

The Save the Colorado Campaign Fund also made a grant to the Glen Canyon Institute in Utah for its “Fill Lake Mead First” project, an effort to address the dwindling water levels in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The effort may also provide more stable water supplies to Nevada, Arizona, and Southern California…

Additional funding went to:

• Grand Canyon Trust to protect the Colorado River flowing through one of America’s crown jewels, Grand Canyon National Park.

• Citizens for Dixie’s Future in Utah to address the threat of the Lake Powell Pipeline which will drain even more water from the Colorado River.

• Sheep Mountain Alliance in Colorado to protect stream flows and water rights on a tributary of the Colorado River.

• Sonoran Institute of Tucson to try to create an instream flow program for the Colorado River Delta.

• Earthjustice, the environmental law firm in Denver which is working to protect river flows throughout the basin.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Middle Colorado River Watershed Partnership: ‘Watershed 101′ meeting September 21

From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The recently formed Middle Colorado River Watershed Partnership is hoping to bring people together to talk about the management and health of the Colorado River between Glenwood and DeBeque canyons, east of Grand Junction. The group hopes to develop a regional “state of the watershed” report as a step toward creating a comprehensive watershed management plan. This past spring, the group also started work on a “watershed inventory” to identify activities currently taking place in the watershed, which is a hotbed of natural gas drilling activity. Until recently, this was one of the few stretches of river in the state that did not have a group focusing on its health and management, as well as educating residents about the watershed’s values, according to a press release from the group. In the future, the watershed group also hopes to conduct educational presentations, field tours and water monitoring.

And in an effort to reach out to local residents, the group is holding a meeting called “Watershed 101” on Tuesday, Sept. 21, at 8:30 a.m., at the Garfield County Re-2 School District administration building in Rifle.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Denver Water, the Colorado River District and others are making progress over the Shoshone water right and Blue River Decree

From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The legal settlement could stabilize the flows in the Colorado River at the Shoshone hydro power plant in Glenwood Canyon and reduce the need for large summer flows from Ruedi Reservoir down the Fryingpan River.

“I’m looking to this agreement to forge an entirely new paradigm in the relationship between Denver Water and the Western Slope, as to how we sit down, how we negotiate and how we work together on solving the common problems that we will face in the future,” said Jim Lochhead, the CEO of Denver Water at a water seminar in Grand Junction put on by the Colorado River District.

The pending deal provides for a “certain future for water management” at the Shoshone hydro plant, Lochhead said. And because the deal addresses the use of water from Green Mountain Reservoir, on the Blue River north of Silverthorne, it also could reduce demands on the Colorado River for as much as 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from Ruedi, which disrupts summer fly-fishing on the Fryingpan…

The draft agreement would allow flexibility between the owners of upstream water rights, including Denver Water, in order to maintain consistent water flows past Shoshone as if the plant’s water rights were in effect. “This is a critical element for the economy, the environment and recreation on the Western Slope,” Lochhead said of the Shoshone agreement. The Shoshone water rights, the water in Green Mountain Reservoir, the water in Ruedi Reservoir and fly-fishing conditions in the Fryingpan River are all connected by the water diversion system in the Colorado River basin. And the new settlement with Denver Water could improve the fishing above Basalt.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Fort Collins: 2011 budget news

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Kevin Duggan):

Wastewater rates will increase 9 percent in 2011 and 8 percent in 2012, primarily to continue paying off a $31 million project that is rebuilding a wastewater treatment plant at Mulberry Street and Riverside Avenue. Water rates would increase 3 percent in 2011; no increase is expected in 2012. Stormwater rates are not expected to increase either year.

More Poudre River watershed coverage here.

Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board meeting recap

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

During their business meeting before the [field trip to see new district gauges at Cottonwood Lake and Cottonwood Creek and a tour of Moltz Reservoir on Trout Creek], directors adopted a resolution opposing November ballot Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101.

Discussing the ballot initiatives, district manager Terry Scanga noted water projects are expensive and are generally financed using 30-year loans. Passage of the initiatives, Scanga said, would limit financial agreements to a maximum of 10 years, requiring increased revenue – primarily maintenance and storage fees – to pay off loans within 10 years. For augmentation certificate holders, Scanga said, fees would double from $150 to $300 per unit. For holders of multiple certificates such as Poncha Springs which has about 100, the increase would have significant impact, he said.

District consultant Ken Baker and director Greg Felt suggested the district has obligation notify certificate holders about fiscal consequences of the initiatives, but district legal counsel Julianne Woldridge said such notice isn’t allowed under current law.

District treasurer Jim McCormick, also a Salida City Councilman, said Salida will face a budget shortfall of $250,000 if the initiatives pass…

In other business, directors:

• Learned of a feasibility study for installation of a hydro-electric generating system on DeWeese Reservoir.

• Learned from the treasurer’s report the district general fund has $178,868.15.

• A legislative update from Ken Baker showed calls on the Colorado River are approaching the point they could affect transmountain water diversions into the Arkansas River.

• Heard a report about the Colorado Water Congress summer conference

• Discussed dates and times of upcoming water-related events, including “Managing the Politics of Water,” the Sept. 30 annual conference of Colorado Water Officials Association at Salida SteamPlant.

Other events included the Oct. 1 State Engineer’s Forum at Salida SteamPlant, a Sept. 24 watershed meeting in the district Water Enterprise Building and a Sept. 22 meeting of the governor’s “right-to-float” task force in the Water Enterprise Building.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Alamosa settles Salmonella claims for $360,000

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

The city and its former insurance company have reached a settlement with the 29 parties who filed a lawsuit for damages that sprung from the city’s 2008 salmonella outbreak, according to attorneys in the case. While copies of the agreements were not available Thursday from the city, attorneys said the settlement payments totaled $360,000. The damage payments were limited by state law to $600,000 for the entire outbreak and no more than $150,000 for any one individual.

More coverage from the Valley Courier (Julia Wilson):

R. Drew Falkenstein of the Seattle law firm of Marler Clark said all the cases have been resolved. “The settlement was approved by a local judge (District Judge Martin Gonzales) and while I can’t discuss the amount of the settlement I can say it was within the Colorado statutory limit on damages,” Falkenstein said. “We represented 16 children who became ill during the outbreak, and all cases have been resolved.”

More Alamosa coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Lincoln Park/Cotter Mill superfund site cleanup update

From the Cañon City Daily Record (Rachel Alexander):

[Cotter Corp, Inc.] intends to remove the majority of the old mill’s facilities before applying to amend its license to allow it to restart operations, according to John Hamrick, vice president of milling. All 12 of the company’s CCD tanks — large wooden tanks used to settle sediment out of water in the milling process — have been removed and contractors are working on removing the foundations. An interim cover also has been completed over the secondary impoundment. Jim Cain, environmental coordinator/radiation safety officer for Cotter, said the company is about to submit plans for removing some of the other buildings. Hamrick said the company’s next step is to continue remediation efforts at the site and work with the state on a resolution of the water issue.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Grand Lake: Watching Florida water case

Water suppliers, irrigation companies and others spend a good deal of time and money watching water court and other cases with an eye towards protecting their liquid assets. Here’s a report on the Town of Grand Lake’s involvement with a case in Florida, from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:

At least in a legal sense, new attention may be brought to the declining water quality of Grand Lake through a case that could be tried in the U.S. Supreme Court involving Lake Okeechobee, a 730-square-mile lake in southern Florida. The Town of Grand Lake and two citizen groups — with the backing of Grand County — have filed a brief in support of a case that centers on the threatened health of Lake Okeechobee. The amicus curiae (or ‘friend of the court’) brief supports a petition by attorneys and advocacy groups in Florida hoping to overturn a federal court ruling that states water transfers are not subject to the Environmental Protection Agency’s stringent Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The Friends of the Everglades, Florida Wildlife Federation and Fishermen Against Destruction of the Environment contend that backpumping of water containing pollutants from canals into Lake Okeechobee required permitting through the EPA. In June 2009, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District ruled in support of the “unitary waters theory,” an EPA-accepted guidance that all waters of a system belong to the United States, therefore pollutants in one body of water do not “add” pollutants to other “waters of the United States.”

That ruling conflicts with another federal court ruling that took place in New York involving a water transfer from Schoharie Reservoir through the Shandaken Tunnel to Esopus Creek, a system that reverses natural flows to supply drinking water to New York City residents. The Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited alleged that the tunnel discharges pollutants into Esopus Creek. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of New York should be subject to permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act.

Because of these conflicting decisions, the topic of whether water transfers are subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements could be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The outcome of any such ruling could have bearing on Grand Lake’s future, since it is part of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which pumps water from reservoirs into Grand Lake and through the Alva B. Adams Tunnel to cities and power utilities in Northern Colorado…

In 2008, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission established minimal water-quality standards for Grand Lake, but if the “unitary waters” theory holds up, the brief argues, there would be “no practical way” to ensure that the water quality standards for the lake can be met.

More Grand Lake coverage here and here.

Hoover Dam: 75 years old on September 30

From CBSNews.com (Susan Spencer):

Even the dam’s most diehard fans concede it probably wouldn’t be built today, but they insist it was both right – and remarkable – to build it then. “The foresight that those folks had to build this structure back in the 30′s, to harness the Colorado, was just amazing at that point in time, that those folks could even think of that,” [Ken Rice] said.

“It’s not the tallest dam, and it’s not the biggest dam, but its got a grace and power that really takes people … really seizes the imagination. The simple lines that it has – you know the artistic beauty of the design is really something unique,” [Michael Hiltzik] said.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Say hello to Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges. Click here to sign up for your copy. From the report:

[Recommendation]: Convene a U.S. Freshwater Resources Commission

We believe the nation would greatly benefit from a diverse, multi-stakeholder commission to clarify and streamline the responsibilities and roles of agencies at different levels of freshwater governance. We recommend that an appropriate entity convene a high-level freshwater resources commission with a focused mission, an explicit timeline with a clear start and end point for the completion of its work, and clear guidelines for reporting its findings. The overarching goal of the commission should be to propose solutions that increase the integration and efficiency of the existing patchwork of jurisdictional authorities overseeing management of the nation’s freshwater resources. Potential convening models that would impart authority and credibility to this crosssector effort include a Presidential commission, a Congressional commission or a commission spearheaded by a private foun- dation or trust.

More…

[Recommendation]: Water Utilities Decouple Revenues from Volume of Service

Water utilities servicing municipalities typically recoup fixed costs based on volume of water sold. The more water sold, the greater the net revenue. As a result, there is an institutional disincentive for utilities to promote water conserva- tion. Decoupling water utility costs so that fixed costs are fully recouped, but are not spread across a declining base of sales, would motivate utilities to proactively and aggressively promote water conservation and efficiency among their customers. Decoupling would allow utilities the flexibility to fully cover costs while also rewarding customers for conservation rather than raising rates to compensate for decreased revenues resulting from conservation. We recommend that water utilities work with municipalities, and their respective public service commissioners and customers, to adapt existing models for decoupling revenues to the water and wastewater sectors such that they can develop water pricing schemes that promote conservation. In the near term, while more sophisticated accounting and pricing mechanisms are under development, we recommend that water utilities consider existing models for incentivizing advantageous consumer behavior, such as seasonal block rates employed by cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Santa Fe and San Antonio, where the price of water increases for each unit used during dry months.

Thanks to Loretta Lohman for the link.

Animas-La Plata Project: The Bureau of Reclamation is going to pony up some dough for recreation plan at Lake Nighthorse

From the Cortez Journal (Dale Rodebaugh):

Mark Chiarito, resource management specialist for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, told Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District board members that his agency can help finance the planning of recreation at Lake Nighthorse…

The water district was saddled with the job of bringing recreation to the lake 18 months ago when state parks department officials said they had no money. The district, rebuffed by La Plata County and the city of Durango, put up $25,000 and, with an equal amount from the Southwestern Water Conservation District, hired a consultant for initial planning. A boat ramp – paid for with oil and gas tax money and funding obtained by then-state Sen. Jim Isgar – has been installed. A recreation blueprint will cost $150,000 to $200,000, while development for hiking, horseback riding, camping, boating and fishing will cost $20 million to $25 million. Ongoing operations and maintenance would be extra. After months of uncertainty about the funding for all this, recreation proponents have finally gotten some good news. The National Park Service placed a recreation planner at their disposal for two years for free. The city’s attitude has softened, too. On Wednesday, members of the parks and recreation commission, under chairman Duane Smith, were scheduled to visit Lake Nighthorse to look at possible recreational opportunities.

More Animas-La Plata Project coverage here and here.

Breckenridge: New Upper Blue Sanitation District wastewater plant construction update

From the Summit Daily News (Robert Allen):

Construction has been under way since summer 2009, and the project has been financed through tap fees. It is to expand the district’s treatment capacity from 2 million to 5 million gallons per day to meet the demands of growing communities in and near Blue River, Breckenridge and Farmer’s Korner. The contract has the project finishing by Dec. 31, 2011, but Carlberg said it may be complete by July…

The building structure is to arrive in early October. Carlberg said it’s anticipated the expansion area will be sealed dry from outside conditions by December. The plant is under construction next to the Farmer’s Korner Waste Water Treatment Facility, which opened in the mid-1970s. That building could get upgrades to its exterior to help its appearance match the new one. Like the existing facility, the plant is to treat incoming liquid before mixing it with water from the nearby Blue River. The mixture is released into Dillon Reservoir at an area near the highway.

More wastewater coverage here and here.

Greeley: Leprino to use wastewater stream to generate renewable energy

From The Greeley Tribune:

The Greeley Planning Commission approved the facility, which will include an anaerobic digestion system, a process used as a renewable energy source. The system produces methane and a carbon dioxide-rich biogas that is suitable for energy production, and will also reduce the amount of organic matter that would otherwise have to be processed through the city’s treatment system.

More wastewater coverage here.

Rio Grande Basin: First groundwater sub-district assessments to start in 2011

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

On order of Chief District/Water Judge O. John Kuenhold, the board of managers for the San Luis Valley’s first water management sub-district of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District (RGWCD) this week established fees that will be assessed sub-district irrigators next year. The sub-district board plans a public meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 5, at 7:30 p.m., with the location to be announced, to review and possibly adjust the fees it set this week.

Although the sub-district’s management plan is still on appeal before the Colorado Supreme Court, fees for the Valley’s first water sub-district will go on the tax rolls next year.

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

2010 Colorado elections: Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Concerns about the fallout from Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 were shared Thursday at the [Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District] monthly meeting by Executive Director Jim Broderick.

Proposition 101 would have the greatest impact on operating revenues of the district by rolling back specific ownership taxes on motor vehicles. The tax would be decreased to $2 for new vehicles and $1 for used vehicles over four years, among other provisions of the ballot question. The Southeastern District gets between $600,000 and $700,000 in revenue annually through the tax. Those revenues fund staff and programs of the district, as well as repaying the federal government for parts of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

Amendment 60 could require the district to pay property taxes, and would have some impact, Broderick said.

Amendment 61 would limit the ability of the district to acquire new debt, and the definitions of what would qualify as debt would have to be hammered out if the amendment passes, he added.

More 2010 Colorado elections coverage here.

2010 Colorado elections

Here’s an in-depth look at the gubernatorial candidate’s solutions for Colorado’s economy from Patrick Malone writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

On the issue of water, Hickenlooper said conservation can be attained by following the examples of Colorado’s dryland farmers and city dwellers in Denver, both of which have cut their consumption considerably. He said defending against out-of-state water grabs and finding more storage capacity also are key.

Maes said a willingness to stand up to Washington to keep Colorado’s water here is needed from the next governor. Tancredo agreed that keeping water management out of the federal government’s hands is important.

Tancredo pointed to Pueblo as ground zero of the water issue in Colorado, because it’s a rare community that has a surplus. “We’ve got Aurora, Colorado Springs and Pueblo fighting over that,” he said. “Somebody needs to end that battle.”

More 2010 Colorado elections coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: BLM Royal Gorge Field Office releases Determination of NEPA Adequacy for geothermal leasing

Here’s the release from the Bureau of Land Management (Cass Cairns):

The Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office has released the 2010 Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) for the proposed Mt. Princeton Geothermal Lease Parcel. The Mt. Princeton Geothermal Lease Parcel is scheduled for the Nov. 10, 2010 Oil and Gas lease sale in Denver.

The DNA demonstrates that leasing geothermal resources for the RGFO within the Mt. Princeton Geothermal Lease Parcel is compliant with our Resource Management Plan as amended by the December 2008 Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

The Mt. Princeton Geothermal Lease Parcel was deferred from the BLM Colorado Oil and Gas Lease Sale in Feb. 2010 to allow for review of comments received during the lease sale protest period. Those comments were taken into consideration and addressed in the DNA.

To view a copy of the DNA go to www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/rgfo.html and click on the Mt. Princeton Geothermal Lease Parcel link under the Frequently Requested section. For further information contact Melissa Smeins, RGFO geologist at 719-269-8523.

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Flaming Gorge Pipeline: Southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Utah point of view

From the Salt Lake Tribune (Brett Prettyman):

It is the cost of losing the water that people in Utah’s Daggett County and Wyoming’s Sweetwater County are worried about. Trophy fishing for kokanee salmon and lake trout in Flaming Gorge and world-class fly fishing on the Green River below the dam could be severely harmed by the loss of water and that, in turn, would hurt local economies.

“It is almost impossible to visualize the project, it is so big,” said Casey Snider, who is organizing sporting and other communities to oppose the pipeline as the northeastern Utah coordinator for Trout Unlimited’s Sportsman’s Conservation Project. “It would cost so much to build, so much to operate and do so much to harm this area. How can you fathom it? It is a huge drain, literally. It will drain the reservoir, drain the river and drain the economy.”[...]

Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination director John Harja sent a letter to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, which is conducting a draft of the environmental impact statement on the project in an effort to determine if it is feasible, listing a number of concerns should the pipeline become a reality.

Among the worries listed in the letter:

• Wide fluctuations of water levels at Flaming Gorge would create ideal conditions for noxious weeds along the shore, affecting waterfowl, mule deer, pronghorn, sage-grouse and other species. Open shorelines may become inaccessible for recreation.

• Diminished flows on the Green River below the dam will affect species of concern like the northern river otter, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, Lewis’ woodpecker, southern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo.

• A reduction of flows into the reservoir will inhibit flow recommendations coming out the dam. The recommendations were agreed upon by multiple agencies to benefit endangered fish (razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub and bonytail) in the Green River.

More Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here and here.

Denver Water, the Colorado River District and others are making progress over the Shoshone water right and Blue River Decree

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Attorneys for Denver Water and other water organizations won a weeklong stay Wednesday in the beginning of a trial on a case in federal court in which Denver Water’s handling of its Blue River decree is at issue. That litigation could be set aside next week once an affidavit attesting to the progress of the parties is filed under seal in the court, River District spokesman Chris Treese said…

Denver Water also wants to get about the business of expanding Gross Reservoir near Boulder, [Denver Water General Manager Jim Lochhead] said. The agency, which serves 1.3 million people and is the state’s oldest and largest water utility, needs the flexibility to move water around its system. It’s looking to the settlement to offer Denver Water the kind of flexibility it needs to manage its system, Lochhead said. In addition to completing the Blue River decree, which refers to the stream that fills Dillon Reservoir, one of Denver’s largest water supplies, the agreement would limit the size of the Denver Water service area. It also would offer the Western Slope assurance that Denver Water would take no action to obtain more water without cooperation from the Western Slope. Once it’s complete, “This will be one of the most comprehensive agreements that’s ever been negotiated in the state of Colorado,” Lochhead said. “I’m looking at this agreement to forge an entirely new paradigm” in relations between the Front Range and Western Slope.

The agreement will give the Western Slope, primarily the River District, a greater voice in the operations of the Shoshone Power Plant. The Shoshone plant generates 14 megawatts of electricity from turbines spun by the Colorado River, and its 1902 water right ensures water will flow from the headwaters of the river to Glenwood Canyon and below. If Shoshone was unable to call water downriver, the Grand Valley’s domestic, agricultural and industrial needs, as well as those of four endangered fish species, would have to be met by other sources, notably the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan rivers. They join above Glenwood Springs, and those waters flow into the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs, below the Shoshone plant. Plateau Creek in De Beque Canyon also could be called down to meet the Grand Valley requirements, leaving some of those junior water rights to go unfilled.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Precipitation news

It’s been dry and drier for the past few weeks. D0 conditions are starting to show up around the state. Click on the thumbnail graphic to view the latest from the U.S. Drought Monitor. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Arkansas River through Pueblo has been buoyed by water releases for farms the past few weeks since river levels began to plunge in July. The state is running water to John Martin Reservoir over the next four days that will keep levels up, but that will end…

Pat Edelmann of the local U.S. Geological Survey office said dry conditions have hit the Western United States for the past month, including the Upper Arkansas River…

“Many gauges along the mainstem of the Arkansas River are below 25 percent of average,” Edelmann said. “In the Upper Arkansas, readings are 100 to 250 cubic feet per second below average.” At Avondale, generally the high point of the river, readings were at about 300 cfs Thursday — half of what they usually are. Water storage levels are still above average, barely, at Turquoise and Twin Lakes, and at 134 percent of average in Lake Pueblo, said Roy Vaughan of the Bureau of Reclamation…

It has barely sprinkled in Pueblo so far this month, and the last appreciable rains came in early August. The forecast from the National Weather Service is calling for dry conditions through early next week. Rainfall for the year is slightly above average, but falling behind last year’s relatively high levels of precipitation.

Fountain Creek: Flood mitigation projects, proposed detention ponds may require a trip to water court

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Planners for the project say they are designing structures that would capture flood waters to shave the peak off flood flows, retain the water temporarily and release it over the next 72 hours. A $1 million-plus demonstration project north of Colorado 47 could be the first of a series of flood control structures up and down Fountain Creek.

After reading newspaper accounts about plans for recreation activities and wetlands that would be associated with the project, [Water Division 2 Engineer Steve Witte] told the Southeastern district it needs to be concerned about the potential to violate water rights…

“There have been discussions in the past of what can and can’t be done,” Witte said. “There is a way to build these in a way that the timing does not injure senior water rights. The proper forum to determine that is in Water Court.” Following the meeting, Witte elaborated, saying that assurances by the planners that flood water would be evacuated within 72 hours are not enough.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Tanker trucks are moving water out of the Arkansas Valley to Denver

From The Chaffee County Times (Kathy Davis):

Trucking the water to Arrowhead Water’s Denver bottling plant began Aug. 17, [Arrowhead Water natural resource manager Bobbi McClead] said…

The spring water for Arrowhead is piped from Ruby Mountain Springs near Nathrop to Nestlé Waters’ truck loading facility. The water line for piping the water and the water line crossing on the Arkansas River were completed in late spring. During the installation of the water line crossing, Nestlé installed and paid for a second line for future use by the Town of Buena Vista…

Nestlé has ongoing projects in Chaffee County. One is the installation of a second well at Ruby Mountain Springs. That well will become the primary well, McClead said.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.

Northwest Colorado Water Forum September 24

From Steamboat Today (Tom Ross):

The [Yampa/White River roundtable] recommended funding a $220,800 water storage feasibility study in the Yellow Jacket District south of Craig, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board approved it in January. The study is under way, and project consultant Mike Apple gate is among six speakers slated for the forum. Applegate said Wednesday the Yellow Jacket Board, which oversees a district primarily in Rio Blanco County, but including small portions of Moffat and Garfield counties, is a long way from building a water storage facility…

The board of the Yellow Jacket Water Conservation District made it plain in a September 2008 filing in Water Court that it seeks to ensure adequate water supplies for agriculture, but it’s also determined to create adequate supply for a growing oil shale industry in the region. Applegate said the goal of protecting agricultural water is sincere. “If you don’t figure out in advance how to supply water for (energy development), the result can be a ‘buy and dry agriculture’” approach to securing water for energy, he said. In their 2008 filing, the Yellow Jacket Board members anticipated building Thornburgh Reservoir and filling it with conditional water rights from nearby creeks via pipelines. West Milk Creek Canal, for example, is estimated to be able to supply 90 cubic feet per second of water. Axial Creek Canal could be counted on to supply as much as 315 cfs during its peak, the court filing anticipated. Applegate said the system of creeks and canals feeding an offline reservoir (built in a ravine without live water of its own), is just one possibility that will be looked at in the feasibility study.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District approves plan geared to soften the blow of new irrigation rules

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Lower Ark board plans to set up a compliance program under new rules that are now moving through Division 2 Water Court. Most objectors have settled or are planning to settle in the case before a November trial date. The rules are being sought by State Engineer Dick Wolfe to ensure that improvements like canal lining, sprinklers and drip irrigation do not increase consumptive use. They are primarily aimed at avoiding future claims by Kansas that Colorado is violating the Arkansas River Compact.

The board wants to have the program up and running if the rules are approved and take effect on Jan. 1, 2011.

More Ark Valley consumptive use rules coverage here.