Gore Creek: Lower numbers for macroinvertebrates due to urbanization?

From the Vail Daily (Sarah Mausolf):

A recent study revealed certain bugs are disappearing in the East Vail stretch of the stream. The bugs present in low numbers — certain mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies — are especially sensitive to the effects of urbanization, said David Rees, a bug expert processing the study data. And their absence is a sign that something is damaging this popular trout-fishing stream, which runs through a tourist town that prides itself on its natural beauty. “A large portion of our economy depends on this perception that this is a pristine area,” said Lin Brooks, assistant general manager for the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District.

Something has been causing a change in the stream’s macroinvertebrates, the tiny bugs that live in the rocks, Rees said. There are fewer types of bugs overall than one expects to see in a mountain stream, Rees said. While some bugs are dwindling, others are more plentiful then normal, he said. Midges and worms, which are less sensitive to environmental stress, are abundant. “Whenever we see this change in the composition, it’s an indication there’s stress,” he said…

John Woodling, a retired fish biologist familiar with the stream, agrees [highway] sand is a likely culprit. The sand settles over the rocks and fills up the space where the bugs live, he said. Although CDOT has been working to contain the sand, there is still plenty left on the hillside, he said…

Brooks said the water district plans to investigate other theories, too. One holds that fertilizers and lawn chemicals are hurting the creek…

Another theory claims road gunk that washes into the stream has been changing its makeup…

The state is coming up with new regulations for the nutrients wastewater treatment plants discharge, Brooks said. The water district volunteered to do the study to help explore the complex relationship between nutrients and river health, she said. Researchers collected samples at 18 locations along Gore Creek and the Eagle River in fall 2008 and spring 2009, Brooks said. They are still processing the results of samples they took in fall 2010, she said. Brooks expects The Colorado Water Quality Control Division to come out with new rules for nutrient discharge by June 2011. It could cost the water district $10 million to $20 million to remodel the local treatment plants to comply with the regulations, she said.

More Eagle River watershed coverage here and here.

Flaming Gorge pipeline: Opposition to the transmountain diversion project grows

Say hello to the temporary home for OurDamWater.org. They’re online to spread the word against the Million Resources Group’s plans to build a pipeline from the Green River in Southwest Wyoming to Colorado’s Front Range and points south. Thanks to CBS4Denver.com for the link.

More Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here and here.

Vail Valley water education programs: Sixth-graders November 17 and 18, everyone else November 22

From the Vail Daily:

Sundance Water Company will join Minturn Middle School’s sixth grade science teachers Nov. 17 and 18 to help educate students and their parents about water.

Students will learn about the importance of drinking water, the water cycle, and how humans can affect the water we drink. They will also participate in testing water from all over the valley.

Parents and others are welcome to attend a free viewing of the documentary “Tapped,” sponsored by Sundance, the Eagle River Watershed Council and the Vilar Performing Arts Center Nov. 22 at 6 p.m. The documentary will be followed by a question-and-answer session with Kinetico water professionals. Donations will be accepted and all proceeds will go toward the school’s science department.

In addition, Sundance will donate 5 percent of all sales from Nov. 18 through Dec. 31.

To learn more, call 970-977-0292, e-mail scott@KineticoRM.com or go to www.KineticoRM.com.

More education coverage here.

Arkansas Valley seep ditch curtailment update

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“Our intent is not to administer the law in a way that puts people out of business, but we have to administer water rights,” Wolfe said. “When the governor (Bill Ritter) asked me to take this job, I told him I would uphold the constitution, knowing that it would affect people’s livelihoods.”

At the time, in 2007, the state was dealing with compact issues on the Republican River and a water rights dispute in the South Platte basin that had the effect of shutting down many high-volume irrigation wells. The state also was looking at irrigation consumptive use rules that affected the Arkansas River Compact. Those rules will go into effect Jan. 1, and will require irrigators to account for surface-water improvements such as sprinklers, drip irrigation and ditch lining. Wolfe said more than a year of meetings helped the state explain its position to farmers and modify the rules to make them less onerous. He said he hopes to achieve the same results by having his staff meet with those affected by the seep ditch rules…

Seep ditches sprang up to use return flows — water that runs off fields and is not used to grow crops — from larger irrigation systems. As a result, they generally have decreed water rights that are junior to mutual irrigation ditches. The state says those rights must be curtailed until downstream senior rights are satisfied. Seep ditch owners say they have used the water for decades — 100 years or more in some cases — without complaint from the downstream ditches. More than 40 farms are at risk. They say the water was never available before it was claimed in seep ditch rights, and would have never made it back to the stream, anyway. Therefore, they argue, any downstream call should be regarded as a futile call — legally available, but unable to be physically delivered. The water rights of downstream owners have been filled at the expense of other rights upstream that are senior to the seep ditch rights, said Steve Witte, Water Division 2 engineer. Witte admitted the seep ditch rights have never been enforced by him or his predecessors. He said that’s a mistake, and farmers who have used the water have benefitted at the expense of others.

More Arkansas River basin coverage here.

Senator Udall intends to sponsor legislation next year authorizing Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of the Arkansas Basin

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The information was included in a report by attorneys for Aurora and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District filed late Friday in the Denver U.S. District Court. The report says Udall has agreed to circulate draft legislation along the lines of past attempts to change federal law to allow Aurora to use Fry-Ark storage and exchange contracts to move water from farms dried up in Lake, Crowley and Otero counties into its South Platte collection system. “Senator Udall indicated that he intends to circulate draft legislation in the next Congress so that the congressional delegation can reach consensus on language that will implement the settlement agreement,” wrote attorneys Stuart Somach, for Aurora, and Peter Nichols, for the Lower Ark, in the joint filing.

The legislation is expected to be much the same as language included in earlier versions of the Preferred Storage Options Plan, a provision of a 2003 agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and in the 2004 intergovernmental agreement among Pueblo, the Pueblo water board, Colorado Springs, Fountain, the Southeastern district and Aurora…

The report indicates that if Congress has not enacted legislation by May 13, 2011 — the two-year anniversary of the settlement agreement [In 2009, the Lower Ark and Aurora reached a settlement that included additional concessions by Aurora and placed a stay on the case for two years. Among the provisions was new federal legislation that cleared Aurora to use the Fry-Ark project.] — Aurora and the Lower Ark will provide an amended settlement agreement recommending administrative closure of the case that preserves the right to reopen the case. Periodic status reports also would be included.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

A look at the global water supply gap

From the Guardian (Dominic Waughray):

Currently about 70% of the world’s freshwater withdrawals are for agriculture, 16% are for energy and industry and 14% are for domestic purposes. Recent work suggests that unless we change our historic approach to how we use water, we could face a 40% gap by 2030 between global demand and what can sustainably be supplied. Why is this, and what are the implications?

To meet the forecast growth in demand for food over the next 20 years, farmers will need to increase production by 70-100%. Changing diets will increase demand for meat and dairy products in particular. A kilogram of meat requires up to 20,000 litres of water to produce (compared to about 1,200 litres to produce a kilo of grain), and global demand for meat is forecast to increase 50% by 2025. Herein lies the water challenge. If we already use over 70% of freshwater withdrawals for agriculture and face an increase in demand for food by 70% by 2030, especially for water-intensive meat and dairy, it is clear that a business-as-usual approach is not an option. We cannot use over 100% of our freshwater for agriculture. Significant, perhaps radical changes in agricultural water usage will be required.

At the same time, our demand for energy will also grow; and energy is also a thirsty sector. The International Energy Agency forecasts that the world economy will demand at least 40% more energy by 2030. McKinsey and Company estimates that 77% of the power stations we will need by then have yet to be built. By that year, China will need to expand its power generating capacity by over 1,300 GW (1.5 times the current level of the US) and India by 400 GW (equal to the current combined total power generation of Japan, South Korea and Australia). Increasing access to energy is a priority for many countries. 1.5bn people in the developing world still lack access to electricity and over 3bn rely on biomass for heating and cooking. Yet, energy needs a lot of water. In richer countries, up to 50% of freshwater withdrawals can be used in the production of oil, gas and electricity…

Many countries are extracting groundwater faster than it can be replenished (Mexico by 20%, China by 25% and India by 56%). Over 70 of the world’s major rivers now hardly reach the ocean due to the extensive diversion of water for human use. If current trends continue, by 2030 increasing water scarcity could cause annual grain losses equivalent to 30% of current world consumption (just as we need 70% more food). As demand continues to grow, competition for water will intensify between economic sectors, as well as between geographies.

Thanks to Loretta Lohman for the link.

Wiggins: The town council is slowly moving through the paperwork required for new water system

From The Fort Morgan Times (Dan Barker):

The council unanimously approved a resolution authorizing indebtedness for its water project, but that is not quite what it sounds like, said Wiggins Town Attorney Sam Light. This was basically approval of signing a USDA form contract which sets up conditions for taking a loan and grant package from the federal agency, and which indicates that the entire debt could come due if Wiggins defaults on its loan once bonds are issued, he said. It pledges the water system as security for the loan, and states that Wiggins cannot contract to build the project without USDA consent after the agency has a chance to see designs, Light said. Essentially, this contract says that Wiggins understands all the provisions and agrees to them, he said. The resolution also agrees that Wiggins will comply with all state and federal laws, and will continually operate the facility in good condition. Part of the agreement is to provide for adequate revenues to pay the debt on time, and to operate and maintain the facility. Revenue cannot be used to pay any expenses which are not directly incurred for the facility, and no free use of the facility will be permitted.

Board members went into a closed-door executive session for 2-1/2 hours to discuss a land and water purchase for the water project, legal issues pertaining to the water project, use of land from previously purchased acreage which was part of buying water, and getting permission from the Weldon Valley Ditch Co. to change the use of the water from that property, Light said…

The USDA did approve a grant and loan package for Wiggins to build the new water system, which includes a pipeline to bring water from a farm northwest of the town and to build a water treatment facility at the farm. Certain conditions must be met before the town can begin taking bids from contractors to do the job, said Tim Holbrook, who is overseeing the engineering aspect of the project for Industrial Facilities Engineering. Staff is working to secure easements for the pipeline, including negotiating for private land for the pipe, he said. They have also applied to the Colorado Department of Transportation for approval for the pipeline to cross Highway 144 and Highway 34, and did secure approval from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to trench under its property to lay pipe. Holbrook said he is working on completing an engineering design to send in to the USDA, which will include the treatment part of the project. That is also needed for a permit to construct the project, and getting that permit could take 30 to 60 days, he said.

More Wiggins coverage here and here.

‘Protect Our Rivers’ license plate on tap for Colorado?

Here’s the announcement from Colorado Trout Unlimited:

In the 2011 legislative session, Colorado Trout Unlimited is introducing a bill to create the Protect Our Rivers license plate. To help ensure passage of the bill, we need to collect 3,000 signatures from Colorado residents that are interested in later purchasing the license plate. Note that signing the petition does not obligate you to purchase – at this time, you are merely expressing an interest.

Once the bill is passed, to obtain the Protect Our Rivers license plate, you must make a one-time, tax-deductible donation of $25 to Colorado Trout Unlimited. This money will be used to help CTU fulfill its mission of protecting, conserving and restoring Colorado’s rivers – the money will remain local, 100% will be allocated within Colorado. The design of the license plate has not been finalized yet, but it is likely to be very similar to the sample [click on the thumbnail graphic to the right]:

To learn more about the Protect Our Rivers license plate, read the FAQ (frequently asked questions).

For now, we’d really appreciate it if you’d sign our petition! And don’t forget to tell your friends!!

From the Montrose Daily Press:

The High Country Citizens Alliance and other conservation groups are advocating the creation of a “Protect Our Rivers” special license plate. They need 3,000 signatures by Nov. 30 in order to get the Legislature to consider approving the plate’s creation. If the state approves the plate, it can be purchased for $75, of which $50 goes to the state. The remaining $25 will go to Colorado Trout Unlimited.

More conservation coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: 3E Geothermal, LLC leases Colorado’s first geothermal lease for $37 per acre

From The Mountain Mail (Keith Berger):

After some spirited competitive bidding, the parcel sold for $37 per-acre to 3E Geothermal, LLC, in Colorado Springs. The company paid a bonus bid of $29,600 for the parcel.

You may be wondering what is next. There were 16 protest letters submitted on the geothermal parcel during the protest period. Prior to the sale, the protests were screened for any critical issues that would merit deferring the parcel from the sale. Though the expressed concerns are important, they were not deemed critical, or were addressed in our pre-sale environmental review, so the sale of the parcel proceeded. Concerns included contamination of ground water, surface water and vegetation, interruption of animal habitat and recreational activities, traffic, noise from industrial drilling, unstable soils below some prominent cliff formations, and a potential for earthquakes. Each letter will be reviewed in-depth with a response to the protester as to whether the protest is upheld or dismissed and why. The lease will not be issued until all 16 protests have been resolved. If the lease is issued it would be the first step in any geothermal development process.

The bureau’s next action would come if the lessee submits a project proposal. The bureau would then initiate an environmental review of the proposal and seek your input for concerns and potential issues related to that proposal…

Information about the Mount Princeton Geothermal Lease Parcel is available on our website at www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/rgfo.html or you can contact Melissa Smeins, Royal Gorge Field Office geologist at (719) 269-8523.

More coverage from Joe Stone writing for The Mountain Mail. From the article:

3E Geothermal LLC, the company that acquired the Mount Princeton geothermal lease Wednesday, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Young Life and will “protect the natural beauty of our camp’s setting,” said Steve Lundgren, camp manager of Frontier Ranch. Frontier Ranch, a Christian youth camp owned by Young Life, occupies much of the surface estate of the 799-acre geothermal lease near Nathrop. “We did not want to be in a situation where other parties would have the ability to scar the landscape so critical to giving our guests a great camping experience,” Lundgren said…

When asked about the possibilities for developing the geothermal resource, Lundgren said lease owners have a responsibility “to make a good faith effort to evaluate the viability of geothermal resource production.” He said Young Life desires to protect the natural beauty of the land but is “currently contemplating the most conscientious way of complying with the requirement.” Under U.S. Bureau of Land Management terms of the lease, failure to develop the geothermal resource would result in termination of the lease in 10 years.

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Custer County Conservation District names ‘Conservationists of the Year’

From The Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):

This year’s recipients were Alice and Charles Proctor, Marian Shearn, Peggy McIntosh and the late Jim Proctor of the M66 Ranch. Charles, Alice and Marian, who purchased the ranch in 1977, were on hand to receive the esteemed award. Local Conservation District Manager Robin Young said the M66 Ranch was chosen due to the owners commitment to following conservation measures on their 195-acre ranch including the placement of a conservation easement on the ranch in 2004. Also noted was the owners’ dedication to bringing the awareness of conservation to others by inviting art students to visit their ranch and creating art projects with what they find in nature. “They have a love of the land, people, teaching and learning,” said Young.

More Custer County coverage here and here.

Yuma: Water rates going up in January

From The Yuma Pioneer (Tony Rayl):

The Yuma City Council gave final approval to an increased water rate at its regular meeting, last week, November 2. The basic rate for the first 5,000 gallons is increasing from $8 per month to $8.50. The charge for each additional 1,000 gallons is going up from 85 cents to $1.25. The higher rates will go into effect in January, which means city customers will not see it reflected on their bills until the one that is due in early March…

Even with the increase, Yuma’s water rates still are half the average of the other northeast Colorado municipalities. The new revenue is expected to be about $77,000 annually. City Manager Doug Sanderson was questioned by City Attorney Roger Seedorf during the public hearing held prior to the council’s vote. Sanderson explained the Water Enterprise Fund currently is breaking even, and the new revenue will allow for reserves to be built to go toward future projects. Those projects include helping purchase a new SCADA system (a combined project with the Sewer Department), along with replacing old water lines, valves and such, purchasing water rights through the Yuma County Water Authority, and painting the inside of the water towers.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Cedaredge: Wastewater fees to rise?

From the Delta County Independent (Bob Borchardt):

During the Nov. 4 budget work session one item discussed was the likelihood that the current sewer rates charged to area residents will be increased $9 over the next two years. According to Town Administrator Kathleen Sickles, there are three projected increases of $3 per month, every six months, over an 18-month period starting January 2011, for a total increase of $9 per month. Trustee Nancy Sturgill said she was not excited about having more than one increase per year. Sturgill recommended having a $4.50 per year, instead of having two increases in one year. “I’d rather not ding residential property owners twice in one year.”

More infrastructure coverage here.

Animas-La Plata Project: Lake Nighthorse recreation meeting recap

From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):

On Wednesday, about 30 people turned out at the La Plata County Fairgrounds for the first in a series of public meetings about recreation on the lake, which will cover 1,500 surface acres when fully filled in 2011. Posted for public viewing were comments on the subject, and almost all of them contained a pitch for either motorized or nonmotorized boating…

Friends Anne Sutherland and Cindy Ortman, who hadn’t seen one another in six years, found they still have a lot in common. They don’t want motorboats on the lake, too. “I’m here to give input,” Sutherland said. “No motorized craft – boats or jet skis.” Ortman said she’d like to see sailboats and rowing and high school and college crew teams…

Joy Lujan, a National Park Service community planner, is coordinating creation of a recreation master plan at the lake. Lujan wants participants in upcoming forums and workshops to have a solid foundation for discussions. Lujan points out that although federal Wallop-Breaux funding that helped build a boat ramp at Lake Nighthorse requires access for motorized craft, the master plan will spell out the type and location of water-based activities…

Also on hand to answer questions at the meeting were employees of the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns Lake Nighthorse; board members of the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, which is leading the campaign to fund the recreation master plan; and a representative from consultant DHM Design…

Another open house is scheduled from 5 to 8 p.m. today at 175 Mercado St., Suite 117, in Three Springs. Public forums and workshops will follow until a final recreation plan is unveiled Jan. 12.

More Animas-La Plata Project coverage here and here.

San Juan Basin: Water Supply Community Work Group meeting recap

From the Pagosa Sun (Randi Pierce):

When group chairman Bruce Dryburgh called the meeting to order, the group lacked a quorum, though with the arrival of Steve Van Horn, official business could begin — approval of past minutes and “removing members from the island.” Jan Clinkenbeard was voted out of the group due to her recent appointment to the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District Board of Directors, as was Archuleta County Commissioner John Ranson for his conflict of interest in light of the BoCC’s statutory oversight duties concerning PAWSD…

Following a brief hiatus, the group then met with the PAWSD board, with Shellie Peterson, interim district manager, presenting a report on the history of the PAWSD schedule of fees and charges. The presentation included the development and justification of all of the PAWSD fees, with many board members noting the informative value of the report.

PAWSD Special Projects Manager Renee Lewis said in a later interview that the report provided a good platform for the WSCWG’s future work, should they decide to continue on and in what capacity to do so. According to Dryburgh, no further meetings of the WSCWG had been scheduled as of presstime.

More San Juan Basin coverage here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Cotter Corp, Inc. and the Colorado Department of Health and Envrironment are far apart on groundwater monitoring costs

Update: From the Cañon City Daily Record (Rachel Alexander):

In January, Cotter submitted an estimate of $2,891,319 to which the department responded with an estimate of $15,066,000. At the Community Advisory Group meeting, Oct. 28, Steve Tarlton, radiation control project manager for CDPHE, explained the differences in the initial estimates and how the department and company came to the new estimate. “We were proposing active systems, they were proposing passive systems,” Tarlton said of the initial numbers, stating the main difference was in scope.

Following the initial estimates, informal negotiations were undertaken to attempt to come to an agreement, Tarlton said. The negotiations addressed three groundwater plumes: Lincoln Park north the De Weese Dye Ditch, the SCS Dam to the the De Weese Dye Ditch and the facility itself. The golf course plume was addressed earlier with the license surety. The two parties agreed to a scope of work needed in each area and that was used as a basis of the estimate. The agreed-to scope is not a final decision as to what work will actually need to be done, that will need additional data and a public process. The surety for Lincoln Park is $1,108,074, for the facility is $6,874,684 and for the dam to the ditch it is $1,938,803.

Cotter has a period of time to respond to the estimate from CDPHE before the numbers are made final. Cotter spokesman John Hamrick said the company does not have a comment on the surety process at this time.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):

The Colorado Department of Public Health on Oct. 26 issued an order requiring Cotter Corp. to adjust its $2.6 million surety to $9.9 million to cover estimated costs to install and monitor groundwater wells and prevent groundwater from seeping off site at the currently idle uranium mill just south of Canon City.

On Nov. 5, Cotter attorney Mark Mathews notified the state that Cotter disputes the state’s estimate of $9.9 million and requested an informal mediation…

The state and Cotter officials also are trying to work out an agreement on decommissioning costs when the mill finally closes. State officials estimate the final cleanup cost at $43.7 million, while Cotter Corp. officials estimate it to be $23.2 million. The draft decommissioning funding plan may be viewed at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/cotter/index.htm. Public comment will be accepted through Nov. 24. Comments should be faxed to 303-759-05355 or mailed to Steve Tarlton, manager, Radiation Control Program, Colorado Department of Public Health, 4300 S. Cherry Creek Drive, Denver, CO 80246-1530. E-mail comments also can be sent to steve.tarlton@state.co.us

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Denver Water’s proposed rate increases attract the focus of councillor Jeanne Faatz

From The Denver Daily News (Peter Marcus):

The Board of Water Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, as well as again next Wednesday, before voting on the proposal. The plan calls for an average increase for next year of $41 per year for Denver customers, or an increase of about $3.40 per month. The increase would be more than 10 percent for next year and comes as Denver Water officials warn that consumers may see an increase of 31 percent over the next three years. If approved, the increased water rates would take effect in March 2011.

Suburban residential customers would see an average increase of about $2.66 per month, or about $32 per year.

The proposal has already made a splash with Denver City Council members – but not the kind of splash that Denver Water would have liked. In addition to raising concerns over the impact a rate increase could have on constituents, Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz took the opportunity last month to raise questions over the organization of the Denver Water board itself.

Currently, the Board of Water Commissioners is a five-member board that is appointed by the mayor of Denver. Faatz questioned whether it wouldn’t be a better idea to switch to a board that is elected by the people, to perhaps better represent the interests of voters.

“Our same people are paying these rates and they have definitely let us know that they are not interested in increased taxes and we have tried to listen to that and be responsive, and they’re not interested in higher fees, and yet you all just pretty much as an enterprise get to set what you set and charge them,” Faatz told Denver Water officials at a City Council briefing last month.

More Denver Water coverage here.

Mesa State College water seminar Land use change, water use, and water-quality in the Lower Gunnison and Grand Valleys, scheduled for November 15

Here’s the link to the announcement.

From email from Gigi Richards (Mesa State College):

Land use change, water use, and water-quality in the Lower Gunnison and Grand Valleys
Ken Leib, Western Colorado Studies Section Chief and Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

The presentation will focus on water-quality issues associated with irrigation and development in the Lower Gunnsison and Grand Valleys. Specifically the presentation will touch on salinity and selenium issues and the mechanisms that cause mobilization of these constituents. Sedimentary formations and soils derived from these formations will be discussed along with a conceptual model of soil water interaction. Also included will be specific research by the USGS that documents the effect of land use on water-quality and also trends observed in salinity and selenium at selected USGS streamflow gaging stations.

Ken Leib has a B.S. degree in Watershed Management from Colorado State University. He has worked for the USGS in Western Colorado for 15 years. His background includes work on issues related to abandon mines, oil and gas impacts, and salinity and selenium characterization.

Seminars are free and open to the public, no registration necessary.

For the entire seminar series schedule, please see: http://home.mesastate.edu/~grichard/WSS/Seminar2010.html

For more information please contact:

Prof. Gigi Richard, 970.248.1689, grichard@mesastate.edu
Prof. Tamera Minnick, 970.248.1663, tminnick@mesastate.edu

More Gunnison River basin coverage here. More Colorado River basin coverage here.

NIDIS Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment Summary of the Upper Colorado River Basin

Here are Henry Reges’ notes from Tuesday’s webinar.

La Niña update



From CBS4Denver.com (Alan Gionet):

“We’ve got one thing going for us this year which is a strong or fairly strong La Nina,” said Colorado’s state climatologist Nolan Doesken, talking about the scenario of cold sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific. “And if you look at how that’s behaved in the past, that usually favors dry in the Southwest during winter and very dry in Florida and southeastern states, wetter in the Pacific Northwest and then Colorado is sort of in the in-between.” La Nina conditions have traditionally caused slightly warmer temperatures, especially in the southwest part of the state. CBS4 meteorologist Jennifer Zeppelin explained La Nina’s usual effects further. “So it’s colder waters and so most of the moisture and the drier air is really going to be filtering into our area, wheras the moisture is really going to be staying back to the Northwest because of the way the pattern is shifting.”[...]

“La Nina sometimes favors frequent small snows in the northern and central Rockies,” said Doesken. “Fairly favorable from a winter recreation point of view, but not necessarily from a total water supply point of view for next year.” There’s concern that La Nina could exacerbate Colorado’s dry situation. Smaller snows means smaller water loading into the mountains and maybe more dryness. “The thing we’re concerned about though is La Ninas, especially strong ones that last long, tend to bring dry springs with them,” he said.

Energy policy — nuclear: Powertech sues Colorado over new in-situ mining rules



From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

Powertech, which previously called some of the provisions of the rules “fatal” to future in situ uranium mining in Colorado, proposes to open the Centennial Project uranium mine about 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins in Weld County.

The rules, mandated by House Bill 1161, signed by Gov. Bill Ritter in 2008, require Powertech to establish the level of groundwater purity before it begins prospecting for uranium and then establish a similar baseline for water quality before mining begins…

When the company is finished mining, it must fully decontaminate the groundwater and return it to its original purity to ensure the water is no longer polluted. Powertech’s lawsuit calls that rule irrational. Fully cleaning up the groundwater will be too expensive and will require the use of too much water from somewhere else to do the job, the lawsuit claims. And, Powertech claims, making the company completely decontaminate the water will hold the company to a higher standard than any other mining company in Colorado…

The lawsuit alleges [Rep. Randy Fischer, Rep. John Kefalas], Rep. Kathleen Curry and Sen. Gayle Schwartz violated the separation of powers under the state Constitution by writing a March 15 letter to the Mined Land Reclamation Board providing them direction on how to implement HB 1161.

Powertech’s lawsuit claims the state has no authority to require mining companies to test groundwater purity before it begins prospecting for uranium, and it says the state’s rule to show how other mines have reclaimed the groundwater is arbitrary. “These rules require information about other operations permitted at some time in the past or at other locations by an operator unrelated” to Powertech, the lawsuit claims, dismissing the rules as overly burdensome.

More coverage from the Loveland Reporter-Herald (Tom Hacker):

Powertech Uranium Corp., the Canadian uranium prospecting company that plans the Centennial mine, filed suit in Denver District Court claiming rules adopted by regulators during the past two years designed to protect groundwater are “arbitrary and capricious.” But members of Citizens Against Resource Destruction, the group aligned to fight the mine plan, say Powertech’s legal action stands in contrast to its stated commitment to protect the environment. Moreover, Powertech officials had said in published comments they “can live with” the new rules, and they are “not fatal to the project.”[...]

A lawyer representing the Western Mining Action Project said Thursday the lawsuit’s progress would be difficult to predict. “These cases can move quickly or they can take some time,” said Jeff Parsons, a Loveland resident who commutes to the mining watchdog group’s headquarters in Lyons. “It can be a very long, drawn-out process.”

The Weld County rancher who founded the opposition group, and whose land is adjacent to the mine site, said the lawsuit flies in the face of the company’s assurances to protect water resources. “It’s insulting,” Robin Davis said. “Powertech has told us from the very beginning they could and would restore our water. Now that we have regulations in place that will hold them accountable to their word, they sue the state of Colorado for protecting its resources.” The rule-making process took two years. It included a trip to Loveland by members of the mine reclamation board in April to gather public comment.

Conservationists were joined by water utilities, local governments and affected communities in crafting the regulations. Parsons said Powertech’s suit will face obstacles in the legal process as it progresses. “Anytime you sue the state over a regulatory issue, it’s an uphill battle,” he said.

More coverage from Monte Whaley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Denver District Court by Powertech Inc., names the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board and Mike King, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, as defendants. The company claims that rules and regulations adopted in August by the state to protect groundwater against damage created by the “in-situ” method of uranium mining are too restrictive. The lawsuit asks the court to examine the rules adopted by the board to determine whether it violated Colorado statutory rulemaking requirements and the state’s constitution. “We feel some improvements can be made and others are outside the bounds of what the Colorado legislature intended,” said Powertech attorney John Fognani…

[Jeff Parsons, a lawyer for the Western Mining Action Project] said this is the second time in recent weeks the uranium mining industry has sued state mining regulators to weaken groundwater protections. In September, Cotter Corp. sued the state mining board over cleanup orders at Cotter’s Schwartzwalder Mine, which drains into Denver Water supplies on Ralston Creek near Golden. “The uranium mining industry in Colorado is wrong to keep fighting water-quality protections and better public involvement,” Parsons said…

According to the lawsuit, one of the rules requires applicants to document reclamation work at five in-situ mining operations, not necessarily their own. “These rules require information about other operations permitted some time in the past, or at other locations by an operator unrelated to the applicant, and are therefore arbitrary, capricious, prejudicial and void for vagueness.” Another rule authorizes a “discretionary denial of a permit” if the mining reclamation board has “uncertainty” about the feasibility of a reclamation. “This provision is confusing, vague and unnecessary,” since the agency already has the authority, and responsibility, to deny a permit if an applicant can’t reach reclamation standards, according to the lawsuit.

Fognani said Powertech would still be able to meet the requirements of any state permitting process if the rules remain intact. “We just believe some certain improvement can be made,” he said.

More coverage from the Northern Colorado Business Journal. From the article:

The Powertech suit alleges that the rules go too far in restricting the company’s ability to mine uranium. It plans to use an in-situ process that removes underground uranium deposits by injecting a solution into the deposits to loosen them so they can be pumped to the surface. The rules require denial of a permit if a mining company cannot first demonstrate it will restore groundwater quality to baseline quality or better. The suit further alleges that another rule is a “blackball” provision that allows the denial of a reclamation permit because of “one or more past or current violations by an applicant or by an entity or individual who is very loosely related, if at all, to the applicant.” “These provisions are overly broad and punitive and could prevent a good company from conducting a mining operation because of isolated or administrative-type violations that may not even be related to that company,” the suit states.

More nuclear coverage here and here. More HB 08-1161 coverage here.

Arkansas Basin Roundtable meeting recap



From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A request for $75,000 [for Purgatoire River cleanup], which will be matched with $83,000 in local funding sources, will move to the Colorado Water Conservation Board in January, once the application passes the review of the needs assessment committee…

The Trinidad Community Foundation assessed the needs of the Purgatoire River below Trinidad Dam, located two miles southwest of Trinidad. The most critical reach is just east of Interstate 25 and is about one-half mile long, said Jeris Danielson, manager of the Purgatoire Conservancy District, which is contributing $15,000 to the project. “If you’ve driven through there and seen it, you know it’s in sorry shape,” Danielson said.

The channel is filled with Russian olives and tamarisk and inaccessible. Removing the plants could increase the water available to irrigators in the district, he noted. The project seeks to remove the invasive species and revegetate the area, create structures in the river to improve fish habitat and build a handicapped-accessible trail through the area. The trail would connect to an existing park.

Meanwhile the roundtable discussed adding water quality information to the basin-wide model being developed by the CWCB. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

A blueprint for an Arkansas Valley decision support system for water administration and planning was reviewed Wednesday by the Arkansas Basin Roundtable. Colorado Water Conservation Board staff is outlining what steps it will take to develop the model in a feasibility study that will be presented to the board in May. After that, it will take years and millions of dollars to develop the actual model.

“The feedback that we’ve gotten is that water quality is important and should be addressed,” Lindsay Griffith of Brown and Caldwell Engineers told the roundtable. “There is a need for the basin to have real-time tools, and we’re looking at how to integrate water quality into the basin model.” That would be a step forward from the decision support systems the state has developed in other basins. Since the early 1990s, the state has completed models for the Colorado River and Rio Grande basins. The CWCB is finishing a model for the South Platte basin. All of those concentrate on water supply alone…

The statistical platform for the model is still being debated by a technical committee. Some want the model to be based on a computer program developed by Colorado State University that is already used for specific projects in the valley. Others say the model now used by the state would provide consistency across basins.

More IBCC – basin roundtables coverage here and here.

The Pueblo Board of Water Works is still in the hunt for shares of the Bessemer Ditch



From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A new plan, which will be presented at a budget hearing 2 p.m. Tuesday, includes $1.5 million for new Bessemer shares, as well as $550,000 from the water development fund to pay for legal, engineering and capital costs associated with the transfer of the shares. The purchase of Bessemer shares is part of a long-term plan to reduce Pueblo’s dependence on water imports from the Western Slope. Water probably won’t be needed for years to come, so nearly all of the Bessemer contracts include a provision that leases the water back to farmers for the next 20 years.

More Bessemer Ditch coverage here and here.

Veteran’s Day

Take the time to thank a veteran for their service today.

Alamosa High School students get recognition for Rio Grande River data collection project

From the Valley Courier (Julia Wilson):

“We were one of 60 schools from Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Mexico that tested the river for 11 different parameters on the same day and at the same time,” said AHS science teacher Katie Montague. The goal of the study is to create a snap shot of the river from the headwaters all the way down into Mexico. The plan is to continue the project annually to create a history of data that can be analyzed by scientists now and in years to come.

“This is an incredible accomplishment,” Tricia Cortez, Dia del Rio 2010 coordinator with the Rio Grande International Study Center that sponsored the project, said. “We created tremendous excitement among teachers and students throughout the basin, and witnessed a growing awareness and concern for issues impacting our river and watershed. With the help of our many partners throughout the basin, we hope to replicate this event year after year.”

More Rio Grande River basin coverage here.

Flaming Gorge Pipeline: Is there enough water for the project?

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

“In my view, there’s a very high risk there’s not enough water,” Eric Kuhn, manager of the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District, said Friday.

Many residents of southwestern Wyoming fear Million’s Regional Watershed Supply Project could kill the region’s recreation economy centered on Flaming Gorge Reservoir.

Kuhn spoke to some of those residents in Rock Springs in late October to provide them with a western Colorado perspective of the implications of the pipeline…

Long term averages of water flow in the Green River suggest there’s plenty of water in the river system that hasn’t been appropriated for human consumption, Kuhn said. But averaging the river’s declining flows over the last 30 years, “it’s nowhere close,” he said.

If the pipeline were to deplete Flaming Gorge of its water, southwest Wyoming’s recreation economy could take a huge hit, he said. “I think there’s going to be significant opposition in Wyoming, and specifically in southwestern Wyoming, to this project,” Kuhn said.

Million said Kuhn and the Colorado River District have a political agenda aimed at keeping as much water as possible in the Colorado River system rather than letting it be pumped to the Front Range.

More Flaming Gorge Pipeline coverage here and here.