First identification of endocrine disruptors in algae blooms

Here’s the release from the American Chemical Society:

Scientists are reporting for the first time that previously unrecognized substances released by algae blooms have the potential to act as endocrine disruptors, which can interfere with the normal activity of reproductive hormones. The effect is not caused by microcystin toxins, long recognized as potentially harmful to humans and aquatic animals, but as yet unidentified substances. As a result, the scientists are calling for a revision of environmental monitoring programs to watch for these new substances. The findings appear in ACS’s journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Theodore Henry and colleagues note that harmful blooms of toxin-producing algae, called cyanobacteria or blue-green algae, occur in waters throughout the world and are a growing health and environmental concern. The algae produce microcystins that can harm fish, plants, and human health. Possible human health effects include skin rashes, fever, and liver damage. Although scientists have focused mainly on microcystins’ biological effects, new evidence suggests that other potentially harmful substances also may be present.

In an effort to find out, Emily Rogers supervised by Theodore Henry, and co-authors Michael Twiner, Julia Gouffon, Jackson McPherson, Gregory Boyer, Gary Sayler, and Steven Wilhelm turned to zebrafish, often used as a stand-in for people and other animals in laboratory experiments. They found that something released by algae, other than microcystins, had an endocrine disrupting effect on the fish. The report recommends that environmental protection agencies may need to update monitoring programs for algae blooms to include potential endocrine-disrupting substances.

Energy policy — oil and gas: The State Land Board pulls 3 tracts from lease sale

From the Summit Daily News (Janice Kurbjun):

Melissa Yoder of the Colorado State Land Board said two of the parcels were adjacent to Antero Reservoir and were removed at the request of Denver Water. The third tract was near a Gold Medal fishery on the Middle Fork of the South Platte, and Colorado Division of Wildlife officials advised it be removed.

“The South Park Basin is incredibly important for our drinking water and rich in wildlife resources,” said Matt Garrington, program advocate for Environment Colorado, in a press release. “The Colorado State Land Board made a wise decision today recognizing that some areas are too sensitive to be drilled where the full impacts are not yet fully known.”

The Land Board commissioners “asked its staff to go back through the oil and gas auction list to ensure the Division of Wildlife didn’t have any additional stipulations to put on tracts as it related to specific wildlife habitat impacts,” Yoder said.

She added that if there are concerns, leases receive stipulations to accommodate the habitat issues identified. In that area, mule deer and pronghorn could be affected by drilling operations.

“The State Land Board will auction lands with high wildlife values, such as severe winter range for mule deer and pronghorn and greater sage grouse habitat,” said Suzanne O’Neill, executive director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, in the press release. “It is absolutely critical that the State Land Board confer with the Division of Wildlife about how to best avoid, or at least mitigate, impacts to wildlife habitat.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Burlington: 23rd annual Central Plains Irrigation Conference and Equipment Exposition in Feb. 22-23

From the Holyoke Enterprise:

All events will be held at the Burlington Community Center at 340 S. 14th St…

Speaking at the general session on Tuesday is Craig Beyrouty, Colorado State University. He will cover “The Future of Global Food Supplies.” On Wednesday, Dick Wolfe, Colorado Division of Water Resources, will talk about “Water Issues in Colorado.”

Technical sessions topics are “Limited/Deficit Irrigation,” “Irrigation Scheduling,” “Subsurface Drip Irrigation,” “Irrigation System and Pumping Plant Maintenance,” “Center Pivot Sprinkler Automation” and “Energy Crops for Irrigation.”

The trade show will be open at various times throughout both days. It will close at 10:30 p.m. on the second day. It is open to the general public and there is no admission charge for it.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Save Our South Park Water and the South Park Coalition are in opposition to more exploration in South Park

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

A 1,000-square-mile grassland basin between Pikes Peak and the Collegiate mountains, South Park holds headwaters of the South Platte River. In 2009, it was declared a national heritage area, one of three in Colorado and 49 in the United States. On Tuesday, Houston-based El Paso Corp. confirmed it has drilled one well in South Park and holds government permits to drill two more. Plans to drill up to 300 wells in South Park and install a gas pipeline depend on whether enough gas is found, El Paso Corp. spokesman Richard Wheatley said…

“It would be nice if the federal government, State Land Board, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Park County, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission would start talking to each other,” [Eddie Kochman, a former state fisheries chief] said. “It would be nice if Denver Water, instead of sitting in the bleachers, would take an active role.”

Denver Water officials who provide water to 1.3 million metro-area residents “are not experts on oil and gas exploration or fracking,” director of operations Brian Good said. “We’re water folks. We’ve got to trust that the regulatory bodies are doing their job in reviewing applications and assigning permits.”[...]

South Park residents Tuesday met with Park County authorities to consider using a county trust fund to conduct their own baseline study of water resources. Some say they’re not opposed to limited drilling if it could really be done safely — with none of the damage seen elsewhere around Colorado.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: The Department of Interior proposes a settlement of environmental organizations’ lawsuit over leasing terms

From the Associated Press (Cathy Proctor) via the Denver Business Journal:

The review settles two lawsuits that environmental groups filed in 2009 over the federal government’s rules for commercial-scale oil shale operations, Salazar said. The government hasn’t issued any commercial leases for oil shale production under the 2008 rules. Nor will the review change rules governing existing or proposed leases for oil shale research, a federal spokesman said. The rules for commercial oil shale operations were put forward in the last weeks of President George W. Bush’s administration. They changed oil-shale plans by the Bureau of Land Management, an agency of Salazar’s Interior Department, in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The agreement to review the 2008 rules in coming months was accepted by plaintiffs in the suits, said Kate Zimmerman, an attorney with the Rocky Mountain regional office of the National Wildlife Federation. The federation was one of the 13 environmental groups that were party to the two lawsuits. The review will look at the amount of water available for use in oil shale operations; potential impacts on federal lands, wildlife and watersheds, and the amount of royalties that oil shale production should pay, Salazar said.

The U.S. Geological Survey, another Interior agency, also will analyze the amount and quality of water available to better understand the groundwater and surface water systems that might be affected by commercial-scale oil shale operations, he said. “Oil shale is an important resource for the U.S.,” said Salazar, a former U.S. senator from Colorado. “We need to move forward and examine the possibility of developing oil shale as part of our national portfolio, but we need to do it in a smart way.”

More coverage from The State Colunm (U.S. Senator Michael Bennet):

“This announcement is a welcome step forward in our efforts to ensure thoughtful, responsible development of Colorado’s natural resources while protecting the land, water and way of life we in the West hold dear. Our approach to oil shale development should be both measured and responsible given the potential effects extraction could have on Colorado’s precious water supplies, farmers, ranchers and local communities in the arid West. While we should allow for research and development to proceed, we must also be mindful of the need to protect our land and water and provide a fair return to American taxpayers.

“Beyond today’s announcement of a path forward for commercial leasing rules, I am also pleased to hear that scientists will undertake a full analysis of oil shale in the context of Colorado’s water supply, considering the importance of this precious resource to farmers and local communities.”

More coverage from Sheila Kumar writing for the Associated Press (via Bloomberg). From the article:

The proposed settlement filed in federal court in Denver would give the Bureau of Land Management more discretion when awarding oil shale leases and would remove the 5 percent royalty rates approved by the Bush administration for mining oil shale on public land. The lawsuits by environmentalists challenged the rate as too low. Little is known about the potential environmental impact oil shale development will have on water and wildlife resources, a fact highlighted by the lawsuits. The settlement proposes requiring environmental reviews of commercial development, including impacts on air and water quality and water supplies. “We’re very pleased with the secretary’s emphasis on the importance of water as we move forward with the research and discussion,” said Bill Midcap, the renewable energy development director at the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.

More from U.S. Representative Jared Polis via The State Column:

“The Department of Interior has taken a well reasoned approach to the future of Oil Shale on public lands with their announcement to take a closer look at how this form of energy could affect our precious and dwindling western water supplies,” said Polis. “The Department has struck a positive balance between researching future potential and ensuring that long term water needs and water impacts will be taken into account before companies invest dollars or the public invests it’s natural resources.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Pueblo Board of Water Works meeting recap

From The Pueblo chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The board voted to enter a $1 million contract with Deere & Ault Consultants to provide engineering for its Water Court application to change the use of shares it has purchased on Bessemer Ditch. In 2009, the water board bought about 27 percent of the largest ditch in Pueblo County for $55 million. Nearly all of the Bessemer Ditch water is being leased back to farmers, but eventually the water rights need to be changed to allow for municipal and other uses in order for the water board to make full use of it. The board anticipates filing an application for the change in late 2012.

The $1 million contract with Deere & Ault covers four major areas, explained Alan Ward, water resources administrator:

Analysis to quantify the historic use of the water, including consumptive use, return flows and stream depletions.
- A description of future uses for those same areas.
- Conditions that would be needed to protect other water rights on the Arkansas River.
- A method of ditch operation that protects other Bessemer Ditch shareholders.

“We have committed to the Bessemer Ditch and the St. Charles Water District to consult with them on specific areas of concern and addressing those issues,” Ward said.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Pueblo Board of Water Works Tuesday agreed to lease a little more than 10,000 acre-feet of water to other users in the Arkansas River, bringing in about $500,000 of additional revenue. The water board typically sells water from supplies it owns, but probably will not be able to use in the current year, through a competitive bid process. The leases do not include the $7 million in revenue projected from leases to Xcel, Aurora, Black Hills and others through longer-term contracts this year…

Prices for water that will be sold through the leases this year range from $42 per acre-foot for the Fort Lyon Canal, the valley’s largest ditch, to $400 for Holcim Inc., which has a cement plant near Florence. The largest amount paid was $144,000 by the Colorado Water Protective and Development Association, which augments return flows to the Arkansas River from depletions by both municipal and agricultural wells…

No water from the Bessemer Ditch, which is 27 percent owned by the water board, will be used in the leases. That water, under the terms of the 2009 sales of shares, is first offered to farmers on the Bessemer for the cost of assessments. Nearly all accepted that offer this year, Ward said.

More Pueblo Board of Water Works coverage here.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project update

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Tomorrow afternoon (Feb. 16) around 1 p.m., we will bump up our releases from Ruedi Reservoir to the Lower Fryingpan-River by about 25 cfs. This will put approximately 102 cfs at the gage below Ruedi Dam. The reason for the increase this early in the season is due to the current snow pack projections. It is possible we could have a run-off season similar to last year’s. We are moving some water from the reservoir now in anticipation of above-average run-off flows in late spring…be sure to check out our webpages at http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/ruedi.html.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Aspinall Unit update

From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):

The Colorado River Basin Forecast Center has just issued the February mid-month April through July runoff forecast. The forecast for Blue Mesa Reservoir remained at 775,000 acre-feet or 108 percent of average. In order to assure space in Blue Mesa Reservoir to manage the runoff, Reclamation will again increase reservoir releases. To accomplish this, we plan to increase Crystal releases by 300 cfs, from 800 cfs to a total release of 1100 cfs, on Friday, February 18th. If you have any questions, please reply to this email or call 970-248-0600 and ask for Erik Knight or Dan Crabtree.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.

Monument: Board of trustees meeting recap

From the Tri-Lakes Tribune (Lisa Collacott):

The town of Monument unanimously approved four resolutions pertaining to water at its most recent board of trustees meeting.

To establish a contract with El Paso County Water Authority and make the name change to Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority.

To participate in the Colorado-Wyoming Project Participation agreement.

To sign on the Super Ditch Project Participation agreement.

To sign on the Southern Delivery System Project Participation agreement.

Monument has been paying dues to the EPCWA and PPRWA. Recently the two water authorities merged and stayed with the name of PPRWA. The dues to the water authority for 2011 will cost the town $2,950. “It’s a good thing for the town. We were paying dues to two authorities and there really was no need for two authorities,” said Rich Landreth, public works director…

The Board of Trustees also approved the resolution for the Super Ditch Participation Agreement. The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District is considering a plan to lease water used for agricultural purposes to cities. The town of Monument has been part of the project for several years.

The final resolution approved was the Southern Delivery System Project Participation Agreement. The project would allow members to negotiate, as a group or individually, the delivery of water through the SDS with Colorado Springs Utilities.

More Arkansas River basin coverage here.

2010 Colorado gubernatorial election transition: Interview with Colorado commissioner of agriculture John Salazar

The Fence Post is running a interview with Mr. Salazar that lays out his vision for the department and agriculture under a Hickenlooper administration. The interview is from The Greeley Tribune. Here’s an excerpt:

Tribune — Water has to be among your priorities.

Salazar — I’ve been involved with water all my life. I served on the Rio Grande Water Conservation District when AWDI (American Water Development Inc.) was trying to take San Luis Valley water out of the valley. We need to find ways to protect water for agriculture production. There’s a lot of new technology coming … but right now most of that is very expensive. However, as long as cities don’t use water to consumption, we can recycle it and use it again and again.

Tribune — The governor has indicated he may be in favor of the Northern Integrated Supply Project in northern Colorado. Where do you stand?

Salazar — I’ve come out in favor of it, but I want to see if it protects water for agriculture. I will support it as long as it doesn’t dry up agriculture. I live and breathe agriculture.

More 2010 Colorado election coverage here.

IBCC strategy report public meeting February 25, statewide Roundtable summit March 3

From email from IBCC Director John Stulp:

As the new IBCC director, I am looking forward to a lively discussion regarding the report the IBCC sent to former Governor Ritter and Governor Hickenlooper. As part of my new charge, Im seeking to engage not only the roundtables, a process that is underway, but also a wider set of the water community on this emerging framework. My goal is to have enough information on this framework that we can have a productive conversation at the March 3rd Statewide Roundtable Summit to improve the document with a geographically and politically diverse group of people in the room.

I have asked CWCB staff and the IBCC facilitator Heather Bergman, in support of the IBCC, to coordinate a public input process. You are officially invited to provide feedback at the facilitated public forum on February 25th 1-4, Glenwood Springs Community Center, 100 Wolfsohn Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO.

At the meeting, participants will go over the IBCC framework, participate in a survey that will focus the discussion, and then have small group discussion on framework elements.

This information will be incorporated in the feedback for the Statewide Roundtable Summit on March 3rd.

For those not able to attend the Feb. 25th meeting, written feedback can be provided through the Feedback Survey and Comment Opportunity, available at the Statewide Roundtable Summit webpage in the additional information section on the right side of the page. Additional comment emails or attachments may be sent to Viola.Bralish@state.co.us, but all are encouraged to take the survey. Surveys and written public feedback are due February 24th.

The March 3rd Statewide Roundtable Summit at the Doubletree Hotel Denver – North, 8773 Yates Drive, Westminster, CO 80031. Participants in the Summit are expected to participate in one of the above forums first. Registration is $25 for non-roundtable members to cover conference costs. Please register by clicking here.

In order to download a copy of the report, or hear IBCC members discussion with Governor Ritter, please visit the Statewide Roundtable Summit webpage.

I look forward to learning from all of you.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Reclamation’s fiscal year 2012 budget request — $1.0 billion

Here’s the release from the Bureau of Reclamation (Dan DuBray):

President Barack Obama’s FY 2012 budget request released today includes a total of $1,018.4 billion for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. The President’s request reflects his continuing commitment to be prudent with taxpayer dollars while setting priorities for spending. The 2012 budget reflects many difficult budget choices, cutting worthy programs in order to fund the highest priority requirements, and advancing efforts to shrink Federal spending while being mindful of ongoing opportunities.

“The President’s budget proposal promotes fiscal responsibility while maximizing the community, economic, and environmental benefits of Reclamation’s projects and programs by promoting certainty, sustainability, and resiliency with respect to the use of water resources,” Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor said today. “The President’s proposal continues to ensure the reliable and efficient delivery of water and production of renewable, clean hydropower, but also reflects the tough choices we must make in order to address the critical budget deficit.”

The budget emphasizes Reclamation’s core mission to address the water needs of a growing population in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner; and assisting States, Tribes and local entities in solving water resource issues. It also emphasizes the operation and maintenance of Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic and reliable manner; ensuring systems and safety measures are in place to protect the public and Reclamation facilities. Reclamation’s funding request addresses Administration, Departmental, and Reclamation priorities. These priorities include Ecosystem Restoration, Renewable Energy, Cooperative Landscape Conservation, Water Conservation and the WaterSMART Program, Strengthening Tribal Nations and Youth Recruitment activities.

The President’s budget proposal for Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources account of $805.2 million includes $398.5 million for water and energy, land, and fish and wildlife resource management and development activities. This funding provides for planning, construction, water conservation activities, management of Reclamation lands including recreation and actions to address the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife. The request also emphasizes reliable water delivery and power generation by requesting $406.7 million to fund operation, maintenance and rehabilitation activities at Reclamation facilities, including dam safety. Reclamation is committed to working with water and power users, States, Tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to address and meet the mix of water resource needs in 2012 and beyond. Specifics of the budget request include:

Ecosystem Restoration – In carrying out its mission Reclamation has a responsibility to focus on the protection and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments affected by its operations. Some highlights of Reclamation’s Ecosystem Restoration activities, many of which support the President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, and are also needed to fulfill Endangered Species Act recovery programs, include:

- Of the $154.6 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP), a significant portion is for ecosystem restoration including $34.8 million for the Red Bluff Pumping Plant and Fish Screen and $10.5 million for the Trinity River Restoration Program.

- $18.3 million for the Multi-Species Conservation Program within the lower Colorado River basin to provide long-term Endangered Species Act compliance for river operations.

- $20.0 million for Endangered Species Act Recovery implementation programs including $11.0 million to implement the Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program and $6.2 million for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Programs.

- $18.6 million for the Klamath Project, of which a significant portion is for environmental protection and restoration; to continue funding for studies and initiatives related to improving water supplies to meet the competing demands of agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge; and to address environmental needs in the Klamath River basin including endangered species recovery and other restoration activities.

- $39.7 million for the California Bay-Delta Program for categories aligned with the Interim Federal Action Plan are as follows: $26.2 million to address degraded Bay-Delta ecosystem activities; $11.5 million for smarter water supply and use; and $2.0 million for a renewed Federal-State partnership.

- $53.1 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund to continue funding a variety of activities to restore fish and wildlife habitat and populations in the Central Valley Project service area of California.
$23.6 million for the Middle Rio Grande Project, of which a significant portion is to support environmental activities developed through the ESA Collaborative Program.

- $17.8 million for the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project for implementation of the Biological Opinions for the Federal Columbia River Power System.

Renewable Energy and Cooperative Landscape Conservation – Reclamation is supporting the Department’s integrated strategy for responding to climate change impacts:

- Reclamation is working with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Energy and its Power Marketing Administrations to determine the climate change effects to hydropower generation.

- $7.0 million will support both the continued implementation of Reclamation’s West-wide Climate Risk Assessments and co-coordination of two Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, under Reclamation’s Basin Study Program; and Reclamation’s Science and Technology Program supporting research improving our capability to manage, conserve, and expand water supplies in response to multiple stresses in the West, including drought and climate change.

The WaterSMART Program – The FY 2012 budget for Reclamation proposes $58.9 million for the WaterSMART Program – Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow – to assist local communities in stretching water supplies and improving water management. The WaterSMART Program will help to improve water management by encouraging voluntary water banks, reducing demand, implementing water conservation and Title XVI water reuse projects, and taking action to improve energy efficiency, promote renewable energy and reduce environmental conflicts. Reclamation will also partner with States, Tribes and local entities under the WaterSMART Program to develop the WaterSMART Clearinghouse website as a resource to provide leadership and assistance in coordinating and integrating water conservation and sustainable water strategies.

Strengthening Tribal Nations – The FY 2012 budget continues support of tribal nations through Reclamation’s request of $12.8 million for the Animas La Plata Project (Colorado, New Mexico) to continue construction and implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000; and $7.0 million for the Native American Affairs Program to continue support of Reclamation activities with Indian tribes. These activities include providing technical support for Indian water-rights settlements; assisting tribal governments to protect, manage and develop water and related resources; and supporting Indian self-governance and self-determination programs.

Additionally, the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery, Klamath, Central Valley Project Trinity River Division, Yakima and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement projects mentioned above under Ecosystem Restoration and five of the eight authorized rural water projects (discussed below) benefit Tribal nations in recognition of their long-standing treaty rights.

Further, in FY 2012 Reclamation will enhance support of tribal nations, most notably through the establishment of a new Indian Water Rights Settlements account in response to the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which authorizes and establishes requirements for four water rights settlements benefiting the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona, the Crow Tribe in Montana, the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico, and the Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos in New Mexico. Reclamation is requesting $51.5 million for the account with $26.7 million to begin implementation of the four new settlements. The new account would also include $24.8 million for the implementation of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, for which mandatory funding is provided under Title VII of the Act and appropriations are authorized by P.L. 111-11, of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is a key element of the Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement on the San Juan River in New Mexico.

Other Project Highlights include -

- $35.5 million for ongoing construction on seven rural water projects in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota and as well as operation and maintenance on completed tribal features for two of the projects. Five of the projects directly benefit tribal nations.

- $83.7 million for the Dam Safety Program to continue dam safety risk management and risk reduction activities throughout Reclamation’s inventory of high- and significant-hazard dams. Corrective actions are planned to continue or start at a number of facilities. A major focus continues to be modifications at Folsom Dam (California).

- $25.9 million for Site Security to continue Reclamation’s on-going site-security program that includes physical security upgrades at key facilities, guards and patrols, anti-terrorism program activities and security risk assessments.

The Bureau of Reclamation throughout the 17 western states is committed to helping meet the many water challenges of the West. A driving force behind Bureau initiatives is resolution of water issues that will benefit future generations.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The funds [request for the Arkansas Valley Conduit] total $2.958 million and are included in the Department of Interior’s budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. “We have to finish up the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) study before we can proceed with the construction,” said Kara Lamb, public information officer for the Bureau of Reclamation at Loveland. “We’re still in the very beginning stages.”

The Environmental Impact Statement for the conduit is on track to be completed by late 2012 or early 2013. It will determine the corridor the conduit will follow along its 130-mile route from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads, as well as other details of the project…

“The Arkansas Valley Conduit is more than a priority,” said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo. “It is necessary to provide and protect water supplies for more than 40 communities along the Arkansas Valley.”

More Reclamation coverage here. More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

2011 Colorado legislation: HB 11-1068 withdrawn

According to Joe Stone writing in The Mountain Mail the bill has been withdrawn. Here is Mr. Stone’s recap of a recent Upper Arkansas Water Conservation District meeting. From the article:

District engineer Ivan Walter reported the Temporary Water Transfer legislation, House Bill 1068, was recently withdrawn from consideration after numerous objections.

One reason for objections, Walter said, is that most entities in the state water community consider the [Hydrolocical Institutional Model] inappropriate for determining consumptive use under widely varying conditions. It was developed by Kansas to quantify water depleted from the Arkansas River by wells in Colorado. Terry Scanga, UAWCD general manager, said the model contains presumptive numbers that could cause injury to water right holders. Because lower valley right holders rely on return flow from upstream use, inaccurate numbers could affect amount and timing of return flow, Scanga said. With a change of water right under a temporary transfer, faulty numbers could cause more water to be transferred than was historically used. Scanga explained that could lead to premature calls by holders of senior rights in the lower valley. Premature calls, he said, would cause injury by reducing the amount of water available for junior right holders in the upper valley.

He said a more robust model would have statewide benefits and other entities have expressed interest in supporting the project, including Pueblo Board of Water Works, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “If we don’t do this,” Scanga said, “it will cost us several hundred thousand dollars in opposition costs.”[...]

Hydrologist Jord Gertson reported ice caused gauges to stop functioning properly at Cottonwood Lake and Poncha and Texas creeks. He said the fill rate at Boss Lake dropped from 20 acre feet per month in December to 15 acre feet in January. He said O’Haver Reservoir lost about 4 acre feet of water in January. Gertson said backup equipment was purchased for weather stations and stream gauges and will enable the district to replace any component that might go down, thereby minimizing data loss. Gertson updated directors about offering provisional stream, reservoir and weather data via the district website at http://uawcd.com/water_resources.php.

In other business, directors:

• Learned the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation approved $285,000 for high-elevation data collection platforms and wants to highlight success of platforms already installed within the district.

• Approved financial reports indicating a district general fund balance of $11,985.12 and an Enterprise Committee general fund balance of $59,764.09.

• Heard an augmentation report indicating the state approved applications for 251.81 acre feet of augmentation water.

• Learned about House Bill 11-1066, which would grant some priority to seep ditch rights in continuous use at least 25 years.

• Learned of efforts by Colorado Historical Society to list irrigation ditches on the historic register which would complicate maintenance and operation of irrigation equipment on those ditches.

• Approved $1,000 annual district membership in Family Farm Alliance because the organization provides contacts and information about federal legislation.

• Agreed to oppose a Catlin Canal Co. application for change of use for as much as 40 percent of the company ditch shares.

• Learned about progress on the Arkansas Basin Decision Support System, including need to study evaporation from undecreed reservoirs estimated as much as 30,000 acre feet per year.

• Voted to enter Water Court case No. 10CW98 involving exchanges on Beaver Creek by the City of Victor, Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Co.

• Learned the district reached an agreement in principle with owners of Willow Creek Ranch near Leadville including protections for district water.

• Received feedback from directors about the recent Colorado Water Congress annual convention.

• Heard a legal report from attorney Julianne Woldridge regarding district applications and court decrees.

Here’s an essay from Dave Miller about the legislation. Mr. Miller writes, “Colorado’s HB1068 is the product of Balkanized single-basin water planning.” More from the article:

U.S. Department of Interior reports indicate Colorado has beneficially used only about 2.2 million acre-feet of its annual 3.87 million acre-feet of Colorado River Compact entitlements since the 1970s. This means Colorado still has major interstate rights that should be developed as soon as possible for urban growth. As a primary headwater state and water source for 11 down-river states, Colorado has several innovative high-altitude renewable water and energy storage sites and solutions for state and regional needs. This breakthrough high storage concept is described in Central Colorado Project’s (CCP) White Paper, dated April 4, 2007, and its applicable U.S. Patent No. US 7,866,919 B2, dated Jan. 11, 2011.

To date, Colorado’s statewide water planning entities — Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority and the Interbasin Compact Committee — have not shown interest in Colorado’s integrated high-altitude storage options for statewide and regional water and energy needs. This skepticism would, in all likelihood, change to enthusiasm if preliminary modeling were used to confirm the extraordinary economic and environmental advantages of high-altitude reservoirs for Colorado and the southwestern region.

More coverage from Patrick Malone writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

State Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, withdrew HB1068 to give a task force time to develop a better approach to long-term leasing and fallowing of land. Sen. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, was the bill’s Senate sponsor. The bill would have established a pilot program that allowed agricultural water-rights holders downstream from Pueblo Dam in the Lower Arkansas basin to lease up to one-third of their holdings to municipalities for up to two 40-year terms, meanwhile, fallowing the land it would have watered. It also would have granted authority to the state engineer to approve water transfers presently under the purview of state Water Courts. Fischer said the bill’s intent was to establish a long-term leasing mechanism so agricultural holders of water rights could continue to reap financial benefits for their rights without forfeiting them. “I was trying to solve a very complex issue about how we in the future as a state are planning to be able to meet our water needs as the population of our urban areas increases without having the default be permanent ag dryup, or buy-and-dry, as they call it,” Fischer said.

Fischer said he proposed to give the state engineer authority over water transfers to make the process more accessible. He said going through the existing channels in Water Court to establish leasing arrangements is cost-prohibitive to most holders of water rights. Last week, John Stulp, Gov. John Hickenlooper’s appointee to head the Interbasin Compact Committee, visited the Arkansas Basin Roundtable and the formation of a task force to review leasing of water rights developed. So instead of moving forward with his proposal, Fischer said allowing the task force to fully study how best to approach leases would be prudent…

[Arkansas Basin Roundtable member Bud O’Hara] said the proposed pilot project that could have stretched into 80 years of leasing represented too long a time frame. He said granting authority over water transfers to the state engineer might not be seamless, considering turnover in that post that typically follows election of a new governor. “There is an existing process for getting concerns reviewed through Water Court, and an opportunity to comment,” O’Hara said. “We just want them to use that process rather than circumvent it by going directly to the state engineer.”

More Dave Miller coverage here and here. More Upper Ark coverage here.

Snowpack News

Bump and update From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Despite dry conditions during January, snowpack totals throughout the Arkansas River watershed remained near average at 103 percent by Feb. 1…

Since December, snowpack in the southern mountains of the Arkansas River basin have remained at about 60 percent of average, while the Upper Arkansas snowpack declined by 21 percent. The Brumley snowpack telemetry or SNOTEL operated by the conservation service recorded the best snowpack percentage in the basin at 155 percent of average and 161 percent of the February 2010 reading. The Fremont Pass SNOTEL reported the deepest snowpack in the area at 54 inches with a water content of 13.4 inches. The Trout Creek Pass station recorded the least amount of snow with 8 inches – equivalent to 1.3 inches of water. Statewide, Colorado snowpack reduced during January from 136 percent of average to 117 percent. The east side of the Sangre de Cristo Range recorded the lowest Feb. 1 snowpack since 2006. Cucharas and Huerfano sub-basins are at 60 percent of average, and the Purgatoire basin is at 64 percent.

Stream flow forecasts based on snowpack predict good flow in the Upper Arkansas Valley with Chalk Creek forecast at 130 percent of average at Nathrop and the Arkansas River at Salida predicted to carry 111 percent of average volume. Water storage at 13 major Arkansas Valley reservoirs is 91 percent of average, matching the Feb. 1, 2010 percentage. Lowest snowpack percentage is 80 percent of average in the Rio Grande basin. Combined San Juan, Animas, Dolores and San Miguel basins are reported at 106 percent of average. Lowest stream flow forecasts in Colorado are for streams originating in the Sangre de Cristos where volume is expected to be 40-80 percent of average. Flow on the Rio Grande and San Juan rivers is predicted below average for 2011.

Gunnison basin snowpack is 126 percent of average, and the Colorado River and North Platte basin snowpack totals exceed 130 percent of average.

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

Snowpack in the high-elevation mountains above Middle Park now ranges from 111 percent to 170 percent of the 30-year average (1971-2001). Last-year snowpack at this time was only about 65 percent of average. “We’re just lucky this year,” said Mark Volt of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Kremmling Field Office…

Snow density is averaging 25 percent, which means that for a foot of snow, there are 3 inches of water. “This is pretty dense snow for this time of year,” Volt said.

From the Leadville Herald-Democrat:

According to the latest snow surveys, conducted by the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado’s statewide snowpack decreased from 136 percent of average on Jan. 1 to 117 percent of average on Feb. 1. Decreases in snowpack percentages were measured in all of the major river basins of the state, according to Allen Green, state conservationist with the NRCS. While this year’s snowpack is considerably better than last year at this time, the current statewide percentage ties that measured on this date back in 2009. Those basins across southwestern Colorado experienced the driest conditions during January, recording only about one quarter of their normal precipitation for the month. Snowpack percentages decreased by 38 percentage points in the combined San Juan, Animas, Dolores and San Miguel basins, declining from 144 percent of average on Jan. 1, to 106 percent of average on Feb. 1. Similar decreases were also measured in the Gunnison Basin, decreasing from 158 percent of average a month ago, to only 125 percent of average…

Even after experiencing a dry January, the current snowpack remains well ahead of that measured a year ago at this time. With the exception of southwestern Colorado, the 2011 readings are consistently well-above those of last year. Statewide totals are currently tracking at 137 percent of those from a year ago.

Boulder: City council is considering changes in city’s drought response plan

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Heath Urie):

While the plan provides a number of ways for the city to regulate water during a drought — including restricting lawn irrigation, filling swimming pools and washing vehicles — a proposed change would give the city manager the ability to reduce water budgets during a drought.

Water budgets are set by the city based on the type of property and its expected water needs each month. Most single-family homes have a budget of 7,000 gallons a month, plus an allotment for outdoor water use. Commercial customers may have water budgets set based on average monthly use, three-month averages or custom evaluations.

Water budgets are connected to a tiered pricing structure, which the city began using in 2007 as a way to encourage water conservation. The rates include five tiers — ranging from $2.18 per 1,000 gallons to $14.50 per 1,000 gallons — depending on how much users exceed their monthly water budget.

The city’s drought strategy calls for reducing the overall amount of water that Boulder uses — including residential, commercial and government uses — by up to 40 percent during the most extreme water shortages. A “moderate” drought, the lowest level of an official drought declaration, calls for citywide water reductions of 8 percent.

Allowing the city manager to reduce water budgets during a drought is designed to be an easy way of reducing overall water consumption citywide. Additional regulations that are still in the draft stages would impose additional fines on customers who repeatedly go over their water budget during a drought.

More conservation coverage here.

Is the Colorado Water Conservation Board serious about conservation as a wedge in Colorado’s water supply gap curve?

Here’s an essay about Colorado’s water supply gap from Heather Hansen writing for the High Country News weblog The Range. She echos the points made at the recent Interbasin Compact Committee meeting by Melinda Kassen and Taylor Hawes. Colorado utilities and other water users should get serious now about conservation since it’s the easiest and cheapest of the four strategies outlined in the IBCC strategy document. Here’s an excerpt:

Water and growth in Colorado have been the subjects of a few interesting studies released recently: “Colorado’s Water Supply Future/State Water Supply Initiative 2010,” produced by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), and the “Cost of New Water on the Front Range” which came out of the Western Water Policy Program at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Natural Resources Law Center…

Where the studies drastically diverge is how to address our growing thirst. In an abundance of bar graphs and pie charts, the CWCB suggests a number of somewhat nebulous solutions involving inter-basin and trans-basin transfers (when water is moved from one river basin to another) and agricultural transfers (a popular stopgap technique used today in which farmers sell their water rights to urban areas). The huge future demand is also “forcing authorities to consider building new water storage and pipeline projects,” says the study…

In contrast, while the CU study makes no hard and fast recommendations, it concludes that utility-sponsored water conservation programs are the least expensive new water supply strategy for Colorado’s Front Range. Conservation efforts result in an additional one acre-foot of water (326,000 gallons) for an average of $5,200, compared to $16,200 per acre-foot for new supply projects and $14,000 per acre-foot for major water transfers…

Even if we could afford it, cost is only one consideration in meeting future water demands. Why else might we pursue conservation as an important adaptation strategy? Because we need our farmers. Colorado has 36,500 farms. We grow millet, potatoes, cabbage, onions, pinto beans, peaches, apples, cantaloupe, and produce more than one billion eggs per year. There are 2.6 million head of cattle here, and 36,000 bee colonies producing 2.7 million pounds of honey every year. Agriculture contributes over $7 billion to the Colorado state economy annually. More than 105,000 jobs in Colorado are related to agribusiness.

Despite this bounty, since Colorado law allows water rights to be bought, sold and transferred, it’s a common practice for cities to buy farmers’ water. According to Kenney, the Colorado-Big Thompson project along the northern Front Range saw agricultural ownership of water shares dropped from 85 to 47 percent from 1957 to 1998 as growing Front Range cities bought agricultural water. If farmers make more by selling water allocations than by farming, then we’re not going to have many farmers in the future.

Conservation doesn’t have to be a scary. We don’t need to start issuing summons for lengthy showers. We could start with the simple fact that roughly half of municipal water deliveries in the summer are for landscape irrigation, specifically the very-thirsty Kentucky blue grass. We could plant native and drought-resistant plants instead. Inside our homes, there are plenty of opportunities to improve efficiency; a leaky toilet, for example, can waste 36,500 gallons of water per year.

Of course enforcing a statewide conservation standard would be hugely difficult to implement since planning is a local government responsibility today.

More conservation coverage here.

CWCB: The board unanimously declares its intent to appropriate an instream flow water right on a 16.5-mile stretch of the San Miguel River

From The Telluride Watch (Karen James):

Both the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the US Bureau of Land Management recommended that the appropriation be declared one year ago when the CWCB met for its January 2010 meeting. At that time, however, the board voted to delay the action for another year in order to allow water users time to develop plans for off-stem water storage in the watershed.

The federal agencies made the recommendation primarily to prevent three dwindling species of native fish – flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and roundtail chub – from being listed for federal protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.

“That kicks off our notice and comment procedure,” said Linda Bassi, chief of the CWCB’s Stream and Lake Protection Section, noting that any entity choosing to oppose the instream flow has until March 31 to file a notice to contest the action.

Here’s the list of streams for appropriations from the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

More San Miguel watershed coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: The Sheep Mountain Alliance files lawsuit over the licensing procedure for the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium/vanadium mill

From The Telluride Daily Planet (Katie Klingsporn):

The lawsuit argues that Colorado regulators violated federal and state laws and ignored dangers to western Colorado’s clean air and water when they issued the permit.

“Sheep Mountain Alliance exhausted all remedies before we decided to file this lawsuit,” said Linda Miller, a member of Sheep Mountain Alliance’s board of directors, in a release. “We participated in the approval process but our concerns were not addressed. We’re disappointed that the state did not issue a decision that would have protected the public interest and we must now rely on the district court to uphold the law.”

The license permits Energy Fuels to construct a uranium/vanadium mill roughly 12 miles west of Naturita in Paradox Valley — a lonely valley of redrock walls where the Dolores River flows. The mill, which would be situated on roughly 17 acres of land, could process up to 500 tons of material per day. As planned, the facility would run 24 hours a day, almost every day of the year, with up to 85 employees, Energy Fuels has said.

Gary Steele, senior vice president of corporate marketing at Energy Fuels, said the company has not had a chance to fully review the lawsuit. “We’re reviewing it, and we’re highly confident that the record we’ve built over the last many months will see us through any challenges that come at us,” he said on Tuesday…

The complaint against the CDPHE alleges a spate of violations in the state agency’s decision, and seeks revocation of the license. Among its allegations:

• That the CDPHE violated state statutes meant to protect Colorado residents from carrying the financial burdens of cleaning up uranium mills by only requiring Energy Fuels to provide $11 million to cover future cleanup and decommissioning costs.

• That state regulators didn’t follow the provisions of the Colorado Radiation Control Act when they issued the license.

• That in not allowing the public or members of SMA to ask the CDPHE or Energy Fuels technical questions about the project, regulators violated the federal Atomic Energy Act.

• That despite the recently passed Uranium Processing Accountability Act, which prohibits the licensing of a uranium mill where groundwater has been shown to exceed state standards, regulators ignored data that revealed groundwater samples taken at the Piñon Ridge mill site exceeded allowable standards for both radioactive materials and heavy metals.

“If state regulators ignore basic federal and state law to permit this mill, how can we ever trust them to monitor the mill once it’s in production?” Miller said in the release.

More coverage from the Montrose Daily Press (Katharhynn Heidelberg):

The Sheep Mountain Alliance is heading back to court for Round 2 in its fight to stop a uranium mill from being built in the West End of Montrose County. Claiming Colorado regulators violated state and federal laws, the grassroots environmental group’s Feb. 4 suit seeks the invalidation of the radioactive materials license for Energy Fuels Resources’ Piñon Ridge Mill. The alliance further wants a finding that the state must reconsider the license and deny it.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

IBCC: 2010 SWSI Update

Eric Hecox was kind enough to respond to two questions I had from the recent IBCC Committee meeting Here you go:

CG – Was there an attempt to identify water quality costs in the SWSI update?

EH – Water quality costs were only included on the supply side. We identified the quality of the source water and determined if it would need conventional or advanced treatment. However, we did not identify water quality costs on the discharge side so that would add to the cost projections.

CG – Does groundwater make up a wedge in the future supply curve?

EH – Groundwater is included in the water provider’s IPPs. Some providers are relying on developing groundwater and that is included to the extent they indicated in their plans. Water providers who are currently using nonrenewable groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifer face a different issue. They are trying to reduce their reliance on groundwater so replacement of groundwater with a renewable supply is also included in our projections.

More IBCC – basin roundtables coverage here.

Custer County: Commissioners agree to give a fresh look at the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District’s proposed augmentation plan for the county

From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):

On Jan. 19 commissioners Lynn Attebery, Jim Austin and Allen Butler recapped the water forum held here on Jan. 15, and decided to meet with the county’s planning commission chair and co-chair to discuss the viability of the planning commission investigating the feasibility of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District bringing a water augmentation plan to the county and making a recommendation to that effect to the commissioners. That meeting with the two county planning commission members – chairman Vic Barnes and vice-chair Keith Hood – took place during the Jan. 31 commissioners’ regular meeting. Following a lengthy discussion, with Barnes and Hood agreeing that the planning commission’s role should be to gather data only, the county commissioners decided to discuss the matter with county attorney John Naylor before making a final decision regarding the planning commission’s role, if any. Also during the Jan 19 meeting, commissioner Austin made a motion to send a letter to the UAWCD stating the county commissioners were not to blame for UAWCD’s recent decision to pull its proposed blanket water augmentation plan for Custer County from water court. Instead, said Austin, the commissioners objected because the UAWCD did not honor its agreement with the former county commissioners. That agreement, noted Austin, was that the commissioners be allowed to review the water augmentation proposal before UAWCD submitted it. “That didn’t happen,” said Austin.

More Custer County coverage here and here.

Reclamation Seeking Partners for WaterSMART Basin Studies

From email from Reclamation (Dan DuBray):

The Bureau of Reclamation is seeking eligible non-federal entities interested in participating in a Basin Study under the WaterSMART Program. Those entities interested in proposing a Basin Study to Reclamation must submit a letter of interest to their respective Reclamation regional office by March 16, 2011.

Basin Studies are comprehensive studies that define options for meeting future water demands in river basins in the western United States where imbalances in supply and demand exist or are projected. Reclamation will work cooperatively with state and local partners to conduct the study.

A Basin Study is comprised of four main elements:

1. Projections of water supply and demand, including the risks of climate change
2. Analysis of how existing water and power infrastructure and operations will perform in response to changing water realities
3. Development of options and mitigation strategies to improve operations and infrastructure to supply adequate water in the future
4. Trade-off analysis of the options identified, findings and recommendations as appropriate

Information regarding the risks and impacts of climate change may be developed as part of the Basin Studies, or may include baseline analyses developed through the West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments, another activity under the WaterSMART Program.

The non-federal entities interested in participating in a Basin Study must contribute at least 50 percent of the total study cost as cash or in-kind services. Basin Studies are not a financial assistance program; therefore Reclamation’s share of the study costs may only be used to support work done by Reclamation or its contractors.

Proposed letters of interest for Basin Studies will be reviewed by Reclamation regional office staff. Those selected for further consideration will work with Reclamation technical experts to develop a joint study proposal for evaluation and prioritization by a Reclamation-wide review committee. The committee will develop a group of final recommendations to be considered for funding within existing budget parameters.

To learn more about proposing a Basin Study or to learn more about the WaterSMART Program, visit www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/. To determine the Reclamation region in which your specific basin is located, visit www.usbr.gov/main/regions.html.

More Reclamation coverage here.

Snowpack news

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

Snowpack in the high-elevation mountains above Middle Park now ranges from 111 percent to 170 percent of the 30-year average (1971-2001). Last-year snowpack at this time was only about 65 percent of average. “We’re just lucky this year,” said Mark Volt of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Kremmling Field Office…

Snow density is averaging 25 percent, which means that for a foot of snow, there are 3 inches of water. “This is pretty dense snow for this time of year,” Volt said.

From the Leadville Herald-Democrat:

According to the latest snow surveys, conducted by the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado’s statewide snowpack decreased from 136 percent of average on Jan. 1 to 117 percent of average on Feb. 1. Decreases in snowpack percentages were measured in all of the major river basins of the state, according to Allen Green, state conservationist with the NRCS. While this year’s snowpack is considerably better than last year at this time, the current statewide percentage ties that measured on this date back in 2009. Those basins across southwestern Colorado experienced the driest conditions during January, recording only about one quarter of their normal precipitation for the month. Snowpack percentages decreased by 38 percentage points in the combined San Juan, Animas, Dolores and San Miguel basins, declining from 144 percent of average on Jan. 1, to 106 percent of average on Feb. 1. Similar decreases were also measured in the Gunnison Basin, decreasing from 158 percent of average a month ago, to only 125 percent of average…

Even after experiencing a dry January, the current snowpack remains well ahead of that measured a year ago at this time. With the exception of southwestern Colorado, the 2011 readings are consistently well-above those of last year. Statewide totals are currently tracking at 137 percent of those from a year ago.

Montezuma County: The McElmo Creek Flume named to Colorado Preservation Inc.’s 2011 Most Endangered Places list

From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):

The McElmo Creek Flume, an irrigation flume located three miles east of Cortez near the Montezuma County Fairgrounds, was named to Colorado Preservation Inc.’s 2011 Most Endangered Places list last week. The flume is the first site of its kind to gain such recognition. “This nomination was really interesting for us because I don’t know if anyone on our staff was familiar with the flume when it was first nominated,” said Patrick Eidman, Endangered Places program manager. “We like to see diversity, not just a list of homes in Denver, but all the different historic resources, and this was the first water conveyance site that was nominated.”[...]

The local site was nominated for placement on the list by the Cortez Historical Preservation Board, Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co., the Montezuma County Board of Commissioners, the Montezuma County Historical Society, and the Dolores Water Conservancy District. The flume was one of six sites chosen from a list of 44 nominees. It is the first site in Montezuma County to garner recognition as an endangered place. “Our water history is so important in this state,” Eidman said. “You can’t separate the development of Colorado from water history. Having a water resource on the list speaks directly to that importance. It is a really interesting resource, and I loved its story and recognized right away it would be a cool site for us. It is very evocative for people in Colorado when you start talking about water.”

The McElmo flume was one of roughly 104 flumes constructed throughout Montezuma County to transport irrigation water across canals and arroyos in the region. The original flume system was conceived in the late 1800s, according to Les Nunn, manager of Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. from 1978 to 2006. “The flumes were built to deliver water throughout the Montezuma Valley,” Nunn said. “In 1920, MVI started using the flumes when they bought out Montezuma Valley Irrigation Water District. At that time, there were 104 flumes on the system.”

More Montezuma County coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: EPA Submits Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan to Independent Scientists for Review / The draft plan is open to public comment

Here’s the release from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Jalil Isa):

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today submitted its draft study plan on hydraulic fracturing for review to the agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), a group of independent scientists. Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing that vital resource. EPA scientists, under this administration and at the direction of Congress, are undertaking a study of this practice to better understand any potential impacts it may have, including on groundwater. EPA announced its intention to conduct the study in March 2010 and use the best available science, independent sources of information, a transparent, peer-reviewed process and with consultation from others. Since then, EPA has held a series of public meetings across the country with thousands attending and the agency has developed a sound draft plan for moving forward with the study.

The scope of the proposed research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced or used water and its ultimate treatment and disposal.

The SAB plans to review the draft plan March 7-8, 2011. Consistent with the operating procedures of the SAB, stakeholders and the public will have an opportunity to provide comments to the SAB during their review. The agency will revise the study plan in response to the SAB’s comments and promptly begin the study. Initial research results and study findings are expected to be made public by the end of 2012, with the goal of an additional report following further research in 2014.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process in which large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are injected at high pressures to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations. The process creates fractures in formations such as shale rock, allowing natural gas or oil to escape into the well and be recovered. Over the past few years, the use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction has increased and has expanded over a wider diversity of geographic regions and geologic formations.

For a copy of the draft study plan and additional information:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/d3483ab445ae61418525775900603e79!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.1#2

More information on hydraulic fracturing:
www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

More coverage from The Huffington Post (Nicholas Kusnetz). From the article:

Drillers have been fracking wells for decades, but with the rise of horizontal drilling into unconventional formations like shale, they are injecting far more water and chemicals underground than ever before. The EPA proposal notes that 603 rigs were drilling horizontal wells in June 2010, more than twice as many as were operating a year earlier. Horizontal wells can require millions of gallons of water per well, a much greater volume than in conventional wells.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: The Colorado State Land Board yanks two Park County parcels near Antero Reservoir from proposed lease sale

From the Associated Press via Bloomberg:

A spokeswoman for the Colorado State Land Board said Friday that staffers have removed the land near Antero Reservoir from the list of parcels to be auctioned. The announcement follows concerns raised by a citizens group. Be the Change pressed for a moratorium on leases in the area until more is known about how drinking water might be affected by hydraulic fracturing, a technique for extracting oil and natural gas.

Meanwhile Be the Change USA is hosting Fracking and Our Water on February 19. Click here for here for registration information. There will be a Denver Mayoral candidate forum and a screening of the film Gasland.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.