From the Ag Journal (Candace Krebs):
“The main recharge to the Ogallala in the Southern Plains are the small playa basins that dot the landscape,” [Carmon McCain, who handles information and education for the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District in Lubbock, Texas] said. “When you don’t get rain, you don’t have any water in those basins going into the aquifer.”[...]
Average annual recharge rate for the aquifer is half an inch per year, but the depth of withdrawal in some areas is many times that. In the Texas Panhandle, the water table was drawn down one and a half feet in 2009-2010 but only one 500th of a foot in 2010-2011, when hurricanes brought monsoon-like summer rains to the region. In western Kansas, the rate of decline had been diminishing since the 1960s, but that changed after 2000, when the latest drought cycle hit, and farmers began pumping more water. In southwest Kansas, where the drought has been particularly pronounced, well tests in January showed the water level in some parts of the aquifer had dropped more than 5 feet in the last year, according to the Kansas Geological Survey at the University of Kansas.
Around 400 geologists, water managers, ag producers and other stakeholders attended last week’s special Governor’s Economic Summit on the future of the Ogallala, hosted by Gov. Sam Brownback and held in conjunction with the annual Kansas Water Congress. The primary topic of discussion was how to preserve the aquifer without sacrificing economic growth…
One of Gov. Brownback’s priorities is reforming the state’s so-called “use it or lose it” water requirement that allows water rights to lapse if they go unused over a certain period of time, which many now view as a disincentive for conservation.
[Wayne Bossert's, longtime manager for Kansas’ Groundwater Management District No. 4 in Colby], priority is making it easier to enforce water use restrictions in high priority areas where groundwater declines are most dramatic. Currently, the process of designating “intensive use control areas” is hard to implement, and he wants to see laws changed to make the system more “user friendly.”
At the summit, municipalities expressed concerns about how to get access to affordable water rights. “It’s problematic for them,” Bossert said. “But it’s supply and demand at the most fundamental level.”[...]
In Texas, concerns about the future of the aquifer prompted the High Plains district in Lubbock to adopt new rules recently aimed at cutting back the rate of depletion. “We know the Ogallala is a mined resource,” McCain concedes. “It’s been used continuously since the 1930s. What we are doing is trying to extend the life of the Ogallala for another 50 years.” The new rule amendments establish the first-ever production limit for groundwater pumping within the 16-county High Plains Water District service area. That level will drop in successive years, to eventually reach a level of 1.25 acre-feet, or 15 inches per year, in 2016. The district is also requiring annual reports on water use and a meter on every well beginning in 2012…
“Efficiency and conservation are not the same thing,” [Jim Conkwright, the district’s general manager] asserts. “Efficiency might allow you to irrigate more acres, but you might still be using the same amount of water.”
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
One of the biggest obstacles could be the Arkansas River Compact, which led to a 24-year U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit between Kansas and Colorado. The Arkansas River Compact Administration would have to approve any transfer of water from Water District 67 in Colorado, said Steve Witte, Division 2 Engineer and operations secretary for the compact…
Assuming the backers of the Lamar-Elbert County pipeline are willing to risk the expense, there would be the problem of finding enough water to make the venture profitable. GP, in a news release, says it plans to develop water rights it owns in the Lamar area, which apparently are on the Lamar Canal. The Lower Arkansas Well Management Association owns about one-third of the canal, and while the ditch has some senior water rights, the majority of its rights are fairly junior in the area’s priority system. So other water rights may have to come into play to make the project successful.
The owner of the largest collection of water rights in the Arkansas Valley says he is not involved in GP’s proposed pipeline. “I met with Karl (Nyquist) more than a year ago,” said Mark Harding, president of Pure Cycle. But he did not sign any agreements to participate. “If there was something tangible, we’d take a look. I didn’t think they had anything to offer.”[...]
“We are looking to develop our asset down there in a partnership with agriculture and municipal interests,” Harding said. “Non-participating water rights still need to be protected, and we are still interested in doing rotational fallowing.” Harding does not rule out a pipeline to the Front Range at some point, and said one is probably needed for the Super Ditch to realize its full value. “If we’re wildly successful, we’ll keep the water on 300,000 irrigated acres and bring in another source of income for farmers,” Harding said.
But, he said he thinks any pipeline proposal would have to move through the basin roundtable process set up in 2005 to resolve interbasin transfer issues. He sits on the Metro Roundtable. “I’m a firm believer in the cooperative framework we have set up,” Harding said.
More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
[Public meetings in Lamar] are planned for 7 to 9 p.m. Aug. 16 and 23 at the Lamar Community Building, according to a news release from Karl Nyquist of GP Resources, a farming and natural resources firm. Additional meetings are planned in Elbert County…
GP plans to use the water transfers template developed by the Arkansas Basin Roundtable to address community concerns about the project, he said. In the news release, he outlined the approach GP plans to use to developing water:
- Investments to increase efficiencies of GP farms in Lamar, which would remain in production after the project is completed. The news release did not indicate how much farmland is owned, but Nyquist has water rights on the Lamar Canal. The water rights would have to be changed for municipal use in Water Court, but GP does not plan to change the point of diversion.
- Investments in GP’s water rights and systems in Elbert County, involving an upgrade of the capabilities of a local water district to allow transmission of GP’s privately owned and adjudicated water on an interim basis to an unspecified water district in the greater Colorado Springs area.
- Long-term investments in water storage, treatment and delivery systems to serve other Front Range communities.
More Lamar-Elbert County pipeline coverage here. More Pure Cycle coverage here and here.
Kayakers, sportsmen, conservationists deliver 23,887 clean water comments to EPA Regional Administrator Jim Martin
July 30, 2011
From the Summit Daily News (Janice Kurbjin):
Supreme Court rulings have put intermittent and ephemeral streams at risk, said David Nickum of Trout Unlimited, which includes most of Colorado’s waterways. In their rulings, judges narrowed protection to “navigable” waterways, under which classification a section of the Colorado River and a small portion of the Navajo Reservoir are the only protected waters in the state, Nickum said. There isn’t necessarily a provision for navigable waterways for commercial rafts, he added. It’s an extreme position, Nickum said, adding, “It’s the wrong direction to be moving and we don’t believe Congress intended (the law to read) that way.”
To respond to the call for clarity, the federal EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have developed draft guidance for determining whether a waterway, water body, or wetland is protected by the Clean Water Act. Jim Martin, EPA’s regional administrator in Denver, said the uncertainty means his staff can spend hours determining if they can step in during a case of a spill, when they’d rather be cleaning them up and preventing them. According to the Associated Press, the American Farm Bureau Federation says it’s concerned farmers and ranchers will be saddled with more regulations, but Martin says stock ponds and irrigated land are exempt.
Pam Kiely of Environment Colorado estimated that a minimum of 450 Summit County residents took the time to support the draft guidance revisions.
Nickum said the reaffirmation of protection affects critical tributaries for drinking water, but it also affects downstream fisheries and recreational waterways — including intermittent, ephemeral or headwater streams.
In Colorado, these types of waterways account for 62 percent of the total river miles that feed into public drinking supplies and supports more than 3.7 million Coloradans, according to Environment Colorado. Essentially, the new guidance puts 30 years of historic protection back in “good standing,” Nickum said.
Environmental Protection Agency coverage here.
Runoff news: Streamflow increases at night due to the day’s snowmelt and travel time for the meltwater
July 30, 2011
From the Summit Daily News (Janice Kurbjin):
It’s not because the moon somehow heats the snow more than the sun. Experts say it’s because Colorado’s waterways are largely fed by snowpack high on mountain peaks. It takes until about mid-afternoon for the higher elevations to warm up enough to start melting snow, and it takes even longer for that water to flow down the hillside into rivers and streams.
“During the daytime, the water that melts up on the higher slopes melts at about (3 p.m.),” Colorado Department of Transportation spokesman Bob Wilson said. “It takes several hours for that water to make its way down from 13,000 feet to about 9,000 feet. By the time we get to nighttime hours it’s making its way down the mountain” to the streambed.
Flaming Gorge pipeline: 7,400 Coloradans took part in Wednesday’s ‘telephone town hall’ event
July 30, 2011
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
During the town hall meeting, the groups said they oppose the Colorado Water Conserva-tion Board allocating $150,000 in grant money to local river basin roundtables to form the Flaming Gorge Pipeline Task Force. The CWCB is expected to discuss the grant at its next meeting in September in Grand Junction.
“If 81 billion gallons of water are drained from the West Slope’s Green River, it could damage the river’s world class trout fishery, further threaten the population of four fish species on the endangered species list and hurt the ecosystem within Dinosaur National Monument,” said Bart Miller of Boulder-based Western Resource Advocates…
Million said Tuesday environmental impacts of the pipeline have been considered from its inception, and if its toll on the environment is too great, the project should not go forth. The environmental impacts of his project might soon be evaluated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission if the agency accepts Million’s permit application.
More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The railroad will take out six spans — the iron and lumber that form a deck across the creek — by May. The city of Pueblo would be responsible for the iron truss bridge on the west side, Pueblo stormwater consultant Dennis Maroney told the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District board Friday.
He said the Technology Test Center may be interested in taking out the truss section of the bridge as a training exercise, but those talks are still in progress. “The piers would remain in the river,” Maroney said, adding they do not represent a serious impediment to flows.
The fear is that during a major flood the bridge would act as a dam as debris from upstream clogged the passage. That would cause water to back up over levees and flood commercial or residential areas…
The city of Pueblo, Pueblo County, the Fountain Creek district and numerous state and federal agencies launched a demonstration project Friday of an in-stream sediment collector that could be a less expensive alternative to dredging, if the technology works as advertised.
More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The name [Dirt-A-Tracter] for a sediment collector in Fountain Creek was chosen by children at the Boys & Girls Club, beating out “Hoovanator” and “Dr. Sandy Cheeks” in a contest sponsored by the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District…
Basically, it works by attracting sand and small gravel that fall through a screen and are extracted with a pump to a storage site by the side of the creek…
The collector is equipped with a variable speed motor capable of pumping up to 800 gallons per minute of slurry that is 30 to 60 percent solids. A mining screw and conveyor belt pile up material pumped from the collector, while a second hose returns water to the collector. At maximum capacity, the collector is capable of removing 130 12-yard truckloads of sediment in a 24-hour period. Of course, it won’t be operated 24 hours a day, and flows will vary. One purpose of the yearlong project is to see how it performs under various conditions, and engineers were hoping for a cloudburst later in the afternoon. “Really, it will produce only what the river delivers,” said Streamside Systems CEO Randy Tucker.
More coverage from John Schroyer writing for The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:
The machine, which took only three months to construct, is surprisingly simple — as creek water passes through a bottleneck in the creek, sediment is sucked down out into a pipe and then carried roughly 600 feet away from the creek, where it’s piled and then lugged away by dump trucks.
The point, said Fountain Creek Watershed Executive Director Larry Small, is to prevent sediment from building up at any one place. In the past, sediment buildup has led to flash flooding, which happens when a sudden rush of water down the creek is diverted into a neighborhood or town…
The $836,000 machine is the result of a partnership between Pueblo, Pueblo County and the Fountain Creek Watershed. All three had a hand in the design, construction and implementation of the Dirt Attractor.
Of the cost, $353,000 was covered by Colorado Springs Utilities, which paid $2.2 million to the county of Pueblo as part of the deal to allow it to build the Southern Delivery System, said Pueblo’s Assistant City Manager Scott Hobson.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment chipped in another $250,000, and the city of Pueblo paid the rest, said Hobson. The city also will supervise the ongoing operation of the Dirt Attractor and pay its electricity bill.
The machine will require minimal oversight and will operate almost exclusively via electronic monitors that sense the water level of the creek.
The Dirt Attractor also has environmental benefits, said Hobson. The sediment pulled from the creek probably will be used by the city’s wastewater plant to dilute the chemical content of the plant’s leftover “sludge.” That way, the material can be reused naturally instead of buried in a landfill.
More Fountain Creek coverage here.
From email from Reclamation (Erik Knight):
With inflows to Blue Mesa Reservoir decreasing towards summer base flow levels, it appears to be time to reduce releases at Crystal Reservoir with the intention of ending the bypass releases. Blue Mesa Reservoir elevation peaked at 7519.25 feet on July 17th and now the reservoir is down to 7517.4 feet. Releases at Crystal Dam will be decreased by a total of 1100 cfs over the next 6 days, starting Saturday morning, July 30th and ending Thursday morning, August 4th. Releases will be decreased 200 cfs a day with a 100 cfs change occurring twice a day until the bypass release at Crystal Dam has ended. This should bring flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon down to around 1100 cfs by Thursday afternoon.
More Aspinall Unit coverage here.
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project update: Releases from Ruedi Reservoir into the Fryingpan River drop to 213 cfs
July 29, 2011
From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):
We have finally concluded what was a fairly significant run-off season. Inflows to Ruedi have dropped off to normal levels for this time of year, around maybe 210 cfs at night. As a result, we have cut back releases from the dam to the lower Fryingpan. The reductions in releases began the week of July 11 and continued through this past week. Currently, we are releasing about 213 cfs from Ruedi Dam to the ‘Pan. The Rocky Fork is running at about 13 cfs for a total of about 226 cfs past the Ruedi Dam gage. The reservoir elevation is just shy of full–about three feet down from its high elevation of 7766 feet.
More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.
Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):
Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor has announced the award of a $5,612,780 contract to Lillard and Clark Construction Company Inc. of Denver to replace the Pole Hill Canal on the Colorado-Big Thompson Project near Loveland, Colo.
“Ensuring that Reclamation facilities are reliable is paramount to the mission of delivering water and generating power,” said Commissioner Connor. “This project will create good jobs in Colorado while ensuring that the Pole Hill Canal will safely meet the project demands now and into the future.”The project will consist of removal of existing concrete lining and structures, installing furnished precast concrete box culverts, installing safety systems including ladders, float systems, guardrails and fences and other work including rock excavation and constructing gravel roads.
The half-mile Pole Hill Canal was built in 1952 and is part of the conveyance system that brings water to the east slope of the Colorado-Big-Thompson Project. The project stores, regulates and diverts water from the Colorado River on the western slope of the Continental Divide to the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains.
To learn more about this project, please visit Reclamation’s Eastern Colorado Area Office website at www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao.
More coverage from Michael Auslen writing for the Loveland Reporter-Herald. From the article:
The half-mile-long canal southwest of Loveland is part of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, a system of canals and dams that transports water to eastern Colorado communities from the west side of the Continental Divide and generates hydroelectric power.
The canal is uncovered, the primary reason it’s scheduled to be rebuilt and covered with box culverts by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. The bureau is the federal agency that manages the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and similar water diversion projects in Western states.
More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“It caught me by surprise,” said Henry Schnabel, chairman of the Prowers County commissioners. “I’m encouraged that the Elbert County commissioners aren’t jumping out and making a decision. I hope they are reasoning this issue on some level that can address the impact on the county where the water is being taken.”
Elbert County Commissioner Kurt Schlegel said his board is concerned with what happens in Elbert County. “We don’t have any say-so with water rights outside of the county,” Schlegel said.
While there is some speculation about whether the water would be used to support a burgeoning oil and gas development industry, Schlegel said the primary use for the water would remain residential and for commercial development in Elbert County based on public presentations.
The Elbert-86 metro district manager, Karl Nyquist, is traveling and could not be reached for comment. A spokeswoman said the district plans to share more details about its plans in the next month. “We’re looking forward to explaining the details of what we believe is a conscientious project that will benefit communities on both ends of the pipe,” said Michele Ames, district spokeswoman. “That’s why we’ll be holding public meetings soon in both Elbert and Prowers counties in hopes that community members will come, hear about the project and get their questions answered.
More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“Because of our free enterprise system, there’s nothing preventing anyone from doing a water project,” said John Stulp, who chairs the Interbasin Compact Committee. “Still, I think the people who have been involved in this project should have taken it to the roundtables.”[...]
The Colorado Water Conservation Board last year completed a study looking at various transbasin proposals. It found the costs of moving water from the Lower Arkansas Valley were high because of water quality and the pumping costs because of the increase in elevation. However, the CWCB has not studied this particular proposal.
“It was a surprise to me,” said Alan Hamel, CWCB member and executive director of the Pueblo Board of Water Works. “My personal hope, as a CWCB member from the Arkansas Basin, is that they will share the project with the roundtables, so issues can be identified and everyone better understands what’s being proposed.”[...]
The pipeline, rather than being advanced in secrecy, should be evaluated both for the potential benefits and harm, Hamel said. “The negative impacts of this project are entirely to our basin,” he said.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
Moffat Collection System Project: Coal Creek Canyon town hall attended mostly by opposers to Denver Water’s plans
July 28, 2011
From the Boulder Daily Camera (Mitchell Byars):
The meeting was held by state Sen. Jeanne Nicholson and Rep. Claire Levy, who also expressed their opposition to the project. “I’ve made no secret that I don’t think we should have this project,” Levy said. “We can’t keep sucking water out of a river and killing it.”[...]
Residents brought up the noise that would accompany the construction and were concerned about the number of trucks that would be making their way up the winding Colo. 72. Denver Water estimated that construction would put 2.2 more trucks on the road per hour for a 10-hour work day. But residents said that increase in heavy, slow-moving trucks would damage and congest the roads, creating dangerous situations. Denver Water said a rail system would cost about $20 million and would be too costly to put in for the project. Travis Bray, project manager for the project, said studies showed the increase in truck traffic would not pose any significant delay or safety issue, but residents disputed the accuracy of those studies.
“I can’t imagine the road is safe with these trucks,” said Susan Simone, who works in Boulder and commutes on Colo. 72. “We don’t need a study to see that; we’re not stupid. My own car got totaled on that road.”
More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.
Pitkin County commissioners line up with others to oppose the conditional rights for dam on the Crystal River
July 28, 2011
From the Aspen Daily News (Andrew Travers):
The rights are held by the Colorado River Water Conservation District and West Divide Water Conservancy District. They have been renewed every six years since 1958, when the rights were issued by the U.S. Congress. Over the decades, the plan has included reservoir rights that would have flooded Redstone and covered it with a reservoir larger than Ruedi at nearly 200,000 acre feet. In the most recent iteration of the plan, the reservoir to drown Redstone has been dropped but another, smaller reservoir upstream toward Marble remains.
County attorney John Ely described the project as “wholly inappropriate” and said it “would do great harm and is probably located in the worst geological location possible.” The probability that the water groups would act on the plan is low, Ely added. But getting the concepts off the state books should be a county priority, he added. The plan currently headed for renewal aims to use the Crystal dam for hydroelectric power. The commissioners voted 5-0 to oppose the plan in state water court.
Upcoming GOCO Urban & River Corridor Initiative
July 28, 2011
Here’s part of the release from Great Outdoors Colorado (Emily Davies):
The Initiative is intended to provide river-based recreation and publicly-accessible open space in or near populated areas. The Board set aside up to $18 million for urban river corridor acquisitions and recreational development (including planning for such projects and trails) for FY 2012 and we want to hear from you about projects you have in your area that may fit within this program. The purpose of these meetings is to give GOCO a better sense of the types of projects that exist so that we can create a program that best meets the needs of our stakeholders.
Click through for the details.
From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):
…utility managers propose to merge water systems to spread debt and increase efficiency. It’s the sort of consolidation that industry leaders anticipate, in Colorado and nationwide, as problems with water supply and aging pipes intensify. But the Parker-Stonegate deal has set off a political storm. On Wednesday night, more than 170 Stonegate residents attended the latest informational meeting, and a majority indicated in an informal vote that they opposed the merger. “Nobody in our neighborhood understands what is going on,” said Stonegate resident Lisa Nejedlow, whose residential water pressure recently decreased sharply. “I don’t want to go with Parker. I don’t trust them. I think they have too much debt ($214 million) and they are trying to go into other people’s pockets.”[...]
If Parker (population 45,000) and Stonegate (11,000) were to merge their water systems, it would be the first signficant consolidation in the south metro area. There are more than 25 water utilities on the Front Range. Suburban developers created most of these special-use districts. Some serve as few as 25 people…
Stonegate and Parker residents would face property-tax hikes as well as rising water bills whatever they do. But hooking up with Parker’s system could solve Stonegate’s problem of having to upgrade its sewage-treatment system — estimated to cost at least $10 million. That expense would add to Stonegate’s $30 million debt from sinking 13 super-deep municipal wells, building a pool and community center and other spending, said Stonegate metro district manager Mitch Chambers…
Stonegate board members are divided. “We need to explore other options,” said Mike Sjobakken, one of two board members who are opposed, noting that a former Parker utility-board member who resigned amid controversy has been hired to help Parker project who would pay what if the utilities merged. “It would make sense to consolidate,” but maybe with multiple entities, not just Parker, he said.
More South Platte River basin coverage here.
The DeBeque phacelia and the Parachute penstemon both will be protected under the Endangered Species Act
July 28, 2011
Here’s the release from the Center for Native Ecosystems (Josh Pollock):
Today the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that two Colorado wildflowers found only on and around the Roan Plateau and South Shale Ridge area are now protected as Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and have been proposed for critical habitat protections that will be finalized next year. The federal agency identified the primary threat to both species as current and proposed oil and natural gas drilling operations on public lands.
Parachute penstemon, which occurs in only 6 populations on or near the base of the Roan Plateau, and DeBeque phacelia, which is found only in the vicinity of the growing town of DeBeque and South Shale Ridge, were both found by the Fish and Wildlife Service to be at risk of extinction from a variety of threats associated with oil and gas development including new roads pipelines as well as off-road dirt bike and ATV riding.
“Endangered Species Act protection for these two rare and unique wildflowers will help us balance our need for domestic energy production with preserving our natural heritage,’ said Josh Pollock, Conservation Director at Rocky Mountain Wild. “When we work to keep the parts of the natural world that we cannot, including these plants specially adapted to the rugged beauty of Colorado’s West Slope, we leave a legacy for our children that we can be proud of.”
The announcement of protections for these two species is part of a trio of Endangered Species Act listings for wildflowers in Colorado. As part of the same final listing rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service also designated the Pagosa skyrocket as endangered. The Pagosa Skyrocket occurs in only 2 populations near the town of Pagosa Springs and is highly vulnerable to disturbance from residential and commercial development on the private lands where it is primarily found.
“Today three unique facets of Colorado’s stunning and diverse mountain and canyon country got the protection they so desperately needed,” said Pollock. “All three of these listings are necessary and sensible, given how vulnerable each one of these wildflowers is to the ways that we are using and converting the open lands around us here in the West.”
In a separate announcement in the Federal Register, the Fish and Wildlife Service also proposed critical habitat designation for all three species. The proposed habitat designation includes over 19,000 acres for Parachute penstemon and almost 25,000 acres for the more widely distributed DeBeque phacelia. In the case of Parachute penstemon, the proposed designation acknowledged that the current populations alone would be insufficient to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of the species and therefore included a strip of potential recovery habitat at the north end of the Roan Plateau. The Service determined that this area has the same habitat characteristics as the occupied habitat, including exposed slopes of oil shale. For all three species, the Fish and Wildlife Service also took into account the possible effects of climate change on such plants that are so narrowly dependent on particular soil types and expanded their proposed boundaries for the proposed habitat units beyond the edges of the current populations. The agency also identified these buffers around the currently occupied habitat as necessary to protect the base of pollinators—primarily ground nesting bees and wasps—upon which both species depend.
“The critical habitat proposal that comes along with today’s listing is a model of how the Fish and Wildlife Service should consider habitat protections for rare plants with limited ranges in the face of climate change and continued oil and gas drilling on public land,” said Pollock. “The agency appropriately limited their proposal to places that are not already developed, concentrated on federal public lands, and took into account the need for additional habitat for recovery. While we can’t know everything climate change will do to an individual species, we must begin to acknowledge that it will change habitat for many at-risk species and do what we can to protect additional places with that in mind.”
Both species have been official candidates for Endangered Species Act protection for at least twenty years. In the case of DeBeque phacelia, the Colorado species has been on the official waiting list for 31 years. Center for Native Ecosystems (which has now merged to form Rocky Mountain Wild), the Colorado Native Plant Society, and Dr. Steve O’Kane petitioned to move the two species off the candidate list and finalize their protection under the ESA in 2004 and 2005.
“To say that these protections are overdue would be an extreme understatement,” said Pollock, “but the most important thing is that they are in place now. We hope it is in time to secure a future for these three parts of our web of life in Western Colorado along with the dozens of other rare species that carve out a life in the same difficult habitat.”
There will be a 60 day period for public comment on the proposed critical habitat designation for all three species.
Parachute Penstemon
Parachute penstemon, also known as Parachute beardtongue, is a beautiful perennial with lavender-and-white, funnel-shaped flowers. It occurs in only six populations on and around the Roan Plateau. Only three of those populations are considered large enough to be stable, but two of them are on land owned by Occidental Petroleum. Two of the remaining populations are on top of the Roan Plateau in locations recently leased for oil and gas development. Conservation organizations are challenging the leasing on top of the Roan Plateau in court.
Center for Native Ecosystems, the Colorado Native Plant Society, and Dr. Steve O’Kane (one of the botanists who discovered the species in the 1980s) petitioned in 2004 for the parachute penstemon to be moved from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s candidate list and given the protection under the Act it deserved.
A high resolution photograph of Parachute penstemon is available for download (with credit to Steve O’Kane) at http://nativeecosystems.org/wp-content/uploads/Parachute-penstemon_Steve-OKane.jpg
DeBeque Phacelia
DeBeque phacelia is also found near the Roan Plateau. It occurs only on slopes of clay soil around the growing town of DeBeque, west of Rifle, Colorado. All DeBeque phacelia habitat is found within the larger Piceance Basin region that is Colorado’s third largest natural gas producing area, according the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. More than ¾ of all DeBeque phacelia habitat had been leased for oil and gas drilling.
DeBeque phacelia is a low-growing annual plant with small yellowish flowers. It relies on a bank of seeds within the soil to continue coming up year after year, and therefore disturbance of the slopes where it is found or even the soil below such slopes can destroy its seeds. The Fish and Wildlife Service found that threats to the wildflower’s seed bank and habitat included natural gas exploration and pipelines, expansion of roads and other oil and gas facilities, and even proposed reservoir projects that would be used to support oil shale development experiments in the area north of DeBeque.
Center for Native Ecosystems, the Colorado Native Plant Society, and Dr. Steve O’Kane petitioned in 2005 for DeBeque phacelia to be moved from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s candidate list and given the protection under the Act it deserved.
A high resolution photograph of DeBeque phacelia is available for download (with credit to Rocky Mountain Wild) at http://nativeecosystems.org/wp-content/uploads/phacelia.jpg
From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced July 27 that the DeBeque phacelia and the Parachute penstemon both will be protected and proposed for critical habitat designations based on threats from current and proposed oil and natural gas drilling operations on public lands…
Parachute penstemon grows in only 6 populations on or near the base of the Roan Plateau, and DeBeque phacelia is found only in the vicinity of the growing town of DeBeque and South Shale Ridge. The proposed habitat designation includes more than 19,000 acres for Parachute penstemon and almost 25,000 acres for the more widely distributed DeBeque phacelia.
In the case of Parachute penstemon, the proposed designation acknowledged that the current populations alone would be insufficient to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of the species and therefore included a strip of potential recovery habitat at the north end of the Roan Plateau. The Service determined that this area has the same habitat characteristics as the occupied habitat, including exposed slopes of oil shale…
As part of the same final listing rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service also designated the Pagosa skyrocket as endangered. The Pagosa Skyrocket occurs in only 2 populations near the town of Pagosa Springs and is highly vulnerable to disturbance from residential and commercial development on the private lands where it is primarily found.
More endangered/threatened species coverage here.
From the Associated press via The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The 39-acre Elbert and Highway 86 Commercial Metro District, first created nine years ago, intends to build a 150-mile pipeline from the Lamar area to Elbert County. Water from the Arkansas River would be pumped up to the county, which is southeast of metro Denver.
C & A Development Co. requested a 30-day continuance for more public review of the proposal. The commissioners approved the request for a continuance until its Aug. 24 meeting…
Elbert County lacks a renewable water source, such as a river fed with yearly snowmelt. Instead, the county relies on underground aquifers, which are generally being depleted faster than they replenish. To encourage economic development and stabilize water rates, the county must import water, said the district’s director, Karl Nyquist, in a letter Friday to the Wild Pointe Ranch Homeowners Association. But the plan — particularly the speed with which it is being considered and the secrecy surrounding it — has raised eyebrows in the rural county.
In the past 15 months, gas and oil companies have paid out $25 million for leases, and they are expected to spend another $25 million by the end of the year as the industry expands in Elbert County, said Craig Curl, the county’s independent consultant and director of the Elbert County Enterprise Authority…
Because the water district, which now provides residential and commercial service in the Wild Pointe development, asked to expand its service rather than create a new entity, the proposal wasn’t legally required to go through the county’s planning department. On July 7, the county recommended approval of the district’s expansion. Six days later, the county commission held a public hearing. If the plan passes, it wouldn’t be the first time the Elbert County Commission approved the creation of a statewide water district. In 2002, it backed the controversial formation of United Water and Sanitation District — Colorado’s first statewide district. It consists of a 1-acre patch of land that can serve water users across the state. So far, the public hasn’t been told much about what the expanded district would do.
The service plan includes provisions permitting the district in certain situations to impose mill levies — new taxes — within its boundaries as high as $30 for every $1,000 of taxable property to pay off debt or for operations and maintenance. State law generally requires district property owners to vote on mill-levy increases.
The pipeline and other projects will be financed through bonds, mill levies and fees, according to the district’s proposal, but even estimated costs have not been disclosed.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
NIDIS Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment Summary of the Upper Colorado River Basin
July 27, 2011
Here are this week’s presentations from the Colorado Climate Center.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Sarah Jane Kyle):
In May and June alone, Fort Collins received 7.28 inches of rain, 2.72 inches more than the 30-year average for Fort Collins, according to precipitation records by the Colorado Climate Center. The average for January to June is 8.58 inches. Colorado Climate Center research associate Noah Newman said July’s rain totals already have exceeded the 30-year average of 1.57 inches for the entire month of July; from July 1 to 15, Fort Collins received 1.8 inches of precipitation…
Due to increased rainfall and other factors, Fort Collins has seen only 70 percent of the projected water usage for the month of July, city of Fort Collins water resources manager Dennis Bode. “We’ve just had a number of rain events in early July that we typically don’t have,” Bode said. “That has certainly reduced our water use. We’ve seen that trend since irrigation season started. Bode said Fort Collins residents have been more frugal with their water use for most of the year, using only 85 percent of projected water usage since Jan. 1.
More conservation coverage here.
Whitewater: Two standup paddlers traverse 225 miles of the Grand Canyon including the major rapids
July 27, 2011
From Stand Up Paddle Surfing Magazine (Son of the Sea):
Whitewater expert Seth Warren and surf artist Drew Brophy rode standup paddleboards (SUPS) down 225 miles of the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. The previous record was set by Hawaiian Archie Kalepa, who logged 187 miles in 2009.
On May 14, 2011, Brophy and Warren began their 16 day excursion at Lee’s Ferry, Arizona, navigating more than 125 rapids, with 42 major rapids rated between 5 and 10g on the Grand Canyon scale of 1 to 10g. They standup paddleboarded about fourteen miles each day. Their expedition ended at Diamond Creek, Arizona. Adding to the challenge of riding over rapids on stand-up paddleboards was the unusually high river water level. According to experts, the Colorado River was running at its highest level in thirty years.
The most challenging rapids they encountered included the infamous Lava, Hermit, Granite and Crystal Rapids. By day eight of the trip, their time on the river allowed enough experience to become skilled enough to stick it to the end of most of the 6 or 7 class rapids. But any class higher than 7 often landed the paddleboarders into the 42 degree waters. Brophy says, “There’s just no easy button. It’s amazing, the power of that water.”
More whitewater coverage here.
Kayakers, sportsmen, conservationists deliver 23,887 clean water comments to EPA Regional Administrator Jim Martin
July 27, 2011
Here’s the release from Environment Colorado (Pam Kiely):
As the public comment period comes to a close for the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed guidance on determining whether a waterway is protected by the Clean Water Act, kayakers, conservationists, and sportsmen from across the state gathered Tuesday morning to demonstrate broad-based support for EPA’s efforts, hand-delivering to EPA officials 23,887 comment postcards, photo petitions, letters, and stacks of emails in support of EPA action to keep our state’s waterways clean.
“This summer we’ve heard from tens of thousands of Coloradans,” said Pam Kiely, program director of Environment Colorado, “And the consensus is clear— people support strong EPA action to fully protect the creeks and rivers they’re rafting, kayaking, swimming, and fishing in all summer long.”
Over the past decade, interpretations of Supreme Court rulings have left murky which Colorado waterways are fully protected under the Clean Water Act by removing some critical types of waters from federal protection, causing confusion and uncertainly for regulators and businesses alike about which waters and wetlands are actually protected under the Clean Water Act.
The U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have developed draft guidance for determining whether a waterway, water body, or wetland is protected by the Clean Water Act. This guidance would replace previous guidance to reaffirm protection for critical waters, including intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater streams. In Colorado, these types of waterways account for 62% of the total river miles that feed into public drinking water supplies; over 3.7 million Coloradans receive their drinking water from a source that is fed by, at least partially, on one of these smaller waterways.
“EPA has laid out a comprehensive plan to maintain and improve the health of our nation’s waters,” said Jim Martin, EPA’s regional administrator in Denver. “A fundamental part of that plan is reaffirming the clear application of the Clean Water Act. The guidance we are proposing will help protect the streams and wetlands that keep Colorado’s watersheds, and the state’s multi-billion dollar recreational economy, healthy.”
The draft guidance will reaffirm protections for small streams that feed into larger streams and rivers, and reaffirm protection for wetlands that filter pollution and help protect communities from flooding. Keeping these smaller waterways safe is critical for the overall health of the watershed.
“Anglers know it takes clean water in small tributaries upstream to create great fishing opportunities on rivers downstream – yet those tributaries are at risk of losing protection under the Clean Water Act,” noted David Nickum, Executive Director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “Sportsmen applaud EPA for developing new guidance that will keep these streams protected, so that future generations can continue to enjoy clean fishable waters across Colorado.”
The Guidance currently in place has caused unnecessary confusion and delay in the implementation of the Clean Water Act’s important programs, has interfered with effective enforcement activity and has put drinking water sources for at least 117 million people at risk nationwide. In Colorado alone, protections on over 65,000 miles of streams have been called into question.
Since the Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos and ensuing EPA Guidance documents issued in 2003 and 2008, bodies of water that Congress intended to protect when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 have been put at risk. Congress enacted the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” and existing Guidance documents clearly threaten protection for wetlands, streams and other water bodies that play a critical role in overall health of the nation’s watersheds and drinking water sources.
The full text of the newly proposed guidance can be found at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm
More coverage from Joe Hanel writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:
The EPA is trying to assert its authority over small, intermittent and headwaters streams after Supreme Court decisions in 2003 and 2008 seemed to limit the Clean Water Act to larger bodies of water. David Nickum, head of the Colorado chapter of Trout Unlimited, said it feels like the Clean Water Act’s protections have been fading the last 10 years after three successful decades. “So many of our rivers and our fisheries depend on healthy headwaters. It’s pretty simple – if you have pollution upstream, it’s going to make its way downstream, and you’re going to have unhealthy rivers,” Nickum said.
Martin said his agency spends too much time trying to figure out whether it has jurisdiction over a stream and not enough time cleaning up or preventing spills. “Ultimately, our goal is to protect the physical and chemical integrity of all of our waters,” Martin said. “We’re going to move forward. This is really important to the protection of clean water in this country.”
A public comment period about the EPA’s clean water proposal closes this week. After that, the agency will have a formal rulemaking period to determine the scope of its authority.
More coverage from David O. Williams writing for the Colorado Independent. From the article:
In another show of force on the water front Tuesday, conservation groups, kayakers and anglers rallied at Confluence Kayaks along the Platte River in downtown Denver and hand delivered 23,887 public comments to EPA Regional Administrator Jim Martin. The comments were in favor of an EPA rulemaking designed to clarify which bodies of water qualify for protection under the Clean Water Act.
While the rulemaking has met with considerable resistance – including from Republican members of Colorado’s congressional delegation – EPA officials say it’s necessary in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have muddied the waters on which streams, creeks, ponds, lakes, rivers and wetlands are actually protected under the Clean Water Act.
More coverage from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:
This [EPA] initiative could double the stream-miles covered in Colorado, where 3.7 million residents receive water from sources connected to unregulated seasonal creeks and streams, which feed seven major rivers that flow through 27 states. Nationwide, water supplies of 117 million Americans are connected to waterways where the EPA currently does not regulate pollution.
Agriculture, mining and homebuilding industry leaders oppose the push, deploying lobbyists who accuse the EPA of overreach that could bog the economy.
“This is really important for protecting clean water in the United States,” EPA regional administrator Jim Martin told supporters rallying Tuesday in Denver at Confluence Kayaks. “We want to get back into the job of preventing pollution.”
Formerly chief of Colorado’s health department, Martin said state regulators lack resources to police streams. Amid current legal uncertainty, EPA officials notified of spills, are paralyzed trying to determine whether waterways qualify for protection – instead of cleaning up pollution, he said. “It makes no sense.”
“If you don’t give the EPA the tools to protect those gullies and deal with spills there, ultimately they will not be able to protect rivers either,” said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited.
EPA officials say draft guidelines make exceptions for agricultural producers. Pollution from stock ponds and irrigated croplands that flows into waterways would be exempt from new regulation.
More EPA coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“Creating the Flaming Gorge pipeline would cost billions of dollars we don’t have, it would deliver water at a price that nobody can afford, and it would land a devastating blow to our environment,” said Elise Jones, executive director of Colorado Environmental Coalition. “Now, the proponents of this project want the state to spend $150,000 of taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary process to push the project forward.” Jones referred to a proposal by the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority requesting $150,000 from the Water Supply Reserve Account from the Colorado Water Conservation Board for a Flaming Gorge pipeline exploration committee. The proposal also includes $40,000 from basin roundtable accounts, making its total $190,000. The CWCB is expected to consider the grant proposal in September. The Pikes Peak Water Authority is not one of the proponents of the project, originally proposed by Fort Collins entrepreneur Aaron Million. The Colorado-Wyoming Coalition, made up of water providers in both states, also is looking at its own version of the plan. The coalition is led by Frank Jaeger, manager of Parker Water and Sanitation, and includes Donala, which also is a member of the Pikes Peak Water Authority…
Regardless of who would be interested in developing the pipeline, the environmental groups say it would be a waste of state resources to engage in any studies. “Coloradans need to know about this boondoggle,” said Bill Dvorak, a Salida-based river outfitter. “People in this state recognize the need for balanced water supply policies that preserve what’s best about Colorado — this pipeline does not meet that standard.” The environmental groups say the pipeline would result in irreparable environmental impacts on Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the Green River below the reservoir and further drain the Colorado River.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
Save the Poudre and a group of 19 other environmental organizations led by Boulder-based Western Resource Advocates and the Colorado Environmental Coalition announced Tuesday they oppose any state funding for the task force. The groups are hosting a “telephone town hall” at 7 p.m. today, which will allow residents from all over the state to hear why conservation groups oppose a Flaming Gorge pipeline and ask questions about it.
“The point is to discourage the state Water Conservation Board from spending any funding or tax dollars on studying the project any further,” said Western Resource Advocates water program manager Bart Miller. He said the pipeline could cost $9 billion and be one of the most expensive and environmentally damaging water projects in Colorado history…
Save the Poudre Executive Director Gary Wockner said the state should be spending its resources studying less divisive solutions to Colorado’s water challenges. He said that because it’s unclear whether there’s enough water available in the Colorado River Basin for a pipeline to extract 250,000 acre feet of water annually, the pipeline could spark a water war throughout the West. The Green River is part of the Colorado River Basin…
A Flaming Gorge pipeline also is opposed by the Colorado River Water Conservation District whose officials worry that there is too little water in the Green River to support a pipeline.
Million said Tuesday the Regional Watershed Supply Project was designed to keep plenty of water in the Green River for Flaming Gorge and downstream uses. “There’s still ample water for the project to move forward,” he said, adding that if major environmental problems are found with the project, it shouldn’t be built…
Conservation groups opposing the pipeline and the task force include Colorado Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Colorado Whitewater Association, Environment Colorado, the National Parks Conservation Association and about a dozen others.
More coverage from David O. Williams writing for the Colorado Independent. From the article:
… [A] coalition of environmental groups will conduct a “telephone town hall” at 7 tonight that’s expected to draw thousands of Coloradans concerned about the proposed Flaming Gorge Pipeline that would transport at least 250,000 acre feet (81 billion gallons) of water a year from the Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir in southwestern Wyoming over the Continental Divide to the Front Range of Colorado. Go to the Western Resource Advocates website for more information on tonight’s town hall.
More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“A lot of what we’ve done in water is to focus on public sentiment,” Hickenlooper told the National Water Resources Association. “So often we get into a fight over the legalities, rather than make sure people understand the facts.”[...]
Environmental and agricultural water interests are “joined at the hip” with the municipal water interests in Colorado, Hickenlooper said…
In Colorado, he outlined a three-pronged approach to water, based on the Interbasin Compact Committee’s work over the past six years:
Innovation. This includes alternative ag-urban water transfers and working relationships between water providers and irrigators that stay within the boundaries of Colorado water law.
- Conservation. Denver has cut back per-capita water use 20 percent. Hickenlooper said conservation is needed, but can’t be the basis for future growth.
- Storage. “New water projects are an important tool to deal with the water deficits we observe,” Hickenlooper said.The Colorado River Cooperative Agreement among Denver and 30 Western Slope communities, negotiated mainly during the years he was Denver mayor, is a new model for negotiating water issues within the state, he said…
“If I could get all the other governors to agree, we’d sign an agreement that we don’t recruit each other’s businesses by offering incentives,” Hickenlooper said, adding that he formed a similar pact between Denver and its suburbs while mayor. “If we invest in infrastructure, then that’s the way to compete. All of the opportunity to lift up the last and the least comes from successful business.”
Here’s the link to the flier from Beth Conover. The event includes remarks from Governor Hickenlooper.
Back over the summer of 2005 Ms. Conover and then Mayor Hickenlooper teamed up for a series of education pieces on water called, Wringing Water from the Rocks. It was a hoot.
From the Vail Daily (Lauren Glendenning):
In Eagle County, many municipalities provide their own water supplies to their citizens, and the county’s largest suppliers — the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority — are reporting high marks in their recently released 2010 consumer confidence reports. “Managing the public water system is about protecting public health,” Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Water Division Manager Todd Fessenden said. “It’s important to inform people about their water supply.”[...]
The consumer confidence reports are required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and they show lists of the various contaminants found in local water supplies. Each public water supplier is required by law to produce the annual reports — something the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates bottled water, does not require of the bottled water industry. The contaminants shown in the reports are the contaminants that were detected in that water supply during thousands of water quality tests that are performed over the course of any year. Even the cleanest of water supplies will show some levels of some contaminants. “The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk,” the 2010 Water District report says…
The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority reports are available online at www.erwsd.org/quality/drinking-water-quality.
The town of Eagle’s report is available at www.townofeagle.org, under “news and information.”
The town of Minturn’s report is available at www.minturn.org.
The town of Gypsum’s report is available at www.townofgypsum.com, under “document center.”
More water treatment coverage here.
From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):
“We are really working to highlight the Dolores River basin and the hunting, angling and local culture that is tied so closely to this river,” said Matt Clark, SCP’s backcountry coordinator for the southwest corner of the San Juan Mountains and the river basin. “We want to bring attention to why people think this is such a great resource.”
Planning efforts in the area have already begun to address issues like roadless areas, conservation easements and water quality. Clark emphasized that conservation incorporates many uses and despite Trout Unlimited’s association with fishing, the Dolores River basin campaign is larger than just the quest of hooking a highcountry fish. “We are laying the foundation for whole watershed protection,” Clark said. “It is about the fish and the watershed around them. This is a very intentional campaign and every arm of TU has some involvement in the Dolores.”[...]
[Kris Millgate, an award-winning freelance videographer and outdoor journalist and CEO of Tight Line Media] role…was to document the day and to interview local anglers like Perry for a 10 to 15 minute Trout Unlimited-sponsored documentary highlighting the Dolores River basin. While local organizers have set a vision for the documentary, it is up to Millgate to cull the pertinent information and create a finished product that conveys the emotion behind the basin campaign…
“The Dolores is still really wild,” Clark said. “This is not a degraded watershed and there is not a huge amount of impact. We want to be sure we get ahead of any negative impacts and make sure the values and experience that exist now for hunters and anglers and all users remain into the future.”
Toward that end, TU is keeping an eye on local land management issues and working to complete the documentary as well as the collaboration with Field and Stream. Millgate visited the area last winter and will come again this fall to finalize her footage.
More Dolores River watershed coverage here.
