Flaming Gorge Pipeline: Some in Routt and Moffat counties are keeping a close eye on the project
September 20, 2011
From the Craig Daily Press (Tom Ross):
So, if the Green River only flows through Moffat County for about 35 miles or so, why should people in Routt County concern themselves with the pipeline proposal? The decision to fund the first part of the study of the plan comes at a time when energy development is making more demands on Western Slope water. We’re seeing the beginnings of what could be a boom-let of oil wells here. And if those wells use fracturing techniques to pry the hydrocarbons out of the Niobrara shale, they’ll require large amount of precious water…
Heather Hansen, of Red Lodge Clearing House Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, zoomed in on the essential point in a recent essay published in High Country News.
Hansen pointed out that the Green River plays a major role in the obligation Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico have to deliver 7.5 million acre feet of water annually to the lower basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona under the 1922 Colorado River Compact.
The 250,000 acre-feet the Million proposal would subtract from the Green only puts more pressure on the Yampa, White, Eagle, Roaring Fork and Gunnison rivers to meet those obligations in a future that includes a growing Front Range of Colorado.
Implementing the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement hangs on resolving how to operate the Shoshone right and Green Mountain Reservoir
September 20, 2011
From the Associated Press via The Columbus Republic:
According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (http://bit.ly/pblJYV ), western Colorado water providers want an agreement on the operation of the Shoshone power generating station in Glenwood Canyon and another on the operations of Green Mountain Reservoir.
Six months ago, officials from the Western Slope and Denver announced they had a general agreement that would resolve most of the issues, but none of the backers have signed an agreement.
More Colorado River Cooperative Agreement coverage here.
Rio Blanco County micro-hydroelectric project is ‘among the first’ to receive a permit under FERC’s new streamlined process
September 20, 2011
From the Associated Press via The Aurora Sentinel:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission signed a memorandum of understanding with Colorado last year that allows multiple agencies to review requests for hydropower projects at the same time. The Governor’s Energy Office says that can cut wait times on permits from three years down to less than two months.
The Governor’s Energy Office said Wednesday that the 23-kilowatt Meeker Wenschhof project in northwest Colorado went through the process to get a license allowing for construction and operation. The hydropower project will use water historically used for irrigation to offset the electricity used to power an irrigation sprinkler.
Here’s the link to the details and registration information
From email from the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University and the Mesa County Water Association (Hannah Holm):
The Water Center at Colorado Mesa University is pleased to host “Water Law in a Nutshell,” an 8-hour seminar presented by Mr. Aaron Clay, Attorney at Law and former 26-year Water Referee for the Colorado Water Court, Division 4. This seminar will cover all aspects of the law related to water rights and ditch rights as applied in Colorado. Subject matter includes the appropriation, perfection, use, limitations, attributes, abandonment and enforcement of various types of water rights. Additional subject matter will include special rules for groundwater, public rights in appropriated water, Federal and interstate compacts and more. This seminar is open to all interested persons. Fee is $69, or $114 for those seeking graduate inservice credit. Registration deadline is Oct 7, but class size is limited, and it may fill up before then.
More water law coverage here.
Energy policy — nuclear: The Town of Telluride town council approves lawsuit over operating license for the proposed Piñon Ridge mill
September 19, 2011
From The Telluride Watch:
On Tuesday, the Telluride Town Council voted unanimously to retain the legal services of a national public interest law firm, Public Justice, to litigate the case…
In January, the CDPHE issued a Radioactive Materials License to Energy Fuels Resources Corporation as a result of Colorado being an “Agreement State” under the Federal Atomic Energy Act. Shortly after it was issued, the licensing decision by CDPHE was first challenged by the Telluride-based environmental group Sheep Mountain Alliance. Following careful deliberation, members of council also expressed concerns over the potential negative impacts of an operational uranium mill in the area. According to Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger and Public Justice, these possible impacts were given little or no consideration by the state in its review process.
Flaming Gorge pipeline: Environmentalists are concerned that taxpayer dough is being spent frivolously on study
September 19, 2011
From the Grand Junction Free Press (Sharon Sullivan):
A coalition of environmental groups that include Western Resource Advocates, the Colorado Environmental Coalition and Save the Colorado, object to spending taxpayer money to study the feasibility of the trans-mountain diversion of water.
“Our concern is that it adds credibility to the project,” CEC water coordinator Becky Long said.
Ken Neubecker is director of Western Rivers Institute, past president of Trout Unlimited, and a member of the task force. The state legislature set aside money for projects like the task force study to look at what needs to be done regarding water supply and Colorado’s future, Neubecker said.
“Any significant reduction from the Green River could potentially affect all users in the basin,” said Hannah Holm, coordinator of the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University. The Water Center’s purpose is to “help communities in the upper Colorado River Basin understand how to be smart about water, do more with less to meet the needs going forward due to scarcity and tightened competition,” Holm said.
Additional water for projected shortages could come from purchase of agricultural rights, increased conservation, and alternative agricultural rights purchases — temporary arrangements with farmers so water could be obtained “without drying up the land forever,” Holm said.
The environmental coalition released a statement Wednesday protesting the vote: “While smaller, the proposal would still spend thousands of dollars in state funds to investigate a controversial and environmentally damaging project which thousands of Colorado citizens believe should not be funded at all.”
More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Board Chairman Eric Wilkinson castigated the environmental groups for trying to “sabotage” the study, and asked them to work with the state toward finding solutions. “The CWCB has the dirty, ugly discussions. That’s its responsibility. . . . I’m tired of all the disinformation about what the CWCB does,” Wilkinson said. “This board is trying to move the state forward, and, by golly, we’re going to turn this state around.”[...]
The CWCB approved a $72,000 grant — cut from the original $250,000 proposal — to identify statewide issues or interests from the proposed project. It would establish a task force of roundtable members from throughout the state as well as environmental representatives. The grant primarily covers the cost of 12 facilitated meetings during the process. Wilkinson asked the board to consider keeping the remainder of the money available if more discussion is warranted, but the board for now approved only the initial study. Part of the purpose of the task force would be to create a framework for studying future large projects.
The proposal was reworked Tuesday night after several environmental groups attempted to kill the project, said Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, who represented the Arkansas Basin Roundtable at the meeting.
Energy policy — geothermal: No drillers responded to Aspen’s RFP for a geothermal test project
September 19, 2011
From The Aspen Daily News (Andrew Travers):
The city’s Open Space and Trails Board in July unanimously approved a temporary test-drilling site on the gravel parking lot of the city-owned Prockter Open Space, beside the Roaring Fork River and across Neale Avenue from Heron Park. The city has dedicated $150,000 to the exploration project, and also won a $50,000 grant from the Governor’s Energy Office to help fund the test drilling…
Drilling had been slated for mid-September, but no drillers responded to a city request for proposals (RFP). An Aug. 29 deadline for proposals came and went without any interested contractors coming forward.
“We didn’t get any bids, so we’re trying again,” said [Canary Initiative] director Lauren McDonnell. The city has put the project out for proposals again, with a new deadline set for this Monday, Sept. 19.
Lamar pipeline: Former University of Colorado researcher urges in-depth analysis of the proposed project
September 19, 2011
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“If an area is in economic decline, you want to slow the decline, you don’t want to make it worse,” said Ken Weber, an anthropologist who wrote numerous reports on economic changes in Crowley County and the Great Plains as a researcher at the University of Colorado from 1986-1996. Weber, 67, grew up in LaJunta in the 1950s, and returned to the area a few years ago to live in Pueblo after working for two federal agencies. Weber frequently attends area water meetings and had a hand in creating the Arkansas Basin Roundtable agriculture-urban transfers report and tipping-point study…
Crowley County already was in decline by the time Colorado Springs and Aurora purchased most of the remaining water rights on the Colorado Canal in the 1980s. Its population dropped to less than 3,000 in the 1980 Census, less than half of its peak in 1920. Prowers County is on a similar path. Its population peaked in 1950 at nearly 15,000. In 2010, the population dropped to its lowest point, 12,551. Irrigated agriculture in Prowers County has suffered through decades of economic turbulence, as witnessed by the sale of many farms on the Fort Lyon Canal to water developers and half of the farms on the Amity Canal to Tri-State Generation and Transmission…
Unlike past water grabs, the GP plan has included an incentive for Prowers County — a water treatment plant. Bill Grasmick, a longtime farmer whose family sold water rights to GP Water, called the plan “economic development” for Lamar. An economic analysis, prepared by GP as part of a water-service bid, says the equivalent of 41 full-time farm-labor jobs would be lost when the water is taken off 4,000 acres of ground. Those jobs would be replaced by 13 jobs in the water treatment plant and seven jobs at a gravel mining operation. The payroll would increase to $3.3 million a year with the new jobs from the existing $2 million paid annually from the present farming operation. Property taxes would go up to more than $600,000 from $15,000 on the land, with the water treatment plant and gravel operations, according to Peter Elzi, of THK Associates, a GP planning consultant…
“We can know the engineering and technical parts of a project, but not the economic and social part,” Weber said. “All of this operates in a social and historical context, and to the extent we ignore that context, our decisions are somewhat blind.”
More coverage from the Castle Rock News Press (Ashley Dieterle):
A 12-month moratorium on service plans and service-plan amendments related to water districts was passed by the Elbert Board of County Commissioners during the Sept. 14 board meeting. The moratorium also applies to water sanitation districts and metropolitan districts that provide water services. The moratorium stemmed from the application withdrawal of an amendment to the service plan for the Elbert and Highway 86 Commercial Metropolitan District during an Aug. 24 board meeting. The controversial petition, which would have allowed a 150-mile pipeline transporting water from Lamar to the county, was withdrawn when county residents were unhappy with the commissioners for allowing the petition to reach public hearing.
More Lamar Pipeline coverage here.
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project update: Reclamation is on board with compromise for the spending of project revenues
September 19, 2011
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The plan pays off the South Outlet Works connection to Pueblo Dam, about $2 million, using revenues from 2010-11 this year, and begin paying down federal debt on the Fountain Valley Conduit and Ruedi Reservoir next year. During that time, the groups will work on a mutually acceptable plan for future years…
The new plan backs off the Southeastern’s insistence that Arkansas River basin parts of the project be paid down before Ruedi, a compensatory storage reservoir for the Western Slope above Basalt near Aspen…
The South Outlet Works delivers water from the Pueblo Dam to the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Fountain Valley Authority, Pueblo West and the future Arkansas Valley Conduit. Payment of the debt on the South Outlet Works benefits Pueblo water customers, who otherwise would have to pay about $169,000 a year over the next 12 years. More than $52 million is owed on the Fountain Valley Conduit, which serves Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security, Widefield and Stratmoor Hills. Payments for those users total $5.6 million a year, through property tax assessment. More than $32 million is owed on Ruedi, and interest payments increase the amount by $2 million annually. The reservoir was built larger than necessary at the request of Western Slope interests, and the large debt is a result of unused accounts at the reservoir.
More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.
From The Aspen Times (Andre Salvail):
Saving Our Streams, an environmental organization whose stated mission is to support local streams and to ensure that diversions of water do not compromise the health of fragile ecosystems, filed the lawsuit. The group was formed in February.
The lawsuit, which seeks to stop the city from moving forward with plans for a hydroelectric plant, was not unexpected. One of the plaintiffs, Aspen businessman Dick Butera, suggested during a City Council meeting in late June that it was likely.
Other plaintiffs are: Yasmine Depagter, Maureen Hirsch, Joseph and Sheila Cosniac, Kit Goldsbury, Elk Mountain Lodge LLC, Crystal LLC, American Lake LLC, Ashcroft LLC, B&C LLC and the Bruce E. Carlson Trust. They all own property along or adjacent to the creeks.
More coverage from Curtis Wackerle writing for the Aspen Daily News. From the article:
The suit, filed Thursday on behalf of 11 plaintiffs, claims the city has “abandoned” its water rights for hydropower. The six-page complaint, filed in state water court in Glenwood Springs by Aspen attorneys Paul Noto and Danielle Luber, cites the decommissioning of the city’s original Castle Creek hydropower station, which was in use from about 1893 until 1958. “Aspen has shown its intent to abandon the hydropower use decreed [to the Castle and Maroon creek water rights] by not using the water right for this purpose for over 50 years,” the complaint says…
City officials said the suit is without merit. Cynthia Covell, a Denver lawyer who works on water rights issues for the city, was out of town Thursday, but she has looked into questions on the validity of the city’s water rights for hydropower in the past.
“We are confident that our water rights have not been abandoned,” City Attorney John Worcester said, adding that discussions about developing hydropower again on Castle Creek “have been kicked around for the 20-plus years I’ve been here.”
The city has 20 days to respond to the suit.
The city’s water rights on the creeks date back to the 1880s in some cases. The lawsuit cites three separate water rights — the Castle Creek Flume Ditch, the Midland Flume Ditch and the Maroon Ditch — that together account for 160 cfs on Castle Creek and 65 cfs on Maroon Creek, that the city is entitled to use for domestic and hydropower purposes, among other municipal uses. These are the water rights that the city uses for its drinking water…
Saving Our Streams, a nonprofit group started by Maureen Hirsch and Yasmine Depagter, is listed as a plaintiff, as are Hirsch and Depagter individually. The other plaintiffs are: Dick Butera, Joseph and Sheila Cosniac, Kit Goldsbury, the Bruce E. Carlson Trust, B&C LLC, Elk Mountain Lodge LLC, Crystal LLC, Ashcroft LLC and American Lake LLC. The Bruce E. Carlson Trust and B&C LLC own property on Maroon Creek…
“It’s an open mystery why someone would be concerned about water being diverted eight miles downstream from them,” Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland said, noting that the water the city would take for the hydro plant would return to the river about two miles downstream after passing through the penstock and turbine.
Coyote Gulch outage: I’ll see you Monday morning
September 17, 2011
I’m on deadline at Colorado Central Magazine. I’ll see you Monday Morning bright and early.
10th annual Carbon Disclosure Project survey determines that 68% of the world’s largest firms that responded are ‘acting on climate change’
September 16, 2011
From The Guardian:
The 10th annual Carbon Disclosure Project, which analysed responses from 396 of the 500 largest companies in the world, found more than two-thirds (68%) now say they put climate change central to their business, compared with 48% last year.
Almost half (45%) are now reporting they have cut their greenhouse gas emissions as a result of steps they have taken to tackle carbon, up from less than a fifth (19%) in 2010.
The Carbon Disclosure Project report, written by PwC, also said there was a link between higher stock market performance and action on climate change, with those that have a strong focus on the issue providing investors with approximately double the average return over the period 2005 to 2011…
The CDP report suggests that rising oil prices, risky energy supplies and growing recognition of the returns on investment in cutting emissions have made climate change a more important issue in the boardroom.
It says that 59% of companies reported that the cost of schemes to reduce emissions such as energy saving projects in buildings, installing low-carbon power and changing the behaviour of staff, were recouped within three years.
Almost three-quarters of businesses (74%) who responded to the survey now have emissions reductions targets, up from two-thirds (65%) in 2010…
The report found that the vast majority (93%) of companies who responded with information have senior executives or board members responsible for climate change.
And almost two-thirds (65%) offer financial rewards to staff for taking action on climate change.
Alan McGill, PwC sustainability and climate change partner, said: “We’re seeing the highest levels of board oversight and engagement on climate change strategy ever, with significant increases in the levels of monetary incentives linked to achieving targets.
Say hello to Uunartoq Qeqertaq, or Warming Island, one of the newest islands in the world according to the The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. Here’s a report from The Guardian (John Vidal). Here’s an excerpt:
If you have never heard of Uunartoq Qeqertaq, it’s possibly because it’s one of the world’s newest islands, appearing in 2006 off the east coast of Greenland, 340 miles north of the Arctic circle when the ice retreated because of global warming. This Thursday the new land – translated from Inuit as Warming Island – was deemed permanent enough by map-makers to be included in a new edition of the most comprehensive atlas in the world…
The world’s biggest physical changes in the past few years are mostly seen nearest the poles where climate change has been most extreme. Greenland appears considerably browner round the edges, having lost around 15%, or 300,000 sq km, of its permanent ice cover. Antarctica is smaller following the break-up of the Larsen B and Wilkins ice shelves.
Meanwhile, more Americans believe that human activity is responsible for climate change, according to this report from Timothy Gardner writing for Reuters. From the article:
The percentage of Americans who believe the Earth has been warming rose to 83 percent from 75 percent last year in the poll conducted Sept 8-12…
As Americans watch Republicans debate the issue, they are forced to mull over what they think about global warming, said Jon Krosnick, a political science professor at Stanford University.
And what they think is also influenced by reports this year that global temperatures in 2010 were tied with 2005 to be the warmest year since the 1880s.
“That is exactly the kind of situation that will provoke the public to think about the issue in a way that they haven’t before,” Krosnick said about news reports on the Republicans denying climate change science…
Some 71 percent of the Americans who believe warming is happening think that it is caused either partly or mostly by humans, while 27 percent believe its is the result of natural causes, the poll found.
The monster snowpack in the Upper Colorado River basin resulted in big gains in storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead
September 16, 2011
Update: Down in the comments Tim Hodge reminds me that it’s pretty easy to check the gage height at Lake Mead and the 73% does not agree with Bureau of Reclamation information. He adds, “Still it’s better than 42%.”
Here’s a report about the Colorado Water Congress’ Summer Meeting from Allen Best running in The Telluride Watch. Click through and read the whole thing for a good recap. Here’s an excerpt:
Last spring, Colorado was, to paraphrase Dickens, a tale of two states. In the San Juan Mountains, maximum snowfall depths were reached on March 30, eight days earlier than average. Peak accumulations were about 90 percent of average. North of the Gunnison River, however, the La Niña storms stayed strong – and then, in April and May, turned remarkable. The Gunnison River itself had flows 125 percent of average. But northward, at Crested Butte, Aspen and Vail, the spring storms were unyielding. Colorado’s most remarkable story was in the Steamboat Springs region. At Buffalo Pass, eight miles from downtown Steamboat, the snow this year surpassed the tops of the 18-foot poles assembled to measure it…
This huge water year in Colorado – rivaled during recent decades only in 1995 and 1984 – had profound consequences for the big reservoirs downstream to which the Uncompaghre, San Miguel and other rivers ultimately deliver their water. Lake Powell had risen 24 feet as of late August as compared to last year. Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, was at 73 percent of capacity once again.
How very different from last December when Mead was at 42 percent of capacity, the lowest level since 1937, soon after completion of Hoover Dam.
More Colorado River basin coverage here.
Colorado River District Annual Seminar recap: Water use has ‘caught up with the supply’
September 16, 2011
From KJCT8.com (Dann Cianca):
Mark Squillace, Director of the University of Colorado Law School’s Natural Resources Law Center gave a talk examining policy and river management. “We’re at a unique point in our history where the amount of water that we’re using has caught up with the supply,” Squillace said. Better-than-average precipitation this in 2011 kept river levels up on the Western Slope, but Squillace says, “what we’re really talking about is managing risk. Whether you believe in climate change or not, we know that there are risks associated with water supplies. There are droughts that occur.”[...]
“New supply is an essential part of that problem,” he says. “There are two choices for new supply: Drying up agriculture or transporting Colorado River basin water to the Front Range.” His point was to get local water managers thinking about plans that they could impose before Front Range managers came to them.
More coverage from NBC11News.com (Kelly Asmuth):
The River District says the state’s population is expected to double by 2050, with the majority of people living on the Front Range. The organization says transferring more water from the Western Slope needs to be discussed, even if it’s not a popular topic in the Grand Valley. “It’s something that truthfully a lot of people (on the Western Slope) wouldn’t want to hear, but unfortunately the reality is, we have to at least go in that direction and try and understand it,” says Colorado River District public information officer, Jim Pokrandt.
More Colorado River basin coverage here.
Energy policy — hydroelectric: The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservation District is spearheading a hydroelectric generation plant just downstream of Pueblo Dam
September 16, 2011
I’m a big proponent of hydroelectric power, possibly because I love technology, but also because of the low-carbon nature of hydropower. Of course, the effects on streamflow and aquatic and riparian life when a stream is harnessed, dammed, channeled, etc. are well known so I tend to favor retrofits in a stream system that has already been affected, rather than the taking of another stream life for humankind.
Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado Springs, Pueblo Board of Water Works and Fountain are planning on making a bid for a hydropower plant just downstream of the dam. All of the partners are Southeastern district members and other partners could be added. “We’re putting together a partnership to try to win the award,” said Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern district told the district’s board Thursday. “I think this is an opportunity for the district.”
The plant would require an environmental review. It is not decided what organizational structure the group would use to build the hydropower plant. A preliminary report shows the group would make a profit on a plant generating anywhere from 4 to 8.6 megawatts of power. The cost of building the plant would be $11 million to $18.7 million, and state loans, government incentives and grants would be available to pay much of the cost, said Lindsay George of the Applegate Group…
The plant would hook onto the North Outlet Works river connection that is now being built as part of SDS. The connection includes one pipeline that goes to the Juniper Pump Station and another that would serve as the primary feed for the Arkansas River. The feed to the hydropower plant would use direct flows to spin turbines…
The hydropower plant would only be able to run from about April to September, when river releases are high enough to run turbines.
Rio Grande River basin: Water supply forecasters and San Luis Valley irrigators are eyeing a beefed up snowpack measuring network
September 16, 2011
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):
While the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable did not consider a specific funding request, a presentation from a team of federal, state and private researchers laid out improvement areas that included more snow gauges, radar and a host of smaller steps.
Improving runoff forecasts is no small matter to ranchers and farmers in the San Luis Valley, where snowmelt accounts for roughly 80 percent of stream flows…
The first drink out of the Rio Grande and Conejos rivers go toward satisfying interstate compact requirements with Texas and New Mexico and varies in size, according to the snowpack. A larger snowpack means the valley will have to send a greater portion downstream. But inaccurate forecasts can create uncertainty among water users because of the timing of when they’ll be able to divert water and the amount diverted. This year, for example, runoff was larger than predicted in the spring, forcing the state to send a larger amount of water downstream to satisfy the compact. By mid-July irrigators on the Rio Grande were forced to part with 22 percent of their allotment, while water users on the Conejos were watching 46 percent of their rightful share head downstream.
Over the past five years forecasters have come to within 4 percent of the actual runoff. They’ve also been off by as much as 24 percent…
While a pilot project could operate out of the valley as soon as December 2012, the cost of a permanent system could be as high as $10 million, [Steve Vasiloff, a researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] said.
More Rio Grande River basin coverage here.
From email from Sandra Haynes, PhD, Dean, School of Professional Studies and Susan Noble, Advancement and External Relations, Office of Development via Colorado Water 2012:
On September 8, the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan State College of Denver approved the establishment of the One World, One Water Center for Urban Water Education and Stewardship at Metropolitan State College of Denver (the OWOW Center), made possible through the generosity of a noted local philanthropist and conservationist.
More education coverage here.
Flaming Gorge pipeline: Conservationists are not convinced that the proposed feasibility study is worth even $72,000
September 15, 2011
From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):
“We are encouraged that the state will waste less taxpayer money on this study, but we still think it’s a complete waste of time and money even in its watered-down form,” said Gary Wockner of Save the Colorado.
“The pipeline would irrevocably harm the Green and Colorado Rivers, cost up to $9 billion, and negatively impact the West Slope’s economy. The state should spend the public’s money elsewhere.”
Here’s a joint release from Save the Colorado (Gary Wockner), the Colorado Environmental Coalition (Elise Jones) and Western Resource Advocates (Peter Roesmann):
At its Wednesday, September 14, 2011 meeting, the Colorado Water Conservation Board passed a diluted proposal to fund an exploratory study for the Flaming Gorge Pipeline. The original proposal was for $240,000 and multi-year meetings; the final proposal approved by the board funds just over $72,000 with only a few months of meetings. The watered-down proposal passed despite opposition from thousands of members of the public, a large coalition of environmental groups, taxpayer representatives, and West Slope businesses. Board members expressed many concerns, only some of which were addressed in the water-down version.
Our organizations continue to have numerous concerns about the project even in a scaled back form. While smaller, the proposal would still spend thousands of dollars in state funds to investigate a controversial and environmentally damaging project which thousands of Colorado citizens believe should not be funded at all. This week members of the Joint Budget Committee expressed their concerns over the project notably that this process seems to duplicate an existing efforts of the Interbasin Compact Committee.
Ultimately, a Flaming Gorge pipeline project entails enormous costs and infeasibility. We will continue to work with the CWCB, project proponents, water utilities and other stakeholders to further the important and difficult dialog around meeting Colorado’s future water needs, in ways that—unlike the Flaming Gorge pipeline—are cost-effective, feasible, and do-able in a short time frame.
Finally, Trout Unlimited released results today from a survey of Wyoming reaction to the proposed pipeline. From their release:
Public Opinion Strategies recently completed a statewide survey of voters throughout Wyoming regarding their perceptions of water. The survey results show that Wyoming voters are soundly opposed to a proposal to pump water from the Green River near Flaming Gorge Reservoir to Colorado communities and farms, and to eastern Wyoming. In fact, a majority are strongly opposed to the proposal, and opposition remains high even after hearing arguments in support of the project. After all additional information was provided, an overwhelming 90% of Wyoming voters reject the proposed pipeline.
Respondents in the survey and those in focus groups conducted earlier in Cheyenne indicate their opposition is founded in a concern for allowing Wyoming water to leave their state and an uncertainty over the state’s future needs due to drought or other conditions.
More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.
CWCB: HB10-1051 Conservation Data Collection DRAFT Guidelines Available for Public Comment
September 15, 2011
From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board:
In 2010, the Colorado General Assembly adopted House Bill 10-1051, an Act Concerning Additional Information Regarding Covered Entities’ Water Efficiency Plans. The Bill requires covered entities to annually report water use and water conservation data to the CWCB to be used for statewide water supply planning. The Bill also directs the CWCB to adopt guidelines regarding the reporting of water use and water conservation by covered entities, and to report to the Legislature regarding the Guidelines.
For the past 10 months the CWCB, with the invaluable support and detailed input from two advisory groups representing a diverse group of stakeholders, including many municipal water providers around the State, has been working on a draft set of Guidelines Regarding the Reporting of Water Use and Conservation Data by Covered Entities. The process has also developed a set of accompanying documents to support the Guidelines and their implementation.
The Draft Guidelines Regarding the Reporting of Water Use and Conservation Data by Covered Entities and Appendices are posted on the CWCB website and are available for public comment. The public comment period will run for 45 days and end at 5:00pm on October 29, 2011. We encourage the public to review the Guidelines and documents and provide the CWCB with comments. Please direct any questions or comments to Veva Deheza, Section Chief, Office of Water Conservation & Drought Planning, at 303-866-3441 ext. 3226.
More CWCB coverage here.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board is set to pony up $70,000 to study feasibility of the proposed Flaming Gorge pipeline water supply project
September 15, 2011
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
“I think it’s interesting and probably good that the state is looking at it,” said Fort Collins entrepreneur Aaron Million, whose Regional Watershed Supply Project is the most advanced proposal for a Flaming Gorge pipeline now being considered. CWCB members think the project proposal is strong enough for the state to study it, Million said. “I’ve always argued for the project to be fully vetted on all environmental issues and all issues associated with it,” he said. “The more it can be looked at, the more beneficial it will be to the eventual outcome.”[...]
Environmentalists are unhappy that the state is spending money to study a pipeline they believe will be too costly both to taxpayers and the environment.
Denver Water Board taking comments on rates adjustment for 2012
September 15, 2011
Here’s the release from Denver Water (Ellen Cinchock):
Denver Water is launching a public comment period on proposed rates for 2012. The Board of Water Commissioners will vote on rates during its Sept. 28 meeting.
The proposal, a 5.5 percent increase for all customers, provides further funding for the utility’s capital projects, which include upgrades to aging infrastructure. Under this proposal, the average residential Denver customer would pay about $19 more per year.
The increase is about half of what the Board had anticipated last year. In 2011, Denver Water reprioritized projects that can be delayed a few years and implemented additional efficiency measures throughout the organization.
“We are keenly aware of our need to spend our customers’ dollars wisely,” said Angela Bricmont, director of finance. “That’s why we’ve reduced our budget for 2012 and have launched an organization-wide efficiency initiative to keep us as lean as possible.”
Next year, the utility’s major projects include protecting the watershed through its From Forests to Faucets Partnership with the U.S. Forest Service, expanding the recycled water system and stepping up the pipe rehabilitation and replacement program.
Denver Water owns and maintains more than 3,000 miles of distribution pipe — enough to stretch from Los Angeles to New York — as well as 12 raw water reservoirs, 22 pump stations and four treatment plants. Ongoing rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure is needed throughout the water distribution system, much of which dates back to post-World War II installation or earlier.
Denver Water plans to expand its system capacity over the next decade to meet the future needs of its customers by expanding the utility’s recycled water system, enlarging Gross Reservoir by 18,000 acre-feet, developing gravel pits that store reusable water, and exploring ways to work with other water providers to bring more supplies to its system.
The effects of the proposed changes on customer bills would vary depending upon the amount of water the customer uses and whether the customer lives in Denver or is served by a suburban distributor under contract with Denver Water. The more customers use, the more they will pay. Under the current rate proposal, average Denver residential customers would see their bills increase by $19.43 a year — an average of $1.62 per month. Typical suburban residential customers served by Denver Water would see an increase of $34.11 per year — an average of $2.84 per month. Commercial, industrial and government customers also would see a 5.5 percent increase.
If the proposed adjustments are approved, they would take effect January 2012. Rates for Denver Water customers living inside the city would remain among the lowest in the metro area, while rates for Denver Water residential customers in the suburbs would still fall at or below the median among area water providers.
“Denver Water has a long history of sound financial management, fiscal responsibility and efficiency,” Bricmont said. “Our AAA bond rating is a reflection of that. It allows us to build projects at lower cost — savings we are able to pass along to our customers.”
The water department is funded through rates and new tap fees, not taxes. Its rates are designed to recover the costs of providing reliable, high-quality water service and to encourage efficiency by charging higher prices for increased water use. A significant portion of Denver Water’s annual costs do not vary with the amount of water sold and include maintenance of the system’s distribution pipes, reservoirs, pump stations and treatment plants. Denver Water also examines and adjusts its capital plan as necessary each year.
The Board is expected to vote on the proposed changes on Wednesday, Sept. 28. Please send public comment to dbwc@denverwater.org or call 303-628-6320. Public comment also will be taken during the Board meeting at 9 a.m. on Sept. 28. For more information about the Board meetings, visit www.denverwater.org/AboutUs/PublicWaterBoardMeetings.
More coverage from KWGN.tv:
Denver Water has proposed raising rates by 5.5% to help fund construction projects, including ones to upgrade aging infrastructure. That means the average residential customer would pay about $19 more per year. If approved, the rate hike would take effect in January.
More Denver Water coverage here.
Lamar pipeline: Any potential GP Water change case faces close scrutiny from the Arkansas River Compact Administration
September 15, 2011
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Formed in 1949, after Kansas and Colorado had ratified the 1948 Arkansas River Compact, the administration has proven to be an unwieldy body when it comes to moving water. No transfer of water ever has been approved from District 67, which covers the Arkansas River and its tributaries downstream from John Martin Reservoir. Both states are committed to abide by the compact under an act of Congress, and violations are serious. A U.S. Supreme Court case filed in 1985 was the latest round in a fight that has gone on for more than a century. While the massive water district touches corners of Elbert and El Paso counties, taking water to populated urban areas would require moving water outside District 67.
The compact has “bright red letter” language that prohibits that, said Steve Witte, Division 2 engineer for the State Division of Water Resources and ARCA operations secretary. The movement of water is covered in Article V, Section H of the compact, which prohibits transferring water into other districts or upstream of John Martin Dam unless it can be proved there are no adverse effects. “It’s pretty clear you can’t change water rights in Colorado to other districts unless you can prove there are no depletions,” Witte said…
Because the commission meets only once a year and it takes the agreement of both states to pass any resolution, change in the compact is glacially slow. Kansas can stop a discussion just by not addressing the issue. In recent years, the states have started talking again, but they proceed carefully. Under procedures developed during the court case, most matters are referred to an engineering committee, and it takes action by one of the state representatives to even get the administration to hear requests…
GP Water officials have portrayed the proposed pipeline project as one which moves only the consumptive use of the water, by drying up 4,000 acres of farm ground. No change would be made in the point of diversion and returned flows would be timed to meet historic conditions.
Colin Thompson, who represents District 67 on ARCA, said he is concerned about any plans to move water along the river — including the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch — because of the potential to diminish return flows and degrade water quality…
[Matt Heimerich, who represents upstream water users on ARCA] said the compact was adopted 63 years ago, and did not anticipate that large blocks of water could be moved from agricultural to urban use. He too sees problems with how [Lower Arkansas Water Management Association] shares figure into the GP plan…
Heimerich still farms on land in Crowley County that was left behind after much of the farm water was sold to Colorado Springs and Aurora. He can relate to concerns raised by other farmers in the Granada-Lamar area about the depletion of so much water on one canal. “It is really important to keep the people who are left whole,” Heimerich said.
More Lamar Pipeline coverage here.
The August/September issue of ‘Colorado Water’ from the Colorado Water Institute is hot off the press
September 14, 2011
Click here to download a copy.
From email from the Colorado Water Institute:
Climate, weather and water are completely intertwined. It is a fact that the most damaging extreme weather events usually involve water in some form. Already this year, the U.S. has experienced record-setting floods along the Mississippi River, deadly tornadoes in the South, and severe drought in Texas and Oklahoma. We have already seen eight $1 billion-plus disasters in the U.S. during 2011, with total damages at more than $32 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). As these statistics indicate, the study of climate and weather is vitally important to society. Weather and climate affect virtually every aspect of our economy and everyday life— how we live, what we grow, our ecosystems, our energy needs, how our buildings and roads are built, the services we require, and how we recreate.
As you will read in this issue of Colorado Water, CSU researchers are currently working to develop improved information in the form of climate forecasts, runoff predictions, drought monitoring, and regional vulnerability assessments needed to assist water resource decision makers.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project update: Pumping resumed September 7 from Shadow Mountain Reservoir into Grand Lake for deliveries to the South Platte Basin
September 14, 2011
From the Sky-Hi Daily News (Tonya Bina):
In the shallow, “crystal clear” connecting channel of Grand Lake and Shadow Mountain Reservoir, “The day after they started pumping, you couldn’t see the bottom,” said Watershed Program Manager Ben Carver, of the Grand County Water Information Network. Secchi disc measurements back up observances…The Water Information Network’s paid field technician has been sampling clarity at 14 sites of Grand Lake three times per week this summer. In mid-July, the measurements averaged around 20 feet (6.25 meters). On Sept. 10, three days after pumping resumed, the clarity on Grand Lake had been cut nearly in half to an average 11 feet (3.25 meters). The channel became “a bottleneck for all the algae coming into Grand Lake” from shallow Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Carver said.
More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.
I just got out of staff meeting at work and I was wondering about the outcome from the CWCB meeting in Grand Junction, so I opened up Twitter. You have to love the Internet.
Here’s a tweet from @beckylong who attended the meeting, “Statements from proponents & Board members on the #FlamingGorge proposal. Say they’ve invited us [ed. conservationists and environmentalists] to dinner. Feel a little like the turkey.”
From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):
Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board voted unanimously to spend $70,000 on a study exploring the idea for a 570-mile pipeline — and $170,000 more if the first study deems the diversion promising, according to participants at a CWCB meeting in Grand Junction…
This morning’s CWCB decision “shows the potential value of the project” for delivering “a new water resource for Colorado,” [Aaron Million] said. “We’ve been watching from the sidelines. The project needs to be studied. This is a move-forward decision.”
Some environmental groups objected to spending state money to explore the project, saying it would hurt the reservoir and the Green River ecosystems. Western Resource Advocates, a Boulder-based law and policy group, called state pursuit of the pipeline “a colossal waste of time and energy… All interested parties should instead spend time on more realistic means to meet future water demands.”
The CWCB is charged with protecting and developing water resources for the state.
More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.
