How much water will the Niobrara shale play under eastern Colorado Springs require and where will it come from?

From the Colorado Springs Independent (Pam Zubeck):

Colorado Springs Utilities is required to serve Banning Lewis Ranch under the annexation agreement, in which the annexor relinquishes the land’s water rights to the city forever, except for 2,000 acre feet of groundwater on the south end. That water, about 652 million gallons, is to be split between the city and annexor.

But Utilities, still building the SDS pipeline, hasn’t heard a water request from Ultra, says spokesman Dave Grossman. He says the city doesn’t know how much is needed, because “fracking is new to our area, so we don’t have past data for planning purposes.” Ultra did not respond to a request for comment for this story, but Montgomery says 1 million to 5 million gallons is used per frack.

If the 326 million gallons to which Ultra would have access under the annexation agreement isn’t enough, and the company doesn’t want to buy water from Utilities, Cherokee Metropolitan District, which serves the 18,000-customer Cimarron Hills enclave east of Powers Boulevard, is open to the idea of selling water, manager Sean Chambers says. Five years ago, Cherokee lost its use of several wells in the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District, east of its service area, after illegally exporting water from the basin to its customers.

Chambers now wonders if that water, which Cherokee still owns, could be sold to drillers.

“We would consider it, so long as we were assured certain protections and we could confirm our decrees are consistent with what’s allowable,” he says. “The state is a little unsure … They don’t want this oil bonanza to turn into a water problem.”[...]

[Charlie Montgomery, energy organizer of the Colorado Environmental Coalition] says the next battle will be over local control. The Pueblo Chieftain has reported that Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, wants to require a more comprehensive state accounting of oil and gas drilling’s water needs. Meanwhile, the Longmont Times-Call says that Rep. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, wants to give local governments more control over the industry, including fracking.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Arkansas Basin Roundtable members received training on the CWCB’s ‘Portfolio Tool’ Wednesday

Computing a water balance amongst the various consumptive and non-consumptive uses with an eye towards avoiding large-scale dry-ups of agricultural land is one goal of the tool. Another is to demonstrate how an increase in one use affects the other uses. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Colorado Water Conservation Board has developed the portfolio tool to weigh how the success of water projects already under development, urban conservation, new projects and agricultural transfers fit into meeting a projected “gap” in urban water supplies. Members of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable were given the chance to learn how to use the tool Wednesday in a computer lab at Colorado State University-Pueblo, but only a few showed up.

Water resources workers from Pueblo, Colorado Springs and Aurora also attended the meeting to learn more about the tool and offer suggestions about assumptions that have been made…

The Metro Basin Roundtable, for instance, developed four scenarios, looking at different levels of future demand. It took another step and developed a white paper on how more conservation might be achieved to reduce the need to dry up farms or import more water. The Colorado Basin Roundtable produced a model that showed how agricultural preservation statewide could be maximized. “I think the tool shows how if you make a change in one area, it affects something else, like Whac-a-Mole,” said Dave Taussig, a member of the roundtable from Lincoln County.

The group moved parameters within the model to look at low, medium or high demand in the future, and agreed to share these with the full roundtable at a future date. In some cases — for instance, low demand, high conservation and development of identified projects — there would be very limited impact on agricultural land.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Water Treatment Providers and Conservationists Pushing for Clean Water

Here’s the release from the Colorado Environmental Coalition:

Several conservation groups and water treatment utilities filed early statements on Friday in the upcoming water quality rulemaking being held by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, slated for March of 2012. The rulemaking will focus on controlling high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous, pollution that impacts Colorado’s drinking water, whitewater recreation and waterways.

Colorado Environmental Coalition, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Colorado Trout Unlimited and High Country Citzens’ Alliance are gearing up in advance of the formal rulemaking to ensure that Colorado’s water remains of the highest quality. The groups are collaborating with some of the largest water treatment providers in Colorado to pass strong standards to protect our health, environment, and to help curb the cost of future upgrades to water treatment facilities.

“Colorado has an exciting opportunity to show our neighbors and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that we can protect our rivers and streams while minimizing costs to local communities. Our rivers really are the lifeblood of our communities and we must use this opportunity to ensure they remain clean, clear and safe for all uses,” said Becky Long with the Colorado Environmental Coalition.

Along with other states, Colorado has been directed to implement new standards by EPA. Pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus is the culprit behind “dead zones” like those in the Mississippi River Delta, resulting in massive fish die-offs. In Colorado, small communities have recently suffered drinking water scares, when chemicals needed to treat for these types of contaminants have made drinking water unsafe for human consumption. This past August the town of Hotchkiss, warned citizens to avoid the local tap water after a similar scare. Efforts to ensure the safety of local water supplies in Hotchkiss could take up to six months.

Many communities have been concerned with the potentially high costs of treating this type of contamination. As a result, the state agency and many water providers are proposing a ten-year phase-in period allowing for needed facility upgrades and reducing costs to customers.

The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District is also working to ensure Colorado’s rule is protective in order to head off additional federal regulations, which could be handed down if Colorado fails to pass a state rule.

“We believe the Water Quality Control Division’s proposal provides an opportunity for Colorado to make meaningful progress to reduce nutrients, protect small communities during these tough economic times, and put in place statewide monitoring to better understand the impacts of nutrients on a local, watershed basis,” said Barbara Biggs, Governmental Affairs Officer with the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District.

Water quality is also a major driver for recreation and tourism across Colorado. Murky water and slippery algae that can take over rivers and lakes does not enhance the post card image of Colorado’s environment. In recent years, the Water Quality Control Commission has had to implement standards for Grand Lake in order to control high concentrations of these same elements because of the impacts on water clarity and the fisheries in Colorado’s largest natural lake.

“My business really drops off when water quality is a concern. As Colorado’s population grows and human impacts contribute to water quality problems, we could face additional warnings and restrictions on the South Platte River. Our shop is only steps away from the river and we really rely on a safe river for our customers to recreate on,” said Jon Kahn, owner of Confluence Kayaks in Denver.

Statements were filed in Denver on Friday and the Water Quality Control Division will have until late January to respond.

Thanks to @beckylong for the link.

More water pollution coverage here and here.

Aspen: City council approves zoning for proposed Castle Creek hydroelectric generation plant

From The Aspen Times (Andre Salvail):

For nearly nine hours split between two meetings at Aspen City Hall on Monday, experts, consultants, residents and city officials debated the pros and cons of the proposed Castle Creek hydroelectric facility.

When the discourse was finally over at 10:20 p.m., the City Council voted unanimously to advance the project, conditionally approving a staff request to rezone property off Power Plant Road west of Aspen for a 1,761-square-foot building that would serve as the plant’s operations center. The vote also removes the land from the city’s open space inventory…

Council members heard from numerous opponents throughout the day, some of them landowners along the banks and within the watershed of Castle and Maroon creeks. An afternoon work session was designed to answer questions elected officials had about the project at large; the council’s regular meeting during the evening was supposed to focus only on the land-use request. In both instances, the public was allowed to comment…

The day began at 11:30 a.m., prior to the 1 p.m. work session, when representatives of the Washington, D.C.-based group American Rivers discussed a report it commissioned to evaluate the economic feasibility of the project.

The report, conducted by Tier One Capital Management LLC, questions the city’s estimate of $10.5 million for the project’s cost and puts the actual price tag at more than $16 million, citing interest payments on bonds used to finance construction. City officials have disputed the report and its conclusions, saying that it contains “egregious errors.”

At the work session, City Manager Steve Barwick discussed financial aspects of the plant and noted that the city need only spend a little more than $3 million more to complete the project. Most of that amount is for the building on Power Plant Road. An estimated $275,000 has been projected for handling the FERC application process.

Barwick stressed that the project is the best way to further the city’s goal of supplying 100 percent renewable energy through its electricity utility. He said every financial model shows that the new plant would save the community money in the long run.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Dolores River: The Colorado Court of Appeals affirms Montrose County permit for the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill

From The Telluride Daily Planet (Benjamin Preston):

“This is an important project for western Colorado, and is going to mean an awful lot of job opportunities in a depressed part of the state,” said Gary Steele, an investor relations officer for Energy Fuels, Inc., the Canadian company slated to develop the project.

In order to obtain the permit from Montrose County, Energy Fuels had to agree to 18 conditions, which covered everything from the quality of uranium processed in the mill to the amount of water it can use. The conditions also include a 500-ton per day processing limit, plant footprint restrictions and a water quality monitoring requirement. The company has seven years to commence construction of the mill before having to go through the permitting process again.

“While those conditions aren’t adequate in our opinion, they’re better than no conditions at all, and they help protect the San Miguel River,” said Jennifer Thurston, a project coordinator with Sheep Mountain Alliance. In the wake of Energy Fuels’ recent triumph, Thurston said that SMA has not yet decided if they will attempt to have the case heard again by the appellate court, or try to push the case up the ladder to the state Supreme Court.

One thing is certain: SMA will pursue legal action against the project by way of the permit Energy Fuels received from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in January. The towns of Ophir and Telluride are co-plaintiffs in that case. Telluride Mayor Stu Fraser said that although Telluride isn’t opposing the mill just for the sake of opposing it, the town council wants to make sure air and water quality standards are as tight as possible.

Montrose County officials applauded the appellate court’s decision, but County Commissioner Ron Henderson wondered why SMA filed the suit to begin with. He said the case cost the county hundreds of hours of staff time, plus litigation fees, the amount of which he did not know.

“We included everyone who would possibly have a say during the permitting process,” he said. “I really don’t understand why Sheep Mountain Alliance filed [these lawsuits]. I guess it’s the American way, but it wasn’t very productive.”

More nuclear coverage here and here.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission green lights new ‘toughest in nation’ hydraulic fracturing disclosure rule

From Reuters via The Calgary Herald:

Pressure has been mounting on U.S. companies to be more open about the fracking technique that has been linked to water pollution.

The measures, which come into effect in April, go further than any other state to publicly highlight the exact contents of fracking fluid, which has become a major point of contention between the energy industry and environmentalists as its use increases…

On Tuesday, Texas adopted its own disclosure ruling for drillers, though it is considered less strict, with companies required to only include chemicals considered hazardous under certain drill site rules. Wyoming, Arkansas and Montana have similar disclosure rules to Texas.

More coverage from the Associated Press via The Aurora Sentinel. From the article:

The guidelines are similar to those required by a first-in-the-nation law passed in Texas this year but go further by requiring the concentrations of chemicals to be disclosed.

“That’s the big advancer here. We’re getting a full picture of what’s in that fracking fluid,” said Michael Freeman, an attorney for Earthjustice who worked with industry to write the rules.

Also, if Colorado drillers claim a trade secret, they would still have to disclose the ingredient’s chemical family. In emergencies, companies would have to tell health care workers what those secret ingredients were…

“I think we’ve reached the fairest and most transparent rules on the transparency of frack fluids of any state in the country,” Hickenlooper said afterward. “I think this will likely become a national model that if other states they don’t copy it, they will certainly use it as a touch point.”

More coverage from Bob Berwyn writing for the Summit County Citizens Voice. From the article:

The Colorado requirements are among the most extensive in the U.S. and the Colorado Oil & Gas Association is also satisfied with the outcome.

“Colorado now has the strongest hydraulic fracturing rule in the country,” said COGA president and CEO Tisha Schuller. “But more importantly, we have gained a model process to bring together industry, environmental advocates, and regulators to ensure energy development continues in keeping with protecting the environmental resources of our state.”

“The Commission’s unanimous support for the new hydraulic fracturing disclosure rule is great news for Colorado. The Hickenlooper administration, environmental groups, and the oil and gas industry have agreed upon a rule of which all Coloradoans can be proud.

More coverage from The Greeley Tribune (Sharon Dunn) via Windsor Now!. From the article:

Most oil and gas wells in Colorado have been completed through fracking since 1960, said Ed Holloway, CEO of Synergy Resources Corp., based in Platteville. The process has been widely used since 1947, he said. Holloway, who has been in the business for 30 years and who has seen paperwork associated with oil and gas well drilling double in that time frame, said the new rule will go a long way toward transparency. “I think it’s come to the point now that we can take that veil, that one veil of mystery off,” Holloway said.

Most drillers in Weld already have been disclosing their chemicals voluntarily through the website www.fracfocus.org. Come April 1, that will become mandatory. The new rules also require companies to disclose the concentrations of chemicals used.

“There’s always concerns with groundwater contamination, regardless of the industry,” said Weld County Commissioner Chairwoman Barbara Kirkmeyer. “This rule will help with some of that. The industry already does baseline water sampling, and they’re going to continue doing that. And most of the industry players, at least the ones in Weld, have already been disclosing their chemicals. The rule just kind of galvanizes that.”

Some area farmers said they had little concern about fracking. Gege Ellzey, president of the Weld County Farm Bureau, said the disclosure issue had not been heavily discussed among local farmers. “For the most part, no one around here seems to be all that concerned about it,” said Ellzey, who allows oil and gas companies to drill on her land, and noted that she’s had no problems with how they’re operating…

“The end of the story is just a continual attack on our industry,” Holloway said. “My personal belief is this rule is good for the industry, and it’s where the industry should be.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

The Arkansas Valley Super Ditch board approves pilot lease-fallowing arrangement with Fountain for 500 acre-feet of water with

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The board met at the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District offices in Rocky Ford, and approved the sale of 500 acre-feet of water for $510 per acre-foot under a one-year lease agreement. The cost includes a $10 per acre-foot administrative fee. “The pilot program is important because it will prove if we can actually move the water,” said John Schweizer, president of the Super Ditch and the Catlin Canal. “This will open the door for more leases.”

While the Super Ditch ultimately could use water rights from seven ditches east of Pueblo, only the Catlin Canal will be involved in the pilot program. The Catlin board will review the contract on Dec. 27…

The water will go to the city of Fountain, and possibly other members of the El Paso County Water Authority, after it is exchanged upstream to Lake Pueblo…

About 250 acres will be dried up to provide the water, and one purpose of the program is to demonstrate through engineering how land can be taken out of production and how augmentation flows can be timed to return water to the Arkansas River. Farmers retain ownership of water rights and voluntarily participate.

More Arkansas Valley Super Ditch coverage here and here.

‘Communities Protecting the Green River’ file objections to Wyco Water and Power’s proposed Flaming Gorge pipeline

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

Rock Springs, Wyo.-based Communities Protecting the Green River was the first to lodge objections to Fort Collins entrepreneur Aaron Million’s Regional Watershed Supply Project.

The group includes the cities of Green River and Rock Springs, Wyo. and Sweetwater County, Wyo.

“In reality, it is an investment scheme masquerading as a water supply project, which is masquerading as a pump-back hydropower project,” Don Hartley, the group’s vice-chairman, wrote in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Dec. 9…

“This project is portrayed as a hydropower project, but pumping water over the Continental Divide will require more energy than can be generated from the fall of the water on the east side (of the divide),” Hartley wrote.

He added that consideration of such a massive water pipeline is premature because a federal study of the amount of water available to be consumed by growing communities in the Green River-Colorado River watershed is ongoing.

More coverage from the Associated Press via the Billings Gazette. Here’s an excerpt:

Many in western Wyoming say they’re concerned the project would draw down Flaming Gorge Reservoir. The city of Green River has joined the city of Rock Springs and Sweetwater County to fight Million’s proposal.

Green River Mayor Hank Castillon said Monday that residents are unified in opposition to the project. “They just don’t want to see Wyoming water going to Colorado,” Castillon said. “The main issues are recreational, and they feel that it’s going to affect their lifestyle as far as sporting events and water because we have the Flaming Gorge here also the fishing up and down the Green River, fish habitat.”[...]

Million filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this summer spelling out plans to construct a system of turbines and reservoirs along the pipeline to generate electricity. While he has said the project wouldn’t generate more electricity than pumping the water would consume, he said generation would help cover its pumping costs. He wants to construct a reservoir on the slopes of Sheep Mountain, west of Laramie, and generate electricity by pumping water into the reservoir and having it flow through turbines on its way downstream to another lake nearby, Lake Hattie…

Steve Jones, watershed protection program attorney with the Wyoming Outdoor Council in Lander, said his group is concerned with the prospect of such large-scale pumping out of the Green River. “It’s obvious to me that some years, there is not going to be any water available, and other years there might,” Jones said. “But to me, the idea that, that reservoir could supply that year in and year out, is just wrong, according to the statistics that I’ve looked at.”[...]

Duane Short, wild species program director with the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in Laramie, said federal roadless policies would prohibit construction on Sheep Mountain…

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead has expressed opposition to Million’s project. His office said this week that the state plans to file comments with FERC.

More Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here and here.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission green lights new hydraulic fracturing disclosure rule, ‘trade secrets’ safe for now

From the Denver Business Journal (Cathy Proctor):

The rule allows oil and gas companies to claim that some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, also called “fracking,” are proprietary trade secrets, but requires companies to disclose the names and concentrations of all other chemicals…

“We have a good rule that’s an important step forward for Colorado,” said Mike Freeman, a Denver-based attorney for the Earthjustice environmental advocacy group. “This is the first state rule that I know of that requires the disclosure of chemical concentrations of all chemicals, not just those covered by workplace safety rules,” Freeman said…

“The industry gave dramatically” when it agreed to include chemical concentrations, said Tisha Schuller, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association (COGA), a trade group. “And we gave because Colorado requires a level of transparency that’s not required by other states,” she said…

“We think these rules are a model for other states, and also that they’re the right rules for Colorado, our families and our neighbors,” said Dave Neslin, director of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. The rule, which takes effect on April 1, will give oil and gas companies between 60 and 120 days to post information about the chemicals used in fracking operations at a website, www.fracfocus.com.

Companies claiming trade secret protection for the name or concentration must fill out a new form, Form 41, that outlines what can and can’t be considered a trade secret. If someone believes that companies are inappropriately using the trade secret claim they can ask the COGCC to look into the matter, and file a lawsuit if they’re not happy with the commission’s response, Neslin said.

The Denver Business Journal is running a roundup of their articles about hydraulic fracturing, as well.

More coverage from Mark Jaffe writing for The Denver post. Click through for the cool photo from the Associated Press. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“The level of detail required in this rule is much greater than other states require,” said Mike Freeman, an attorney for the environmental law group Earthjustice.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission unanimously adopted the rule after last-minute negotiations among environmental groups, industry and state regulators…

Some states, such as New Mexico, only require that chemicals identified by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration as hazardous in the workplace, be listed.

“We know that is about half the chemicals in fracking fluid, so we are doubling the number of chemicals” to be disclosed, said David Neslin, the commission’s executive director.

Other states, such as Wyoming and Arkansas, require all chemicals be listed, but do not require revealing the concentrations of the ingredients, Freeman said…

The compromise on the chemical concentrations was that the chemicals and concentrations would be listed separately from the descriptions of the products in the frack fluid. This would make it difficult to know which chemicals go in which products.

More coverage from P. Solomon Banda writing for the Associated Press via the Boston Globe. From the article:

The guidelines are similar to those required by a first-in-the-nation law passed in Texas this year but go further by requiring the concentrations of chemicals to be disclosed. Also, if Colorado drillers claim a trade secret, they would still have to disclose the ingredient’s chemical family. In emergencies, companies would have to tell health care workers what those secret ingredients were…

In recent years, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming have proposed or adopted rules requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals.

More coverage from Hendrik Sybrandy writing for Fox31. From the article:

“It’s a real win for the citizens of Colorado,” said Tom Thompson, Chairman of the COGCC. “This is really a small part in ensuring that our water supplies are protected.”

Tisha Schuller, the President of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, which represents the industry, also heralded the collaboration that led to the adoption of the new rule.

“The Commission’s unanimous support for the new hydraulic fracturing disclosure rule is great news for Colorado,” Schuller said. “The Hickenlooper Administration, environmental groups, and the oil and gas industry have agreed upon a rule of which all Coloradoans can be proud.”[...]

Anadarko Petroleum is currently doing tests near the Murphy Creek and Cross Creek subdivisions in east Aurora. Ward Two Council member Renie Peterson held an informational session at the city’s municipal building to provide residents details about the project and fracking in general.

“Constituents, they don’t understand, and of course fear triggers outrage,” Peterson said before the meeting.

“As a scientist that studied a lot of neurotoxins and neurodegenerative diseases, I know some of these chemicals they’re putting in the ground and what they can do long-term to human health,” said Eric Neeley, a Cross Creek resident who’s opposed to the Anadarko project.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

The Colorado Supremes approve Democratic district boundaries for the General Assembly

Here’s the link to the final plans submitted by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission in Google Earth format.

From The Denver Post (Tim Hoover):

“It is ordered that Resubmitted Plan for districts for the Senate and House of Representatives shall be, and the same hereby is approved,” the court said in a short order issued today, rejecting Republican arguments that the maps were unconstitutional. “It is further ordered that the resubmitted plan shall be filed with Colorado Secretary of State no later than Dec. 14, 2011.” The state’s high court earlier this year kicked back a first set of maps drawn by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission, agreeing with Republican arguments that the maps — which had been approve on bipartisan votes — split too many counties. The commission then went back to the drawing board in late November, approving a new set of maps – drawn by Democrats – on 6-5 votes over Republican objections.

The maps would make 38 of 100 legislative seats competitive, with 24 in the 65-member House and 14 in the 35-member Senate.

More coverage from Joe Hanel writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:

The court accepted a map that puts Durango and Gunnison in the same state House district and ships off conservative Montezuma County to join a Montrose-based district…

Monday’s three-paragraph decision did not elaborate on the justices’ reasoning, and it did not say how each of the seven justices voted.

The new map makes big trouble for many Republicans, including Rep. J. Paul Brown of Ignacio. Brown now will have to travel three mountain passes between Durango and Gunnison, and he will be in a district that is much easier for Democrats to win than his old one, which was drawn along the Cortez-Durango-Pagosa Springs axis…

Other Republicans were angry, including Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs. “It is disappointing to see the Supreme Court validate such blatantly partisan and politically vindictive maps. It is clear that the reapportionment process in Colorado is broken and in need of reform,”

Cadman said in a news release. Cadman now shares a Colorado Springs district with Sen. Keith King, the Senate Republican with the most experience in education policy. Only one of them will survive past 2012. Other senior and up-and-coming Republicans also will have to run against each other in primaries if they want to stay in the Legislature.

The map harms a few Democrats, too, by either putting them in safe GOP districts or into districts with other incumbent Democrats. But Democrats were happy about Monday’s decision, which creates – by their definition – 35 House and Senate districts that both parties have a chance to win. “These new districts will favor representatives who are accountable and responsive, and Democrats will field candidates who fit this profile,” said Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio in a news release.

More coverage from Patrick Malone writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. Here’s an excerpt:

Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-Pueblo West, landed in House District 46, where Pueblo City Councilman Leroy Garcia, a Democrat, had announced his candidacy months earlier. The new House District 46 is 40 percent Hispanic. Voter registration, based on the 2010 election, is 48.66 percent Democratic, 25.82 percent Republican and 25.06 percent unaffiliated…

The bipartisan Colorado Reapportionment Commission has met and heard public testimony on reapportionment since May. The first set of maps it submitted to the Supreme Court enjoyed broad support on the commission from Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the court ruled that the original submission did not sufficiently minimize splitting counties and cities into multiple districts and rejected it. When the commission resumed its work, Mario Carrera, its unaffiliated chairman, sided with Democrats to cast the deciding vote. Republicans reacted fiercely to the outcome and criticized Democrats’ re- drawn proposals as an opportunistic strike to pit incumbent GOP leaders in districts with each other.

“It’s not required that incumbents be protected,” [Rick Palacio, chairman of the Colorado Democratic Party] said…

Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, finds himself in a district with Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs. “It is disappointing to see the Supreme Court validate such blatantly partisan and politically vindictive maps,” Cadman said. “It is clear that the reapportionment process in Colorado is broken and in need of reform. I am now considering sponsoring a bill for the 2012 session to address this problem.”[...]

“I am confident that with hard-working candidates and a winning message of economic growth and job creation Republicans will expand our majority in the state House (and) win a majority in the state Senate,” [Ryan Call, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party] said.

“When you level the playing field, Democrats are going to prevail,” Palacio said. “They are the candidates standing up for middle-class families, as opposed to today’s Republicans, who are standing up for corporate interests.”

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

House District 47 now spans from eastern Fremont County through Otero County, lassoing much of Pueblo County in between. No incumbent lives in the district, so an election will be held next year to fill it. Las Animas County now is paired with Eastern Plains counties in a House district.

In the Senate, another orphan district was created by peeling eight counties from District 2, currently held by Sen. Kevin Grantham, R-Canon City. The new district spans from the San Luis Valley to the Lower Arkansas Valley, taking away a portion of District 5 represented by Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village.

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

Newly created Senate District 35 will stretch from the San Luis Valley to the Kansas line, snaring 16 counties — but no incumbent — along the way. Half of the counties in the new district were plucked from present day Senate District 2, where Sen. Kevin Grantham, R-Canon City, was elected just last year, and another seven counties were extracted from the district represented by Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village. “It’s going to be a pretty tough district to campaign and represent,” Grantham said. “It’s very big, but the interests are the same in rural Colorado — the interests that I have still. I’ll represent rural interests whether I technically represent the Arkansas Valley or not.” Grantham’s new district will link Fremont County to El Paso, Teller and Park counties. He will represent the district in part of 2012 and all of 2013 and 2014, when he will be up for re-election…

Las Animas County, which objected that it originally was split into two districts and paired with Pueblo in one, will be in a rural, Eastern Plains district that stretches east to Kansas and north to Washington County. Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Cokedale, lives in that district. He is term-limited, and the seat will be up for grabs next year.

More coverage from Ivan Moreno writing for the Associated Press via The Columbus Republic. From the article:

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to approve the maps gives Democrats a sweep in the once-a-decade redistricting battles. The new congressional maps the court approved last week were also drawn by Democrats and give them a chance to unseat Republican Rep. Mike Coffman next year in a district never held by Democrats.

The court did not immediately issue a written opinion on the state legislative maps, which were drawn in a process that became tense with partisanship during the last meetings of the 11-member redistricting commission.

Republicans criticized the maps, calling them “politically vindictive” because they pair several GOP incumbents in the same districts. The most notable are House Republican Leader Amy Stephens and Senate Republican Leader Bill Cadman, both of whom will be in the same districts as members of their own party in El Paso County.

“I’m surprised the court would put its seal of approval on the most partisan state map in 30 years,” said Rob Witwer, one of the Republicans on the commission.

Pairing Republican incumbents in contests could increase Democrats’ five-vote advantage in the Senate and jeopardize the GOP’s one-vote edge in the House…

The new maps for the Colorado House and Senate also mean that 38 of the Legislature’s 100 districts will be considered competitive in the coming years. Because of the state’s growing Latino population, 24 seats would be in districts where Hispanics would account for at least 30 percent of the vote.

Bob Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College and Republican member of the commission, said his feelings about the maps were “quite mixed.” He said he approves that there are more competitive districts, but he criticized Democrats for what they did to Republican incumbents in leadership…

But [Bob Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College and Republican member of the commission] said it may not be all bad for Republicans in the end, noting that Republicans now have 35 seats in the Legislature that are considered safe, compared with the Democrats’ 25. “The long-range view is that Republicans didn’t do badly,” he said.

More coverage from Lynn Bartels and Tim Hoover writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

But House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, said that even with a Democratic “gerrymander,” the GOP is still in good shape to keep control of the House. “The Democrats are still fighting an uphill battle,” McNulty said. “Colorado continues to be a center-right state.”…

The open-and-shut ruling by the Supreme Court on Monday raises the question: Would Republicans have been better off if they hadn’t appealed the initial maps approved by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission? “No one realized the Democrats would be so vindictive when they drew the second set of maps,” said Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray…

Under the new maps, a variety of Republicans will have to either face off in primaries or agree on who bows out to avoid a fight. This dynamic, coupled with hard feelings toward Democrats over the maps, is not likely to make for a pleasant 2012 legislative session. “I think this might be the session you wouldn’t wish on your friends or your enemies,” said House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, R-Monument. “It’s going to be tough.”[...]

“The stars are perfectly aligned for a difficult, contentious and frustrating legislative session,” said John Straayer, a political-science professor at Colorado State University. “You have disgruntlement over apportionment and redistricting, a 2012 presidential election and, with the Lobato (school funding) case, enormous financial pressures on the state. It will take an enormous level of statesmanship to get through the session.”

More coverage from Lynn Bartels writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

“It’s plain dirty politics and we’re going to remind the voters of that at election time,” said [House Majority Leader Amy Stephens], R-Monument…

But one Democrat on the reapportionment commission, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, argued that Republicans did it to themselves by appealing to the Supreme Court a pair of maps that had passed with bi-partisan support. When the court sent the maps back to the commission saying too many communities had been split, Democrats drew new maps reducing the splits but pairing GOP incumbents in the same districts…

…Webb said anyone who thinks it was “dirty politics didn’t watch the process.”

More coverage from Charles Ashby writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:

Under the new maps, Grand Junction becomes its own House district while the rest of the county continues to be paired with western Delta County in a separate district.

Colorado Springs: The Tenth Annual Convention of the Ditch & Reservoir Company Alliance (DARCA) – ‘Are Your Water Rights in Jeopardy?’ February 23-24

From the Pagosa Daily Post:

During the two-day conference, a wide variety of speakers will discuss their views on timely subjects facing ditch and reservoir companies. The presentations will include topics on the recent United FRICO change case, administrative issues, and keeping the next generation on the farm. Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs will address the ditch and reservoir group on “Prior Appropriation: Does it Still Meet Changing Needs?”

DARCA will be having three concurrent workshops on the morning of Friday, Friday 24. The workshops are: What Directors and Officers Need to Know, Water Quality Issues, and Managing the Ditch Company.

DARCA will present Is Your Great-Grandpa’s Dam Ready for the 21st Century, the pre-convention workshop, on Wednesday, February 22, from 9:00am to 4:00pm…

For information regarding convention registration as well as sponsorship or exhibitor opportunities please visit the DARCA website or contact John McKenzie at (970) 412-1960 or john.mckenzie@darca.org.

More water law coverage here.

U.S. farmers enjoy a banner year — depending on geography and crop choice, of course

From the Associated Press (Jim Suhr) via The Denver Post via Twitter:

While much of America worries about the possibility of a double-dip recession…[some]…U.S. farmers enjoy their best run in decades, thanks to high prices for many crops, livestock and farmland and strong global demand for corn used in making ethanol.

Farm profits are expected to spike by 28 percent this year to $100.9 billion, and the amount of cash farms have available to pay bills also is expected to top $100 billion—the first time both measures have done so, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. All the while, crop sales are expected to pass the $200 billion mark for the first time in U.S. history, and double-digit increases are expected in livestock sales.

“We’re just experiencing the best of times,” said Bruce Johnson, an agricultural economist at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln. “It’s a story to tell.”

That’s not to say that everyone is sharing in the good fortune. Near Gardner, Kan., a short drive south of Kansas City, a lack of rain and nagging winds conspired to leave Bill Voigts with about half of the soybeans he expected. His harvest of corn was worse, coming in at about one-third of his normal production. Even with insurance, he didn’t quite break even on the 2,400 acres he farms—most of them rented. “Had it not been for insurance in his area, it’d be a disaster. That’s the only thing that saves us,” said Voigts, 66.

But he noted that the drought plaguing farmers like him helped drive up prices for commodities like corn, soybeans and wheat, benefitting those fortunate enough to get a good crop. “At the expense of some farmers, other farmers become wealthy,” he said. “That’s really the whole story. That’s not the government’s fault, it’s nobody’s fault. That’s just the way things happen.

Final EIS for Windy Gap Firming Available to Public

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

The project’s key feature, construction of Chimney Hollow Reservoir southwest of Loveland, would increase the reliability of the existing Windy Gap Project, which started delivering water to Front Range municipalities in 1985.

The Windy Gap Firming Project is a regional collaboration among 13 growing Northeastern Colorado water providers (Platte River Power Authority, Broomfield, Erie, Greeley, Longmont, Louisville, Loveland, Superior, Central Weld County Water District, Evans, Little Thompson, Louisville, Loveland, Superior, Central Weld County Water District, Evans, Little Thompson Water District, Lafayette and Fort Lupton) who in 2050 face a population totaling more than double what it was in 2005, according to Northern.

Water demand projections for the participants show a storage of 64,000 acre feet in 2030 and 110,000 acre-feet by 2050. Northern Water’s Municipal Subdistrict is coordinating the review on behalf of the providers, who will pay for the estimated $270 million project.

Chimney Hollow would be just west of and slightly smaller than Carter Lake and would be part of Larimer County’s Open Lands Program, with non-motorized boating, fishing and trails.

“We put a lot of time and effort into developing these plans, and we’re proud to say that they will make conditions on the Colorado River better in the future than they are today,” said Jeff Drager, project manager of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, in statements released this week.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is considering oil and gas exploration and/or production at St. Vrain State Park

From the Loveland Reporter-Herald (Pamela Dickman):

Officials are looking at the best — and least harmful to the environment — way to tap mineral resources under the state park before a private company beats them to the well. “The resources are going to be drilled anyway,” said Theo Stein, spokesman for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. “Resources can be reached from outside the state park.”[...]

St. Vrain State Park is located just off Interstate 25 at Colorado 119 on the site of former gravel mines. The 604 acres boast ponds, fishing, wildlife and camping. And underneath the land is oil. Unlike other state parks, the state actually owns 439 acres of mineral rights below the park, giving it the opportunity to tap that resource and make an estimated $400,000 per year. The money, according to project staff, would help an already strapped state parks and wildlife system. But, according to the wildlife commission at a meeting in Fort Collins this week, the proposal is about more than the money. It is also about drilling in the least harmful way to the environment because officials say if the state doesn’t drill, a private company will. The resources could be accessed from neighboring land, and if that happened, the state would have no say on when or how much or how to mitigate environmental issues.

The process itself, however, could cause some environmental concern. The horizontal drilling procedure the state is looking at entails fracking — a practice the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday may have caused groundwater pollution.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Coyote Gulch running on WordPress passes the half million page view milestone

Wow, sometime after midnight Coyote Gulch running on WordPress surpassed the half million page view mark. That seems like a lot of hits but I’m sure that there are those for which 500,000 hits would be a slow day.

Colorado water issues will never draw the crowd that other subjects do but I’m content with that.

Coyote Gulch is a labor of love. I started out covering politics, getting a bit of recognition for my coverage of the Denver municipal election in 2003. After that came Governor Owens’ Referendum A (a political reaction to the shock of the 2002 statewide drought) in the fall of 2003. The referendum failed in all 54 counties in Colorado but launched Coyote Gulch as a water issues blog. Thank you Governor Owens.

The original Coyote Gulch ran on software from a now defunct company named Userland Software. The archives are still available at http://radio-weblogs.com/0101170/.

I moved Coyote Gulch to WordPress in February of 2009 after experiencing publishing problems with the old software. WordPress is great — Open Source — software. I’m continually amazed at the versatility and ease of use.

Thank you to all of you that bother to give me a read now and again. In keeping with the times you can follow Coyote Gulch on Twitter (@coyotegulch), Facebook and Linkedin.

Durban, South Africa: Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, ‘…told delegates that failure to agree after 16 days of work would be an unsustainable setback for international efforts to control greenhouse gases’

From the Associated Press (Arthur Max) via Bloomberg Business Week:

South Africa’s foreign minister and chairman of the 194-party conference, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, told delegates that failure to agree after 16 days of work would be an unsustainable setback for international efforts to control greenhouse gases.

“This multilateral system remains fragile and will not survive another shock,” she told a full meeting of the conference, which had been delayed more than 24 hours while ministers and senior negotiators labored over words and nuances.

Nkoana-Mashabane said the package of four documents, which were being printed as she spoke, were an imperfect compromise, but they reflected years of negotiations on issues that had plagued the U.N. climate efforts.

The 100-plus pages would give new life to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose carbon emissions targets expire next year and apply only to industrial countries. A separate document calls on major emitting nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future.

After her brief address, Nkoana-Mashabane adjourned the session. The documents were to be discussed and put up for approval later Saturday. The convention operates by consensus, and the package will not be put up for a vote.

More coverage from Louise Gray writing for The Telegraph. From the article:

At the end of the gruelling talks the world decided on the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”. The two-page document commits all countries to cutting carbon for the first time. A “road map” will guide countries towards a legal deal to cut carbon in 2015, but it will only come into affect after 2020.

Is this a step forwards for the world or backwards?

It depends who you ask. It is a success in terms of keeping the climate change talks on track after it was feared no decision would be reached, making a mockery of the UN process – especially after the collapse of the last high profile talks in Copenhagen in 2009. The EU, who led calls for the so-called “road map” are hailing it as “an historic breakthrough”. The bloc point out that this is the first time that the world’s three biggest emitters: The US, China and India have signed up to a legal treaty to cut carbon.

However it is a failure in terms of the expectations of certain countries, like the small island states, and the charities, who wanted a much stronger agreement. They argue that the legal language needs to be a lot stronger to force countries to act and dates should be brought forward to stop global warming. They point out that carbon emissions will have to peak by 2020 and start to come down for the world to limit temperature rise to 2C.

What about the Kyoto Protocol?

The EU and a few other developed countries have signed up to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, that ends in 2013. This will ensure that there is still some form of legally binding treaty to cut carbon in place in the interim eight years before the new agreement comes into force at the end of 2020. However most of the developing world and the US remain in voluntary agreements to cut carbon until 2020.

Meanwhile, Dr. James Hansen is warning the the 2 degree celsius target is not enough to head off the disaster of anthropogenic climate change. Here’s a report from Bob Berwyn writing for the Summit Daily News. From the article:

“Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient,” Hansen said. “It would be a prescription for disaster … Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales,” Hansen said. Hansen, along with co-author Makiko Sato, studied how Earth’s climate responded to past natural changes to try and answer one of the fundamental climate science questions: “What is the dangerous level of global warming?”[...]

Based on Hansen’s temperature analysis work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has already risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880, and is now warming at a rate of more than .1 degree Celsius every decade. This warming is largely driven by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide, emitted by the burning of fossil fuels at power plants, in cars and in industry…

Hansen and Sato compared the climate of today, the Holocene, with previous similar “interglacial” epochs – periods when polar ice caps existed but the world was not dominated by glaciers. Studying cores drilled from both ice sheets and deep ocean sediments, Hansen found that global mean temperatures during the Eemian period, which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said…

Two degrees Celsius of warming would make Earth much warmer than during the Eemian, and would move Earth closer to Pliocene-like conditions, when sea level was in the range of 25 meters higher than today, Hansen said. In using Earth’s climate history to learn more about the level of sensitivity that governs our planet’s response to warming today,

Hansen said the paleoclimate record suggests that every degree Celsius of global temperature rise will ultimately equate to 20 meters of sea level rise. However, that sea level increase due to ice sheet loss would be expected to occur over centuries, and large uncertainties remain in predicting how that ice loss would unfold.

Denver: The Colorado Court of Appeals affirms that Montrose County followed the rules for issuing a conditional-use permit for the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill

From the Associated Press via The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel via The Colorado Springs Gazette:

The Telluride-based Sheep Mountain Alliance challenged the county’s process, saying the state’s open meetings law was violated and the county had abused its discretion in approving a permit.

According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (http://bit.ly/sJpbZI ), the court on Thursday also upheld the ability of the mill to process an average 500 tons of ore per day.

The alliance has another lawsuit pending against the state Health Department, which the alliance says will address broader issues than the zoning case in Montrose County.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Aspen: The city council will discuss the Castle Creek hydroelectric generation plant on Monday

From The Aspen Times (Andre Salvail):

Matt Rice, Colorado director for American Rivers, said his organization wasn’t trying to “drop a bomb” in advance of the city’s meetings. He said the report, released Thursday, was intended for council members, city officials and others involved in the debate over the merits of the project. Rice also expressed disdain for a press release the city issued Friday stating that the American Rivers-commissioned report contains “egregious errors.”[...]

A work session at 1 p.m. Monday is designed to give council members answers to some long-pressing questions surrounding the project; the council’s regular meeting Monday evening will include a public hearing on a zoning request for the proposed facility, dubbed the Castle Creek Energy Center.

At the core of the organization’s report, researched and prepared by Tier One Capital Management LLC, is an estimate that the project will cost between $16 million and $18 million, with $7.3 million in interest payments over the life of bonds used to finance construction. The city of Aspen has disclosed a capital cost of $10.5 million, according to Tier One.

The city’s financial analysis, Tier One claims, does not include debt service on the $5.5 million bond that local voters approved in 2007. “Debt service will add significantly to the cost of the project, and it is inappropriate not to consider debt service in assessing financial feasibility,” the report states.

“Tier One concludes that the project is not cost effective,” the report continues. “Given the very high price of this project and debt service extending for 28 years, future electrical rate increases are a likely result.”

The city’s Friday statement says that Tier One’s alternative analysis of the project’s costs includes “many factual errors and egregious mistakes.” The city listed what officials have determined to be “three of the most fundamental” errors:

— Tier One “incorrectly states that the city of Aspen didn’t consider debt service” in its analysis.

— Tier One’s conclusion that the project should be abandoned is deeply flawed “due to its failure to consider only the incremental costs needed to complete the project [as] opposed to considering investments already made with benefits for projects other than the hydro plant.”

— Tier One “assigned ridiculously low inflation rates” for the cost of coal -— a power source on which the city is hoping to lessen its dependence through hydropower — using rates between .3 percent and .6 percent annually.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife reports a good Kokannee salmon spawning run this season at Blue Mesa Reservoir

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

Colorado Parks and Wildlife collected 11 million eggs from kokanee salmon running out of Blue Mesa Reservoir this fall. The record harvest will ensure that Colorado Parks and Wildlife will have adequate supplies for stocking 26 reservoirs around the state with salmon fry next year. But biologists say much more work needs to be done before they declare the population of kokanee salmon in the 9,000-acre reservoir recovered. Kokanee numbers have declined precipitously during the past 10 years as the population of predatory lake trout boomed, knocking the fishery out of balance. “One good spawning run does not mean we’ve fixed the problems,” said John Alves, senior aquatic biologist for Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s southwest region. “Blue Mesa is critical for our statewide kokanee program and the fishery is out of balance. There is no quick fix.”

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.

Windy Gap firming project update: More water for Boulder County

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Laura Snider):

“It’s been a long haul for us, but we see a light at the end of the tunnel,” said Dana Strongin, spokeswoman for Northern Water, which is spearheading the project that will serve a number of local towns, including Louisville, Lafayette, Longmont, Broomfield, Erie and Superior. “We entered into this process in 2003. It takes a lot of work to take this water planning and put it into action.”

The goal of the Windy Gap Firming Project is to make the supply of water from the original Windy Gap project, which was finished in 1985, more reliable. The original Windy Gap project was never able to deliver all the water promised to towns on the Front Range because it has to piggyback on some parts of the Colorado-Big Thompson diversion system to make it across the mountains.

That’s a problem because in wet years — when there’s more water to divert from the river — the Colorado-Big Thompson system doesn’t have room to store the Windy Gap water in its already-full reservoir. During dry years, there’s room to store Windy Gap water, but the project’s water rights are so junior that it can’t draw water from the river.

The key feature of the $270 million firming project, if approved, would be the construction of a new reservoir in Larimer County to solve the storage problem. The proposed Chimney Hollow Reservoir would sit just west of Carter Lake and have a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. The water to fill the reservoir would largely be pumped through existing pipes and canals.

Environmentalists have been concerned about the effects the Windy Gap project could have on the upper reaches of the Colorado River, which already has been severely depleted. In particular, they worry that taking more water from the headwaters of the Colorado will cause an increase in water temperature, which can be lethal for fish, and a decrease in “flushing flows,” which are critical for cleaning out the sediment that can armor the bottom of riverbeds, smothering aquatic insects.

When the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Windy Gap Firming Project was released in 2008, Trout Unlimited was one of the groups that said the document was inadequate. Now, the nonprofit organization says the final version of the document is an improvement over the draft, though still not good enough.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Castle Rock: The town council delays ballot question to fund a renewable water supply infrastructure

From the Castle Rock News Press (Rhonda Moore):

Castle Rock Town Council will hold off on an election date for a ballot question to fund long-term water with a property tax increase and TABOR question.

Councilmembers on Dec. 6 opted against the town’s original plan to ask voters for a decision in the April 2012 election pending a recommendation from town staff on the preferred water provider.

Castle Rock is in the process of reviewing four proposals from water providers to secure a long-term renewable water supply that is expected to cost up to $200 million. The town’s original plan to invest in the WISE proposal, a coalition of south metro municipalities and metro districts to buy water from Denver and Aurora, was derailed earlier this year when other water providers decried the absence of a competitive bid process. The resulting public bid invitation netted four proposals to provide water to Castle Rock. Those proposals are under review by town staff, which is creating a comparative analysis to take to town council for consideration. Until that analysis is complete and town council has made its selection, the town cannot accurately tell voters what they would be paying for in an election question, said Ron Redd, Castle Rock director of utilities.

“It was always our intention to go to the voters with a complete project and have everything identified,” Redd said. “Voters like to see an actual project versus thoughts, ideas or studies. The perception would be the town would be given a blank check. Recent history shows that hasn’t been very successful at the voting booth.”[...]

While town staff favors a November 2012 ballot question, election strategists recommend against a property tax question in a general election, Redd said…

“If you want a tax to pass you’d better start getting the public involved in how that plan is going to come together,” said Ben Cox, a Castle Rock resident who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting. “So they can see we’re not buying into something like Hess Reservoir, (which) looks to the public right now that we made a very big expenditure with no idea as to how we are going to fill it.”

More Denver Basin aquifer system coverage here.

‘The River Red’ a documentary film from the Redford Center is planned for release in early 2012

From the Switchboard (Barry Nelson):

Early next year, the Redford Center will release a documentary on the Colorado River called The River Red, directed by Mark Decena. (Take a moment to follow the film on Facebook) [ed. and Twitter @riverredfilm]. The film couldn’t come at a better time. The Colorado, and the seven Western states that depend on it, face unprecedented challenges…

The team producing The River Red is hoping to help meet this challenge for a new vision of the future of the Colorado River. They’ve spent the past year filming people across the Basin, examining the importance of the river, the challenges facing it today (like oil shale production) and pointing the way to promising solutions.

Especially if you live in the West, take a moment to forward The River Red’s web site to friends and colleagues. More than 20 million people, from Denver to San Diego, have a great deal at stake. And all of them can be part of the solution.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Denver: Hydraulic fracturing disclosure rulemaking moved to Tuesday, December 13

Here’s the release from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Todd Hartman):

The Parties to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure rulemaking are engaged in discussions to attempt to resolve the remaining rulemaking issues. To allow these discussions to continue, the continuation of the Rulemaking Hearing will move from 8:00 a.m. Monday at the COGCC hearing room, to 8:00 a.m. Tuesday at the COGCC hearing room. The COGCC hearing room is on the 8th floor of the Chancery building at 1120 Lincoln St. in Denver.

The Commission’s regular December hearing will still commence at 1:00 p.m. in Greeley, on Monday Dec. 12, as previously scheduled. The Greeley meeting will be held at the Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street.

More coverage from The Wall Street Journal (Stephanie Simon And Daniel Gilbert). From the article:

The proposed Colorado regulations also would allow companies to withhold some chemical names from public disclosure, since trade secrets are protected by both federal and state law. But at an emotional 11-hour hearing last week, environmental activists pleaded with state officials to limit that privilege. The activists renewed that call on Friday, in light of the EPA’s findings in Wyoming. “That should be a gut check for the state,” said Mike Chiropolos of Western Resource Advocates, an environmental group in Boulder, Colo…

Industry executives in Colorado say they do support some mandatory disclosure. But they have resisted some of the specific proposals pushed by environmentalists, such as a requirement that they publicly disclose the concentration of each chemical in their fracking fluid. They say that would in effect give a recipe book to rivals looking to copy their technique.

The state’s regulatory body, the nine-member Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, will debate the issue on Tuesday. Also up for debate: whether private citizens should be able to challenge drilling companies over their use of the trade-secret privilege to withhold chemical names.

More coverage from Alan Prendergast writing for Westword. From the article:

The EPA draft report comes after three years of resident complaints about fouled drinking water around the town of Pavilion in west-central Wyoming, where the gas giant Encana operates 169 production wells. Monitoring wells detected numerous chemical compounds used in the fluids energy companies inject into the ground to force out pockets of oil and gas, including benzene and toluene. “Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to groundwater contamination, EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time,” the agency noted in a statement on the report.

Environmental activists contend that the Pavilion results show that the industry’s claims about the safety of the process are overblown. While supporters of fracking say the chemicals are injected thousands of feet below aquifers and can’t possibly reach them, the Wyoming wells were fracked at a shallow level, around a thousand feet below the surface, and the casing that’s supposed to protect the groundwater went down less than 400 feet.

But at least Wyoming officials know what toxic chemicals the company was using. The Cowboy State passed a law last year requiring the companies to disclose their fracking recipes, while Colorado is still mulling over such a measure.

More coverage from David O. Williams writing for the Colorado Independent. From the article:

Colorado’s conservation community wants to make sure oil and gas regulators get it right the first time Tuesday when they decide on a new hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure rule. Otherwise, they say state officials should keep working on the new rule.

And getting it right means taking into consideration new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings in Pavillion, Wyo., showing chemicals used in fracking present in groundwater testing wells near where residents have been warned not to drink their tainted well water.

Getting it right also means pre-disclosure of chemicals before fracking (which is required in Wyoming and Montana), full disclosure of any toxic chemicals (no trade secret exemptions) and full public access (requiring immediate website access so the public can sort by type of chemical, date and location of a frack job). In its draft rule, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) may not require full sorting on www.fracfocus.org until 2013.

Most of all, says former oil and gas commissioner Trési Houpt, the COGCC should not adopt an inadequate rule on Tuesday in hopes that it can later revisit and correct deficiencies.

More coverage from Joe Moylan writing for the Craig Daily Press. From the article:

“The Environmental Protection Agency and the COGCC are both on public record stating there has never been a case of fracking polluting a water source. I think there is some public misconception that there is this great risk and I think there is a middle ground between the extreme environmental viewpoint and common sense.” — Tom Gray, Moffat County Commissioner[...]

Gov. John Hickenlooper has said oil and natural gas companies need to be up front with state residents about the potential danger hydraulic fracturing poses to ground water reserves. Currently, oil and natural gas companies can voluntarily disclose the fluids used in fracking at www.fracfocus.com. The governor wants to make reporting mandatory…

However, the Colorado Environmental Coalition believes the draft rule includes a loophole that would allow oil and natural gas companies to hide certain chemicals from the public by listing them as trade secrets. “We understand the need for trade secrets,” CEC energy organizer Charlie Montgomery said. “Every business needs trade secrets, but we are looking for some type of approval process. The way the rule is currently drafted allows companies to simply ask for the exemption and they’ll get it.”

David Ludlam, executive director of The West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas Association, believes the rule is appropriate in its drafted form. “Stakeholders operating in good faith recognize that all Colorado businesses have reasonable legal protections of research and inventions,” Ludlam said. “Stakeholders not operating in good faith might be tempted to ignore the fact that citizens will have a very clear pathway to challenge trade secrets they believe are not valid…

The CEC, Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, National Wildlife Federation, San Juan Citizens Alliance and High Country Citizens Alliance pressed the COGCC to close the trade secret loophole through its collective legal representative Earth Justice during Monday’s meeting.

More coverage from the Dallas Business Journal (Matt Joyce). From the article:

Encana Corp. takes exception to an Environmental Protection Agency report that suggests a link between hydraulic fracturing and contaminated groundwater in Pavillion, Wyo., and says the town’s poor water quality has been known since before natural gas development took place there…

Encana has used hydraulic fracturing – the same drilling technique used to develop natural gas in the Barnett Shale of north Texas – to drill natural gas wells in the Pavillion area. Encana sold its Barnett Shale assets in November.

Meanwhile the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is laying out new rules for selling water for hydraulic fracturing operations, according to Kirk Siegler writing for KUNC. From the article:

New regulations proposed by Northern Water would ensure that its water is only being leased to fracking companies for use within the agency’s strict boundaries in the South Platte River basin. Much of Northern’s jurisdiction also lies within Weld County where state regulators have permitted some 500 new wells this year alone. “What we’re trying to do is just be proactive,” said Eric Wilkenson, general manager for Northern. “We’ve got a new situation developing that is going to result in an increased water demand, so to address that in a proactive way, we want to put rules and regulations and procedures in place so that we can handle that.”[...]

But oil industry representatives and officials from area cities including Greeley told Wilkenson and the rest of his board Friday that the new regulations are so punitive they could halt the leasing of water for fracking, and curtail economic growth. “This remarkable technology that could help supply domestic energy for many many years to come could be at risk if reliable water supplies are not available to do that,” said Kent Holsinger of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

More oil and gas coverage here.

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board approves a $17.2 million budget for 2012

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The major portion of the budget, $11.8 million, goes to repay federal costs of constructing the Fry-Ark Project, which includes the Fountain pipeline. Another $270,000 is revenue from state and federal grants.

The operating budget for the district is $5.1 million, with about 60 percent in the general fund, and 40 percent in the enterprise fund.

Of the $3 million district fund, $1.36 million goes toward personnel.

The budget also includes a capital expenditure of $850,000 as the district’s share for purchase of the Red Top Ranch near Lake Granby. That cost will total $1.7 million over two years. The ranch purchase is part of a plan by Front Range water users, including Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, Pueblo and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, to provide flows for endangered fish species in the Colorado River. Participation in the program is a condition for importing Fry-Ark water each year.

The major project in the $2.1 million enterprise fund will be the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing an environmental impact statement for the conduit.

More Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District coverage here.

Rules designed to limit consumptive use now cover nearly 20,000 acres in the Arkansas Valley

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Understanding irrigation in the Lower Arkansas Valley

Consumptive use refers to the amount of water a crop uses to grow, either through uptake into the plant and transpiration, or through evaporation. Usually it is measured in inches, but presumptive factors have been incorporated into the hydrologic-institutional model under the U.S. Supreme Court Kansas v. Colorado case.

Return flow is excess water applied to fields that runs off as tailwater or infiltrates soil. Water also can seep out of earthen ditches as it makes its way to the fields.

Water-short ditches, such as the Fort Lyon Canal or Holbrook Ditch, typically have more ground available to irrigate than water supplies will cover. Other ditches, such as the Catlin or High Line canals, have plentiful water except in very dry years.

Sprinklers, drip irrigation and ditch lining allow water to be applied more efficiently to fields. In the process, more water could be consumed as more acreage is planted on water-short ditches or used more often on ditches with adequate water. Return flows could be reduced as a result.

State engineer rules were adopted in Division 2 water court in 2009 to prevent shortages of return flows on the Arkansas River, to downstream users in both Colorado and Kansas…

This year, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District established a group plan for farmers who use ponds to feed sprinklers to comply using formulas under Rule 10 of the surface irrigation rules. The plan also covers other types of improvements such as ditch lining and drip irrigation, but sprinklers account for nearly all of the impact so far. The Lower Ark district will use water from other sources, such as a five-year lease agreement with the Pueblo Board of Water Works, to provide augmentation water to make up depletions from increased consumptive use.

While the group plan requires a retainer fee and payment for augmentation water if the formula shows depletion, the payment is far less than farmers otherwise would spend on engineering at each site to show losses. So far, 88 farms with 104 improvements covering 19,767 acres are enrolled in the Lower Ark’s Rule 10 plan, said Heath Kuntz, the district’s engineering consultant. “We’re anticipating a lot of growth over the next few years,” Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district, told the compact administration.

From the state’s point of view, the program has been the backbone for enforcing the new rules. About 75 farms were signed up at the beginning of the program in April, and the others have signed on at the end of the irrigation season as the state assessed impacts, said Bill Tyner, assistant engineer for Water Division 2. “The Rule 10 plan has turned out to be the most successful part of the rules,” Tyner said, thanking the Lower Ark district and the Colorado Water Conservation Board for the seed money which launched the group plan.

More Ark Valley consumptive use rules coverage here and here.