How does Colorado water consumption measure up?
December 21, 2009
From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):
The number of gallons per person used daily in Denver and other South Platte River basin cities decreased 13.6 percent between 2000 and 2008, to 178 gallons from 206 gallons. Water use in Colorado Springs and Arkansas River basin communities decreased during that time by 11.2 percent to 190 gallons, down from 214…
Water use rose to 256 gallons per person in the Colorado River basin, 332 in the Rio Grande, and 236 in the Dolores/San Juan, according to Colorado Water Conservation Board data…
The new Colorado Water Conservation Board data indicate wide variations in consumption statewide. Residents of Pitkin County, home of Aspen, used 1,851 gallons per person each day, the data show, as Elbert County folks used 111 gallons each. Water analysts attributed the decreasing water use in Front Range cities to conservation programs that create financial incentives. Denver Water, for example, pays customers up to $150 to replace a toilet, shower or washing machine with a newer, more efficient model.
More conservation coverage here.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in July issued a report describing the environmental impacts of several in situ leach uranium mines in Wyoming and New Mexico. The report doesn’t cover Colorado because the federal agency doesn’t have jurisdiction over uranium here. In Colorado, Utah and a few other states, the state government has authority over uranium. The report found most of the in situ mines’ operations would take at most a small toll on the groundwater, depending on specific geologic conditions unique to each site. The report did find, however, the mines’ impact on deep aquifers could be large depending on site-specific conditions. A 2008 Colorado law, HB 1161, requires companies doing in situ leach mining to clean the mine’s contaminants out of the groundwater once mining is complete and leave the water in the same condition in which it was found. Solution mining has been used in Texas and Wyoming for decades, but many of the mines have been cited by state environment departments for a slate of violations. One of those came as recently as Dec. 8, when the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality cited Cameco Resources for failure to clean a chemical leak, or “excursion,” at its Highland Uranium Project near Glenrock…
“The regulations are more strict now,” said [Bill] Chenoweth, former geologist for the now-defunct U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in Grand Junction, adding that mines are able to completely cleanse the groundwater of any contaminants, just as HB 1161 requires. “If they spend enough money in flushing and recycling the water, they can do it,” he said. “It’s all a matter of economics.”[...]
Black Range Minerals and Geovic Mining have their sights set on mostly private land near Keota and Grover in an area that was the site of uranium exploration in the 1980s in Weld County near the Pawnee Buttes. Geovic Mining, a Denver-based company whose primary business is a cobalt mine in Cameroon, is holding its breath waiting for Powertech to move its Centennial Project through the regulatory hurdles imposed by a 2008 state law. The law, HB 1161, requires companies operating an in situ leach uranium mine to ensure no contamination is left in nearby groundwater once the mine shuts down. Geovic also is waiting for the price of uranium – currently about $45 – to increase enough to justify a new mine…
Like Geovic, Australia-based Black Range, which owns property northwest of Keota, is waiting for the right moment to make its next move. “The project’s sitting idle at the moment,” said Ben Vallerine, exploration manager for Black Range. “We haven’t secured the land we need. We’ve got some leases from the federal government, and we have to do a plan of operations to complete that leasing process.” He said Black Range has secured about 35 percent of the land it needs for a uranium mine. Black Range’s land sits near federal land in the Pawnee National Grassland, but U.S. Forest Service spokesman John Bustos said the agency is not analyzing any uranium leasing proposal for the grassland and no leases have been granted. The Forest Service denied leases for in situ leach uranium mining operations on the Pawnee National Grassland near Keota in the 1970s and 1980s “because of concern for rehabilitation of aquifers in the formation containing the uranium,” according to a 1997 Forest Service environmental impact document for the plan that currently governs how the grassland is managed.
Here’s a look at the current state of uranium mining in Colorado along with some history, from Bobby Magill writing for the Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article:
With the third-largest uranium reserves in the country behind Wyoming and New Mexico, interest in uranium exploration in Colorado in recent years before uranium prices fell has been staggering. “In 2005 and 2006, 10,000 mining claims were filed on federal land in Colorado,” said Vince Matthews, Colorado State University geologist and director of the Colorado Geological Survey. “Then, in 2007 alone, another 10,000 were filed.”
Uranium was first discovered in Colorado in 1871 near Central City in Gilpin County, but the mother lode of hot ore was to be found more than a decade later in western Montrose County. The Uravan mining district, centered on a wedge of canyon country between the Uncompahgre Plateau and the Utah state line, encompasses hundreds of uranium mining claims…
A cycle of boom and bust around Uravan – formed from the names of the elements uranium and vanadium – followed, first with the radium boom of a century ago, then a vanadium boom of the 1930s and ’40s, a uranium boom in the 1940s and another uranium rush during the Cold War…
Congress approved a program in 1972 to cleanup the mill tailings beneath homes across the [Grand Junction], and it soon realized health hazards from radioactive tailings weren’t limited to Mesa County. Another federal program during the next two decades cleaned up uranium mill tailings in Durango, Fruita, Palisade, Gunnison, Naturita and Rifle…
The biggest uranium deposit in the state was found in Jefferson County in the 1940s, where 17 million pounds of the ore ware extracted until the mine there closed in 2000. The Cochetopa mining district near Gunnison produced 1.2 million pounds of uranium, while less than 500,000 pounds were produced from a few mines in Fremont County. A uranium mill still operates in nearby Canon City.
Just west of the Pawnee Buttes in Weld County, Wyoming Minerals Corp. built a uranium project near Grover – 35 miles east of the Centennial Project – in the early 1980s to test technology called solution mining, or in situ leach uranium mining…
There are now more than 90 active uranium prospects and 35 active uranium projects statewide, according to state statistics. Powertech remains in the permitting process for the Centennial Project, and the state will kick off a formal rulemaking to ensure in situ leach mines, such as the one proposed by Powertech, conform to a new state water quality reclamation law in early 2010…
Energy Fuels Resources Corp. recently scored the support of Gov. Bill Ritter in its proposal to open a new uranium mill – the first of its kind in decades in the United States – in Western Colorado’s Paradox Valley, west of Naturita. The mill, opposed by environmental groups, still must receive approval from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Vibhu Nayar: ‘Water is the climate challenge’
December 20, 2009
From The Hindu (Vibhu Nayar):
Only 0.5 per cent of the water on the planet is available for human use. This is now under pressure. Globally, per capita availability decreased from 16,900 cubic metres in 1950 to 6,800 cubic metres in 2000, and is expected to fall to 5,400 cubic metres by 2025. Water is also unevenly distributed, with the developed world being better endowed. Scarcity is both physical and economic and affects Africa and Asia the most. India is spatially and temporally challenged as 50 per cent of rainfall is received in 15 days and 90 per cent of flows occur in just four months.
More climate change coverage here.
Drew Peternell, Director of Colorado Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project has penned a call to negotiation and common sense in today’s Denver Post. Click through and read the whole thing. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Trout Unlimited, a sportsmen’s group committed to preserving Colorado’s rivers and fisheries, can accept a Moffat project if Denver agrees to responsible measures to protect western Colorado. That means, at a minimum, guaranteeing healthy year-round stream flows in the Fraser, Williams Fork and upper Colorado Rivers. That also means improving Denver’s track record on water conservation. Denver has implemented some meaningful conservation measures, but there is much more it can do — such as offering incentives for households to replace water-thirsty turf with drought-tolerant landscaping…
What’s at issue in the Moffat plan is our willingness on the Front Range to accept a modest tradeoff to preserve Colorado’s magnificent outdoor resources. With smart resource management, we have enough water to sustain both our home places and our wild places — we don’t need to choose between the two. If it respects diverse needs, Denver Water can find pragmatic water supply solutions that work for everyone, on both sides of the Divide.
More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.
Meanwhile here’s a look at transmountain diversions from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The diversions vary in size from the very small, like the Larkspur Ditch that brings Upper Gunnison River water to the Arkansas River basin, to the very large – the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Many were developed as primarily agricultural diversions that are turning into municipal projects. The C-BT Project, fed by the Alva B. Adams Tunnel, was four-fifths agricultural when it started more than 70 years ago. Today, about two-thirds of the project’s yield provides water for northern Colorado’s growing cities.
Here’s a look at the current state of planning for growth and consumption, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The ditches and tunnels that already cross the mountains have a long history of dispute. Water planners are starting to worry about what could happen if those systems fail. Those who live in the areas where the water is taken from on the West Slope want to make sure the water is used wisely on the Front Range. And the Front Range is looking to slake its thirst with even more pipelines from the West.
More transmountain/transbasin diversions coverage here.
Drought readiness is one of the reasons that Denver Water wants to move more water to their northern system, hence the enlargement of Gross Reservoir by raising the dam 125 feet or so. Colorado River Basin firm yield is expected to keep dropping as it has in recents years as a result of climate change. Here’s a look at statewide planning for climate change from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
You may not think climate change is real. As for water planners, they believe.
Climate change already had become a staple of water discussions by October 2008, when Gov. Bill Ritter convened a special meeting on the topic. “At no time has our water been threatened so much by drought, climate change and population growth,” Ritter said at the time. “As we assess the impact of climate change, water absolutely has to be a part of the discussion.”
More climate change coverage here.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Kevin Duggan):
Boring a route for the pipeline would cost “millions” more than digging a trench, but it would still be less expensive than trying to run the pipeline along other routes, said Jon Monson, director of water and sewer for Greeley. Tunneling also poses less of a threat to bridges that carry a historic railroad near the south bank of the Poudre River as well as irrigation ditches on the properties, he said. “Either way we go would be expensive,” Monson said. “We thought tunneling would give us the best shot at avoiding the bridges and minimizing the environmental impacts through this area.”
But some affected property owners said they are not impressed with Greeley’s tunneling proposal and plan to continue fighting the pipeline. “I’m not a bit interested in their plan,” said Rose Brinks. “It would still be extremely disruptive to our farm.” Brinks said running the pipeline across her land would cause irreparable harm to historic and natural resources on the property. The pipeline’s presence would impede her family’s ability to develop the property if they chose to do so, she said. The Colorado Historical Society has indicated the property would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, Brinks said. The designation could affect Greeley’s ability to get a permit for the project from the Army Corps of Engineers, she said…
Tunnels would be bored along an area about a quarter of a mile long, said Dan Moore, project manager for the pipeline. Surface disruption over tunneled area would look like a “Jeep road” rather than a 30-foot wide swath that would come with an open trench. “The whole idea is that we will try to use the bores where practical to reduce impact and make the restoration efforts a lot successful,” Moore said…
Digging the tunnel would cost about $3 million. But the route is still preferable to alternatives, such as running the pipeline down County Road 54G and disrupting many businesses and homes, Monson said.
Snowpack news
December 20, 2009
From the Loveland Reporter Herald (Pamela Dickman):
“We got off to a bang-bang fast start with a lot of early season snow,” said State Climatologist Nolan Doesken. Only one storm brought snow with a lot of water, yet the area is at 3.67 inches of precipitation since Oct. 1, Doesken said. “That’s above-average precipitation for the beginning of the winter season,” he said.
Higher up in the mountains, the water level in the snow that has fallen is at or near average in the two basins that feed into the Colorado Big-Thompson Project, the diversion project that brings water from the other side of the Continental Divide and fills Carter Lake and Horsetooth Reservoir. The amount of water in the snow sat at 85 percent of average in the Upper Colorado Basin and 101 percent in the South Platte Basin on Friday, said Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District…
Carter Lake, Horsetooth and other reservoirs that hold Colorado Big-Thompson water are 15 percent above average, while other water storage facilities in the region are sitting at 35 percent over average. “There’s more water in the river than there has been in a decade,” Werner said.
Martha Rudolph named by Governor Ritter to run CDPHE
December 20, 2009
From The Denver Post (Lynn Bartels):
Gov. Bill Ritter has promoted the state’s environmental programs director to run the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Martha Rudolph has worked for the department since June 2007. Previously, she handled environmental issues for the Colorado attorney general and served as assistant counsel to a natural gas and energy transportation company.
Fifth Annual Colorado Ag Classic recap
December 20, 2009
From the Ag Journal (Candace Krebs):
Reagan Waskom is director of the Colorado Water Institute, an affiliate of Colorado State University, which was created for “the express purpose of focusing the water expertise of higher education on the evolving water concerns and problems being faced by Colorado citizens.” He spoke on water in the West and the future of irrigated agriculture recently during the fifth annual Colorado Ag Classic, the joint convention of the Colorado Association of Wheat Growers, the Colorado Corn Growers Association, Colorado Sunflower Administrative Committee, Colorado Sorghum Producers, Colorado Seed Growers Association and the Colorado Seed Industry Association.
Irrigated agriculture accounts for only 15 percent of total crop acres but 40-50 percent of all crop receipts, according to USDA. Since 2003, irrigated cropping has increased primarily in the Eastern U.S. and in Nebraska. (The average cost of irrigating from wells in Nebraska in 2008 was $42.89 an acre. In Texas, at the shallow end of the vast Ogallala Aquifer, the comparable figure was $105.10. In California, battling drought and increasing competition for water from urban residents, it was $114.27.) Meanwhile, states like California, Texas and Colorado are losing irrigated acreage. As of 2007, Nebraska had the highest number of irrigated acres at 8.5 million. Colorado has 2.9 million irrigated acres, and Kansas 2.8 million. The Ogallala Aquifer accounts for 25 percent of irrigated cropland. As of 2007, 8 percent of the aquifer was depleted. Texas and Kansas are seeing the biggest declines.
Use of water for irrigation peaked in 1980. The per-acre application rate has gradually declined since then, a story that has not always been successfully conveyed to the public, Waskom says. In addition, the value irrigated agriculture contributes to Colorado’s economy is a hefty $16 billion annually. Livestock production accounts for less than 1 percent of direct water use, but indirectly relies on the water-intensive production of feed. “A question that needs to be analyzed is what happens to livestock feeding in this state,” Waskom says. “I think we are working ourselves into a situation of off-shoring our livestock production just like our fruits and vegetables.”
In the South Platte basin, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 acres have been lost as direct result of curtailment of water use, but that figure could be as high as 70,000, Waskom says. The Arkansas River basin is also experiencing significant declines. Waskom says the Arkansas Valley has already lost 20-25 percent of irrigated acreage. The population there is expected to increase 500,000 by 2030. There’s also pressure on the San Luis Valley to dry up about 65,000 acres over the long term. In sum, Colorado will likely lose 400,000-600,000 irrigated acres in the next 20 years, Waskom estimates.
More Colorado water coverage here.
Energy policy — geothermal: BLM to offer 799 acre site near Mt. Princeton Hot Springs for lease February 11
December 20, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):
A 799-acre parcel with subsurface federal mineral rights will be offered for geothermal development in Chaffee County, near the Mt. Princeton Hot Springs Resort west of Buena Vista…
According to a Web site, chaffeecountygeothermal.com, a group of Nathrop residents oppose the geothermal lease, citing concerns about possible impacts on the scenery in the Mt. Princeton area…
Leases contain language that would require buyers to take measures to protect riparian areas, antelope breeding and peregrine falcon nesting sites, among other considerations for the environment. Protests of parcels being offered for lease can be submitted in writing by 4 p.m. Jan. 27 via fax at 303-239-3799 or via mail to BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield St., Lakewood, CO 80215. Lease sale information can be obtained online at http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/oilandgas/leasing.html or at any of the BLM field offices.
Fort Morgan: Renaissance Land and Water Management LLC pitches partnership to change agricultural rights to municipal
December 20, 2009
From The Fort Morgan Times (John Brennan):
Representatives of Renaissance Land and Water Management LLC pitched their proposal as an alternative to the Northern Integrated Water Supply Project, a water storage project in which Fort Morgan plans to be one of 15 participants. Renaissance spokesman Rod Guerrieri, a member of the organization’s principal team, said the company controls or has access to some 15,000 acre-feet of senior water rights and is looking for partners to develop those rights. Guerrieri said Renaissance could begin delivering water to Fort Morgan by 2014, but acknowledged that the company’s water rights would have to make it through water court and obtain a change of use from agricultural to domestic. Members of the water board and city staff as well as several local agriculture operators and water company officials repeatedly pointed out that doing so could be a very long process with a very uncertain outcome. Renaissance made an initial presentation to the water board several months ago, board chairman Jack Odor noted, and the board had asked at that time for clarification on a number of issues. It appeared many of the questions still had not been resolved to the satisfaction of the water board.
Renaissance’s plan would call for pumping water from “three different sources in multiple locations” from Greeley to the Sterling area, using what it called “high-quality wells” and senior water rights. Several different scenarios were presented that involved building pipelines varying in length from about eight to more than 40 miles to get the water to the Fort Morgan water treatment plant. The quality of the water that would be delivered to the city plant was another one of the concerns of the water board and city Water Superintendent John Turner. Guerrieri said the water would be below 500 in total dissolved solids, but Turner said the water the city now receives from the Colorado-Big Thompson project is about 50 TDS, and improving the quality to match the city’s current supply would not be feasible. “There’s a lot of things to be figured out, but if there’s enough interest, then we get engineers and attorneys in a room and figure it out,” Guerrieri said. “There’s a lot of technical issues, but we have done millions of dollars in engineering, and I think our engineers and attorneys could probably convince your engineers and attorneys.”
The Renaissance plan would also involve the “drying” of agricultural land — or taking water away from agriculture for city use — and Odor pointed out the board and city officials have long been against that practice. “It’s always been the city’s position that drying up ag land is not a good idea,” Odor said.
Ed. Note: I interviewed Mr. Guerrieri quite a while back. At the time Renaissance was planning a large housing development in Weld County which was where he planned to use the water they had purchased. The development would have led to the buy and dry as well. The development had an interesting side to it. Some common areas were to be used for high value agriculture such as grapes. Grape belt instead of green belt — i liked the idea.
More Morgan County coverage here.
Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority scores water rights on the South Platte River in Weld County
December 20, 2009
From The Denver Post:
The Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority has secured long-term surface water rights on the South Platte River in Weld County.
The authority said it will issue about $153 million in bonds to purchase and develop infrastructure that will serve the authority’s 3,000 residential and commercial customers.
Deckers: Open house for watershed restoration recap
December 20, 2009
From the Pikes Peak Courier View (Norma Engelberg):
About 25 people came out to a recent open house at the Deckers Community Center to get information about the upcoming Hayman Restoration Project and the partnership of local, state and federal agencies and organizations that has formed to get the work done…
Most of the work will focus on watershed restoration, starting with four creeks between Woodland Park and Cheeseman Reservoir — Horse Creek, Trout Creek, West Creek and Trail Creek. Over the past seven years since the fire, these creeks have been repeatedly inundated with sediment washed out of the burn area during rainstorms. The work will include stream stabilization, wildlife enhancement, noxious weed treatment, forest thinning and planting riparian and upland vegetation, along with monitoring project effectiveness. Some roads and trails might also be decommissioned, reconstructed or relocated and roads and trails that remain where they are will be maintained…
Watershed restoration work is needed because the Hayman Fire seriously impacted an area that provides water to 75 percent of the state’s 4.3 million residents.
For more information about upcoming projects and the partnership, call project coordinator Brian Banks at the South Platte Ranger District of Pike National Forest at 303-275-5610. While the partnership’s restoration work will focus on public land, private landowners can get help for their forested acreage from a variety of organizations, including the Coalition for the Upper South Platte at 719-748-5325, and the Woodland Park Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service at 719-686-9405.
More South Platte Basin coverage here.
Steamboat Springs: Public Works director pitches $34 million for proposed water infrastructure
December 19, 2009
From the Steamboat Pilot & Today (Mike Lawrence):
Philo Shelton said Thursday that he is confident in the city’s updated plan for $34 million worth of potential water infrastructure that would service future development west of Steamboat Springs. Shelton is director of Steam boat Springs’ public works department. On Tuesday, he presented a study by McLaughlin Water Engineers, of Denver, “Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates,” to the Steamboat Springs City Council. The study includes projected water and wastewater demands and details the infrastructure needed to service those demands should potential development — including the proposed Steamboat 700 and 360 Village annexations — occur west of current city limits. “It does not raise concerns for me,” Shelton said about the city’s ability to meet future water capacity demands, costs and infrastructure plans. “This plan is a good plan to allow for treated water, as well as nonpotable irrigation water. … The other piece is that it allows for a new source of water and provides needed redundancy in our region.”[...]
The McLaughlin study projects a maximum water demand of 7.34 million gallons per day, or mgd, after build-out within city limits and in the west of Steamboat area, including potential annexations and other development. The city’s current water treatment capacity is 4.55 mgd, and the current city demand is 3.3 mgd, according to the study. Those figures do not include demands serviced by the Mount Werner Water and Sanitation District. Expanding existing city facilities — including additional filtration at the Fish Creek water treatment plant, which the city shares with the Mount Werner district — could boost the city’s treatment capacity to 7.65 mgd, just more than the 7.34 mgd future demand…
The $34 million cost of developing that service includes $5 million to buy the 1,000-acre site for a reservoir; $7.5 million to build the reservoir; $4.75 million to build a water treatment plant that initially would provide 2.5 mgd, and ultimately could provide 5 mgd; and other land, construction, legal and administrative costs…
The McLaughlin study said water infrastructure on the west side of the city is needed regardless of future development, to provide redundancy for what it called a “dead-end” city water treatment system that comes only from one side of the city. McLaughlin said building a 1-million-gallon storage tank near Steamboat Springs Airport is a high priority for the city and that a booster pump station will be needed if the Elk River supply is not developed.
More infrastructure coverage here.
Republican River Water Conservation Board of Directors meeting recap
December 19, 2009
From The Yuma Pioneer (Tony Rayl):
The day included presentations on the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, the history and development of Colorado Ground Water Commission rules, distinct rules by ground water management districts, and the new mandatory water metering. And that was just in the morning. Then came the afternoon, featuring a compact accounting update by RRWCD engineer Jim Slattery, State Engineer Dick Wolfe and Assistant State Engineer Mike Sullivan giving an update on getting approval for the proposed pipeline by the Republican River Compact Administration, and RRWCD leaders explaining the district’s current stance in continuing with the pipeline, and why they have done what they have to date.
Colorado invoked fast-track arbitration with fellow compact states Kansas and Nebraska after the RRCA rejected the pipeline on a 1-2 vote last August. It was the second time the RRCA, which consists of the state engineer from each state, rejected Colorado’s proposed pipeline, the first vote coming last April. Wolfe reported Monday that the state still had not selected an arbitrator, which was supposed to have been done two months ago. He later explained Kansas did not want to keep the arbitrator that decided another fast-track arbitration case earlier this year between Kansas and Nebraska. Wolfe said the new finalists all were expensive, particularly with all the states going through budget crunches, and Nebraska wanted to interview all of the finalists in person. He said he had hoped to announce the arbitrator Monday because Nebraska was done with the interviews. However, he had not heard on a final selection before coming to Yuma. When asked about sticking to the fast-track arbitration deadline, Wolfe said Colorado could force the other states to stick to the timeline with the hearings in February, and a final decision in March. However, he left the door open for Colorado allowing a slight extension…
Wolfe revisited the many concerns held by either Kansas or Nebraska in regards to the pipeline. Those include worries Colorado would pump too much one year and then not pump any water into the North Fork in following years, groundwater depletions by the use of the pipeline, the impact depletions could have on the Haigler Ditch in Nebraska, and Kansas’ continued assertion that Colorado must satisfy the South Fork obligations by pumping water into the South Fork, rather than satisfying that by pumping all of the water into the North Fork. Kansas has expressed its wishes that Colorado would extend the pipeline about 15 miles further south to pump water into a South Fork tributary. David Barfield from Kansas has told Colorado his state in theory supports the pipeline, but issues need to be resolved. There is a concern from Colorado’s end about the compact model dictating that groundwater depletions by the pipeline could result in Colorado receiving up to 20 percent less credit. Wolfe said the situation comes down to Kansas and Nebraska being worried they would lose all leverage in future negotiations if they approved the pipeline — even though Colorado has added provisions stating the other two can still seek compensation for past damages, as well as Colorado being obligated to any potential ruling on the sub-basin test…
David Robbins, legal counsel for the RRWCD, said Monday that when the district was formed earlier this decade, the understanding that removing about 30,000 acres from production would about do it in regards to Colorado coming into compliance, with Mother Nature taking care of the rest. With that in mind, the district immediately began working toward CREP and EQIP programs, which pay producers to turn off their wells — CREP for permanent retirement and EQIP temporary turnoffs of a certain amount of years. Robbins said all along Colorado knew it would eventually have to build a pipeline at some time in the future. However, he said that by 2007 it was clear the well retirements alone would not be enough, and the pipeline needed to be done sooner rather than later. Robbins explained why the RRWCD went ahead with purchasing the water rights earlier this year from the Cure family. The water rights are to 62 wells north of Laird, where a pipeline will be built to discharge the water into the North Fork within a half-mile of the Colorado-Nebraska state line…
He said there are a lot of problems with Kansas’ proposal of extending the pipeline to the South Fork. It would entail putting water into a dry creek bed, where it would then have to travel more than 40 miles getting to the gage in Benkleman…
Slattery, during his presentation, explained the importance of draining Bonny Reservoir to help Colorado come into compliance. It would be eliminate 3,300 acre feet per year currently counted against Colorado due to evaporation and seepage from the reservoir’s water. The figure used to be higher, but the reservoir is now being kept around 10,000 acre feet. In fact, Wolfe said he ordered the release of water from the reservoir again earlier this month, sending water down the South Fork, while also keeping Bonny’s level down. The state engineer said there are a lot of issues surrounding the Bonny situation that have to be worked out with a variety of agencies before it could ever be drained. He said he feels is getting close in coming months to getting all those issues settled…
Slattery’s presentations, letters from Kansas and Nebraska concerning the proposed pipeline, Colorado’s proposed resolutions and other important information concerning the pipeline and Republican River Compact, can be found at www.republicanriver.com.
Ouray: Stimulus dough to help with funding 20 kilowatt micro hydroelectric generation plant
December 19, 2009
From The Telluride Watch:
The City of Ouray has been awarded a $30,000 grant from the Colorado Governors Energy Office to install a 20 kilowatt micro-hydro generating unit to be located at the Ouray Hot Springs Pool…
The project will take advantage of an existing, currently underutilized pipeline adjacent to the pool site. The electrical output from the system will be net-metered to offset the electricity use of the pool complex, saving the city approximately $12,000 in annual electricity expenditures. The powerhouse for the project will be constructed by a shop class from Ouray High School. Once completed, the project will provide an added tourist attraction to visitors to Ouray Hot Springs. Over the 30 year life of the project, the city will save approximately $370,000 – not accounting for expected electricity price increases. The project will also provide an opportunity for local students to participate in development of a clean energy project, and will avoid approximately 224,000 pounds of annual carbon dioxide emissions.
Palmer Lake: Town Council approves water rate increase
December 19, 2009
From The Tri-Lakes Tribune (Lisa Collacott):
The basic rate will increase from $33.53 to $40.07. The increase is needed to fund the new water plant. There will be an $11.51 increase per tap per month. An additional $6.54 will be added to maintain a three-month reserve. The state has required the Town of Palmer Lake to create an emergency fund with the $6.54 that is collected. At the end of 2010 the $6.54 will be taken off the bill. The $11.51 will stay until the loan is paid off, which will be in 20 years. “We needed the money for the new plant,” said water commissioner, Max Stafford. “The old one was 30-years-old and it was hard to get parts for it.”
Palmer Lake has taken a $1.8 million loan from the state’s revolving fund for improvements. The loan is a low-interest subsidized loan. “There was no raise in the budget or employee benefits. It’s all about the loan,” Stafford said.
More infrastructure coverage here.
Dolores: Water and sewer rates to go up next year
December 19, 2009
From the Cortez Journal (Shannon Livick):
Dolores residents will see their water and sewer bills go up next year, following a Monday-night decision by town board members to increase rates 3 percent. Interim Town Manager Ryan Mahoney said the increase was a must, to keep up with the rising costs of labor, chemical supplies and additional testing. The 3 percent increase will cost the average customer about $17 a year…
The base rate for water for in town residents up to 4,000 gallons will now be $24.36. The base rate for residential, in-town sewer will be $24.72…
Green said because the water and sewer rates are having difficulty paying for themselves, the increase was the only way to keep up with costs and continue to maintain the system. “We are not keeping up in the sewer fund,” Mayor Val Truelson said. The increase would give the town about $10,800 of additional revenue, Mahoney said. The revenue will go to the water and sewer enterprise funds because of escalating costs of doing business, needed maintenance and ongoing improvements.
More infrastructure coverage here.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documents show the EPA has been working closely with uranium mine developer Powertech USA for nearly two years on a permit application that would allow the company to contaminate an aquifer beneath its proposed Centennial Project in Weld County. All of the consultation was closed to the public, said Matthew Garrington of Environment Colorado, the group that obtained the documents from the EPA. According to the documents, the EPA, with the help of Powertech, has been developing internal guidance documents that will govern how the agency reviews Powertech’s application for a mine permit. The permit will allow Powertech to contaminate a portion of an aquifer with the company’s in situ leach uranium mining process…
“One reason the Centennial Project is receiving this level of technical scrutiny is because many residences located near the proposed Centennial Project rely on private wells for their drinking water, and many of those drinking water wells are completed in the same Fox Hills Formation aquifer [ed. the Fox Hills is part of the Denver Basin Aquifer system] as the mining zone aquifer,” according to one October 2008 internal EPA document. EPA spokesman Richard Mylott said Thursday that document does not reflect the agency’s current approach to Class III permitting.
Most of the e-mails Environment Colorado obtained regard an “aquifer exemption,” and “aquifer exemption boundary,” which is the extent to which the EPA may allow Powertech to contaminate the aquifer as part of the uranium mining process. The e-mails between the EPA and Powertech partners, Knight Piesold Consulting and R2 Incorporated, discuss where the aquifer exemption boundary should be placed.
In an April 2008 e-mail between EPA Underground Injection Control staffer Valois Shea and an R2 Incorporated employee, Shea asks if draft figures in a Class III permit application checklist comport with R2’s expectations. “You will get to be the pioneering guinea pig that will make life easier for others following in your path,” Shea writes.
Powertech Vice President Richard Blubaugh said Thursday such consultation with the EPA was both informal and standard practice. Class III permit applicants are “encouraged to go in and meet with the agency to understand what the requirements are,” he said. “Their regulations are complex. It really is something everybody does. It’s just routine to go in and talk to find out how they interpret the rule and what they expect to see in the application.”
Mylott agreed, saying it’s both normal and in the public’s best interest for the EPA to discuss the technical aspects of in situ leaching with Powertech. The EPA’s underground injection control program, he said, is designed to protect drinking water. “Achieving that goal depends on a solid understanding of what the permit applicant intends to do and the steps that will be taken to protect drinking water sources,” Mylott said.
Thanks to the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams) for the heads up.
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District hosts informational meeting on proposed irrigation rules
December 18, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
There is no question the rules are needed to keep Kansas at bay after 24 years of litigation over the Arkansas River Compact, State Engineer Dick Wolfe told about 75 irrigators gathered at the offices of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “We’re acutely aware of our requirements under the compact,” Wolfe said. “It is the tail that wags the dog.”[...]
Wolfe convened a committee to reshape the rules after initial objections, including a meeting of the Lower Ark packed by more than 100 people objecting the early version. “It’s been a very effective process for us and useful to us in developing the rules,” Wolfe said. “The state is not against irrigation improvements . . . The rules allow systems to operate, but also preserve the priority system (of water rights).” During the committee process, changes favorable to irrigators were made, added Peter Nichols, water attorney for the Lower Ark District. Many on-farm improvements were taken off the table, leaving sprinklers and drip irrigation. The rules now also accommodate seepage from ponds. “The rules are an attempt to avoid a train wreck like we had on the South Platte in 2002-03,” Nichols said. “They’ve changed a lot, for the better.”[...]
One of those changes involves a compliance plan by the Lower Ark district, which would allow farmers to fill out a form once, make a payment and, barring major changes in irrigation, leave the engineering and water augmentation headaches to the district, said Gregg Ten Eyck, an engineer with Leonard Rice consultants. The Lower Ark has spent about $325,000 so far developing the compliance plan, which it plans to operate at cost. The fees for the plan have not been set. The plan would average out wet and dry years, transferring risks from irrigators to the district. It would draw water from numerous sources to be used at the right time and place to augment flows on the Arkansas River.
The state still would have to verify the plans were accurate, using water commissioners and satellite images to check on the written reports. “The enforcement action would be targeted at the individual farmer,” said Steve Witte, Division 2 engineer.
More Arkansas Valley consumptive use rules coverage here.
EPA releases first-ever baseline study of U.S. lakes
December 18, 2009
Here’s the release from the Environmental Protection Agency (Ernesta Jones):
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released its most comprehensive study of the nation’s lakes to date. The draft study, which rated the condition of 56 percent of the lakes in the United States as good and the remainder as fair or poor, marked the first time EPA and its partners used a nationally consistent approach to survey the ecological and water quality of lakes. A total of 1,028 lakes were randomly sampled during 2007 by states, tribes and EPA.
“This survey serves as a first step in evaluating the success of efforts to protect, preserve, and restore the quality of our nation’s lakes,” said Peter Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water. “Future surveys will be able to track changes in lake water quality over time and advance our understanding of important regional and national patterns in lake water quality.”
The National Lakes Assessment reveals that the remaining lakes are in fair or poor condition. Degraded lakeshore habitat, rated “poor” in 36 percent of lakes, was the most significant of the problems assessed. Removal of trees and shrubs and construction of docks, marinas, homes and other structures along shorelines all contribute to degraded lakeshore habitat.
Nitrogen and phosphorous are found at high levels in 20 percent of lakes. Excess levels of these nutrients contribute to algae blooms, weed growth, reduced water clarity, and other lake problems. EPA is very concerned about the adverse impacts of nutrients on aquatic life, drinking water and recreation. The agency will continue to work with states to address water quality issues through effective nutrient management.
The survey included a comparison to a subset of lakes with wastewater impacts that were sampled in the 1970s. It finds that 75 percent show either improvements or no change in phosphorus levels. This suggests that the nation’s investments in wastewater treatment and other pollution control activities are working despite population increases across the country.
The results of this study describe the target population of the nation’s lakes as a whole and are not applicable to a particular lake.
Sampling for the National Rivers and Streams Assessment is underway, and results from this two-year study are expected to be available in 2011.
The draft study: http://www.epa.gov/lakessurvey
South Platte Roundtable: Ag transfers not enough to meet future demand
December 18, 2009
Folks on the South Platte Roundtable are trying to get the word out that Colorado needs a major water project to meet the needs of projected growth. They’re also hoping to convince the rest of the state that it is a statewide problem and that Colorado’s economic engine is primarily in the South Platte Basin and the area needs water to continue to generate that prosperity. Here’s a report from Bill Jackson writing for The Greeley Tribune. From the article:
That was the consensus [ag transfers falling short] Thursday when the South Platte Roundtable of the Colorado Water Conservation Board unveiled the findings of its study, Water for the 21st Century. The group is one of eight in the state developed by the Colorado Legislature following the drought years of the early part of the century.
The South Platte group, which has 50 members from Park County north to Larimer County and east to the Nebraska and Kansas borders, has met monthly for more than four years. The group believes that by 2050, the medium demand for Weld, Larimer and Boulder counties alone will require an additional 200,000 acre-feet of water just to meet municipal and industrial needs. An acre-foot of water is enough to supply two families with a year’s supply of water. “We will need another Colorado-Big Thompson Project or most of another Poudre River to meet those needs,” Harold Evans told a group of about 150 people at the meeting at The Ranch in Loveland. Evans, chairman of the Greeley Water and Sewer Board, is vice chairman of the South Platte Roundtable…
Gary Wockner of Fort Collins, with the Save The Poudre Coalition, said the study has serious, “and perhaps fatal, flaws and appears to be rooted in the river-destruction policies of the 19th century rather than the diverse Colorado interests of the 21st century.”
Evans said the roundtables have been asked to develop needs assessments for the future, not control growth. He said that Colorado water law will prevail to the use of groundwater. It looked at demands as of 2030 and on out to 2050.
Carter Lake: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Carter Lake hydroelectric retrofit update
December 18, 2009
From the Loveland Reporter Herald (Pamela Dickman):
The water district is on track to begin building a hydroelectric plant late next year that would provide power to the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association by spring 2012. “We’re taking advantage of the elevation difference between the water level at Carter Lake and the canal downstream,” said Carl Brouwer, project manager with Northern Water. “Right now all that energy is just dissipated. We want to turn that into hydroelectric energy.” Northern Water received preliminary approval in November from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. And Wednesday, the Larimer County Planning Commission gave its nod to the project.
The small facility would be built at the south dam next to a new water outlet in an area that already has been disturbed by construction. And it would use water that already is being transferred, so it wouldn’t affect levels in Carter Lake, Brouwer said…
The plant would produce about 10 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year. “It’s roughly enough to supply a couple thousand homes,” Brouwer said.
Rio Grande Basin: New groundwater pumping rules update
December 17, 2009
Here’s an update on the proposed new rules for pumping in the San Luis Valley, from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:
The stated purpose of the rules is to optimize the use of water in the Rio Grande Basin (the San Luis Valley) while preserving the priority water rights system and protecting Colorado’s ability to meet its obligations to downstream states through the Rio Grande Compact.
The rules are also designed to regulate the confined and unconfined aquifers to maintain a sustainable water supply.
The proposed rules state that they do not relieve wells from their obligation to replace injurious stream depletions and do not allow illegal water uses or expansions.
The proposed rules are specific to the Rio Grande Basin in recognition that this basin is unique. For example, the Rio Grande Basin has an aquifer system that includes a shallow or unconfined aquifer above a deeper confined aquifer that consists of multiple layers and formations.
The rules will utilize a groundwater model to help evaluate how withdrawals from the underground aquifers are affecting stream systems and other aquifers.
The rules recognize, as the water court has also recognized in the Valley, that the basin is over appropriated and groundwater withdrawals that are injuring the streams must be remedied. These rules allow the state engineer to administer and regulate groundwater and to curtail injurious groundwater diversions that are not replaced through an augmentation plan, sub-district management plan or substitute water supply plan.
Once finalized, the rules will head to water court for ratification. Wolfe said he brought in as many people as he could, from as many sectors as he could, to help draft the rules so there would be less contention over them later on.
The committee has drafted rules that are becoming more refined with each monthly meeting. The committee met again this week to review the 19-page document. Sub-committees of the larger advisory group are also meeting to discuss vital portions of the draft rules, such as the irrigation season that will be defined in the rules.
Parker: Recall of Parker Water and Sanitation board fails
December 17, 2009
From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):
A proposed water-rate hike last year prompted the campaign to oust four members as irresponsible. Board members backtracked, but campaigners pushed on. The results — board president Mary Spencer survived by 30 votes, Root by 7, Mike Casey by 58 — won’t be final until Dec. 30, Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Jack Arrowsmith said. At least one race requires a recount.
Parker’s 12-month tussle reflects rising tension over water in Front Range suburbs, where water managers are struggling to obtain and divert renewable water from mountain rivers as local groundwater supplies dwindle. “This is the kind of battle we’ll see played out with greater frequency as the demands on these finite water resources intensify,” said water expert David Getches, dean of the University of Colorado law school and former state director of natural resources. “We’ve allowed, in Colorado, whole subdivisions and whole communities to be built on nonrenewable water supplies.” Parker’s five-member board oversees the water supply for more than 22,000 people southeast of Denver who rely on 30 wells, from 51 to 2,745 feet deep, that draw fewer and fewer gallons per minute. State data show water tables falling 30 feet a year…
Frank Jaeger, the water-district manager, is leading a drive to divert upper Colorado River Basin water to Denver suburbs from western Wyoming. The $230 million Rueter-Hess reservoir under construction near Parker — one of Colorado’s biggest water- storage projects in decades — would hold that water, along with creek runoff and reused water treated at a new high-tech chemical plant. Jaeger’s district, established in 1962, is one of dozens created after developers built subdivisions across semi- arid terrain and left decisionmaking to the residents. Now, boards face difficult decisions as economic doldrums limit residents’ abilities to pay higher water rates…
“What we learned is, we weren’t doing a very good job of educating the public,” [accountant Darcy Beard] said. “The cost of water in Colorado is never going to go down. We live in a high-desert environment.”
More Parker coverage here.
Fruita: City Council approves $57.9 million budget including dough for new wastewater treatment plant
December 17, 2009
From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Mike Wiggins):
…the council adopted a $57.9 million budget for 2010. The vast majority of that money — roughly $44 million — is dedicated to the construction of a new wastewater treatment plan and a community center.
More from the article:
Council members unanimously agreed to enact the city’s parks, open space and trails master plan, which calls for developers of subdivisions adjacent to primary trails identified in the plan to donate a portion of their project for a trail. For properties that abut canals and drainage ditches, trails would be built next to those waterways, assuming the land is developable. Under the plan, developers would have to dedicate 20 feet of right of way for the trail next to the canal easement. The trail requirement only applies to land as it’s annexed into and developed in the city. City officials emphasized they will not force landowners to sell or acquire land for trails through eminent domain. The plan to create trails next to canals has generated concerns from the agencies that own and operate irrigation canals. Even though the city said it will develop trails next to, rather than on top of, canal easements, some worry about the proximity of recreation to waterways. “We’re still concerned with any recreational use of the canal,” Robert Raymond, president of the board of directors of the Grand Valley Irrigation Co., told council members. The irrigation company maintains nearly 100 miles of canals in the valley.
More Colorado River Basin coverage here.
