Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District welcomes new commissioners

From The Mountain Mail (Ron Sering):

Three returning directors and a new one were sworn in Thursday during the regular Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District meeting in Salida. Taking the oath of office for four year terms were returning directors Jeff Ollinger of Chaffee County and Tom French and William McGuire, both of Fremont County. Tom Goodwin of Fremont County, appointed by a panel of three district judges, was sworn to the at-large seat vacated by Pat Alderton of Poncha Springs. Goodwin is former Bureau of Land Management field office manager and U.S. Forest Service district ranger for the Saguache district field office. He retired from the Forest Service in 2007. Goodwin is the son of former UAWCD member and long-time board chairman Denzel Goodwin.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District: Tom Goodwin appointed to board

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka/Tracy Harmon):

Goodwin, a retired district ranger with the U.S. Forest Service, is the son of Denzel Goodwin, a longtime Fremont County rancher who was instrumental in forming the district and was a member of the board for many years.

Three other directors were reappointed for four-year terms: Tom French of Howard, Jeff Ollinger of Buena Vista and William McGuire of Penrose. They will serve with Glenn Everett of Salida, Robert Senderhauf of Westcliffe, Timothy Canterbury of Howard, Gregory Felt of Salida, Bill Donley of Westcliffe, Frank McMurray of Nathrop, Bill Jackson of Canon City, Mannie Colon of Canon City and John Sandefur of Penrose. The district, formed in 1979, represents water interests in Fremont, Custer and Chaffee counties and board appointments follow the boundaries of school districts in the three counties. Its purpose is to protect and secure water in the Arkansas River Valley west of Pueblo…

Judges making the appointments were Kirk Samuelson, chief of the 4th district; C.M. Barton, chief of the 11th district; and O. John Kuenhold, chief of the 12th district.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: More county commissioner’s hearings

Here’s a recap of this week’s meeting of the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners regarding Nestlé Waters North America’s Chaffee County Project, from Joe Stone writing for The Mountain Mail):

The fifth marathon hearing regarding permit requests from Nestlé Waters recessed at 11 p.m. Tuesday with participants setting 1 p.m. May 21 for continuation in a location to be determined…

After future hearings are officially closed, commissioners will have 60 days to reach a decision regarding issuance of the Nestlé permits…

Consultants for Nestlé and Chaffee County attended the meeting and addressed eight areas of concern regarding the special land use and 1041 permit applications: economic impacts, groundwater impacts, water rights, wetland impacts, traffic concerns, air quality impacts, visual impacts and planning document consistencies. Analysis provided Tuesday by THK Associates of Aurora clarified economic impacts of the project, indicating several benefits to the county, including $2.3 million in total wages for project labor and $4.8 million for materials. The only items contracted outside the county would be specialized work, such as directional drilling to route a pipeline under the Arkansas River. It would add $2.4 million in assessed property value, generating more than $18,000 in property taxes for 2010 and more than $500,000 during the next 30 years. THK analysis projected annual tax payments of more than $8,000 for Chaffee County Fire Protection District, $5,000 for Northern Chaffee County Library District, $2,500 for Salida Hospital District and about $1,000 for Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. In addition to a $500,000 community endowment, Nestlé committed to an annual giving program and reimbursement of extraordinary county expenditures not covered by tax payments.

Representing Nestlé, Steve Sims, former senior water counsel for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, clarified questions associated with Nestlé’ proposed lease of Aurora water for augmentation. Sims stressed the Aurora water would come from the Colorado River Basin and would be augmented upstream from the Nestlé project site. A plan proposed by Salida and Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District would have relied upon augmenting water downstream from the site, creating in-stream flow issues and other concerns. Sims reported, “Aurora’s water portfolio includes 52,000 acre-feet and will increase to 100,000 acre-feet in 2010 when their Prairie Waters project comes online.” Given the small percentage of Aurora water leased by Nestlé, Sims said drought-year worries are unfounded and emphasized the plan would be strictly controlled by Colorado Water Court. Sims noted Chaffee County agricultural rights are senior to the Aurora rights and could not be affected by the augmentation plan.

Martina Wilkinson explained the Nestlé traffic study in detail indicating uphill truck traffic isn’t associated with wrecks between Johnson Village and Trout Creek Pass summit. In fact, she said, wildlife and excessive downhill speed create most crashes in the corridor.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Chaffee County Project: Opposition update

Here’s an update on the opposition to Nestlé Waters North America’s Chaffee County Project, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article

Tempers have flared and barbs have been traded at three marathon public hearings as county officials wrestle over whether to issue a land-use permit to Nestle Waters North America. The company owns the land and water rights near Nathrop and says it is investing $15 million in its effort to withdraw 65 million gallons a year. It has an agreement with Aurora for that city to release 200 acre-feet a year from an upper reservoir to compensate for the water Nestle would remove from the Arkansas basin.

At the heart of the debate is whether a community benefits when a company takes water from its springs to sell on grocery store shelves. Some communities have fought such efforts – with mixed results – and the conflict in Salida could presage fights elsewhere in Colorado. Nestle has plans to tap springs in three or four more locations in the state. “I think they could buy and dry our valley,” said Vicki Klein, a board member of Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability, a group formed to fight the project. “Two hundred acre-feet might not be a huge amount initially, but where they can go from there is frightening…

Nestle says it will draw 10 percent of the springs’ flow, and the impact to the Arkansas River “will not be measurable, even in low-flow conditions.” The company touts the benefits to the county: temporary construction jobs for the pipeline and related facilities; increased tax revenue for the county; removal of a dilapidated trout hatchery along the Arkansas; and preservation of the area as open space…

At a hearing Wednesday, Terry Scanga, manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, said it could be “very injurious” to the Arkansas basin. Aurora doesn’t take all the water it owns from the mountains, and in a drought that city could draw more to make up for what it releases for Nestle, he said. “I think it’s kind of ironic that an out-of-basin entity would be leasing water to another entity who will be taking it out of the basin,” Scanga said…

It was many newcomers – retirees and others – who want to see the mountain splendor preserved, versus old-timers who say the county needs economic development…

Some of its legal difficulties with host communities, usually small, rural towns, include: a four-year legal battle with Fryeburg, Maine, to build a pumping station; a lawsuit by citizens in McCloud, Calif., who oppose a plan by the company to tap springs and build a bottling plant; and a public outcry in Enumclaw, Wash, about proposed wells and a bottling plant that led Nestle to abandon the plan…

Nestle’s Lauerman said the opposition “has very little to do with the specifics of the project itself, the viability of the project…It’s more people with a distrust for corporations, people who are anti-growth no matter what the project is. It’s people who have a philosophical bent against bottled water,” he said.

Jeanine Zeman, spokeswoman for the opposition group, admits she doesn’t like bottled water. She also believes Nestle has a poor record of working with communities where it sinks wells. With the arguments impassioned on both sides, county commissioners are in no rush to make a decision. The hearing resumes Tuesday.

More coverage from Joe Stone writing for The Mountain Mail:

The public hearing conducted by Chaffee County commissioners will continue at 1 p.m. Tuesday in the Salida Steam Plant Theater regarding two separate permit applications by Nestlé Waters. County consultants and staff members will discuss the extent to which new information from Nestlé satisfies 1041 permit application criteria. Commissioners will continue to hear public comments, but only regarding new information and unresolved 1041 permit requirements. Written comments must be received by noon Monday for consideration at the meeting Tuesday, county officials said…

The 1041 permit process requires county commissioners to approve or deny the permit by May 15 unless the applicant requests an extension, Don Reimer, county development director said…

Lauerman’s points included:

• Nestlé modified the project to address local concerns.

• Shallow nature of the wells will eliminate possibility of over-pumping the aquifer.

• The 50,000-acre aquifer recharge area indicates a sustainable source for water harvest.

• Nestlé’s annual 200-acre-foot extraction represents 2 percent of annual aquifer recharge and 1.5 percent of water available in the aquifer.

• In addition to a $500,000 local trust fund, Nestlé would provide educational opportunities and annual contributions of $25,000 to $30,000 to local organizations and events.

• Nestlé has invested more than $2 million in the project and would be investing $15 million in Chaffee County. The investment will take years to recoup at the 6-7 percent company operating profit.

• The project would provide protection for the environment that other types of development cannot offer.

• By collecting water in Chaffee County and bottling it in Denver, the company would reduce trucking by 5 million miles a year.

• A 72-hour pumping test in January revealed no effects to the water table beyond 200 yards.

• Colorado Department of Transportation found no significant traffic concerns when issuing an access permit on U.S. 24/285 at Johnson Village.

• Colorado Division of Wildlife found no significant adverse impacts.

• Colorado Trout Unlimited expressed no concerns.

Here are some comments offered up by John Emerick, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the Colorado School of Mines, Division of Environmental Science and Engineering at Wednesday’s public meeting, from the Salida Citizen.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners hear more testimony

Here’s a recap of today’s proceedings with the Chaffee County Commissioners, from Lee Hart writing for the Salida Citizen. From the post:

For the first time in four months of public hearings, Nestle was obviously on the warpath as first Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman, then Nestle lawyer Holly Strablizky took aim at Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga…

Lauerman called Scanga’s testimony “fuzzy math.”

Buena Vista resident John Cogswell also cross-examined Scanga challenging the veteran water manager’s assertion that the Aurora-Nestle lease would have a significant adverse net affect. “(UAWCD’s) water argument doesn’t hold water,” Cogswell told the Salida Citizen.

Cogswell tried to get Scanga to agree that Nestle’s lease with Aurora would be no more impactful to water in the basin than irrigating 100 acres of agricultural land. Scanga agreed that while the depletion is the same, the beneficial use of the water is not. A local rancher’s use of the water creates beneficial use within the county while Nestle’s bottled water project creates beneficial use outside the county, Scanga said.

During questioning from Commissioner Tim Glenn, Scanga said the Nestle-Aurora lease compounds the impact to the Upper basin in ways that would not occur if Nestle secured its leased water from another in-basin entity such as Pueblo Board of Water Works or the joint Salida-UAWCD proposal.

On that last point, longtime resident and local Realtor Karin Adams brought more math to light. The Aurora lease will cost Nestle approximately $200,000 for 200 acre feet of water for each of ten years, with an option to renew for another 10-year term. Aurora’s lease to Nestle could be interrupted in the event of a severe drought. Nestle rejected a joint offer from Salida and the UAWCD that would have cost $500,000 but would have provided an in-basin, uninterruptable supply of water that would have protected Nestle and other water rights users in the event of a drought. Scanga said if Nestle had agreed to the Salida-UAWCD proposal, the UAWCD would have re-invested the money to enhance the county’s water portfolio.

On another point, despite Scanga’s assertion to the contrary, Lauerman told the commissioners unequivocably that UAWCD has expressed interest in participating with Aurora in Aurora’s lease to Nestle.

Even if the Chaffee County commissioners approve Nestle’s Special Land Use Permit, Nestle still has to get water court approval for its augmentation plan. The stage has been set for a battle of the titans in water court. Based on Scanga’s predications, there will likely be at least two if not more objectors to the Nestle-Aurroa lease when it goes before the water court in a process that typically takes at least two years.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Pat Alderton will not serve second term on Upper Ark board

From The Mountain Mail (Ron Sering): “‘Their public service philosophy doesn’t go along with mine,’ Alderton said. Alderton served a single four-year term on the board. She is also town administrator for Poncha Springs.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage