Bottled water under fire
October 23, 2009
Bottled water and newfound caution approaching all things water is the subject of this article from Moises Velasquez-Manoff writing for the Christian Science Monitor. He ties his story to Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project. From the article:
Citing myriad concerns, a group of [Chaffee County] residents has objected vigorously. They worry about impacts to the watershed and to nearby wetlands. They say that climate change, predicted to further dry Colorado and the Southwest, warrants a precautionary approach to all things water-related. And, pointing to fights other communities have had with the company, they say they simply don’t want Nestlé as a neighbor. Nestlé counters that these concerns are overblown. The company says: The amount of water it plans to withdraw is negligible; the project will bring many benefits – economic and otherwise – to the community; and the company, the largest water bottler in North America, is an upstanding corporate citizen…
But many say the greater story – about a growing world population of more than 6.5 billion faced with a limited supply of fresh water – is, in fact, just beginning. Experts not directly involved in the Chaffee County situation point to it as evidence of rising sensitivity to water issues everywhere. They cite a growing number of disagreements between communities and bottled-water firms around the US – in Maine, California, Florida, and Michigan, among other places – as evidence. “There is a growing interest in water as a whole [and] growing scarcity in the Western United States,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, Calif., a nonprofit that does research and policy analysis in the areas of environment and sustainable development. “And when people pay more attention, it sort of makes it harder to do the things [bottled water companies] used to do without any opposition.”
These companies have now become the focus of campaigns against bottled water in general. Organizations like Corporate Accountability International and the Environmental Working Group rail against bottled water for a number of reasons, the environmental impact of plastics among them. (Lauerman points to Nestlé’s new ecoshape bottles, which, he says, use 30 percent less plastic than most.) The groups also argue that consumption of bottled water – paying for something that’s already cheaply available – leads to neglect of municipal water infrastructure, to everyone’s detriment. The US Conference of Mayors has urged cities to stop buying water and has called for an investigation into how much the industry costs taxpayers. (By one estimate, 40 percent of bottled water comes from municipal sources, not springs.)…
But the assumption underlying these laws – that water is in limited supply – is the correct one, says Robert Glennon, author of “Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It.” Other states often allow “a limitless number of straws in the glass,” he says. But in Colorado, if you can’t replace it, you can’t take it. “That’s exactly what I think we should do,” he says.
More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
Aurora: Sewer rate hike in offing?
October 13, 2009
From the Aurora Sentinel (Adam Goldstein):
Residents may face a 6-percent increase in the city’s sewer and storm drainage rates in 2010, a spike that would result in an increase of about $1 a month for the average residential water customer. The Aurora City Council is set to vote on the proposed increase, as well as suggested changes to the city’s water service connection fees, during its meeting on Oct. 12. According to staff from Aurora Water, the suggested changes to the sewer and storm drainage rates stem from rate increases from the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, which conveys the city’s wastewater to treatment plants outside Aurora. “If we elect not to choose the 6-percent (increase) in 2010, we’ll erode our financial strength,” said Greg Baird, deputy director of business services for Aurora Water, during a council meeting in September. “Whatever we don’t do in 2010, we’ll have to make up for in ’11, ’12, ’13 and ’14. We could eat into our reserves and whatever financial strength we have, but that potentially increases our revenue requirement in future years.” If approved by the council, the recommended water-rate increases would go into effect at the beginning of 2010.
More infrastructure coverage here.
Aurora wins American Water Works taste test
September 22, 2009
Bump and update: From the Aurora Sentinel (Adam Goldstein):
Aurora Water will move on to the next level of the competition, representing the Rocky Mountain Section of the AWWA during the “Best of the Best” taste test, to be held at the AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition in Chicago in June 2010.
From The Denver Post:
The city was crowned the winner at the recent Rocky Mountain selection of the American Water Works Association Taste Test. A five-member panel decided that Aurora water had the best appearance, smell, taste and overall impression. Denver Water and the Centennial Water and Sanitation District were among other local utilities entered.
More Aurora coverage here.
National League of Cities: Energy, Environment and Natural Resources (EENR) Steering Committee annual fall meeting
September 14, 2009
Here’s a release from the National League of Cities (Carolyn Berndt):
The Energy, Environment and Natural Resources (EENR) Steering Committee took several steps toward addressing this year’s work plan at its fall meeting in Aurora, Colo. With a full agenda, the committee, led by Chair Claude Mattox, councilmember from Phoenix, focused on: sustainability and climate change; water infrastructure and supply; and product stewardship and waste reduction.
In addition to approving two existing resolutions on climate change, the committee approved new policy language relating to renewable energy and infrastructure siting.
Several speakers informed the discussion. Corey Buffo from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spoke about a green building code initiative to provide local governments with building code information. Joe Goffman from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee provided an update on the status of climate change legislation in the Senate. Finally, Anders Riel Muller from Baltic Sea Solutions in Palo Alto, Calif., spoke about a new partnership to visually map local climate change initiatives.
After hearing from two speakers on different legislative proposals for funding the nation’s water infrastructure needs, the committee amended and approved an existing resolution on water infrastructure. Mark Pifher, director of Aurora Water, also spoke to the committee about Colorado water law, the Colorado River compact and the Aurora Water reuse plan.
Additionally, the committee approved new policy language on electronic waste and a new resolution relating to product stewardship.
Finally, the committee heard from Mike McHugh from Aurora Water about the impact of the mountain pine beetle on Colorado and western forests. Bark beetles were a priority policy issue for the committee in 2008. The committee approved new policy language relating to invasive species.
The committee voted to update and renew current NLC resolutions on water infrastructure, sustainability initiatives, climate change, climate change adaptation, bark beetles and environmentally friendly shoreline systems. Additionally, the committee voted to incorporate a recurring resolution on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program into existing policy.
Aurora Councilmember Brad Pierce hosted the EENR meeting. A number of related field visits were held throughout the meeting, including a visit to the city’s new municipal center, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Plains Conservation Center and the Peter D. Binney Water Purification Plant.
The EENR Policy and Advocacy Committee will meet at the Congress of Cities in San Antonio to review policy recommendations. The committee will meet on Wednesday, November 11, and welcomes conference attendees at the meeting.
Interior Secretary Salazar appoints Deanna Archuleta to work ‘full-time’ on Southern Delivery System mitigation requirements
August 29, 2009
Here’s a recap of yesterday’s meeting on water issues in Pueblo hosted by Ken Salazar, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Deanna Archuleta, deputy assistant secretary for water and science, will work “full-time” on the issue, Salazar said at a water issues summit in Pueblo…
Salazar called Fountain Creek a “shared resource” that is important to Colorado Springs and Pueblo, as well as the downstream farms and cities. As a U.S. senator, Salazar urged the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force to make the creek a “crown jewel” and he applauded the task force and state lawmakers for making the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District a reality. As secretary of the Interior, Salazar said he now has the authority to make sure the promises made by Colorado Springs to win approval for building the Southern Delivery System from Pueblo Dam are fulfilled. “Deanna Archuleta will help to identify the resources we need to get this done,” Salazar said. “I’m looking forward to working on this project,” Archuleta said after the meeting. “There has been exceptional collaboration and phenomenal work so far on this. It really is precedent-setting.” Salazar said Archuleta will lead a team directly inside the secretary of Interior’s office that includes Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor…
Salazar voiced strong support for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million project authorized by Congress this year that would build a drinking water line from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads. “I am 100 percent behind getting the Arkansas Valley Conduit built,” Salazar said. “I will look at our budget to see if there is any money we can put into it. Unless we get this process moving, we are not going to get it done.”[...]
Secretary Salazar also said the “right kind of limits” on taking water from the Arkansas River basin have to be found before federal legislation is crafted to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project. “It’s not going to happen unless my big brother’s (Rep. Salazar’s) concerns can be satisfied,” he said.
Here’s a look at U.S. Representive John Salazar’s views on legislation that would allow Aurora to benefit from Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
No federal legislation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will pass unless U.S. Rep. John Salazar is part of the discussion on how that legislation is drafted. The Colorado Democrat made that clear Friday in his closing remarks at a water summit he and his brother, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, hosted in Pueblo. “I’ve always been one to seek the middle ground on issues, but I’m adamant on agriculture,” Rep. Salazar said. “I want to make sure we don’t destroy one economy to make another.”[...]
In March, the Lower Ark and Aurora agreed to work for a change in federal legislation that would legitimize Aurora’s use of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. They later obtained a stay in the Lower Ark’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation, which in 2007 issued a 40-year storage and exchange contract for excess capacity in Lake Pueblo. “We believe these issues can be solved and we’re working to solve them,” Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said.
There was no mistaking Rep. Salazar’s parting words, however. “I don’t like to be excluded when legislation is proposed. I want to be part of that discussion,” Salazar said.
More Arkansas Basin coverage here, Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here, Super Ditch coverage here and here, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.
Castle Rock is teaming up with Denver, Aurora and the South Metro Water Supply Authority for joint operations
August 28, 2009
From the Douglas County News Press (Chris Michlewicz):
Town council entered into an intergovernmental agreement Aug. 25 with Denver, Aurora and the South Metro Water Supply Authority, of which Castle Rock is a member. The WISE partnership – which stands for Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency – is a joint collaboration to explore opportunities to acquire water and share infrastructure to support the development of water in the South Platte Project Region, an area that stretches from Chatfield Reservoir to the small town of Balzac, Colo., on the eastern plains.
The agreement promotes regional cooperation among water providers and enables the participants to share costs on large projects instead of duplicating efforts. It also brings bigger partners into the mix, said Heather Beasley, water resource engineer with Castle Rock’s utilities division. The partnership does not obligate the town to participate in projects. Members will bring opportunities to the group for discussion, but each entity can decide individually if it wants to join in, Beasley said.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project update
August 24, 2009
Click here to read Lee Hart’s analysis of last moment tactics from Nestlé Waters before the Chaffee County Commissioners approved the 1041 permit.
Here’s a release from Nestlé Waters via PRNewswire.com:
On August 19, Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners unanimously directed County legal counsel to prepare resolutions of approval for Nestle Waters North America to produce spring water for its Arrowhead Spring Water Brand.
Nestle Waters has been actively engaged in Chaffee County since 2007. In November 2008, the company applied for a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) and 1041 Permit. The process has included numerous public hearings, extensive community dialogue, thousands of pages of scientific, economic, and ecological and environmental data collection and research. The process is thorough, comprehensive, and involves the review of a number of different independent consultants and agencies with diverse areas of expertise, and the review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
“Chaffee County is a special place, we appreciate the many community members we’ve had the privilege to meet who have provided valuable advice and helped to shape our project to better fit this community,” said Bruce Lauerman, Nestle Waters North America’s Natural Resource Manager in Colorado. “We have a unique opportunity to protect a natural water resource, preserve beautiful open space, create local jobs and provide additional funds for education and other needs in the local community.”
For nearly two years, Nestle Waters has been working together with local residents, conducting site tours, and reaching out to local agencies and businesses to tailor this project to best fit the needs and desires of Chaffee County citizens. Included as part of its permit application, Nestle Waters voluntarily added a comprehensive community giving effort that will provide: a $500,000 endowment for local education initiatives; a permanent conservation easement to protect Nestle’s 115 acres along the Arkansas River; in-stream fishing access at the Ruby Mountain and Bighorn Spring Sites; multi-million dollar local contracts to Chaffee County construction companies to construct the five-mile pipeline; programmatic annual giving to locally identified needs in the community; opportunities for environmentally-focused field work with local college and high school students; a comprehensive, wildlife-habitat restoration project of the old Ruby Mountain fish hatchery (which will incorporate a number of local agencies and interested groups); and a commitment to hire at least 50% of its truck drivers from the local area.
As part of the conditions of its 1041 and SLUP permits, Nestle Waters will be required to provide a comprehensive land management plan of the spring sites, to include the hatchery restoration, surface water and groundwater monitoring and mitigation plans, protection of bighorn sheep habitat, streambank and wildlife friendly fencing, and other environmental, construction, and land use conditions. Long-term hydrologic monitoring, initiated in 2007 will continue throughout the life of the project.
“We appreciate the efforts made by the County Commissioners, Planning Commission, and Staff during this lengthy and complex permitting process,” said Lauerman. “We look forward to continuing our partnership with this community and working together to benefit the Arkansas River Valley for years to come.”
For more information about Nestle Waters North America’s operations in Colorado, please visit: www.Nestlewatersco.com
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project: Chaffee County Commissioners approve 1041 permit
August 20, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):
Nestle will be able to pump a maximum of 200 acre-feet of water annually from one spring source at the 16-acre Ruby Mountain Spring site of Nathrop between Salida and Buena Vista…
The commission on Wednesday finalized a list of nearly 50 conditions that deal with environmental, economic-development and water issues. Nestle will be required to establish a $500,000 endowment to fund science, environmental or Chaffee County school projects, plus establish and perpetually replenish a $200,000 mitigation fund to cover the county’s administrative costs for overseeing the permit condition reviews and other unforeseen expenses. In addition, Nestle will be required to hire local contractors, buy supplies locally and employ at least 50 percent of its truck drivers from Chaffee County. Nestle also has pledged to obtain a conservation easement for the property so it will remain open space and can never be developed.
“One area I really struggle with is the project benefits. Do they outweigh future development of that property or those resources?” Commissioner Tim Glenn said. “The alternatives of what might happen, I can see, will be 2-acre subdivisions with wells and septic tanks. “Is that going to be a benefit to the area? In some regards, yes; in some regards, no,” Glenn said…
“My issue was water and long-term water loss. With augmentation, there is no doubt the water is being replenished in time, place and amount. I believe all the conditions satisfy my concerns; we’ve worked hard for the citizens,” Commissioner Dennis Giese said…
“I am pleased with a unanimous vote for approval with the conditions. We will bring a very good project to Chaffee County that will improve the economy, provide open space preservation and restore the (old private) fish hatchery,” said Bruce Lauerman of Nestle.
More coverage from The Mountain Mail (Jennifer Denevan):
County staff members were directed to write separate resolutions – one for the 1041 permit and another for the special land use permit. The resolutions will be considered during a future regular business meeting. Some changes were made to the conditions considered by commissioners during the special meeting Wednesday and must be rewritten, but will be included in both resolutions…
Commissioners discussed conditions with which they had issues and determined how they needed to be rewritten. They wanted to ensure wording fits needs and intent. Commissioners requested clarification of the cost reimbursement fund and the fishing access stipulation. The cost reimbursement fund is money Nestlé would put aside for three types of project-related costs including anticipated and unanticipated – such as lawsuits. Commissioners also discussed the fishing access condition. Holman and Tim Glenn disagreed about access being allowed in the Bighorn Springs area. After rewording the condition, commissioners agreed if Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel don’t find it suitable, Nestlé won’t be required to create a river access point.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Chaffee County Commissioners approve 1041 permit
August 19, 2009
From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):
But county commissioners voted 3-0 to issue a 1041 land-use permit, with a host of conditions they said will address the concerns…
The company draws water from 50 springs around the country, but this will be the first in Colorado. Nestle says it plans to tap several other springs in the state.
Pueblo Board of Water Works board meeting recap
August 19, 2009
The PBOWW finished up the sale of the Columbine Ditch and approved a 3.2 percent rate hike this week. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The 3.2-percent rate hike will raise a little more than $1 million to pay debt service on $23 million in bonds, said Seth Clayton, finance division manager. “We will be coming back in November for another increase to cover our normal operations,” Clayton told the board. Clayton estimated the total increase for 2010 would be about 8 to 9 percent, with another 6 to 8 percent in 2011. That’s lower than initial projections of 10 percent each year…
“Nobody in the community is in favor of a rate increase,” President Nick Gradisar said. “But the people I talk to are in favor of what we are doing on the Bessemer.” The bonds would be issued Oct. 22…
The Columbine sale would close Sept. 21. Columbine Ditch is on Fremont Pass 13 miles north of Leadville and brings water to the Arkansas River from the Eagle River basin. Climax needs the water because it lost a water court claim to Denver Water and plans to expand in the future, said Bud O’Hara, water resources division manager. The agreement also would keep Aurora from objecting in the eventual change of use case for the Bessemer Ditch shares, and would also take the Pueblo water board out of the change of diversion case associated with the Columbine. The Columbine water already is available for all uses under the water board’s decree, so it will not require a change of use decree…
The water board is now looking at 67 contracts for a total of 5,339 shares at $10,150 each, with another 10.5 shares pending on the Bessemer Ditch, Hamel said. There are about 20,000 shares on the ditch. The water board plans to spend about $60 million, and will begin closing contracts in September using funds already in the water development fund and from lease revenue.
Aurora Reservoir gives up new state record channel catfish
August 3, 2009
From Fox21.com:
Stone, who fishes Aurora Reservoir with unwavering devotion, said he never set out to break any records on what he thought was just another typical morning at his favorite fishing hole. “I’ve been coming out to Aurora Reservoir pretty much every weekend, rain or shine, since 2003,” said Stone. “That morning I planned on fishing for trout and walleye but never expected to catch a catfish, much less anything of that size.”
Denver, Aurora and the South Metro Water Supply Authority are exploring ways that facilities could be shared to optimize supply distribution, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Denver Water, Aurora Water and the South Metro Water Supply Authority are preparing a report that would identify how water supply systems could be shared, Aurora Water Director Mark Pifher said. “We’re underutilizing our resources,” Pifher told a joint meeting of the Interbasin Compact Committee and the interim legislative water resources committee. “We’re looking at ways to share our infrastructure, but it may require relief in water law to give us the additional flexibility to make that kind of project work.” By capturing flows that are not used, there would be less pressure in the short term on agricultural water rights. In the long run, there would be reduced costs for storage and pipelines if the water providers are working together, Pifher said…
A study of how the three entities could work together is being prepared and will be released later this year, Pifher added. Together, the water providers supply almost 500,000 acre-feet of water to a population of about 1.7 million. South Metro includes 13 separate water providers that have been looking at their own study of how to jointly use resources better…
Denver Water is in the midst of a 10-year plan aimed at reducing per-capita water consumption by at least 20 percent. It is also looking at possible projects to physically reuse water. Aurora’s $750 million Prairie Waters Project, now under construction, will recapture its return flows from the regional wastewater treatment plant and pump them 34 miles upstream. Return flows from water imported from the Western Slope, from Denver Basin aquifers or taken as consumptive use from ag dry-ups, in some cases, can be reused to extinction under state water law. Most of the water is not physically reused now, but exchanged against native flows. A 1999 study indicated there are about 200,000 acre-feet of reusable water in the Denver Metro area, with about 133,000 acre-feet coming through wastewater plants.
More Coyote Gulch infrastructure coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Aurora City Council Monday gave the green light for the deal, which would match an offer of $30.48 million from Ginn Development for a private ski resort at Minturn. The council’s action was final because a waiver of reconsideration was included in the initial motion. Pueblo City Council Monday approved the sale on first reading, a requirement under the city charter any time an asset is sold. Council’s final approval will be on the July 27 agenda.
Aurora was able to match the offer because of a clause in a 1997 lease agreement with the Pueblo water board that gave it a right of first refusal if Pueblo sold any of its transmountain water rights. The contract specifies that only water brought into the Arkansas Valley from the Western Slope can be used in the Aurora leases. “Aurora’s concern was that if we sold any of our assets we would not have the ability to supply water for the lease,” said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. “At the time we had no plans to sell any assets.”[...]
Aurora and Climax formed a partnership called the Fremont Pass Ditch Co., with Aurora controlling two-thirds of the company and holding an option to buy the entire Columbine Ditch in the future, said spokesman Greg Baker. Aurora earlier bid $30.5 million on the Columbine, but wanted to spread out payments over five years. The city reallocated its resources to offer the full amount this year, as Ginn Development had in its bid. “This is high-quality mountain water, and you don’t see that for sale too often,” Baker said. “The fact that it comes into the basin above Twin Lakes makes it perfect for us.” Since the Arkansas River does not flow directly into Twin Lakes – where Aurora removes water from the Arkansas Valley through the Otero Pipeline and Pumping Station – Aurora would have to exchange water from the Columbine Ditch into its accounts. But the exchange opportunities are greater near the headwaters and Aurora has other ways to use the water in the Arkansas Valley, Baker said.
Climax mine, owned by Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., is located on Fremont Pass and could use the water directly. Last year, the company said it is still revamping the mine with the intention of reopening, but timing could be delayed by a weak economy.
Pueblo Board of Water Works is trying to work out the details to finance Bessemer Ditch water rights acquisitions
July 12, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Dennis Darrow):
Nick Gradisar [board chair], addressing the Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce’s monthly luncheon at the Pueblo Convention Center, said the utility is considering a combination of rate hikes, outside water leases and the sale of Pueblo’s interest in the Columbine Ditch on the Western Slope. The increase in local water rates could amount to 10 percent a year for two years, Gradisar said. The extra revenue would go toward repaying a $22 million bond issue the utility is considering as the last piece needed to finance the deal.
The water board recognizes the hardship an overall 20 percent rate hike could cause on low- and fixed-income homeowners in particular, Gradisar said. To further emphasize his point, he shared census statistics about Pueblo’s high poverty rates and low household income levels. Accordingly, the board welcomes public feedback on how to possibly limit the rate hikes, particularly for low-income people, Gradisar said. One idea he wants studied is a so-called “lifeline” discount rate that some utilities charge their poorest customers, Gradisar said…
Overall, though, the board views the rate hike is justified by the long-term value of the water the utility would acquire, Gradisar said. The deal would keep the Bessemer water at home, lessen the utility’s reliance on Western Slope water and aid the recruitment of businesses, Gradisar said. Also, local water rates are currently among the lowest in the state and other communities such as Colorado Springs are spending at even higher levels to strengthen their water resources for the next half-century, Gradisar said…
The rate hike would be in addition to the utility’s continued reliance on water leases and also the sale of the Columbine Ditch, Gradisar said. The ditch sale – either to the city of Aurora or, if that city declines, to a Minturn resort developer – is expected to generate about half of the needed money for the deal, or about $30 million cash, he said. On water leases, Gradisar said the lease program, including a lease deal with Aurora that is the target of criticism by some in Pueblo, currently makes up a significant portion – about 19 percent – of the utility’s current revenues. If not in place, local water rates would need to rise another 19 percent to keep the books balanced, he said. One Aurora lease that nets $550,000 a year is set to expire by 2011.
Lee Hart continues her coverage in the Salida Citizen of the Chaffee County Commissioners deliberations over Nestlé Water’s Chaffee County Project 1041 permit.
First up is a long post about the lack of discussion about climate change in the debate over Nestlé’s plans to truck 200 acre-feet or so of water out of basin to Denver for bottling. Read the whole article, here are a couple of excerpts:
Yet here in Chaffee County, conservation and climate change didn’t merit so much as a passing mention as the Board of County Commissioners began deliberations on a multi-decade commercial water harvesting proposal, even as an overwhelming majority of scientific studies anticipate a reduction of total water supply by the mid-21st century is likely to exacerbate competition for over-allocated water resources especially in the fast-growing West. The county’s own consultants, Colorado National Heritage Progam, cautioned commissioners: “In the interest of maintaining the wetland plant communities, any proposed development plan that impacts water resources should take into consideration global climate change.” Yesterday, CNHP ecologist Delia Malone, writing as a private citizen, spoke out on what she called the commissioners’ “short-sightedness” in dismissing climate change from deliberations on the water harvesting project proposed by Nestle Waters North America. Without a trace of ambiguity, a 2008 report by Western Water Assessment asserts, “Climate change will affect Colorado’s use and distribution of water.” The report notes that “changes in long-term precipitation and soil moisture can affect groundwater recharge rates; coupled with demand issues this may mean greater pressure on groundwater resources.”[...]
As inextricably as hyrdrogen is linked to oxygen at water’s most basic level, so too it seems the scientific community believes climate change must be factored into any decision-making that impacts natural resources. “Basically anybody in 2009 who is thinking about water resources, water planning, water supply . . . if they’re not thinking about climate change, they’re missing the mark,” explained scientist John Katzenberger, executive director of the Aspen Global Change Institute. Katzenberger was also a contributor to a 2008 report published by the National Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization entitled, “Hotter and Drier, The West’s Changed Climate.”
Hart and the Salida Citizen are running a letter sent to the Chaffee County Commissioners from Ecologist Delia Malone. From the article:
Regardless of all the good, hard data out there, Malone lamented the commissioners dismissing the role of climate change in their deliberations about Nestle. Indeed, countless scientific books and research papers from all corners of the globe have written about the certainty of impending water shortages due to climate change that is already measurable…“Accessible water is rare and for Chaffee County to just give it away is really short-sighted,” Malone said. “You can’t get it back and when you really need it, it will be too late.”
Here’s the next part of Lee Hart’s recap of the July 1 meeting of the Chaffee County Commissioners working meeting for Nestlé’s Chaffee County Project. She writes:
Commissioner Tim Glenn tried to explain the gravity of Scanga’s testimony to fellow commissioners who either didn’t seem to understand the intricacies of water law and prior appropriation or simply did not share Glenn’s concerns. Glenn noted it was Scanga’s role to go “to bat for every water right and ag producer” in the valley and that he found Scanga’s testimony “fairly compelling.”[...]
“If you have a senior water right (as Aurora does), you can take it unless something in writing says you can’t take it,” Glenn explained to his fellow commissioners. Glenn said he’d feel better if Nestle’s augmentation came from a local entity that would probably care more about protecting local water resources than Aurora. Alternatively, Glenn suggested getting an agreement in writing that Aurora won’t draw down depletions and invoke its ability to exchange in a drought year and will only use water sources outside the Arkansas River Valley to supplement any municipal shortfalls created by the Nestle lease. But Glenn, always the pragmatist, said, “I seriously doubt that could happen.”
It’s really pretty simple. Aurora is leasing Twin Lakes water to Nestlé. The Twin Lakes decrees are pretty senior in priority. In times of low water — say, a drought — the river is governed by calls in any given stretch. Calls are made when someone with a decreed water right asks for their water. If current demand in that stretch exceeds the volume of water called for, water is doled out in order of priority, oldest first. So, again in a given stretch, a decreed party might just fall out of priority. This is determined by the decree and ditch company or project rules. Ditch companies generally allocate water equally — so much water per share.
The water that Aurora is leasing to Nestlé is for augmentation. The water will be released from storage at Twin Lakes to the Arkansas mainstem to pay the river for the water that Nestlé plans to pump at Hagen Spring. They’ll always pay this water to the river unless they fall out of priority which has been rare. Remember, Twin Lakes water comes from the rainy side of Colorado. The folks that will be effected in a drought are those junior to Aurora’s Twin Lakes rights.
Nestlé plans to truck 200 acre-feet or so of spring water per year to Denver for bottling.
Here’s an in-depth look at the July 1 Chaffee County Commissioners meeting from Lee Hart writing for the Salida Citizen. She writes:
Clearly, the biggest annual economic beneficiary of Nestle’s project, other than the company itself, isn’t even in this valley [or basin]. Under terms of a 10-year water lease agreement, Nestle will pay Aurora $200,000 each year for 200 acre feet of water to replace the spring water it will harvest here. The lease may be renewed for an additional 10-year period.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners delay decision on special use permit
July 2, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):
Commissioners debated everything from water rights to economic impact and traffic and wildlife concerns before deciding they need staff, especially a water attorney, to set out a list of conditions to consider before they can vote on the proposal.
Nestle’s proposes to augment the water it uses by purchasing water from the city of Aurora. And it is that proposal, that drew the biggest amount of concert from at least one of the three com- missioners. “I really struggle on this whole deal,” said Tim Glenn, commissioner. “The general manager (Terry Scanga) of an agency (Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District) charged with protecting the water of not only Chaffee but also Fremont and Custer counties raised a significant concern. “He is going to bat for every water right and every ag producer in the valley and I felt his testimony was compelling along those lines,” Glenn said. Scanga raised concern about the potential harm to the valley should Aurora evoke senior water rights during a drought year and cause problems with ag producers with more junior water rights. Glenn said 200 acre feet is “perhaps not a huge amount of water but when you get the compounded effect in a drought year when there is storage depletion” then the net effect could be as much as a 2,000 acre feet deficit…
Glenn suggested one possible solution could be persuading Nestle to use local entities to augment their water because they would be more sensitive to local ag producers. “I suspect Aurora really doesn’t care about Chaffee County,” Glenn said. Another solution, Glenn said, is to get Aurora to agree not to evoke its ability to use exchange water and cause more damage in a cycle of drought years, but “I seriously doubt that would happen.”
The commission will meet again Aug. 5 to continue deliberating the issue. At that meeting they will have a list of conditions they can impose which will help them with a decision.
Colorado to pony up $4.5 million to Lend Lease
June 3, 2009
The editors of the Aurora Sentinel believe that Lend Lease’s project could have been save with some state dough and participation in the Prairie Waters Project. Here’s an editorial. They write:
Two things should have happened. Either the project should never have been allowed to get as far as it did, or the state should have intervened to help produce needed water. Even before Lend Lease was chosen as the developer in 2006, state officials were well aware of the lack of available water for the project. In this part of the state, there are two possible sources of water for development of any significance: Aurora and Colorado Springs. The project is really too far from Colorado Springs to be financially feasible. That leaves Aurora.
Aurora is in the process of building its massive Prairie Waters Project, bringing water from downstream of the South Platte River. Part of that plan calls for a future reservoir in the vicinity of the existing Aurora Reservoir, just north of the defunct Lowry Bombing Range project. The state could easily have ponied up in some fashion to share in the expense of Prairie Waters and the new reservoir, but didn’t. Such a partnership could have provided the sustainable water supply that any significant development on this land will require.
Instead, the state allowed the deal to die and now must pay Lend Lease millions for its trouble. What a waste. State land board officials say the work completed by Lend Lease could be helpful for a future project, but there clearly will never be one without a water deal.
The two congressional town halls in the Arkansas Valley held last week were called to talk about legislation that would allow Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin. However the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company was discussed at length. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Super Ditch is needed as a way to keep cities from picking off farms one-by-one to harvest their water, supporters said. Some argued water should be tied to the land and no dry-ups, even temporary, should occur. Farmers countered that without programs like the Super Ditch, there will be more buy-and-dry transfers like the valley has seen in the past. Farmers believe that including Aurora increases the value of water that is marketed, while others contend that the water can be just as successfully marketed within the valley.
The main issue discussed last week centered on whether Super Ditch should be used to move water out of the valley to Aurora – mirroring the purpose of the visits from Reps. Betsy Markey, John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter, all Colorado Democrats…
Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority, while arguing for cooperation, said that group signed a memorandum of understanding three years ago to buy water from the Super Ditch. Economic studies for the Super Ditch by the Lower Ark showed El Paso County water users were willing to pay 67 percent more than Aurora for annual purchases of water.
During the town hall meetings, it was also pointed out that Aurora has an existing arrangement with the High Line Canal in Rocky Ford to buy – under a lease agreement that temporarily dries up farm ground – the water it needs. Mark Pifher, director of Aurora water, said Aurora is constrained by weather conditions and the limits of previous agreements on the amount of water it can take from the valley outside the water rights it owns…
Those who wish to market water through the Super Ditch, however, say they ought to be able to deal with whomever they wish, and the valley market alone isn’t big enough…
Heckman was one of many farmers speaking for the Super Ditch. Their stories, shared in the hallways outside the town hall meeting as well as those formally presented, had the same plot: Farmers are an aging group of businessmen who have worked hard to develop the value of their land without realizing the full monetary reward. For irrigated farms, the value of the water is far greater than the land itself. The water is tied to a property right. If their children don’t wish to continue farming, they face a decision on whether to cash out and sell the farm Ñ cities pay top dollar. Marketing strategies like Super Ditch provide a profitable option…
“The Super Ditch gives us a choice,” [Dale] Mauch said. “You wouldn’t have seen so many sales if we’d had something like that in place … Leasing is the only way we can survive.”
There were frequent testimonials from farmers who either sold water rights or temporarily sold their water to Aurora. The High Line Canal lease agreement in 2004-05 saved farms and Aurora made improvements on the canal. Aurora helped Rocky Ford farmers who sold their water rights install drip irrigation systems and let them continue using some of their water for 10 years in order to give the farmers time to find replacement sources. “I can give you the names of 13 shareholders (on the High Line) who the bankers were lining up to sell,” Dan Henrichs, High Line Canal superintendent, said. “Because of the lease, they are still here.”
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The $8 million study of storage in the Arkansas Valley is actually the primary stated purpose of suggested legislation by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Aurora that is meant to settle a federal lawsuit the Lower Ark has filed against the Bureau of Reclamation. “The additional storage space is crucial to Pueblo and the future of this valley,” said Bud O’Hara, division manager for water resources for the Pueblo Board of Water Works at Thursday’s town hall. O’Hara said the proposed legislation also provides water quality monitoring and fosters cooperation among all water users in the valley…
The legislation being proposed now also would allow other users in the Arkansas Valley outside Southeastern’s boundaries – which take in most cities, towns and farmland in tightly defined parts of nine counties – to enter excess-capacity contracts. Those types of contracts also have been issued for years by Reclamation as well. The Southeastern district presently has no beef with either type of contract, said Jim Broderick, executive director. “Those contracts are allowed, at a higher rate than for users within the district,” Broderick explained. The legislation guards against the increase of diversions from the Colorado River basin, but it does not explicitly limit future diversions from the Arkansas River basin. Aurora is limited in how much water it can take in the next 37 years by the 2003-04 agreements. An agreement with the Lower Ark district extend those limits beyond 2046. The proposed federal legislation does not speak to whether other water users could tap into the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley – neither authorizing nor expressly prohibiting others outside the basin who may seek excess-capacity contracts. That could leave the issue of where water is moved open to the interpretation by Reclamation, as it has interpreted past acts of Congress in making its rules.
Here’s a recap of last week’s congressional town hall meeting in Rocky Ford, from Adam Goldstein writing for the Aurora Sentinel. From the article:
Those who supported the position that Congress should enact legislation that would facilitate the export of water from the basin and those who argued that such a move would endanger the rights of water holders in the basin’s communities both expressed their positions in a civil public setting. “We had about 30 speakers … Of those 30 speakers, about two-thirds were very favorable toward this settlement that Aurora has reached with the Lower Arkansas,” Perlmutter said. “Nine out of the 30 were opposed, but not adamantly opposed. It was a more positive meeting than I expected.”
Thursday’s meeting in Rocky Ford was the second public forum held in as many days in the region, and saw input from local residents, media representatives and public officials like Perlmutter, D-Colo., Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer and Aurora Water Director Mark Pifher.
At issue was the role Aurora should play in exporting water out of the Arkansas River Basin. Supporters of legislation that would ease Aurora’s ability to export water from the basin cited potential financial benefits for the area’s farmers, which included maximizing the value of water through the recently formed Super Ditch project.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The sale for $30.48 million would transfer ownership of the ditch 13 miles north of Leadville to Ginn Development for use in its Battle Mountain development near Minturn. The sale won’t be complete for more than two months, however, since Aurora has the opportunity to match terms of the contract within the next 60 days under a 1997 agreement with the Pueblo water board. “We haven’t seen the contract, so I don’t know what we’ll do,” said Mark Pifher, director of Aurora water.
There are still conditions that must be met, including the approval of the Pueblo City Council of the sale of a water right. The water board must also complete its contracts to buy 5,000 shares of the Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Co., or about one-quarter of the ditch that flows from Pueblo Dam through Pueblo and irrigates farms on the St. Charles Mesa. The Columbine contract also provides for continued, limited use of the Columbine Ditch during drought years during the next 25 years. The water board would be able to use up to 250 acre-feet in two of every 10 years. The ditch would otherwise yield 1,300 acre-feet per year. The Bessemer shares could yield as much as 7,500 acre-feet per year.
Here’s a recap of this week’s town hall meeting with U.S. Representatives John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter in Rocky Ford, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“Listening to everything that’s been said . . . Aurora is the brother-in-law you wish your sister had never married,” said Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority. “But he does the dishes at Thanksgiving, so you learn to live with him.” Barber was speaking to Reps. John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter, both Colorado Democrats, at a town hall meeting on the possibility of changing federal legislation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the Arkansas Valley…
The meeting brought out arguments on both sides centering on the basic question of whether Aurora is needed in the Arkansas Valley to make big projects like the Arkansas Valley Conduit and Super Ditch work. Some contended that Aurora has been a valuable partner, while others objected to removal of water from a high desert valley…
“I was not part of the negotiations, but we’ve been asked to move legislation,” Salazar said. “It’s no secret; I’ve always been a strong opponent of moving any water out of a basin.”[...]
[Pete Moore, chairman of the Lower Ark board] argued that the only way farmers in the valley will realize the full value of their water rights is to bring in outside money by leasing to Aurora. [Bob Rawlings, publisher of The Pueblo Chieftain], both as a party in the lawsuit and through newspaper editorials, has opposed using the Fry-Ark Project to move water to Aurora. Rawlings also argued with Moore over the nature of so-called leases because they are actually sales of water.
Another Lower Ark board member, Pueblo County Commissioner Anthony Nunez, also supported allowing Aurora into the Super Ditch. “If we do not support the idea of the Super Ditch, the farmers will have no choice but to sell to the highest bidder,” Nunez said…
[Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority], however, noted El Paso County communities that are in the Arkansas River basin would also like to lease water and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Lower Ark district nearly three years ago agreeing to lease from the Super Ditch. In fact, analysis by the district during formation of the Super Ditch showed El Paso County users were willing to pay a higher price for temporary sales of water, or leases, from the Super Ditch…
Rocky Ford Mayor Matt Holder said his family’s sale of water rights on the Rocky Ford Ditch to Aurora provided the money to save a lumber and supply company that was in danger of closing. Brian Burney said the $1.5 million Aurora paid to help Rocky Ford schools offset ill effects of the sales has been invaluable. High Line Canal Superintendent Dan Henrichs said at least 13 irrigators would have lost their farms were it not for a 2004-05 lease of water from the canal by Colorado Springs and Aurora…
Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said the agreement would prevent Aurora from acquiring water rights beyond the 37 years left on a previous agreement with other water users. He characterized Aurora’s ability to participate in valley activities like water storage contracts and Super Ditch is a “way forward,” while continued court cases will produce winners and losers. “Let’s go down a different path and see how we can do things together,” Tauer said…
“I do not like to see water separated from the land,” said Betsy Brown, a Beulah rancher. “I would like to see future growth on the Front Range thwarted by not moving water from this basin.”
More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The Arkansas Valley Conduit will be built with or without Aurora, U.S. Rep. John Salazar said Thursday. The Colorado 3rd District Democrat said his position on the House Appropriations Committee puts him in good position to shepherd funding for the conduit through Congress. Along with Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., Salazar is backing a $9 million appropriation for the 2010 fiscal year to advance work on the conduit. “That will begin the work that needs to be done,” Salazar said. “These communities after 40 years will finally get built. It’s my No. 1 priority.”[...]
Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, said the city of Aurora’s ability to obtain long-term leases for water storage and exchange at Lake Pueblo will help greatly in meeting the local cost of the conduit, which is 35 percent under legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama. That amounts to $105 million under current estimates, or $212 million when interest is applied over 50 years. Aurora’s contracts over that period would contribute $75 million toward that cost and other costs of the Fry-Ark Project…
Without the conduit, communities are facing higher costs to treat salinity, radium and uranium that are commonly found in the valley’s wells. May Valley, for instance, serves 500 people and would have to pay $26 million for upgrades suggested by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in a recent study, Long said. The conduit is the most affordable option for the 42 valley water systems that could benefit, even though its expense is a burden to low-income communities.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here, here and here.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: Lamar town hall meeting
May 28, 2009
U.S. Representatives John Salazar and Betsy Markey were howling with the locals in Lamar yesterday. The primary focus was how to get the Arkansas Valley Conduit funded and built and legislation that would allow Aurora to move water out of basin using the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
U.S. Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey, both Democrats, said they would continue to work for farmers and the Arkansas Valley Conduit, but were noncommittal on how they would proceed with proposed legislation to allow Aurora to continue to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley.
“Why do we need this legislation?” Salazar asked at one point, saying that the Bureau of Reclamation already acts as if it has authority to enter a 40-year contract to provide space in Lake Pueblo for Aurora to store water and to exchange it upstream. Colorado water law should protect existing water rights and should not be circumvented by federal legislation, Salazar said. “I’m here because I care and love agriculture. I’m here to keep farmers on the land,” Salazar said. “It will be a sad day in America if we ever depend on another country for our food and fiber.”
Markey said her priority is making sure the Arkansas Valley Conduit is funded. “We’re very close to getting this issue off the ground,” Markey said.
Salazar emphatically agreed. “I can assure you that before I leave office we will build the conduit. We have made it our No. 1 priority,” Salazar said.
Congress has been asked by Aurora and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District to pass legislation that would authorize Reclamation to enter contracts with Aurora as part of a settlement in a federal lawsuit. The Lower Ark district sued Reclamation in 2007 over the Aurora contract…
Mark Pifher, director of Aurora Water, showed Salazar and Markey a copy of the 1965 contract that linked the Homestake Project, a separate transmountain diversion, with the Fry-Ark Project. Homestake, a project Aurora and Colorado Springs jointly operate, was already in motion when Congress approved the Fry-Ark Project in 1962. “At that time, the federal government saw a need for cooperation,” Pifher said.
Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said legislation is needed to quell arguments over Aurora’s place in the Arkansas Valley. “We do believe when a federal project is built, it can have other uses so long as you don’t injure the designated users,” Tauer said.
Rawlings said the agreement between Lower Ark and Aurora needlessly ties the conduit to federal approval of legislation to let Aurora use the Fry-Ark Project. “The conduit has already been approved by Congress and should not in any way be tied to Aurora,” Rawlings said.
After the meeting, Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, said Aurora’s participation in excess-capacity leases would reduce the burden of local costs for the conduit. Earlier, when federal legislation sought an 80-20 federal cost share, Aurora’s participation was not critical, he said. But the final legislation changed the cost share to 65-35, meaning that Aurora revenues could be key to keeping local costs manageable.
Several area farmers said the potential to lease water to Aurora would be critical to obtaining maximum value for water under the newly formed Super Ditch. “We market our water to the highest beneficial use, whether through crop production, livestock production, vegetable production or leasing to municipalities,” said McClave farmer Fred Heckman. He said the valley would not be dried up through leases, and said leasing the water to cities in the north is preferable to urbanizing rural Colorado…
Prowers County Commissioner Henry Schnabel said water rights owners have the right to sell or lease water, but urged his neighbors to use caution. “The impact to other water users in the valley is very important,” Schnabel said. “There is the possibility of less and less water in the river. I would like to see the system for transfer of water out of the valley, but it has to be done in a cautious and thoughtful manner.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here, here and here.
