Parker: Rueter-Hess Reservoir update

So far Parker and its partners in Rueter-Hess Reservoir — currently under construction southwest of the city — do not have enough surface water to fill the 77,000 acre-feet reservoir. Here’s a report from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

The prospect of what critics call an empty bathtub is generating anxiety around Colorado as water managers clash over the last unclaimed mountain river flows. Most water to fill the Rueter-Hess reservoir “will have to be imported,” said Frank Jaeger, manager of the Parker Water and Sanitation District, who for 25 years has led the effort to supply 450,000 suburban residents. Importing water would require multibillion-dollar pumping and piping from rivers running down the western side of the Continental Divide, such as the Colorado, back across mountains to Front Range residents, Jaeger said. Though huge, the costs likely would be less than for alternatives such as trapping and treating contaminated water from the South Platte or Arkansas rivers, he said. The option Jaeger and a Colorado-Wyoming coalition of municipal suppliers favor — one of four being considered by state natural resources officials — would divert water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in western Wyoming along Interstate 80 to Colorado…

Yet Colorado Western Slope leaders see the $230 million Rueter-Hess reservoir as folly — and bristle at talk of diverting more water across the mountains to fill it. The reservoir “is 20 times more expensive, and 10 times as big as they need. It’s going to be a little bit of water in a big bathtub,” said Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, based in Glenwood Springs. The financing, based on tap fees from anticipated housing construction, “is the water equivalent of a Ponzi scheme,” Kuhn said…”There’s a very good chance that, in the long run, there’s not going to be any more water available on the Western Slope. And, if they’re having trouble now paying for Rueter-Hess, how are they going to pay for moving water from the Western Slope? That’s why I say this is a fairy tale,” Kuhn said…

This month, more construction vehicles are rolling into action to build up the 7,700-foot-wide Frank Jaeger Dam at the reservoir. Critics “can make their claims,” but the reservoir will be crucial to sustain population growth, Jaeger said. Paying off the debt for the construction now underway all depends on tax revenues from future growth, he said. “To say, ‘We’ll just shut off growth’ will only exacerbate problems,” he said. “If you don’t pay off debt, what do you do? What does that do to the economy of the whole state? We need steady, controlled growth. All our needs for a reasonable lifestyle are tied into this.”

More Rueter-Hess coverage here and here.

Parker: Searching for dough to complete Rueter-Hess

The collapse in real estate in Parker has had a negative impact on funds for Parker Water and Sanitation’s Rueter-Hess Reservoir. Here’s a report from Chris Michlewicz writing for the Parker Chronicle. From the article:

When the housing market began its long slide into the abyss in 2006, district officials immediately began to notice the impact. The number of tap fees collected went from 1,700 in 2005 to suddenly 600 the following year. Last year, just more than 300 taps were connected. This year, as of June 4, only 18 taps have been sold. “All of our planning was based on a worst-case scenario of 600 taps per year,” [Frank Jaeger Parker Water and Sanitation District’s longtime manager] said during an interview in late April. “This thing has escalated on us.”[...]

Unfortunately for the district — and for its customers, it turns out — the end came into sight much quicker than ever thought possible. Between 2005 and 2008, Parker water collected $65.9 million in taps fees. The money funded capital projects, built up reserve funds, and was also used to pay debt service on the $105 million in revenue bonds issued in 2004. (Money for the expansion was paid up front by Castle Rock, Castle Pines North and Stonegate, who entered into a partnership to buy water storage in Rueter-Hess, which is still under construction just southwest of Parker’s town boundary). Counting the 5.118 percent interest rate on the bonds, Parker water is responsible for paying $12 million per year on its debt. To date, according to its finance director, the Parker Water and Sanitation District has paid only $4.1 million of the loan principal. That means the outstanding principal for Rueter-Hess alone stands at $101.3 million. And there is little in the way of revenue coming in right now. Enter last December’s proposed rate and fee increase of 28 percent on the water district’s 12,900 customers…

Conversely, prospective residents have a new quandary to consider. They, along with the existing population, will be responsible for covering the remaining costs for Rueter-Hess Reservoir, plus another $80 million in outstanding district debt, unless development picks up soon. Those who eventually move into The Canyons, a massive planned residential development just north of Castle Rock that will also be served by the Parker water district, will pay the high cost of water and eat the tap fee expense that is passed on from the developer. “People moving into Parker who haven’t got their homes built right now are in for that same surprise,” Jaeger said. “There’s no getting away from the cost of developing water.” One study conducted by a district consultant showed that the Parker area will need roughly 31,000 acre-feet of water as an indefinite supply. Jaeger is still exploring options — some very promising — for obtaining water for the future. “I’m looking 100 years down the road,” he said. “This community is not going to go away, and it’s going to need a water supply.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Parker: Group seeking to remove Parker Water and Sanitation board members appeals decision to throw out recall petition

Here’s an update on the recall petition for Parker Water and Sanitation board members, from Chris Michlewicz writing for the Parker Chronicle. From the article:

Transparency Advocates for Parker Water and Sanitation filed an appeal earlier this month to have a Douglas County District Court judge review whether there was a legal basis for throwing out the petition, which contained more than 500 signatures. Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Jack Arrowsmith ruled that false or misleading information was used when the group was circulating the petition. Now the Transparency Advocates are challenging the grounds for the dismissal because they say county officials misinterpreted the scope of their duties. “It pains me to point the finger at Jack Arrowsmith because I think he relied on faulty legal advice,” said Merlin Klotz, a member of the recall group.

In one claim, TAPWS did not accuse the water board members of legal wrongdoing, but rather suggested that they violated the public trust by circumventing Colorado’s open meetings law. The law requires public notice when three or more board members meet to discuss business. Some board members have admitted to speaking individually with one another about rescinding a water rate increase that was approved in December. The group says Arrowsmith should not have reviewed the allegation and dismissed the petition because his ruling stated that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the law was broken.

Arrowsmith could have scheduled a recall election that enables the public to decide whether four out of the five Parker Water and Sanitation District board members should be unseated…

The petitioners said Arrowsmith also failed to notify the recall petition targets on the day the petition was approved. The letters to the board members about the approval were dated March 11, four weeks later than required by law.

In its appeal to Douglas County District Court Judge Vincent White, TAPWS outlined several other examples of what it calls improper interpretations of the law when deciding to throw out the petition, which was submitted in February. Klotz said the clerk and county attorneys might have used the dismissal to cover up possible legal errors. County officials declined to address any specific allegations in the pending case. Arrowsmith dismissed the petition April 23 after finding that information on the opposition group’s Web site could have unfairly swayed the opinions of those who signed it. TAPWS maintains that the information was accurate.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Newlin Gulch and the Clean Water Restoration Act

The Bush administration weakened protections for streams and wetlands with rules issued by the EPA. Several attempts at restoring jurisdiction failed during the last few years. Here’s a report about Newlin Gulch which empties into Rueter-Hess Reservoir from Make Jaffe writing for the Denver Post. From the article:

More than 76,000 miles of Colorado streams — 73 percent of the state’s waterways — are, like the Newlin Gulch creek, at risk of losing federal wetlands and pollution protections. The reason: U.S. Supreme Court decisions and Bush administration interpretations of those rulings that limit the scope of the Clean Water Act…

Also at risk are water pollution safeguards because a quarter of the sewage treatment and industrial outfall pipes are on Colorado waterways that don’t meet the “waters of the United States” definition, a Trout Unlimited study found. Nationwide, 20 million acres of wetlands and 2 million miles of waterways could be affected, according to federal estimates…

Which waterways get Clean Water Act protection was redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court in two rulings. The first, in 2001, found that some isolated intrastate ponds weren’t protected by the act because the law refers to “navigable waters” and the ponds were not. The justices equated “water of the United States” with navigability. The second, in 2006, limited wetlands protections to only “relatively permanent waters” connected to navigable waterways. The Bush administration followed up both cases with guidance to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency that used the decisions to remove many wetlands and streams from the regulation. The guidance also said decisions on what water is protected would be made on a case-by-case basis…

Which waterways get Clean Water Act protection was redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court in two rulings. The first, in 2001, found that some isolated intrastate ponds weren’t protected by the act because the law refers to “navigable waters” and the ponds were not. The justices equated “water of the United States” with navigability. The second, in 2006, limited wetlands protections to only “relatively permanent waters” connected to navigable waterways. The Bush administration followed up both cases with guidance to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency that used the decisions to remove many wetlands and streams from the regulation. The guidance also said decisions on what water is protected would be made on a case-by-case basis.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

CWQCC: No to increased sewage in Cherry Creek watershed

From the Denver Post: “The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission voted March 10 to reject a proposal that would have reduced water quality in Cherry Creek Reservoir, one of the state’s most active fisheries and site of a popular state park. The Cherry Creek Basin Authority and Parker Water and Sanitation District had sought to increase algae levels in the lake and the amount of sewage discharged in the basin. Fifteen citizens testified against the proposal at the hearing, as did the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”