Windsor: Potable water plan forecasts shortfall

From the Windsor Beacon (Ashley Keesis-Wood):

The town had commissioned a potable water master plan at the beginning of the year, and [Clear Water Solutions] was chosen to create that document, which is intended to act as a guide in future water acquisition decisions. “The upshot is that build out, with all the water dedication planned on being taken into account, you’ll have a gap of about 8,731 acre-feet of water,” [Steve Nguyen, President of Clear Water Solutions] said.

Currently, the town relies on the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) project for all its water needs. “Because of caps put into place on CBT to allow smaller communities to purchase water rights in CBT, you are not able to purchase any more CBT rights on the open market,” Nguyen said. “You can still accept them through dedication as projects are developed.”

The town is one of the participants in the North Integrated Supply Project (NISP), and Nguyen said that is a good project, which will help diversify the town’s portfolio. But, it won’t be enough. “You’ll need to make sure you have other sources, including the upcoming Windy Gap project or the Water Supply and Storage Company water,” Nguyen said. “We recommend you initiate discussions with those groups.”

More Windsor coverage here and here.

Carbondale: Proposed water and sewer rate hike halved

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Stroud):

What was planned to be a 3 percent annual water/wastewater rate hike was cut in half by Carbondale town trustees at their Nov. 24 meeting, as a way of bringing some financial relief to town residents…

At 3 percent, the new monthly base rate for in-town residential and commercial water customers would have been $16.83 each, and for out-of-town users $25.24, plus the incremental charge based on water usage. Wastewater rates would have been $10.83 and $16.23, respectively, under the original proposal. Those rates will now be slightly less given the agreed-to 1.5 percent increase.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Denver Water: Public hearing in Summit County for proposed Moffat Collection System Project

Update:

Here’s the release from Denver Water. There are four meetings starting Tuesday in Boulder:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold four Public Hearings on the Draft EIS. At each location, Denver Water will hold an Open House from 4 to 6 p.m. The Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.:

Tues., Dec. 1 — Boulder Country Club, 7350 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, CO 80301
Wed., Dec. 2 — Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446
Thurs., Dec. 3 — Doubletree Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207
Tues., Dec. 8 — Keystone Conference Center, 0633 Tennis Club Road, Keystone, CO 80435

From the Summit Daily News (Bob Berwyn):

As described in a draft environmental study, the Moffat Collection System project in Grand County would also have impacts on flows on the Blue River. Flows in the Blue River at its confluence with the Colorado River could be cut by as much as 4,800 acre feet annually, about 2 percent of the river’s flow, according to figures released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the draft study. Denver Water project manager Travis Bray said those figures apply when at full build-out of Denver Water’s existing system, and with the Moffat Tunnel on-line. Under the new configuration of diversions that would result from the Moffat Tunnel project, Denver Water would take between 4,000 and 5,000 acre feet of additional water from Dillon Reservoir each year. Bray said the draft study shows there would only be a negligible long-term impact to boating and no impact to fisheries in the Blue River…

Although 2 percent doesn’t sound like much, peak flows are important for the river’s ecosystem, said Becky Long, water caucus organizer with the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “If the project goes forward, the Blue River would see reduced flows in the summer months during wet and average years,” she said. The peak flows in wet years help flush sediment out of the river, create new habitat and support rafting and kayaking, she said.

The main focus of the project is on increased diversions from the Fraser River, but conservation groups are concerned about overall effects on the entire Upper Colorado ecosystem. They advocated for the Summit County hearing when the draft study was released a few weeks ago. Long said the Corps was responding to requests from Summit County residents by scheduling the local hearing…

Conservation groups have identified several broad environmental goals that should be included in the project’s mitigation plan, including:

— Adequate baseline flows in the Fraser throughout the year to sustain fisheries and recreation.

— Sustained peak flows at key times of the year to mimic a natural flow regime and ensure the health and resilience of the river.

— Aggressive urban water conservation and efficiency measures to save more water, such as incentives for homeowners to replace Kentucky bluegrass with drought-tolerant landscaping. More than half of residential water use goes to watering lawns.

— Ongoing monitoring of the river’s health and a mitigation plan with the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions…

A summary of the draft environmental impact statement is online at: https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-tl/eis/moffat.deis.vol1.exec-summary.pdf (pdf)

Here’s the public meeting information:

What: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hearing
When: December 8 —Open House: 4 p.m.; public hearing begins at 6 p.m.
Where: Keystone Conference Center (0633 Tennis Club Road, Keystone)

More Denver Water coverage here.

Flaming Gorge pipeline update

Here’s an in-depth look at Aaron Million’s proposed pipeline from southwestern Wyoming to the Front Range and points south in Colorado, from Joel Warner writing for Westword. Here’s an excerpt:

Disclaimer: I’m quoted in the article.

Along the Green River in Wyoming, cities and towns are massing to fight a proposal that would pump up to 250,000 acre-feet of water per year from their river to thirsty cities and towns in Colorado. One meeting on the topic was so contentious that attendees have referred to it as a “Guantánamo Bay waterboarding.”

The focus of the uproar is a relatively unknown Fort Collins entrepreneur named Aaron Million, who came up with the plan to bring the much-needed water to Colorado. And these days, he has as many enemies on this side of the border as he does in Wyoming. Some of Colorado’s most powerful water suppliers oppose the project, while one is trying to build a similar pipeline himself. One ensuing squabble nearly came to blows.

Here’s a follow up the the Million story detailing the disappearing glaciers that are part of the Green River’s source waters, from Joel Warner writing for Westword. From the article:

When [Charlie Love, a colorful geology and anthropology professor at Western Wyoming Community College in Rock Springs, Wyoming] isn’t busy living with New Guinea cannibals or erecting dinosaur displays on WWCC’s campus, he’s spent a lot of time over the past 25 years climbing around and flying over the glaciers that cling to the sides of the Wind River Mountain Range in western Wyoming, glaciers that feed the Green and several other major river systems. And what Love says he and his WWCC colleagues have discovered about these glaciers is disturbing: “They are going extinct before our very eyes.”

More Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here and here.

Fryingpan River: Late summer releases from Ruedi hurt trout fishing but helped the Colorado Pike minnow and other fish in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Scott Condon):

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said it released water purchased from Ruedi by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when the agency demanded or “called” it in August. “We don’t have a lot of flexibility there,” said reclamation bureau spokeswoman Kara Lamb. “That’s their water. They can call for it when they want.” The Fish and Wildlife Service is running a recovery program for four species of native fish in the Colorado River: The pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail club and humpback chub. Water is needed during dry times to enhance habitat in what’s called the 15-Mile Reach, a stretch of the river in the Grand Valley near Grand Junction.

The reclamation bureau’s data shows there were 33 days with flows at or above 300 cubic feet per second on the Fryingpan River between Aug. 5 and Sept. 24, when the water was needed for the recovery program. The flows exceeded 400 cfs on 21 days and topped 500 cfs on eight days. Anglers prefer flows below 250 cfs. Wading into the river is nearly impossible at higher flows and fishing the gold-medal trout stream is difficult when it exceeds that level…

[The Ruedi Water and Power Authority] , along with Basalt town government, invited the reclamation bureau to a meeting to discuss the operations. Lamb said the bureau accepted the invitation and is waiting for the local governments to set a time and place. “These are important concerns and we know that,” Lamb said. But she also stressed that the reclamation bureau doesn’t have a lot of control over the issues that upset anglers, fly shops and the local governments. The Fish and Wildlife Service has contracts for Ruedi Reservoir water. It can use 5,000 acre feet annually, and an additional 5,000 acre feet four out of any five years. There is also a special agreement that allows the federal agency to use an additional 10,825 acre feet for the endangered fish recovery program. All told, the Fish and Wildlife Service can call up to 28,825 acre feet of Ruedi water per year for the recovery effort. It’s not unusual for that entire amount to be demanded, but the timing varies. The tendency is for the water to be called in late summer and early fall, Lamb said. This year was different because the water was demanded earlier.

Work at the Shoshone Power Plant created lower flows on the Colorado River at the endangered fish habitat at the same time that hot, dry weather was reducing flows, Lamb said. As a result, the Ruedi Reservoir water was required earlier.

More endangered species coverage here and here.

New watershed group for the Colorado River in Garfield County?

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson):

Chris Treese, external affairs manager for the Colorado River District office in Glenwood Springs, told the Garfield County Commissioners on Nov. 9 that he and others are hoping to create a watershed working group that will focus on this particular part of the Colorado River Basin. A group of 26 participants started meeting on Sept. 18, according to the group’s four-page draft mission statement. “The fact is, we have groups throughout the state covering every watershed,” Treese said in a telephone interview on Nov. 23. He pointed to the Roaring Fork Conservancy, which keeps an eye on that watershed, and other, existing watershed organizations that already cover much of the Colorado River basin, and on whose turf the new group does not plan to tread…

…he added that “We recognize that water is a scarce and valuable resource in the West, and it takes stewardship to manage that resource effectively.” From the potentially massive water needs of the still-embryonic oil shale industry, to water-quality concerns linked to current gas drilling in Garfield County, to basic population growth impacts, to the invasively flourishing Tamarisk plant that is choking out native plant life along the edges of rivers, the group is looking at a variety of issues, Treese said. “We don’t even have a name for ourselves yet,” he joked, although the draft mission statement refers to the “Middle Colorado River Watershed Partnership Exploratory Purpose and Scope.”

Although he is working with a number of area groups and individuals, Treese said his primary partner in the effort is Clark Anderson of the Sonoran Institute, a western lands and conservation group with offices in the U.S. and Mexico, including one in Glenwood Springs. Anderson said the group, which currently is made up by representatives of government, energy industry, nonprofits, environmentalists, ranchers and other facets of the local political landscape, is still “figuring itself out.”[...]

On Oct. 29, the group issued a “stakeholder information letter” inviting any interested individuals or organizations to contact Treese (ctreese@crwcd.org or 945-8522), Anderson (canderson@sonoraninstitute.org or 384-4364) or any of a half-dozen of the group’s organizers. Both Treese and Anderson predicted that it will not be long before the group concludes either that there is no need for its efforts and disbands, or that it is time to come up with a name and a mission statement and declare itself. Treese said the next meeting of the group is not scheduled until after New Year’s Day.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Colorado River Basin: Snowpack and streamflow

From the Summit Daily News (Bob Berwyn):

Stream flows in Summit County are not too far off seasonal norms, but the Colorado River at Kremmling recently experienced an all-time record low flow for that date, according to local water commissioner Scott Hummer. The Colorado was only flowing at 280 cubic feet per second on Nov. 16, and flows farther downstream were also well below average, Hummer said. The previous minimum for the date was 330 cfs in 1978. “I can’t find a rhyme or reason as to why we’re starting to see these low flows so early in the season,” Hummer said.

Statewide, and in the Blue River Basin, the snowpack is at 79 percent of average. Only the Arkansas (at 99 percent) and the South Platte (100 percent) have an average snowpack for the date, he said. Some of the higher elevation sites in the Blue River Basin have a decent snowpack, including Fremont Pass, where an automated Snotel site shows the snowpack at 121 percent of average. But lower elevation sites are dry, with Summit Ranch, north of Silverthorne, coming in at just 33 percent of normal.

Arkansas River: Streamflow below Lake Pueblo

From The Pueblo Chieftaian (Chris Woodka):

Flows from the dam were cut from about 350 cubic feet per second Saturday to 70 cfs on Sunday, as irrigators began a program that allows them to store winter flows for use later in the year. The winter water program was started by ditch companies under an agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District in 1975, after Pueblo Dam was completed. It became a decreed water program in 1984. Water is stored in Lake Pueblo, as well as several downstream reservoirs, from Nov. 15 to March 15 of the following year…

Under a recovery of yield program, created by an intergovernmental agreement in 2004, a minimum flow of 100 cfs below Pueblo Dam is maintained throughout the winter months. The flow is calculated at the river gauge above Pueblo, with flows through the state fish hatchery added. This week, flows above Pueblo have been between 60-65 cfs, while fish hatchery flows have been between 30-40 cfs. “What we’ve agreed to is that the flow won’t go under 100 cfs, with retroactive curtailment of exchanges after March 15,” said Alan Ward, water resources administrator with the Pueblo Board of Water Works. Ward supervises the recovery of yield program. That decision was made last year, after flows in the Arkansas River dropped to nearly nothing in 2005 and were in danger of running low again in 2007. The IGA among Pueblo, the Pueblo water board, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Fountain and the Southeastern district calls for curtailment of exchanges when the river drops below 100 cfs…

In practice, Colorado Springs is the only IGA participant that exchanges in the winter months, storing water out of priority in Lake Pueblo in exchange for return flows, mostly from treated sewage, down Fountain Creek.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Breckenridge: Illinois Gulch restoration

From the Summit Daily News (Robert Allen):

Wetlands were added, boulders were placed and trees were planted to help restore the area before development. The creek snakes through the Water House on Main Street condominium development before connecting with the Blue River. Project manager Sharon Cole with East West Partners said the creek in 2000 had been basically “a wash through the parking lot,” and that with the final phase of Main Street Station’s being built, the gulch has been reclaimed. The realignment project began March 1 and was completed about Oct. 1, and the project overall cost several hundred thousand dollars, Cole said. The company worked with the Army Corps of Engineers and environmentalists and “what we’ve accomplished is the creek now flows close to its natural origin,” Cole said. Willows have been planted and trout-spawning pools have been added to Maggie Pond. Cole said monitoring will continue the next three years to ensure the improvements make progress.

More Blue River watershed coverage here and here.

Pitkin County is stepping up efforts at septic system inspections

From The Aspen Times:

The county is stepping up efforts to inspect such systems and, effective July 1, 2010, a permit for a septic system will be required before a property can be sold or before a building permit will be issued for development on such properties. “Malfunctioning septic systems release pathogens and contribute to heavy nutrient loading which can contaminate both ground and surface water,” said Carla Ostberg, Pitkin County Environmental Health program supervisor, in a press release. Boulder, Jefferson and Summit counties already have similar programs in place, and have found the inspection/permit process leads to the identification and repair of problem systems that might otherwise have gone unnoticed, she said.

One-hour informational meetings on the inspection and permit process will be held Nov. 24 at 1:30 p.m. at the Schultz Health and Human Services Building in Aspen and at 4:30 p.m. at the El Jebel Community Center. Future meetings will also be scheduled.

More wastewater coverage here.

Glenwood Springs: Requirements of federal funding bill put new wastewater treatment plant on hold

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Gardner):

According to city officials, the word came last week that the project would have to be put on hold, indefinitely, awaiting further clarification from the Environmental Protection Agency. City Manager Jeff Hecksel, who was out of the office last week, returned Monday to be blindsided by the development. “We are not sure if this applies to us or not,” Hecksel said. “If it does we are not sure what we are going to do about it.” Hecksel said that he was unsure as to why the Glenwood project would be included because the project was not seeking federal funding. However, according to Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority Finance Director Mike Brod, the new law imposes certain requirements on state funds as well as federal funds. The funds, which are used to buy down the interest rate on the loan, come through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds program. The intent of the bill, in the context of the Clean Drinking Water and Wastewater programs, was to appropriate $3.9 billion to help more than 1,500 communities improve their drinking water and wastewater systems, according to a document from the Committee on Appropriations. But the bill includes language requiring projects using funds through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to include the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement. That is where the problem arises for Glenwood. The city did not include the Davis-Bacon requirement in the wastewater contract because it was not required when the contract went out to bid on Oct. 23.

More wastewater coverage here.

Aspen: City and area residents debating the benefits and possible streamflow loss of proposed hydroelectric facility

From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times via the Grand Junction Free Press:

City officials are taking public comments on the proposal and say a more comprehensive review is possible if there is enough concern or there are issues they haven’t considered. Aspen wants to build a 1,880-square-foot hydropower plant that would draw water from Castle and Maroon creeks to generate electricity. The 1.05 megawatt plant is expected to increase production of electricity by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That would provide energy for several hundred households. City officials say getting that much electricity from a renewable source would eliminate an estimated 5,167 tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power for a 0.6 percent communitywide decrease.

Some area residents, however, are concerned about the potential effects on wildlife and water rights if too much water is diverted from the creeks. Paul Noto, an Aspen-based water attorney, who represents several residents who live along Castle Creek, said if Aspen touts itself as an environmental leader, it ought to submit the project to a full environmental review.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

West Divide Creek: Garfield County is asking the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission to step up enforcement

From the Glenwood Springs Post Indpendent (John Colson):

In 2004, chemicals began bubbling to the surface of the creek in a display of contamination generally attributed to nearby gas drilling activities, and which ultimately led to a moratorium on gas drilling in the area. The moratorium was canceled after approximately a year, however, after industry and state officials concluded that the seep had been “mitigated” by the application of additional cement to the bore drilled for the gas well. In 2008, however, [West Divide Creek basin resident Lisa Bracken] reported that the creek had begun showing signs of contamination again, and the county hired geologist Geoffrey Thyne to investigate her claims. Thyne’s findings indicated that there are signs that the re-cementing of the well bore reduced the release of gases into the surrounding ground water. But, he wrote, “It has not fully corrected the problem, and natural gas along with other harmful constituents continue to leak into the aquifer of West Divide Creek.”

The COGCC, at a hearing in Garfield County last July, promised to have the EnCana gas company, which was drilling near the Bracken property in 2004, work with Bracken to fix the problem. Bracken said that cooperation was supposed to include “thorough water monitoring” of the area near her home and the creek. But Bracken told the commissioners on Monday that EnCana had come out to inspect the scene once and that she has had “very little correspondence” with the company since.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Aspinall Unit update

From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):

Flows in the Black Canyon and Gunnison Gorge have stabilized at 500 cfs and will remain there until about the first week of December when releases will increase to around 900 – 1000 cfs for higher power demands and to achieve the December 31 Blue Mesa elevation target.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.

Precedent-Setting Decision Made by Colorado Water Conservation Board; First-of-Its-Kind Relationship Built Between Board and Pitkin County for Local Streamflows

Here’s the release from the Colorado Water Trust:

There will soon be more water for the fish who call the Roaring Fork River basin home. This boon is the result of collaborative efforts among Pitkin County, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”), and the Colorado Water Trust (“CWT”). Pitkin County has agreed to allow numerous water rights it owns to stay in local rivers, rather than be used for irrigation or other uses. It will do this by placing those water rights into a trust to be managed by the CWCB for use in Colorado’s Instream Flow Program. If all of the water rights in the trust agreement are used for instream flows, the Roaring Fork River basin could see up to a 19 c.f.s. increase in flows during the summer months (although that figure is only a raw estimate and does not consider needs of Pitkin County or changes that may be required in the water court process).

The State of Colorado has a long history of recognizing the importance of instream water uses in addition to more traditional water uses. The placement of an Instream Flow Program in the hands of the CWCB in 1973 was its clearest pronouncement. As of now, Colorado’s Instream Flow Program stewards more than 1,500 defensible water rights protecting nearly 9,000 river miles. But the CWCB has been working to increase the water available to that program. Pitkin County owns various water rights in the Roaring Fork Basin it has acquired through its Open Space and Trails Department and through its Airport Enterprise Fund. Pitkin County, with its location in the Roaring Fork Basin and significant portfolio of water rights, was a natural partner.
The trust agreement, formally approved by the CWCB today, is governed in part by House Bill 08-1280, groundbreaking bill passed by the Colorado legislature in 2008 that provides protections to and removes penalties that might accrue to water users who loan or lease their water to the CWCB for use in the Instream Flow Program.

The project is a groundbreaking project for the state’s instream flow program.  Here’s why:

This project is the first use of House Bill 1280.

The trust agreement provides a model for all other water users in the state that have water rights that are not currently being used, such as municipalities that have developed water supplies beyond their immediate needs.

If this transaction is approved, more than thirty additional water rights will be submitted by Pitkin County for acceptance into the CWCB’s instream flow program.  Furthermore, Pitkin County will add water rights to the trust agreement that it will acquire by using the proceeds from its new Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund.  Thus, the trust agreement will form the foundation for a long-term, perhaps perpetual relationship between Pitkin County and the CWCB to increase the water available to your local streams.

The trust agreement was fought by the Basalt Water Conservancy District, Starwood Metropolitan District, the Willow Creek Ditch and Herrick Ditch Company, and the Roaring Fork Land and Cattle Company. Those parties requested the hearing before the CWCB that, today, settled the matter. After an almost five-hour hearing, the Colorado Water Conservation Board voted unanimously to approve the trust agreement.

“We’re very pleased with the arrangement. Today is the beginning of a long-term relationship with the CWCB to improve streamflows in Pitkin County and everybody benefits, from the local fish to our local businesses dependent upon healthy streams in our County,” says John Ely, Pitkin County’s attorney. Speaking for the CWCB, Linda Bassi, Chief of the CWCB’s Stream and Lake Protection Section adds: “This is a great project for a critical area of the state. We’re looking forward to continuing to work with Pitkin County under this long-term, win-win arrangement.”

Contacts: John Ely, Pitkin County Attorney, at (970) 920-5190; Chief, CWCB Stream and Lake Protection Section, at (303) 917-5916; Amy W. Beatie, Executive Director, Colorado Water Trust, at (303) 525-4736

More HB 08-1280 coverage here.

Green Mountain releases

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

A Grand County contractor, working on the county’s Streamflow Management Plan, will be collecting data along the Blue River below Green Mountain Reservoir under multiple flow regimes. In order to accommodate this data collection it will be necessary to maintain the reservoir release at 200 cfs on Wednesday and Thursday and then 400 cfs on Friday and Saturday. The release rate will be ramped down to 200 cfs by Sunday evening.

More Blue River watershed coverage here.

Aspen: Recap of public meeting for planned hydroelectric installation on Castle Creek

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

Nearly two dozen people attended a public meeting held Friday concerning the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project. City officials, paid consultants, hydrologists and aquatic biologists were on hand to explain the project and answer questions about the project. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the city should circumvent a full environmental review through a permit process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As it stands now, the city plans to apply for what’s known as a “conduit exemption,” which wouldn’t require a full-blown environmental review. But the city’s public works director Phil Overeyender said if public comment, which will be taken for the next 60 days, raises enough concern or potential effects that the city hasn’t considered, a full environmental review could be possible.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Reclamation: Fryingpan summer flows concern for fishermen

From The Aspen Times:

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a response to a letter of concern about summer water releases from Ruedi Reservoir, and it should be available to the public next week, an agency spokeswoman said. The Basalt town government and Ruedi Water and Power Authority asked the reclamation bureau for a detailed review of the water releases. The releases from the dam created a six-week “disaster” for anglers on the Fryingpan River, says a letter from the entities. Copies of the letter were sent to members of Colorado’s congressional delegation and state legislators. The reclamation bureau received the letter Monday and is collecting information for the response, said spokeswoman Kara Lamb.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project watershed coverage here.

Fruita: Construction begins on new wastewater treatment plant

From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Le Roy Standish):

Construction of a $22.8 million wastewater treatment plant began Thursday in Fruita. The plant is being built at 15 Road near the Colorado River by Garney Construction of Littleton…

The new plant will have the ability to treat 2.33 million gallons of waste daily. Huston said the city anticipates the facility will have 20 years of operation and the ability to handle Fruita’s projected growth rate of 2.5 percent. But the main reason for the new plant is federal clean-water standards, Huston said. “The environmental laws have changed, and they will require us to meet greater nutrient removal standards by 2013,” Huston said.

More wastewater coverage here.

Reclamation’s summer releases into Fryingpan River catching flack from anglers

From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

The Basalt town government, Ruedi Water and Power Authority, and fishing guides want a detailed review and explanation of the reclamation bureau’s releases from Ruedi Reservoir. The releases created water levels that were too high for fishing in the gold-medal trout habitat of the Fryingpan River from late July to early September. The water level in Ruedi dropped too low to allow use of the Aspen Yacht Club docks on Labor Day weekend. “In short, the six weeks between approximately July 26 and Sept. 6 was a disaster for water-related recreation in the Fryingpan Valley,” says a letter from Basalt and the Ruedi Water and Power Authority. The latter entity operates a small hyrdo-electric project at the reservoir and closely monitors Ruedi water issues for local governments. The letter was released to the public at a Basalt Town Council meeting Tuesday night. The Bureau of Reclamation office in Loveland, which manages Ruedi releases, was closed for Veterans Day so no immediate reaction was available.

Mark Fuller, director of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority, said the releases were handled differently this year than over the last decade or so. The flow in the Fryingpan River is generally maintained at 250 cubic feet per second during summer months. It has rarely exceeded 300 cfs during summers and if it did, it was only for a day or two, he said. This year the flow in the Fryingpan topped 250 cfs the week of July 29 and kept climbing. It topped 400 cfs by Aug. 12 and 500 cfs by Aug. 19. Flows didn’t drop below 250 cfs until the week of Sept. 9…

[Bruce Gabow] quizzed reclamation officials about the flow and was told a “perfect storm” of circumstances affected the releases. Ruedi is one of a handful of reservoirs used to meet the demands of downstream users who purchase water. A variety of factors affected releases this summer when there were “calls” for water. There was a brief shutdown of the Shoshone Power Plant on the Colorado River, which affected water required from Ruedi; there was a delay in declaring a surplus of water from Green Mountain Reservoir, requiring more water releases from Ruedi while Green Mountain couldn’t answer the calls; and there was the usual contribution by Ruedi to a program to benefit endangered fish species on the Colorado River east of Grand Junction. The reaction of the federal agency to concerns in the Fryingpan Valley have been frustrating Gabow for years. Officials hold the necessary public hearings to collect input and they act concerned about the points raised by local residents, Gabow said, but they don’t alter their operations. “They do whatever they want,” he said. “They’re not really accountable to anyone here. They’re the government.”

More Fryingpan River watershed coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County Commissioners vote to oppose S. 1215, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act

From the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Garfield County commissioners voted 2–1 Monday in opposition to legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver. The bill would subject fracturing to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and require disclosure of chemicals used in the process. The vote disappointed several county residents who attended Monday’s commissioner meeting and fear fracturing could contaminate drinking water. But Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin said the oil and gas industry is better off being regulated at the state level…

But fellow Commissioner Tresi Houpt, who also sits on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, questioned the contention that the bill would drive up costs. She added, “Why are we talking about costs? Why aren’t we talking about safety and health and welfare?”[...]

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association said in a news release that Garfield County joins Delta, Mesa, Moffat, Morgan, Rio Blanco, Washington, Weld and Yuma counties in opposing DeGette’s bill. The nine counties represent nearly 44 percent of the state’s gas production. By contrast, the two counties that have supported the legislation, Pitkin and San Miguel, are responsible for less than 1 percent of statewide production, the association says. Industry officials worry that the federal regulation could result in fees of up to $100,000 per well and in lengthy permitting delays that would harm domestic production…

The industry says there’s never been a documented case of fracturing contaminating groundwater. Rifle-area resident Jim Golden said he’s tired of hearing the argument that contamination is just anecdotal, and said Garfield commissioners have heard from plenty of people who are suffering as a result of drilling. “It’s absolutely horrible to have to stand up to our own local government to fight for your health and safety,” he told the commissioners…

[Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin], both Republicans, won elections last November after benefiting from independent campaign expenditures from energy-related interests. For Samson, a newcomer to office, Monday was perhaps his most significant energy-related vote to date. All three commissioners said they heard from numerous constituents regarding the fracturing legislation, and county staff members told commissioners they received thousands of comments.

More coverage from the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson) via The Aspen Times. From the article:

Despite evidence of significant sentiment to the contrary among the electorate, two Garfield County commissioners voted this week to oppose federal legislation which would put the oil and gas industry partly under the control of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Commissioner Trési Houpt, the lone Democrat on the county board, said she supported what is known as the FRAC (for Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, introduced in both houses of Congress last summer. But Republican Commissioners John Martin and Mike Samson cast the deciding votes for a resolution that endorses a continued exemption for the gas drilling industry from the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, which is administered by the EPA…

Residents in Colorado and other states, living near the drilling operations, have reported getting sick themselves, watching livestock die and experiencing everything from exploding domestic water wells to finding foul-smelling slicks covering nearby waterways — all of which they believe are related to the drilling activities and the chemicals used in the frac’ing process. The energy companies, however, argue that there have never been “documented” cases of groundwater contaminated by drilling rigs, and that the FRAC Act would cause regulatory delays and increased costs for their activities.

In a wide-ranging discussion before the vote, Martin and Samson framed their decision in terms of upholding states rights against unwanted federal interference, arguing that the state could regulate the industry better. At one point Martin said that the state’s right to regulate the state’s waters goes all the way back to an 18th century “navigable waters” law passed by an early Congress. “Do you want to have the federal government come in and tell you what’s going to happen?” he asked the crowd of 25 or so at the meeting, or should it be left to what he called “the local voice”? Samson, who represents voters on the western end of the county, submitted a resolution that essentially mimicked a resolution adopted on Sept. 11, 2009, by Club 20, a Western Slope business organization. The organization lists a number of well-known energy companies as its sponsors, and nine of its 22 member counties have come out against the FRAC Act…

Paul Light of the [Grand Valley Citizens Alliance], pointing to a recent poll indicating that a majority of the region’s voters favor increased regulation of the industry, added that “the real battle is [not between federal and state regulators, but] between the industry and the people trying to drink the water.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Town of Fraser to absorb newly dissolved Fraser Sanitation District operations

From…[T]he Sky-Hi Daily News (Reid Armstrong):

the Town of Fraser has a little less than eight weeks to accomplish a laundry list of items required to absorb the district. Failing to meet this deadline could cost the town $100,000 said town manager Jeff Durbin…

Whereas the district’s employees are currently responsible for both the wastewater collections system and operations at the plant, all three employees will now be exclusively in charge of plant management and operations, Durbin said. The towns’ department of public works will dedicate an existing employee to deal with the wastewater collections system.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to host celebration for $5 million in funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit Friday November 13

From the La Junta Tribune-Democrat:

It will be on the south bank of the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam. People are asked to arrive by 10:45 a.m. by traveling west on Colorado Highway 96, turning right on Juniper Road and following directions to the park and event site. The public is invited to participate in the event.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Public comment sought on Moffat Project

Here’s the release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney):

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project, which proposes to enlarge Gross Reservoir north of Boulder.

Denver Water is proposing the project to help resolve three major water supply challenges it is facing:

1. the risk of a near-term water supply shortfall;
2. the risk of running out of water in the north end of its system during a single dry year;
3. and a serious imbalance in its water collection system, in which about 80 percent of the supply exists on the south side of the system.

The project is part of Denver Water’s multi-pronged water strategy to increase supply and decrease demand by implementing an aggressive conservation plan, completing and expanding its recycled water distribution system and developing additional water supply.

“Our customers have done an excellent job of conserving water, and we have been completing our recycled water system,” said David Little, director of planning. “These strategies are helping extend our supplies into the future. It is imperative, however, that we develop additional supply to correct the imbalance in our system and secure water for our future. We believe the best solution is to produce new water supply by expanding an existing reservoir instead of building a new reservoir.”

The Moffat Collection System Project proposes raising Gross Dam by approximately 125 feet. Gross Reservoir is fed by tributaries of the Colorado River and South Boulder Creek, and feeds the north side of Denver Water’s system. If approved, the Moffat Project would produce 18,000 acre-feet of new supply — enough water for roughly 45,000 households annually.

“We have been working with interest groups and local agencies to develop plans to offset environmental impacts of the Moffat Project and to provide significant environmental enhancements for the communities affected by the project,” said Little. “Denver Water is committed to encouraging wise use of the water we serve and to using our facilities and resources to enhance the environment in the watersheds we use.”

Denver Water, Grand County, the cities of Boulder and Lafayette, environmental groups and others still are discussing the proposed environmental enhancements, which go far beyond what the Corps requires for mitigating impacts caused by the Moffat Collection System Project. These enhancements will benefit tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand County and South Boulder Creek in Boulder County, among other locations.

The enhancements offered by Denver Water include:

- up to 2,000 acre-feet of additional water for augmenting streamflow in Grand County;
- $2 million for improving water quality in Grand County;
- $2 million for stream modifications to improve aquatic habitat in Grand County; and
- a partnership with Boulder and Lafayette to provide 5,000 acre-feet of storage space in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to improve aquatic habitat in South Boulder Creek.

Denver Water is encouraging public participation in the two federal regulatory processes occurring for the Moffat Collection System Project. The two processes are:

An amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Gross Reservoir hydropower license<br.
An application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Draft EIS and Draft FERC Hydropower License Amendment were published Friday, Oct. 30. Each document has a 90-day comment period ending Jan. 28, 2010.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold three Public Hearings on the Draft EIS. At each location, Denver Water will hold an Open House from 4 to 6 p.m. The Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.:

Tues., Dec. 1 — Boulder Country Club, 7350 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, CO 80301
Wed., Dec. 2 — Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446
Thurs., Dec. 3 — Doubletree Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207

See more information on how to comment on the Draft EIS and Draft FERC Amendment.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Colorado Division of Wildlife Native Species Hatchery sends 3,000 Roundtail chubs to San Juan River

From the Associated Press via The Durango Herald:

The New Mexico Game and Fish Department announced Wednesday that the fish were released into the river in late October. Roundtail chub were once found throughout the Colorado River basin, including the San Juan River and its tributaries in New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. The species was listed as threatened under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act in 1975 and uplisted to endangered in 1996.

They were stocked in the San Juan near the confluence with the Animas River, high in the system in the hope that they will disperse downstream into suitable habitat.

More endangered species coverage here and here.