Arkansas River: ‘We’ll supply 10,000 acre-feet for rafting and the fishery’ — Roy Vaughan

From The Mountain Mail (Casey Kelly):

Arkansas River boaters can expect to see flows bolstered this summer by 10,000 acre-feet of water from the Voluntary Flow Management Program. Roy Vaughan, facility manager for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Pueblo Field Office, confirmed Monday that water will be available for the Voluntary Flow Management Program. “We’ll supply 10,000 acre-feet for rafting and the fishery,” Vaughan said.

The program will supply enough water to keep flows at the Wellsville station at 700 cubic feet per second from July 1 through Aug. 15 this year, according to Vaughan.

He said the bureau’s April 1 forecast called for bringing more than 24,700 acre-feet of water over from the Western Slope. Its May 1 forecast called for 47,230 acre-feet. “That’s almost double what we were forecasting,” Vaughan said. He said recent moisture “changed the outlook for us.”

Rob White, Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area park manager, told a May 7 Salida City Council work session that outfitters were worried about another low water season and had been told a few months ago that water may not be available this summer for the Voluntary Flow Management Program. “Luckily we were saved by the late-season storms in both March and April,” White said. “As a matter of fact, I got a call from the Bureau of Reclamation (May 6), and they believe they’ll be able to deliver the full 10,000 acre-feet of water for us for the summer flow program.”

Rafting outfitter Mark Hammer, owner of The Adventure Company in Johnson Village, said he does about 75 percent of his summer business during the 6 weeks that augmentation flows will be available. “(The Voluntary Flow Management Program) is extremely helpful,” Hammer said. “The bell curve of river flows doesn’t necessarily coincide with our peak tourism, so this ensures we have enough water in the Arkansas during the later period of our season.”

He said a more average water flow season this year will help outfitters predict when river flows will peak, how high they will be and how long they will last. “We certainly appreciate the collaborative effort of the flow program,” Hammer said. “It’s a benefit to the public, outfitting companies and the whole area’s economy which relies on the river.”

Greg Felt, co-owner of ArkAnglers, said this year is shaping up to be a good year for the fishery. “We’ve been able to see some good hatches and good aquatic insect activity,” Felt said. “Looking ahead, it’s great to see snowpack improve as it has.”

Kara Lamb, Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman, said, “What makes this program possible is the cooperation, understanding and willingness of those involved to work together. Their cooperation helps the diverse groups reach the mutual goals of the water owners, operators and users, municipalities and government agencies. The Flow Program has created a model for all rivers in the West, and one Coloradans can be proud of.”

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Lake Powell: Quaggas in the pipes? #ColoradoRiver

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

The National Park Service recently identified 14 adult quagga mussels attached to moored vessels and dock structures at the Wahweap Marina in Lake Powell. None of the adult mussels were close enough together to mate for successful reproduction. All of the mussels were physically removed from the lake. The first four mussels were found when a local marine service business noticed the small shells on a boat that had been pulled for maintenance and then notified the park service. “We really appreciate the report of this finding since it will help in the removal of the adult mussels before they can reproduce,” said Mark Anderson, a Glen Canyon ecologist. “It’s likely that the mussels were introduced via ballast or bilge water from a boat that was not cleaned, drained, or dried.”

Boats, docks, and cables in Wahweap Bay will continue to be assessed by the NPS dive team. The Antelope Point area was inspected beginning in December of 2012 with no mussels discovered.

Click here to read the March 27, 2013 Mussel Monitoring Update for Lake Powell from the National Park Service:

Mussel Monitoring Update for Lake Powell

1. What was found?
Fourteen widely dispersed adult quagga mussels were found attached to moored houseboats and dock structures. The mussels were alive, but too far apart to successfully reproduce.

2. Where were they found?
The adult mussels were found at the Waheap Marina. Surveys were conducted in the Antelope Point area beginning in December, 2012 and no mussels were detected.

3. How were they found?
Employees of a local marine services business discovered the first four mussels on a single houseboat that had been removed from moorage for annual cleaning and maintenance. They contacted Glen Canyon National Recreation Area staff on March 18th to identify the organisms. NPS staff confirmed they were quagga mussels. Divers discovered the additional mussels as they searched nearby.

4. Why is this important?
No adult mussels have been found in Lake Powell prior to last week. The mussels appear to have attached and grown on the boats and structures while they were in the lake. The mussels were too far apart, however, to reproduce.

5. What are the next steps?
Diver surveys will continue in the coming weeks to determine the extent of the number of mussels. When found, mussels are physically removed from the lake to prevent reproduction. The NPS will continue all of our mussel prevention activities including inspections of boats. Preventing the spread of Quagga mussels and other aquatic invasive species is more important than ever.

6. If control strategies are not effective, how soon could Lake Powell start experiencing mussel impacts?
Should a mussel population get established and spread, it could be several years before their presence would be obvious. Spreading lake-wide could take considerably longer.

7. What can the public do to help?
Clean, drain, and dry! The spread of mussels and other aquatic invasive species is preventable. Cooperate with prevention program efforts at Lake Powell and other places where people are trying to protect their waters. Always make sure your vessels and equipment are not causing the problem. Spread the message, not the mussels.
rch 27, 2013

8. Are boat inspections still required at Lake Powell? Yes.

9. Can boats leaving Lake Powell spread mussels to other waters now?
Not if boaters practice “Clean, Drain, and Dry” and treat their boats and equipment to prevent spreading aquatic species.

10. What effect will this have on the Colorado River below the dam in Glen and Grand canyons? These detections are so low that no effect will occur. If a large infestation of Quagga mussels existed in Lake Powell, large numbers of mussel larvae might travel through the dam. The larvae that survived would seek to attach in low flow areas. It is not known if they could reach high numbers. The Arizona Canal has not yet developed large populations of mussels despite larvae being delivered from the Lower Colorado River.

11. What has the NPS done to stop mussels at Lake Powell?
The NPS has operated a mussel prevention program at Lake Powell since 2000. Over a decade ago, scientists predicted that Lake Powell would be the first lake in the western U.S. to get mussels. The number of high-risk boats coming to the park has increased exponentially in that time. Prior to 2007 and the discovery of mussels in the west, Lake Powell was threatened by about 50 high-risk boats per year from eastern states. In 2011 alone, that number was 17,000. 38 boats with mussels were stopped from launching in 2012, over twice the number in 2011. The increased pressure has required the park to screen boats to determine the highest risks and focus our limited capability where it was needed most. At busy times, as few as 15% of boats may actually get inspected.

12. How does NPS monitoring at Lake Powell compare to other mussel monitoring programs?
No other lake on earth is as intensely monitored for mussels as Lake Powell. The NPS processes hundreds of samples each year. The NPS uses 4 early detection methods, including microscopic analysis, automated particle analysis (FlowCAM), Polymerase Chain Reaction (the DNA test), and deployment of artificial substrates to detect early colonization. Sampling occurs lake-wide at routine sites like marinas and the dam; computers are also used to determine random sampling locations throughout the lake. More samples collected are from areas where there are the most boats. Using both routine and random sampling as well as multiple early detection methodologies is expected to increase the chances of very early detection. Control of any invasive species is easiest when caught early. If these current findings represent a population, the best chances have been created for successful control.

More invasive species coverage here.

Say hello to the Ouray County Water Users Association

From The Watch (Samantha Wright):

Irrigators and other upper Uncompahgre River water users took preliminary steps last week to form a new organization which can act as a unified voice for various Ouray County water users in local, regional and statewide water use negotiations.

Ridgway attorney Andy Mueller, a senior partner at the Tisdel Law Firm in Ouray, led the discussion, which occurred last Thursday, May 9 at the Ouray County Land Use building, with about 30 water users and other interested parties in attendance.

Mueller is a member of the Colorado River District Board of Directors representing Ouray County, and has extensive water law experience. He expressed growing concern that as water becomes ever scarcer throughout the West, Ouray County water users still do not have an organized entity through which to assert their collective interest.

This puts them at a distinct disadvantage compared to entities such as the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, Tri-County Water and the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District, “all of whom are very organized and very well versed in water administration and protecting their own rights and how they can best be served,” Mueller observed. “I wouldn’t suggest by any means that these folks are enemies, but just like anybody else, they are not necessarily there to look out for us. I think that’s our job as water users.”[...]

The association would take the form of a nonprofit corporation whose members use water from the Upper Uncompahgre River for any number of beneficial uses that are recognized by the state constitution. The entity would be self-governed and independent of county government. And, Mueller stressed, the organization first and foremost would respect the ownership and control of water rights as utilized within Colorado’s prior appropriation system – the “first in time, first in right” doctrine which in times of water shortage, permits a senior right to place a “call” on a stream to obtain a full supply. “This is not an effort to subvert water appropriation,” Mueller said. “It’s more to understand it and work within that system to the benefit of the water users.”[...]

The group could also focus on flushing out the “big picture” of water usage in the county, studying when and where shortages occur, and focusing on various solutions to address those shortages. Ultimately, the association could propose the formation of a new Water Conservancy District, the formation and funding of which would need to be put to a vote in Ouray County. Such an entity would have the authority to construct and acquire upstream reservoirs for county-wide water rights augmentation purposes that could be operated for the benefit of the county’s municipalities and irrigators alike, as well as for other water users, Mueller said…

A stakeholders group comprised of local ranchers Daris Jutten, Ken Lipton, Jack Flowers and Ken Orvis, and representatives from the Town of Ridgway and the City of Ouray, agreed to meet again in the near future to further explore the concept of forming a Ouray County Water Users Association. The next community-wide meeting on the topic is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, June 13 at 7 p.m. at the County Land Use building north of Ridgway.

More Uncompahgre River Watershed coverage here.

Parachute Creek spill: Testing shows ‘consistent’ drop in benzene levels recently #ColoradoRiver

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Benzene levels in Parachute Creek have shown consistent reductions in recent days, according to test results. The reductions come as Williams continues to work with state regulators to strip the carcinogen from groundwater before it reaches the creek, and to also remove benzene from the creek. The work follows the leaking this winter of what Williams estimates was about 10,000 gallons of natural gas liquids into soil and groundwater from a pipeline leaving its gas processing plant northwest of Parachute.

The leak resulted in high benzene levels in groundwater, and benzene in the creek that at one point barely topped the state drinking water standard of 5 parts per billion, although that standard doesn’t apply to the creek. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said Tuesday the high daily measurement in the creek had fallen from 4.4 ppb on Thursday to 2.6 ppb on Sunday. Williams said it was 2.2 ppb on Monday.

That measurement site is about 1,300 linear feet downstream of the approximate spill location. Starting on Friday, a test site 2,158 feet downstream has no longer shown the presence of the substance, after having consistently tested positive. Likewise, Williams reported on Monday a site 1,643 feet downstream also tested negative.

Williams has been using aeration and pumping hydrocarbons from wells to help remove benzene and other contaminants. Newly installed vertical air sparge wells to treat groundwater benzene near the benzene’s point of entry into the creek went into operation Friday.

CDPHE said the domestic well of Howard Orona, who lives near the creek downstream of the leak site, again has tested negative for benzene.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

The Colorado River District board news summary for April is hot off the press #ColoradoRiver

Click here to read the summary. Here’s an excerpt:

April’s snowstorms improved the water supply prospects in the Colorado River Basin, but the effects were uneven across the 15 counties of the Colorado River District.

Receiving the biggest boosts were the Colorado, White and Yampa Basins. The Gunnison Basin was not as fortunate and will likely experience water supply problems this summer, according to General Manager Eric Kuhn, reporting to the Colorado River District Board at its April 16 meeting.

For most of the winter, Western Colorado was track- ing even with the abysmal snow year of 2012, the fourth worst on record. But where it had stopped snowing in March of 2012, this past March experienced a wave of storms, a pattern that accelerated in April.

In fact, the April 14-15 storm forced the Colorado River District to abbreviate its agenda and defer a number of discussions until its July meeting.

“This time last year, 90 percent had run off and we about 10 to 20 percent of normal snowpack,” Kuhn said. “This April, the curve was still going up. Still, district wide it is not an above average year. We will have some problems down the road but they will not be as severe as it seemed earlier in the year.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment of the Upper Colorado River Region #ColoradoRiver #CODrought

Click on the thumbnail graphic for the May 1 through 12 precipitation summary. Click here for all the summaries from the Colorado Climate Center.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

POWELL to POWELL Episode 3 in the Colorado River series #ColoradoRiver

Powell to Powell: The Desert Blooms – follow the #ColoradoRiver through Grand Junction canoekayak.com/videos/powell-… via @canoekayakmag

— Water Center at CMU (@WaterCenterCMU) May 7, 2013

CFWE watershed tours are coming up later this month, June and July

Click here for the 2013 tours page from the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. Watch their showcase video above to learn about the mission.

More Colorado Foundation for Water Education coverage here and here.

Upper Ark District board meeting recap: All district reservoirs are full, except DeWeese (89%) — Jord Gertson #COdrought

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Recent weather patterns in the Upper Arkansas River Valley precipitated discussion of snowpack and water supplies during the Thursday meeting of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. District hydrologist Jord Gertson reported that all district reservoirs are full, except for DeWeese Reservoir in Custer County, which is at 89 percent of capacity.

Gertson presented Natural Resources Conservation Service data compiled May 1 that show Upper Arkansas River Basin snowpack at 93 percent of average and 287 percent of 2012 snowpack levels. Gertson said Snowpack Telemetry sites at Fremont Pass and Brumley show the snow water equivalent at 101 percent and 109 percent of median, respectively. The Fremont Pass SNOTEL site also reports precipitation at 106 percent of average for the current water year, which began Oct. 1. Gertson also showed snowpack charts indicating measurements at upper basin SNOTEL sites are “way better than last year,” including sites at Porphyry Creek, Independence Pass and St. Elmo.

District directors also reported good news about the Frying Pan-Arkansas Project, which is expected to import 47,000 acre-feet of water from the Western Slope this year, compared to 14,000 acre-feet in 2012. Diversions of Fry-Ark Project water into the Arkansas Basin average approximately 52,000 acre-feet of water per year. In 2011, the project imported 98,000 acre-feet of Western Slope water, the second highest amount in the project’s 50-year history of operations.

In other business, directors heard a legislative report from consultant Ken Baker. Baker’s report mainly focused on House Bill 1130, which, he said, targets Arkansas Basin water and is expected to be signed by the governor.

Baker said HB 1130 would create a “selective application” of a 130-year-old Colorado water law. The bill would create the potential for 30 years of interruptible-supply agreements that are currently limited to a maximum of 10 years. The state engineer would have authority to approve these agreements, changing the use of the water and bypassing Water Court proceedings that are currently required to change the use of a water right. Baker said the bill mainly benefits Aurora, allowing the city to take Arkansas Basin water without having to pursue a change-of-use case in Water Court.

To gain the votes needed to pass the bill, Baker said a special exclusion was added that exempts Western Slope water.

In other business, Upper Ark directors:

Approved a modification to a Nestlé Waters North America augmentation agreement for 200 acre-feet of Fry-Ark Project water per year for 35 years.

Agreed to stipulate out of Poncha Springs case 09CW138, subject to favorable review of the stipulations by district engineer Ivan Walter.

Approved an agreement with law firm Wilderson, Lock and Hill to provide legal counsel for a flat fee of $2,000 per month.

Received an update on an integrated water agreement with Buena Vista.

Approved a cooperative water agreement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Learned that the gate wheel at O’Haver Lake has been replaced after the old one was damaged by a vehicle.

Received an update on the Trout Creek Ditch exchange case, 08CW106, which is scheduled to go to trial June 11 if the Department of Corrections, division engineer and Colorado Water Conservation Board do not agree to proposed stipulations.

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District directors heard a report about the potential for underground water storage in Chaffee County during their Thursday meeting. Tammy Ivahnenko and Ken Watts with the U.S. Geological Survey said areas identified for further study include aquifers near Salida, Nathrop, Johnson Village, Buena Vista and north of Buena Vista.

Watts said the locations were identified based on slope (less than 3 percent), soil texture at a depth of 5 feet (loam, sandy loam or gravel preferred) and surface geology (alluvial or gravel deposits).

Another important factor, Watts said, is the “stream-accretion response time factor,” which provides an indication of how long water will stay in an aquifer before draining into a stream.

Ivahnenko described “water budgets” she developed for Cottonwood, Chalk and Browns creeks and the South Arkansas River.
The water budgets include irrigated acres, consumptive use by crops and amount of water diverted for irrigation, and help determine how much water may be available for storage at a given time.

Watts said he conducted “slug tests” at 29 wells to determine hydraulic properties in the aquifers, including conductivity and permeability. He also reported on findings from Colorado State University monitoring wells. Hourly readings from the monitoring wells documented seasonal changes in water level and temperature, showing seasonal changes in groundwater levels and surface-water infiltration.

Some wells showed significant influence from surface irrigation while others indicated a more stable, natural water level.
Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District officials are developing plans to increase water storage capacity in the Upper Arkansas River basin. An important component of those plans is underground storage in alluvial aquifers, which would eliminate evaporative water losses and provide augmentation water through natural recharge to surface waters.

Conservancy district officials said they will rely on USGS findings to help determine possible locations for underground water storage projects.

More Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District coverage here.

Parachute Creek spill: Regulatory authority over the pipeline at fault is still a fuzzy question #ColoradoRiver

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

A state regulator recently acknowledged the lack of clarity over what agency, if any, regulates pipelines like the one that’s the source of a natural gas liquids leak in the Parachute Creek watershed northwest of Parachute. The comments by Jim Milne, environmental manager for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, came in response to a question by Commissioner DeAnn Craig at the commission’s meeting last week. Milne was providing an update on the investigation into the leak from a pipeline leaving Williams’ gas processing plant. “I’m just curious who writes the rules for pipeline integrity of this type of system?” Craig asked.

“I don’t have an answer to that,” Milne responded. “I think the agencies have all been looking at that question.” He said he knows the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has some level of involvement with the plant, but added, “I think the question you ask is a good one.” He said he and commission Director Matt Lepore have discussed the need to contact any agencies that could be involved and get a better understanding of who has responsibility over the line.

Williams believes a faulty gauge on the pipeline leaked about 10,000 gallons into the soil and groundwater. Carcinogenic benzene has contaminated groundwater and the creek. Williams has pointed to OSHA regulatory oversight of the pipeline. But OSHA has said it doesn’t regulate things such as what pipeline materials and welding should be used, and that its regulations are geared toward safety considerations such as protecting laborers working in pipeline trenches. The natural gas liquids pipeline runs from the plant and beneath the creek to tanks on the other side.

Williams says the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates the pipeline running from the tanks to another plant in Rio Blanco County, from which the liquids are then shipped out of state. That agency covers aspects such as pipeline construction, testing, inspection and maintenance.

The question of jurisdiction over the Williams line takes on additional significance because the company wants to install a second natural gas liquids line in the same corridor going beneath the creek to accommodate an expansion of its plant. It recently announced a delay in the expansion for reasons it says relate to the local drilling slowdown and not the leak. That expansion plan went through a Garfield County review process, but a county planning staff report to county commissioners made no apparent mention of the new pipeline.

The oil and gas commission’s ability to regulate the existing or planned pipeline appears to be limited. It recently handed off lead authority over the leak investigation to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment because it determined it didn’t have primary jurisdiction over the matter.

Oil and Gas Commissioner Rich Alward of Grand Junction told Milne that despite the jurisdictional issues, he’d be interested in any recommendations about what the commission can do “to minimize the risk of this happening again.” Alward mentioned reporting requirements as one possible area to be addressed.

Williams didn’t initially report the leak because it thought it involved less than 25 gallons, far below the minimum five barrels (210 gallons) that trigger a reporting requirement. It also didn’t consider the spill to be a threat to surface waters, something that triggers a commission requirement of immediate reporting of a spill of any size.

A bill awaiting action by Gov. John Hickenlooper would require reporting within 24 hours of all waste spills of a barrel or more if they take place outside berms or secondary containment systems. But a barrel, or 42 gallons, is still more than what Williams initially thought had leaked.

In addition, the commission determined the liquids that leaked, as a product leaving a gas plant, don’t involve exploration and production waste, which is why it gave up jurisdictional authority.

Meanwhile, Williams reports that the highest benzene reading in the creek as of Thursday was 4.4 parts per billion. The level last week remained below the state drinking water standard of 5 ppb in the creek, after barely exceeding that standard the week before, although the standard doesn’t apply to the creek because it’s not considered a drinking water source. There continue to be no signs of benzene in the creek at the point downstream where the town of Parachute diverts irrigation water.

On Tuesday, a new well was installed to recover contaminants from the soil.

Also completed this week was installation of vertical air sparge wells designed to enhance the removal, through aeration, of benzene in groundwater once they are hooked up to a blower motor.

Those wells are part of a plan, newly approved by the health department and Environmental Protection Agency, under which Williams is upgrading its treatment system at the point where contaminated groundwater is entering the creek.

All containment booms in the creek were replaced Tueday with fresh ones. Work also began last week on sampling contaminated groundwater. The work is necessary to characterize the contamination before the water can be properly treated and disposed of, the health department said.

Williams said Friday that it so far has recovered about 6,300 gallons of natural gas liquids. It also plans to construct by month’s end a water treatment system to remove hydrocarbons from the aquifer and from recovered water that then can be returned to the aquifer. The water will be subject to continuous testing to assure it meets state and EPA requirements before being discharged back to the surface.

Meanwhile, the Clifton Water District is keeping an eye on the spill. They pull off the Colorado River downstream of the confluence of Parachute Creek. Here’s a recent release:

The Clifton Water District has continued to monitor the developments related to the contamination of Parachute Creek with Benzene. Parachute Creek is a very small tributary to the Colorado River which is the water supply for the Clifton Water District. No reports have indicated that Benzene has reached the Colorado River and the District’s monitoring efforts have not detected the presence of Benzene.

Even though there is no indication that Benzene has reached the Colorado River, the Clifton Water District has been proactively monitoring the Colorado River in multiple locations for the presence of 25 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s), including Benzene. The Clifton Water District’s Certified Laboratory has not detected the presence of Benzene or any other Volatile Organic Compound in any of the samples. Monitoring of the Colorado River for Volatile Organic Compounds has been a regular and routine event since 1986 and is a fundamental commitment in providing safe drinking water for our customers.

In addition to being mindful of source water quality, the District has been diligent to implement advanced water treatment technology which is very effective in treating the Colorado River. The District has worked to improve its water treatment system to a “state-of-the-art” facility utilizing Enhanced Coagulation/sedimentation, Rapid Sand Filtration, Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration. These processes are instrumental to the success of a multi-barrier treatment approach. Continuation of the District’s effort the next generation of “state-of-the-art” water treatment technology, Micro/Ultra Filtration Treatment Facility, is currently in design and projected to be constructed by 2015.

It is not anticipated that Benzene will be present in the Colorado River because of its volatility characteristics. The District will continue to maintain routine monitoring procedures for Benzene and other Volatile Organic Compounds even after this situation has been resolved demonstrating our commitment to provide high quality water to our customers.

Here’s a report from Dennis Webb writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

The Clifton Water District said Tuesday it has been monitoring the benzene contamination in Parachute Creek, but tests of the Colorado River continue to show no evidence of the carcinogen. A leak of natural gas liquids leaving the Williams gas processing plant has resulted in small amounts of benzene reaching the creek. However, samples farther down the creek show no sign of the substance, which readily dissipates in moving water.

Clifton Water said in a news release that it doesn’t anticipate benzene reaching the river because of its volatility.

The creek “is a very small tributary to the Colorado River, which is the water supply for the Clifton Water District,” the utility added.

It said it “has been proactively monitoring the Colorado River in multiple locations for 25 volatile organic compounds, including benzene. But its certified lab has found no VOCs in any of the samples.

The district has routinely tested the river for VOCs since 1986 and will continue doing so after the leak situation is resolved, it noted. It also has been installing advanced water treatment technology to better address sediment and other issues involving the river water.

Last week, benzene in Parachute Creek barely exceeded the state drinking water maximum of 5 parts per billion. However, the creek isn’t designated as a drinking water source by Colorado’s Water Quality Control Commission, and instead a 5,300-ppb standard applies to protect aquatic life. Williams reports that benzene readings at the highest point of contamination in the creek from Saturday through Monday were all above 4 but below 5 ppb, with Monday’s level at 4.7 ppb.

From the Associated Press (Alexandra Tilsley) via The Denver Post:

One of the main contaminants in the groundwater is benzene, according to Mark Salley, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which is currently overseeing the remediation efforts. Benzene, a known carcinogen, was also found earlier this month in Parachute Creek in concentrations above the state’s health standard, but levels have since dropped and officials insist there is no threat.

To remove the benzene from the creek, Williams injected air into the surface water to strip the hydrocarbons, a process known as air-sparging. The same technique is to remove surface hydrocarbons that are floating on top of the groundwater.

How to handle all the benzene-infected groundwater is the next question. The recovered water is currently being stored in tanks, and Williams said Friday it is planning to install a water treatment system that can separate the benzene from the water. “They’re working on the plans right now for a water treatment system,” said Tom Droege, a Williams spokesman. “It’s not in place yet, but once it’s up and running, then they’ll begin to treat the groundwater on a regular basis.”

The system will remove the benzene and any other hydrocarbons from the water through a multistep process. Contaminated water will first go through an oil and water separator. Then, it will move through an air stripper, which works like air-sparging. Finally, the water will be moved through activated carbon polishing tanks. The treated water will then return to a holding tank, where it will be tested to ensure it meets state health department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. Once officials have confirmed the water is safe, it will be returned to the aquifer. Any air emissions from the treatment system will be captured and treated according to the procedures approved by the Air Pollution Control Division of the state’s health department, Salley said.

The system is expected to be functional by the end of May.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Eagle River Watershed Council Waterwise Thursday May 16: Are you wiser than a sixth grader?

From email from the Eagle River Watershed Council:

Join us for a special Water Wise “Thursday” brought to you by the 6th Graders of Homestake Peak School of Expeditionary Learning. After an in-depth, multiple month study, these students are ready to teach you “the what, the so what, and the now what?” of the Eagle Mine Superfund Site.

The event will take place Thursday, May 16th at 5:30 at the Walking Mountains Science Center. The students will begin with a living history museum where you can chat with figures of the past and then, they take you in depth into the history, science and future of the Eagle River. Beverages and appetizers will be provided.

More Eagle River Watershed coverage here and here.

Colorado River Basin: Annual ‘State of the Rivers — Mesa County’ meeting May 13 #ColoradoRiver

From email from the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University:

State of the Rivers Meeting

The Water Center at CMU is pleased co-sponsor the annual “State of the Rivers – Mesa County” meeting with the Colorado River District on Monday, May 13 from 5:30 – 7:30pm in the Colorado Mesa University Ballroom.

This meeting will address our current & projected water supply situation, water banking to deal with shortages, and salinity control programs. Light refreshments will be provided.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here

Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment of the Upper Colorado River Region #ColoradoRiver

Click on the thumbnail graphic for the April 29 through May 5 precipitation summary map for the Upper Colorado River Regions. Click here for all the summaries.

The COGCC fines Antero $150,000 for produced-water pipeline leak near Rifle

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approved a $150,000 fine Monday against Antero Resources in connection with a leak from a produced-water pipeline that resulted in oily contamination of groundwater and soil near Rifle. The fine was part of a consent agreement reached with Antero. The commission says Antero violated rules on pollution and management of waste in the incident, discovered in July 2010.

The leak from a faulty weld in a plastic pipe resulted in seeps of a paraffin-like substance in a nearby gravel pit owned by Grant Brothers Construction, and caused high levels of benzene, a carcinogen, in the groundwater. The oil-laden water came from 36 wells on five well pads in the Colorado River floodplain, the commission said.

Before the commission acted Monday, Commissioner Richard Alward of Grand Junction expressed concern about how much time has lapsed since the leak’s discovery. “It’s now 2013, and we’re now finally resolving things,” he said.

Commission staff said the delay was because Antero tried several approaches to cleaning it up, finally settling on full excavation, which was completed last September. The state then allowed for another half-year of environmental monitoring.

Denver-based Antero no longer operates in Colorado, having sold its assets in the Piceance Basin to Ursa Resources in order to focus on drilling in the eastern U.S.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Restoration: The Eagle River Watershed Council is planting willows along Red Dirt Creek May 17-18

From email from the Eagle River Watershed Council:

We are beginning a second project along the East Fork of Red Dirt Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River. The Watershed Council, along with a team of volunteers and help from the US Forest Service and Trout Unlimited, will plant willows and remove a dirt road that is adding sediment to the creek and harming the local cutthroat trout population.

Friday, May 17th and Saturday, May 18th we will be planting willows along the East Fork of Red Dirt Creek and we are looking for 10-15 volunteers. Call us at 970-827-5406 or email outreach@erwc.org to sign up for one or both days!

More Eagle River Watershed coverage here and here.

CWCB instream flow program scores water rights for the Upper Colorado River #ColoradoRiver

Here’s the release the Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Rob Buirgy/Linda Bassi):

A broad-based stakeholder effort to protect the Colorado River received a boost last month when a state court granted water rights designed to keep flows in the river, creating three important instream flow water rights.

“The CWCB is very pleased that the stakeholder group worked through the state’s Instream Flow Program to protect this important reach of the Colorado River,” said Linda Bassi, Stream and Lake Protection Section Chief, Colorado Water Conservation Board. “This is a great example of how our Program can provide regulatory certainty to water users along with preservation of the natural environment.”

The year-round water rights range in flows from 500 to 900 cubic feet per second and will include about 70 miles of the Colorado River from the Blue River near Kremmling to the Eagle River. These rights were decreed to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the only entity allowed to appropriate instream flow water rights for habitat benefits in Colorado. The decreed amounts reflect minimum flows necessary to “preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree” – as provided by state law. In this case, the flows are designed to protect fish species, particularly trout.

“This is good news for a stretch of the river that is beloved by generations of anglers,” said Mely Whiting, counsel for Trout Unlimited. “It’s an example of what can be accomplished when working together.”

The 2011 priority date means these instream flow rights will have to be satisfied before water rights filed in later years can take their water.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board filed for the water rights in state water court at the request of the Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group, a diverse group representing key interests, including Front Range water providers, Western Slope governments, affected landowners, conservation groups and recreation interests. The stakeholders have developed a local management plan designed to balance protection of the outstanding values within this segment of the Colorado River with water supply needs. The plan is awaiting approval by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Issuance of the water rights to protect river flows is a key component of the plan. “We are grateful for the support we receive from all our agency participants, especially the Colorado Water Conservation

Board, and for the concerted efforts of all our stakeholders who worked to bring this vision into reality,” said Rob Buirgy, Project Manager for the Upper CO River Wild & Scenic Alternative Stakeholder Group. “These decrees are an important new tool for us in maintaining the fishing and boating values on this stretch of the river.”

The Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group is composed of American Whitewater, Aurora Water, Blue Valley Ranch, Colorado River Outfitters Association, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, Eagle County, Eagle Park Reservoir Company, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Grand County, Middle Park Water Conservancy District, Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Summit County, The Wilderness Society, Trout Unlimited, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Vail Associates, Inc.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Colorado-Big Thompson Project update: Carter Lake is about 94.5% full

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

You might have already heard, but today [May 3] we turned off the pump to Carter Lake. Carter is now about 94.5% full. With the pump to Carter off, about 508 cfs is now flowing north to Horsetooth Reservoir. Horsetooth is about 75% full and will continue to rise through May.

More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.

Parachute Creek spill: ‘We are trying to protect to drinking water standards’ — David Walker #ColoradoRiver

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

A state official says regulators are seeking to protect Parachute Creek according to drinking water standards even though they technically don’t apply. The comment by David Walker, with the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, came after a resident living near the creek downstream of a natural gas liquids leak questioned the standard applying to the creek.

A leak from a pressure gauge on a pipeline leaving Williams’ gas processing plant has resulting in carcinogenic benzene contaminating groundwater and the creek. While some groundwater benzene levels are high, measurements in the creek only once have exceeded the state drinking water standard of 5 parts per billion, reaching 5.3 ppb Wednesday.

While CDPHE regulators have accused Williams of breaking state rules with the groundwater contamination, it technically hasn’t violated any surface water standard because water isn’t pulled directly from the creek for drinking, Walker said. Instead, the state’s Water Quality Control Division’s maximum allowable benzene level in the creek is 5,300 ppb, to protect aquatic life.

Howard Orona has a domestic well about 20 feet from the creek and said it’s probably only 25 feet deep. A citizen representative on the Garfield County Energy Advisory Board, he expressed concern at the board’s meeting Thursday that benzene in surface water could migrate into his shallow well water. “For that creek to be pushing into the groundwater in my case, I would think that would be considered drinking water,” he said.

Walker said that despite the 5,300-ppb standard on the creek, “we are trying to protect to drinking water standards because it’s the correct thing to do.”

Williams tested Orona’s water a few weeks ago and it was benzene-free. On Friday, the company agreed to test it again and continue doing so on a regular basis, something Walker said he would have required had the company not volunteered to do it.

He said he agrees it’s possible for contaminated creek water to reach a nearby domestic well, and testing Orona’s well is the right thing to do. At the same time, he noted that Orona’s well is more than a mile from where benzene is entering the creek, and at least four creek sample points in between aren’t showing any benzene. The contaminated groundwater also is far upstream from his well and shouldn’t reach it underground, Walker said.

The creek also is the source for the town of Parachute’s irrigation supply, but no benzene has been detected at the diversion point.

Benzene in the creek Thursday fell to 4.7 ppb at the area of highest creek contamination.

Williams plans to seek state approval for upgrades to a treatment system to more quickly and thoroughly remove benzene in groundwater before the water enters the creek. CDPHE spokesman Mark Salley warned Friday the change could temporarily boost benzene levels in the creek “as residual groundwater contamination between the treatment systems and the creek is mobilized.” But it’s expected the benzene would continue to dissipate as it moves downstream, as it has been doing, he said in a news release.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Benzene in Parachute Creek has exceeded the drinking water standard for the first time since the discovery of a Williams natural gas liquids leak near the creek earlier this year. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment spokesman Mark Salley said in an email to reporters Thursday that a sample on Wednesday contained a reading of 5.3 parts per billion, which compares to the drinking water standard of 5 ppb. But he noted that the creek is not considered a drinking water source, although it’s subject to a 5,300-ppb maximum benzene standard to protect aquatic life. “None of the surface water sampling results demonstrate the water is a risk to public health,” Salley said.

However, the CDPHE on Wednesday notified Williams that its leak constitutes disposal of hazardous waste without a permit. The agency has authority over the cleanup and could pursue fines against Williams.

Wednesday’s benzene reading occurred at the same location where benzene-tainted groundwater is believed to be entering the creek, and where previous readings generally have been in the 3 to 4 ppb range. The contamination is originating from where natural gas liquids leaked from a pipeline leaving Williams’ gas processing plant in the creek valley. Readings of 1.6 and 1.3 ppb were recorded Wednesday at two testing sites downstream, but no benzene showed up Wednesday at four more-distant sites, including the point where the town of Parachute diverts water for its irrigation system. Benzene dissipates rapidly in creek water and crews also are aerating the creek to speed dissipation. “Remediation actions continue and will be modified if appropriate to respond to sampling that indicates a significant change in the characterization of the site,” Salley said.

From The Denver Post:

Benzene levels continue to fluctuate in Parachute Creek near a hydrocarbon spill from a Williams energy gas pipeline.

The state Department of Public Health and Environment reported Friday that a surface water collected from a sampling spot closest to the well on Thursday contained 4.7 parts per billion, down from 5.3 ppb the day before. The federal safety limit for drinking water is 5 ppb.

The limit for benzene in Parachute Creek is 5,300 ppb, set by Colorado’s Water Quality Control Commission at a level deemed protective of aquatic life because the creek isn’t designated as a drinking water supply.

Downstream from the spill, the benzene contamination dissipates quickly. In Thursday sampling, the cancer-causing chemical was not detected 1.5 miles downstream, near the headgates where Parachute diverts water to an irrigation reservoir. The gates have not been open since the spill was publicly revealed on March 16.

Williams is expected to submit plans for improving groundwater treatment near the spill. Trenches to capture contaminated groundwater have been dug and equipment is being used to aerate the creek and soil near the spill to dissipate benzene.

CDPHE spokesman Mark Salley said in a written statement that benzene levels may temporarily increase in the creek after the treatment system upgrades occur “as residual groundwater contamination between the treatment systems and the creek is mobilized.

“But as the data above show, the expectation is that benzene would continue to dissipate as it moves downstream,” he wrote. “Williams will be closely monitoring the situation once the system is turned on, to look for changes that might warrant adjusting its operation, to enhance benzene removal rates and minimize temporary impacts to the creek.”

More Parachute Creek Spill coverage here. More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment of the Upper Colorado River Region #COdrought #ColoradoRiver

Click on the thumbnail graphics for the 7-day, month-to-date and water-year-to-date maps of the Upper Colorado River region for as of April 30, from the Colorado Climate Center.

Click here to read all the summaries.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Parachute Creek spill: Benzene levels in the creek exceed drinking water standards #ColoradoRiver

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

Creek water tests found benzene reaching 5.3 parts per billion at the sampling spot closest to the spill from a pipeline at Williams’ gas-processing plant, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The limit for safe drinking water is 5 ppb. However, Colorado water quality overseers have set the limit for benzene in Parachute Creek at 5,300 ppb because the creek isn’t designated as a water source for people. Benzene dissipates at two sampling locations downstream. No benzene was detected in a test last week where the creek flows into the Colorado River…

Williams crews have been aerating the creek and pumping air underground into soil — to try to remove benzene into air. “While the one test site is showing a slight increase in benzene, other sites downstream remain static or show no detection,” Williams spokesman Tom Droege said in an e-mailed response. “We believe this indicates that our remediation efforts ….. are helping us make progress.”[...]

The creek normally feeds a Parachute town reservoir used for irrigation. But town officials have kept a headgate, 1.5 miles downstream from the gas plant, closed.
The latest tests did not detect benzene at the headgates.

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

A CDPHE compliance advisory, dated April 30, formally notifies Williams, property owner WPX Energy and pipeline operator Bargath LLC that the spill constitutes disposal of hazardous waste without a permit…

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission on March 20 issued notices of alleged violation to Williams and WPX. The advisory asks Williams to meet with state officials to discuss problems, schedule cleanup activities and show that laws were not broken. If state officials decide they need to order cleanup and remediation, CDPHE spokesman Mark Salley said in an e-mailed update, they can issue “compliance orders on consent” or a “unilateral compliance order.”

Williams spokesman Keith Isbell said the warning “was fully expected.” “It does not change the cleanup work that Williams has been doing,” he said. “Our next step is to formally present our current work plan to CDPHE and get their official approval as the new lead regulator.”

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

A natural gas liquids leak that contaminated Parachute Creek hasn’t affected public health and is unlikely to do so in the future, a state health official told local residents Monday. “We have technology to deal with any level of contamination from this site in groundwater and surface water,” said David Walker, with the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Despite such assurances, a number of the 100-plus members of the public attending an update on the situation Monday voiced concern about the contamination and skepticism about the response to it by the agencies and company involved.

Over the weekend, it was announced that lead jurisdiction over the investigation into the incident transferred to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Roughly 10,000 gallons of natural gas liquids leaked into the ground from a pipeline leaving Williams’ gas processing plant, the company has estimated, although the commission “doesn’t take those numbers as gospel,” said its director Matt Lepore.

Dave Devanney, a Battlement Mesa resident, questioned the health department’s history of commitment to protecting the public from dangers related to oil and gas development, noting its opposition to some proposed health research related to such development. “We feel that CDPHE can do a better job than they’re doing right now,” he said.

Marion Wells of Rulison noted how the incident has continued to escalate. The leak went entirely unmonitored for two months, the pressure gauge it came from initially was said by Williams to have leaked just 24 gallons, and the incident eventually resulted in benzene reaching not just groundwater but the creek. “I just don’t trust. I don’t have it,” she said.

Walker said that compared to other remediation sites he deals with, the Parachute one is actually fairly small, although the potential repercussions are large because of the possible impact to surface water.

Benzene as high as about 4.5 parts per billion has been detected in the creek downstream of the pipeline. But that’s below the state drinking water standard of 5 ppb, and the state doesn’t consider the creek a drinking water source and applies a maximum 5,300-ppb aquatic standard to it. No benzene has been detected where the town of Parachute diverts irrigation water farther downstream. “There is not going to be any benzene that’s going to be in your irrigation water,” Walker said. He said aeration-related methods readily remove the carcinogen from surface water. In the worst case, installing a small dam a few feet high would aerate water enough to eliminate the benzene, he said.

Both state agencies and Williams also sought to assure that water tests are being conducted by objective, independent entities and labs, with the state having its own testing done to compare against Williams’ results.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The school district serving the Parachute and Battlement Mesa areas plans to begin using irrigation water from Parachute Creek after receiving assurances from state officials that doing so won’t endanger students. Ken Haptonstall, superintendent of Garfield County School District 16, said the district initially had been concerned about the benzene that has shown up in the creek as a result of the natural gas liquids leak from a pipeline leaving the Williams gas processing plant upstream. “We water the fields, that’s one thing. The fact that kids play on the fields, it’s a much bigger thing,” Haptonstall said.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission have been investigating the leak and overseeing cleanup. Haptonstall said state officials told the district benzene shouldn’t reach its irrigation water, but testing of the creek continues and it would be notified if any problem arises.

The district’s Center for Family Learning gets irrigation water from the town’s system, which draws from Parachute Creek and is scheduled to go into service May 8. Its Grand Valley High School fields get water from a ditch farther down the creek.

So far, no benzene has been detected at the town diversion point or farther downstream. On Tuesday, the CDPHE reported a detection within a mile of the town diversion point, the farthest downstream so far. But the measurement was just 1 part per billion, well below the state drinking water standard of 5 ppb. Benzene as high as 4.5 ppb has been reported at one point farther upstream.

Williams has been working with state officials to aerate creek water and treat adjacent groundwater to remove benzene. The state Health Department says such measures, and benzene’s propensity to dissipate in creek water quickly, make it relatively easy to remove the carcinogen from a creek.

Parachute Town Administrator Bob Knight said arrangements also have been made to let Williams shut off the town diversion point and other such points downstream should contamination threaten them.

Haptonstall said if the district had had to postpone watering for a month or so, it would have created some serious problems in terms of trying to keep fields from drying out. The town has been working to complete a pipeline from an existing reservoir to a second one it has decided to put into operation due to the Williams incident. That will provide it with some backup water in case the diversion point is shut down, as well as allowing for more dilution and treatment if any contamination occurs. Cool and wet weather this spring has allowed the town to delay when its irrigation system begins operating and do the additional reservoir work without having much effect on users of the water.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

State health officials have issued a compliance advisory to Williams, alleging the company has violated state laws for the leak of thousands of gallons of natural gas liquids into groundwater and Parachute Creek near Parachute.

The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issued the advisory late Tuesday, an official notification to the owner of the property, WPX Energy, and the operator of the pipeline, Bargath LLC, that the state has determined the leak constitutes disposal of hazardous waste without a hazardous waste permit. Bargath LLC is a subsidiary of Williams.

The compliance advisory comes on the heels of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission issued notices of alleged violation to Williams and WPX on March 20.

The compliance advisory encourages Williams officials to meet with the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division to develop a schedule for cleaning up the leak. The meeting, which is optional, also would be an opportunity for Williams officials to demonstrate that the spill isn’t a violation of state hazardous waste laws.

Violating those laws can result in an administrative penalty of up to $15,000 per violation, per day or a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, per day.

Williams has estimated that roughly 10,000 gallons of natural gas liquids has leaked into the ground from a pipeline leaving Williams’ gas processing plant near Parachute. Benzene has been found in both groundwater and Parachute Creek, although the levels of benzene reported in the creek are below state’s drinking water standard.

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson):

The level of the toxic compound benzene in Parachute Creek on Wednesday exceeded Colorado’s safe drinking water standard for the first time in more than three weeks of testing, state health officials reported on Thursday…

Officials with the CDPHE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have promised to monitor the creek until it is clear of contaminants from the natural gas activities located there.

In addition, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is looking into complaints from workers at the plume site, who say they were forced to work without the proper protective gear and who fear they may have been poisoned while on the job.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Runoff news: Northern Water decides to wait see how the runoff shapes up regarding C-BT quota #COdrought #ColoradoRiver

From the Northern Colorado Business Report (Steve Lynn):

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District board members met Thursday to discuss whether to raise the 60 percent quota that they issued last month. The quota means that farmers and cities will receive 60 percent of water units allotted to them under the project. The board members said they will wait at least until their next meeting before deciding whether to adjust the amount of water distributed from the project.

Northern Water employees told board members that although state snowpack levels had risen after recent storms, concerns remained about low water-storage levels.

Northern Water General Manager Eric Wilkinson cautioned that raising this year’s quota could limit the organization’s flexibility when it determines how much water to distribute next year. “I’m not willing to say that the drought is over,” Wilkinson said. “We’re still water short.”

More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.

Salida city councilor Jay Moore joins the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy board

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Salida City Councilman Jay Moore was sworn in recently as a director on the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board. Moore replaced Reed Dils as the Chaffee County representative on the board, and he also serves on the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District board and the Arkansas Basin Roundtable.

A retired physician, Moore moved to Salida about 9 years ago and was elected to Salida City Council in 2005. He said the fact that he is term-limited as a Salida councilman should help assure county residents that he will not “over-represent Salida.”

Moore stressed the importance of water issues to the local economy and said his experience with water issues through the Upper Ark district and the roundtable makes the new position a good fit. Moore said he promised local municipal and county officials prior to his appointment to the board that he would pass along important water information.

As an example, Moore said, he will be reporting to local officials that flows at the Thomasville gauge recently exceeded 100 cubic feet per second, allowing water to be imported into the Arkansas Basin from the Western Slope – good news for everyone from Arkansas Basin irrigators to rafting companies. Moore added that his first task as a board member is simply to get educated: “The Southeastern district gives me a huge expansion of information I need to learn.”

The district, which now encompasses a nine-county area, was created April 29, 1958, to develop and administer the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. On Aug. 16, 1962, Congress authorized the construction of the Fry-Ark Project, which transports water via tunnel under the Continental Divide into the Arkansas River basin for storage in mountain lakes and Pueblo Reservoir. The project delivers an average of 69,100 acre-feet of fully consumable water per year into the Arkansas Basin. But as Moore pointed out, the amount of imported project water can vary greatly. For example, the project imported 97,000 acre-feet of water in 2011 but only 12,000 acre-feet in 2012.

“Water is terribly important to us,” Moore said, which is why he takes his role as a “water information conduit” seriously. On the other hand, “just knowing this stuff is fun,” Moore said.

More Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs stormwater plans fail to address Pueblo county 1041 permit requirements

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs may be spending nearly $46 million on stormwater projects this year, but Pueblo County commissioners are trying to determine if the money is being spent in the right places. “It’s fine that they’re spending the money, but it really doesn’t answer our question about whether the list of pre-2009 projects is being addressed,” said Commissioner Sal Pace.

Colorado Springs Mayor Steve Bach and Council President Keith King Thursday responded to questions raised earlier in the week by commissioners about whether stormwater spending is fulfilling the 1041 permit conditions for Southern Delivery System designed to mitigate flooding on Fountain Creek caused by increased growth from SDS. “Considering these tough economic times and the daunting task of ongoing fire recovery efforts, we are pleased that staff was able to find a way to more than triple the initial projections of funding for stormwater improvements in 2013,” Bach and King wrote in a letter to commissioners and Pueblo City Council.

On Monday, Pueblo County commissioners expressed concern about the progress of a stormwater task force in El Paso County. The task force was formed last year and determined there are more than $900 million in stormwater needs that should be addressed on a regional basis.

Bach, however, is seeking an independent accounting of the $686 million in projects that represent Colorado Springs’ share of the burden. He has advocated for Colorado Springs taking care of its own obligations.

Pueblo County commissioners want to know which of the projects on the list are among the $500 million in identified needs in 2009, when Colorado Springs indicated a stormwater enterprise was in place as part of conditions for the SDS permit. Colorado Springs City Council abolished the stormwater enterprise on a split vote following a 2009 election. Last year, city attorney Chris Melcher offered an opinion that Colorado Springs should be spending at least $13 million annually on stormwater to fulfill its SDS obligations.

“It seems like there is a lot of additional money being spent to address new flooding threats because of the Waldo Canyon Fire,” Pace said Thursday. “Colorado Springs has to meet that need, but that doesn’t replace what they should already be addressing.”

More coverage from the Chieftain:

Colorado Springs this week provided an accounting of $45.7 million in planned expenditures this year to address stormwater concerns.

$14.2 million for new grade structures, stabilization projects, operation, maintenance and salaries.

$681,000 for Waldo Canyon Fire mitigation projects.

$12.8 million for Colorado Springs Utilities projects, including stabilization of lines crossing creeks, and repair of damage from washouts related to the Waldo Canyon Fire.

$8.8 million for Camp and Douglas Creek restoration.

$1.4 million for Colorado Springs Airport drainage projects.

$350,000 for Pikes Peak Highway drainage.

$7.5 million for remedial work on the Waldo Canyon Fire emergency watershed projects.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Aspinall Unit update: Blue Mesa is expected to reach 7465 feet in elevation (400,000 af) at the end of June

Click here to read the notes from the recent operations meeting. Here’s an excerpt:

Precipitation in the Gunnison Basin in October and November, 2012 was well below 50% of normal; December precipitation was near normal. January precipitation was in 70-90% range and February dropped to 50-70%. Conditions improved in March and April with April precipitation at 150% of average to date. March and April temperatures have been below average which delays the runoff.

As of April 23rd, snowpack in the Gunnison Basin is 83% of the long-term average for that date. The current inflow forecast to Blue Mesa for April through July is 50% of the long-term average.

Blue Mesa content is now 340,583 af and has gained only 13,000 af through the winter. April 2012 content was around 533,000 af.

As of April 15th, the forecasted April-July inflow to Blue Mesa is 340,000 af, down from 370,000 af in January. 2013 falls in the Dry Year category and would be expected to be exceeded in 93% of years.

If this inflow forecast is maintained, it would represent the 5th lowest inflow since Blue Mesa was constructed (1977, 1981, 2002, and 2012 were lower).

The Black Canyon National Park peak flow will be based on the May 1 forecast; if the present forecast is maintained the peak would be 973 cfs. However, the drought provision in the water right (based on prior dry year and low Blue Mesa content) reduces this peak to 697 cfs. It is expected this flow will be achieved through normal operations; however a small increase may be necessary if conditions dictate otherwise.

Flow Recommendations call for a 900 cfs peak at Whitewater in a Dry Year based on the present forecasted inflow. Base flow targets at Whitewater are 890-900 cfs from May- August in this type year.

Under most probable conditions, Blue Mesa is expected to reach 7465 feet in elevation (400,000 af content) at the end of June which is 54 feet short of filling. By the end of the year, Blue Mesa is predicted to be 6 feet lower than the 2012 end of the year elevation.

Black Canyon flows January to April were around 300 cfs and may increase to 400-500 cfs in the summer. A peak of around 700 cfs will occur. Changing conditions always have the potential to affect these early predictions.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here and here.

Durango: Ambitious restoration/construction project for the city’s whitewater park to kick off in November

From The Durango Herald (Jim Haug):

By using berms or coffer dams, sections of the river will be split into dry and wet sides to allow workers to get to the river bottom of the whitewater park, also known as Smelter Rapid, by Santa Rita Park and Durango’s wastewater-treatment plant.

Contractors then will do restoration and maintenance work, such as grouting boulders into place, as well as creating a new underwater structure to allow for gentler rapids and to accommodate beginner and intermediate ability levels.

The work is scheduled to begin in November and wrap up by next March, which also will result in a temporary diversion of the Animas River Trail to the other side of the wastewater-treatment plant and away from the river construction. This section of river trail is scheduled to get an upgrade, too, widening from 10 to 14 feet to accommodate an anticipated increase in traffic to the river.

Plans also call for a partial relocation of the equipment yard for the wastewater-treatment plant to create a more park-like setting by the river entrance. Erosion of the shoreline would be mitigated with boulders. Officials hope to create a more graded or level access to the river that would be in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The city’s hired mastermind is Scott Shipley, a World Cup champion kayaker who also competed in three Summer Olympics and whose firm, S2O Design, also developed the hydraulic features in the whitewater course for the London Olympics. The firm currently is a consultant for the whitewater course for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro…

Trying to place rocks strategically without knowledge of the river bottom was “always a roll of the dice,” Brennan said. “You’re not sure what the (rock) is hitting,” Brennan said. “You’re hoping it stays.” With this construction plan, “we’ll see how the rocks are touching each other. We’ll be able to put it together like a jigsaw puzzle.”[...]

The $1.3 million project is funded by a half-cent sales tax that voters approved in 2005 for parks and recreation purposes, but the project has ramifications bigger than minimizing maintenance and hopefully getting Durango “back on the map” as a destination for whitewater competitions. It fulfills a mandate of the city’s Recreational In-Channel Diversion right, which was granted by the Colorado Water Conservation Board about six years ago. “By completing the whitewater park, it gives us the right to protect the (river) forever,” said Cathy Metz, director of Parks and Recreation. “So we could never have a diversion of the Animas upstream or a dam on the Animas. It’s a big deal for our community, not only for paddling but for environmental reasons, as well.”[...]

“This is the flagship of the whitewater parks, or it was,” [Shipley] said. “It will be the flagship of whitewater parks again. So I hear from you. This is not a project we’re going to fall asleep on.”

More whitewater coverage here and here.