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.

Colorado-Big Thompson Project update: 100 cfs in the Big Thompson below Olympus Dam #ColoradoRiver

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

We’re starting to see a little bit of run-off come down the Big Thompson River and into Lake Estes. As a result, we’ll be bumping up releases from Olympus Dam on Lake Estes to the Big Thompson Canyon later tonight to pass the native flow on downstream.

We have been releasing about 45 cfs out of Oympus Dam to the lower Big Thompson River. Tonight, April 30, at midnight, we will bump releases up by about 60 cfs to around 100 cfs.

If the forecast storm for tonight and tomorrow cools things off, we could be making another change late in the night of May 1 to reduce releases again. I will keep you posted.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project update: 110 cfs in the Fryingpan River below Ruedi Dam #ColoradoRiver

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks. We will be re-evaluating our spring operations at Ruedi Reservoir once we’ve had a chance to incorporate new information from the May 1 forecast into our own models.

Meanwhile, spring is here and it is time to change the release regime from Ruedi Dam to the Fryingpan River. Most years around May 1 we make this adjustment. We are required to release the lesser of inflow or 110 cfs. As a result, today at 5 p.m. and again tomorrow and 10 a.m., we’ll increase releases from the dam to the river by about 33 cfs. By this time tomorrow, the release from Ruedi Dam to the lower Fryingpan will be about 110 cfs.

We have seen quite a bit of snow in the upper reaches of the Fryingpan River Valley. Our crews spent the last two weeks in the high country opening the sixteen diversion dams of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. To see photos, check out the Ruedi webpage.

Currently, Ruedi is about 60% full. It will likely continue to drop slowly until run-off. I will send notices when we make changes.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

Cloud-seeding program for the central mountains for this season ended on April 10 #COdrought #ColoradoRiver

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

While the winter’s biggest snow totals came after the end of this year’s program, the seeding operations may have helped bring near-average snowfall to area in February and March, according to the operators, who are now measuring their efforts under a “target and control” evaluation that will be submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for review.

Durango-based Western Weather Consultants, which seeds the central mountains, was able to extend operations into early April and use all its allotted operational days, said Larry Hjermstad. During the 2012-2013 season, the central mountains program cost $293,600 and targeted an area of about 1,668 square miles of the Upper Colorado River Basin, generally above elevation 8,500 feet, in parts of Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, and Grand counties. Front Range water providers and ski areas, along with other partners, help fund the program, aimed at enhancing water supplies and boosting ski conditions at A-Basin, Breckenridge, Keystone and Winter Park, all included in the target area…

In past seasons, Hjermstad estimated that cloud-seeding may have boosted snowfall by as much as 15 percent in targeted areas.

Cloud-seeding efforts in Colorado have a long, on-and-off history dating back to the 1970s, when the federal Bureau of Reclamation was active in the southwestern mountains, said state climatologist Nolan Doesken, who acknowledged that there is still a debate about the effectiveness of cloud-seeding. Doesken said that there is good evidence that cloud-seeding can work in the right conditions, with very specific requirements as to wind direction, moisture and temperatures. Outside that range, the results are less clear.

Funding comes from the Front Range Water Council including Aurora Water, Denver Water, Colorado Springs Utilities, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Company, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and Pueblo Board of Water Works. The Colorado River Water Conservation District, A-Basin, Keystone, Breckenridge, and Winter Park also participate.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Lower Basin States, including the Southern Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and California Six Agency Committee also help fund the cloud-seeding, but don’t directly participate in the program, said program manager Maria Pastore, of Glenwood Springs-based Grand River Consulting.

More cloud-seeding coverage here and here.

SDS: Pueblo County is looking at advance payments from Colorado Springs for Fountain Creek projects

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo County commissioners want to explore the possibility of jumpstarting projects on Fountain Creek with advance payment of money promised by Colorado Springs Utilities as a condition for Southern Delivery System.

“We need clarity on the acceptability of using the $50 million, using it in advance,” Commissioner Terry Hart said.

Under its 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System, a $1 billion pipeline that takes water from Pueblo Dam to El Paso County, Colorado Springs promised to pay $50 million for flood control projects south of the city that benefit Pueblo County.

The money is scheduled to begin arriving in five installments to the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District in 2016, after SDS goes online.

But $600,000 already has been paid to the district — $300,000 for a flood control study and $300,000 that was used to complete a master corridor study and as its share to provide interim funding to the district.

Last week, Hart, who sits on the Fountain Creek board, was approached with the idea of asking for another $100,000 from the Colorado Springs fund to continue interim funding until the district settles on a strategy for securing a funding source. Commissioner Sal Pace asked attorneys if the county could ask for the entire $50 million to be paid sooner.

“If we bring it in sooner, it could be used to leverage other money,” Pace said.

Commissioner Liane “Buffie” McFadyen said flooding on Fountain Creek is likely to be more intense after the Waldo Canyon Fire and supported using the money sooner, rather than later.

Ray Petros, the county’s water attorney, was uncertain if advance payment is possible. Colorado Springs asked for the five-year schedule for mainly financial reasons, and the payment is just one of a series of conditions that must be met over time. “We’d have to be careful from our side that we weren’t acknowledging that SDS wouldn’t be suspended for some other reason,” Petros said.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

County staff and Colorado Springs Utilities are discussing the adequacy of revegetation requirements on the pipeline route of Southern Delivery System through Pueblo West.

The pipeline is buried, but cuts a 100-foot-wide swath through 7 miles of Pueblo West on its way from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs.

As part of Pueblo County 1041 conditions for SDS, Colorado Springs is bonded for two years while revegetation is completed. Although droughtresistant species are being used, seeds must be irrigated to sprout. That raised some questions Monday in a work session on SDS issues.

“We’re in the throes of a drought, and my question is whether this is a good time to do revegetation,” Commissioner Terry Hart said. “If we’re going to be irrigating it for two years and suddenly pull off the water, what happens?”

Attorney Gary Raso said experts from Colorado Springs Utilities and the county’s consultant, Warren Keammerer, are meeting on the issue, but the results likely won’t be known at the end of two years. The county is concerned that too many “weedy” species will take hold, rather than beneficial grasses.

“It became clear to me that at the end of two years, the best you could conclude is that it was going in the right direction,” Raso said. “The experts don’t like being tied to (the two-year limit).”

Hart questioned what recourse the county would have if problems surfaced five years after revegetation was deemed complete. The county has in the past altered the 1041 conditions with Colorado Springs on $2.2 million for dredging Fountain Creek through Pueblo and accepting a $15 million payment for restoration of Pueblo West roads damaged during construction.

There also are unresolved revegetation issues with the portion of the pipeline that crosses Walker Ranches north of Pueblo West.

Commissioners agreed that they need to further discuss issues with Keammerer.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

SDS: ‘My central issue is that we need a concrete plan to identify stormwater needs’ –Terry Hart

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo County commissioners want Colorado Springs to explain its stormwater plan as soon as possible, and hinted Monday that a hearing on the 1041 permit for Southern Delivery System could be necessary if answers aren’t forthcoming. “We as a community are very concerned that when the stormwater enterprise disappeared, the conditions in the 1041 permit disappeared,” Commission Chairman Terry Hart said. “The community has been patient.”

Colorado Springs City Council in 2009 eliminated its stormwater enterprise and $13 million annual funding for identified needs. Since then, a new majority of the council has been elected in 2011 and 2013, and Steve Bach was elected mayor under a new governance system. A regional stormwater task force has formed, but apparently it does not have Bach’s support and it won’t begin making recommendations on funding nearly $1 billion in projects until July at the earliest.

At a workshop Monday, commissioners reviewed several parts of the 1041 permit, including revegetation of the pipeline scar through Pueblo West and Walker Ranches and the potential for acceleration of $50 million in payments for improving Fountain Creek. But the big issue was stormwater. The commissioners want an accounting of which projects were on the Colorado Springs stormwater list, what was addressed when the fee was in place and what remains to be done. “My central issue is that we need a concrete plan to identify stormwater needs and how they are going to pay for it,” Hart said.

Colorado Springs Utilities has asked Pueblo County to wait until July to hold an explanatory meeting, in order to allow stormwater task force committees to complete their work.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Telluride’s water system upgrades $500,000 over budget this year

From The Watch (Samantha Wright):

Council had originally budgeted $6.5 million for the 2013 portion of the ambitious project, which aims to provide a state-of-the-art water distribution and treatment system to ensure a reliable, high-quality water supply for the Town of Telluride. This number, however, did not incorporate the so-called Falls Crest Diversion outlined in the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement which the town and Idarado entered into late last year. The agreement brought a 20-year legal battle over water rights between the two entities to an end.

The elaborately engineered Falls Crest Diversion brings one source of water from Bridal Veil Basin via pipeline across the cliff face directly below Bridal Veil Power Station to tie into the tailrace (where another source of water comes out of the turbine). The water then flows into a collection system vertically down toward Black Bear Road, eventually reaching the Pandora Water Treatment Plant currently under construction. The CSA calls for Idarado to contribute about a quarter of the cost for the Falls Creek Diversion – roughly $125,000 – with the Town of Telluride picking up the rest of the tab.

Also not included in original cost projections for 2013 were the “zero-discharge” processes that are an essential part of this project as it has been negotiated in the CSA. Initially, Telluride Public Works Director Paul Ruud explained, the design for the water treatment plant included a discharge component that would release some untreated water into Marshall Creek. The CSA’s zero-discharge requirement scuttled that plan. “There won’t be anything coming out of the plant except clean water,” Ruud explained. “This did add considerably to the expense of the plant.”

Beyond the cost overruns for construction in the current year, council also discussed the fact that the overall construction cost for the project (including the small hydro component) is estimated to come in at around $15 million – significantly more than the $10 million bond approved by Telluride voters to pay for the project in 2005. This money, mobilized in 2010, has gone toward improvement of complicated diversion and conveyance infrastructure over the past two years that is intended to get the water from Bridal Veil Basin to the site of the new Pandora water treatment plant. Last fall, the Telluride Town Council approved an additional $2 million transfer of Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) funds from the Capital Improvement Fund to the Water Fund to cover additional costs for the project through 2013…

Despite of the Pandora Water System Project’s hefty and ever-mounting price tag, council generally agreed in the end that it was a price worth paying. “I am thankful that past council members made the decision to get us started,” said Councilor Ann Brady. “Imagine if we were just starting this project, with the climate change we are facing now. Thank goodness the people before us took the step (of securing the $10 million bond). Even though it was skimpy, at least it got us started.”

Clifton echoed Brady’s sentiment, adding, “This will bring the town well into the future in terms of our domestic water supply.”

More infrastructure coverage here.

Parachute Creek sprill: ‘We don’t see any particularly large (red) flags right now’ — Guy Patterson #ColoradoRiver

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Dilution should protect De Beque from benzene contamination in an upstream tributary of its water supply, the Colorado River, the town’s manager says. “We don’t see any particularly large (red) flags right now,” Town Manager Guy Patterson said Thursday.

The river is the town’s sole source of potable water, and De Beque is about 10 miles downstream from Parachute Creek, the site of benzene contamination from what Williams says was a natural gas liquids leak from a pipeline leaving its gas processing plant.

Groundwater and soil contamination involving thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons was discovered last month, but benzene hadn’t been found in the creek until last week. However, the benzene levels remain below the state drinking water standard of 5 parts per billion in Parachute Creek. Also, no benzene has been detected where the town of Parachute diverts its irrigation water supply 2.7 miles downstream of the leak source area, or at the creek’s mouth at the Colorado River.

“Since we’re much further downstream it looks like we’re safe but we’re continuing to monitor the situation,” Patterson said.

Like others, De Beque was concerned about a lack of notification about the incident when it was first discovered. Officials first learned of it through media accounts. But Patterson said the town is now being kept up to date about surface water test results.

Williams said Thursday it has completed installing a water aerator in the creek to remove benzene and other volatile organic compounds. Installation of similar systems making use of what are called air sparging devices are either pending or nearly complete in both the creek and underground along the creek bank where a trench also is being built to try to keep benzene-tainted groundwater out of the creek.

Williams has installed another well for recovery of liquid hydrocarbons, and two more are planned. It has continued to drill monitoring wells to delineate the extent of contaminated groundwater.

The highest benzene measurement in the creek so far was 3.9 ppb, on Tuesday. The high reading Thursday was 3.2 ppb, with additional detections of 1.4 and 1.3 ppb at the next test locations downstream.

The state Water Quality Control Division doesn’t consider the creek a drinking water supply, and has set a maximum benzene standard in the creek of 5,300 ppb to protect aquatic life.

While the creek is used for irrigation and livestock graze near it and drink from it, the division hasn’t established agriculture-based standards for organic chemicals.

“However, in general, aquatic life and drinking water uses are much more sensitive than agriculture uses, meaning that standards established for those uses are much more stringent,” said division director Steve Gunderson, who also noted that benzene typically dissipates quickly in streams.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

The responsibility of overseeing the investigation and cleanup of the natural gas liquids leak near Parachute will shift from state oil and gas regulators to health officials, authorities said Saturday. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the state Department of Public Health and Environment have agreed that the health department will assume primary jurisdiction, according to Todd Hartman, spokesman for the state Department of Natural Resources.

Williams has said thousands of gallons of natural gas liquids leaked from a faulty pressure gauge. Benzene has been discovered in Parachute Creek and in groundwater.

Meanwhile, Garfield County will hold a 6 p.m. community meeting Monday about the leak. Representatives from four agencies will answer questions. The event will be at the Grand Valley Fire Protection District building, 0124 Stone Quarry Road, in Battlement Mesa.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

The Western Colorado Conservation Corps scores $10,000 for restoration along the Colorado River mainstem

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

The Western Colorado Conservation Corps will partner with the Bureau of Land Management to remove invasive tamarisk and Russian olive trees from the banks of the Colorado River. The introduced trees suck up water needed by native flora and fauna.

The funding is the result of a partnership between the Royal Bank of Canada and the Conservation Lands Foundation. The bank is is one of Canada’s largest corporate donors. “We are extremely grateful to RBC for helping us put ‘boots on the ground’ in Colorado,” said Brian O’Donnell, executive director of the Conservation Lands Foundation. “McInnis Canyons and the Colorado River are cornerstones of the National Conservation Lands and important to so many people. RBC’s gift has given this partnership and river an important boost.”

McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area is part of the National Conservation Lands. The National Conservation Lands are a 28-million-acre system of protected lands in the west known for their culturally, ecologically and scientifically significant landscapes managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

The volunteers will also remove Russian knapweed, and plant and protect native Freemont cottonwoods and coyote willow. The re-introduction of these native species will enhance wildlife habitat, help rehabilitate the river corridor and improve water quality.

More restoration/reclamation coverage here and here.

The proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill will be the first new plant in US in 30 years

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

With a major regulatory hurdle out of its way — again — Energy Fuels Resources Corp. is now looking to the uranium market for the signal to move ahead with construction of a mill. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reissued the radioactive-materials license Thursday after officials culled though six days’ worth of testimony, much of it under oath, taken in Nucla late last year.

The license comes, however, as uranium prices have tumbled to lows not seen since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, acknowledged Curtis Moore, director of communications and legal affairs for Energy Fuels. The $150 million project will go forward “when market conditions and our production requirements warrant it,” Moore said. The company remains bullish on the long-term prospects of the mill, Moore said, noting that the same number of reactors, if not more, are being planned now as before Fukushima.

The decision sparked a rebuke from the Sheep Mountain Alliance, which filed suit originally to have the license revoked, contending among other things that the state agency failed to conduct appropriate public hearings and that the weight of evidence showed the mill as an environmental threat. “We are extremely disappointed that the state opted to ignore the scientific and technical evidence against the mill,” Director Hilary Cooper said in an email. “And further we are shocked that the state, through this decision, is strongly encouraging Energy Fuels to build a radioactive waste dump on the Dolores River.”

By green-lighting the mill at a time when uranium prices are low, state officials “are operating well outside the mission of public health and safety,” Cooper said.

The mill, which would be built near Naturita, “is not on the Dolores River,” Montrose County Commissioner David White said. “It’s seven miles from the river and sitting on thousands and thousands of feet of collapsed salt dome and rock” that no leak from the mill would be able to permeate and travel through to the river. Montrose County supported the mill and issued a conditional-use permit for the project. Residents of the Nucla-Naturita-Norwood area are “excited, to say the least,” said White, whose commissioner district includes the three communities. “They’ve needed a good shot of optimism for a long time.”

In the decision, the Health Department noted at one point that radiation, while dangerous, is “what sustains life on Earth and is probably responsible for the evolution of life on the planet.”

Despite boom-and-bust economic cycles, facilities such as uranium mills tend to hold some level of employment, the department noted. It concluded, “The failure of the project is a risk that is borne primarily by Energy Fuels Resources Corp. and the potential benefits of the project appear to outweigh the costs across all segments of the larger community.”

If built, the mill would be the first uranium mill to be constructed in the United States in three decades. The last mill, White Mesa in Blanding, Utah, is owned by Energy Fuels, which obtained it in a merger with Denison Mines Corp. last year.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Energy Fuels Inc. is fulfilling contracts for uranium at well above the current spot price, but it’s waiting with the rest of the industry to see that price nearly double before investing in new projects. “Right now, we’re trying to hunker down a little bit and watch our pennies,” Curtis Moore, director of communications and legal affairs for Energy Fuels, said Wednesday.

Energy Fuels is fulfilling contracts with utilities for about $56 a pound, well over the current spot price of $40.90 a pound, according to U3O8.com. “We’re pretty well shielded from spot prices” with the company’s contracts, Moore told the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce energy briefing.

While the company is pursuing construction of the Pinyon Ridge uranium mill near Naturita, the price of uranium will likely have to clear the $70-per-pound threshold before construction begins, Moore said. That’s also the marker for reopening the eight mines the company owns on the Colorado Plateau, he said. That could take some time. “We see spot prices in the high 40s by the end of the year,” Moore said.

Once demand for uranium heats up, Energy Fuels will need the Pinyon Ridge mill when the company’s White Mesa mill in Blanding, Utah, can no longer keep up with demand, he said.

A decision is due this week from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on Energy Fuels’ application for a radioactive materials-handling permit for Pinyon Ridge. A Denver district judge had invalidated the permit and ordered the Department of Public Health and Environment to reconsider it after seeking public comment and a recommendation from an administrative law judge. Energy Fuels is anticipating additional legal opposition to the Pinyon Ridge mill, Moore said.

It will cost about $150 million to construct the mill, he said.

Energy Fuels, which now bills itself as “America’s leading producer of conventional uranium,” now supplies about 1 million pounds of uranium oxide per year to utilities, or about a quarter of the 4 million pounds of domestic uranium used in the nation. In all, the United States uses about 50 million pounds of uranium per year to generate 20 percent of its electricity.

More Piñon Ridge uranium mill coverage here and here.

The proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill gets state license #ColoradoRiver

Here’s the release from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment:

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Radiation Program today announced Energy Fuels Resources Corp. has met all the regulatory requirements for a radioactive materials license for the Piñon Ridge Uranium Mill in western Montrose County, Colo. State law requires the department to approve applications when such requirements are met.

The license was required before Energy Fuels could construct its planned 500-tons-per day uranium/vanadium mill approximately 12 miles west of Naturita, Colo., in the Paradox Valley.

The mill will process uranium ore from mines in the region to produce uranium oxide, which requires additional processing outside Colorado to become fuel for nuclear reactors. The mill also will recover vanadium, a metal used in steel alloys and high-tech batteries.

The license imposes a number of conditions on Energy Fuels involving construction of the mill; the receipt, possession, use and transfer of radioactive materials; and procedures to minimize risks to property and public health and safety, and to prevent loss or theft of radioactive material. Notably, the license requires an enhanced groundwater monitoring plan, subject to annual review.

A separate settlement agreement between Telluride and San Miguel County with Energy Fuels sets up additional protections related to the transportation of radioactive materials, blowing dust and water quality monitoring. In addition to the approximately $13 million financial surety established by the state, this agreement increases Energy Fuels’ total surety to an amount not less than $15 million.

Dr. Chris Urbina, executive director and chief medical officer of the department, said, “With the approval of the license, our work is not done. We will continue to work with the community members and officials to keep them informed of progress.”

During construction and operation of the Piñon Ridge facility, the department’s oversight will continue, including regular inspections and an annual review of the financial assurance. The department expects to have at least one staff member whose primary assignment will include monitoring and inspections of the facility.

Ron Henderson, chairman of the Montrose Board of County Commissioners said, “An exhaustive process has been followed and validated with the approval of this license.”
Montrose Commissioner David White said, “This validates the science behind the application, design and potential construction of the mill. It is a state-of-the-art facility and will benefit the citizens of Montrose County, the state of Colorado and the United States for decades to come.”

The license application was submitted by Energy Fuels on Nov. 18, 2009, and has undergone a thorough technical and regulatory review. Prior to its approval of the license, the department and the applicant conducted eight public meetings in 2010 in Nucla, Naturita, Paradox, Montrose, Telluride and Ophir. And in November 2012, the department held a six-day hearing in Nucla to allow cross-examination of witnesses and to solicit additional public comment. All of the information was thoroughly reviewed by the state’s Radiation Program prior to the decision to grant the license.

The administrative record includes comprehensive reports and comments by engineers, scientists, environmental and business groups, government officials from western Colorado counties and towns, and regulators. Anyone interested can view the department’s Decision Analysis and Environmental Impact Analysis, which includes a copy of the license and the department’s responses to public comments.

Dr. Urbina said, “From the beginning, we have listened carefully to the public and worked with Energy Fuels to minimize risks to public health and the environment. Today’s engineering standards – and strict environmental regulations – far exceed those in place when the last such mill was constructed more than 25 years ago. We are confident these standards and regulations will ensure the safe construction and operation of the facility.”

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

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issued Toronto-based Energy Fuels a radioactive materials license, clearing the way for the creation of the Pinon Ridge Mill in western Colorado’s Montrose County…

That doesn’t mean construction is imminent. Energy Fuels spokesman Curtis Moore said the company is waiting for the price of uranium to rise. Currently, Moore said, uranium is priced at about $40 per pound, down from about $72 per pound before the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Plant in 2011. The spot price of uranium was more than $135 a pound when Energy Fuels announced plans for the mill in 2007…

Energy Fuels also plans to open or reopen a number of Colorado mines, Moore said. Those mines are all small—perhaps a few hundred acres in size—and are mostly in areas that have been mined previously. “These are historic mines, historic mining districts. These are not pristine wilderness districts,” Moore said…

Warren Smith, community involvement manager for the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of CDPHE, said importing radioactive waste is not allowed under the license. He notes that waste produced by the mill will be stored in underground cells designed to last at least 200 years. The license carries a number of other environmental safeguards, including requirements that Energy Fuels monitor groundwater for contamination and install fences and wires to keep wildlife away from areas that might have radiation…

Montrose County Commission David White said that most area residents seem assured that the plan is environmentally sound and are excited about the economic possibilities. Once constructed, the mill is expected to create at least 85 jobs, with up to 400 jobs generated by opening additional mines and increasing economic activity, according to Moore.

More Piñon Ridge uranium mill coverage here and here.

Grand Valley water related events during May #ColoradoRiver

From the Grand Junction Free Press (Hannah Holm):

Grand Junction will be a hub of water activity in May with both educational events and major policy meetings. Here’s a sampling:

• May 13 — 5:30-7 p.m. Colorado Mesa University Ballroom: State of the River meeting

This annual meeting, co-sponsored by the Colorado River District and the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University, provides an opportunity to learn about our current and projected water supply situation. This year, there will also be presentations on the achievements of salinity control programs in the Grand Valley and research on the feasibility of a “water bank,” which would compensate agricultural water users for voluntarily cutting back water use in order to maintain critical uses during times of shortage. This meeting is a free educational event for the public, and light refreshments will be provided.

• May 14-15 — Colorado Water Conservation board meeting

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is the state’s primary water policy and water project financing entity. The board will have its May meeting in Grand Junction, giving local residents the opportunity to watch the board at work and make comments on agenda items. Details on the location and agenda will be published on the CWCB website prior to the meeting.

• May 16-17 — Colorado Basin Salinity Control Forum

When water is applied to the soils in our region, the flows back to the river often contain high levels of naturally occurring salts. The trouble this causes to downstream farmers has led to many efforts to limit deep percolation through our soils through measures such as canal lining and irrigation efficiency. The Colorado Basin Salinity Control Forum meets regularly to assess the effectiveness of these efforts, and in May, they will hold their meeting in Grand Junction in the Courtyard by Marriott on Horizon Drive.

• May 29-31 — Lower Colorado River Basin float and tour

Not all the water events in May are inside, wonk-talk affairs. On May 30-31, the Colorado Foundation for Water Education will host a tour of key sites in the Grand Valley and uphill on the Grand Mesa. Discussions and sites on the tour will illuminate issues such as the purchase of agricultural water rights to serve the Grand Valley’s growing urban population, energy development in water supply watersheds, endangered fish recovery efforts, and tamarisk control. Prior to the tour, on May 29, the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University will host a float down the river from Palisade to Corn Lake.

DETAILS, DETAILS …

Details on all these events and many more can be found on the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University’s website, at http://www.coloradomesa.edu/WaterCenter/events.html

More education coverage here.

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

Click on the thumbnail graphic for the precipitation maps from yesterday’s webinar. Click here for all the summaries.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

‘We should be encouraging density’ — Jim Lochhead

From The Greeley Tribune (Eric Brown):

Reforming laws to provide more flexibility in how water is used and shared in Colorado will be critical in meeting demands as the state’s population rapidly grows, according to agriculture, environmental and municipal water experts who spoke Tuesday in Denver. Colorado Agriculture Commissioner John Salazar, Western Resources Advocates Director Bart Miller and Denver Water CEO and Manager Jim Lochhead said the complexity of Colorado water law and the immense court costs associated with it have deterred some users from sharing the resource and taking other measures that would improve efficiencies. That needs to change, they told an audience at the University of Denver’s Sturm School of Law.

Other aspects of the state’s water law — like its “use it or lose it” language, which discourages conservation, Miller said — must be altered if Colorado is going to maximize its beneficial use of the resource and meet its rapidly growing demands.

According to the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Statewide Water Supply Initiative Study in 2010, the state could need as much as 630,000 acre feet of water annually (or 205.4 gallons) to meet the demands it will have by 2050.

Along with more flexibility in water laws, the trio of experts said urban areas need to grow within their existing boundaries, instead of sprawling outward, which takes up more arable land and forces municipal water providers to expand water infrastructure. Salazar said group housing can save anywhere from 40-70 percent in water consumption compared to individual homes. “We should be encouraging density,” said Lochhead, explaining that Denver’s current population density is about 4,000 people per square mile — much less than other major U.S. cities, particularly New York City, which has a population density of 27,000 people per square mile.

Across the board, the trio of experts said, Colorado residents, who consume 121 gallons of water per day, need to more closely resemble residents in countries such as Australia, who only consume 36 gallons of water per day.

Cities using less water will be critical in keeping water on the state’s farms and ranches, Salazar said, and also in protecting Colorado’s wildlife and recreation industries, which generate 80,000 jobs in the state and $6.4 billion in spending annually, Miller added.

Of the state’s eight major river basins, the Colorado River is most at risk, they said. According to stats shared by Miller, the Colorado River’s water demands began exceeding its supply in the mid 1990s. Weld County and much of the northern Front Range divert much of their water from the Colorado River basin.

More water law coverage here

Parachute Creek spill: ‘The actual benzene standard on the creek is 5,300 ppb to protect aquatic life’ — Todd Hartman #ColoradoRiver

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Weekend tests continue to show the presence of benzene in Parachute Creek downstream of a natural gas liquids leak, but at what the state Department of Natural Resources said are trace amounts. In fact, while the detections were somewhat below the standard of 5 parts per billion for drinking water, they are far under what’s allowable for the creek, agency spokesman Todd Hartman said in a press release. “Since Parachute Creek has not been designated as a drinking water supply by the state Water Quality Control Commission, the actual benzene standard on the creek is 5,300 ppb to protect aquatic life,” he said.

The creek does supply the irrigation system for the town of Parachute and its residents. However, there continue to be no benzene detections at the diversion point for that system, 2.7 miles downstream from where the leak is believed to have occurred.

Thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons leaked in a pipeline corridor near Williams’ gas processing plant up the creek valley. Williams says the source was a faulty pressure gauge on a natural gas liquids pipeline leaving the plant. High benzene levels have been found in groundwater since early in an investigation that started in March, but the first detection of benzene in the creek wasn’t until last Thursday.

On Saturday, benzene was detected 1,800 feet downstream from the pipeline corridor at 3.1 parts per billion, a level slightly higher than previous readings. That detection site is where groundwater is believed to be introducing benzene into the creek. No benzene was found at that location Sunday, and 3 ppb was detected Monday. Saturday and Sunday readings at monitoring points 2,500 and 3,700 feet from the pipeline area ranged from 1.5 to 1.1 ppb, with no results available for Monday.

Work continues on installation of an interceptor trench to strip benzene from groundwater above the creek contamination point, and to remove benzene at two locations in the creek. “Operators have drilled several additional monitoring wells to determine the extent of impacted groundwater. These new monitoring wells are not detecting benzene, an indication that delineation of the affected groundwater continues to improve,” Hartman said.

Also over the weekend, Bob Arrington, a retired engineer in Battlement Mesa and member of Garfield County’s Energy Advisory Board, wrote Gov. John Hickenlooper, urging him to have the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment rather than Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission lead the leak investigation. Arrington wrote that Williams has struggled with its own leak response, initially even doubting that the burst pressure gauge could leak that much fluid, and he argued that the commission doesn’t have the staff or training to oversee remediation.

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson):

According to a report on Monday from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, benzene was detected during last weekend at the same three sites where it was first found on April 18. The water sampling and analysis is being conducted by personnel working for Williams Midstream, the company that owns a natural gas processing plant and some of the pipelines running underground in the area of the leak. The sampling sites, according to COGCC spokesman Todd Hartman, are at locations 1,800 feet, 2,500 feet and 3,700 feet, respectively, downstream from an above-ground valve set believed to be the source of leaking natural-gas liquids first discovered on March 8.

According to Hartman’s report on Monday, the concentration of benzene at the closest point to the valve set, 1,800 feet away, on Saturday was three parts benzene per billion parts water. In the subsequent two days, according to Hartman’s report, no benzene was detected at that location on Sunday, and 3 ppb was reported by Williams on Monday.

Analysis of samples taken at the more distant sites showed the concentration of benzene decreasing at each site and decreasing as samples were taken farther from the supposed source of the leak. At the 2,500-foot distance, according to results supplied to the COGCC by Williams, analysis detected 1.5 ppb on Saturday, and 1.4 ppb on Sunday. Results from Monday’s sampling were not available on Monday. At the site furthest from the leak, 3,700 feet downstream, samples tested out at 1.1 ppb on Saturday, and 1.2 ppb on Sunday. No results were available from Monday’s sampling…

Hartman’s report stated that Williams is working to build an “interceptor trench to strip benzene from the ground water prior to the point where it’s believed ground water enters the stream,” along with other efforts to clear the toxic chemical from the water.

From the Associated Press via KGWN.tv:

Aerators have been set up on Parachute Creek to flush out cancer-causing benzene that has been detected downstream from a hydrocarbon spill in western Colorado. Williams energy company crews also expanded their pumping of hydrocarbons from trenches dug along the creek.

“It is of great concern to see” benzene in #COriver trib #ParachuteCreek.Well, yeah, that seems reasonable… gjsentinel.com/news/articles/…

— Doug Pflugh (@dpflugh_ej) April 22, 2013

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Parachute Creek spill: Aerators set up to volatilize benzene in creek water #ColoradoRiver

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

Aerators have been set up on Parachute Creek to remove cancer-causing benzene, detected downstream from a hydrocarbons spill in western Colorado. Williams energy company crews also expanded their pumping of hydrocarbons from trenches dug along the creek to try to prevent seepage of super-concentrated benzene in groundwater into the creek.

Test results released Monday showed benzene in surface water at levels around 3 parts per billion, said Kirby Wynn, Garfield County’s liaison to the oil and gas industry…

The benzene detected last week, at 2.7 ppb, was below the federal drinking water standard of 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…

Absorbent booms have been laid across the creek, including near the headgate for Parachute’s reservoir, town administrator Bob Knight said. Farmers and ranchers near Parachute use the reservoir water for irrigating crops. They rely on springs and other sources for drinking water, Knight said. Knight said he’s keeping headgates closed and that he’d prefer not to have benzene or diesel at any level in town water. “I’d like to keep the people assured that the water going into the reservoir is the same quality it has always been. That’s our goal.”[...]

Western Colorado residents, meanwhile, were pressing lawmakers to treat the spill from Williams’ gas plant, built by the creek and slated for expansion, as a warning. “There’s inadequate safety regulation to protect public health and the environment,” Grand Valley Citizens Alliance president Leslie Robinson said. “With all the drilling along the Colorado River, we know anything could happen. There should be increased setbacks from waterways and residential areas.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

American Rivers names the Colorado River most endangered for 2013 #ColoradoRiver

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Without the Colorado River, there would be no Mesa Park Vineyards in Palisade. The 10-acre operation is totally reliant on the river’s water, Brooke Webb of the family-owned operation said Wednesday. That’s part of the reason Webb joined in a news conference by American Rivers announcing that the Colorado River has been named the conservation group’s most endangered river for 2013. Without the river, there would be no Palisade peaches, no area wine-making, she said. It likewise is responsible for 15 percent of the nation’s crops and $26 billion a year in recreation, she said. “We want to preserve our way of life and for the river to be there for future generations,” said Webb, also part of the National Young Farmers Coalition.

The river, a lifeline to millions, also is sapped by such high demand. American Rivers said in a news release that the Colorado River tops its list for this year due to “outdated water management that is inadequate to respond to the pressures of over-allocation and persistent drought.” The group said a recent U.S. Bureau of Reclamation study showed there isn’t enough water in the river to meet the river basin’s current water demands, much less support future increased demands. It said the river is threatened by the possibility of diversions of 300,000 additional acre-feet of water to the Front Range, and a possible 10 to 30 percent reduction in the river’s flow by 2050 due to climate change.

Coconino County, Ariz., Supervisor Liz Archuleta said the white-stained sandstone bathtub ring of Lake Powell, which currently has a water level 102 feet below capacity, “serves as a clear reminder of the overuse of the Colorado River.”

The river provides drinking water to 36 million people from Denver to Los Angeles.

“Today the river is so dammed, drained and diverted that it dries up to a trickle before reaching the sea,” American Rivers president Bob Irvin said. “Now is the time to put the Colorado River on the path to recovery.” The organization says one way to do that is to adequately fund “21st-century” water management practices that optimize existing infrastructure and emphasize efficiency and conservation.

Jim Lochhead, manager and chief executive officer of Denver Water, said he thinks American Rivers overstates the problem involving the river and doesn’t “really add to the conversation, frankly.”

“The situation is not as bleak as portrayed by this announcement,” he said. He said he thinks the group overemphasizes the worst-case scenarios on climate change and isn’t realistic about the amount of Front Range water diversions that might actually occur. Denver Water spent roughly a decade seeking permits for a 15,000-acre diversion and has nearly reached a deal with Western Slope entities under which any further diversions only would occur in partnership with the Western Slope, he noted. But he said obviously there are issues involving the river, including California’s overuse of water from it over the last two decades. “I think that the states and the Department of Interior are clearly working together to address those issues in an incremental way,” he said.

Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, based in Glenwood Springs, said he hadn’t had a chance to look at the report. But he added, “Anything that brings more attention to the (Bureau of Reclamation) basin study is very positive.” He said looking at possible future water shortages can lead to overstating the problem today, but he added that for the river to not reach the sea now already is a problem.

That said, Kuhn takes issue with the idea that the river suffers from antiquated management. Colorado water law has a long history but isn’t necessarily antiquated, and the river’s management also involves six other states grouped in upper and lower basins, and Mexico, he said. He said American Rivers probably has underestimated the importance of agreements in recent years that address matters such as water levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and the river situation in Mexico. Such agreements aren’t easy to reach, he said. “The kind of progress that’s been made is maybe incremental but it’s significant,” Kuhn said.

The Colorado River has made American Rivers’ annual list of the 10 most endangered rivers six times, and was named the most endangered three of those times. In coming up with its annual list, the group considers factors such as whether a river faces a serious threat. Last year, the Green River was ranked second due to proposals to pipe water from it to the Front Range, and the Crystal River south of Carbondale was ranked eighth because of a river district reservoir proposal there.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Colorado River ‘Most Endangered,’ but not lost — Hannah Holm #ColoradoRiver

Here’s a look at the current state of the Colorado River from Hannah Holm writing for the Grand Junction Free Press. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

This week brought a mix of gloom and sunshine to the water picture for the Colorado River Basin.

Gloom came in the form of a report by the conservation group American Rivers, which declared the Colorado to be the “Most Endangered River in America.” The report highlights the fact that the river no longer meets the sea, as well as information from last fall’s Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which showed that the river is already over-tapped, and imbalances between supply and demand are likely to get worse in the future.

The figurative sunshine came, first of all, in the form of literal gloom: The skies darkened, and rain began to fall, then snow, and more snow (even in Grand Junction), and a slight uptick in the snowpack trend-line turned into a real spike, bringing snowpack levels in Colorado’s part of the Colorado River Basin up above 90% of the average for this time of year, and double what it was at this time in 2012.

Of course, 90% is still below average, but considering that one month ago the snowpack was just barely catching up to where it was at the beginning of last year’s historic drought, this counts as very good news. It means our wildfire danger will be lower, more crops can grow, and water managers won’t pull out quite so many hairs. Mandatory water restrictions are less likely (here anyway — Denver’s are still on), and rafting may be more fun.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit funding at risk

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The funding pipeline for the Arkansas Valley Conduit has sprung a leak. Federal funding pressures could reduce conduit funding to one-third of its current levels and far less than Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District officials had hoped for in next year’s budget. “The conduit is not the only project affected. There are projects under construction that got cut,” Southeastern lobbyist Christine Arbogast told the board Thursday. “Delays cost money, so it’s going to make it more difficult as we move forward.”

The district discussed a figure of $14 million to begin design and construction of the conduit in 2014. However, the budget President Barack Obama submitted to Congress last week included only $1 million for the conduit. The Bureau of Reclamation is on pace to complete an environmental impact statement for the conduit by the end of this year. But several other water projects already being built saw cuts of 75 percent or more in the president’s budget.

If Congress adopts another continuing resolution, rather than a budget, the conduit might retain its current level of funding, $3 million, in 2014, said Executive Director Jim Broderick. Otherwise, the district appears to be out of options to increase funding. “It’s clear the game is different than it used to be,” Broderick said, recounting last week’s visit to Washington, D.C. “This doesn’t stop the project, but it will move at a different pace.”

A federal law in 2009 provided a way to repay the federal government for conduit costs through storage contract payments to Reclamation for use of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. But payments would not start until after the project is completed.

The conduit could cost up to $500 million to build and would deliver fresh drinking water from Pueblo Dam to 50,000 people in 40 communities along the Arkansas River. “We’re concerned about the drop in funding, but we’re still in the pre-construction phase,” Broderick said.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Colorado River Named Most Endangered in United States #ColoradoRiver

Here’s a release from Western Resource Advocates (Jason Bane):

The Colorado River is the most endangered river in the United States, according to the 2013 list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers® released today by the nonprofit group American Rivers. Western Resource Advocates, a conservation organization that works throughout the entire Colorado River Basin, issued the following comments in response to the new listing:

“We all have our own dreams and visions for the future of the West,” said Bart Miller, Water Program Director at Western Resource Advocates. “But this is one subject where there can be no disagreement: If we don’t protect the Colorado River, we don’t have a future. It’s really that simple – an endangered Colorado River is a danger to us all.”

The Colorado River provides drinking water for more than 36 million people in seven states. The river is also critical to our regional and national food supply, providing irrigation for 4 million acres of farmland.

“We are using water in the West at a rate that is simply unsustainable,” said Drew Beckwith, Water Policy Manager at Western Resource Advocates. “The good news is that we can solve this problem if we act quickly. If we implement aggressive conservation, reuse, and efficiency programs for both municipal and agricultural users, we can protect the Colorado River and its many species, while at the same time exceeding projected water demand through 2060.”

The population in the West is expected to rise by 50% in the next 50 years; at the same time, Colorado River flows are projected to decline by 10% or more. Not only would this decline impact food and water availability, but it would be a huge blow to a growing recreation economy responsible for more than $26 billion in annual revenue for the Colorado River Basin states.

Western Resource Advocates has long advocated that water conservation and reuse should be the backbone of any plan for meeting future water demands in the Colorado River Basin. This is particularly critical in the face of climate change scenarios that experts agree will lead to increased frequency and severity of drought.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

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

Click on the thumbnail graphic for the precipitation summary. Click here for all the summaries.

The Colorado River tops American Rivers’ most endangered rivers list for 2013 #ColoradoRiver

From American Rivers’ River Blog (Amy Souers Kober):

Today, American Rivers and our partners at Nuestro Rio, Protect the Flows, Save the Colorado and the National Young Farmers Coalition are calling on Congress to give cities and farmers across the basin the tools they need to build a future that includes healthy rivers and reliable, sustainable water supplies. We are asking Congress to fund the Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSmart and Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse programs. These programs help stakeholders optimize existing water infrastructure, maximize available water supplies, and provide healthy river flows for communities and ecosystems.

While over-allocation of water is most pronounced on the Colorado River, it’s a problem we’re seeing on rivers nationwide. In fact, the top four rivers in America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2013 suffer from outdated water management. What’s clear for all of these rivers is that we all need to be part of the solution. It’s time to work together to ensure clean water supplies and healthy rivers for our children and grandchildren.

Click here for a map showing the 10 rivers on this year’s list.

From AZCentral.com (Brandon Loomis):

The Colorado, the lifeblood of the Southwest, is at a crucial moment in its history, American Rivers says, and Congress and the states that tap its waters must plan for better use — and re-use — of its water to meet a growing need. “The current trends are not sustainable,” said Matt Niemerski, western water-policy director for American Rivers…

American Rivers has published “America’s Most Endangered Rivers” every year since 1986, and the Colorado has made the 10-river cut seven times. It has topped the list twice before, most recently in 2010. The group reorders the list annually to draw attention to particular rivers when a related policy decision is looming. This year, the group wants Congress to boost a WaterSmart program that is slated to get about $30 million next fiscal year for grants to water-conservation programs, Niemerski said. Such grants could help water providers build desalination or other treatment plants, or plan for smarter management. “We need to start this work now,” he said…

Arizona is entitled to 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water a year, and 1.5 million of it flows through the Central Arizona Project canal from the state’s western edge to Phoenix, Tucson and points in between.

A CAP official was puzzled by the group’s choice to elevate the river’s threat status based on a government report that actually could signal the start of better regional water planning. “We all recognize (the Reclamation report) as a call to action,” said Chuck Cullom, CAP’s Colorado River program manager. He also mentioned a new agreement with Mexico allowing for storage of some of that country’s allocation in Lake Mead to ease shortages in drought years. “We’ve taken aggressive steps in the past year to protect and enhance the river,” Cullom said.

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

The advocacy group American Rivers on Wednesday will declare the Colorado River “the No. 1 most endangered” in the nation.
Federal authorities warn that even if courts step in to reallocate shrinking river flows, 40 million people who rely on the Colorado still would face problems…

“We can only solve this problem by working together,” Anne Castle, the U.S. Department of the Interior assistant secretary for water and science, said at a University of Denver law school forum. Negotiating competing uses on an over-subscribed river “is not without pain, not without litigation,” Castle said. However, a judicial decision “doesn’t solve these problems.”

American Rivers ranked the Colorado River most endangered due to worsening water deficits…

…people are, indeed, draining the river. Front Range cities divert about 500,000 acre-feet a year from the basin to sustain 80 percent of today’s population. More diversions are planned here and in Utah. For example, Denver Water, which supplies 1.3 million metro residents, is pushing to divert 18,000 acre-feet from upper Colorado River tributaries. “But we’re not looking at developing additional water resources on the Western Slope after the Moffat project,” utility planning director David Little said, calling American Rivers’ 300,000 acre-feet estimate “overblown.”[...]

…Colorado and the upper states face a dilemma, said Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, which represents 15 Western Slope counties. Are they still obligated to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet a year to lower states?
“Some of the Front Range folks take the view that Colorado is entitled to more water, and that the Lower Basin is using some of our water,” Kuhn said. “But how do you develop more water on a river that is already overused?”

If you are in Salida this evening check out the film Watershed:

#WATERSHED is headed to Salida, CO 4/17 7p! Come join the Greater Arkansas River Nature Association to learn about water security

— Watershed (@WatershedMovie) April 14, 2013

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Colorado Water Trust leasing program hopes to shore up streamflow in the Yampa River again this season #COdrought

From Steamboat Today (Matt Stensland):

Last year, the nonprofit organization aimed at keeping waterways flowing leased 4,000 acre feet of water for the Yampa River. That translated into increasing flows by about 26 cubic feet per second for a large part of the summer…

Colorado Water Trust attorney Zach Smith said the spring weather and snowpack amounts will dictate how much water can be leased for the Yampa this year. The bigger the snowpack, the less the group can lease. On Monday, the snowpack in the Yampa/ White River basin was 81 percent of average.

Last year, 4,000 acre feet of water was leased from the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District, which owns Stagecoach Reservoir. The Colorado Water Trust paid about $140,000, or $35 per acre foot of water…

The Colorado Water Trust is reaching out to water right owners who might be interested in leasing their water this year. Smith will be in Steamboat from 4 to 6 p.m. Thursday in Library Hall at Bud Werner Memorial Library to explain how the Request for Water 2013 water leasing program works. He will discuss the legal authority and technical underpinnings of the program. He also will talk about how the various forms work, what a water user can expect if he or she offers water for lease, how the water valuation process works and approximate timelines.

More instream flow coverage here.