From the Tri-Lakes Tribune (Nicole Chillino):
Donala Water and Sanitation District is contemplating asking its voting public in May to allow it to buy bonds to help it pay for a means of piping a renewable water supply to its system, according to a statement from the district. While the district recently purchased water rights belonging to the Mount Massive Ranch near Leadville, it has to tap into the water through an entity with access to Arkansas River water, since water from the ranch flows into one of the river’s tributaries, according to information from Donala’s general manager Dana Duthie. Donala is trying to connect to the river through Colorado Springs Utilities, which owns several points of diversion along the Arkansas that could be tapped into, according to the information. The district will be evaluating whether it needs to increase its debt to pipe the water to patrons, and if it decides to ask the taxpayers to issue more debt, whether the issuance will require a tax increase, Duthie said.
More Denver Basin Aquifer System coverage here.
Energy policy — nuclear: Powertech may get to jump through some new hoops regarding water quality
October 18, 2009
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
If approved, the proposed rules will implement a 2008 law, House Bill 1161, which regulates in situ uranium mines across the state, requiring mining companies to return the groundwater around an in situ leach mine to the same quality it was prior to mining. Before the state can issue an in situ leach mining permit, the law requires mining companies to cite five examples of other similar mining operations that did not harm groundwater.
On Friday, the draft rules were still being revised, and changes were still being made throughout the document based on public comments the state Office of Mined Land Reclamation had received, office director David Berry said.
The rules and the law will “provide a minimum level of protection for groundwater from in situ uranium mining,” said Jeff Parsons of the Western Mining Action Project in Boulder. “Powertech’s proposal is in an inappropriate place surrounded by water wells on all sides.”
Castle Rock is teaming up with Denver, Aurora and the South Metro Water Supply Authority for joint operations
August 28, 2009
From the Douglas County News Press (Chris Michlewicz):
Town council entered into an intergovernmental agreement Aug. 25 with Denver, Aurora and the South Metro Water Supply Authority, of which Castle Rock is a member. The WISE partnership – which stands for Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency – is a joint collaboration to explore opportunities to acquire water and share infrastructure to support the development of water in the South Platte Project Region, an area that stretches from Chatfield Reservoir to the small town of Balzac, Colo., on the eastern plains.
The agreement promotes regional cooperation among water providers and enables the participants to share costs on large projects instead of duplicating efforts. It also brings bigger partners into the mix, said Heather Beasley, water resource engineer with Castle Rock’s utilities division. The partnership does not obligate the town to participate in projects. Members will bring opportunities to the group for discussion, but each entity can decide individually if it wants to join in, Beasley said.
Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority is preaching conservation
August 23, 2009
From The Tri-Lakes Tribune (Nicole Chillino):
At its Aug. 19 meeting, the authority’s board of directors discussed water conservation in response to a recent letter written by six major Front Range water providers to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Interbasin Compact Committee which addressed several topics related to filling Colorado’s “water supply gap.”
“Right now, nobody’s worried about conservation because it’s been raining,” said Dana Duthie, general manager of Donala Water and Sanitation District.
Most water providers in the authority, however, rely on non-renewable aquifer water, which is unaffected by rain. Duthie added, water rationing will become more attractive to consumers when rates start going up. Water rates will have to be raised by two to four times what they are now for that to work, said Monument Public Works Director Rich Landreth.
More conservation coverage here.
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):
…in a move uranium-mine opponents fear might prove Powertech is trying to skirt around clean-water standards, the company Wednesday asked state Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, or DRMS, officials to allow it to change original water-quality information for the mine site while uranium is being mined…
Before mining begins, the law requires Powertech to collect “baseline” water quality data, or information on the state of the water before it is contaminated by mining, then restore the water to that same quality after mining ends. In comments sent to the state Aug. 12, Powertech officials wrote it should be able to revise its baseline water quality data during the mining process “if new water-quality information comes to light” as an effect of mining. Powertech President Richard Clement said Thursday geology varies in a mining area, and it might be necessary to present the state with new information about the original water quality at the mine that could change the company’s groundwater restoration plan.
“Powertech is still making arguments to undermine groundwater quality protections,” said Matt Garrington of Environment Colorado. “They asked the Mining Division yesterday to be able to move the standard for groundwater during the mining project. They’re still making that argument in this process, and it’s crazy.”
“I’m not sure of their intent in the long term,” said Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Office Director David Berry. “Our intent would be information can no longer be baseline if it’s disturbed by an operation. We’re pretty steadfast in that.”
A day after making its argument, Powertech reversed its opinion. “It was made very clear by the DRMS that they determined that the issue has been established, so we have no further objection,” Clement said Thursday.
Powertech also quibbled with the state’s definition of the surface and groundwater the company might affect with its uranium mining. The rule the state is writing says potentially affected surface and groundwater includes the water found on the land at the mining site and “in surrounding areas.” In its comments to the state, Powertech called that definition “amorphous.”
More energy policy nuclear coverage here.
A Douglas County development — Sterling Ranch near Chatfield Reservoir — hopes to incorporate rainwater catchments into the design. Here’s a report from Andrew Simons writing for The Denver Post. From the article:
[Harold Smethills the major investor of Sterling Ranch] hopes Sterling Ranch will be one of 10 pilot residential developments to get statehouse approval for a rainwater collection system for use in the development. The rest of the rain that falls along the Front Range “is lost through evaporation” or is absorbed by native plants, such as field grasses, Smethills says…
Within the development, Smethills plans to install systems that will capture, store and recycle rainwater. These systems, Smethills says, will reduce the development’s consumption of municipal water by 50 percent…
For example, Sterling Ranch planners will install tanks underneath street roundabouts. Roads in the development will be constructed so rainwater will flow into the roundabouts. “This process utilizes tributary water in average or better rainfall years supplemented with storage and Denver Basin water in drought years,” according to the Sterling Ranch website. “This plan maximizes natural stream flows, traditional water storage, and by using the Denver Basin, we will dramatically reduce the water losses from evaporation while ensuring a dependable supply.”
Other water storage systems could include roof capture, where water is directed from a roof through a special gutter system and stored in a tank at the home. According to a study done by Headwaters Corp., a typical residential system where water is stored underground would run about $10,000 to $15,000…
In June, Gov. Bill Ritter signed HB 1129 into law. Getting permits won’t be easy. Prospective pilot projects must ensure water that’s captured in a neighborhood would not otherwise go into streams.
More Coyote Gulch 2009 legislative session coverage here.
Here’s an opinion piece from Carol Rush outlining the League’s opposition to Powertech’s plans to mine uranium from the aquifers under Weld County. From the article:
There are potential public health and economic impacts of the Centennial Project. Both the Larimer County Medical Society and the Colorado Medical Society wrote resolutions opposing in situ mining because of the potential health impact of radioactively contaminated water on our agriculture, livestock and civilian population. The League of Women Voters of Larimer County has concluded that in situ leach mining should not be done in this area because of the health and environmental risks it poses to the Northern Colorado Front Range. The league agrees with more than 11,000 local residents who signed petitions opposing the Centennial Project as well as the 80 municipalities, public entities and businesses who have signed resolutions opposing it.
More Coyote Gulch energy policy nuclear coverage here and here.
Reuse
July 3, 2009
Castle Rock: Conservation program expansion
June 22, 2009
From The Douglas County News Press (Chris Michlewicz):
Town council approved three new ways for residents to benefit from its water conservation rebate program, a part of the Water Resource Strategic Master Plan adopted in 2006. In addition to the existing smart sprinkler controllers, high-efficiency clothes washers and three-day irrigation timers, Castle Rock officials decided June 9 to start doling out rain sensors and sprinkler head rotary nozzles, as well as offering incentives for reducing the amount of water-guzzling plants and grass in their yard. Residents can be reimbursed for half the cost of a $50 rain sensor, an electronic device that determines whether watering is needed and relays information back to the control system. Homeowners can earn up to $200 in rebates by installing rotary nozzles, and commercial customers can receive a return of $2,000…
Smartscape renovation rewards residents by offering $1 for every square foot of high-water-use plants that are removed up to 1,500 square feet. Some residents complained that the plan does not allow for flexibility in specific low-water-usage landscaping, but assistant utilities director Rick Wilkey said they will evaluate concerns on a case-by-case basis.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Here’s a release from the Town of Castle Rock via YourHub.com:
Town Council approved June 16 the proposed residential water budget, putting it on schedule to come back to Town Council for second and final reading July 7.
To encourage conservation and enable the Town to provide water at a reasonable rate, Town staff is proposing a water budget for residents. Conserving water is an important element in the Town’s Water Resources Strategic Master Plan, which was approved in 2006 and calls for the community to reduce water consumption by 18 percent. The less water used, the less the Town must acquire through purchasing from renewable water sources or pulling more out of the ground. The proposal calls for each resident to receive a personalized monthly water budget, based primarily on indoor water use, the square footage of irrigated property and each month’s historical evapotransporation rate. The budget is personalized for residents with up to 7,000 square feet of irrigated land. The average Castle Rock customer has an irrigated area of 2,700 square feet, and 96 percent of customers fall within the 7,000 cap. Those with more irrigated space will need to use stronger conservation techniques, such as xeriscaping, to hit their budget targets. Utilities staff will contact these larger property owners to work with them on what they can do to remain within their budgets. The proposal increases the threshold of when a customer is charged a conservation surcharge from 30,000 to 40,000 gallons per month, which will be of particular assistance to those with larger irrigated areas. “For the average customer, there will be no increase in their water bill,assuming usage within their water budget,” said Assistant Utilities Director Rick Wilkey.
The average residential customer – with the 2,700 square feet of irrigated space – use about 13,000 gallons of water each month during the irrigation season, and 5,000 gallons in off-season months. The plan also calls for an easier-to-read water bill, which will feature a 13-month historical graph showing water consumption at your address. The water budget is divided into four blocks. Block No. 1 is a single-family residential customer’s average consumption for December through March. Each April, the customer’s average consumption will be reset to reflect most recent consumption. The water budget allocated to Block No. 2 during irrigation season will be 80 percent of the amount of water required to maintain a maximum 7,000 square feet of irrigated area. Block No. 3 is consumption over water budget until reaching the 40,000-gallon threshold for the Block No. 4 surcharge. The water budget concept and how it is calculated can seem confusing, and staff is working to educate residents about the proposal. All Town residents should have received a large postcard inviting them to workshops designed to show residents how the water budget affects them and their water bills. The next workshop is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Saturday, June 27, in Council Chambers at Town Hall, 100 N. Wilcox St.
Should Town Council give final approval to the budget, numerous water budget workshops will be held at multiple locations inviting residents to a more detailed meeting on what the new water budget rate structure means to them. Attendees will be provided an annual bill comparison for typical small, medium and large irrigated areas. This comparison will show typical usage and monthly costs for the 2008 rate structure as compared to the 2009 water budget rate structure. A limited number of residential audits also will be offered at no charge through Slow the Flow Colorado.
Town Council is scheduled to consider the water budget during its July 7 meeting, which begins at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers at Town Hall, 100 N. Wilcox St. The public is encouraged to attend to provide input.
If you have questions about the proposed water budget, call 720-733-6091 or e-mail waterbudget@CRgov.com.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority: Suite of potential water supply options to choose from
May 23, 2009
The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority is discussing their options for a sustainable water supply. They could be customers of any number of projects including, the Super Ditch Companay, a Flaming Gorge Pipeline(either Aaron Million’s or the Colorado-Wyoming Coalition) or Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from Nicole Chillino writing for The Tri-Lakes Tribune. From the article:
The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority continued discussions about its options for a future water source and it appears it will be a while before it can determine what its best course will be…Regardless of which project or projects the authority ultimately chooses, it will need to find a place to store the water. The authority has a few options, including the Pueblo Reservoir, but no storage location has been finalized.
South Platte, Metro, Arkansas Roundtables: Looking for solutions to the Front Range water supply gap
May 16, 2009
Here’s a recap of Wednesday’s combined meeting of the South Platte, Metro and Arkansas roundtables, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“We’re looking at different scenarios, not just one water future for Colorado,” said Eric Hecox, Interbasin Compact Committee coordinator for the Colorado Water Conservation Board…
Comments to staff from Wednesday’s meeting will help shape the final plan, which will be discussed by the CWCB at a workshop Monday in Pueblo. The meeting will be from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Pueblo Convention Center. The CWCB will have its bi-monthly meeting at the Convention Center Tuesday and Wednesday…
Colorado now is looking at urban conservation strategies like turf replacement, rate structures, leak detection, landscape audits and appliance efficiency as a way to reduce per capita use. The CWCB also is looking at new ways of making agricultural water transfers less damaging to rural economies through grants to water lease-fallowing efforts such as the Super Ditch in the Arkansas Valley. The final leg of the program is to identify how much water Colorado could claim from the Colorado River. The state launched a basin-by-basin study on the Western Slope to determine how much water could be taken while still meeting Colorado’s obligation to downstream states under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The state also is working to identify which project or projects should be built if the water is moved to the Front Range. There is no consensus among the state’s nine basin roundtables about which project would best fill the need.
From the Tri-Lakes Tribune (Nicole Chillino):
[Monument] is concerned that in the not-so-distant future it will be too expensive to draw water from the aquifers, so it is looking for other sources of water, said town manager Cathy Green. On paper, the town appears to have enough water, she said. Monument is currently using 401 acre feet of water per year and has 990 acre feet available annually. Triview Metropolitan District is using 607 acre feet of water per year and has 2,903 acre feet available per year. “Our concern is: Will we be able to affordably get water out of our wells?” Green said. The question is being addressed in part by the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority, an organization made up of water purveyors including Monument.
The authority is discussing water alternatives, said Monument Mayor Byron Glenn. One of the alternatives would require water to be reused, which is a probable, but expensive solution. The town has huge expenses it will encounter in the future to purchase surface water and create the infrastructure needed to move the water, Green said.
Elbert County: Groundwater 101
April 12, 2009
Here’s a look at Colorado water law as it relates to groundwater in Elbert County, from Ashley Dieterle writing for the Elbert County News. From the article:
On April 2, in the Exhibit Hall at the Kiowa Fair Grounds, two members of the Colorado Division of Water Resources explained water rights and well permitting to Elbert County residents. Types of wells, types of ground water and adjudication of water were discussed by Kevin Rein and Keith Vander Horst from the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
All under ground water in Elbert County comes from non-tributary water in the Denver Basin. There are four bedrock aquifers, the Dawson (upper and lower) aquifer, the Denver aquifer, the Arapaho (upper and lower) aquifer and the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. Most questions asked by attendants concerned their own water and whether or not adjudication, obtaining a determination of a water right, was necessary in order to maintain their water without the threat of it being taken away by the state, county or other developers. According to Vander Horst and Rein, the answer is no. Rein said the landowner has a right to the ground water if it has not been adjudicated, which means the water stays attached to the land. “By virtue of land ownership you have the inchoate right so nobody can come and adjudicate and acquire the ground water underlying your land just because you haven’t adjudicated it,” Rein said.
But Rein did mention some benefits to adjudicating ground water. He said the basic outcome of adjudication is the amount of ground water available is quantified and the characteristics are legally identified. After adjudication, the water becomes a vested right, not an inchoate right. “After adjudication that water is much more readily available to sell to interested developers,” he said. “And it becomes an independent property right, which allows you to make the deed to impair property for immediate benefit and allow you more revenue when you sell it.”
Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County wants Colorado Springs Utilities to spend $50 million on mitigation
March 14, 2009
Here’s an update on Pueblo County’s 1041 permitting process for Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:
Pueblo County gave Colorado Springs Utilities a list of conditions Wednesday under which that county would approve a $1.1 billion water pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir, and a Utilities official said none of them appears to be a deal-killer. Utilities would be required to give $50 million to the new Fountain Creek Watershed, a consortium of local governments and organizations working to improve the creek. The money would be used for erosion, sedimentation, flood control and water quality projects, to compensate for sending increased treated effluent down that creek. Utilities would also have to spend $75 million on wastewater improvements here by the end of 2024, something Utilities officials said they planned to do anyway. “I just see this as another big step forward for the project,” said Utilities project manager John Fredell…
The conditions are the recommendation of the [Pueblo] county staff there; Pueblo commissioners then would approve them as part of approval for a permit for the pipeline. Colorado Springs City Council would also have to endorse them. Fredell said Wednesday he was unsure whether Pueblo County will attach additional conditions. Utilities officials had been waiting for weeks to see what conditions Pueblo County would attach. In the meantime, they have received approval from Fremont County to build a pipeline from the Arkansas River, a backup plan that would cost $150 million more, in case Pueblo County denied a permit or attached unfavorable conditions. There is a long tradition of acrimony over water issues between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and Utilities challenged in court Pueblo County’s right to require a permit. After receiving the list of conditions Wednesday, Fredell said none appeared unacceptable, and even with the expenditures required, the Pueblo route would still be cheaper. “I see this as an investment in infrastructure and an investment in some great improvements in terms of recreational opportunities on Fountain Creek,” Fredell said…
Some of the other conditions would require Utilities to:
• Reduce sediment in lower Fountain Creek prior to SDS construction by dredging and sediment-collection.
• Maintain stormwater controls and other regulations intended to ensure that Fountain Creek peak flows resulting from new development served by the SDS project within the Fountain Creek basin are no greater than existing conditions.
• Continue participation in the Pueblo Flow Management Program to protect Arkansas River flows for recreation and the Arkansas River Corridor Legacy Project.
• Work with the Pueblo Board of Water Works to outline how the two cities would maintain a storage pool in Pueblo Reservoir to permit the release of water into the Arkansas River during times when the flow in the river could fall to low levels – at or below 50 cubic feet per second.
• Wait to begin construction at or near Pueblo Reservoir Dam until after the Bureau of Reclamation performs its dam-safety review and accepts the design construction plans.
• Voluntarily participate in developing a management plan for Pueblo Reservoir to protect reservoir levels and recreational opportunities, when and if the Southeastern Water Conservancy District, Reclamation and other affected parties agree to develop such a plan.
• Treat private property owners fairly, avoid creating financial burdens for property owners, and use power of eminent domain only as a last resort to acquire property and easements.
• Mitigate construction impacts and restore disturbed lands.
• Take “substantial steps” within 36 months to “construct the permitted development.”
The Donala Water and Sanitation District is looking at SDS as a possible means to move water that they’ve recently purchased from the Mount Massive Ranch, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. The pipeline project is just one possible solution for water providers dependent on the Denver Basin Aquifer System. From the article:
Without SDS, Donala could look at other options: Using its new source as augmentation water or making a deal with the Super Ditch. With one study estimating a cost of at least $1 billion to build a pipeline from the Lower Arkansas Valley north, it’s not likely that the district and its neighbors could afford such an option, Duthie said. For a relatively small player like Donala, which serves about 2,700 homes, finding a way to get the water could be costly, but the district is reaching the point where it needs to spend money for water…
The owner of the Mount Massive Ranch approached Donala with the sale, which was completed in November. Donala paid $4.7 million for what it expects will be about 300 acre-feet of water, or more than $15,000 an acre-foot. That amounts to about one-fifth of the annual demand of the Donala district. The change of use of the water still has to be decreed in water court, and then there’s the problem of moving it. The district also owns about 700 acres in Lake County and is working with county commissioners there on how the land will be developed…
Donala sits atop the Denver Basin Aquifer, a deep underground source of water that is not tributary to surface systems. Like other El Paso communities, the district faces increasing costs of extracting the water in what amounts to mining the aquifer. While more wells could be drilled, the expense is prohibitive and Donala and its neighbors, which have banded together to form the Pikes Peak Water Authority, are searching for new solutions…
Other districts in El Paso County face similar challenges and could be in the market for water. Last year, the Pikes Peak authority put out feelers for water on the Bessemer Ditch, a move that ultimately sparked the Pueblo Board of Water Works most recent attempt to buy shares on the ditch. Fountain last year purchased a ranch in Custer County. In Fremont County, Penrose made a similar purchase of ranch water rights in the western end of the county. It’s not likely to stop. “We cannot rely on Denver Basin groundwater to solve our problems,” said Jessie Shaffer, who was recently hired as the engineer for the Woodmoor District, which has 3,300 accounts.
The Cherokee Metropolitan District, which is located near Colorado Springs, lost about 40 percent of its water in a recent court case and is still trying to gain state approval for a plan to recharge part of the Upper Black Squirrel Creek basin — a well area east of Colorado Springs not connected to surface supplies — so it can reuse flows it now flushes down the Fountain. New water could also be a possibility. The district serves more than 7,000 households. “Cherokee will never be off irrigation restrictions,” said Kip Petersen, general manager, adding that the decision has been hard. “People don’t like to hear that your lawn is a secondary concern.”
