Alamosa: Report on 2008 salmonella outbreak blames aging infrastructure, inspection regime

Here’s a look at the City of Alamosa’s response to last week’s report on the 2008 salmonella outbreak, from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:

Alamosa Public Works Director Don Koskelin has responded to a recently released state report on Alamosa’s 2008 salmonella crisis. “There’s no big surprises,” he said…

Koskelin added that the Weber Reservoir was not in the best shape at the time of the salmonella crisis but was already slated to be out of service. Koskelin said the Weber Reservoir was constructed in 1979 and the roof was replaced in the 1980’s. He said all the indications the city had were that the reservoir was not in great condition but not in terrible condition and within a matter of months was to be taken off line. (It is currently only used for irrigation purposes, not as part of the city’s potable water supply.) Before the 2008 water crisis, the Weber Reservoir was not the center of attention, Koskelin said. “We were deeply involved in constructing the water treatment plant. We started designing the plant in 2004 … That was taking up much of our attention.”[...]

“If the water treatment plant had been in eight months earlier than it was, and it was under construction, none of this could have happened,” Koskelin said…

Koskelin shared a copy of Liquid Engineering Corporation’s 1997 report with the Alamosa city council. The inspection listed the reservoir as clean, the roof in good condition and the walls showing “minor spalling” (chipping, flaking) and bowing outward. Koskelin said the bow occurred when the concrete was initially poured. The report noted that the corners of the wall surface were in poor condition with cracking, spalling and exposed aggregate but were still satisfactory. “That’s exterior damage,” Koskelin said. The report also marked the concrete slab/ring as satisfactory but also showing cracking, spalling and erosion or exposed aggregate. The 1997 report also noted “minor corrosion on roof support structures.” The report stated sand had built up on the west side from the inlet, and sediment was observed on the floor, but no leaking was observed in any part of the reservoir at that time.

More Alamosa coverage here and here.

Routt County: Study into possible effects of coalbed methane exploration and production on groundwater and surface water underway

From the Craig Daily Press (Collin Smith):

An ongoing study into the possible effects of coalbed methane production in the Sand Wash Basin now shows the area has deep faults potentially connecting coal seams and near-surface water reservoirs. This would mean activity in those coal seams could affect water resources used by local residents…

Officials from the Colorado Geological Survey are completing the study, which is slated to cost about $121,000. Moffat County contributed $1,500, Routt County $500 and state water groups funded the rest. Researchers said they are done mapping the methane and water resources of the basin, and next plan to build an analytical model that will help evaluate what impacts may arise in the future from coalbed methane production…

Peter Barkmann, managing hydrogeologist for the Geological Survey, said companies may have to do additional research before starting coalbed methane production in the Sand Wash Basin. “I think, if anything, the complexity of the basin tells me there’s going to have to be a pretty careful examination done before a company attempts to produce coalbed methane,” Barkmann said.

More coalbed methane coverage here and here.

Cañon City: Source of contamination under golf course different from main plume at Lincoln Park/Cotter superfund site

From the Cañon City Daily Record (Rachel Alexander):

[Steve Tarlton, of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment] said the company and department have determined that the source of contamination for the golf course plume is different from the source of the main plume, but the specific source has not been determined. Tarlton said the department has asked Cotter to continue to characterize the plume, install a ground water interception system that will most likely be series of wells and to determine possible sources. “We now have enough information to know where the plume is moving,” Tarlton said. Possible sources of the contamination include the CCD tanks, which Cotter currently is decommissioning and existing and historic ore pads, which the company is excavating.

Cotter also continues with the closure of the secondary impoundment and the deep dewatering of the primary impoundment.

Here’s the link to the Lincoln Park/Cotter Mill Superfund Site website.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Paradox Valley: Energy Fuels Corp. formally applies for uranium mill state permit

From the Cortez Journal (Joe Hanel):

The mill, proposed for the Paradox Valley west of Naturita, would be the first new uranium mill in the country in 25 years. It has caused heated debate in the Paradox Valley, in part because it could restart the uranium mining industry in Southwest Colorado. Montrose County commissioners approved zoning for the mill, known as the Piñon Ridge mill, in September…

This week’s application to the state triggers a 10- to 15-month process that will include two public hearings. State regulators will zero in on health effects of the mill in both the short- and long-term, said Steve Tarlton, radiation program manager for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “Colorado has the most stakeholder-focused review process for uranium licensing in the United States,” Tarlton said. Tarlton’s office has 30 days to determine if the application is complete. Once it does, Energy Fuels has 75 days to hold two public hearings. Those hearings probably will happen in Montrose and the Nucla-Naturita area, said Energy Fuels spokesman Gary Steele. After the hearings, state law gives regulators nine to 12 months to approve or deny the permit. Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said he is confident his application will pass muster with the state.

Travis Stills, a Durango lawyer who represents mill opponents, said Energy Fuels can expect plenty of opposition. “There will be considerable technical, grassroots and legal scrutiny of whatever it is they have proposed there,” Stills said. Stills filed the lawsuit in state court in Montrose against the county commissioners on behalf of Sheep Mountain Alliance. In the suit, mill opponents claim the county commissioners should not have approved the permit, because in the middle of the process, the company cut the amount of ore it intended to process in half and doubled the projected life of the mill to 40 years. The suit also claims that the mill should not have been approved in the Paradox Valley because it would carry much higher environmental risks than uranium mines, which are common the in the valley.

More coverage from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Once the radiation program determines the application is complete, Energy Fuels must conduct the first of two required public meetings within 45 days. It must conduct a second public meeting within 30 days of the first. Montrose County, meanwhile, has 90 days from the first public meeting to submit to the state its review of the environmental report included in the company’s application. The state Health Department can act on the application within 270 days of the county’s response or within 360 days of the second public meeting, if the county has no response. Energy Fuels’ application is available on the Web at www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/ rad/rml/energyfuels/index.htm and at the Nucla Public Library, 544 Main St., and Montrose County Planning and Development, 317 S. Second St. Public comments will be accepted throughout the review process. People may comment about the application at public meetings, by e-mail to cdphe.hm energyfuels@state.co.us or by writing to Steve Tarlton or Warren Smith at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Radiation Program, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver 80246-1530.

More on nuclear energy and Colorado’s role in the industry, from Hope Nealson writing for the Cortez Journal. From the article:

In 2006, 6.5 billion people used 14 trillion watts, or terawatts, of energy, [nuclear expert and former senior manager for the U.S. Department of Energy Dave Nulton] said. It will take all types of energy, including solar, wind, hydro and coal power, to satisfy the projected increase of demand for normal growth to 45 terawatts by the year 2050. Nulton said to achieve that kind of power, 66 wind turbines would have to be built every day until 2050, or two nuclear reactors every three days. “These numbers are extreme and really unachievable,” he said. “If you could build 66 windmills per day or two nuclear reactors every three days, you still wouldn’t get there without the help of other energies like coal, solar, etc.” Furthermore, Nulton said with atmospheric levels of carbon jumping from 228 ppm (parts per million) before the industrial revolution to 386 ppm today, using cleaner sources of energy like nuclear will help the world avoid approaching “catastrophic climate change by 2050.”

Nulton said the Four Corners – and Cortez’ role in general – would be to provide the uranium needed for nuclear power. “This area served the uranium supply (for nuclear power in the U.S.) for a number of years – now we’re second,” he said. “If you look at the available uranium in this country, Wyoming has more and the Four Corners is second.” Nulton said worldwide, there is a lot more uranium in Canada and Australia. “If we want to be energy independent, we don’t have to rely on another country like we do for oil – we can produce it in our own country,” he said. With no harmful releases, essentially no carbon footprint, low operating costs and minimal land requirements, Nulton said nuclear power is also an option that helps dispose of nuclear weapons. Other countries already reprocess the old fuel in nuclear war heads.

China has the most reactors at 16. There are 440 operating reactors in 31 countries, satisfying approximately 15 percent of electrical needs. Thirteen countries have plans to build reactors and 50 are currently under construction, he said.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Energy policy — geothermal: New website for geothermal exploration and production in Chaffee County

Say hello to Chaffee County Geothermal. The group behind the website wants to protect the natural environment and recreations opportunities in the county. From the website:

We are fighting to protect the unique beauty of this area, its water and its quality of life, not to mention its recreational value to so many visitors.

Thanks to The Mountain Mail for the link.

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Custer County groundwater study update

From the The Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):

For a number of years, the county has been participating in a water quantity survey with USGS. In the study, USGS officials monitor 60 wells spread throughout Custer County. Each well is monitored twice a year—in the spring and fall—to check water level changes. Cost to the county is some $7,000 a year. The study is paid for through 2010. The county commissioners are considering suspending the study thereafter…

[United States Geological Survey official Ken Watts of Pueblo] told the county bosses the study helps to determine what will happen to water here in the future, therefore, it was a good idea to continue. ‘You need the background information to determine future water needs,” said Watts. Watts also said it might be a good idea to add some newly drilled wells to the study and take out of the study some of the wells in the Sangres. Scanga agreed saying the data received from the local monitoring of the 60 wells will benefit a water study the UAWCD is completing to study the quantity of water in the Upper Arkansas Basin.

The study will begin in 2010 and continue through 2012. Total cost is $406,912 with USGS paying $134,281. Kicking in $6,000 is Custer County. Other entities helping to pay for the study include the Round Mountain Water and Sanitation District at $3,000, Fremont County at $15,000, Chaffee County and municipalities at $30,000, Penrose Water District at $6,000, and Canon City at $3,000. The UAWCD is paying some $226,912 plus administration costs valued at approximately $24,000.

More groundwater coverage here and here.

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

From the Glenwood Springs Post Indpendent (John Colson):

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

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

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Alamosa: Report on 2008 salmonella outbreak blames aging infrastructure, inspection regime

The Colorado Department of Health and Environment is starting to require more chlorine dosing for water systems in the state. Here’s a report from David Olinger writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

Colorado has revoked waivers from as many as 72 public drinking-water systems and is now requiring chlorine treatment of most public supplies as part of the response to a salmonella-poisoning epidemic that ravaged Alamosa last year. A Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment report released Wednesday confirmed earlier suspicions that a decrepit infrastructure allowed deadly bacteria from animals to invade Alamosa’s 320,000-gallon Weber Reservoir. Still, the report said, had the city used chlorine to disinfect its water supply, the bacteria might not have grown. That finding has now prompted the state to redouble its efforts to require chlorine treatment in most places where the public shares a water supply…

When asked what could have prevented the epidemic, state drinking-water program manager Ron Falco, the report’s co-author, answered, “Chlorination.” Alamosa had been exempted since 1974 from a state requirement to treat drinking water with chlorine, which kills salmonella bacteria. The state report concludes that salmonella bacteria from animal feces probably got into Alamosa’s drinking-water supply early in March 2008 and infected the entire city water system during the next week…

The Alamosa report cited “a perfect storm of multiple defects” in the city water system at the time of the outbreak: the chlorination waiver, poor maintenance, incorrect bacteria testing and inadequate supervision by a chronically short-staffed state drinking-water program. After the enclosed, ground-level reservoir was drained during the epidemic, the crew entering it found holes “through which daylight could be seen” and waded through layers of sediment estimated at 12 to 18 inches deep in places. It had not been drained and cleaned in 24 years.

Inspectors also found:

• There were 145 gallons of sediment and missing bolts in a city water tower of unknown age, possibly built in the 1930s. The bolt holes could have exposed the tower’s water to bird feces.

• Two mortuaries and a meat-packing and restaurant property posed an “extreme hazard” that water from their buildings could back into the public supply.

• Alamosa’s tests for coliform bacteria in its water had not complied with federal requirements for diverse sampling in the distribution system…

In Alamosa, the underground water pumped into its reservoir was warm — 75 degrees or more, a welcome environment for bacteria. Its warmth also attracted wildlife, birds and small mammals to the top of the fenced reservoir in winter. A tiny bit of salmonella-infected feces invading its holes or cracks “most likely” caused a massive disease outbreak, the report concluded. “Millions, or even billions, of germs can be released in the feces of an infected human or animal,” the report said, and a child can be infected by as few as 10 to 100 salmonella organisms.

Some towns that lost their chlorination waivers after Alamosa’s outbreak are complying with state orders reluctantly. “We had quite the round with them over that,” said Mark Brown, city superintendent in Holyoke. “We know we have good-quality water. We run our system correctly.”

More Alamosa coverage here and here.

Thompson Divide: Coalition funding water quality study to get in front of oil and gas exploration and production effects

From The Sopris Sun (Jereby Heiman):

The Thompson Divide Coalition (TDC) has organized a study that is intended to establish baseline data on the purity of streams and underground water in the threatened area to the west and southwest of Carbondale. The group has partnered with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to design and execute the study. The Roaring Fork Conservancy is a Basalt-based watershed conservation organization that employs scientists and other experts and works to protect rivers, streams, underground water and stream bank habitat. “This baseline will allow us to hold the gas drilling companies accountable,” said Jock Jacober, chairman of the TDC Steering Committee.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Morgan County Water Quality District board meeting recap

From The Fort Morgan Times (John Brennan):

City Water Superintendent John Turner told the water board during its monthly meeting that an agreement with Quality Water could help the city in the event the supply of water from the city’s treatment plant west of town is somehow shut down. At least one connection already exists between the two water systems, Turner said, and an additional connection would be advisable. The city’s current emergency plan in the event of the loss of its water supply calls for the city to revert to the use of several wells that are still online in the city, Turner said. But the city stopped using those wells because of the high concentration of nitrates, uranium and other contaminants in the water, he noted…

Water board member Bill Baker raised the issue of the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, which many Fort Morgan residents support through a mill levy tax. LSP officials made a presentation to the water board last spring, outlining all of the water measuring and data collection the group does, Baker recalled. But he said none of the things the LSP district does have anything to do with the city of Fort Morgan. “Northern (Colorado Water Conservancy District) is our water district as far as I’m concerned,” Baker said. “But I looked at (LSP’s) budget and most of their revenue is our money. I think we should look at withdrawing (from LSP).” Powers pointed out that while individual property owners in Fort Morgan are assessed the mill levy for the LSP water district, Fort Morgan as a city does not “belong” to the district and therefore cannot withdraw…A motion by water board member Jeff Canfield, to ask the council to instruct Wells to look into possible options for withdrawing from the LSP water district, was approved unanimously…

The water board also discussed proposed bylaws governing its structure and function. Although the board has essentially been operating without bylaws since its inception, Wells said the city council approved a resolution this year that all city boards and commissions must have formal bylaws. Some exceptions were made, including the city planning commission, which is governed by state law. One of the elements of the bylaws dictated by the council is term limits. But several members of the water board felt the complex nature of the water issues it deals with make the knowledge and experience of the board members more crucial than on some other city boards, and might qualify it for such an exception. Board member Jim Green said longevity and historical knowledge are especially important on the water board. “That perspective is invaluable,” Green said. “We’re looking at things, projects, plans 20 years from now, but a lot of that depends on things that happened 20, 30, 50 years ago.”

More Morgan County coverage here.

Republican River Water Conservation District meeting November 18-19

From The Holyoke Enterprise:

The Board of Directors of the Republican River Water Conservation District will be holding a special meeting in Greeley on Nov. 18-19. Times are 1-5 p.m. on Nov. 18 and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Nov. 19. The agenda includes a report from the District’s General Manager; reports from Colorado Rural Development, Farm Service Agency, and Natural Resource Conservation Service; updates on the CREP and AWEP programs; reports from the District’s lobbyists on legislative issues; presentation by the District’s engineer on the status of the Compact Compliance Pipeline project; report from Mike Sullivan, Assistant State Engineer, on the status of RRCA pipeline approval; report from the District’s legal counsel; and District staff performance review; presentation by the Colorado Division of Local Affairs, and Board discussion and action items, including whether to proceed with construction of the Compact Compliance Pipeline in 2010. Public comment will be held at 4:45 p.m. on Nov. 18. The RRWCD Board of Directors will hold an executive session to discuss personnel issues and water supply agreements, determine positions and instruct negotiators, and receive legal advice on legal questions related to such agreements, compact compliance, the Compact compliance pipeline. The meeting will take place at the Greeley Guest House.

For further information concerning the details of this meeting, contact Stan Murphy, General Manager Republican River Water Conservation District at 970-332-3552.

More Republican River Basin coverage here and here.

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

From the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy — geothermal: U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease 799.2 acres near Mt. Princeton hot springs for geothermal exploration on November 12

Update: From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times:

The Bureau of Land Management had planned to offer 800 acres of public property for geothermal during its auction this month, but will postpone action on the proposed lease until its February auction. Federal officials want more time to study the potential effects of geothermal development on water and property rights.

From The Chaffee County Times (Danny Bay):

According to the SRHA, anyone has the right to enter these federally owned sub-surface lands, prospect, and file a mining claim and plan of operation. Since the geothermal resource sits underground, it is sub-surface land. This is the basis for the sale on Nov. 12, the first geothermal lease to be auctioned by the BLM in the state of Colorado. It is open to anyone who chooses to register. Henderson said that the new owner of the federal lease will only have up to one year to create what will lead to the development of the resource. “They can’t sit on it indefinitely,” Henderson said.

But what [Buena Vista resident Steve] Glover said horrifies him is that if a developer does begin commercial production of electricity, the lease becomes open permanently. “They can ramp it up from a small project and no one could do a blessed thing about it,” he said, adding that it has the potential to expand vastly and turn one of the most aesthetically beautiful parts of Colorado into a semi-permanent industrial area…

Bill Bennett, energy use adviser for Sangre De Cristo Electric Association, said he thinks a plant could be hidden very well by building it inside, like something similar to a greenhouse or by putting bunkers around it to shield the noise. “Geothermal can run 24 hours with no down capacity. A 10-megawatt plant could supply 84 percent of all the electricity we supply all year. There are people who understand that it has no consumption, no combustion and no pollution, but they just don’t want to look at it,” Bennett said.

In response to this, Glover referenced a Salt Lake Tribune article about a 10-megawatt geothermal plant in Utah that, after six months of generating power, produces only one megawatt of net energy and buys almost as much electricity to keep the plant running as the plant produces. “There seems to be a real rush to do this. There’s a lot of ego involved in being the first to do it and I understand this. But it could come at a great cost and it should be carefully considered,” Glover said. “It would be a shame to so easily allow this to go forward.”

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County commissioners urge COGCC officials to start cleanup of spring near Debeque

Outfitter Ned Prather’s spring is still contaminated and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is under fire from the Garfield County Commissioners asking that the cleanup proceed while the search for the contamination goes on. Here’s a report from John Colson writing for The Aspen Times. From the article:

Commissioner Mike Samson joined Commissioner John Martin in agreeing to send a resolution to the COGCC urging that something be done quickly to clean up the contamination at the Prather springs. Commission[er] Trési Houpt, who serves on the COGCC, excused herself from the discussion to avoid a conflict of interest. But, speaking from a seat in the gallery, she urged her fellow commissioners to “do what you need to do” in order to call attention to the situation.

After examining months worth of investigations by the COGCC and the various gas drilling operators working wells in the area, a consultant reported in September of this year that the contamination “likely” came from drilling rigs. According to the report, the types of chemicals found in the springs matched the types of chemicals used in the drilling operations of Williams and OXY, two prominent gas companies. The consultants also found “inconsistencies” in the earlier investigations by the gas companies themselves, and recommended further monitoring of the situation. This would include soil samples, water samples and tests to determine whether the plume of contaminants has spread beyond the immediate area around the springs. But, according to Dick Prather (Ned’s brother) and attorney Richard Djokic, there is no plan for such monitoring and testing. And while the Prather brothers were assured that a cleanup plan would be in place by last June, there is no such plan in existence that they know of, Djokic said…

Judy Jordan, the county’s liaison for the oil and gas industry, at one point told the commissioners, “This doesn’t have to do with the commission, it has to do with the staff.” She said the COGCC staff should have long ago recommended to the oil and gas commission that, regardless of where the contamination came from, the state should clean up the mess so the Prathers can salvage their livelihood as outfitters. Speaking after the meeting, Jordan said that once it is known where, exactly, the contamination came from, the state can then go to the appropriate company for payment of the cleanup costs. Representatives of Williams and OXY reported that their companies are doing all they can to determine the source of the contamination, although they indicated that the problems did not come from their companies…

Visibly unhappy about the fact that he and his brother cannot ply their trade for fear of poisoning their clientele, Prather said, “I guess the frustrating part is that, as landowners, you would think that [the gas companies] would want to be sure they did what was right” as far as impacts on other landowners.

More coverage from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

[Commissioner Mike Samson] said Gov. Bill Ritter is shortchanging the county by seeking to divert severance taxes away from energy-impacted communities to help balance the state budget, while leaving the COGCC without the resources to do its job. [Commissioner Trési Houpt] said the agency has a fund for remediation projects. The county’s oil and gas liaison, Judy Jordan, suggested that the state do remediation on the property now and bill the responsible companies once they’re identified.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate hydraulic fracturing techniques to determine safety to water supplies. Here’s a report from Katie Burford writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:

The call for a study was included in a conference report accompanying the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on Friday.The conference report provides the EPA and other funded agencies additional instructions on how to use the money. The provision urges the EPA to “carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information.” Because the report must be approved by both houses of Congress, [Bruce Baizel, a staff attorney with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project] said it represents a clear consensus on the need for more study…

[Christi Zeller, executive director of the La Plata Energy Council, an industry group] said the EPA had studied fracing under the Clinton and Bush administrations, but never as it specifically related to drinking water. The differences on fracing lie in the question of whether the EPA should regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act and whether companies should be forced to disclose the chemicals they use. Federal legislation introduced in the House and Senate in June would require both. So far, Udall, Bennet and Salazar have not signed on as co-sponsors for the bill, which in the House was introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver.

Finally, near Walsenburg, according to the Associated Press (Judith Kohler) via the Denver Post:

Bernice and Jerry Angely like to show visitors the singed T-shirt a friend was wearing when their water well exploded and shot flames 30 feet high. The friend wasn’t hurt. But that and an explosion at another home weeks earlier forced Colorado to suspend natural gas drilling around this southern plains town until someone could find out why dangerous levels of methane were getting into the groundwater…

“The water is so saturated with methane and other chemicals it is not to be used for human consumption,” said Bernice Angely, who’s had water trucked to her home 10 miles west of town since her well blew up in July 2007.

Petroglyph Energy Inc., a Boise, Idaho-based firm that has worked the rolling plains of the Raton Basin since 1999, suspended drilling until it can stem the methane. Colorado also is rewriting rules that had allowed Petroglyph to discharge water runoff from its drilling into streams and creeks. But Petroglyph says it’s not clear the drilling caused the methane leaks or prompted other area water wells to run dry. Eying what it calls an extremely promising natural gas field, it believes a shallow water formation tapped by area homeowners isn’t connected to a deeper one pumped by the company for its drilling operations. Petroglyph chief operating officer Paul Powell also believes a growing number of new homes in the area could explain some of the dry water wells. “We’ll do what we need to do,” Powell said, stressing that his firm is working with the state on a solution.

Petroglyph has a plan to prevent the flow of methane into water wells by creating a hydraulic barrier. The company has proposed pumping water from an underground formation and injecting it into a row of wells where gas drilling occurs. Powell said gas will migrate into a void, and “if the void is full of water, there isn’t room for gas to migrate through it.” State regulators say the plan is plausible but that Petroglyph needs to prove it works. Democratic U.S. Rep. John Salazar, who farms in the nearby San Luis Valley, has asked the U.S. Geological Survey to weigh in by evaluating the area’s water quality and formations to determine if the gas drilling is to blame for the problems.

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

Despite some speculation the commissioners might vote Monday on a resolution of support for the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, a measure introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Boulder), the commissioners actually decided to take on the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC).

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy – nuclear: New rules for in-situ uranium mines under review

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

Once the state approves them, those rules, now in the process of being written by Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety officials, aim to keep groundwater contamination from the mine in check and determine how much input the public will have in the mine permitting process…

The proposed rules lay out how Powertech would have to study what the groundwater quality is at the mine site before mining begins, prove that other similar mines elsewhere have been able to prevent groundwater contamination, and how it plans to reclaim the mine once its operations are complete and return the groundwater quality to what it will be before mining begins. The rules, required by a 2008 state law regulating in situ leach uranium mines like the one Powertech is proposing, have been evolving since May. The latest revision went public Oct. 20…

Specifically, the proposed rules would require the company to, among other things:

> Compare the plans for the Centennial Project to and describe at least five other in situ leach mines elsewhere that did not contaminate the groundwater, illustrating Powertech’s ability to keep its toxic chemicals contained.

> Submit a plan to the DRMS for determining the mine site’s “baseline” water quality, or the groundwater quality prior to the start of mining. Once the plan is submitted, the public will be allowed 10 days to comment.

> Carry out that plan for five calendar quarters, describing in detail both pre-mining surface and ground water conditions.

> Create an extensive groundwater monitoring plan.

The proposed rules allow the state to deny Powertech a mining permit if it can’t prove it will fully reclaim the mine and clean any groundwater it has contaminated, there are any future domestic or agricultural uses for any of the groundwater Powertech might contaminate, or, among other reasons, Powertech willfully violates environmental protection requirements of the rules.

More nuclear coverage here.

San Luis Valley: Final arguments heard in trial over first groundwater sub-district

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

Attorneys argued for four hours in a packed courtroom over which sources of water the subdistrict could use to replace injuries to senior surface users, how proposed computer modeling could accurately monitor them and to what extent past injury to seniors should be compensated. Attorney William Paddock, who represents the Rio Grande Water Users Association, argued that compensating for past depletions from the Rio Grande that project to cause injury into the future would be unfair to well users who were operating legally in the past. Judge O. John Kuenhold, who questioned each of the six attorneys who presented arguments, asked if not doing so would be fair to the senior surface water users, who’ve born the demands of delivering water downstream under the Rio Grande Compact since the 1960s while wells went unregulated. “Is it fair to wait 40 years for something?” he asked, while clarifying later in the proceedings that attorneys should not take his questioning as an indication of how he would rule.

The plan, which would take in roughly 174,000 acres of irrigated land and 3,000 irrigation wells, are an alternative to the rules and regulations currently being formulated by the Office of the State Engineer. Either of those two plans, should they go in effect, would represent the first regulation of the valley’s wells.

Tim Buchanan, an attorney representing 11 objectors, criticized the computer model that would be used to project depletions, noting that there were more than 200,000 acre-feet in groundwater depletions that resulted in only a 3-percent depletion to the Rio Grande. “Is it math or is it voodoo,” he asked. Buchanan and Erich Schwiesow, an attorney for one other objector, also questioned the subdistrict’s plans to attribute the recharge decrees of ditch companies in the subdistrict toward replacement water. Buchanan argued that the subdistrict didn’t have the authority to utilize the property rights of ditch shareholders in that manner. Paddock countered, noting that the decrees for two of the larger ditches in question, allowed water to be reallocated should they come under new regulation from the state.

Meanwhile, not content to wait for Judge Kuenhold’s ruling, the Rio Grande Water Conservation District board voted this week to move ahead with implementing assessments for the management of the groundwater sub-district. Here’s a report from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:

Well owners within the geographic area of the sub-district will pay fees to operate and manage the sub-district. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District (RGWCD) has been footing the bills for developing its sub-district to this point. The water management sub-district is designed to reduce well pumping in order to alleviate injuries to senior surface water rights, replenish the underground aquifer and ensure the basin complies with the Rio Grande Compact. The water court approved the sub-district, but the sub-district’s management plan is currently under dispute and judicial review…

RGWCD District Engineer Allen Davey asked the board on Tuesday if Sub-district #1 should prepare to submit the administrative fee documentation to the Rio Grande County treasurer. He said the process of preparing the documentation will cost some money, and the district would be risking the loss of those funds if the sub-district plan is denied by the courts. RGWCD Board President Ray Wright said the illness at the conclusion of the trial delayed closing arguments to the end of October, and the judge would undoubtedly take time to render a thorough decision after that time. He said it is a judgment call at this point whether the judge’s ruling will be made in time to begin assessments in 2010. Davey added that even if the judge makes a favorable ruling, an appeal could be filed that could last another year or more.

RGWCD Attorney Ingrid Barrier said, “I am fairly confident if we get such a ruling, we will have an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.” She said Kuenhold is well aware of the district’s time constraints regarding the fee collections, but there is also no question the judge will be determined to fashion a comprehensive decision taking into account the proposals of all the parties involved. “I think it is wise for us to move forward as if we are able to collect this fee … because if we do not do that, that’s another year off.” She said the administrative fees could be placed in an escrow account so in the event the Supreme Court denied the sub-district plan, the fees could be given back. Barrier said that completing the process to begin collecting fees would make it easier in the future to repeat the process. Several other sub-districts are in the works throughout the San Luis Valley…

Barrier also reviewed the major arguments from the principal attorney for the opponents, Tim Buchanan who represents a group of senior surface water owners. Barrier said the opposing arguments include: sub-district not entitled to use any water from the Closed Basin Project to replenish depletions; likewise with recharge water; the plan is not specific enough in how it will protect senior water rights; the plan is invalid because no rules/regulations are in place regarding contracts with well users outside the sub-district area; and the time period to begin replacing injurious depletions is in dispute. The sub-district board proposes to replace depletions in January of the year following the plan’s approval, while opponents believe the depletions should be retroactive.

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

USGS: Groundwater withdrawals decline from 2000 to 2005

Here’s the release from the USGS:

Estimates of water use in the United States indicate that about 410 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d) were withdrawn in 2005 for all categories summarized in this report. This total is slightly less than the estimate for 2000, and about 5 percent less than total withdrawals in the peak year of 1980. Freshwater withdrawals in 2005 were 349 Bgal/d, or 85 percent of the total freshwater and saline-water withdrawals. Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 Bgal/day in 2005 were about 5 percent less than in 2000, and fresh surface-water withdrawals of 270 Bgal/day were about the same as in 2000. Withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation and irrigation, the two largest uses of water, have stabilized or decreased since 1980. Withdrawals for public-supply and domestic uses have increased steadily since estimates began.

Thermoelectric-power generation water withdrawals were an estimated 201 Bgal/d in 2005, about 3 percent more than in 2000. In 2005, thermoelectric freshwater withdrawals accounted for 41 percent of all freshwater withdrawals. Nearly all of the water withdrawn for thermoelectric power was surface water used for once-through cooling at power plants. Twenty-nine percent of thermoelectric-power withdrawals were saline water from oceans and brackish coastal water bodies.

Withdrawals for irrigation in 2005 were 128 Bgal/d, about 8 percent less than in 2000 and approximately equal to estimates of irrigation water use in 1970. In 2005, irrigation withdrawals accounted for 37 percent of all freshwater withdrawals and 62 percent of all freshwater withdrawals excluding thermoelectric withdrawals. Irrigated acreage increased from 25 million acres in 1950 to 58 million acres in 1980, then remained fairly constant before increasing in 2000 and 2005 to more than 60 million acres. The number of acres irrigated using sprinkler and microirrigation systems has continued to increase and in 2005 accounted for 56 percent of the total irrigated acreage.

Water withdrawals for public supply were 44.2 Bgal/d in 2005, which is 2 percent more than in 2000, although the population increased by more than 5 percent during that time. Public supply accounted for 13 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in 2005 and 21 percent of all freshwater withdrawals excluding thermoelectric withdrawals. The percentage of the U.S. population obtaining drinking water from public suppliers has increased steadily from 62 percent in 1950 to 86 percent in 2005. Most of the population providing their own household water obtained their supplies from groundwater sources.

Self-supplied industrial water withdrawals continued to decline in 2005, as they have since their peak in 1970. Self-supplied industrial withdrawals were an estimated 18.2 Bgal/d in 2005, a 30-percent decrease from 1985. An estimated 4.02 Bgal/d were withdrawn for mining in 2005, which is 11 percent less than in 2000, and 18 percent less than in 1990. Withdrawals for mining were only 58 percent freshwater.

Livestock water use was estimated to be 2.14 Bgal/d in 2005, which is the smallest estimate since 1975, possibly due to the use of standardized coefficients for estimation of animal water needs. Water use for aquaculture was an estimated 8.78 Bgal/d in 2005, nearly four times the amount estimated in 1985. Part of this increase is due to the inclusion of more facilities in the estimates in 2005, and the use of standardized coefficients for estimating aquaculture use from other data.

Fresh surface water was the source for a majority of the public-supply, irrigation, aquaculture, thermoelectric, and industrial withdrawals. Nearly 30 percent of all fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005 occurred in five States. In California, Idaho, and Colorado, most of the fresh surface-water withdrawals were for irrigation. In Texas and Illinois, most of the fresh surface-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric power generation.

About 67 percent of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation, and 18 percent were for public supply. More than half of fresh groundwater withdrawals in the United States in 2005 occurred in six States. In California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho, most of the fresh groundwater withdrawals were for irrigation. In Florida, 52 percent of all fresh groundwater withdrawals were for public supply, and 34 percent were for irrigation.

More groundwater coverage here and here.

Split Estate

Here’s the link to the website for the new documentary, Split Estate dealing with oil and gas development and production. The film chronicles the effect on groundwater and suface water quality along with diminished air quality.

More oil and gas coverage here.

Morgan County source water protection plan drafting committee meeting recap

From The Fort Morgan Times (John La Porte):

Colleen Williams, a source water specialist with the Colorado Rural Water Association, a nonprofit organization that helps water districts and other groups with source water protection plans, presented the group with a draft of a plan for the Morgan County area. Members of the group will review the plan and suggest revisions. A final version of the plan is to be presented at the group’s next meeting Nov. 12 at 1:30 p.m. at the quality water district’s headquarters.

County buy-in to source water protection plans appears likely — Tony Carlson, one of the county commissioners; Barb Gorrell, zoning administrator; and Steve Enfante, emergency management coordinator, have been attending committee meetings. The plan will address a wide range of concerns about the protection of source water and ways of addressing those concerns. Public education looms large as a means of protecting water. In addition to county officials, the Northeast Colorado Oil and Gas Association, the city of Brush, Log Lane Village, the Morgan Conservation District and other entities have been involved in working on the plan.

The group is focusing on three areas — Hay Gulch near the border between Morgan and Weld counties, San Arroyo Creek southwest of Fort Morgan and Beaver Creek south of Brush. There are more than 600 oil and gas wells within the areas, but most of them are abandoned and capped. Regulations now call for oil and gas companies to use liners in water pits when drilling wells. In addition to oil and gas wells, other areas of possible concern to source water quality include transportation (particularly spills from vehicles), growth and development, septic systems, agricultural practices (especially fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides), private water wells, underground water storage, recharge ponds, residential practices and the Clean Harbors hazardous waste storage facility on Highway 36.

More Morgan County coverage here.

CWCB: $180,000 for Upper Ark groundwater study

From the Salida Citizen (Trey Beck):

A grant of $180,000 awarded recently by the Colorado Water Conservation Board will help the Upper Arkansas Water Conservation District to determine the amount of water in the Arkansas Valley. The study will investigate the availability and sustainability of groundwater and calculate the water needed to recharge underground resources. District General Manager Terry Scanga said that this information is a vital part of any discussion about current and future water use. “Determining the amount of water available will give municipal and land use planners a tool by which they can gauge sustainability,” said Scanga. The information will also help the District anticipate the need for new water projects.

More CWCB coverage here.

San Luis Valley: First groundwater management sub-district trial update

Here’s a recap of the first week of the current trial, from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:

The district and the state water division, represented by the attorney general’s office, are defending their approval of the sub-district board’s management plan while attorneys representing senior water users are contesting the plan as it is currently written.

By reducing well pumping in the closed basin area of the Valley north of the Rio Grande, the sub-district intends to provide protection and mitigation of injurious depletions to senior water rights; balance the aquifer; and ensure compliance with the Rio Grande Compact, an interstate agreement with downstream states.

The water district is presenting its witnesses first. Robbins said at the conclusion of testimony on Friday that the proponents still have four witnesses to call before the opponents begin their slate of witnesses.

Kuenhold told the attorneys on Friday that he would like to hear closing arguments in the case on the Friday of the third week, October 16, if at all possible He added he would try to render a decision in about 30 days following the trial but would not promise he could meet that ambitious of a deadline. He said he has asked visiting judges to help fill in for him so he could concentrate on the water decision…

When senior water rights attorney Tim Buchanan asked [Dr. Willem Schreüder, an expert on the Rio Grande Decision Support System computer model] if the model still had limitations, Schreüder responded, “I believe that’s true of every model.”[...]

Previously on the stand was the water district’s engineer Allen Davey who remained on the stand two days. Other witnesses this week have been the water district’s general manager Steve Vandiver and sub-district board member Carla Worley.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

In February, District Judge O. John Kuenhold sent the plan back to the board of managers for Subdistrict No. 1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. Kuenhold called for the inclusion of a time frame and detailed methodology for determining the depletions well pumping caused to the Rio Grande. The subdistrict’s boundaries would include 174,000 acres of irrigated land and roughly 3,000 groundwater irrigation wells. The valley could see up to five other subdistricts move forward with management plans if the court approves this one.

Attorney Tim Buchanan, who represents 11 objectors, said the revised plan left too much discretion to the state engineer and did not clearly lay out the steps the subdistrict would take. “We need implementing language,” he said. Buchanan also argued that the revised plan had backed away from previous testimony that past groundwater depletions would be replaced. Both he and Stephane Atencio, an attorney for two other objectors, took note that 40,000 acre-feet from past pumping will deplete the river over the next 20 years…

The subdistrict’s attorney, David Robbins, said the subdistrict board had felt replacing past depletions would punish those well users who voluntarily took part in the subdistrict. He added that the valley’s well users were operating within the law when those depletions were made. “There’s no logical basis to punish those who’ve acted affirmatively to solve the problem,” he said. Robbins also reiterated the plan was an attempt by users to find a workable solution instead of being subject to the groundwater rules and regulations currently being worked on by the engineer’s office. “It’s an effort to claim a right of self-governance,” he said.

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

San Luis Valley: Second round in court for first groundwater sub-district

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

Attorneys for proponents on Monday told the judge they had complied with his February order and revised the management plan. The state engineer’s office and sponsoring water district approved the amended plan this summer.

Opponents said they still had concerns with the plan, primarily regarding provisions to protect senior water rights, and argued that the amended plan did not comply with the judge’s February order. Three attorneys, Atencio, Erich Schwiesow and Tim Buchanan, represent the senior water users who still oppose the management plan.

Kuenhold has set aside the better part of three weeks for the trial, but RGWCD Attorney David Robbins told the judge on Monday he hoped to finish it in two weeks. He said he plans to call six or seven witnesses, and the state attorney general’s office plans to call two, State Engineer Dick Wolfe and Deputy State Engineer Michael Sullivan. Robbins said many of those involved in the water management effort, including one of his potential witnesses, were still involved in harvest.

The opening arguments consumed the morning of the first day, and the trial progressed no further than the first witness by the end of the day. Vandiver remains on the stand for cross-examination this morning as the trial enters its second day.

Vandiver testified about the process and progression of the revised management plan.

In his opening argument, Robbins said the sub-district water management plan is the culmination of seven years of efforts on the part of numerous volunteers who are trying to solve the Valley’s water problems in an innovative way, self-regulation. “The board of managers wasn’t thrilled to have had to do this, but they believe it’s the right thing to do. They believe it has to be done.”

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here.

State crackdown on well augmentation plan is squeezing Deer Mountain Ranch homeowners

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

The developers who subdivided the ranch were required to replace every drop that would be taken out of the Oil Creek watershed by the homes in the subdivision, since downstream ranchers, farmers and others have senior water rights. The plan the developers submitted to water court in the mid-1970s said they would build a pipeline from two wells they owned to bring water into Oil Creek below the subdivision, which flows into Four Mile Creek and the Arkansas River. “The pipeline apparently never was built, but the development did proceed. So there have been wells constructed that are withdrawing water contrary to the court-approved plan, or at least not in accordance with the court-approved plan,” said Steve Witte, division engineer in Pueblo for the Colorado Division of Water Resources. When lot buyers filed for well applications with the division, its staff checked to make sure there was a water augmentation plan, but nobody confirmed the plan was being followed, which was common practice, Witte said. Said Witte, “I think the folks that reviewed the well permit applications in our Denver office accepted on faith that the court-approved plan was being adhered to. They didn’t follow up to verify.”

More groundwater coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: BLM announces geothermal lease in the upper Arkansas River Valley

From The Mountain Mail (Ron Sering):

The area has been the subject of exploration dating back to the 1970s, and recent research by the Colorado School of Mines summer field camp indicated vast potential in the area. Mt. Princeton Geothermal, LLC, conducted thermal gradient testing this summer in conjunction with the CSM field camp and discovered what is to date the hottest known water source in the state.

The area’s proximity to available power lines increases the practicality of tapping the resource, using a binary method of generating electricity. The hot water is pumped to the surface and cycled through a heat exchanger to heat a special fluid with a boiling point lower than that of water. The resulting steam is used to drive turbines that generate electricity…

The lease sale will take place on November 12.

New York Times series: Toxic waters

The New York Times is running a series on the worsening problem of water pollution in the U.S. Here’s the link to the series. Here’s last Saturday’s installment (Charles Duhigg). From the article:

Almost four decades ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to force polluters to disclose the toxins they dump into waterways and to give regulators the power to fine or jail offenders. States have passed pollution statutes of their own. But in recent years, violations of the Clean Water Act have risen steadily across the nation, an extensive review of water pollution records by The New York Times found. In the last five years alone, chemical factories, manufacturing plants and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. The violations range from failing to report emissions to dumping toxins at concentrations regulators say might contribute to cancer, birth defects and other illnesses. However, the vast majority of those polluters have escaped punishment. State officials have repeatedly ignored obvious illegal dumping, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act, has often declined to intervene…

Records analyzed by The Times indicate that the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506,000 times since 2004, by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, according to reports submitted by polluters themselves. Companies sometimes test what they are dumping only once a quarter, so the actual number of days when they broke the law is often far higher. And some companies illegally avoid reporting their emissions, say officials, so infractions go unrecorded. Environmental groups say the number of Clean Water Act violations has increased significantly in the last decade. Comprehensive data go back only five years but show that the number of facilities violating the Clean Water Act grew more than 16 percent from 2004 to 2007, the most recent year with complete data…

…the Times’s research shows that fewer than 3 percent of Clean Water Act violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials. And the E.P.A. has often declined to prosecute polluters or force states to strengthen their enforcement by threatening to withhold federal money or take away powers the agency has delegated to state officials…

Enforcement lapses were particularly bad under the administration of President George W. Bush, employees say. “For the last eight years, my hands have been tied,” said one E.P.A. official who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. “We were told to take our clean water and clean air cases, put them in a box, and lock it shut. Everyone knew polluters were getting away with murder. But these polluters are some of the biggest campaign contributors in town, so no one really cared if they were dumping poisons into streams.” The E.P.A. administrators during the last eight years — Christine Todd Whitman, Michael O. Leavitt and Stephen L. Johnson — all declined to comment.

Here’s a look at the series from a Colorado perspective, from David O. Williams writing for Real Vail. From the article:

Thirty-nine states provided information requested by the New York Times as part of its series on Clean Water Act violations called “Toxic Waters: A series about the worsening pollution in American water and regulators’ response.” Colorado wasn’t one of them. Instead, here’s what Ann Hause of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reportedly told the Times when asked to provide information or verify the Times’s reporting on Colorado’s enforcement, or lack thereof, of the Clean Water Act: “We cannot verify the accuracy of this data because we cannot duplicate the ECHO query or survey used to generate this data. Also, the time period in question and the criteria used for specifying compliance are not stated. With respect to the remaining questions, as they are fairly resource-intensive, the Department is not able to provide answers within any predictable time frame.”

Colorado Ethics Watch, a nonprofit political watchdog group, found that response woefully inadequate and now plans to file its own Colorado Open Records Act request. “This is an unacceptable response. How can the Department not know whether or not it is enforcing the Clean Water Act? And more importantly, how are Coloradoans supposed to know whether the Department is adequately protecting them from environmental harms?” said Ethics Watch director Chantell Taylor. “Taxpayers deserve prompt, accurate information on such important matters of public safety and we intend to follow up with the Department to see if we can get just that.”

Meanwhile the Las Animas County Commissioners are worried about language in S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act, according to a report from Randy Woock writing for The Trinidad Times Independent. From the article:

The new language in the federal bill, proposed by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, would amend the Clean Water Act of 1972 by replacing the words “navigable waters” in the bill with the term “waters of the United States.” That change in the bill would define the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) area of jurisdiction to include, according to the bill’s official congressional summary, “…all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams, mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, lakes, natural ponds…to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.” As recently reported by environmental group Clean Water Action, a March 2008 memorandum from the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance claimed that “hundreds” of Clean Water Act enforcement cases had recently been either dropped or made lower priorities due to concerns about whether various rivers, streams, wetlands or other waters were protected from pollution by the Clean Water Act. The agency memo claimed that between 2006 and 2007 the agency chose to not pursue the enforcement of more than 300 violations due to the jurisdictional uncertainties. Clean Water Action reported that in 2001 the Supreme Court held that non-navigable intrastate waters were not protected by the Clean Water Act because they could serve as habitat for migratory birds. Clean Water Action claimed that it, “…gave polluters an opening to ramp up a decades-long effort to pressure the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to weaken their rules…

The county’s board of commissioners has also voiced concern about the proposed changes in the Clean Water Restoration Act. “I understand that there are probably some things (needing regulating), but why would we want everyone under those rules?” Las Animas County Commissioner Gary Hill said. “There’s ranchers, cities…what are we going to do when every drop of water that falls is sooner or later contaminated with a little drop of oil? Who’s going to pay for that?” Hill added, “Worse than that, when you get into a ranch or farm and you’re not having the public paying for it (EPA violations), then it’s just individuals…I don’t want anybody in control of our water; there’s enough regulations already.” Hill also said that the coalition of state counties, Colorado Counties, Inc., had drafted a letter in opposition to the bill, though it was not available for examination at press time.

Fellow County Commissioner Jim Vigil also voiced concern about the level of control over local waters that the bill could give federal agencies. “From an agricultural concern, the way that bill is proposed…the feds would have control over stock ponds, irrigation ditches, dry arroyos that run once a year when it rains, and that just makes it onerous on ranchers, farmers and, in general, the western U.S.,” Vigil said. “The EPA or Army Corps of Engineers could come in every time you wanted to clean out a stock pond or build a new stock pond or put in a new watering system.”

More water pollution coverage here.