Fryingpan-Arkansas Project: Planning for the future

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

In 2008, a banner year for imported water, actual results were 10 percent below estimates as conditions changed from a massive snowpack early in the season to a warm May. A row of dry years ahead of the runoff may have caused much of it to replenish depleted supplies held in the ground and ponds throughout the region. This year, closer to average in the amount of snowpack, but cooler and wetter than usual, saw three distinct runoffs that left many scratching their heads about where all the water was coming from. As a result, there was more water than expected.

[ Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Executive Director Jim Broderick] also is looking at ways to maximize the yield of the Fry-Ark Project in the future. The historic yield of the project has been about 80 percent of what it was designed for, of what even the West Slope agreed could be moved way back when.

There are physical limits as to how much water can be carried through the Boustead Tunnel, but that could be expanded if there were some way to store water on the other side. Right now, it all depends on when and how fast the snowpack melts.

The district also could look at purchasing more water, leasing water or other ways to increase supply for its members in years to come. It also has to analyze the risks to its structures and work with the federal government to make sure dams and diversion structures continue to function well, Broderick said.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

Greeley: New pipeline through LaPorte may utilize tunneling rather than trenching

From The Greeley Tribune (Bill Jackson):

Jon Monson, director of the city’s water and sewer department, said the city hopes to bore a tunnel underground for part of its new water pipeline from the Bellvue Water Treatment plant near Laporte, rather than dig an open trench. There are several reasons, Monson said, the least of which is that a tunnel will be less invasive to old railroad bridges, wildlife habitat and other environmental concerns dealing with restoration…

The area in question is about a quarter-mile in length. About 700 feet would be tunneled in three different locations, Monson said. “The problem is two ridges of rock, and we’ve decided it would be better to tunnel under that rock instead of trenching through it,” Monson said.

The decision doesn’t necessarily end a dispute with landowners in the area who are opposed to the pipeline going under their property. “We certainly hope this goes a long way toward ending the dispute with landowners, but they haven’t been terribly responsive” to the tunneling idea, Monson said. “We’re really trying to listen to their concerns. But they just don’t seem to want us there at all.”

Monson said the cost of tunneling is expected to be about the same as trenching because the price to restore the land and address historic and environmental concerns was substantial.

More coverage here and here.

Raw water systems winter operations

Here’s a look at winter operations for Pueblo’s raw water system, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. Click through and read the whole thing. Here are a couple of excerpts:

“When we plow the roads out, those banks of snow start to melt and freeze again until they turn hard as rocks. The trucks can get pretty banged up, so those guys have to be careful,” said Bud O’Hara, water resources division manager for the Pueblo Board of Water Works. Avalanches, broken bulldozer blades and survival in a dozen feet of snow are all part of the job for those who maintain and clear the systems that bring the water over. “Every one is different,” O’Hara said.

The Twin Lakes system, where a caretaker lives year-round, is in a bowl of mountains where avalanches are common. Those who live with them say you can hear them coming. In the winter, the caretakers at Grizzly Lake, located in the high country of the Roaring Fork valley near Independence Pass, have to drive to Leadville through the Twin Lakes Tunnel for supplies because the drifts are too high to make the trip to Aspen. Their lifestyle is isolated in the remote valley.

More Pueblo Board of Water Works coverage here and here.

Northern Integrated Supply Project: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement planned for summer 2011

From email from Save the Poudre (Gary Wockner):

On Friday, December 18, Chandler Peter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed that the permitting process for the Northern Integrated Supply Project and its destructive Glade Reservoir has once again been delayed. In December of 2008, the Army Corps stated that the “Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement” (SDEIS) for NISP/Glade would be released in June of 2010. But on Friday, the Army Corps stated in an email to the Save The Poudre Coalition that the release would be delayed at least another year until the summer of 2011. The Army Corps now also hopes that a “Final Environmental Impact Statement” (FEIS) might then be released in 2012.

“This is a holiday present for the Poudre River,” said Gary Wockner of the Save The Poudre Coalition. “The Poudre now has at least one more year of life, and the Save The Poudre Coalition has another year to grow stronger to save this beautiful river.”

This latest delay is just another in a long and extensive list of delays for this highly controversial and extremely expensive project. With each new version of the Environmental Impact Statement comes more public comment with more scientific, economic, and legal scrutiny. The project is now at least 6 years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget with no end in sight.

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

Denver Water: Cheesman Reservoir to be closed Jan 1, 2010 and reopen May 1, 2011

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

Cheesman Reservoir will be closed to visitors beginning Jan. 1, 2010, as Denver Water makes essential upgrades to the dam, which was built in 1905. The reservoir is scheduled to reopen May 1, 2011. Upper and lower Gill Trail will remain open to hikers who want to access Cheesman Canyon throughout the closure period.

During the closure, Denver Water will be upgrading the dam’s valve system, which was installed when the dam was built in 1905, and will be installing underwater trash racks to prevent debris from clogging the valves.

“Cheesman is more than 100 years old, and the underwater valves we are replacing were installed in 1905 and the late 1920s,” said Brian Good, director of operations and maintenance. “Upgrading our aging infrastructure is vital to maintaining dam safety, providing a viable water supply and ensuring smooth operations.”

Most of the construction at the site will take place underwater through specialized underwater diving construction techniques.

For more information about Cheesman Reservoir, visit www.denverwater.org/Recreation/Cheesman.

More Denver Water coverage here.

Transmountain diversions: Moving water from the rainy side of Colorado

Here’s a look at some of the history behind transmountain diversions, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. Be sure to click though and read the whole thing. Here are some excerpts from the article:

“I expect that these waters in the mountains, instead of being a menace to the people upon the plains, will be their source of strength and their source of wealth,” William Jennings Bryan told an international water conference in Pueblo in 1910. The problem then, as it is now, is that the water just wasn’t there.

A semi-arid region where the average annual rainfall is less than 20 inches was not readily recognized as an agricultural mecca. In most years as it does now, water came in a rush when snow melted in spring, during summer monsoons and in many years would stop late in the growing season, when many crops were ready for harvest. In the worst years, no water came at all. “Nature gave Colorado two valuable resources: an abundance of water and vast tracts of fertile and arable land,” said the late Harold Christy, a CF&I water engineer who helped form the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “She gave us these great assets but did not logically locate them practical use. She left the job of consolidation to the hand of man.” The solution was to move water from one side of the mountains to the other and store it for when it was needed. The state Legislature began looking at ways to do that as early as 1889. The 50-year span from 1920-70 would mark an era of projects designed to fulfill that vision in Eastern Colorado.

At first, moving water across mountains mostly involved digging ditches across mountain passes. The earliest effort still running is the Grand Ditch, completed in the 1890s, in what is now Rocky Mountain National Park. Many other ditches were dug by farmers looking for a way to make water available throughout the growing season. As the cities have grown, they have acquired many of those systems after irrigators found them expensive to maintain. Pueblo, for instance, acquired the Ewing, Wurtz and Columbine ditches in Lake County in the early 1950s to cope with water shortages at the time.

Engineers also were already toying with tunnels in the early 1900s. An early large tunnel project devoted solely to water was the Gunnison-Uncompahgre Tunnel completed in 1909, which was built by the Bureau of Reclamation to move water from one sub-basin of the Colorado River to another, and later transferred to a local district. Similarly, the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel, completed in 1911, brought water from the North Platte into the South Platte basin in Northern Colorado. Rail tunnels, like the Carlton Tunnel near Leadville that later became the diversion tunnel for the Busk-Ivanhoe system, or Denver’s Moffat Tunnel, were later used as ways to move water.

More transmountain/transbasin coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Can the west and east slope find common ground?

Drew Peternell, Director of Colorado Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project has penned a call to negotiation and common sense in today’s Denver Post. Click through and read the whole thing. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Trout Unlimited, a sportsmen’s group committed to preserving Colorado’s rivers and fisheries, can accept a Moffat project if Denver agrees to responsible measures to protect western Colorado. That means, at a minimum, guaranteeing healthy year-round stream flows in the Fraser, Williams Fork and upper Colorado Rivers. That also means improving Denver’s track record on water conservation. Denver has implemented some meaningful conservation measures, but there is much more it can do — such as offering incentives for households to replace water-thirsty turf with drought-tolerant landscaping…

What’s at issue in the Moffat plan is our willingness on the Front Range to accept a modest tradeoff to preserve Colorado’s magnificent outdoor resources. With smart resource management, we have enough water to sustain both our home places and our wild places — we don’t need to choose between the two. If it respects diverse needs, Denver Water can find pragmatic water supply solutions that work for everyone, on both sides of the Divide.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Meanwhile here’s a look at transmountain diversions from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The diversions vary in size from the very small, like the Larkspur Ditch that brings Upper Gunnison River water to the Arkansas River basin, to the very large – the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Many were developed as primarily agricultural diversions that are turning into municipal projects. The C-BT Project, fed by the Alva B. Adams Tunnel, was four-fifths agricultural when it started more than 70 years ago. Today, about two-thirds of the project’s yield provides water for northern Colorado’s growing cities.

Here’s a look at the current state of planning for growth and consumption, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The ditches and tunnels that already cross the mountains have a long history of dispute. Water planners are starting to worry about what could happen if those systems fail. Those who live in the areas where the water is taken from on the West Slope want to make sure the water is used wisely on the Front Range. And the Front Range is looking to slake its thirst with even more pipelines from the West.

More transmountain/transbasin diversions coverage here.

Drought readiness is one of the reasons that Denver Water wants to move more water to their northern system, hence the enlargement of Gross Reservoir by raising the dam 125 feet or so. Colorado River Basin firm yield is expected to keep dropping as it has in recents years as a result of climate change. Here’s a look at statewide planning for climate change from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

You may not think climate change is real. As for water planners, they believe.

Climate change already had become a staple of water discussions by October 2008, when Gov. Bill Ritter convened a special meeting on the topic. “At no time has our water been threatened so much by drought, climate change and population growth,” Ritter said at the time. “As we assess the impact of climate change, water absolutely has to be a part of the discussion.”

More climate change coverage here.

Greeley: New pipeline through LaPorte may utilize tunneling rather than trenching

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Kevin Duggan):

Boring a route for the pipeline would cost “millions” more than digging a trench, but it would still be less expensive than trying to run the pipeline along other routes, said Jon Monson, director of water and sewer for Greeley. Tunneling also poses less of a threat to bridges that carry a historic railroad near the south bank of the Poudre River as well as irrigation ditches on the properties, he said. “Either way we go would be expensive,” Monson said. “We thought tunneling would give us the best shot at avoiding the bridges and minimizing the environmental impacts through this area.”

But some affected property owners said they are not impressed with Greeley’s tunneling proposal and plan to continue fighting the pipeline. “I’m not a bit interested in their plan,” said Rose Brinks. “It would still be extremely disruptive to our farm.” Brinks said running the pipeline across her land would cause irreparable harm to historic and natural resources on the property. The pipeline’s presence would impede her family’s ability to develop the property if they chose to do so, she said. The Colorado Historical Society has indicated the property would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, Brinks said. The designation could affect Greeley’s ability to get a permit for the project from the Army Corps of Engineers, she said…

Tunnels would be bored along an area about a quarter of a mile long, said Dan Moore, project manager for the pipeline. Surface disruption over tunneled area would look like a “Jeep road” rather than a 30-foot wide swath that would come with an open trench. “The whole idea is that we will try to use the bores where practical to reduce impact and make the restoration efforts a lot successful,” Moore said…

Digging the tunnel would cost about $3 million. But the route is still preferable to alternatives, such as running the pipeline down County Road 54G and disrupting many businesses and homes, Monson said.

More coverage here and here.

Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority scores water rights on the South Platte River in Weld County

From The Denver Post:

The Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority has secured long-term surface water rights on the South Platte River in Weld County. The authority said it will issue about $153 million in bonds to purchase and develop infrastructure that will serve the authority’s 3,000 residential and commercial customers.

More Denver Basin Aquifer System coverage here and here.

Steamboat Springs: Public Works director pitches $34 million for proposed water infrastructure

From the Steamboat Pilot & Today (Mike Lawrence):

Philo Shelton said Thursday that he is confident in the city’s updated plan for $34 million worth of potential water infrastructure that would service future development west of Steamboat Springs. Shelton is director of Steam boat Springs’ public works department. On Tuesday, he presented a study by McLaughlin Water Engineers, of Denver, “Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates,” to the Steamboat Springs City Council. The study includes projected water and wastewater demands and details the infrastructure needed to service those demands should potential development — including the proposed Steamboat 700 and 360 Village annexations — occur west of current city limits. “It does not raise concerns for me,” Shelton said about the city’s ability to meet future water capacity demands, costs and infrastructure plans. “This plan is a good plan to allow for treated water, as well as nonpotable irrigation water. … The other piece is that it allows for a new source of water and provides needed redundancy in our region.”[...]

The McLaughlin study projects a maximum water demand of 7.34 million gallons per day, or mgd, after build-out within city limits and in the west of Steamboat area, including potential annexations and other development. The city’s current water treatment capacity is 4.55 mgd, and the current city demand is 3.3 mgd, according to the study. Those figures do not include demands serviced by the Mount Werner Water and Sanitation District. Expanding existing city facilities — including additional filtration at the Fish Creek water treatment plant, which the city shares with the Mount Werner district — could boost the city’s treatment capacity to 7.65 mgd, just more than the 7.34 mgd future demand…

The $34 million cost of developing that service includes $5 million to buy the 1,000-acre site for a reservoir; $7.5 million to build the reservoir; $4.75 million to build a water treatment plant that initially would provide 2.5 mgd, and ultimately could provide 5 mgd; and other land, construction, legal and administrative costs…

The McLaughlin study said water infrastructure on the west side of the city is needed regardless of future development, to provide redundancy for what it called a “dead-end” city water treatment system that comes only from one side of the city. McLaughlin said building a 1-million-gallon storage tank near Steamboat Springs Airport is a high priority for the city and that a booster pump station will be needed if the Elk River supply is not developed.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Republican River Water Conservation Board of Directors meeting recap

From The Yuma Pioneer (Tony Rayl):

The day included presentations on the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, the history and development of Colorado Ground Water Commission rules, distinct rules by ground water management districts, and the new mandatory water metering. And that was just in the morning. Then came the afternoon, featuring a compact accounting update by RRWCD engineer Jim Slattery, State Engineer Dick Wolfe and Assistant State Engineer Mike Sullivan giving an update on getting approval for the proposed pipeline by the Republican River Compact Administration, and RRWCD leaders explaining the district’s current stance in continuing with the pipeline, and why they have done what they have to date.

Colorado invoked fast-track arbitration with fellow compact states Kansas and Nebraska after the RRCA rejected the pipeline on a 1-2 vote last August. It was the second time the RRCA, which consists of the state engineer from each state, rejected Colorado’s proposed pipeline, the first vote coming last April. Wolfe reported Monday that the state still had not selected an arbitrator, which was supposed to have been done two months ago. He later explained Kansas did not want to keep the arbitrator that decided another fast-track arbitration case earlier this year between Kansas and Nebraska. Wolfe said the new finalists all were expensive, particularly with all the states going through budget crunches, and Nebraska wanted to interview all of the finalists in person. He said he had hoped to announce the arbitrator Monday because Nebraska was done with the interviews. However, he had not heard on a final selection before coming to Yuma. When asked about sticking to the fast-track arbitration deadline, Wolfe said Colorado could force the other states to stick to the timeline with the hearings in February, and a final decision in March. However, he left the door open for Colorado allowing a slight extension…

Wolfe revisited the many concerns held by either Kansas or Nebraska in regards to the pipeline. Those include worries Colorado would pump too much one year and then not pump any water into the North Fork in following years, groundwater depletions by the use of the pipeline, the impact depletions could have on the Haigler Ditch in Nebraska, and Kansas’ continued assertion that Colorado must satisfy the South Fork obligations by pumping water into the South Fork, rather than satisfying that by pumping all of the water into the North Fork. Kansas has expressed its wishes that Colorado would extend the pipeline about 15 miles further south to pump water into a South Fork tributary. David Barfield from Kansas has told Colorado his state in theory supports the pipeline, but issues need to be resolved. There is a concern from Colorado’s end about the compact model dictating that groundwater depletions by the pipeline could result in Colorado receiving up to 20 percent less credit. Wolfe said the situation comes down to Kansas and Nebraska being worried they would lose all leverage in future negotiations if they approved the pipeline — even though Colorado has added provisions stating the other two can still seek compensation for past damages, as well as Colorado being obligated to any potential ruling on the sub-basin test…

David Robbins, legal counsel for the RRWCD, said Monday that when the district was formed earlier this decade, the understanding that removing about 30,000 acres from production would about do it in regards to Colorado coming into compliance, with Mother Nature taking care of the rest. With that in mind, the district immediately began working toward CREP and EQIP programs, which pay producers to turn off their wells — CREP for permanent retirement and EQIP temporary turnoffs of a certain amount of years. Robbins said all along Colorado knew it would eventually have to build a pipeline at some time in the future. However, he said that by 2007 it was clear the well retirements alone would not be enough, and the pipeline needed to be done sooner rather than later. Robbins explained why the RRWCD went ahead with purchasing the water rights earlier this year from the Cure family. The water rights are to 62 wells north of Laird, where a pipeline will be built to discharge the water into the North Fork within a half-mile of the Colorado-Nebraska state line…

He said there are a lot of problems with Kansas’ proposal of extending the pipeline to the South Fork. It would entail putting water into a dry creek bed, where it would then have to travel more than 40 miles getting to the gage in Benkleman…

Slattery, during his presentation, explained the importance of draining Bonny Reservoir to help Colorado come into compliance. It would be eliminate 3,300 acre feet per year currently counted against Colorado due to evaporation and seepage from the reservoir’s water. The figure used to be higher, but the reservoir is now being kept around 10,000 acre feet. In fact, Wolfe said he ordered the release of water from the reservoir again earlier this month, sending water down the South Fork, while also keeping Bonny’s level down. The state engineer said there are a lot of issues surrounding the Bonny situation that have to be worked out with a variety of agencies before it could ever be drained. He said he feels is getting close in coming months to getting all those issues settled…

Slattery’s presentations, letters from Kansas and Nebraska concerning the proposed pipeline, Colorado’s proposed resolutions and other important information concerning the pipeline and Republican River Compact, can be found at www.republicanriver.com.

Palmer Lake: Town Council approves water rate increase

From The Tri-Lakes Tribune (Lisa Collacott):

The basic rate will increase from $33.53 to $40.07. The increase is needed to fund the new water plant. There will be an $11.51 increase per tap per month. An additional $6.54 will be added to maintain a three-month reserve. The state has required the Town of Palmer Lake to create an emergency fund with the $6.54 that is collected. At the end of 2010 the $6.54 will be taken off the bill. The $11.51 will stay until the loan is paid off, which will be in 20 years. “We needed the money for the new plant,” said water commissioner, Max Stafford. “The old one was 30-years-old and it was hard to get parts for it.”

Palmer Lake has taken a $1.8 million loan from the state’s revolving fund for improvements. The loan is a low-interest subsidized loan. “There was no raise in the budget or employee benefits. It’s all about the loan,” Stafford said.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Dolores: Water and sewer rates to go up next year

From the Cortez Journal (Shannon Livick):

Dolores residents will see their water and sewer bills go up next year, following a Monday-night decision by town board members to increase rates 3 percent. Interim Town Manager Ryan Mahoney said the increase was a must, to keep up with the rising costs of labor, chemical supplies and additional testing. The 3 percent increase will cost the average customer about $17 a year…

The base rate for water for in town residents up to 4,000 gallons will now be $24.36. The base rate for residential, in-town sewer will be $24.72…

Green said because the water and sewer rates are having difficulty paying for themselves, the increase was the only way to keep up with costs and continue to maintain the system. “We are not keeping up in the sewer fund,” Mayor Val Truelson said. The increase would give the town about $10,800 of additional revenue, Mahoney said. The revenue will go to the water and sewer enterprise funds because of escalating costs of doing business, needed maintenance and ongoing improvements.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District hosts informational meeting on proposed irrigation rules

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

There is no question the rules are needed to keep Kansas at bay after 24 years of litigation over the Arkansas River Compact, State Engineer Dick Wolfe told about 75 irrigators gathered at the offices of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “We’re acutely aware of our requirements under the compact,” Wolfe said. “It is the tail that wags the dog.”[...]

Wolfe convened a committee to reshape the rules after initial objections, including a meeting of the Lower Ark packed by more than 100 people objecting the early version. “It’s been a very effective process for us and useful to us in developing the rules,” Wolfe said. “The state is not against irrigation improvements . . . The rules allow systems to operate, but also preserve the priority system (of water rights).” During the committee process, changes favorable to irrigators were made, added Peter Nichols, water attorney for the Lower Ark District. Many on-farm improvements were taken off the table, leaving sprinklers and drip irrigation. The rules now also accommodate seepage from ponds. “The rules are an attempt to avoid a train wreck like we had on the South Platte in 2002-03,” Nichols said. “They’ve changed a lot, for the better.”[...]

One of those changes involves a compliance plan by the Lower Ark district, which would allow farmers to fill out a form once, make a payment and, barring major changes in irrigation, leave the engineering and water augmentation headaches to the district, said Gregg Ten Eyck, an engineer with Leonard Rice consultants. The Lower Ark has spent about $325,000 so far developing the compliance plan, which it plans to operate at cost. The fees for the plan have not been set. The plan would average out wet and dry years, transferring risks from irrigators to the district. It would draw water from numerous sources to be used at the right time and place to augment flows on the Arkansas River.

The state still would have to verify the plans were accurate, using water commissioners and satellite images to check on the written reports. “The enforcement action would be targeted at the individual farmer,” said Steve Witte, Division 2 engineer.

More Arkansas Valley consumptive use rules coverage here.

South Platte Roundtable: Ag transfers not enough to meet future demand

Folks on the South Platte Roundtable are trying to get the word out that Colorado needs a major water project to meet the needs of projected growth. They’re also hoping to convince the rest of the state that it is a statewide problem and that Colorado’s economic engine is primarily in the South Platte Basin and the area needs water to continue to generate that prosperity. Here’s a report from Bill Jackson writing for The Greeley Tribune. From the article:

That was the consensus [ag transfers falling short] Thursday when the South Platte Roundtable of the Colorado Water Conservation Board unveiled the findings of its study, Water for the 21st Century. The group is one of eight in the state developed by the Colorado Legislature following the drought years of the early part of the century.

The South Platte group, which has 50 members from Park County north to Larimer County and east to the Nebraska and Kansas borders, has met monthly for more than four years. The group believes that by 2050, the medium demand for Weld, Larimer and Boulder counties alone will require an additional 200,000 acre-feet of water just to meet municipal and industrial needs. An acre-foot of water is enough to supply two families with a year’s supply of water. “We will need another Colorado-Big Thompson Project or most of another Poudre River to meet those needs,” Harold Evans told a group of about 150 people at the meeting at The Ranch in Loveland. Evans, chairman of the Greeley Water and Sewer Board, is vice chairman of the South Platte Roundtable…

Gary Wockner of Fort Collins, with the Save The Poudre Coalition, said the study has serious, “and perhaps fatal, flaws and appears to be rooted in the river-destruction policies of the 19th century rather than the diverse Colorado interests of the 21st century.”

Evans said the roundtables have been asked to develop needs assessments for the future, not control growth. He said that Colorado water law will prevail to the use of groundwater. It looked at demands as of 2030 and on out to 2050.

More IBCC — Basin roundtable coverage here and here.

Carter Lake: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Carter Lake hydroelectric retrofit update

From the Loveland Reporter Herald (Pamela Dickman):

The water district is on track to begin building a hydroelectric plant late next year that would provide power to the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association by spring 2012. “We’re taking advantage of the elevation difference between the water level at Carter Lake and the canal downstream,” said Carl Brouwer, project manager with Northern Water. “Right now all that energy is just dissipated. We want to turn that into hydroelectric energy.” Northern Water received preliminary approval in November from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. And Wednesday, the Larimer County Planning Commission gave its nod to the project.

The small facility would be built at the south dam next to a new water outlet in an area that already has been disturbed by construction. And it would use water that already is being transferred, so it wouldn’t affect levels in Carter Lake, Brouwer said…

The plant would produce about 10 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year. “It’s roughly enough to supply a couple thousand homes,” Brouwer said.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Parker: Recall of Parker Water and Sanitation board fails

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

A proposed water-rate hike last year prompted the campaign to oust four members as irresponsible. Board members backtracked, but campaigners pushed on. The results — board president Mary Spencer survived by 30 votes, Root by 7, Mike Casey by 58 — won’t be final until Dec. 30, Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Jack Arrowsmith said. At least one race requires a recount.

Parker’s 12-month tussle reflects rising tension over water in Front Range suburbs, where water managers are struggling to obtain and divert renewable water from mountain rivers as local groundwater supplies dwindle. “This is the kind of battle we’ll see played out with greater frequency as the demands on these finite water resources intensify,” said water expert David Getches, dean of the University of Colorado law school and former state director of natural resources. “We’ve allowed, in Colorado, whole subdivisions and whole communities to be built on nonrenewable water supplies.” Parker’s five-member board oversees the water supply for more than 22,000 people southeast of Denver who rely on 30 wells, from 51 to 2,745 feet deep, that draw fewer and fewer gallons per minute. State data show water tables falling 30 feet a year…

Frank Jaeger, the water-district manager, is leading a drive to divert upper Colorado River Basin water to Denver suburbs from western Wyoming. The $230 million Rueter-Hess reservoir under construction near Parker — one of Colorado’s biggest water- storage projects in decades — would hold that water, along with creek runoff and reused water treated at a new high-tech chemical plant. Jaeger’s district, established in 1962, is one of dozens created after developers built subdivisions across semi- arid terrain and left decisionmaking to the residents. Now, boards face difficult decisions as economic doldrums limit residents’ abilities to pay higher water rates…

“What we learned is, we weren’t doing a very good job of educating the public,” [accountant Darcy Beard] said. “The cost of water in Colorado is never going to go down. We live in a high-desert environment.”

More Parker coverage here.

Fruita: City Council approves $57.9 million budget including dough for new wastewater treatment plant

From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Mike Wiggins):

…the council adopted a $57.9 million budget for 2010. The vast majority of that money — roughly $44 million — is dedicated to the construction of a new wastewater treatment plan and a community center.

More from the article:

Council members unanimously agreed to enact the city’s parks, open space and trails master plan, which calls for developers of subdivisions adjacent to primary trails identified in the plan to donate a portion of their project for a trail. For properties that abut canals and drainage ditches, trails would be built next to those waterways, assuming the land is developable. Under the plan, developers would have to dedicate 20 feet of right of way for the trail next to the canal easement. The trail requirement only applies to land as it’s annexed into and developed in the city. City officials emphasized they will not force landowners to sell or acquire land for trails through eminent domain. The plan to create trails next to canals has generated concerns from the agencies that own and operate irrigation canals. Even though the city said it will develop trails next to, rather than on top of, canal easements, some worry about the proximity of recreation to waterways. “We’re still concerned with any recreational use of the canal,” Robert Raymond, president of the board of directors of the Grand Valley Irrigation Co., told council members. The irrigation company maintains nearly 100 miles of canals in the valley.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Denver Water agrees to comment period extension until March 1

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

• All comments on the Draft FERC Hydropower License Amendment Application must be submitted in writing to Denver Water through the Denver Water Web site or by e-mail, mail or fax by: March 1, 2010.

Denver Water Fax: (303) 628-6852, Attn: Brian Gogas Email: moffatproject@denverwater.org

Mail Code 415 Web site: www.denverwater.org/moffat

1600 West 12th Avenue, Denver, CO 80204

• All comments on the Moffat Collection System Project Draft EIS and Section 404 permit application must be submitted in writing to the U.S. Army Corps by e-mail, mail or fax by: March 1, 2010.

Scott Franklin, Moffat EIS Project Mgr. Fax: (303) 979-0602

Corps Denver Regulatory Office Email: moffat.eis@usace.army.mil

9307 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Website: www.nwo.usace.mil/html/od-tl/eis-info.htm

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

EPA to start getting tough on violations where schools are involved

From the Associated Press (Kevin Freking) via The Durango Herald:

As part of the new approach, EPA officials said the agency would pay particular attention to chronic violators and said in some cases they would ask small water systems to restructure or merge to improve their safety records. The hearing came after an Associated Press investigation showing that about one in five schools with their own wells violated the Safe Drinking Water Act in the last decade, a problem that until now has gone largely unmonitored by the federal government…

Cynthia Giles, an assistant administrator for enforcement at EPA, said the agency will focus on regulating the most important violations, but did not elaborate on how that would apply to schools. She acknowledged that some smaller water systems have had historical problems complying with the law, and that the agency’s main database of these violations contained errors.

“We share the frustration of trying to work with some of these smaller systems to get them into compliance,” Giles said in an interview after the hearing.

More water treatment coverage here.

Pueblo West: Water and sewer rates going up

FromThe Pueblo Chieftain (James Amos):

The board of the Pueblo West Metropolitan District approved next year’s $24.3 million budget on Monday. The budget included a 7.9-percent raise in water fees and a 3.2-percent raise in sewer fees. Steve Harrison, the district’s director of utilities, said the raises sound large but only amount to a few dollars a month for modest-sized homes.

More Pueblo West coverage here.

Boulder: City Council discusses Boulder Reservoir water quality

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Erica Meltzer):

In a discussion of a new master plan for the Boulder Reservoir, council members expressed concern about maintaining water quality and preventing invasive species from entering the reservoir. Several council members asked what the city could do to pressure the managers of Six Mile Reservoir, which feeds into the Boulder Reservoir, to maintain water-quality standards similar to Boulder’s. The answer was not much, except exert regional pressure.

More water pollution coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: Highline Ditch shareholders meeting recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

High Line shareholders Monday agreed to Aurora’s request for more engineering on the ditch that sold Aurora water in a lease agreement to speed the city’s recovery from the 2002 drought. The decision came after a long day of re-examining the past deal with Aurora, complaints from shareholders that they are not being kept informed and debates about the merits of forming a leasing company vs. joining the Super Ditch. “We want to know if we should begin working on the engineering to move forward to get a permanent water right to lease to Aurora or others,” said Tom Simpson, Aurora engineering supervisor for the Arkansas Valley. “Do the shareholders want to move forward?” About five hours later, shareholders voted to allow Aurora to continue the engineering studies that will make future water deals easier.

Aurora and the High Line Canal jointly filed for an exchange water right in 2005 after a two-year lease program that was deemed successful by all involved. Aurora was able to replenish its badly depleted reservoirs, while High Line farmers had an instant source of income after a couple of tough farming years. The exchange right, however, still would require a substitute water supply plan from the state Division of Water Resources. Aurora wants to get started on a change of use decree in water court because it would save time in the future…

Simpson said the 2008 agreement is merely a framework and does not obligate shareholders. In fact, it benefits High Line by providing a $15,000-$25,000 annual maintenance payment. In the past two years, High Line has taken the payment by leasing water from Aurora for prices of $5-$10 per acre-foot. “We did not intend to say that anyone has to lease to Aurora rather than anyone else,” Simpson said. Aurora also has had preliminary discussions with the board about long-term leases in the future. The city is limited by a 2003 agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District about how much water it can lease from the Arkansas Valley.

High Line is also exploring forming its own water leasing company, Superintendent Dan Henrichs said, in explaining a $70,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The canal wants to spend $30,000 of that toward setting up a company, and $40,000 to study water quality at the point on the river near its headgate. The idea would be to build a pipeline on land the canal owns on the north side of the river to serve customers in northern El Paso County or the South Platte River basin, Henrichs said. Other ditches could be brought into the plan, which might not materialize for 25 years, Henrichs said…

One board member candidly expressed his dismay over the afternoon’s arguments: “I’m disappointed,” said Vernon John Proctor. “I thought we were going to have a meeting about what was best for the High Line Canal Co., not talk about the Super Ditch and the Lower Ark.”

More coverage of the meeting from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The biggest immediate problem facing the 87-mile-long ditch in Pueblo and Otero counties includes a stretch of canal that has washed out in recent years. If the canal were to break during irrigation season, it could mean three months without water for 23,000 acres of farmland.

The ditch company also had to take out a loan to build a new caretaker’s home at Boone and spend down reserves to repair another house in Manzanola. Those are the type of routine concerns large ditches traditionally face. But much of Superintendent Dan Henrichs’ time is spent outside the routine jobs, attending regional or state water meetings on behalf of the High Line board. He also is developing a project that eventually could lead to a program to sell water through leases outside the ditch.

In 2008, Henrichs applied for a $325,000 state grant to fund steps that lead to a leasing program, a future pipeline north and water quality studies. The ditch company was awarded $70,000 for part of the studies by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “The board’s thinking in applying for the grant was maximizing the value of our water,” the board’s president, Stan Fedde, told shareholders who questioned why the canal company was moving in that direction…

Many farmers are older, and may be looking to retire. Selling water at higher prices is a way to pay off debts or may be the closest thing they have to a 401(k) plan. That’s played out in different ways throughout the valley in the past few years:

Most of the remaining shares on the Rocky Ford Ditch were sold to Aurora, which bought half of the ditch in the 1980s. Aurora and Colorado Springs bought the vast majority of the Colorado Canal in the 1980s as well.
The Fort Lyon Canal agreed to allow High Plains A&M (now Pure Cycle) to move water from the canal as long as it was done in rotation. High Plains bought about 20 percent of the ditch.
Nearly half of farms on the Amity Canal were purchased by the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association in order to use the water in future power projects.
The Pueblo Board of Water Works bought 27 percent of shares on the Bessemer Ditch for future water use.

The High Line was faced with the same pressures during the drought and many shareholders were looking at selling. Instead, they held on to their water rights by selling water to Aurora under a lease agreement…

The arrangement with Aurora has had other benefits for the ditch, other than an infusion of cash that paid down debt, bought new equipment and allowed repairs on farms. Aurora improved structures on the ditch and built an augmentation station that will allow future leases. Henrichs pointed out that Aurora has helped High Line by providing crews to burn ditches when weeds became a problem. Shareholders Monday also recognized the value of Aurora’s engineering studies of the canal, voting to give the city permission to develop more studies toward a 2005 exchange case and Aurora’s plans for an upcoming water court case to change the use of High Line water. The Aurora lease agreement also opened the door for other cooperative ventures. The High Line wants to draw in other canals, at the ditch-board level, to sell water. Meanwhile, the Super Ditch has formed with shareholders from seven canals and an agreement in hand to enter a long-term lease with Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority in 2011.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Cañon City scores $200,000 from Great Outdoors Colorado for whitewater park

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):

Local boaters teamed up in 2007 with the Canon City Chamber of Commerce to start the process of fundraising for the Whitewater Kayak and Recreation Park, affectionately dubbed WKRP-Canon City. The effort got an ample boost in March 2008 when City Council voted to accept a $25,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Total cost of the project is estimated to be about $375,000. The project is planned for a section of the Arkansas River that runs along Centennial Park, also known as Duck Park, roughly between the Fourth Street Viaduct and Second Street.

Currently, the water running by the park is flat and the banks are steep, so the banks will need to be reinforced to allow gentle sloping river access for everyone. Wading pools will be added to encourage children who want to cool off in the summer without fear of deep, swift water. Put-in and take-out ramps plus play holes would be added for boaters such as kayakers, canoeists and rafters, with the use of strategically placed rocks. The water park will be an ideal place for kayakers to learn the sport and boost their confidence by getting a feel for the water. “The $200,000 is enough, with all the money raised (during the past two years) to proceed, plus we have had a donation of stone for the banks,” said Steve Rabe, Canon City administrator, who applied for the grant.

If all goes as planned, Rabe hopes to put out bid requests by the end of the year.

More whitewater coverage here.

S. 1777: Good Samaritan Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2009

This video about Good Samaritan cleanups has been making the rounds in the blogosphere. Click through and watch it. It takes about 6 minutes.

More S. 1777 coverage here.