Colorado Springs city council approves $1.11 billion budget for Colorado Springs Utilities

From the Colorado Springs Independent:

In approving Colorado Springs Utilities’ $1.11 billion budget, City Council this week allowed the city-owned agency to use water rate money to fund $75.8 million in projects over 10 years. The projects will satisfy regulations imposed on the Southern Delivery System pipeline that will bring water from Pueblo Reservoir. Money for those projects is included in the rate base starting in January, although roughly $64 million in work won’t begin until after 2010. The idea is to spread the cost over 10 years, rather than coming up with all the money now, says Councilman Randy Purvis, adding that amortizing payments spreads the cost to future ratepayers. Projects include dredging Fountain Creek, developing wetlands and erosion control. The largest sum, $49.7 million, comprises five annual cash payments to the Fountain Valley Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District formed this year to improve and preserve the corridor. The Utilities budget contains rate increases that will raise the typical residential bill by about $1.90 a month, which would have been larger but for reductions in gas charges due to falling fuel costs.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here.

South Platte Roundtable recap

From the Fort Lupton Press (Rosalie Everson):

“There is virtually no new water left to develop in the South Platte River Basin,” Mike Shimmin, a member of the Interbasin Compact Committee said in a roundtable progress report [December 17] at the Larimer County Fairgrounds. There might not be any more water to develop, but there will be major population growth, perhaps double, in the basin, an area that includes the northeastern quadrant of the state. Closing the door to new residents, an option one member of the audience inquired about, would not completely solve the problem. Fifty percent of the increased water users will be the children and grandchildren of those who are already living in Colorado. They will need water for their basic needs, and they will also expect to fish, water ski, work and eat, priorities that can conflict with the water that will, or by 2050, will not, be supported by the existing water supply.

Agriculture in the South Platte River Basin is big business, with an annual value of more than $3 billion in crops sold. If water currently irrigating the 1,027,000 acres of cropland in the South Platte Basin is diverted to growing cities, then the average $3,102 of income per crop acre will evaporate, drying up not only farms but also the small town businesses and special district taxes-school, library, and fire protection, their profits support. Recreation, a huge generator to Colorado’s economy, could be affected if farms aren’t irrigated, Simmons said. “Much of sports and recreation environment along the river and streams is created by return flow from irrigation,” he added…

There’s also an impending double water whammy. Underground reservoirs used by municipalities are shrinking, so they are acquiring surface water rights to make up for the shortage. “We have data from South Metro Denver, and Northern El Paso County that they will need 110,000 acre feet,” said Eric Hecox, the section chief of the Colorado Water Conservation Board…

The gap between available water and increased municipal needs should be accomplished without the destruction of the agricultural economy, the roundtable members said. “We need to look at every way we can to solve this gap,” Evans said. The solution most endorsed was increasing water storage, with several members noting that the proposed Glade Reservoir would have been filled to 60 percent of its capacity had last summer’s above average rainfall been “captured.”

More South Platte Basin coverage here and here.

Colorado Springs: Stormwater utility spent $1.6 million on equipment

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Daniel Chacón):

The soon-to-be-annihilated Colorado Springs Stormwater Enterprise has spent more than $1.6 million on trucks, trailers, mowers and other pieces of equipment since it was created in 2005, according to documents obtained under an open-records request…

With the looming demise of the enterprise, there have been questions about the fate of the enterprise-owned equipment. “These vehicles will be used in 2010 during the phase out of the program,” Scott said recently. “We will be doing a reduced maintenance program so we will be using the equipment required to perform the maintenance, we will also be working on the in-progress and pending (capital improvement) projects, etc. We have not yet identified what will happen with the vehicles in late 2010.”

More stormwater coverage here.

Wild and Scenic designation for parts of the San Miguel, Dolores and Gunnison rivers?

From the Telluride Daily Planet (Katie Klingsporn):

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) just released a draft Wild and Scenic Eligibility Report — one of the first steps in achieving the designation — that identifies segments of the San Miguel and its tributaries, the Dolores and the Gunnison rivers for Wild and Scenic status. “The idea is to safeguard the value of the rivers,” said Erin Curtis, public information officer for the BLM. The BLM’s Uncompahgre Field Office is currently seeking public comment on the draft report, which can be found at http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/uncompahgre_rmp.html.

The document is basically a 155-page inventory that describes some 35 segments that may be eligible in terms of value of geography, ownership, wildlife, recreation and more. It identifies roughly 55 miles of the main stem of the San Miguel River — stretches that runs roughly from Deep Creek to the confluence with the Dolores River. It also identifies pieces of several of the San Miguel’s tributaries: Beaver Creek, Fall Creek, Dry Creek, Naturita Creek, Saltado Creek and Tabeguache Creek. In addition, it identifies approximately 20 miles of the Dolores River, including segments where “the scenic value created by the river flowing within the canyon is rare in the region of comparison.” These rivers were plucked from some 174 segments that the BLM inventoried — and were chosen for their beauty or history, their geology, paleontology or hydrology.

But in the end, in order to achieve this designation, a river or stream segment much be determined as both “eligible” and “suitable” — qualifications that each come with their own review process. Right now, these segments are in the eligible stage, during which land managers work to determine if the river or stream segments possess one or more “outstanding remarkable value.” These could range anywhere from having fantastic wildlife activity to great recreation, holding significant historic value to just being really darn scenic…

The BLM will be accepting comments on the Draft Eligibility Study until Feb. 26. Comments can be emailed to uformp@blm.gov or mailed to the Uncompahgre Field Office, Attn: RMP Revision, 2645 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401.

More Wild and Scenic coverage here and here.

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

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Kevin Duggan):

The supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, for the project, which would draw water from the Poudre River, is now projected to be ready for public review in summer 2011. The final EIS is expected to be completed a year later, said Chandler Peter of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers…

A draft EIS on the project was released in April 2008. The document elicited hundreds of comments from members of the public and government agencies, including the city of Fort Collins. Because of the complexity and number of comments, the Corps announced in February it and a third-party contractor would craft a supplemental draft EIS with an eye toward releasing it next year. But more time is needed to collect data and work on computer modeling of the river’s flows and how it would be affected by various projects, Peter said.

The delay is tied in part to the Corps’ effort to use a “common technical platform” when evaluating several water projects proposed for the Poudre, including the expansion of Halligan and Seaman reservoirs, said Brian Werner, spokesman for Northern Water…

So far the process of crafting an EIS for the project has taken almost six year and cost more than $5 million.

More Northern Integrated Supply Project 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.

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.

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.

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.

San Miguel County commissioners meet to discuss San Miguel River instream flows

From The Norwood News (Ellen Metrick):

San Miguel County Commissioners met in Norwood last week to decide what kind of letter to send to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, asking for a delay in filing for instream flow appropriations on the San Miguel River. The water would be set aside to meet habitat requirements for threatened native fish species — flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub — and to preserve a section of the San Miguel River ecosystem…

Originally, San Miguel County commissioners had been looking at two potential actions: To support CWCB’s declaration go to water court in January 2010, but have December as the actual appropriation date; or, to ask CWCB to wait until March to declare, which would mean the hearing process would begin in July, giving public the first half of 2010 to assess needs and file for appropriations. The January 2011 appropriation filing date was added to the options after the meeting began. Mark Uppendahl, DOW In-Stream Flow Program coordinator, stated that the “DOW is in a conservation management plan to prevent these species from federal listing … 11cfs provides minimal depths and the fish may not migrate or survive.”[...]

Uppendahl said that if the threatened species are not protected, there could be federal intervention. He said, “It would be hard to say what would happen then.” Uppendahl listed possibilities that ranged from water curtailment to preservation of the entire hydrology system, and possible curtailment of future diversion projects.

Approximately 70 people attended the meeting, including Montrose County Commissioners David White and Ron Henderson, State Senator Bruce Whitehead (D-Hesperus), Southwest Water Conservation Board members, Sheep Mountain Alliance representatives, and TelSki CEO Dave Riley. In the end, SMC commissioners voted two to one to ask CWCB to hold off until December 2011. Commissioner Joan May wanted to ask them to file mid-year 2010. After voting, Commissioner Fischer said, “But, we have to see progress, not just lip service to a process that never really happens.”

More San Miguel Watershed coverage here and 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.

Save the Poudre joins Waterkeeper Alliance

Below is a release from Save the Poudre (Gary Wockner):

The battle to Save The Cache la Poudre River of northern Colorado was bolstered this week by two important announcements. First, the Save The Poudre Coalition’s proposal to start a “Poudre Waterkeeper” was accepted by the Waterkeeper Alliance, a growing worldwide alliance of 192 local water preservation organizations founded and directed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Alliance, based in New York, helps local communities stand up for their right to clean water and for wise and equitable use of water resources.

Second, to help jump-start Save The Poudre’s new status as the “Poudre Waterkeeper,” New Belgium Brewing of Fort Collins donated $40,000 to ensure the Save The Poudre’s continued success. New Belgium has an active philanthropy program committed to improving the health of the natural environment and inspiring people to joyously embrace sustainable choices.

“We are proud to have this new Poudre Waterkeeper and its Save The Poudre Coalition join our ranks,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Waterkeeper Alliance President. “And we are proud to support the fight to protect and restore the beautiful Cache la Poudre River.”

“The Save the Poudre Coalition is doing excellent work,” said Jenn Orgolini, Sustainability Director of New Belgium Brewing. “We want this Poudre Waterkeeper to grow and thrive as it works to protect this great river that flows through Fort Collins right in front of our brewery.”

“The citizens of northern Colorado are extremely fortunate,” said Gary Wockner of the Save The Poudre Coalition. “The Waterkeeper Alliance is a visionary and effective group, and New Belgium Brewing is a visionary and extremely generous company. The battle to save the Poudre is growing stronger every day.”

Attention is increasingly being focused on the Poudre River by regional, statewide, and national interests, as well as by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed dams on the Poudre represent the next big phase of dam building in the American Southwest — the Poudre’s outcome may foreshadow the future of many of the Southwest’s rivers.

“The environmental community is taking a hard stand here in Colorado because if we can save the Poudre, we can likely save other Southwest rivers,” said Gary Wockner. “If we lose the Poudre, we could lose them all.”

More coverage from the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill).

More Cache la Poudre River coverage here and here.

Lower Dolores River Plan Working Group meeting December 14

From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):

The Lower Dolores River Plan Working Group will meet at 5 p.m. Monday, Dec. 14, at the Lewis-Arriola Community Center, 21176 County Road S, to kick-off the recommendation and brainstorming phase. The group will meet again Jan. 19, Feb. 16 and March 15. The intention is to hand recommendations to the Dolores Public Lands Office in April.

More from the article:

Created to examine alternatives to a Wild and Scenic River designation for the Dolores River, the group spent the past year identifying and brainstorming around the plethora of issues involved in river protection. “What we have done the last year is a really intensive education process with the group around the whole area,” said Marsha Porter-Norton, facilitator of the Dolores River Dialogue. “If we are going to ask people to come up with recommendations for the future, we felt it was important that they were really steeped in knowledge.”

The group focused on the five primary reaches of the Dolores River covered by the planning area and then examined the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” within each reach. “Through a grant that we have, we had a person gather every conceivable piece of information related to the ORV in each reach,” Porter-Norton said. “We looked at it from a 20,000 foot level and then from the ground level.” The identified ORVs along the Lower Dolores include archaeology/cultural resources, scenery, geology, hiking in Bull Canyon and Coyote Wash, rafting, roundtail chub, plants, and the canyon treefrog. The Dolores Public Lands Office posed a series of questions to the group relating to each ORV. The group was then divided into small groups that brainstormed tools, strategies and recommendations for each question. Some issues have garnered a good deal of consensus, and others have been harder to address. “Nothing in this process is easy,” Porter-Norton said. “We are taking some of the issues where I think there is a good amount of consensus and starting there. For the next six months we are going to delve into the landscape and water protection issues. That is where the alternative to the Wild and Scenic designation comes in.” The group has been charged with the task of determining if the river and surrounding area should keep the Wild and Scenic designation or if there is an alternative protection mechanism…

The working group comprises 58 members who represent a wide range of stakeholder positions. From public land managers to property owners, water managers to rafters and rafting companies, U.S. Bureau of Land Management officers to oil and gas company representatives, the group has a diverse range of values. Despite that, the group has not allowed differing opinions to stand in the way of progress, Porter-Norton said. “I have to say, speaking very personally, this group is fabulous,” she said. “You have people who have very different views, in some cases, who have been willing and able to engage in learning. They are really able to talk about things and disagree in a very productive way.”

Fallout from the demise of Colorado Springs’ stormwater fund

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Daniel Chaćon):

…city officials say is abundantly clear is that without the enterprise, there is no longer a funding source to pay for improvements to the 2-mile Templeton Gap Floodway, which is actually a levee. That will force hundreds, if not thousands, of nearby property owners with federally-backed mortgages to buy flood insurance. Collectively, annual insurance premiums for those property owners could reach about $3 million, according to city government estimates. “I’ve tried my best to circumvent that and prevent that, but it looks like that’s going to happen,” City Councilman Scott Hente, whose district includes the floodway, said Tuesday after his colleagues voted 5-4 to abolish the enterprise at the end of this year. “I’m sorry for that,” Hente added…

A two-year phaseout would have allowed the enterprise to complete projects under construction and also add capacity to the floodway, which protects more than 3,000 properties and 5,000 buildings from flooding. The floodway starts just east of Union Boulevard and runs west to Monument Creek between Fillmore Street and Austin Bluffs Parkway. The added capacity is needed to gain certification from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which sped up an effort to digitize its maps after Hurricane Katrina broke several levees in New Orleans. That effort put the Templeton Gap Floodway under scrutiny, and many properties that hadn’t been previously identified as being at risk of flooding are now. In September, the enterprise notified property owners affected by the floodway that it planned to add capacity to the levee…

[city spokeswoman Mary Scott] said no other source of money has been identified to pay for the work that had been planned for the floodway through the Stormwater Enterprise. “It’s likely that project is not going to be done,” she said. Scott also said the enterprise is still trying to figure out how to develop an automated process for refunds as well as how to collect from delinquent property owners.

More stormwater coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs Utilities submits application to Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“We’re very proud that we have reduced the wetlands impacts to one-quarter acre, and that we will add 12 new acres of wetlands on Clear Springs Ranch,” said Keith Riley, SDS planning and permit manager. “This is an environmentally responsible project. The citizens advisory committee of the district reviewed the proposal Friday. Last week, the technical advisory committee looked at the same presentation. The district board will consider it in January…

The Fountain Creek district has authority over part of the pipeline’s path where it crosses Fountain Creek and will make recommendations to El Paso County commissioners…

There have been discussions, however, that other El Paso County water users might use it to move water uphill from the Arkansas River. “Do you see it as a regional opportunity?” asked Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and a representative from the Arkansas Basin Roundtable to the Interbasin Compact Committee. “Not beyond Monument Hill,” Riley quickly replied…

Ross Vincent of the Sierra Club asked about the adaptive management plan, which is mentioned in Reclamation’s environmental impact statement as a way to mitigate potential impacts on Fountain Creek. “That will be wrapped up in the contract negotiations,” Riley said. “It would be helpful to have that in hand,” Vincent said.

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

Water quality and standards for development on Fountain Creek are important issues that cannot be abandoned, a committee dedicated to improvement of the creek told Southern Delivery System officials Friday. “The discussions have focused on water volume, but no one’s talking about water quality,” said Ross Vincent of the Sierra Club. “The demise of the stormwater enterprise re-raises the question.”[...]

Vincent also was concerned about the opportunity for public comment on Colorado Springs plans to dredge Fountain Creek through Pueblo. “Is there a public process for review?” Vincent asked Keith Riley, SDS planning and permit manager. Riley said SDS officials will be meeting with Dennis Maroney, Pueblo stormwater director, next week to review the dredging program. “We’ll be identifying high spots to determine where dredging will occur,” Riley said. “We want to be sure we’re doing the right project.” Pueblo has partnered with Colorado Springs, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and various state and federal agencies to use a continuous flow dredging collector to remove bedload sediment from the channel through Pueblo. The project also will analyze the material being removed and consider alternative means of dredging the channel, Riley said.

Maroney had his own questions about whether the city would complete the drainage criteria manual now that the stormwater enterprise is ending. The manual would provide standards for new development in terms of impacts to Fountain Creek and its tributaries. Holding developers to those standards is part of Pueblo County conditions for SDS. “You need the drainage criteria manual,” Maroney said. “If you don’t have it, it’s like going bear hunting with a 30.06 and only having the ammunition for a .22.” Colorado Springs developer Kevin Walker, another member of the committee, said developers have a keen interest in seeing the manual developed and noted that Fountain already has bought into the concept of using it as a regional tool. “The development community and the building industry know that the manual has to be completed,” Walker said. “The political and business interests (of Colorado Springs) are obliged to get to the finish line.”[...]

…another $500,000 grant to develop a mini-dam, wetlands and detention pond near Pueblo’s North Side Kmart is part of this year’s Natural Resources Conservation Service budget, Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark District, reported at the meeting. The project was first envisioned by Maroney following a flood of a nearby area and a breach of an old railroad berm as a way to siphon off flows in small floods. It was approved in the same package of federal legislation that will grant the Arkansas Valley Conduit $5 million this year.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Interior Secretary Salazar calls for more high flows through the Grand Canyon

From National Parks Traveller (Kurt Repanshek):

The secretary, in Copenhagen to attend the global climate change conference, made his comments Thursday via video to the Colorado River Water Users Association, which is meeting in Las Vegas.

“We must find a way to protect one of the world’s most treasured landscapes – the Grand Canyon – while meeting water and clean energy needs in the face of climate change,” Secretary Salazar said.

“Today, I am directing the development of a protocol for conducting additional High Flow Experiments at the (Glen Canyon) Dam. These experimental high flows [like the one in 2008] send sediment downstream to rebuild sandbars, beaches and backwaters. The rebuilt areas provide key wildlife habitat, enhance the aquatic food base, protect archeological sites, and create additional camping opportunities in the canyon.”

More instream flow coverage here.

Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District board meeting recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs Utilities and the Lower Ark already have committed $200,000 toward district expenses for the next two years. The district also will receive $300,000 over its first three years from Colorado Springs for a study of dams for flood control on Fountain Creek, a condition of the Pueblo County permit. Lower Ark and Colorado Springs also are spending $400,000 to complete the corridor study. Costs are shared equally. But the seed money has the potential to bring in other funding, including a possible $8 million legacy grant from Great Outdoors Colorado, Winner said. The master plan already has raised $1.5 million from other sources, said Carol Baker, Fountain Creek specialist for Colorado Springs Utilities.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Denver Water: Corps Moffat Collection System Project Boulder public hearing recap

From Colorado Trout Unlimited (David Nickum):

[One citizen, Derek Turner] also noted that the EIS indicates that Denver will completely divert 100% of the flow from eight different streams in Grand County, and called for at least SOME protection of those resources.

Numerous residents of the Magnolia and Coal Creek Canyon areas – which would be impacted by the proposed multi-year constructon of the enlarged dam for Gross Reservoir – raised concerns about effects on the community, including heavy construction traffic on small rural roads, noise, and development of numerous quarries.

Several individuals highlighted the need to look beyond large engineering solutions for water supply and to instead look at options for conservation and water marketing opportunities including further leases of agricultural water. One witness emphasized that the rationale for the project was not based on basic water supply needs, but rather was based on the reliability standard – in other words, how severe of a drought should supplies provide for without the need for customers to go under restrictions (such as those that were used in the 2002 drought)? He noted that Denver planned to have far more water (and rarer need for restrictions) than did the City of Boulder, and suggested that the entire project supply might be unnecessary if Denver simply adjusted its planning expectations on this point…

Overall, the evening included a wide range of concerns expressed by citizens coming from a variety of different perspectives. There were no major supporters/champions for the project who spoke during the public hearing.

More coverage from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

… the plan requires federal approval, and at public hearings, opponents concerned about environmental harm have argued that Denver must rely more on using less water — not pump more from the mountains. “We need a paradigm shift. We need to start living within our means,” said Steve Paul, president of a Grand Lake homeowners group on the Western Slope and one of dozens who have testified before federal engineers.

Denver Water officials counter that their 1.3 million customers already have been cutting consumption — currently 87 gallons a day per person — by about 18 percent a year since 2005. They say nearly half the annual water-supply shortfall they project by 2030 — 34,000 acre-feet — will be met through further cuts. “We’re doing everything we can with conservation,” supply project manager Travis Bray said…

The battle promises to intensify in coming months as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a federal agency that oversees water projects, reviews public testimony and Denver’s submissions. Denver has not managed to push through a project on this scale since construction of Dillon Reservoir in 1963. The Environmental Protection Agency’s 1990 veto of Denver’s proposed $1 billion Two Forks Dam still looms in water-authority boardrooms. That project, backed by developers and opposed by environmentalists, also was aimed at preventing shortages.

Denver already owns rights to the water it would divert from the upper Colorado River basin — from the Blue River in Summit County and from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers and dozens of streams in Grand County. But Trout Unlimited sportsmen’s advocates said that stream flows there already are dangerously low, threatening aquatic life, with algae increasing and once-clear Grand Lake turning cloudy. Boulder-area residents warned of harm to wildlife and lifestyle disruptions during construction to raise the dam and clear trees in expanding Gross Reservoir.

Some 350 advocates and community leaders have attended hearings in Boulder, Denver and Granby. The Army Corps of Engineers is now accepting public comments.

Learning how to live on less water “is a reality we’re going to have to face,” said Becky Long, water-caucus coordinator for the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “So why keep putting it off? . . . While Denver deserves credit for what they’ve done on conservation, we have a lot farther to go.”

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Long Draw Reservoir: Decision on reservoir’s future and greenback habitat restoration due January 2010

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

Sitting between [Rocky Mountain National Park] and the [Roosevelt] national forest, Long Draw Reservoir, built in 1929 and enlarged in 1974, was up for a land-use permit renewal from the Forest Service in the early 1990s. After the agency issued the permit in 1994, Colorado Trout Unlimited sued because it included a plan that would keep La Poudre Pass Creek below the reservoir dry during the winter, damaging trout habitat. A decade later, a court sided with Trout Unlimited and threw out the permit, forcing the Forest Service to start the permitting process over again and to come up with a plan that would protect trout habitat.

Long Draw Reservoir, which sits below the Continental Divide on the northwest boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park, stores spring runoff and releases it during the summer and fall. The dam does not operate in the winter, drying up the stream below it. Forest Service officials said during a public involvement phase of planning for the project in 2008 that releasing water from the reservoir into La Poudre Pass Creek during the winter would be dangerous for workers having to operate the icy dam in the winter and might cause the dam to fail.

The new plan requires a compromise: Keep La Poudre Pass Creek dry during the winter, but restore more than 43 miles of trout habitat in the Poudre River Watershed, mostly in Rocky Mountain National Park. “It’s something scientists have been pushing for, for a long time,” said David Nickum, director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “The chance to try to put that science in action and do what would be the largest native cutthroat trout restoration project ever in Colorado – we’re excited about that prospect.”

The restoration project, he said, would take more than a decade and requires poisoning existing brook trout fisheries and restocking them with cutthroats. Instead of restoring La Poudre Pass Creek, which has no trout habitat, “we’ll do something different with greater biological benefit,” Nickum said…

Rocky Mountain National Park is allowing public comment on the proposal through Dec. 31, with a decision expected to follow in early 2010.

More Long Draw Reservoir coverage here

Sterling: Recap of recent briefing from Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District

LSPWCD board member Lou Rinaldo took time to brief the Sterling Rotary about operations recently. Here’s a report from Callie Jones writing for the Sterling Journal Advocate. From the article:</p.

Rinaldo also talked about irrigation wells and how there haven’t been any shut down from Prewitt Reservoir to the state line. Wells are protected because every ditch company has recharge projects, where they replace their consumptive use…

Some of the projects include, for instance, a bunch of places east of Fort Morgan where there has been water and there isn’t water. Rinaldo said you probably won’t see any water in those recharge ponds until the spring, because it may be only 60 days until the water gets back to the river. There are some projects that are 1,200 days before the water gets back to the river.

More South Platte River Basin coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Granby EIS hearing well attended by opponents

In recent years the conflict between Grand County residents and Denver Water has been held in check by continued open communication and the water utility’s being sensitive to riparian and instream flow needs. The old animosity didn’t take much provocation to bubble back up to the surface however. Here’s a report about Wednesday’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public hearing at Silver Creek, from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:

[Fraser resident Kirk Klancke] took the podium Wednesday night at the Inn at SilverCreek in Granby where official comments on the draft EIS were being taken and outlined the dire need for flushing flows for first-aid treatment of the Fraser River and a plea for more time to review the 2000-page draft “environmental impact statement” document…

“If we don’t draw the line here, where are we going to draw it?” asked Mara Kohler of Kremmling. “How can we protect the rivers that sustain us, if we don’t sustain them?”

“There needs to be a massive education campaign in the Front Range and Denver,” said Randy Piper of Fraser during his three minutes, “educating them as to the dire circumstances we have. Tourism is a tremendous revenue-generator in this state. The people who come here don’t come to Denver to take long hot showers and run barefoot through the lawns. They come here to the mountains. The bottom line is: We need to conserve, not take more.”

Comments were directed to the meeting facilitator, Scott Franklin of the Denver division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency checking the methodology and modeling of Denver’s draft environmental impact statement in conformance with National Environmental Protection Agency protocol. The Corps’ objective, according to Franklin’s statements, is to keep in check “the national concern and protection of limited resources balanced against detriments.”[...]

“This project makes no mention of the horrendous degradation of the William’s Fork River,” commented Ray Miller of Grand Lake, a 30-year resident and former ranger. “And the Colorado River is over-allocated. This profound alteration of this watershed has been institutionalized so long, East Slope interests have come to (view) it as a given. It’s been going on so long, they’ve lost sight of how ecologically viable this watershed is in its natural state … The benefits of diversion pale in comparison to the benefits of sustaining this ecological system.”

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Frederick: Northern Integrated Supply Project update

From the Carbon Valley Farmer & Miner (Emily Dougherty):

NISP, in which Frederick has 2,600 shares, is a regional water supply project coordinated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District on behalf of 15 Front Range communities. Their goal is to provide participating water providers with approximately 40,000 acre-feet of new, reliable water supply, which is enough water for about 400,000 people per year.

The town’s current sole source of water for potable water system is the Colorado Big Thompson project, which Frederick has outgrown, especially considering the projection that few CB-T units will be available on the open market beyond 2015. The water source would be Glade Reservoir, located northwest of Fort Collins and north of Horsetooth Reservoir. To fill the reservoir, water would be diverted from the Poudre River using the existing Poudre Valley Canal. On its Web site, Frederick’s participation in NISP is estimated to cost approximately $10,000 per acre-foot of yield, which would amount to about $26 million…

Recently, Save The Poudre printed a press release calling the NISP/Glade proposal a “Ponzi scheme,” saying, “the analogy refers to the idea that the entire project is predicated on rapid population growth – if the growth doesn’t come, or doesn’t come fast enough, then the financing scheme falls apart.” In a response to the comments from STP, Carl Brouwer, NISP project manager, said, “The NISP financing has never been predicated on growth alone …if the project is phased as growth occurs, this will only enhance the financial feasibility of the project.”

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here.

Surface Creek sourcewater protection meeting recap

From the Delta County Independent (Hank Lohmeyer):

The project is conceived as an effort on the part of local water providers, including the U.S. Forest Service which administers lands where water supplies originate, to identify threats to source water quality and cooperate on a plan to protect those sources from contamination threats. The water providers involved in the initiative are the Towns of Orchard City and Cedaredge, Coalby Domestic Water Company, and Upper Surface Creek Domestic Water Association.

According to Colleen Williams of the Colorado Rural Water Association, a government-funded 501(c)3 that is leading the planning effort, the communities of Collbran, Rangely, and Paonia are all at various stages of developing their own source water protection plans. Williams is the “facilitator” of the effort to develop a localized plan which hopefully in the initial stages will attract grant money for things like fencing and signage to help protect local water sheds.

The committee is at the stage of developing management strategies for dealing with a range of source water quality issues including the following ones: Oil and gas development, roads and dust, livestock grazing, wildland fires and forest health decline, noxious weeds, septic systems, and a half-dozen or more other factors.

More Surface Creek watershed coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Corps Denver hearing recap

The Fraser River of the 21st century is much different from the river that former President Eisenhower used to fish back in the day. Low flows due to transmountain diversions have diminished the fishery there.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held a hearing last night in Denver for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project which would divert additional water from the Fraser watershed. Residents, planners and politicians (many from Grand County) showed up to be heard. A majority of the speakers asked for the comment period to be extended 45 days.

Speakers for the most part voiced opposition to the proposed Denver Water expansion of Gross Reservoir and the increased diversions to fill the new space. The hope is to raise the dam 125 feet or so to get another 18,000 acre-feet of firm yield on the north side of their service area. They also hope to build a new reservoir on Leyden Creek.

“It breaks my heart to see a natural environment disappear while the east slope creates an environment that belongs east of the Mississippi River,” said Fraser resident Kirk Klanke during the hearing.

He also voiced support for an extension of the comment period. The EIS is a couple of thousand pages and many of the speakers said that they’ve not had enough time to probe the proposed workings.

Canton O’Donnell wants the Corps to evaluate the Moffat project in conjunction with the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project. Windy Gap is the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s plan to increase municipal supply for the Front Range using the Colorado-Big Thompson project to transport water stored downstream of Granby Reservoir. One speaker asked the Corps to hold off on issuing permits for either the Windy Gap Firming Project or the Moffat Collection System Project until Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District come up with their plan to coordinate the two projects to minimize impacts to the headwaters area.

“If your house is on fire and you have two bedrooms you’d want the fire department to take care of both,” said 4th generation Grand County rancher and county commissioner Gary Bumgarner in support of consolidating the environmental impact statements for both projects.

“This is a very bad project for many reasons,” said Grand Lake Mayor, Judy Burke, while reminding the Corps that pumping warmer water upstream to Grand Lake is causing algae blooms in the lake.

The Colorado-Big Thompson project moves water from Granby Reservoir, through Shadow Mountain Reservoir and into Grand Lake for transport under the Continental Divide through the Adams Tunnel. The Windy Gap Firming Project would increase the volume of water pumped up to the Adams tunnel so presumably the lake clarity problem will increase along with lowered water quality.

Whitewater enthusiasts oppose the drowning of the reach of South Boulder Creek just above Gross Reservoir. One commenter called it a, “Premier whitewater run.”

Interested parties have one more chance to speak publicly on the project next week in Keystone. Here’s the release from Denver Water with details about the hearings.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Colorado River District grant program

From email from the Colorado River District (Martha Moore):

Beginning December 1, 2009, the Colorado River District will be accepting grant applications for projects that protect, enhance or develop water resources in their 15-county area within the Colorado River Basin; this includes all tributary watershed areas in Colorado, except the San Juan River basin.

Water resource projects eligible for grant funding should meet one or more of the following objectives:

Development of a new water supply;
Improvement of an existing system;
Improvement of instream water quality;
Increased water use efficiency;
Sediment reduction;
Implementation of watershed management actions; and/or
Tamarisk control

Past successful projects have included the construction of new storage, the enlargement of existing facilities, the rehabilitation of non-functioning or restricted structures, both small and large-scale water efficiency measures, tamarisk removal and other watershed actions. In addition, proposals that enable water to be supplied to areas previously short are eligible and encouraged. Projects that utilize pre-1922 water rights will be given ranking priority.

Eligible applicants can receive up to a maximum of $150,000 (or 25% of the total project cost whichever is less) for their water supply projects. The total grant pool for 2010 is $250,000. The application deadline is Jan. 29, 2010.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.