Arkansas River: ‘We’ll supply 10,000 acre-feet for rafting and the fishery’ — Roy Vaughan

From The Mountain Mail (Casey Kelly):

Arkansas River boaters can expect to see flows bolstered this summer by 10,000 acre-feet of water from the Voluntary Flow Management Program. Roy Vaughan, facility manager for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Pueblo Field Office, confirmed Monday that water will be available for the Voluntary Flow Management Program. “We’ll supply 10,000 acre-feet for rafting and the fishery,” Vaughan said.

The program will supply enough water to keep flows at the Wellsville station at 700 cubic feet per second from July 1 through Aug. 15 this year, according to Vaughan.

He said the bureau’s April 1 forecast called for bringing more than 24,700 acre-feet of water over from the Western Slope. Its May 1 forecast called for 47,230 acre-feet. “That’s almost double what we were forecasting,” Vaughan said. He said recent moisture “changed the outlook for us.”

Rob White, Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area park manager, told a May 7 Salida City Council work session that outfitters were worried about another low water season and had been told a few months ago that water may not be available this summer for the Voluntary Flow Management Program. “Luckily we were saved by the late-season storms in both March and April,” White said. “As a matter of fact, I got a call from the Bureau of Reclamation (May 6), and they believe they’ll be able to deliver the full 10,000 acre-feet of water for us for the summer flow program.”

Rafting outfitter Mark Hammer, owner of The Adventure Company in Johnson Village, said he does about 75 percent of his summer business during the 6 weeks that augmentation flows will be available. “(The Voluntary Flow Management Program) is extremely helpful,” Hammer said. “The bell curve of river flows doesn’t necessarily coincide with our peak tourism, so this ensures we have enough water in the Arkansas during the later period of our season.”

He said a more average water flow season this year will help outfitters predict when river flows will peak, how high they will be and how long they will last. “We certainly appreciate the collaborative effort of the flow program,” Hammer said. “It’s a benefit to the public, outfitting companies and the whole area’s economy which relies on the river.”

Greg Felt, co-owner of ArkAnglers, said this year is shaping up to be a good year for the fishery. “We’ve been able to see some good hatches and good aquatic insect activity,” Felt said. “Looking ahead, it’s great to see snowpack improve as it has.”

Kara Lamb, Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman, said, “What makes this program possible is the cooperation, understanding and willingness of those involved to work together. Their cooperation helps the diverse groups reach the mutual goals of the water owners, operators and users, municipalities and government agencies. The Flow Program has created a model for all rivers in the West, and one Coloradans can be proud of.”

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Upper Ark District board meeting recap: All district reservoirs are full, except DeWeese (89%) — Jord Gertson #COdrought

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Recent weather patterns in the Upper Arkansas River Valley precipitated discussion of snowpack and water supplies during the Thursday meeting of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. District hydrologist Jord Gertson reported that all district reservoirs are full, except for DeWeese Reservoir in Custer County, which is at 89 percent of capacity.

Gertson presented Natural Resources Conservation Service data compiled May 1 that show Upper Arkansas River Basin snowpack at 93 percent of average and 287 percent of 2012 snowpack levels. Gertson said Snowpack Telemetry sites at Fremont Pass and Brumley show the snow water equivalent at 101 percent and 109 percent of median, respectively. The Fremont Pass SNOTEL site also reports precipitation at 106 percent of average for the current water year, which began Oct. 1. Gertson also showed snowpack charts indicating measurements at upper basin SNOTEL sites are “way better than last year,” including sites at Porphyry Creek, Independence Pass and St. Elmo.

District directors also reported good news about the Frying Pan-Arkansas Project, which is expected to import 47,000 acre-feet of water from the Western Slope this year, compared to 14,000 acre-feet in 2012. Diversions of Fry-Ark Project water into the Arkansas Basin average approximately 52,000 acre-feet of water per year. In 2011, the project imported 98,000 acre-feet of Western Slope water, the second highest amount in the project’s 50-year history of operations.

In other business, directors heard a legislative report from consultant Ken Baker. Baker’s report mainly focused on House Bill 1130, which, he said, targets Arkansas Basin water and is expected to be signed by the governor.

Baker said HB 1130 would create a “selective application” of a 130-year-old Colorado water law. The bill would create the potential for 30 years of interruptible-supply agreements that are currently limited to a maximum of 10 years. The state engineer would have authority to approve these agreements, changing the use of the water and bypassing Water Court proceedings that are currently required to change the use of a water right. Baker said the bill mainly benefits Aurora, allowing the city to take Arkansas Basin water without having to pursue a change-of-use case in Water Court.

To gain the votes needed to pass the bill, Baker said a special exclusion was added that exempts Western Slope water.

In other business, Upper Ark directors:

Approved a modification to a Nestlé Waters North America augmentation agreement for 200 acre-feet of Fry-Ark Project water per year for 35 years.

Agreed to stipulate out of Poncha Springs case 09CW138, subject to favorable review of the stipulations by district engineer Ivan Walter.

Approved an agreement with law firm Wilderson, Lock and Hill to provide legal counsel for a flat fee of $2,000 per month.

Received an update on an integrated water agreement with Buena Vista.

Approved a cooperative water agreement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Learned that the gate wheel at O’Haver Lake has been replaced after the old one was damaged by a vehicle.

Received an update on the Trout Creek Ditch exchange case, 08CW106, which is scheduled to go to trial June 11 if the Department of Corrections, division engineer and Colorado Water Conservation Board do not agree to proposed stipulations.

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District directors heard a report about the potential for underground water storage in Chaffee County during their Thursday meeting. Tammy Ivahnenko and Ken Watts with the U.S. Geological Survey said areas identified for further study include aquifers near Salida, Nathrop, Johnson Village, Buena Vista and north of Buena Vista.

Watts said the locations were identified based on slope (less than 3 percent), soil texture at a depth of 5 feet (loam, sandy loam or gravel preferred) and surface geology (alluvial or gravel deposits).

Another important factor, Watts said, is the “stream-accretion response time factor,” which provides an indication of how long water will stay in an aquifer before draining into a stream.

Ivahnenko described “water budgets” she developed for Cottonwood, Chalk and Browns creeks and the South Arkansas River.
The water budgets include irrigated acres, consumptive use by crops and amount of water diverted for irrigation, and help determine how much water may be available for storage at a given time.

Watts said he conducted “slug tests” at 29 wells to determine hydraulic properties in the aquifers, including conductivity and permeability. He also reported on findings from Colorado State University monitoring wells. Hourly readings from the monitoring wells documented seasonal changes in water level and temperature, showing seasonal changes in groundwater levels and surface-water infiltration.

Some wells showed significant influence from surface irrigation while others indicated a more stable, natural water level.
Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District officials are developing plans to increase water storage capacity in the Upper Arkansas River basin. An important component of those plans is underground storage in alluvial aquifers, which would eliminate evaporative water losses and provide augmentation water through natural recharge to surface waters.

Conservancy district officials said they will rely on USGS findings to help determine possible locations for underground water storage projects.

More Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District coverage here.

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

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

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

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

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

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

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

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

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

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

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

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

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

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

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

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit funding at risk

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

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

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

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

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

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

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Pitkin County is opposing the diligence claim for two dams in the Crystal River watershed as speculative

Here’s an in-depth report from Brent Gardner-Smith writing for Aspen Journalism. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

Pitkin County wants a water court judge to rule that the planning period for a project that includes a dam on the upper Crystal River, and one on North Thompson Creek in the Thompson-Divide area, has lapsed since planning began in the late 1950s. The West Divide “conditional water rights continue to be water rights in search of a project,” the county told the court in its Feb. 22 motion. “The project is no closer to being funded and built in 2013 than it was in 1957” and the project remains “speculative,” according to the motion.

The county’s motion was filed in Division 5 water court in Glenwood Springs. Judge James Boyd is overseeing the case, which is set for trial in August. The county and other groups are opposing a diligence filing on the conditional water rights for the West Divide project held by the Colorado River District and the West Divide Water Conservancy District. The rights date to 1958.

More Crystal River Watershed coverage here and here.

Pitkin County gets another 60 days to settle objectors to their Roaring Fork RICD application

From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), two major upstream diverters and three billionaires with property near Aspen have active statements of opposition on file against the county’s proposal.

On Feb. 1, Judge James B. Boyd of Division 5 water court in Glenwood Springs gave the parties in the case another 60 days to settle.

The county is seeking the right to run between 240 and 1,350 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water over two rock and concrete structures it plans to build in the river, at a cost of about $1 million, which includes a stairway to access the feature. The new water right would be what’s known as a “recreational in-channel diversion,” or RICD, which is a program that allows governments to obtain a water right for recreational purposes. It can have the added benefit of keeping more water in a river.

The structures would form two waves for kayakers and other boaters in the Fork, just across Two Rivers Road from the entrance to the Elk Run neighborhood.

The county so far has come to terms with three of the 14 parties that originally filed statements of opposition in the case — the city of Aspen, the Basalt Water Conservancy District and the Starwood Metropolitan District.

Of the remaining 11 entities, at least three are controlled by billionaires who own property upstream of the proposed “Pitkin County River Park.”

Bill Koch (via Elk Mountain Lodge LLC) and Penny Pritzker (via PT Ranch Barn LLC) each own property along Castle Creek, and Ed Bass (via Mountain Valley Cabin LLC) owns property on the banks of the upper Roaring Fork.

Another opposing entity is GRE II LLC, which is controlled by David Gerstenhaber of Argonaut Capital Management, a New York hedge fund. GRE II owns 37 acres of land, with water rights, on Star Mesa above McLain Flats Road.

Statements of opposition in water court are typically formulaic and it is not easy to discern a party’s true intent in filing them. Some parties file statements simply to monitor changes in a case…

The latest draft proposal from the county has the water right stepping up and then back down across a 142-day runoff season.

Beginning on April 15, the water right would run for 33 days at 240 cfs, another 24 days at 380 cfs, and then for 15 days at 1,530 cfs, ending June 25.

Then the flows step down from the peak — with 56 days flowing at 380 cfs and another 14 days at 240 cfs, ending Labor Day.

More Roaring Fork Watershed coverage here.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project update: 40 cfs in the river below Ruedi Dam

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Those of you driving past Ruedi Dam over the next week or two might notice a Reclamation drill crew along the retaining wall just north of the dam. The crew is taking samples of the wall as part of our regular and on-going maintenance program across all of our facilities.

Meanwhile, we continue to release about 40 cfs to the Fryingpan River. We are storing what we can behind the dam in anticipation of a below-average run-off.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Turquoise Reservoir and Twin Lakes operations update

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Still hoping for snow this weekend. In the meantime, we started moving water from Turquoise Reservoir down to Twin Lakes today, February 8. We’re moving it through the Mt. Elbert Conduit. We are sitting below average in storage for this time of year at both reservoirs. Water moving through the Conduit also moves through the Mt. Elbert Forebay and generates hydro-electric power at the Mt. Elbert Power Plant before entering Twin Lakes.

Meanwhile, Ms. Lamb has started blogging at kara lamb. Check out her first post That Doesn’t Hurt, i.e. The Joy of Sport where she examines the pervasiveness of pain and injury in sports. Kara is a sports fan. She often does play by play via her Twitter account @klamb.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Twin Lakes Reservoir and Irrigation Canal Co. is the lone objector standing in Pitkin County instream flow change case

Change of water rights cases often drag on until all parties come to agreement and stipulate out. In many cases objectors raise issues with the proposed change that can only be settled at trial in water court. It looks like a change case by Pitkin County — to leave agricultural water in the stream for riparian purposes — is heading to court because Colorado Springs wants to make sure that the change won’t leave them water short at Twin Lakes if there is a rebound call from downstream seniors or a Colorado River Compact call. Here’s an in-depth look at the issue from Brent Gardner-Smith writing for Aspen Journalism. Click through and read the whole article for the great detail and analysis along with graphics that help illustrate the issues at hand. Here’s an excerpt:

Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) are finding it’s not easy to leave water in a river for environmental purposes.

The two entities have been working since mid-2010 to reach agreements with various opponents to a plan that would leave 4.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) of county water in lower Maroon Creek and the Roaring Fork River, instead of diverting it for irrigation purposes to the Stapleton Brothers Ditch near the base of Tiehack.

They’ve reached agreements with 10 opponents so far, but the 11th, an entity controlled by the city of Colorado Springs called the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., is proving to be challenging.

On Thursday, attorneys for Pitkin County asked a judge in Division 5 Water Court in Glenwood Springs to set a trial date as the parties have not yet resolved their differences. Judge James Boyd set the five-day trial for Feb. 3, 2014. The case number is 10CW-184.

The trial results from an agreement between Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board that was announced in 2009.

Mr. Gardner-Smith has published a shorter version of the story in conjunction with the Aspen Daily News. Here’s an excerpt:

“We have been in active settlement discussions with the applicants and have every intention of reaching agreement prior to trial,” said Kevin Lusk, a principal with Colorado Springs Utilities, the city’s water utility that controls Twin Lakes. “We believe that we have made significant progress and do not feel that the remaining issues are in any way insurmountable.”

Lusk also serves as president of the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., which diverts significant amounts of water off the top of the Roaring Fork River basin each year, sending it in tunnels underneath the Continental Divide to Twin Lakes and eventually the Front Range.

“Twin Lakes has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to protect its interests,” Lusk said. “Because of this, Twin Lakes routinely objects to water rights cases on the Roaring Fork when they are of significant size or if there is significant precedent involved.”

Lusk said Twin Lakes is concerned that a change to the county’s water right from irrigation to an instream-flow right may indirectly lead to a situation where Twin Lakes is allowed to divert less water off the top of the Roaring Fork River basin.

But the county and state say there will be no injury to Colorado Springs’ water rights if the 4.3 cfs is left in the river instead of being used for irrigation, especially as monthly flow limits have been placed on the water right consistent with its historic use.

“The maximum and average uses proposed … will prevent any expansion of use of the Stapleton Brothers Ditch water right,” stated engineers from Bishop-Brogden Associates, Inc., the firm working with the county and the CWCB, in a report submitted to the court.

The county owns a total of 8 cfs of water in the Stapleton Brothers Ditch, which diverts that amount and more from Maroon Creek near the base of Tiehack and takes it some 3 miles across the base of Buttermilk Mountain to Owl Creek.

The county’s water right in the Stapleton Brothers Ditch of 4.3 cfs has a 1904 priority date and was used by the Stapleton family to irrigate 163 acres of hay and alfalfa fields on land along Owl Creek.

Most of that land is now occupied by the lower half of the runway at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. And since the county no longer uses all of the water for irrigation, it wants to leave about half of it — or 4.3 cfs — in the river for the benefit of the riparian ecosystem.

If successful, Pitkin County would become the first entity in the state to legally leave its water in a river for environmental purposes via a long-term trust agreement with the CWCB, as allowed by a state law enacted in 200 via House Bill 08-1280.

“It is significant because it is the first long-term agreement since HB 1280,” said [Linda] Bassi of the CWCB.

More instream flow coverage here.

Southern Delivery System update: 30 miles of pipe in the ground in 2012

From the Colorado Springs Independent (Pam Zubeck):

Here’s an update on SDS’s progress in 2012:

Nearly 30 miles of pipeline installed to date — more than half the total pipeline for Phase 1;

Nearly all pipeline installed in Pueblo County — with only approximately 0.3 miles remaining;

Completion and successful testing of the new Pueblo Dam connection; • Began construction of the first phase of power supply infrastructure for the future Bradley Pump Station in El Paso County;

Achieved significant milestone of 500,000 hours worked with no “lost-time” safety incidents;

Completed 100 percent design on the water treatment plant and worked closely with contractor to competitively bid construction work packages to achieve best possible price;

Advanced design on the raw water pump stations to 90 percent and restructured procurement approach to maximize competition for construction and deliver best value;

Acquired all the land needed for construction in Pueblo County with transactions finalized on more than 204 parcels of the nearly 300 total required project-wide;

Negotiated cooperative agreement with Mountain View Electric Association allowing Colorado Springs Utilities to provide power service to the Williams Creek Pump Station at lower rates and retaining full long-term operational and financial control of this critical asset; and

Hosted multiple, regional business outreach events to encourage local contractor participation — to date, a total of nearly 170 Colorado businesses have performed work on SDS.
Staff continues to execute a rigorous program management plan to drive for efficiencies and reduce costs in the planning and implementation of the project. The project is currently forecasting completion about $68 million below budget. Greater certainty about the final project cost will be achieved with the execution of construction contracts for the water treatment plant and raw water pump stations, anticipated by early 2013.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: ‘Water resources are not a priority with this Congress’ — Christine Arbogast

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar’s upcoming resignation and the political climate in Washington could have consequences for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. “We need to double our effort at Interior to secure funding for the conduit,” lobbyist Christine Arbogast told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Thursday.

Salazar, who battled for the conduit when he served in the U.S. Senate, understood the project, which is being studied by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of Interior, she said. “If funding slips, the schedule slips and the costs go up,” she said.

The environmental impact study for the $500 million conduit should be complete before the end of this year. Reclamation will decide the best route for the pipeline which would supply water to 50,000 people in 40 communities east of Pueblo. While funding for the study has remained in place through shaky fiscal times in Washington, the funding for the conduit itself never has been guaranteed. If everything stays in place, the conduit could be built by 2022. That implies annual appropriations would be made by Congress.

“Water resources are not a priority with this Congress,” Arbogast said. “Water is a back-burner issue. It has a low profile and a low priority.”

The conduit was part of the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, but was not built because of the expense. A 2009 bill passed by Congress provided funding through excess-capacity contract revenues to repay the costs of building the conduit.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Carbondale: Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative quarterly meeting January 10

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent:

The quarterly meeting of the Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative will be from 1-4 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 10, at the Third Street Center’s Calaway Room. The agenda will include current Coal Basin restoration work, Watershed Plan current projects, climate change impacts, and a statewide update on water issues including drought and the Flaming Gorge project. The full agenda can be found at http://www.roaringfork.org/events. All are welcome to attend. The Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative group comprises water and river professionals who work on and care about local watershed issues.

More Roaring Fork River Watershed coverage here.

Wild and Scenic designation for the Crystal River?

Here’s an in-depth report from Aspen Journalism (Brent Gardner-Smith). Click through for all the detail and some great photos, as well. Here’s an excerpt:

Wild and Scenic status, which ultimately requires an act of Congress to obtain, prevents a federal agency from approving, or funding, a new dam or reservoir on a Wild and Scenic-designated river.

And that’s one big reason why Pitkin County, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, the Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association (CVEPA) and American Rivers are exploring Wild and Scenic status for the Crystal — because it would likely block a potential dam and reservoir from being built at Placita, an old coal town between Marble and Redstone…

The West Divide Water Conservancy District and the Colorado River District are fighting to retain conditional water rights that could allow for a dam across the Crystal and a 4,000-acre-foot reservoir.

The river district says such a reservoir could put more water in the often parched lower Crystal River in the fall and could also provide hydropower.

But the county, CVEPA and American Rivers are actively opposing the renewal of the conditional water rights tied to the dam and a 21-day trial in district water court is scheduled for August.

In the meantime those groups, plus the Conservancy, are testing local sentiment about seeking Wild and Scenic designation.

“We want to disseminate as much information as possible to the public about the Wild and Scenic program, and then ask the folks in the Crystal River Valley if they think it is a good idea to pursue,” said Pitkin County Attorney John Ely, who leads most of the county’s water-related initiatives.

To that end, the groups held two public meetings in mid-November, one in Redstone attended by 57 people and one in Carbondale with 35 people there…

What the Wild and Scenic Act does do is let the river run — by preventing federal agencies from permitting or funding “any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line or other project,” according to its language.

It would prevent, for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing a permit for a hydropower project on the river or along its banks.

“Some rivers need to be left alone,” said David Moryc, senior director of river protection at American Rivers, describing the underlying intent of the law, according to a summary of the meeting prepared by the Roaring Fork Conservancy…

When asked about that via email, Ely of Pitkin County said he thought Colorado had only one designated river because of the “lack of information as to the benefits and restrictions of the designation, and the time and dedication it takes to get it through Congress.”

Another reason may be that once a river is designated Wild and Scenic, the federal government becomes a stakeholder on the river and has a chance to review potential changes to it, such as any new water rights. Some may feel that Colorado water law is complicated enough already…

“I think the Crystal has the potential to be a nice clean straightforward effort because there are no out-of-basin uses yet,” Ely wrote. “If there is interest in going forward, we’re happy to be the laboring oar and do that work.”

More Crystal River Watershed coverage here and here.

Ute Water District to raise water rates to firm up raw water supplies

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

The largest water provider in the Grand Valley will join the other large providers in bumping rates in 2013, but Ute Water Conservancy District is devoting the revenue to buying water. Ute, which serves a population of 80,000 people with water stored on Grand Mesa, will raise its base rate from $15 to $17 for 3,000 gallons. Customers who use more water will see a 10-cent increase in each of the usage tiers. The additional revenue will be devoted to preparing the district for a forecast in which the population more than doubles to 197,000 people by 2045.

Ute will use the new revenue to buy water from Ruedi Reservoir, which feeds the Fryingpan River. The purchase of 12,000 acre feet of water annually from Ruedi, which is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, will do double duty, both to help Ute prepare for population growth and to shore up supplies in the event of another drought next year, Ute spokesman Joe Burtard said. The purchase, which is the largest single water purchase ever by the 56-year-old district, will cost roughly $15.5 million and go a little more than halfway toward preparing the district to supply 197,000 people, Burtard said.

Ute expects to need 21,400 acre feet of additional supply by 2045. The Ruedi purchase leaves 9,400 acre feet remaining to be acquired and Ute hopes to close that gap by enlarging reservoirs on Grand Mesa, Burtard said.
Ute Water is working to enlarge existing Monument Reservoir No. 1 by 4,700 acre feet and Hunter Reservoir by 1,300 acre feet, Burtard said.

The district has yet to decide what other measures it will take to obtain the remaining 3,000 acre feet of water, Burtard said. An acre-foot of water is the volume needed to cover one acre one foot deep and is frequently considered to be equal to the water usage of one suburban household per year, though conservation measures can reduce residential use to a quarter of an acre foot per year.

Recreation and endangered fish also will benefit from the purchase, as additional water will flow out of Ruedi above Basalt, down the Fryingpan River and into the Roaring Fork and then into the Colorado River at Glenwood Springs, Burtard said.

Ute Water has a Colorado River pump station which can be used in an emergency and will have to be enlarged for regular use, Burtard said.

Ute will pay $850,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation for each of the next two years and will pay the remainder of the purchase with cash and financing, Burtard said.

The Colorado River Water Conservation District also is purchasing Ruedi water from the Bureau of Reclamation. The River District is buying 4,500 acre feet of water.

Purchases by Ute and the River District, as well as others, ensure that water from Ruedi, which was built with federal money, won’t revert to federal ownership, River District spokesman Chris Treese said. 2019 is the end of the 40-year repayment for Ruedi, which was built with federal funding as compensatory Western Slope storage for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. If arrangements weren’t made in time, the federal government could choose what would happen to the water stored behind Ruedi for which there was no purchase contract, Treese said.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System update: Outlet works and pipeline work mostly complete in Pueblo County

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Southern Delivery System work at Pueblo Dam and pipeline through Pueblo County is substantially complete, and work will begin next year on the pump station below Pueblo Dam. “There are a lot of moving parts, but actually we are ahead of schedule in getting pipeline in the ground,” Allison Mosser, an engineer with Colorado Springs Utilities, told the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District board Friday.

About 14 miles of 51∕ 2foot diameter pipeline through Pueblo West and Walker Ranches is in the ground, as well as some connections that will be needed for the North Outlet Works and Juniper Pump Station. Work is beginning on the pipeline in El Paso County, as well. Some distribution lines already are in the ground. In all, 28 of 50 miles of pipeline are complete, Mosser said.

Ground will be broken for a water treatment plant in northern Colorado Springs next year and SDS should be in operation in early 2016, Mosser said.

The district will be asked next month to decide on pipelines and power lines that will cross Fountain Creek on the east side of Interstate 25 near the Pikes Peak International Speedway.

Mosser also updated the board on progress of Fountain Creek wetlands and realignment work at Clear Springs Ranch, south of Fountain, that is required under Pueblo County 1041 regulations for SDS. That sparked a sharp reaction from board member Jane Rhodes, who lives and farms on Fountain Creek in Pueblo County. “This organization was formed four years ago,” Rhodes said. “A little more ought to be be done to help us. We need projects further down south.”

Carol Baker of Colorado Springs Utilities stepped in and explained that $50 million has been earmarked for use on Fountain Creek when the project is completed in 2016. “The design (for the Clear Springs Ranch project) is part of the master plan, and will help lots when we’re designing projects further downstream.”

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Storage news: Southeastern’s winter water storage program diversions are about half of normal #CODrought

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

No surprise: Winter water storage is at about half of last year’s levels, and less than 40 percent of average. The program, administered under a water court decree by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, allows 11 Arkansas Valley ditches to store water from Nov. 15 to March 15. The water can be used either to start crops in a dry spring or finish them in a dry summer.

But in the midst of a drought, there is just not much to store.

The first accounting of storage this year, on Nov. 30, showed just 9,764 acrefeet had been stored. The 20­year average is 24,600 acre­feet. By the same time last year, 19,500 acre­feet had been stored.

That doesn’t bode well for the next few months if dry conditions don’t let up.

Last year, winter water netted 121,000 acre­feet, about 85 percent of average.

River flows on the Arkansas River continue to lag far behind normal levels. Snowpack in the Arkansas River basin, as well as the Upper Colorado River basin, which provides supplemental water to the valley, is at just 25 percent of average.

Rainfall in the Pueblo area is just 4.7 inches, about 40 percent of normal and the driest year since 2002.

Meanwhile, the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Board is planning to pony up $18.8 million in 2013 for various costs including $1.8 million for to enhance streamflow in the Colorado River. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka Writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board Thursday approved the 2013 budget with $18.8 million in expenditures, most of which will go to the federal government to repay the Fryingpan­Arkansas Project.

The district also approved the expenditure of about $1.8 million toward a ranch to provide water for Colorado River flows. Southeastern is joining other water providers to buy the Red Top Ranch near Granby for water rights that will be used to protect endangered fish in the Colorado River. That includes some money budgeted this year, but not spent because of delays in contract negotiations.

Revenues to the district are expected to be about $16.2 million through a 0.935 mill levy in parts of nine counties, water sales, payments from enterprise members and investments.

Most of the money will go toward repaying federal contracts for the Fryingpan­Arkansas Project to the Bureau of Reclamation — $6.5 million to repay the agricultural share of the project and $5.3 million for the Fountain Valley Conduit (paid only in El Paso County).

The budget also includes about $500,000 for continued work on the master lease contract, Arkansas Valley Conduit and outlet interconnection at Pueblo Dam.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage <a href="http://coyotegulch.wordpress.com/category/colorado-water/arkansas-basin/

Crystal River: Momentum building for Wild and Scenic designation

Here’s an analysis of efforts to protect the Crystal River under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act from Brent Gardner-Smith writing for The Aspen Daily News. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

Thirty-nine miles of the Crystal River are already “eligible” for designation under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Now four organizations are building local support to determine if much of the river is also “suitable” for protection under the act.

Passed in 1968, the act allows local and regional communities to develop a federally backed management plan designed to preserve and protect a free-flowing river such as the Crystal River, which runs from the back of the Maroon Bells to the lower Roaring Fork River through Crystal, Marble, Redstone and Carbondale.

Wild and Scenic status, which ultimately requires an act of Congress to obtain, prevents a federal agency from approving, or funding, a new dam or reservoir on a Wild and Scenic-designated river.

And that’s one big reason why Pitkin County, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, the Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association (CVEPA) and American Rivers are exploring Wild and Scenic status for the Crystal — because it would likely block a potential dam and reservoir from being built at Placita, an old coal town between Marble and Redstone.

The West Divide Water Conservancy District and the Colorado River District are fighting to retain conditional water rights that could allow for a dam across the Crystal and a 4,000-acre-foot reservoir.

The river district says such a reservoir could put more water in the often parched lower Crystal River in the fall and could also provide hydropower…

Chuck Wanner, a former Fort Collins city council member, said at the meetings that it took 10 years to get sections of the Cache La Poudre River on the Eastern Slope designated under Wild and Scenic.

Today, that’s the only river in the state that carries the designation and no river in the vast Colorado River basin is officially Wild and Scenic.

When asked about that via email, Ely of Pitkin County said he thought Colorado had only one designated river because of the “lack of information as to the benefits and restrictions of the designation, and the time and dedication it takes to get it through Congress.”

Another reason may be that once a river is designated Wild and Scenic, the federal government becomes a stakeholder on the river and has a chance to review potential changes to it, such as any new water rights. Some may feel that Colorado water law is complicated enough already.

And then there is the fact that designation eliminates the possibility of federal funding for future water projects, which can dampen the enthusiasm of most cities, counties and water districts.

Whatever the reasons for scarcity in Colorado, Pitkin County is ready to lead a Wild and Scenic process for the Crystal River.

“I think the Crystal has the potential to be a nice clean straightforward effort because there are no out-of-basin uses yet,” Ely wrote. “If there is interest in going forward, we’re happy to be the laboring oar and do that work.”[...]

While today only the Cache la Poudre River has stretches that are designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the BLM is preparing a suitability study on a number of area river stretches.

A final EIS is expected to be released in early 2013 by the BLM’s Colorado River Valley Field Office followed by a record of decision in 2014 for the following rivers and river sections:

• Abrams Creek

• Battlement Creek

• Colorado River — State Bridge to Dotsero

• Colorado River — Glenwood Canyon to approximately 1-mile east of No Name Creek

• Deep Creek — From the BLM/Forest Service land boundary to the Deep Creek ditch diversion

• Deep Creek — From the Deep Creek ditch diversion to the BLM/private land boundary

• Eagle River

• Egeria Creek

• Hack Creek

• Mitchell Creek

• No Name Creek

• Rock Creek

• Thompson Creek

• East Middle Fork Parachute Creek Complex

• East Fork Parachute Creek Complex

For more information on regarding Wild and Scenic suitability on these rivers, search for “Colorado River Valley Draft Resource Management Plan,” which will lead you to a BLM website that contains the draft EIS document.

The BLM is also reviewing a number of stretches on major rivers in Colorado, either for eligibility or suitability, including:

• Animas River

• Dolores River

• San Miguel River

• Gunnison River

• Colorado River

• Blue River

In all, according to Deanna Masteron, a public affairs specialist with the BLM in Lakewood, the BLM is currently analyzing more than 100 segments in Colorado through various land-use plans. The Forest Service also has the ability to analyze rivers for Wild and Scenic designation.

More Wild and Scenic coverage here and here.

Aspen: City council is considering an annual lease for 400 acre-feet of water from Reclamation via Ruedi Reservoir

From the Aspen Daily News:

The city of Aspen is considering buying water from Ruedi Reservoir, which would give it more long-range flexibility if climate change curtails the natural streamflow of area rivers.

In a rare opportunity, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages Ruedi allotments, is putting the available water up for sale.

The city is considering spending around $500,000 on the rights for 400 acre feet per year. Controlling that amount of water would mean that, in a dry year, the city could would have a cushion if downstream users on the Colorado River that have rights senior to Aspen’s “call out” water rights. This happens when water is too scarce to meet everyone’s needs.

Aspen City Council heard information on the proposal at Monday night’s meeting, and is expected to vote on the matter at a meeting next week.

Phil Overeynder, former utility department head who works on a consulting basis with the city, said that acquiring the water rights would essentially provide a hedge against global warming.

While current conditions in Maroon and Castle creeks, and also some groundwater wells the city uses, are adequate to supply the town with water in historically dry years, that may not be the case in the future, because of changes in snowpack and runoff patterns that may result from climate change, Overeynder said.

If less water is available, it might harm the city’s ability to pursue things like runoff-capturing ponds and a system that would take water from the sanitation district facility and pump it back up the hill to the golf course.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

The SECWD pulls applications for increased storage in Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Two water court applications, filed in 2000, claiming storage rights in Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake are being pulled because federal legislation has stalled. “Because we don’t have the federal legislation on (dam) enlargement, we wouldn’t be able to meet the can­andwill provisions of state law,” said Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

The district filed for the storage rights after its Preferred Storage Options Plan was completed. The plan identified enlargement of Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake as the best ways to increase storage in the Arkansas River basin. But after 12 years, PSOP looks increasingly unlikely.

The district sought federal legislation to study enlargement of the reservoirs, which were built as part of the Fryingpan­Arkansas Project, but hit its first snag when it opposed Aurora’s inclusion in storage plans. A revised version of PSOP included Aurora, which made certain concessions to the Southeastern district in 2003. New agreements were reached with the city of Pueblo in 2004 that would have allowed PSOP to progress.

Ken Salazar, D­Colo., attempted to broker a settlement among 11 entities that would have allowed PSOP to progress in 2007, but those efforts failed when the Lower Ark sued the Bureau of Reclamation over its storage contract with Aurora.

Since then, Aurora has dropped its insistence to be included in the legislation.

Meanwhile, the “reoperations” of Lake Pueblo — another part of PSOP that defines how nonproject water is stored — have moved ahead through long­term excess capacity contracts for the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Aurora and the Southern Delivery System. The Bureau of Reclamation also is considering a master contract sponsored by the Southeastern district. Southeastern continues to fund studies related to reservoir enlargement, with $132,000 included in next year’s proposed budget, to be adopted in December.

More Preferred Storage Option Plan coverage here and here.

The Southeastern Water Conservancy District board approves $18 million budget for 2013

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A move by Front Range water providers to protect fish in the Colorado River will add about $1 million to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s 2013 budget.

Finance manager Tina White walked the district’s board through the $18 million budget at a public hearing Thursday. The board will vote on adoption of the budget at its December meeting.

Southeastern is joining other water providers to buy the Red Top Ranch near Granby for water rights that will be used to protect endangered fish in the Colorado River. This year, it will cost the district $1.09 million. The district also will spend about $600,000 toward a plan to add hydroelectric generation at Pueblo Dam. Both are multiyear projects that involve other partners, and were financed through reserves.

The district expects to generate $16.2 million in revenues through its general fund and enterprise. The money comes from a 9.35­mill property tax over a nine­county area, enterprise fee collection and grants. Most of the money will go toward repaying federal contracts for the Fryingpan­Arkansas Project to the Bureau of Reclamation — $6.5 million to repay the agricultural share of the project and $5.3 million for the Fountain Valley Conduit (paid only in El Paso County). The municipalindustrial portion of the Fry­Ark Project was paid off first because it carried interest, while the agricultural share does not. About $42.4 million is still owed. The largest operating expenses in the budget are $2.2 million for human resource, personnel and overhead, and $1.2 million for outside services, studies or partnerships.

The budget also includes about $500,000 for continued work on the master lease contract, Arkansas Valley Conduit and outlet interconnection at Pueblo Dam.

More Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District coverage here.

Restoration: Coal Basin mitigation project seeks to lessen the sediment load transported to the Crystal River

From the Grand Junction Free Press (Rose Ann Sullivan):

Earlier this year, Dr. Russ Walker, head of the Colorado Mesa University Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, participated in a workshop that brought nearly 50 resource experts together to develop a strategy for carrying on critical restoration work in Coal Basin and in the downstream confluence area where Coal Creek meets the Crystal River near the town of Redstone, Colo. He presented the results of CMU’s evaluation of existing water quality data and made recommendations for future monitoring. The workshop and water quality assessment were funded by the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund.

Participants in the Coal Basin & Crystal River Area Restoration Workshop immediately identified a series of data gaps that needed to be addressed in order to provide a sound foundation for the continued restoration effort. The lack of adequate baseline water quality data was among the significant issues. Fortunately, funding has just been obtained from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) that allows collection and analysis of water quality data from Coal Creek and the Crystal River in order to provide the baseline data necessary to assess the effectiveness of this comprehensive, high-profile restoration effort.

Over $300,000 in Colorado Water Supply Reserve Account grant funding was recently awarded to the Roaring Fork Conservancy for “Crystal River Watershed – Assessment and Design of Restoration Projects.” Roaring Fork Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service White River National Forest are coordinating the long-term restoration effort with the assistance of CMU and other stakeholders, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Colorado Department of Transportation, Pitkin County, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, private landowners, and the Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association.

The CWCB funding will be used to conduct a series of assessments to identify the continued sources of sediment loading and the geomorphic processes that are degrading water quality and damaging instream and riparian habitat in the Coal Basin sub-watershed and contributing to sedimentation issues in the Crystal River. This information will be supplemented with new stream flow, sediment, water quality, macroinvertebrate and meteorological data, and used to prioritize and design a series of site- and process-specific restoration projects for the Crystal River Watershed — with emphasis on Coal Basin and the Coal Creek/Crystal River confluence area.

The funding will also help cover the costs of a decommissioned mining road reclamation pilot project already underway in Coal Basin. This pilot effort will assess the cost-effectiveness and utility of using biochar, coupled with drainage improvements, to reduce the toxicity of surface runoff, improve the water and nutrient-holding capacity of soils, and enhance the growth of native vegetation.

Dr. Walker and his CMU team will continue to work with the Roaring Fork Conservancy on water quality monitoring for parameters that reveal basic aspects of water quality, and those that are of the most concern. Over the next two years the restoration effort will be guided by both water quality data analysis and an assessment of trends over time – as specific restoration projects and programs are implemented in the watershed.

Follow the Coal Basin and Coal Creek/Crystal River confluence area restoration efforts on the Roaring Fork Conservancy’s website at http://www.roaringfork.org/coalbasin.

Here’s the link to the USGS webpage about aerial inspection of the basin earlier this year.

More restoration/reclamation coverage here.

2012 Colorado November election: Aspen voters say no to proposed Castle Creek hydroelectric generation plant

From The Aspen Times (Andre Salvail):

By a mere 110 votes, Aspen voters rejected an advisory question designed to move the city’s controversial Castle Creek hydroelectric power project forward…

Tom and Maureen Hirsch, vocal opponents of the project and residents on the banks of Castle Creek, said they might have supported a city initiative that was more eclectic. A mix of micro hydroelectric projects with other types of renewable energy efforts such as wind and solar power would be more acceptable to the community, they said, but the city instead decided to focus all of its efforts on Castle and Maroon creeks…

Over the last two years, city officials and others supporting the project, including Mayor Mick Ireland, sought to turn the debate into one of environmental stewardship, saying the hydroplant on Castle Creek would eventually eliminate the city electric utility’s reliance on power generated by coal, a nonrenewable resource.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Aspen: Environmental community divided over propose Castle Creek hydroelectric generation plant

From The Aspen Times via The Denver Post:

Big names in the environmental movement are lined up on both sides of the issue. Connie Harvey, Charlie Hopton and Ken Neubecker are opposed to the proposed plant. Harvey was a founder of Wilderness Workshop. Hopton has been a member of environmental causes and organizations in Aspen for several decades. Neubecker has emerged as a leading voice in the Roaring Fork Valley on water issues.

Those lined up in support of the plant include Auden Schendler, Randy Udall and Paul Andersen. Schendler is executive director of sustainability for Aspen Skiing Co. Udall was the original director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency and has emerged as a national expert on energy issues. Andersen is a respected environmental essayist and a columnist for The Aspen Times.

Voters in the city of Aspen will cast ballots Tuesday on Question 2C, an advisory question on the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Facility.

Hopton said he has rarely seen the upper Roaring Fork Valley’s environmental community torn apart over an issue like it is over the hydroelectric plant. He has friends on both sides of the issue and avoids discussing it with those backing the proposal. He hasn’t taken an active role in the campaign.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.