Supporters of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) rally in Fort Lupton

From KUNC (Kirk Siegler):

“This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a Colorado issue,” said Fort Lupton Mayor Tom Holton. The rally under the blistering sun took place at the Fort Lupton Historic site – an adobe replica of a fur-trading post along the South Platte River between Denver and Greeley…

Saving farms is one of the main arguments put forth by cities and districts like Left Hand backing the estimated $400 million NISP project. The idea being that if these cities and districts had their own water supplies, they wouldn’t have to buy up all the farmers’ water…

“There is no water left in our rivers and that’s what we have to come to grips with and find a new path forward,” [Gary Wockner] says…

Backers of NISP say other proposals floated by environmentalists such as water leasing from farms still won’t meet the region’s long-term needs.

From The Denver Post (Monte Whaley):

The Army Corps delivered its latest assessment in a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper, who wanted to know when the impact statement would be completed. That’s a sign that Hickenlooper and the cities and towns that would benefit from NISP want the project done…

Northern Water is a chief proponent of NISP, which calls for the Cache La Poudre to be diverted during high-flow periods to fill two proposed reservoirs, Glade Reservoir northwest of Fort Collins and Galenton Reservoir east of Ault. The latest cost of the project is at $490 million. At least 15 northern Colorado water providers also back NISP, believing it will sustain them during times of drought…

However, a comprehensive review of NISP was expected to attract a similar review by the Corps, [Brian Werner] said. “We’ve never been held to a hard and fast deadline,” he said. “What I am hearing from the 15 communities and the governor, is ‘Hey, let’s get this thing done.’ “

From the Northern Colorado Business Report:

“The current drought throughout Northern Colorado has brought home a stark reality – we need more water storage and soon,” Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway has said. “Without it our children and grandchildren’s future will be at risk.”[...]

Meanwhile, Weld County farmers have struggled to maintain their crops during the drought. Crop insurance claims are up, people in the industry say, despite overflowing groundwater wells that remain shut off to Weld farmers.

The project “would provide the water storage we need to support Northern Colorado’s growing communities and provide protection to economies and families when the weather turns dry,” Rep. Cory Gardner said in a statement.

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Ashley Keesis-Wood):

During the July 16 work session, the [Windsor] town board spent some time refreshing itself on a topic that hasn’t gotten a lot of traction in the last couple of years: the status of the Northern Integrated Supply Project…

Windsor has been a player in Northern Water since its formation and is currently a 8.25 percent shareholder in the project…

The project will cost an estimated $500 million, and that cost will be borne by participants in the project, in proportion to the amount of water they’re requesting from NISP. Windsor’s share of water is 3,300 acre-feet, which comes to about $40 million. There are, Brouwer said, multiple ways to fund the project, including special bond financing, loans or upfront payment…

In short, [Carl Brouwer] said he hopes the project will be producing water by 2018. “Glade would be built and completed by then, and we’d be completely finished with all construction by 2022 or 2023,” Brouwer said. “We can postpone a phase or two as needed, depending on the financial capacity of the partners involved.”

Thus far, Windsor has contributed about $933,000 to the project. Once the project is online, Windsor and other participants will enter into allotment contracts where the shares of water become tangible assets that can be bought and sold within the boundaries of the Northern Water district…

The 3,300 acre-feet that Windsor is in for in NISP is enough water to basically double Windsor’s water allotment from the Colorado Big Thompson Project and its other water sources, allowing the town’s population to essentially double, as well.

Board member Don Thompson asked whether there were negative implications from buying town water from other sources. “We’re paying other entities to treat the water we already own,” said Dennis Wagner, engineering director. “We’re not buying water from other entities.”

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP): The Corps of Engineers delays supplemental draft EIS until the fall of 2013

Here’s a release from Save The Pourdre/Poudre Waterkeeper (Gary Wockner):

On Friday, July 20, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informed Save The Poudre that the next draft of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) and its Glade Reservoir would not be released to the public for at least another year — “Fall of 2013.” The information came in a letter from the Corps that was written to Governor Hickenlooper. The letter cites “concerns regarding cumulative impacts to the Cache la Poudre River.” The letter goes on to say, “The size of the proposals, types of analysis, and the amount of interest they have generated has resulted in substantial reviews.”

“This is great news for the Poudre River,” said Gary Wockner, Director of Save The Poudre. “This river-destroying scheme has now been delayed for 5 years with no end in sight.”

Save the Poudre has been relentlessly bird-dogging NISP. Over the last 18 months, Save the Poudre has sent the Corp 17 letters, reports, and documents demonstrating the need for more analysis in the NISP EIS, some of that specifically regarding cumulative impacts of NISP with other proposed projects in the basin.

While the next draft of the EIS may be released in the Fall of 2013, NISP has a vast array of hurdles to jump after that. For example:
1. The next draft of the EIS (called the “Supplement Draft” EIS) allows for another public comment period.
2. After that public comment period, the Corps must again consider those comments and re-analyze any significant concerns.
3. After that analysis, the Corps will release a “Final” EIS, which also allows for yet another public comment period and re-analysis of significant concerns.
4. Then NISP must apply for and receive several additional state and federal permits, which may have significant analysis involved, including from the State of Colorado Water Quality Control Division and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
5. Assuming all of those hurdles can be jumped, the Corps will then issue a “Record of Decision” (ROD).
6. After the ROD is released, then anyone can formally challenge the project in court, which could take years to resolve.

As one example of a similar process, the Animas-La Plata dam/reservoir project in southwest Colorado was recently completed after 40 years of permitting and court challenges. As another example, the “Two Forks” dam and reservoir proposal west of Denver on the South Platte River was never completed because it was denied by another federal agency because the project would have irrevocably harmed the river as opposed to alternatives such as increasing water conservation in the Denver metro area.

At a recent public meeting (as reported in Windsor Now), the spokesperson for NISP said he expected NISP to be completed in the year 2022, 10 years from now.

“Ten years is extreme optimism,” responded Gary Wockner. “Our mission is to protect and restore the Poudre River and NISP violates our mission. NISP participants need to invest in alternatives now — such as the “Healthy Rivers Alternative” which focuses on water conservation and efficiency — rather than throwing away more ratepayers’ money on NISP.”

More coverage from Monte Whaley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

Werner said a recent decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to delay issuing its environmental impact statement for at least another year — sometime in fall 2013 — is not a sign the project is in trouble.
“We are at the mercy of the process, we’ve never been tied to a deadline,” Werner said The Army Corps delivered its latest assessment in a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper, who wanted to know when the impact statement would be completed. That’s a sign that Hickenlooper and the cities and towns that would benefit from NISP want the project done…

…a comprehensive review of NISP was expected to attract a similar review by the Corps, Werner said. “We’ve never been held to a hard and fast deadline,” he said. “What I am hearing from the 15 communities and the governor, is ‘Hey, let’s get this thing done.’ “

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

Runoff from wildfire areas causes increased water treatment concerns, ‘blackwater rafting?’ #CODrought

From The Denver Post (Yesenia Robles):

“Fortunately we weren’t using Poudre water anyway when the fires started, so our customers haven’t noticed any differences,” [Donna Brosemer] said. “Our main concern is we want to keep as much as we can out of that water because we can’t continue to use the Horsetooth water indefinitely.”

While the ashy Poudre water can’t be used for drinking right now, some of it is being used by farmers, Brosemer said. “It can ultimately become a problem for them too because if there’s too much ash it can clog up their systems,” Brosemer said. “But they don’t have the same complications we do with the drinking water system.”

From The Denver Post (Electa Draper):

A black sludge now coats many river shores once sparkling with white, tan or pink sands. A canyon once heavily scented by pines smells like a smoky campfire. Many miles of this 126-mile-long river now evoke its namesake, the gunpowder buried by French trappers along its banks in the 1820s.

People now enjoy “blackwater rafting,” observed homeowner Mike Smith, whose deck juts over the Poudre.

More water treatment coverage here.

Colorado Water 2012: Greeley and Union Colony ditch history

Here’s the latest installment of the Valley Courier’s Water 2012 series written by Jon Monson. Here’s an excerpt:

The Union Colonists had big plans for irrigation ditches. Ditch No. 1 was going to come from the mouth of the Poudre Canyon, roughly where the Larimer and Weld Canal is now, and irrigate almost 40,000 acres. Another 40,000 acres were to be irrigated by the No.2, which eventually became the New Cache Irrigation Company.

They started smaller though, building the No.3 first to irrigate about 3,500 acres. The No.3 was closest to town, actually forming the southern edge of the colony. Located uphill from the Poudre, the ditch could irrigate the parks and gardens of the townspeople as it passed by to irrigate farms east and west of the city.

Back then people were fascinated by the power of water to make the dry prairie bloom with shade and green vegetables. Everyone had a garden. Even the kids diverted water from their parents laterals to play farmer.

The grownup farmers worked hard those first few years, learning how to manage water and how to run a mutual ditch company. Things went well until the summer of 1874 when the Poudre River suddenly dried up. Curious, someone got on their horse and rode up stream to see what was the matter. Turns out the new little town of Camp Collins had thrown a diversion across the Poudre and was taking the entire river to irrigate their farms.

Back in the Union Colony the cry went up, “To your tents boys! Rifles and cartridges!” Remember this was less than ten years after the Civil War. Cooler heads prevailed and the two groups met in Windsor to discuss (argue?) the matter. That summer they decided to allocate the water to who ever needed it most. Now that must have been one tough job. Two years later, when the Colorado Constitution was written, Article XVI Section 6 enshrined the prior appropriation doctrine, “The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied.”

More Colorado Water 2012 coverage here.

Larimer County, et. al., score $5 million from Great Outdoors Colorado

From the Loveland Reporter-Herald:

Larimer County and its partner cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, Windsor and Timnath will receive $5,098,150 for the Poudre River Corridor and Regional Trail Initiative, according to a press release from Kerri Rollins, Open Lands Program manager for Larimer County.

The grant will move the partners closer to completing their decades-long goal of “a regional swath of open spaces and connected trails along the river corridor,” the release said.

The money will fund the purchase of almost 1,000 acres of land along the Poudre and the construction of a trail overpass over Interstate 25 near Harmony Road in Timnath.

With the completion of the lottery-funded work, less than five miles of trail construction will remain in the 45-mile corridor from Bellvue northwest of Fort Collins to Island Grove Regional Park in Greeley, according to the release.

Here’s a list of GOCo grants for Southern Colorado from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:

Seven Southern Colorado projects were awarded $1.6 million by the Great Outdoors Colorado board Tuesday. A total of $37.3 million went to 42 projects throughout Colorado this grant cycle. Money comes from state lottery proceeds.

Mendenhall Ranch open space, Nature Conservancy, Otero County, $310,500.

Pritchett basketball court, Baca County, $28,215.

McClave Park improvements, Bent County, $161,377.

Conejos River Ranch open space, Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust, Conejos County, $420,000.

Los Caminos Farm open space, Colorado Open Lands, Costilla County, $420,500.

Lookout Mountain Park land acquisition, Del Norte, Rio Grande County, $132,350.

Ski-Hi Park Pavilion, Rio Grande County, $179,990…

A package of four projects along Fountain Creek won $2.52 million in state funds Tuesday. The Great Outdoors Colorado board awarded the money as part of its highly competitive River Corridor Initiative. Eight projects were awarded $24 million this year under the initiative. Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Fountain and El Paso County applied jointly for the funds, in a show of regional cooperation. The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District joined as well, because the projects also are included in various Fountain Creek improvement plans the district supports.

More restoration/reclamation coverage here.

Drought/runoff/snowpack news: Streamflow in the Cache la Poudre River is dismal

Click on the thumbnail graphic for the water year 2012 hydrograph for the Cache la Poudre River at the mouth of Poudre Canyon from the Colorado Division of Water Resources.

From The Greeley Tribune (Eric Brown):

Streamflow in the Poudre River, which cuts through north Greeley and goes on to serve as the largest tributary stream to the South Platte River, is particularly dismal. According to numbers provided by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, peak stream flow in the Poudre River came earlier and was lower this year than any other year on record — dating back to 1957. Peak streamflows in the South Platte River are not at all-time lows this year — that happened in 1954. But, according to Colorado Water Resources Division 1 Engineer Dave Nettles, the river’s peak flow this month was about three times less than it was in 2002 — the year of a historic drought that changed the way many producers and municipalities manage water…

Mike Hungenberg, a Weld County carrot grower who serves as the board president for the New Cache La Poudre Irrigation and Reservoir Company, said his ditch company this year can serve only half of its shareholders at a time — sending water to one half of its district some days and cutting off supplies to the other half, and then switching. “We’ve never had to do that,” Hungenberg said. “Not even in 2002.”[...]

Snowfall was lacking in the mountains for most of the winter — with snowpack numbers at or near record lows in much of the state — and this year’s abnormally warm temperatures caused what little snowpack there was to melt well ahead of schedule. With peak flows in the Poudre River coming on May 5 this year, that water passed by many farmers before their crops were even planted. To add to it all, rainfall has been minimal — precipitation in the Greeley area this year is less than half of the historic average.

Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP): Storage is key to future growth

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Bob Juhl/Joseph A. Wilson/Carolyn Cutler):

Erie and Lafayette and the Left Hand Water District, which serves Eastern Boulder County, have spent the past decade studying the best methods to ensure our ability to access enough water to meet our future dry year needs. Together with 12 regional water providers, we determined that NISP is our best option from more than 200 options studied. NISP is not only the most environmentally sensitive project, but also the best solution from an economic standpoint.

Some believe the region will be fine without NISP. We wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement states clearly that if NISP is not built, one of the consequences will be the elimination of 100 square miles of irrigated farmland in Northern Colorado because communities will have to purchase necessary water supplies from farmers. One of NISP’s goals is to keep water on farms to ensure their continued operation.

Northern Colorado will continue to grow regardless of whether NISP is built or not. Colorado needs to keep available water supplies in the state for its citizens. From 2009 to 2011 Colorado saw more than 1.4 million acre feet of water leave the state to Nebraska over and above what is required. That’s enough water to supply the entire Front Range of Colorado with water for a year…

Please go to gladereservoir.org for more information about NISP and an upcoming support rally scheduled for July 24.

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

Project spearheaded by Colorado State University aims to collect water quality data for the Cache la Poudre River

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

a first-of-its-kind Colorado State University project will try to gain a better understanding of the Poudre River and how climate change and industrial, agricultural, energy and urban development within its watershed affect its waters.

The Poudre begins in pristine wilderness, but flows through a variety of developed landscapes on its 126-mile run to the South Platte River. Scientists want to find out exactly how those uses of land above the river’s banks affect its water quality and flow.

When it’s complete, the project, called the Water Innovation Network, will place 60 water quality and water flow monitoring stations along the river from its headwaters in Rocky Mountain National Park to the Poudre’s confluence with the South Platte River east of Greeley. The stations will send real-time data to CSU, where scientists can measure the water flow, pollutants and other information as rain storms and development near the river’s banks affect its waters.

It will take researchers about five years to put most of the stations in place, and up to eight stations are expected to be installed by the end of the year, said project lead Mazdak Arabi, CSU assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering.

“We want to know precisely what the condition of our water is because we drink that water, we use it in industrial processes, we use it to irrigate our crops,” said John Stokes, Fort Collins Natural Areas and Poudre River Sustainability Director. “The more we know about the qualities of that water, the better-equipped we’re going to be to steward that water, to take care of it, to improve the quality of that water and to use it wisely.”

More Cache la Poudre River coverage here and here.

Cache la Poudre River: Will the Arapahoe snowfly end up on the endangered species list?

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Wednesday that the snowfly is worthy of protection under the Endangered Species Act, but the agency’s other priorities preclude it from doing so immediately.

Instead of being listed as an endangered species right away, the species will be added to the list of possible species to be added to a queue of species waiting to be considered for endangered status, something that will be reviewed each year.

The snowfly was first discovered in 1986 in Young Gulch in Roosevelt National Forest, one of only two places on earth the snowfly is thought to exist. The other is Elkhorn Creek, about five miles from Young Gulch.

Scientists consider the snowfly an “indicator” species, the health of which is a sign of the overall health of the Poudre Canyon ecosystem…

[Colorado State University entomology professor Boris C. Kondratieff] said if the species is listed, the entire Young Gulch and Elkhorn Creek watersheds would have to be protected, but how that would be done would require more study.

More coverage from Bob Berwyn writing for the Summit County Citizens Voice:

The species was first discovered in 1986 in Young Gulch, a small tributary of the Cache la Poudre River in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado.

It is a small, dark‑colored insect with both a body length and wing length of about 0.2 inches. In 1988, it was identified as a new species. It was also found in a second tributary, Elkhorn Creek, approximately five miles from Young Gulch.

No other populations have been found in searches of nearby tributaries, and numerous visits to Young Gulch since the species’ discovery in 1986 have failed to locate additional specimens. Thus, the Service believes the species is extirpated from Young Gulch and currently only occurs in Elkhorn Creek.

The status review identified threats to the species including the potential present and future threat of habitat modification caused by climate change; the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the species from impacts due to climate change; and its small population size (only one known population with few individuals documented).

More Arapahoe snowfly coverage here.

Colorado TU Gives Conservation Award to Grand County

Here’s the release from Colorado Trout Unlimited (Randy Scholfield):

Colorado Trout Unlimited today announced that Grand County government – led by County Commissioners Gary Bumgarner, James Newberry, and Nancy Stuart – is the recipient of TU’s 2012 Trout Conservation Award for its work protecting the Upper Colorado River watershed in the face of Front Range water diversions and other threats.

The award is presented each year to recognize outstanding achievements in conserving Colorado rivers and trout habitat.

“I have never seen a local government place the level of attention, resources, and overall emphasis on river conservation as has been the case with Grand County over the past five years,” said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “Commissioners Bumgarner, Newberry and Stuart, and County Manager Lurline Curran, have worked tirelessly to preserve healthy river flows along with the wildlife, local communities, and quality of life that depend on them. They have been true champions for the Colorado headwaters.”

“As a resident of Grand County for 40 years, and as a father who wants his children and their children to experience the same natural wonders that I’ve enjoyed here over the years, I am deeply appreciative of the unified effort from our commissioners and staff in their fight to save our rivers and lakes,” said Kirk Klancke, president of the Colorado River Headwaters Chapter of TU. “I am proud of my county for having courageous leaders like these, who are an example to all of the Davids that are facing Goliaths.”

Nickum called Grand County “a longstanding and valued partner” with Trout Unlimited in working to protect and restore the Upper Colorado River watershed. He noted that Grand County officials have invested more than $3 million into assessing and addressing the needs of its rivers, and spent thousands of hours negotiating with Front Range water users and advocating to federal permitting agencies for better protections for the Upper Colorado River watershed.

Among other accomplishments in the past year, Grand County (along with other west slope governments and Denver Water) unveiled a historic “cooperative agreement” that includes many important benefits for the Colorado River and its tributaries, including millions of dollars for river restoration and environmental enhancement; 1,000 acre-feet of water to help with low flows in the Fraser River watershed; guarantees that the vital Shoshone call continues to operate in the future to keep water in the Colorado River year-round; and an agreement that any future transbasin projects will only be pursued with the consent of the West Slope. The agreement is also important in establishing a stakeholder partnership called “Learning by Doing” to provide ongoing monitoring of river health to ensure adequate protection measures.

Grand County has also worked with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to use Windy Gap pumping capabilities to re-manage some “excess” water for the benefit of flows in the Colorado River and has filed for a Recreational In Channel Diversion to help support a new in-river water right on the Colorado mainstem.

Moreover, Grand County leaders are negotiating with Northern for enhanced funding for river restoration projects—including a needed bypass around Windy Gap Reservoir to improve Colorado River habitat—and additional water for use in Grand County to boost flows and river health. Grand County is also promoting an agreement to release water for endangered fish in the downstream Colorado River out of Granby Reservoir – thereby benefiting the Colorado through miles of key trout habitat – instead of releases solely from Ruedi Reservoir, as has been done in the past.

For all the progress in recent years, the health of the Upper Colorado River ecosystem will continue to decline unless further protections are put in place to address looming impacts from two new Front Range diversion projects, Denver’s Moffat Tunnel expansion and Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project. Nickum noted that EPA recently issued recommendations that supported Grand County and TU’s case for stronger mitigation on the Windy Gap Firming Project.

“Grand County officials understand that the Colorado headwaters are the lifeblood of their communities and of our state’s tourism economy and outdoor quality of life,” said Nickum. “They have set an example for our public leaders of what strong river stewardship looks like.”

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

The National Park Service has released their draft EIS for mitigation of the 2003 Grand Ditch breach

Here’s the release from Rocky Mountain National Park (Kyle Patterson):

The Grand Ditch Breach Restoration Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been released by the National Park Service (NPS). A public workshop will be held on Wednesday, April 11, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Larimer County Courthouse/Commissioner’s Office at 200 W. Oak St., in Fort Collins and on Thursday, April 12, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Grand Lake Fire Protection District at 201 W. Portal Road in Grand Lake. The public is encouraged to attend one of the meetings. The workshop format will be informal. A presentation will be followed by a question and answer period. Park staff will be on hand to discuss the DEIS and answer questions. Exhibits will be on display to describe the project and the environmental analysis. Attendees will have the opportunity to offer written or verbal comments.

The purpose of this project is to restore the natural hydrological processes, ecological services, and wilderness character of the area in the Upper Kawuneeche Valley impacted by the 2003 Grand Ditch breach. Implicit in this purpose is that the ecosystems restored are naturally dynamic and self-sustaining. The Upper Kawuneeche Valley area of impact contains more sediment, debris, and subsequent injuries from the 2003 breach than it would under natural conditions. The breach has resulted in highly unnatural conditions within the project area as a large amount of excess sediment has been deposited into the system and remains in an unstable, erodible state. The estimated 47,600 cubic-yard debris flow from the 2003 breach resulted in channel morphologic changes, deposition of a large debris fan, increased sedimentation along the Colorado River, altered aesthetics of a wilderness area, and tree mortality and scarring. These impacts have degraded the aquatic, riparian, and upland ecosystems, in addition to the wetland communities that support a unique array of species in comparison to other habitat types in the park.

The Grand Ditch Breach Restoration DEIS analyzes five alternatives to guide restoration of the area within Rocky Mountain National Park impacted by the 2003 Grand Ditch breach.

Alternative A, the alternative of no action / continue current management, would continue current management of the impacted area, following existing management policies and NPS guidance. This alternative serves as a basis of comparison for evaluating the action alternatives.

Alternative B, minimal restoration, would emphasize a smaller scale of management activity, compared with the other action alternatives, to restore portions of the impacted area. This alternative would focus actions on areas that are unstable and present a high potential of continued degradation of existing ecosystem resources and services. Management activities would be conducted using hand tools to reduce impact on wilderness character. This alternative would include stabilization of the road-cut hillside immediately below the Grand Ditch under one of two stabilization options.

Alternative C, high restoration, would involve more intensive management actions over large portions of the impacted area. This alternative would focus actions on unstable areas that present a high to moderate potential of continued degradation of existing ecosystem resources and services. Restoration methods would be used to stabilize banks, slopes, and disturbed areas, and to lessen the availability of breach debris and sediments to the system over a larger portion of the project area. This alternative would involve the use of heavy equipment and possibly reusing excavated debris for restoration and stabilization actions both within and between zones. This alternative would include stabilization of the road-cut hillside immediately below the Grand Ditch under one of two stabilization options.

Alternative D is the preferred alternative. This alternative would emphasize the removal of large debris deposits in the alluvial fan area and in the Lulu City wetland. Actions would be conducted to stabilize limited areas of unstable slopes and banks throughout the upper portions of the restoration area. Hydrology through the Lulu City wetland would be restored in the historical central channel through removal of large deposits of debris, relying on the historical channel to transport river flow. Small-scale motorized equipment would be employed for stabilization and revegetation activities, while larger equipment would be employed for excavation of large debris deposits and reconfiguration of the Colorado River through the Lulu City wetland. This alternative would include stabilization of the road-cut hillside immediately below the Grand Ditch under the preferred option, option 1.

Alternative E, maximum restoration, would involve extensive management activity and use of motorized equipment over large portions of the impacted area to restore the project area to reflect both pre-breach and desired historical conditions. Extensive recontouring and stabilization of 2003 debris deposits along banks and slopes would be conducted to approximate pre-breach contours and to reduce transport of sediments over a larger portion of the impacted area. Extensive changes would be made to both the existing and historical Colorado River channels to route the river to its historical alignment through the center of the Lulu City wetland. To facilitate movement of heavy mechanized equipment and excavated debris from the wetland to upland disposal areas, a temporary haul road would be constructed. This alternative would include stabilization of the road-cut hillside immediately below the Grand Ditch under one of two stabilization options.

The potential environmental consequences of the actions are evaluated for each alternative. Short-term, adverse impacts on natural soundscape, wilderness, water resources, wetlands, visitor use and experience, and wildlife that range up to major would result from restoration activities and the use of mechanized equipment. Up to long-term, major benefits would accrue for all impact topics under alternatives C, D, and E as a result of a high level of restoration of ecological reference conditions within a 100-year period.

A copy of the DEIS is available for public review online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/romo Printed copies may be obtained from Rocky Mountain National Park, 1000 US Highway 36, Estes Park, Colorado 80517-8397, 970-586-1206. The DEIS will also be available at the Boulder Public Library in Boulder, the Estes Valley Library in Estes Park, the Juniper Library in Grand Lake, and at the Poudre River Public Library in Fort Collins.

The National Park Service will accept comments until May 25, 2012. If you wish to comment on the Grand Ditch Breach Restoration DEIS, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to: Superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, CO 80517-8397. You may also comment via the Internet at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/romo…you may hand deliver comments to: Rocky Mountain National Park Headquarters, 1000 US Highway 36, Estes Park or to the Kawuneeche Visitor Center, Rocky Mountain National Park, 16018 Highway 34, Grand Lake.

Please be aware that names and addresses of respondents may be released if requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Individual respondents may request that their home address be withheld from the record, which will be honored to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which a respondent’s identity may be withheld from the record, as allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. All submissions from organizations, or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses are available for public inspection in their entirety. Anonymous comments may be included in the public record. However, the NPS is not legally required to consider or respond to anonymous comments.

More coverage from Pamela Dickman writing for the Loveland Reporter Herald. From the article:

The park lays out five possibilities of how to repair the landscape, including two that use heavy equipment for higher levels of restoration, one that uses hand tools only for minimal restoration and one in which no additional work would be completed. The preferred option, however, focuses stabilization by removing debris from the alluvial fan and in the LuLu City wetlands, using larger equipment for some of the work and small-scale equipment for the rest, according to the national park.

Crews also would stabilize limited areas of the slopes and banks, restore the historical channel in the Lulu City wetland and remove large debris deposits using traditional river flow.

The work also would include stabilization of the road cut hillside immediately below the ditch.

More coverage from Bobby Magill writing for the Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article:

The Grand Ditch diverts water that would naturally flow into the Colorado River beneath the Never Summer Mountains and sends the water over the Continental Divide to the Poudre River to be used by Front Range farmers downstream. Fort Collins-based Water Storage and Supply Co., which operates the ditch, was sued by the federal government to claim compensation for the breach, and a settlement was reached in 2008. Since then, park officials have been working with Colorado State University to learn more about the ecology of the damaged area, and in 2010, they came up with five possible restoration scenarios…

The plan the NPS prefers doesn’t call for the highest level of restoration, and isn’t the “environmentally preferable” option, according to the analysis. The maximum level of restoration would involve extensive use of motorized equipment over a large area, according to the analysis. Park spokeswoman Kyle Patterson called the plan park officials want to go with a “strategic alternative” that would reduce the project’s impact to wilderness yet achieve a nearly ideal level of restoration for the area.

More restoration/reclamation coverage here.

Fort Lupton council ponies up the $75,000 annual payment for the Northern Integrated Supply Project

From the Fort Lupton Press (Gene Sears):

Voting in the affirmative, Fort Lupton City Councilors approved the seventh in a series of payments for the Northern Integrated Supply Project Feb. 13. For 2012, the prorated portion for the city comes to $75,000, the amount necessary to retain a stake in the water supply project.

The overall 2012 price tag for NISP among all participants is $1.5 million for some 40,000 acre-feet, 3.000 of which is earmarked for the city upon completion. That amount is in addition to $10.8 million already spent by all participants on the project since inception, the majority of which centers around permitting preparations and cost.

Plagued by opposition from environmental groups such as Save The Poudre, final permitting and construction has repeatedly been pushed back until 2025 and possibly farther in the event of lawsuits, likely as the project gains ground.

While there are no guarantees that NISP will ever move past the planning stages, if the city dropped its payment schedule, any monies invested in the project thus far would be forfeited. For Fort Lupton, that total before the upcoming payment is approximately $825,000

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

Brian Werner: ‘Tell me when the next big drought comes, and you’re going to see people screaming about storage’

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

“Tell me when the next big drought comes, and you’re going to see people screaming about storage,” said Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in Berthoud. “Their willingness (to consider building new reservoirs) ebbs and flows based on when your last drought was.”

The uncertainty about the mountain snowpack, which fluctuates every year, is the primary argument for building new reservoirs in the West, said Reagan Waskom, director of the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University. “The amazing thing is, it comes down to three or four big storms every year, whether they get them, or they bypass us,” he said…

One of five major proposed water storage projects in Larimer County that are in various stages of planning, [Northern Integrated Supply Project] calls for storing about 170,000 acre-feet of Poudre River water in the proposed Glade Reservoir north of Ted’s Place. A final decision could come sometime in 2013 or 2014…

The other four proposed projects include expansions to Fort Collins’ Halligan Reservoir and Greeley’s Seaman Reservoir, the Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Carter Lake and the more uncertain Cactus Hill Reservoir proposed for a site on the Weld County line between Wellington and Nunn. If those projects are built, Waskom said, it’s hard to conceive of other such large projects being built in Northern Colorado regardless of the need because there are few other places to build them, at least in Larimer County. “Unless we can get Aaron Million’s project or a West Slope diversion built, we don’t have any more water left,” he said…

“All the easy projects have been built,” [Waskom] said. “Now we’re dealing with the hard projects. What comes after the projects, that’s the question, right? Where’s the water and reservoir sites, and where’s the political will to build projects?”

More infrastructure coverage here.

Fort Collins plans rehab of Michigan Ditch facilities

From the City of Fort Collins (Brain Janonis) via the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

During the winter 2011, record snowfall accumulated in the region. While the snowfall created plentiful water supplies for the northern Front Range, the snow’s depth and weight resulted in structural damage to reaches of the 6-mile Michigan Ditch. Two projects were planned on the ditch this summer, but heavy snow accumulation delayed the start of construction. Snow melted slowly this spring and the condition of the pipe was difficult to evaluate until mid-summer.

Once our city staff, engineers and consultants completed their evaluation, crews moved quickly to stabilize the damaged structure before late summer snow began to fall again.

Several phases of repair and stabilization will be required to prevent or minimize future damage and protect the Michigan Ditch. More work will be completed in the next few years, and city water customers will benefit from the use of this asset for decades to come.

More Cache la Poudre River coverage here and here.

The Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority scores 4,400 acre-feet of ag water from United Water and Sanitation, next up water court for a change of use

From The Greeley Tribune (Eric Brown) via Windsor Now!:

Arapahoes’s purchases, negotiated over the past couple of years and finalized in September, still leave a couple of major questions yet to be answered. The county must win approval from water courts to use the water for municipal purposes and it must figure out a way to get the water from here to there. According to documents, Steve Witter, water resources manager for the Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority, said during a presentation at an authority board meeting in September that 43 percent of the 4,400 acre-feet of water purchased by United Water and Sanitation District — on behalf of the authority — came from the Poudre River, while the other 57 percent came from the South Platte River. In an interview Monday, Witter noted that this marks the first time Arapahoe County — the third-most populous county in the state with nearly 600,000 people and whose municipalities include suburbs of Denver — has purchased water rights from farmers in northern Colorado. Witter said all of the agricultural water rights purchased on behalf of the water authority came from the Poudre and South Platte rivers. The transactions were made between United and individual shareholders of irrigation, ditch and reservoir companies — including 12 companies in Weld County, according to documents obtained by The Tribune…

Front Range municipalities, because of their rapid growth, have been buying agricultural water rights from farmers to secure the future water needs for decades. But because of the ongoing “buy and dry” trend, the 2010 Statewide Water Supply Initiative, compiled by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 acres of irrigated farmland could be dried up by 2050 — a year by which Colorado farmers will also be expected to help feed a state population that will have doubled to about 10 million people, according to some estimates.

More Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority coverage here and here.

Windy Gap Firming: Recently released final EIS acknowledges potential declines in streamflow in the Upper Colorado River basin

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

Even more worrisome to conservation advocates are the projected declines in summer flows. Below Windy Gap Reservoir, July flows could drip by as much as 20 percent, according to the Bureau’s study, which also acknowledged that extensive mitigation measures will be needed to protect West Slope aquatic ecoystems…

But the proposed mitigation falls short of what’s needed to protect the Upper Colorado, according to Trout Unlimited, a cold-water fisheries conservation group.

Here’s the release from Colorado Trout Unlimited (Randy Scholfield):

A new federal report on the environmental impacts of a plan to expand the Windy Gap water diversion project in Colorado falls short of recommending what’s needed to protect the fragile Upper Colorado River, according to Trout Unlimited.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement, released by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on Nov. 30, outlines the anticipated effects of the proposed project and recommends needed mitigation.

“This new document is an improvement over the previous version in that it acknowledges the Windy Gap project will worsen conditions in the Upper Colorado River and Grand Lake unless measures are taken,” said Drew Peternell, executive director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project. However, the mitigation proposed by the bureau falls far short of what is needed and critical problems continue to be ignored. We urge the Bureau to require additional protective measures to preserve this irreplaceable natural resource.”

“Trout Unlimited’s concerns with the Environmental Impact Statement are echoed by the Upper Colorado River Alliance, a nonprofit group that is also seeking to require more mitigation to protect the river,” said Boulder attorney Steven J. Bushong, a representative of the Alliance.

The report comes out as Trout Unlimited is launching a petition campaign to protect the Upper Colorado River and its tributary, the Fraser River, and the mountain communities, businesses, people and wildlife that depend on them. The petition campaign, based online at DefendTheColorado.org, is being spearheaded by Trout Unlimited to engage advocates for the iconic but threatened rivers. The website allows advocates to sign on to a petition that will be delivered to decision makers before the bureau makes a final decision on the Windy Gap project. That decision is expected in early January.

“The good news is that the Bureau of Reclamation’s Environmental Impact Statement says additional mitigation measures may be added before the agency makes a final decision. That highlights the importance of taking action to stand up for the river now,” Peternell said.

Already 60 percent of the Upper Colorado is diverted to supply Front Range water users. The Windy Gap proposal, along with a separate Moffat Tunnel water project, could divert as much as 80 percent of the Upper Colorado’s natural flows. According to Trout Unlimited, steps must be taken to protect the rivers including:

· Managing the water supply to keep the rivers cool, clear and healthy.
· Funding to deepen river channels and create streamside shade.
· Monitoring of the rivers’ health and a commitment to take action if needed to protect them.
· Bypassing the Windy Gap dam to reconnect Colorado River and restore river quality.

“The Final Environmental Impact Statement continues to ignore existing problems that will be made much worse by the Windy Gap project,” said Sinjin Eberle, president of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “A study released by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife earlier this year shows that entire populations of native fish and the insects they feed on have all but disappeared from the Colorado River below the Windy Gap Reservoir. The state study blames the reservoir and the lack of spring flows that clean sediments from the stream beds and warns that expansion of the Windy Gap project poses additional threats to the health of the river and the aquatic life in it.” See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Hearings/Rulemaking/93/Responsive/93rphsTUexG.pdf

The Windy Gap project also impacts the health of Grand Lake. “Grand Lake – once a pristine lake of dramatic clarity and scenic beauty – has become cloudy, weedy and silty because of diversion water pumped into the lake from Shadow Mountain reservoir,” said John Stahl of the Greater Grand Lake Shoreline Association. “Nothing in the FEIS mitigation plan is helpful in addressing the existing problems–at best it maintains the status quo while more likely creating even bigger problems.”

The Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation will monitor to ensure that mitigation is adequate and will impose additional measures if necessary. “That’s helpful but needs to be more clearly articulated. Another critical addition is the construction of a bypass around the Windy Gap dam,” Eberle added.

The DefendTheColorado.org campaign highlights the people who depend on the rivers.

“The Colorado and Fraser rivers aren’t just bodies of water, they are the lifeblood for wildlife, local communities and the state’s recreation economy,” Eberle said. “But many Coloradans are unaware that these rivers are on the brink of collapse because of diversions. DefendTheColorado.org’s purpose is twofold – to raise awareness about the threats facing the Colorado and Fraser and to give people a way to stand up for our rivers.”

Eberle added, “We can’t afford to let these rivers literally go down the drain.”

A new feature of the website called “Voices of the Fraser” profiles local Fraser Valley residents and visitors who speak eloquently about their connection to the Fraser River and the need to preserve healthy flows. Among the individuals profiled are Olympic skier Liz McIntyre, logger Hoppe Southway and landscape artist Karen Vance.

“It would be a shame to see any of these tributaries dry up just for the sake of developing the Front Range,” said Southway in his profile. “It’s the water my children and grandchildren are going to want to see someday, and I hope it’s protected for future generations.”

Visitors to the site also have added their voices about why the river is important to them.

“I have fished and hiked the Fraser and Upper Colorado river regions for over 30 years and am deeply saddened by the degradation of these great watersheds,” a Golden, Colo., resident wrote.

A Bonita Springs, Florida, resident wrote: “I LOVE fishing that stretch of water and find such a simple peace of being in that area. Please don’t mess with such a special place.”

“As a visitor and fisherman to Colorado on a regular basis, my tourist dollars help the local communities,” noted a resident of Blue Springs, Missouri.

More Windy Gap Firming Project coverage here and here.

Reflections on the Colorado-Big Thompson Project — W.D. Farr

Here’s a video with W.D. Farr explaining the origins of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Thanks to Greeley Water for posting the video.

Next year is the 75th anniversary of the 1937 act that established the water conservancy districts and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Farr explains that Congressman Taylor would not support the project unless Green Mountain Reservoir — for west slope supplies — was built first.

“The biggest cloud of dust I ever saw came out of that tunnel [Adams Tunnel],” Farr says, “I never saw men so happy in my life.”

More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.

Noble joins Anadarko with exploration plans in the Wattenberg Field, they plan to pony up $1 to $1.5 billion

From The Denver Business Journal (Cathy Proctor):

Noble plans to invest $8 billion over the next five years in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, an area that includes northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, said Ted Brown, Noble’s Denver-based senior vice president in charge of its northern region operations, which includes Colorado.

In the Wattenberg area of the play, “it will be $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year,” Brown said in an interview Wednesday…

Noble said it think its can get 1.3 billion barrels of oil from its 840,000 net acres of mineral rights in the Wattenberg. The company said its wells in the area are currently producing oil and natural gas equivalent to 67,000 barrels of oil per day, and expects production to double by 2016.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

The Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board unanimously supports findings on the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP)

From a release from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Brian Werner):

The Agricultural Advisory Board to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners has reported that the Northern Integrated Supply Project will not dry up farms in Northern Colorado as represented in the Save the Poudre’s “Farm Facts” report. The AAB’s general conclusion was that NISP will help slow down the rapid and accelerated dry up of farms throughout Northern Colorado.

In an October 26 memo to the Board of County Commissioners (see link to memo in Reporter-Herald story), the AAB said, “It’s better for agriculture for future municipal and domestic water supplies to come from the combination of conserved water and from new stored supplies (such as NISP) derived from available undeveloped water rather than from additional agricultural dry-up. Population growth will occur with or without NISP. Water conservation alone will not provide adequate future water supplies.”

The County Commissioners thanked the AAB for their input and study of NISP and it’s agricultural related impacts. As reported in the Loveland Reporter-Herald, Commissioner Steve Johnson said to the three board members who attended the elected board’s meeting, “You guys are the ones that are experts. You are the ones dealing with this every day. It’s not just debate. It’s your livelihood.”[...]

The AAB memo disputes the Save the Poudre claim that free river opportunities will be greatly diminished if NISP is built. “Currently, this undeveloped water is leaving Colorado without being beneficially used within the state … water for NISP will not be diverted unless and until all water rights senior to NISP have been fully satisfied,” the AAB report said. The report added “Glade will not curtail in any way the rights or the abilities of ditch companies to fully utilize their senior ditch water rights…”

Save the Poudre’s “Farm Facts” were also disputed by Alamosa rancher and Colorado Farm Bureau President Don Shawcroft last April. In a press release Shawcroft said, “Save the Poudre does not speak for Colorado agriculture, an industry forthright and vocal in its support for NISP. Colorado farmers and ranchers support the NISP project. If we support the development of a water project, you can bet it will help keep irrigated farmers on the land.”

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

The Agricultural Advisory Board to the Larimer County Commissioners reports that the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) will not stimulate increased growth in N. Colorado

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Kevin Duggan):

A memo by the Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board states NISP would not necessarily accelerate the selling and subdivision of farms to meet the water needs of growing cities as predicted in a study released earlier this year by Save the Poudre, which opposes the project. “The need for NISP is the result of growth, which has occurred or will occur, rather than NISP being a cause of that growth,” Val Manning, chair of the advisory board told the county commissioners Tuesday…

The board also found construction of Glade Reservoir north of Ted’s Place would not take significant agricultural land out of production because the property already is owned by Northern Water, which has proposed building NISP. There’s no evidence the project would increase salinity levels in Weld County fields and reduce crop productivity as stated in Save the Poudre’s report, “The Farm Facts about NISP,” the board stated…

The board’s analysis questioned Save the Poudre’s contention that the amount of “free water” available for diversion during years of high flow would be eliminated by NISP because water rights for the project are junior to other claims on the river’s water. [Board member George Wallace] told the commissioners some downstream farmers have become accustomed to using “free” water for production during years of high flow and they would be affected by reduced availability.

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

The Agricultural Advisory Board to the Larimer County Commissioners reports that the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) will not dry up agriculture

From the Loveland Reporter Herald (Pamela Dickman):

The Agricultural Advisory Board, made up of several working farmers, released a report to the commissioners Tuesday saying the Northern Integrated Supply Project reservoirs would not dry up farmland and would not harm productive crops with increased salinity. The report was in response to an April release from Save the Poudre, the environmental advocacy group leading opposition to the proposed reservoirs…

The region will need additional water supply for growth with or without the reservoir projects. NISPwill meet those needs and take pressure off farmers’ water, according to the report.

There is no evidence that shows salinity will increase on farmland despite the fact that eastern Colorado farmers will be receiving effluent water. The dirtier water will be diluted enough that farmland should not be affected.

The water to initially fill, and to maintain the reservoirs, would be extra water above that already claimed from the Poudre River and would not come out of allocations to farmers. The water would be, in essence, extra water during wet years that would flow out of state if not captured.

More Northern Integrated Supply Project coverage here and here.

The water needs picture for developing the Niobrara shale is unclear at this time

Here’s an in-depth report about the current state of oil and gas exploration and production in Larimer and Weld counties, from Bobby Magill writing for the Fort Collins Coloradoan. Click through and read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:

“One thing that’s really concerning me and a lot of people, there are so many pending (oil and gas drilling) permits and approved permits in Weld County and Larimer County, are they reserving future water for fracking purposes, and where are the sources coming from?” said Shane Davis, chairman of the Poudre Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club, which held a public forum on the issue in September. “It’s a very serious question that needs to be addressed.”[...]

“In terms of how it affects the state’s water planning, it still is fairly unclear,” said Eric Hecox, section chief of the Water Supply Planning Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “Although we have a good handle on how much water it takes per well to frack the wells, we have very little information ultimately on how many wells there will be. Making quantitative projections on how much water will be needed is difficult at this time.”[...]

There is great national and international interest in the Niobrara in Colorado, [Tisha Shuler, CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association] said, but the wells that have been drilled so far have produced mixed results partly because of the Niobrara’s complicated geology…

Most of the wells in Weld County are conventional oil wells, which are drilled vertically and require between 250,000 and 1 million gallons of water each per frack job, Shuler said…

Wells tapping the Niobrara shale are horizontal wells. The well bore is drilled vertically thousands of feet beneath the ground until it hits the Niobrara shale, then it angles horizontally into the shale, parallel with the ground. For decades, tapping the Niobrara oil deposit was difficult for drillers to reach because technology that hadn’t advanced enough to make it economically feasible…

Each of those horizontal wells requires somewhere between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water to bore into the Niobrara, according to Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission data…

Shuler cautioned, however, that the oil industry’s water consumption figures sound staggering, but other water consumption by agriculture and cities is much greater. Less than 1 percent of the state’s available water is consumed by the energy industry each year, she said…

The city of Greeley sells about 250 million gallons of water to the oil and gas industry each year, earning the city $1 million in sales to the industry so far this year, said Greeley Water and Sewer Director Jon Monson…

Water regulators in Colorado say the overall impact of the oil and gas industry on the state’s water supply is negligible and shouldn’t have any significant impact on water availability in the future. “In the overall scheme of things, from the water standpoint, it’s a very small fraction,” Hecox said of the industry’s water consumption.

Meanwhile, here’s a blog post from Amy Mall running on the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard weblog. She has a list of health experts that are warning about the potential health hazards for those living near natural gas production facilities.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

‘What the Frack?’ event recap: More than 100 people attend event last Saturday in Fort Collins

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

More than 100 people attended former EPA environmental engineer Weston Wilson’s Sierra Club-sponsored presentation about the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, Saturday at the Fort Collins Brewery…

Wilson, in a 2004 letter to Congress, said the conclusions of an EPA report about fracking were not supported by the evidence. The report claimed that injecting toxic material into the ground during a fracking job presented no risk to the environment. Wilson recently retired from the EPA…

“There’s really no place along the Front Range that’s unsuitable for drilling the Niobrara,” Wilson said. All those wells are going to be fracked, and that could be an issue with water quality and supplies, he said…

About 2 percent of fracked oil wells fail, possibly releasing contaminants into underground water supplies, he said. The challenge for regulators has been that nobody really knows much about those failures because those affected by them are legally bound to keep quiet, he said. “The industry buys out those they contaminate,” he said. “Well, we don’t learn anything from that. When they buy out the person with a nondisclosure agreement, there’s no public information.”

Wilson said he is advocating for making fracking cleaner, adding that fears about the impacts of fracking have encouraged several European countries to ban the practice in addition to New York City banning fracking within its watershed.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Wastewater: The Windsor Town Board approves borrowing $3.2 million loan for new headworks and lift station

From the Windsor Beacon (Ashley Keesis-Wood):

Upgrades to the plant, combined with a new headworks and lift station, are the next big project on tap for the Town of Windsor. The Windsor Town B approved an ordinance on Sept. 12 allowing the town to take out a $3.2 million loan from Colorado Water and Power Authority at a low interest rate to pay for the project. “This loan would address the needs out at the Great Western Industrial Park and the projected population growth,” Windsor Town Attorney Ian McCargar said…

“With this loan, we will not have to raise our existing sewer rates,” Windsor Finance Director Dean Moyer said.

More wastewater coverage here.

‘Future Horizons for Irrigated Agriculture’ tour recap: Greeley and other Weld County Communities are gearing up for population growth

Here’s an in-depth look at efforts by northern Colorado cities to water the expected growth in population from The Greeley Tribune. Click through and read the whole article and check out the photo gallery. Here’s an excerpt:

Water storage for the future is viewed as so vital to the northern Front Range that the 15 participating municipalities and water districts of the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, have spent about $10 million during the past seven years just to plan and analyze the endeavor. But there is no guarantee that NISP — a project that includes the construction of two new reservoirs in northern Colorado — will ever take shape. The federal government continues to analyze the Environmental Impact Statement…

Jon Monson, director of the city of Greeley’s Water and Sewer Department, said the city’s current supply will meet the needs of the community for only 25 more years, maybe less. In preparation, Greeley officials want to expand the Milton Seaman Reservoir, one of six high-mountain reservoirs from which the city draws its water. The reservoir holds about 5,000 acre-feet of water, and the proposed project calls for it to be expanded more than 10-fold to 53,000 acre-feet. The expansion would allow Greeley to pull 7,800 acre-feet of water off the reservoir annually, up from the 750 acre-feet it can pull now. Greeley uses about 45,000 acre-feet of water per year; demand is expected to grow to about 65,000 acre-feet by 2050. After initiating efforts in 2004, the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project is expected by 2013, and a final EIS is expected by 2015. Afterward, construction would take two years and filling the reservoir could take another five to 10 years…

Another water storage effort is The Windy Gap Firming Project. The 25-year-old Windy Gap Project near Granby diverts water from the Colorado River to the Front Range via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project on a space-available basis. According to Monson, during wet years when water is available for Windy Gap diversions, Lake Granby is often full with little or no space for the water. During dry years, the water right can be too junior to come into priority, so no water is available to pump. Greeley is allotted 4,400 acre-feet of water annually from the Windy Gap Project, but that supply hasn’t always been available. The Windy Gap Firming Project was proposed to ensure reliable future deliveries. Nine other municipalities, including Evans, participates in the project, along with the Central Weld County Water District and two other districts. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is expected to publish the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Windy Gap Firming Project in November.

More Colorado Foundation for Water Education coverage here.