Day: August 20, 2010

Gunnison River Basin: Union Park Reservoir

A picture named unionpark.jpg

Every so often Dave Miller surfaces with his hopes to build Union Park Reservoir high up in the Taylor River watershed in Gunnison County. The plan is to move water out of the Gunnison River Basin to satisfy some of the projected need east of the Great Divide.

Mr. Miller has penned a letter to the editor that is running in the Ag Journal. From the article:

Since these late 1980s studies, an innovative Blue Mesa-Aspinall high altitude storage alternative was conceived and evaluated between 2004 and 2007. It is called the Central Colorado Project. CCP is designed to pump and store several years of the Bureau’s unused Aspinall Pool rights in the Gunnison National Forest’s off-river Union Park Reservoir site, near the Continental Divide. Advanced modeling can quickly confirm CCP’s unprecedented capabilities throughout multiple river basins. CCP’s 1.2 million acre-feet of storage at 10,200 feet altitude can integrate and selectively multiply the productivity of limited water and energy resources, throughout five southwestern river basins – Gunnison, Colorado, [South] Platte, Arkansas and Rio Grande – and the western power grid.

More Union Park Reservoir coverage here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Project 7 Water Authority reduces energy bill by 86% after hydroelectric generator installation

A picture named microhydroelectricplant.jpg

From the Montrose Daily Press (Kati O’Hare):

About a year ago, Project 7 installed a hydroelectric system at its Montrose County water treatment facility. A year later, the savings and energy credits are adding up. Two hydroelectric generators started moving the plant’s electric meter backwards in September 2009, and the system was running 24/7 in December. “I am just more than pleased,” said Dick Margetts, Project 7 manager.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Green Mountain Reservoir update

A picture named greenmountainreservoir.jpg

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

If you’ve been watching the gage, you most likely noticed that yesterday we bumped releases from Green Mountain to the Lower Blue up by 150 cfs, bringing it to 550 cfs. This morning, Thursday, we bumped releases up again by another 150 cfs. Currently, we are releasing 700 cfs to the Lower Blue. This release is anticipated to remain through the weekend and into next week.

More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Is Cotter, Corp. going to shutter the mill at the Lincoln Park/Cotter Mill superfund site?

A picture named cottercontamination.jpg

From the Cañon City Daily Record (Karen Lungu):

John Hamrick, vice president of Cotter mill operations, sent a letter to the director of Air and Toxics Technical Enforcement Program Office of Enforcement Compliance and Environmental Justice, dated July 23, stating, “On June, 30, 2010, Cotter Corporations (N.S.L.) submitted a letter to Mr. Steve Tarlton of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment notifying him of a change in status of the Primary Impoundment at the Cañon City Milling Facility near Cañon City.” The letter stated that Cotter will “close both the primary and secondary impoundments as soon as reasonably achievable.” Hamrick goes on to say the Cañon City milling facility began dismantling structures and facilities no longer considered useful to the CCMF. The company no longer will carry out radon flux testing, Hamrick said, at the primary impoundment, because the primary impoundment no longer is an active facility that is subject to 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W requirements.

Previously stating the mill would reopen, Cotter took local lawmakers by surprise when they told regulators it would discontinue testing for radon emissions at the site because it is no longer an active facility subject to regulation. The mill south of Cañon was designated a Superfund site in 1984, making Cotter responsible for continued monitoring of radon emissions at the milling facility, as well as neighboring Lincoln Park.

More Lincoln Park/Cotter Mill coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs City Councillor Tom Gallagher wants Reclamation to redo the project EIS

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Eileen Welsome):

In a 27-page letter sent last month to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Councilman Tom Gallagher, a longtime critic of the SDS project, asked that negotiations be suspended and the environmental review process be re-opened to address numerous questions. “It’s time to put the brakes on this and look at alternatives that don’t use Pueblo Reservoir,” he said Thursday…

In his July 7 letter, Gallagher argued that major events have occurred since the environmental review process was completed in 2009, including the abolishment of the stormwater enterprise by Colorado Springs voters and the imminent construction of another pipeline, the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which will be built to serve communities east of the Pueblo Reservoir in the Arkansas Valley.

CSU spokesperson Janet Rummel pointed to letters from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation stating that CSU will still be able to meet its commitment to protect water quality in Fountain Creek, despite the loss of the stormwater enterprise. The construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit will not affect the storage space that SDS will need in Pueblo Reservoir, she added.

Michael Connor, head of the Bureau of Reclamation, rejected Gallagher’s request on Aug. 3, saying that the environmental review process was complete and that issues raised by Gallagher had been adequately addressed. He added, however, that Reclamation, an agency within the Interior Department, was continuing to monitor this “local and regionally significant” project.

Gallagher’s letter has drawn fire from Mayor Lionel Rivera, who penned his own letter to Salazar, telling him the dissident council member “does not represent the official position of the Colorado Springs City Council on the SDS project.”

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: New report says that the project may end up serving 80,000 customers and cost $400 million

A picture named pipeline.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Updated figures were presented Thursday to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, sponsors of the conduit. The district received the final report produced in preparation for the National Environmental Policy Act review now being conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation…

The 500-page report also revises cost estimates of four alternatives for the 135-mile conduit. Construction costs range from $330 million to $396 million — up from $300 million in 2006 — depending on the alignment of the conduit, said Kevin Meador of Black and Veatch Engineering…

In addition to the population increase, the amount of water needed for the conduit on average each year would increase to 14,000 acre-feet — or 12.3 million gallons per day from current levels of about 10,000 acre-feet, the report revealed. While there could be 42 communities in the project, the nine largest participants would use 80 percent of the water, Meador said.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board meeting recap

A picture named lowerarkansasriver.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“In 2002, everyone changed their thought patterns, and more people are holding onto their water,” Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District told the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board Wednesday. “This means you will see a full Pueblo Reservoir more of the time.” Broderick explained the timing of a request for a master storage contract by the Southeastern district coincides with an application to build the Arkansas Valley Conduit in an effort to save money on both projects. Because they both use parts of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, authorized by Congress in 1962, both require environmental impact statements…

By combining the two studies, the costs of the master contract EIS could be reduced to $500,000 from an estimated $2 million in 2001, Broderick said. The master contract would allow long-term storage at a locked-in rate, which particularly helps cities within the Southeastern district plan for the future, Broderick said…

Colorado Springs dropped out of the master contract process, but the remaining SDS partners have continued. Pueblo West, not in the original group, is in the current master contract. The Lower Ark district, which was formed by a 2002 vote, is among newcomers to the master contract as well, and indicated a need for 15,000 acre-feet of storage…

The Southeastern district also is requesting space not in the original plan, 5,000 acre-feet, primarily for future use in the conduit. Conduit participants La Junta and Crowley County both want space through the master contract, but Lamar dropped its request. Salida, Florence, Canon City and the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District remain in the contact and were among the original users. Other new users include Poncha Springs, Penrose, Widefield and Stratmoor Hills, which joined at various times in the past decade. In all, the contract totals 28,200 acre-feet of storage.

More Arkansas Basin coverage here.