CWCB: Draft SWSI 2010 Municipal and Industrial Water Conservation Strategies Report comments due by December 15

A picture named precipitationaugseptcolorado.jpg

From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Ben Wade):

The CWCB has completed a Draft of the SWSI 2010 Municipal and Industrial Water Conservation Strategies Report. This Draft Report illustrates the potential statewide savings from active M & I water conservation programs and measures out to 2050. The Draft Report is available for public comment until 5:00 p.m. Wednesday December 15, 2010. The report is on the CWCB website. Please direct any questions or comments to Veva Deheza Section Chief, Office of Water Conservation & Drought Planning, at 303-866-3441 ext. 3226.

More CWCB coverage here.

Custer County: The Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District withdraws its proposed blanket augmentation plan

A picture named wetmountainvalley.jpg

Here’s an in-depth look at the Upper Ark’s augmentation attempts for Custer County from Nora Drenner writing for The Wet Mountain Tribune. From the article:

In a phone interview with the Tribune following UAWCD’s decision on Friday, Nov. 19, to withdraw its proposed plan, [Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga] said the UAWCD board of directors took the action due to opposition from the Custer County commissioners and others within the community. He also said he felt the concerns raised by the commissioners and others were due to a lack of understanding in regards to how a water augmentation plan works and as such UAWCD would strive to educate Custer County residents and elected officials.

Scanga also said the UAWCD hoped to sit down with the Custer County commissioners in the near future to hash out a plan to bring a water augmentation plan back on the table.

Scanga also said a memorandum of understanding outlining all details would be signed by the UAWCD and commissioners before a proposed water plan would be submitted to water court.

More Custer County coverage here and here.

EPA: WaterSense program update

A picture named waterefficenttoilet.jpg

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

WaterSense is a partnership program sponsored by EPA that seeks to protect the future of our nation’s water supply by offering people a simple way to use less water. It’s similar to the agency’s Energy Star program, which certifies homes for reaching a certain level of energy efficiency.

WaterSense can helping homebuyers cut their water and energy use while at the same time saving money on utility bills. Four WaterSense-labeled new homes have been built by KB Home in Roseville, California, and will help families save an average of 10,000 gallons of water and at least $100 on utility costs each year.

The EPA estimates that, if the approximately 500,000 new homes built last year had met WaterSense criteria, the homes would save Americans 5 billion gallons of water and more than $50 million in utility bills annually.

More conservation coverage here.

Rio Grande Basin: Save Our Senior Water Rights meeting recap

A picture named irrigation.jpg

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

[Attorney Tim] Buchanan updated SOS on where the appeal [of the management plan for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District’s first groundwater management subdistrict] stands before the Colorado Supreme Court. Testimony in this case was submitted to the Supreme Court three weeks ago. Briefs from both sides will now be filed, and oral arguments will be scheduled before the seven-member Supreme Court, Buchanan explained. He anticipated those oral arguments to be heard in the time frame from February to April. Each side will only have half an hour to present its case, but the judges will have an opportunity to ask questions afterward.

Buchanan said the Supreme Court’s options include: upholding Kuenhold’s decision and approving the sub-district plan; ruling that parts of Kuenhold’s decision should be changed, so the plan would be sent back to him; or ruling that the entire process was flawed so Kuenhold’s decision was incorrect, and the process would have to start over.

Buchanan reminded the group of some of the reasons SOS believes Judge Kuenhold made a mistake in approving the sub-district plan. He said one of the reasons was the provision in the plan that the state engineer would make a decision every year as to how the plan would operate.

Buchanan said Senate Bill 222 said the water court would approve a comprehensive plan regarding how water was going to be managed to prevent injuries to senior water rights. If the sub-district did not have a comprehensive plan, the water judge should not approve it, Buchanan said.

“The legislature didn’t say ‘let the state engineer approve it and if anybody complains you appeal to the judge’,” Buchanan said. “I don’t have a lot of confidence in what the state engineer might do.”[…]

Buchanan also argued against the sub-district taking Closed Basin Project water as credit for depletions. “The Closed Basin Project is just another group of wells pumping from the aquifer,” Buchanan said. “That just shifts the burden. It doesn’t put new water into the system.” Buchanan also questioned the sub-district’s figure of 8,000 acre feet as the amount the sub-district must replace back to the river. He indicated the amount of replacement water should be higher. Assuming the 8,000-acre-foot figure was correct, however, Buchanan said the sub-district does not have any water to replace that amount now. “They don’t have any contracts for water. They don’t have any agreements for purchasing water, nothing in place to replace the water, so how do we know they are actually going to replace those depletions?

Another issue Buchanan raised with Judge Kuenhold’s decision was “he revised the plan himself … I don’t think he has that authority.” Buchanan said he believed the most likely decision of the Supreme Court in this case would be to reject the plan and send it back with direction to Judge Kuenhold to require revisions of certain parts of it.

More Rio Grande River basin coverage here.

Arkansas Valley Super Ditch extends sign up period for ditch companies to February 15

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

During public informational meetings last week, some questions were raised about why the deadline for signup to participate in possible lease contracts came before many of the ditch companies had annual shareholder meetings. “It made sense to wait and give them the opportunity,” Schweizer said…

“We thought the meetings went really well,” Schweizer said. “We really anticipated more objections than we got. I think I admitted that I don’t know everything, but there’s not a lot we can do until we know how many participants we have.” While the main objective of the Super Ditch is to lease water, and its customers so far are outside the Lower Arkansas Valley, there are future benefits to keeping water in the valley, Schweizer said…

There are other possible benefits, such as leasing water to put into the future Arkansas Valley Conduit, Schweizer added. “There has been some talk that in a short year, Super Ditch could be a way of moving water between the canals. That would be a year when there would otherwise be no chance of raising a crop on all of the ditches,” Schweizer said. The main thrust of questions from the meetings last week centered on how much farmers could expect per acre from the two lease agreements under discussion, he added. The amount suggested in both lease agreements is $500 per acre-foot of water, although the corresponding acreage that must be dried up to reach that figure and to account for moving the water into storage at Lake Pueblo varies from ditch to ditch. It also depends on the weather conditions, availability of water and engineering restrictions.

More Arkansas Valley Super Ditch coverage here and here.