Day: March 20, 2013

House Panel Advances Tipton Rural Jobs Bill (H.R. 678)

peltonwheel

Here’s a release from U.S. Representative Scott Tipton’s office:

Today, the House Natural Resources Committee advanced with bipartisan support Rep. Scott Tipton’s (CO-03) legislation that would create rural jobs by expanding the production of clean renewable hydropower. The Hydropower and Rural Jobs Act (H.R. 678) could receive a vote in the House as early as the next week the House is in session.

Sen. John Barrasso (WY) has introduced a Senate companion to Tipton’s bill this session.

“At a time when our country needs to focus on domestic energy production and job creation, hydropower can play a critical role in providing clean renewable energy while expanding job opportunities in rural America,” Tipton said. “I’m confident that this commonsense clean energy and jobs bill will receive a vote in the House soon and optimistic that it will head to the Senate with the momentum needed to propel it into law.”

The legislation, which received a Senate Water and Power Subcommittee hearing last year before time ran out in the session to pass it, will have a direct impact on the 3rd District where there is significant potential to expand hydropower development on existing Bureau of Reclamation canals and conduits that have already undergone environmental analysis.

H.R. 678 would accomplish this by streamlining red tape and reducing administrative costs for the installation of small canal and pipeline hydropower development projects. Increased small hydropower installation will create local jobs, add clean, affordable electricity to the grid to power homes and communities, modernize infrastructure, and supply the federal government with additional revenues.

“This bipartisan legislation reduces unnecessary and duplicative costs to encourage hydropower development. These existing man-made facilities have already gone through environmental review, so there’s simply no need for another costly review. While the Bureau of Reclamation has recently attempted to address this by establishing its own categorical exclusion from NEPA, it has yet to implement this new policy and, as with all agency directives, is subject to later change by this administration or future administrations,” Tipton said. “I’m open to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to address their concerns with the NEPA provision, but the bottom line is that we must arrive at a statutory framework that streamlines the project approval process and reduces costs. H.R. 678 substantially reduces administrative planning costs and protects water users by specifically reaffirming hydropower development as secondary to water supply and delivery purposes.”

View Tipton’s full statement here.

Earlier this month, Chris Treese of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, told the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power that Reclamation projects in his water district would benefit from Tipton’s legislation.

“I know of several districts that have considered hydropower investment, but never seriously, as they are discouraged by the regulatory uncertainty and costs currently represented by the existing permitting process,” Treese said. “We support H.R. 678 and believe it will reduce costs and foster more conduit hydropower at federal facilities and empower irrigation districts involved in the operation and maintenance of these Reclamation canals to develop and benefit from this clean energy source. We further believe it will clarify issues of federal authority on these projects that will improve and streamline the decision-making processes.”

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

‘To rewrite or amend the Law of the River was a place we were not willing to go at this time’ — Ted Kowalski #coriver

coloradoriverbasin2012doiviatheaspentimes

Back in 2008 a weary John McCain forgot he was in the Denver airport talking to a journalist from The Pueblo Chieftain instead of in Phoenix talking to local media there when he said that the Colorado River Compact should be renegotiated. Here’s a piece I wrote about the incident for the Colorado Independent. John McCain didn’t win Colorado that year.

Renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact (The Law of the River) is rearing its ugly head again. Here’s an article from the Water Law & Policy Monitor (Tripp Baltz) via Bloomberg that looks at the implications from the Colorado River Basin Water Supply & Demand Study released on December 12, 2012 which did not take up the legal issues in the basin. Here’s an excerpt:

…the study, known formally as The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, did not assess one set of ideas: proposals calling for legal and policy changes, many of which concerned the Law of the River, a collection of compacts, treaties, statutes, and court rulings that governs how water in the basin has been allocated for more than 90 years.

From the beginning of the study–completed in December 2012 and funded by the Bureau of Reclamation and the basin states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming–the participants agreed it would be taking on too much to give serious consideration to changing the Law of the River.

“To rewrite or amend the Law of the River was a place we were not willing to go at this time and in the context of the study,” said Ted Kowalski, chief of the interstate, federal, and water information section for the Colorado Water Conservation Board, part of the state’s Department of Natural Resources. Kowalski was a member of the options and strategies sub-team that helped write the study.

Carly Jerla, operations research analyst for the Bureau of Reclamation in Boulder, and the bureau’s manager for the study, told BNA that officials believed it would not be productive “to start taking apart the Law of the River just for the sake of taking it apart.”

“We were all in agreement from the get-go that we were going to reflect on and consider the policy options, but that they were not going to go through a rigorous assessment,” Jerla said. “We all knew that if we started going down that road, we would get sidelined and never get the report done.”[…]

When asked if members of the sub-team were reluctant to analyze legal and policy ideas because they respect the Law of the River, fear changing it, or view changing it as too difficult, sub-team member Don Gross told BNA, “All of the above.”

“I don’t think the states want to go there,” added Gross, a civil engineer with the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

Opening up the Law of the River would have risked altering its core purpose–setting the water allocations to which each state is entitled. States worry that doing so could result in changes to their current shares.

That fear is more pervasive in the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, which do not use up their full apportionment over a 10-year average, relative to those in the lower basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, which have used up their allotments as defined under various compacts, agreements, and court orders dating back to 1922…

It is likely all three lower basin states would see advantages to changing allocations as defined under the Law of the River, with Nevada “perhaps having the most to gain by some kind of reallocation scheme,” Kowalski acknowledged…

The legal implications of the report were indeed sensitive, Kenney said. In addition to declining to assess the legal and policy options, the study included a page-long disclaimer stating that nothing in the study report is intended for use against any of the main basin partners to “evidence legal interpretations of the law of the river.”

Even the negotiations over the disclaimer became prickly, he said. In June 2011 the Bureau and the seven states released an interim report on the study, coming right up against the release deadline because of last minute debate over the disclaimer’s wording, Kenney said.

It is the job of the Law of the River, a complex body of laws, court cases, and regulations, to determine how Colorado River water meets the needs of the various agricultural, industrial, and municipal users. The Law of the River also controls how dams and reservoirs are operated in the basin.

Over the history of the Law of the River, water managers have described it in contradictory terms, at times endowing it with a near-reverent, written-in-stone quality, while at other times touting its flexibility and evolving nature…

Ignoring the legal issues could ultimately put the upper basin states at the biggest risk, Kenney said.

“If you avoid having this conversation and you wait until the system crashes, that’s when the lower basin states will use their political muscle to go to Congress, and Congress will impose a solution to their liking,” he said.

“My money’s more in California than on Wyoming,” he added.

Supply and demand solutions must be accompanied by legal solutions, he said. “Even if you start bringing in icebergs and building pipelines, the legal issues are still there,” he said. “You put new water in the system, and you still have to decide: Whose water is it?”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Forecast news: Storm approaching Colorado — mountain snow and valley rain #codrought #cowx

Snowpack news: North central Colorado mountain snowpack remains well below average #codrought

Drought news: East Larimer County Water District on voluntary watering restrictions #codrought

seasondroughtoutlookmarch72013

usdroughtmonitor03122013

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

East Larimer County Water District, which delivers water to Larimer County customers north and east of Fort Collins, is encouraging its users to voluntarily limit their water use through Northern Colorado’s ongoing drought. ELCO encourages customers to limit lawn and landscaping watering and to water before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m. to reduce evaporation. According to a news release, ELCO expects sufficient water from Horsetooth Reservoir and the Poudre River to meet demands, but will monitor the water supply and any potential need for added usage restrictions.

From The Denver Post (Monte Whaley):

March snowstorms have done little to ease the drought now gripping Colorado, said State Climatologist Nolan Doesken. Doesken says the state’s drought statistics as of Monday are grim.

• 89 percent of the state is in severe or worse drought
• 48 percent of the state is in extreme or worse drought
• 21 percent of the state is listed as exceptional drought

Exceptional drought — D4 or dark red on the U.S. Drought Monitor maps — is the worst category of drought and delivers the worst economic punch, including crop failures and cattle sales, Doesken said…

About 3.13 percent of the western U.S. is experiencing D4 drought conditions, according to the drought monitor, up from 0.94 percent at the same time last year. As of March 12, the Eastern Plains of Colorado and eastern Wyoming accounted for the largest areas of the region reporting D4 conditions.

Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment of the Upper Colorado River Region #codrought #coriver

wyutcoprecipitationmarch2013monthtodate

Click on the thumbnail graphic for the precipitation summary. Click here for all the summaries from the Colorado Climate Center.

Update on the spill near Parachute: Containment and removal in process, source still vexing Williams Energy

parachutecreekspillmarch2013

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Gary Aldersea walks daily along Parachute Creek next to his home, enjoying sights from fish in the water to herons that feed on them. He also pulls irrigation water from the creek, and is paying close attention to the water quality since word broke about a subsurface leak upstream involving some 5,400 gallons of a liquid hydrocarbon, only 60 feet from the water’s edge. He hasn’t seen any sign of contamination in the creek, and neither, say authorities, have they. Still, “it would be nice if they found the source of where it’s coming from,” he said.

Authorities are frantically trying to do just that, but meanwhile the estimated amount of the fluid that’s been removed more than doubled in the 24 hours ending at 6 a.m. Monday. Todd Hartman, a spokesman for the state Department of Natural Resources, said another 72 barrels of oil—more than 3,000 gallons—had been pulled out during that timeframe from the site some four miles north of Parachute. Before 6 a.m. Sunday, about 2,400 gallons of the fluid had been recovered.

The leak is in a pipeline right of way adjacent to a natural gas plant owned by Williams. The plant site and right of way are on property owned by WPX Energy.

This is the first time the substance has been referred to as oil. Hartman and industry representatives previously have described it as being an unidentified natural gas liquid lighter than oil. Hartman said he’s hearing the words condensate, natural gas liquids or hydrocarbons all used to describe the fluid, “and any of those are roughly accurate at this point as we continue to investigate this.”

Williams spokeswoman Donna Gray said it’s inaccurate to call the liquid oil, and its identity remains unknown.

Industry officials over the weekend had said the leak seemed to be subsiding, which might seem to be at odds with the latest statistics on recovered fluids. Said Hartman, “We’re not prepared to say the situation is slowing down, or increasing. I’d say the volumetric numbers suggest the effort to contain and capture the oil continues and there could be reasons we don’t fully understand yet why the numbers are not necessarily trending down.”

Gray said the flow has diminished, but the increased volume appears to have resulted from an increased area of excavation, including the digging of an interceptor trench to keep the fluid from the creek.

The fluid is seeping from an undetermined source in an area containing a number of pipelines and tanks belonging to Williams and WPX. Contaminated ground was discovered March 8 when crews were digging to locate pipelines as Williams prepares for construction of a new gas plant on the property. Williams first detected the liquid on Wednesday.

Through Monday morning, the amount of contaminated groundwater also removed had grown to more than 60,000 gallons.

The contamination site sits beneath cottonwood trees perhaps a half-mile from Garfield County Road 215. Williams and WPX officials aren’t allowing media access to it, but orange construction fencing, yellow tape, excavation equipment and environmental response workers were visible Monday from the road. The area of contamination identified so far runs about 200 feet along the right of way paralleling the creek, 170 feet wide and 14 feet deep, but further work is ongoing to determine the full extent of the leak plume. In some areas the contamination is reaching groundwater. The depth to the shallowest groundwater in the area is about 10.5 feet, according to a spill/release form Williams has filed with the state. The nearest water wells are an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 feet away.

Aldersea gets his domestic water from the town of Parachute, but his neighbor, Howard Orona, has a shallow well probably 20 feet from the creek. “We’re definitely concerned, but they’ve kept us abreast of what’s been going on. At this point we’re not really too worried because we don’t think anything’s in the creek, but as somebody downstream you’re always concerned about it,” said Orona, who also is a citizen representative on the Garfield County Energy Advisory Board.

Another neighbor, Ruth Lindauer, notes that a rancher grazes cattle just across the creek from her home. “The calves are just being born and you worry about them,” she said. Ruth and her husband Sid pull irrigation water from the creek, but the irrigation season hasn’t started yet.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials have visited the contamination site. “We remain very concerned about the release of substances potentially harmful to wildlife, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife will remain engaged as details of this event become available,” said spokesman Mike Porras.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment have been investigating the incident.

The incident is sure to enter into the ongoing statewide debate over whether oil and gas regulations are strong enough. Leslie Robinson, chair of the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, was at the state Capitol building in Denver Monday to lobby on some oil and gas bills. “I’ll make sure it is” brought up, she said of the incident.

“One bill calls for more COGCC inspectors and obviously the plume in Parachute is a good example why we need more inspectors on the ground.” She said she’s concerned about the potential impact on water quality from the leak.

“They say it hasn’t gone into Parachute Creek but that’s probably wishful thinking,” she said.

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

An underground plume of toxic hydrocarbons from an oil spill north of the Colorado River near Parachute has been spreading for 10 days, threatening to contaminate spring runoff. Vacuum trucks have sucked up more than 60,000 gallons, but an unknown amount remains in the ground by Parachute Creek.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday was in the process of formally ordering the Williams energy company — which runs a gas-processing plant on the creek — to do all in its power to protect surface water. State regulators who on Friday ordered the same now are preparing to issue Williams a “Notice of Alleged Violation” and demand a long-term cleanup plan…

Industry response crews have dug two interceptor trenches at the scene, north of Parachute, and found that spilled material has mixed into shallow groundwater. No cause was reported. No source of the spill has been identified, Williams spokeswoman Donna Gray said. Chemicals present in the plume were not revealed. “Everyone wants to know that,” Gray said. “There is free-flowing hydrocarbon underground. It’s coming from something. There’s pipes underground. There’s tanks in the ground. We really do not know yet.”

The second trench along Parachute Creek — between the creek and an earlier trench 60 feet from surface water — “was done with the consent and blessing of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to serve as a buffer,” she said. “We’ve been pulling fluid out of that.”[…]

Parachute Mayor Judy Beasley and town officials planned to meet Tuesday with Williams environmental specialists. They’ve conveyed displeasure about not being informed soon enough.
A headgate used to divert creek water into a town reservoir has been closed. “We haven’t opened that up and obviously won’t until we have this figured out. We don’t want to have any contamination,” town administrator Bob Knight said. About 1,083 people live in Parachute.

Irrigators also rely on the creek, which flows into the Colorado River.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

About 2,400 gallons of an unidentified liquid produced during natural gas development had been recovered from a subsurface leak site four miles north of Parachute as of early Sunday morning. Todd Hartman, a spokesman for the state Department of Natural Resources, said about 57 barrels (2,394 gallons) of the fluid had been removed as of 6 a.m. Sunday. That’s up from 37 barrels Friday. A total of 846 barrels of contaminated groundwater also has been removed. “Clearly there continues to be a lot of groundwater that’s been impacted by the hydrocarbons,” Hartman said.

The leak is occurring on a pipeline right of way on WPX Energy property that’s also home to a natural gas processing plant owned by Williams. Williams first discovered a problem when it detected soil contamination March 8. It first discovered the liquid, described as a hydrocarbon lighter than oil, on Wednesday.

Some 21 barrels of an emulsified hydrocarbon/water mix also have been recovered from the site.

Spokeswomen Donna Gray of Williams and Susan Alvillar of WPX both said Sunday that it’s their understanding the rate of flow is diminishing — “quite a bit,” in Gray’s words. Hartman said he couldn’t confirm that. He said there is no indication of any impact to nearby Parachute Creek.

The cause remains undetermined. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Department of Public Health and Environment staff have been involved in the cleanup effort. Alvillar said Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials also visited the site Sunday and appeared pleased by the work they saw being done.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Upper Arkansas River Water Conservancy District board meeting recap

wetmountainvalley

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

The Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District recently finalized acquisition of a new source of water in the Wet Mountain Valley. Attorney Kendall Burgemeister with Wilderson, Lock & Hill LLC reported at the district meeting Thursday that the judge had issued a “final signed decree” in the district’s water court case to change the use of water purchased from Hermit Basin Lodge in Custer County. The district will use the water as a source of replacement water under its augmentation plans, and engineer Ivan Walter said, now that the decree has been signed, his goal is to complete the engineering work so the district can use the water this year…

With the Colorado Legislature in session, consultant Ken Baker reported on several bills under consideration, including Senate Bill 41, which would expand the beneficial uses of water to include storage. Baker said the bill is likely to pass.

Baker also reported on SB 19, sponsored by District 5 Sen. Gail Schwarz, who has described the bill as a way to “encourage farmers and producers to take water efficiency measures or upgrade their irrigation technology.” Baker pointed out that a provision of the bill would allow senior water-rights holder to curtail their water usage without losing credit for beneficial use of the water. This would allow junior rights holders to use water that they could not otherwise use, allowing them to expand their beneficial use of the water, which would affect future water court cases.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here and here.

The cheapest and easiest way to save water and save money is to fix a leak

Thanks to Mark Shively, Douglas County Water Resource Authority (DCWater.org) for the link.

Colorado-Big Thompson Project operations update: Flatiron power plant testing next week

coloradobigthompsonprojecteastslopesystemncwcd

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

We have a little more maintenance to do on the power arm of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project starting top of next week. While we’re doing some testing at the Flatiron Power Plant, we will drop Pinewood down as we move water out and also suspend pumping to Carter Lake. Residents around and visitors to Pinewood Reservoir should notice the reservoir elevation going down the end of this week. By Sunday or Monday, March 24 or 25, the reservoir could get down to an elevation of 6562 feet, perhaps just a little lower. However, that is not low enough to impact local water provision to the community around Pinewood. The pump to Carter Lake will go off during that same time frame, returning to service by Thursday, March 28. The reservoir has come up quite a bit over the past several weeks. It is currently around 75% full.

While these operations are underway, water will continue being delivered to Horsetooth Reservoir. Water to Horsetooth will drop Flatiron Reservoir down between Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Flatiron fluctuates daily, but visitors to that reservoir might notice a lower water line than typical for this time of year.

Pinewood Reservoir is expected to start rising again on Tuesday, March 26 and should be back to a typical water elevation for this time of year by Thursday, March 28. Flatiron should start going up again by Friday and be back to a more typical water elevation by the last weekend of March.

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Downstream demands on the Colorado River have been fluctuating quite a bit the last two days. Yesterday we dropped down from 145 cfs to 120 cfs. Today, March 19, we dropped again from 120 to 100 cfs. This might help us store a little water behind Green Mountain Dam. The reason for these changes is that the Shoshone Power Plant has a relaxed call on the river and part of the Green Mountain water right is in effect.

More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.