Day: May 5, 2013

Fountain Creek: ‘What things are they doing to rein in the floodwaters that arrive in Pueblo County’ — Terry Hart

fountaincreekstormwater092011chieftain.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Less than $2 million of the $46 million in stormwater projects on Colorado Springs’ list meet the criteria set out by Pueblo County commissioners for a 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System.

The commissioners instructed water attorney Ray Petros to review the list submitted this week to commissioners and Pueblo City Council and he determined that most projects related to either the Waldo Canyon Fire or internal Colorado Springs issues.

“As a starting point, what we’re looking for is a list of major projects that have a significant impact for Pueblo County,” said Commission Chairman Terry Hart. “What things are they doing to rein in the floodwaters that arrive in Pueblo County and to assure water quality?”

The county still wants an accounting of the scope of stormwater control that was envisioned prior to 2009. While Waldo Canyon creates a new set of problems, Colorado Springs had agreed to address past problems on Fountain Creek through the stormwater enterprise, Hart said. Commissioner Sal Pace shared those concerns, adding that Colorado Springs needs to provide evidence of long-term funding, rather than shortterm emergency funds.

“That’s one-time money. What they need to do is show how there will be a continuous supply,” Pace said.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

In response to criticism of his city’s stormwater efforts, Colorado Springs Mayor Steve Bach visited with several Pueblo community leaders Friday to make the case that the city is working on a stormwater solution. Bach was accompanied by Colorado Springs Council President Keith King, Councilman Merv Bennett and City Attorney Chris Melcher. “What we’re working on are steps to develop a full and definite plan that we can take to voters,” Bach said. “We want to make sure that we’re taking the best approach.”

Bach stressed that the Waldo Canyon Fire, which destroyed 347 homes in Colorado Springs last summer, is the top priority. But the city also realizes its commitment to protect downstream users from disastrous floods. Bach has initiated an independent study after a regional study found nearly $700 million in stormwater needs for Colorado Springs and $900 million for El Paso County. He wants Colorado Springs, not a new regional authority, to confront the problem.

Bach acknowledged the fact that development in Colorado Springs, coupled with the burn scar from the Waldo Canyon Fire, has increased the risk of more dangerous floods on Fountain Creek.

Colorado Springs has to come up with a way to continue annual funding to address stormwater needs that had been identified before 2009, when Pueblo County issued a 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System predicated on the idea that a stormwater enterprise was in place.

Melcher said the Colorado Springs City Council’s hands were tied by voters in November 2009 that effectively eliminated the stormwater enterprise approved by council in 2005.

Bennett said a sustainable funding source for stormwater projects is needed, and King, a former state legislator, suggested several ways that up-front funding could be leveraged.

Bach promised to share more specific information about what Colorado Springs intends to do by no later than this fall.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

2013 Colorado legislation: HB13-1316 (Oil Gas Commn Uniform Groundwater Sample Rule) passes state House #COleg

groundwatermonitoringwell.jpg

From the Denver Business Journal (Cathy Proctor):

HB 1316, sponsored by Democratic Reps. Dickie Lee Hullinghorst of Gunbarrel and Joe Salazar of Thornton, would require the state to undertake the same stringency of groundwater testing in the oil-rich Wattenberg basin as it does across most of the state…

HB 1316 passed the House on its third and final reading in that chamber Wednesday morning and now goes to the Senate for consideration…

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) in January changed its rules to require companies to conduct one groundwater test per quarter-section, the equivalent to four tests per square mile, in the Wattenberg area. Due to the number of wells drilled and planned in that area, the new standard will result in a database of 11,000 samples, according to the state. HB 1316 proposes to change the new rule and require companies working the Wattenberg to sample up to four groundwater sources within a half mile of the new well…

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association, an industry trade group, opposes the bill because it undermines the influence of the state regulatory agency charged with overseeing the oil and gas industry, spokesman Doug Flanders said. “A statewide ‘one size fits all’ water sampling rule does not fit Colorado, is unnecessary and fails to account for unique characteristics of specific areas of the state,” he said.

More coverage from Steve Lynn writing for the Northern Colorado Business Report. Here’s an excerpt:

House Bill 1316, sponsored by House Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Boulder, and Rep. Joe Salazar, D-Thornton, would require the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to adopt uniform groundwater sampling rules. It passed by a narrow 34-29 vote. Northern Colorado was partially exempted from the new rules in January, when they were adopted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Coincindentally, the new rules also took effect Wednesday. The new rules require companies to sample as many as four water wells within one-half mile of a new oil and gas well before drilling. Two more samples of each well must be taken between six and 12 months and again between five and six years…

Neither oil industry representatives or environmental groups embraced the new monitoring rules. Stan Dempsey, president of the Colorado Petroleum Association, criticized HB-1316, saying that it disregards scientific data presented during the creation of groundwater testing rules and derails efforts to address the needs of local communities.

“There were parts of the COGCC’s water sampling rule we would have preferred to see enacted differently,” Dempsey said in a statement. “But we believe that the role of the executive branch should be respected and that the outcomes of extensive rule making ought to be much more carefully evaluated before being overturned.”

Environmentalists have criticized the exemption in the Northern Colorado oil field, calling it the “Anadarko-Noble loophole” after two major producers in the region, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Noble Energy Inc.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

CWCB instream flow program scores water rights for the Upper Colorado River #ColoradoRiver

coloradoriverbasincgs.jpg

Here’s the release the Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Rob Buirgy/Linda Bassi):

A broad-based stakeholder effort to protect the Colorado River received a boost last month when a state court granted water rights designed to keep flows in the river, creating three important instream flow water rights.

“The CWCB is very pleased that the stakeholder group worked through the state’s Instream Flow Program to protect this important reach of the Colorado River,” said Linda Bassi, Stream and Lake Protection Section Chief, Colorado Water Conservation Board. “This is a great example of how our Program can provide regulatory certainty to water users along with preservation of the natural environment.”

The year-round water rights range in flows from 500 to 900 cubic feet per second and will include about 70 miles of the Colorado River from the Blue River near Kremmling to the Eagle River. These rights were decreed to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the only entity allowed to appropriate instream flow water rights for habitat benefits in Colorado. The decreed amounts reflect minimum flows necessary to “preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree” – as provided by state law. In this case, the flows are designed to protect fish species, particularly trout.

“This is good news for a stretch of the river that is beloved by generations of anglers,” said Mely Whiting, counsel for Trout Unlimited. “It’s an example of what can be accomplished when working together.”

The 2011 priority date means these instream flow rights will have to be satisfied before water rights filed in later years can take their water.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board filed for the water rights in state water court at the request of the Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group, a diverse group representing key interests, including Front Range water providers, Western Slope governments, affected landowners, conservation groups and recreation interests. The stakeholders have developed a local management plan designed to balance protection of the outstanding values within this segment of the Colorado River with water supply needs. The plan is awaiting approval by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Issuance of the water rights to protect river flows is a key component of the plan. “We are grateful for the support we receive from all our agency participants, especially the Colorado Water Conservation

Board, and for the concerted efforts of all our stakeholders who worked to bring this vision into reality,” said Rob Buirgy, Project Manager for the Upper CO River Wild & Scenic Alternative Stakeholder Group. “These decrees are an important new tool for us in maintaining the fishing and boating values on this stretch of the river.”

The Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group is composed of American Whitewater, Aurora Water, Blue Valley Ranch, Colorado River Outfitters Association, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, Eagle County, Eagle Park Reservoir Company, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Grand County, Middle Park Water Conservancy District, Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Summit County, The Wilderness Society, Trout Unlimited, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Vail Associates, Inc.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Colorado-Big Thompson Project update: Carter Lake is about 94.5% full

coloradobigthompsonprojecteastslopesystemncwcd.jpg

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

You might have already heard, but today [May 3] we turned off the pump to Carter Lake. Carter is now about 94.5% full. With the pump to Carter off, about 508 cfs is now flowing north to Horsetooth Reservoir. Horsetooth is about 75% full and will continue to rise through May.

More Colorado-Big Thompson Project coverage here.

The FDA, ‘…is planning to deliver a review this year of whether triclosan is safe’ — Denver Post

handwashing.jpg

From the Associated Press (Matthew Perrone) via The Denver Post:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is planning to deliver a review this year of whether triclosan is safe. The ruling, which will determine whether triclosan continues to be used in household cleaners, could have implications for a $1 billion industry that includes hundreds of antibacterial products from toothpaste to toys. The agency’s review comes amid growing pressure from lawmakers, consumer advocates and others who are concerned about the safety of triclosan. Recent studies of triclosan in animals have led scientists to worry that it could increase the risk of infertility, early puberty and other hormone-related problems in humans. “To me it looks like the risks outweigh any benefit associated with these products right now,” said Allison Aiello, professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. “At this point, it’s just looking like a superfluous chemical.”[…]

The concerns over triclosan offer a sobering glimpse at a little-known fact: Many chemicals used in everyday household products have never been formally approved by U.S. health regulators. That’s because many germ-killing chemicals were developed decades ago before there were laws requiring scientific review of cleaning ingredients.

The controversy also highlights how long it can take the federal government to review the safety of such chemicals. It’s not uncommon for the process to drag on for years, since regulators must review volumes of research and take comments from the public on each draft…

Now, four decades after it was charged with reviewing triclosan, the FDA is planning to complete its review. FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said evaluating triclosan and other antibacterial agents is “one of the highest priorities” for the agency, but did not offer an explanation for the delay.

Triclosan was initially used in hospitals in the 1970s as a scrub for surgeons preparing to perform an operation. It was also used to coat the surfaces of catheters, stitches and other surgical instruments. Beginning in the 1990s, triclosan began making its way into hundreds of antibacterial consumer goods, ranging from soap to socks to lunchboxes. The growth has in part been fueled by Americans who believe that antibacterial ingredients provide an added level of protection against germs.

As the use of triclosan has expanded, more scientists have questioned its effectiveness. In 2007, researchers at the University of Michigan and other universities compiled data from 30 studies looking at the use of antibacterial soaps. The results showed soaps with triclosan were no more effective at preventing illness or reducing bacteria on the hands than plain soap. Other studies have shown that longer hand-washing improves results far more than adding antibacterial ingredients. The Centers for Disease Control recommends washing hands at least 20 seconds. The CDC also recommends using hand sanitizer — most of which use alcohol or ethanol to kill germs, not chemicals like triclosan — if soap and water are not available…

A 2009 study by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency showed that triclosan decreases levels of testosterone and sperm production in male rats. Female rats exposed to triclosan showed signs of early puberty and altered levels of estrogen and thyroid hormones.

And a 2010 study by University of Florida researchers found that triclosan interfered with the transfer of estrogen to growing fetuses in pregnant sheep. Estrogen is important in both male and female development because it promotes the growth of organs like the lungs and liver.

More water pollution coverage here.

Snowpack news: Colorado River outfitters are more upbeat about the start of the season

gorecanyonrafting.jpg

From The Mountain Mail (Calley McDermott):

Because of recent late-season snowfall, Colorado River Outfitters Association predicts a “normal start” to this year’s rafting season. The typical rafting season is mid-May to mid-September. David Costlow, CROA executive director, said, “The state’s weather patterns over the past 3 weeks give plenty of reason to think that more moisture will be in the forecast, thus adding to the snowpack and overall water levels. This puts outfitters on track to offer rafting throughout the typical rafting season.”

Rob White, Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area parks manager, said, “I’m really pleased with the late-season snow. It’s really helping the recreational flows, as well as agricultural interests.” He said the summer flows will depend on how warm it gets and how quickly. “Either we’ll have full-on and steady flows like we did in 2011 when it came off nice and even, or it gets hot and stays hot and the runoff comes quickly with a higher peak,” White said. He said certainly the spring snow has enabled a “better whitewater season than last year.”

Mike Whittington, co-owner of Independent Whitewater rafting company, said, “I think we’ll have a good average season with what (snow) we got. We are reportedly at average.”

SNOTEL reported Monday that the Arkansas River Basin was at 73 percent of median and 61 percent of peak.

Whittington added that he would prefer the runoff to “trickle down and stay nice and steady.” Ideal flows in his opinion are 1,000-2,000 cubic feet per second, but he said if the flows can “hover around 1,000 cfs for the season, it would be a big step above last year. But I don’t know if that will happen. As long as flows are 700 cfs and above, it will still be great fun.”

According to Colorado River Outfitters Association’s 2012 Economic Impact Study, Colorado’s rafting industry had a more than $127 million economic impact on the state’s tourism industry in 2012 – and that was during a down year. Low water levels and wildfires plagued the industry. In 2011, Colorado’s rafting industry generated an economic impact of more than $151 million.

More whitewater coverage here.

Governor Hickenlooper proclaims Drinking Water Week May 5-11

watertreatment.jpg

Here’s the release from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Mark Salley):

The days of an American pioneer jumping from a horse to drink deeply from a stream remain as an image from Hollywood westerns. Today, thanks to many largely invisible experts Americans generally can turn on the tap and trust they are refreshing themselves with water that is safe to drink.

Many people are no more inclined to think about safe drinking water than they are to question where their electricity comes from. In Colorado there are approximately 2,030 public drinking water systems operated and maintained by local authorities, and overseen by the state’s Water Quality Control Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

From the source waters of the state (rivers, reservoirs and deep water wells) to the facilities that treat and disinfect the waters, to the pipes that deliver water to homes, it requires cooperation and the coordinated work of local utilities and state workers to ensure safe water.

Water is an essential but limited resource that can and does, on occasion, become contaminated by natural elements and by human activity. And on such occasions, it is the work of water system operators, laboratories and others to identify any contamination and restore drinking water to safe drinking water standards. These efforts go largely unnoticed.

In recognition of how fragile and precious water resources are, Gov. John Hickenlooper proclaimed Colorado’s recognition of National Drinking Water Week May 5-11. The Governor’s proclamation at http://www.colorado.gov/cdphe calls on all Coloradans to:

  • recognize the professionals who treat our drinking water to make it safe
  • be aware of our role as stewards of nature’s water and the water infrastructure upon which future generations depend
  • be diligent about protecting water from pollution and conserving water

    • Safe drinking water is vital to public health and the economy. Some may recall the incident five years ago in Alamosa when disease control experts at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment identified an outbreak of salmonella in the community. Effective laboratory work matched the salmonella bacteria in the community’s drinking water system to the bacteria in infected patients. To protect more community members from becoming ill, the state issued a bottled water order. Ultimately, about 1,300 people served by the community’s drinking water system were sickened during this waterborne disease outbreak, including 20 hospitalizations and one death. According to a recent report published by researchers from CDC, 29 percent of all ill people reported experiencing one or more potential long-term health consequence with 2 percent reporting serious complications. About half of the businesses responding to the CDC survey reported losing money due to the outbreak. The total cost of the outbreak was estimated at $2.6 million.

    At the time of the outbreak, Alamosa was operating under a waiver from disinfection requirements issued by the department in the late 1960s. Since the outbreak, the department has revised regulations and eliminated almost all disinfection waivers. The fewer than 15 water systems with disinfection waivers are subject to more stringent requirements and regular oversight to protect their water from contamination. There has not been another confirmed waterborne disease outbreak in Colorado associated with a public drinking water supply since March 2008.

    Throughout the state, the 2,030 public drinking water systems regulated by the department perform regular water sampling and testing to ensure the water meets safe drinking water standards. When sampling shows a system’s water is not meeting the standards, department experts and local water utility operators work together to repair any issues so that systems once again are providing safe drinking water to their customers.

    More water treatment coverage here and here.

    Parachute Creek spill: ‘We are trying to protect to drinking water standards’ — David Walker #ColoradoRiver

    parachutecreekspillmarch2013

    From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

    A state official says regulators are seeking to protect Parachute Creek according to drinking water standards even though they technically don’t apply. The comment by David Walker, with the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, came after a resident living near the creek downstream of a natural gas liquids leak questioned the standard applying to the creek.

    A leak from a pressure gauge on a pipeline leaving Williams’ gas processing plant has resulting in carcinogenic benzene contaminating groundwater and the creek. While some groundwater benzene levels are high, measurements in the creek only once have exceeded the state drinking water standard of 5 parts per billion, reaching 5.3 ppb Wednesday.

    While CDPHE regulators have accused Williams of breaking state rules with the groundwater contamination, it technically hasn’t violated any surface water standard because water isn’t pulled directly from the creek for drinking, Walker said. Instead, the state’s Water Quality Control Division’s maximum allowable benzene level in the creek is 5,300 ppb, to protect aquatic life.

    Howard Orona has a domestic well about 20 feet from the creek and said it’s probably only 25 feet deep. A citizen representative on the Garfield County Energy Advisory Board, he expressed concern at the board’s meeting Thursday that benzene in surface water could migrate into his shallow well water. “For that creek to be pushing into the groundwater in my case, I would think that would be considered drinking water,” he said.

    Walker said that despite the 5,300-ppb standard on the creek, “we are trying to protect to drinking water standards because it’s the correct thing to do.”

    Williams tested Orona’s water a few weeks ago and it was benzene-free. On Friday, the company agreed to test it again and continue doing so on a regular basis, something Walker said he would have required had the company not volunteered to do it.

    He said he agrees it’s possible for contaminated creek water to reach a nearby domestic well, and testing Orona’s well is the right thing to do. At the same time, he noted that Orona’s well is more than a mile from where benzene is entering the creek, and at least four creek sample points in between aren’t showing any benzene. The contaminated groundwater also is far upstream from his well and shouldn’t reach it underground, Walker said.

    The creek also is the source for the town of Parachute’s irrigation supply, but no benzene has been detected at the diversion point.

    Benzene in the creek Thursday fell to 4.7 ppb at the area of highest creek contamination.

    Williams plans to seek state approval for upgrades to a treatment system to more quickly and thoroughly remove benzene in groundwater before the water enters the creek. CDPHE spokesman Mark Salley warned Friday the change could temporarily boost benzene levels in the creek “as residual groundwater contamination between the treatment systems and the creek is mobilized.” But it’s expected the benzene would continue to dissipate as it moves downstream, as it has been doing, he said in a news release.

    From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

    Benzene in Parachute Creek has exceeded the drinking water standard for the first time since the discovery of a Williams natural gas liquids leak near the creek earlier this year. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment spokesman Mark Salley said in an email to reporters Thursday that a sample on Wednesday contained a reading of 5.3 parts per billion, which compares to the drinking water standard of 5 ppb. But he noted that the creek is not considered a drinking water source, although it’s subject to a 5,300-ppb maximum benzene standard to protect aquatic life. “None of the surface water sampling results demonstrate the water is a risk to public health,” Salley said.

    However, the CDPHE on Wednesday notified Williams that its leak constitutes disposal of hazardous waste without a permit. The agency has authority over the cleanup and could pursue fines against Williams.

    Wednesday’s benzene reading occurred at the same location where benzene-tainted groundwater is believed to be entering the creek, and where previous readings generally have been in the 3 to 4 ppb range. The contamination is originating from where natural gas liquids leaked from a pipeline leaving Williams’ gas processing plant in the creek valley. Readings of 1.6 and 1.3 ppb were recorded Wednesday at two testing sites downstream, but no benzene showed up Wednesday at four more-distant sites, including the point where the town of Parachute diverts water for its irrigation system. Benzene dissipates rapidly in creek water and crews also are aerating the creek to speed dissipation. “Remediation actions continue and will be modified if appropriate to respond to sampling that indicates a significant change in the characterization of the site,” Salley said.

    From The Denver Post:

    Benzene levels continue to fluctuate in Parachute Creek near a hydrocarbon spill from a Williams energy gas pipeline.

    The state Department of Public Health and Environment reported Friday that a surface water collected from a sampling spot closest to the well on Thursday contained 4.7 parts per billion, down from 5.3 ppb the day before. The federal safety limit for drinking water is 5 ppb.

    The limit for benzene in Parachute Creek is 5,300 ppb, set by Colorado’s Water Quality Control Commission at a level deemed protective of aquatic life because the creek isn’t designated as a drinking water supply.

    Downstream from the spill, the benzene contamination dissipates quickly. In Thursday sampling, the cancer-causing chemical was not detected 1.5 miles downstream, near the headgates where Parachute diverts water to an irrigation reservoir. The gates have not been open since the spill was publicly revealed on March 16.

    Williams is expected to submit plans for improving groundwater treatment near the spill. Trenches to capture contaminated groundwater have been dug and equipment is being used to aerate the creek and soil near the spill to dissipate benzene.

    CDPHE spokesman Mark Salley said in a written statement that benzene levels may temporarily increase in the creek after the treatment system upgrades occur “as residual groundwater contamination between the treatment systems and the creek is mobilized.

    “But as the data above show, the expectation is that benzene would continue to dissipate as it moves downstream,” he wrote. “Williams will be closely monitoring the situation once the system is turned on, to look for changes that might warrant adjusting its operation, to enhance benzene removal rates and minimize temporary impacts to the creek.”

    More Parachute Creek Spill coverage here. More oil and gas coverage here and here.

    The USFS and the BLM are taking comments for proposed management plan for the La Garita Hills

    stormoverthelagaritahills.jpg

    From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

    The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are seeking public comment on a string of proposed projects in a 188,000-acre area of La Garita Hills. “We feel this process will create multiple projects that complement each other and will more efficiently manage the greater La Garita Hills area,” said Jim Pitts, a district ranger for the Rio Grande National Forest.

    The projects, which would take place anywhere from three to 15 years, include timber harvest on spruce-beetle infested forests; the removal of hazard trees near campgrounds and other developed sites; and the relocation of forest roads to reduce sedimentation in streams.
    Thinning of conifers also would happen near riparian areas to improve habitat, while other treatments would reduce the threat of fire near private lands. All told, the proposals include 12 different actions for the area that borders the northwestern corner of the San Luis Valley.

    Comments can be mailed to LGH Project, Saguache Ranger District, 4625 Colorado 114, Saguache, CO 81149; or emailed to comments-rocky-mountain-rio-grande-saguache@fs.fed.us.

    More information about the proposals can be found under the projects section of the Rio Grande National Forest website.

    More Rio Grande River Basin coverage here and here.