Day: July 14, 2015

Cloud-seeding gaining favor in arid West — The Durango Herald

Instumentation cloud seeding research Colorado.
Instumentation cloud seeding research Colorado.
Cloud-seeding graphic via Science Matters
Cloud-seeding graphic via Science Matters

From the Cortez Journal (Jim Mimiaga) via The Durango Herald:

Telluride and Purgatory ski areas contribute funds for regional cloud-seeding programs, and so do the Dolores Water Conservation District, Animas-La Plata and Southwestern Water Conservancy districts.

During a meeting Wednesday at the DWCD office in Cortez, an update was given on the regional cloud-seeding program and ground-breaking research recently completed on the technology in Wyoming.

“Interest in cloud seeding has grown, and funding has grown,” said Bruce Whitehead, executive director for SWCD.

Western Weather Consultants provides cloud-seeding services for three programs in the San Juan Mountains including over the Upper Dolores, La Plata, and Animas River basins.

From November 2014 to April 2015, 25 cloud-ice nuclei generators dispersed silver iodide into storm clouds for a total of 875 hours, at a cost of $105,678.

The units are in the vicinity of Cortez, Dolores, Mancos, Mesa Verde, La Plata Mountains, Stoner, West Fork, Groundhog, House Creek, Placerville, Cahone, Lone Cone, Disappointment, Hesperus, Electra Lake, Bayfield, near Purgatory, on the Florida River and elsewhere.

When dispersed in optimum storm conditions, the silver iodide enhances the formation of ice crystals in clouds, forcing more snowfall, said Mike Hjermstad, a technician with Western Weather Consultants, based in Durango.

“The generators are turned on manually, and when the conditions are right, it can increase snow accumulation from a storm by a half inch,” he said…

Cloud-seeding skeptics question whether the procedure actually works because it’s difficult to verify increased snowfall from cloud seeding versus what would fall naturally.

Proponents point to experiments that show areas with cloud seeding had more precipitation compared with control areas that did not get the treatment.

“Detection of very minute levels of silver iodide in the snowpack is also a proof,” Hjermstad said.

Joe Busto, a cloud-seeding permit manager for the Colorado Water Conservation Board, said the environmental impacts of the silver iodide on snowpack is “very low and measured in parts per trillion above background levels.”

He said research shows “strong suggestions of positive cloud seeding effects in winter glaciogenic systems occurring over mountainous terrain.”

Rising costs of new technology such as radiometers, automation, and more snotels is a concern, said Ken Curtis, an engineer for DWCD.

“The funders need to have consensus on where the program is going, if it will be enhanced or stay static,” he said.

Barry Lawrence, of the Wyoming Water Development Office, gave a presentation on a recent groundbreaking cloud-seeding study that showed good results.

The 10-year study cost $15 million and was funded by the Wyoming Legislature.

The elaborate experiment positioned remote-control seeding stations in the Wind River Range and in the Medicine Bow Range.

When winter storm conditions were ideal for seeding in both ranges, only the stations in one range were triggered on. The range without cloud seeding was the control, and then snowpack from both ranges was compared for that storm. Control ranges were alternated throughout the experiment.

Despite some cross contamination in the controls, additional modeling and statistical analyses showed cloud-seeded ranges overall benefited from additional snowfall, Lawrence said.

“Our independent evaluator, the National Center for Atmospheric Science in Boulder, concluded cloud seeding from the experiment resulted in 5 to 15 percent in additional precipitation,” he said.

Encouraged by the results, the Wyoming Legislature recently approved $1.5 million to install operational cloud-seeding stations in the Medicine Bow Mountains and other ranges.

More cloud seeding coverage here.

Yeah, Colorado’s Been Wet Lately — And Here Comes Monsoon Season — Colorado Public Radio

North American Monsoon
North American Monsoon

No question about it, we’ve had a wet spring and early summer. And now it looks like the rest of the summer could be even soggier than usual.

Mid-July is the start of Colorado’s monsoon season, and it could get a boost from all the recent rain and the vegetation that wet weather has produced. David Barjenbruch, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Boulder, told CPR News’ Mike Lamp that more grass, brush and trees put more moisture in the air — and that comes back as rain.

“We can get that feedback mechanism,” he said. “Once it is wet, it tends to stay wet.”[…]

What about the chances for more extreme weather?

The storms, generally, later in the summer are more efficient rain producers. So you can expect very heavy cloud bursts at times. But at the same time, the threat of large and destructive hail stones goes down. That’s one of the benefits of having a deeper moisture profile through the atmosphere.

What’s the reason behind that?

If we get a warmer tropical environment, there’s a lot more melting of those hail stones. So that’s a favorable sideshoot of a deep monsoon. Not to say we won’t get hail, because we’re still at high elevation any storms can still produce hail. But it’s just not as big as the monstrous hail stones we’ve seen earlier this summer.

When does monsoon season end?

Sometime in September. In mid-September, we start to dry out and go to our normal dry, nice, pleasant falls we see around Colorado. That’s usually in the latter half of September and into October. We’ll keep an eye on things to see how they progress this year.

Low levels of water in #rivers is a big concern for Latino voters — Nuestro Rio

LatinosReportpage1conservationinthewestpoll

Click here to read the rest of the report from the Colorado College Conservation in the West poll.

Waterlines: Tamarisk and our changing riverbanks — Grand Junction Free Press

Colorado National Monument from the Colorado River Trail near Fruita September 2014
Colorado National Monument from the Colorado River Trail near Fruita September 2014

From the Grand Junction Free Press (Gigi Richards):

It’s a beautiful sunny afternoon and you’re on the Riverfront Trail, pedaling your bicycle along the Colorado River, and suddenly there are orange caution signs and the pavement turns to gravel. What happened? Is the path being improved, or new utilities being installed? Probably not. Most of the time, when you see gouges in the river bank leaving the paved bike path unsupported, or even missing, the Colorado River is responsible.

Flooding rivers have a lot of power to do an amazing amount of work. A flooded river can move gravel, and larger stones, reshaping the riverbanks. The work that rivers do is beneficial, such as maintaining spawning gravels and side channels for native fish to flourish, and depositing nutrients on the floodplain. However, sometimes that swift current, chewing away at the banks, undermines man-made structures that are located in the floodplain, like bike paths.

Back in the late 1800s, Westerners were frustrated with losing valuable farm and ranch land to fast moving rivers and decided to do something about it. A common strategy for protecting a river’s bank from erosion was to dump junk along the bank – large chunks of concrete, rubble, bricks, and old cars. Another strategy was to plant tamarisk, an invasive plant, along the streams to help stabilize the riverbanks.

Tamarisk, a remarkable plant, has colonized many rivers in the Southwest and has become a nuisance. The list of tamarisk’s vices is a long one. Dense tamarisk stands have stabilized the banks and locked these rivers into a single-thread channel, an unnaturally stable position. Tamarisk’s deep taproot allows a thicket of tamarisk to extend farther from the river than native riparian forest, which may take more water from the river. It forms a monoculture, out-competing native plants and leaving behind a salty duff on the ground that’s not conducive to the growth of other plants. It resists all attempts to remove it, being resilient in the face of floods, droughts and fires.

In the last five years, efforts to remove tamarisk have ramped up as restoration of our river corridors and preserving water have become higher priorities. But what does the removal of this bank stabilizing plant mean for our managed river systems? If we remove tamarisk will the rivers erode their banks with renewed vigor?

The answer is not so straightforward, and like many questions related to the functioning of natural systems, “it depends.” The bank material, the removal method, the vagaries of weather, and the presence of upstream dams all affect whether tamarisk removal will result in increased bank erosion or not. Some studies have shown dramatic channel change following tamarisk removal, for example on the Rio Puerco, New Mexico, and other studies show little, such as in the Canyon de Chelly in Arizona.

Ongoing research, conducted by Colorado Mesa University and the Tamarisk Coalition, into this question will help us understand some of the complexity of the interaction between tamarisk removal, and the potential destabilizing response of the river. Over the last two years, the Colorado River channel has been surveyed prior to tamarisk removal at three sites in the Grand Valley. The river will be resurveyed, after the next high spring snowmelt, and changes in the channel will be studied. In addition, historic aerial photographs are being analyzed to understand how the river has moved historically in areas where tamarisk was removed and where riparian vegetation remains.

As population grows demands on our water supply will increase. We strive to support healthy watershed and riparian areas and tamarisk removal efforts will continue. Better understanding of how rivers respond to tamarisk removal will be useful in designing effective riparian restoration and tamarisk removal efforts. So, when you come across gravel sections along the bike path, you can appreciate the hardworking Colorado River, doing its job, moving sediment and eroding its banks, whether tamarisk removal played a role, or not.

Gigi Richard, Ph.D. is Professor of Geosciences at Colorado Mesa University. For more information on the Tamarisk Coalition and their current projects visit, http://www.tamariskcoalition.org/programs/projects-monitoring

More tamarisk control coverage here.

Tamarisk
Tamarisk
Tamarisk leaf beetles at work
Tamarisk leaf beetles at work
Tamarisk leaf beetle
Tamarisk leaf beetle
Goat munching tamarisk via The Pueblo Chieftain
Goat munching tamarisk via The Pueblo Chieftain
2014 Tamarisk leaf beetle distribution map via the Tamarisk Coalition
2014 Tamarisk leaf beetle distribution map via the Tamarisk Coalition

Leading Conservation Groups Call Second Draft of #COWaterPlan a Good Improvement — Business Wire

Colorado Water Plan website screen shot November 1, 2013
Colorado Water Plan website screen shot November 1, 2013

From Business Wire:

Colorado’s leading conservation and recreation organizations, including American Rivers, American Whitewater, Audubon Rockies, Conservation Colorado and Western Resource Advocates pointed to how the second draft of the Colorado Water Plan was improved by setting a common-sense goal for water conservation, creating a strong framework for scrutinizing large trans-mountain diversions and acknowledging the need for significant funding for river protection plans.

The groups also pointed out that to achieve real change, the final plan needs to:

1. Ensure an inclusive implementation process, similar to how the State has engaged and been responsive to public input during the planning process thus far;

2. Provide adequate funding for stream management planning, river restoration and urban water conservation;

3. Provide specific screening criteria so that projects move forward only if they benefit our communities, rivers and agriculture; and

4. Avoid large new trans-mountain diversions that would drain water from Western Slope rivers.

Specifically, the plan calls for a reasonable statewide urban conservation goal of saving 400,000 acre-feet of water by 2050. This equates to an almost one percent per year reduction in water use in Colorado cities and towns. However, the plan needs to include the incentives, funding and technical support to get that done.

The plan underscores the importance of healthy rivers and streams in Colorado and acknowledges that $2-3 billion is needed to protect them, but doesn’t yet commit funding to carry out that protection.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board has received more than 24,000 public comments and has been responsive to public input. It’s key that decisions about plan implementation stay visible to an engaged public and don’t fast track water project permitting to the detriment of public review and involvement.

Here’s what leading conservation groups are saying:

“We’re encouraged that the State assembled a second draft plan that weaves together a wide range of interests and public input. The boat is definitely pointed in the right direction. Strong rowing from the State is still needed if it’s going to reach its destination. Specifically, the Governor and Water Conservation Board must ensure plan implementation is inclusive and expands funding for protecting our rivers.” – Bart Miller, Healthy Rivers Program Director, Western Resource Advocates

“We are pleased to see the plan includes many of the priorities Coloradans have expressed in more than 24,000 public comments – including underscoring the importance of healthy rivers, a strong statewide urban conservation goal, and tougher scrutiny for large new trans-mountain diversions. Over the next few months, we urge the Water Conservation Board and the Hickenlooper Administration to make the final plan a detailed and workable blueprint that will protect our rivers, the multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation industry, agricultural heritage, and thriving cities.” – Becky Long, Advocacy Director, Conservation Colorado

“The second draft of Colorado’s Water Plan has taken good steps forward. To reach the finish line, the plan needs to greatly expand its funding commitment to healthy flowing rivers – a major factor in our $9 billion-a-year outdoor recreation industry. Those who value Colorado’s recreational opportunities, and related economy require further assurances Colorado rivers will be protected in the final plan.” – Nathan Fey, Colorado Stewardship Director, American Whitewater

“The second draft of Colorado’s Water Plan shows progress. More work must still be done to assess, protect, and restore dynamic flows for our rivers and increase funding for stream management plans and their implementation. Suggestions of resilient river systems, stream management plans, and strong urban water conservation goals are positive steps forward, echoed by public input, and critical for the health of our rivers.” – Abby Burk, Western Rivers Specialist, Audubon Rockies

More Colorado Water Plan coverage here

The latest climate briefing from Western Water Assessment is hot off the presses

Federal Water Year Precipitation as a percent of normal October 1, 2015 thru July 12, 2015
Federal Water Year Precipitation as a percent of normal October 1, 2015 thru July 12, 2015

Click here to go to the Western Water Assessment website, scroll down for the most recent briefing. Here’s an excerpt:

Highlights

  • June precipitation was hit-or-miss across the region; southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado were much wetter than normal, and northern Utah was drier than normal. June temperatures were record-high in Utah, and also above-average across Colorado and Wyoming.
  • Due to the very wet May and the delayed and rapid snowmelt, peak discharges and overall runoff volumes were generally greater than one would expect given the peak SWE values.
  • Nearly all reservoirs in Colorado and Wyoming have above-average storage for the end of June; Utah’s reservoirs are split between below- and above-average storage.
  • El Niño conditions have strengthened further and are expected to continue through the winter. NOAA CPC precipitation outlooks for our region show a wet tilt through the summer and early fall, partly due to El Niño’s expected influence.

    • [IBCC] committee endorses revised transmountain diversion document — The Aspen Times #COWaterPlan #ColoradoRiver

    Seven-point draft conceptual agreement framework for negotiations on a future transmountain diversion screen shot December 18, 2014 via Aspen Journalism
    Seven-point draft conceptual agreement framework for negotiations on a future transmountain diversion screen shot December 18, 2014 via Aspen Journalism

    From Aspen Journalism (Brent Gardner-Smith) via The Aspen Times:

    A recently revised framework on how to evaluate a future potential transmountain diversion in Colorado was endorsed by most of the members of a statewide water-supply planning committee on Monday.

    Known informally as the “seven points,” and officially as the “draft conceptual framework,” the revised document was reviewed by the Interbasin Compact Committee – which was created to negotiate agreements between various river basins in the state – and then sent on to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, or CWCB, which oversees statewide water planning.

    In turn, the CWCB’s directors are expected on Wednesday to add “the seven points” to the second draft of the Colorado Water Plan, which was released on July 7.

    The seven points, or now, the seven “principles,” are also expected to be the main topic at a “Summit on the Colorado Water Plan” called by the Garfield County commissioners for Saturday, July 25 in Rifle.

    The commissioners have invited all the county commissioners from 22 Western Slope counties to attend.

    “Of particular interest to Garfield County is the proposed, draft conceptual framework for transmountain diversions and the seven principles for negotiating a future transmountain diversion in Ch. 8 of the draft plan,” says an invitation to the water summit. “Garfield County’s desire is that the end result would (be) a unified voice from the Western Slope that no more water is diverted.”

    The seven principles, according to the revised document, are “to guide future negotiations between proponents of a new transmountain diversion and those communities who may be affected were it built.”

    For example, one principle is that a new diversion of water under the Continental Divide to meet the needs of growing Front Range cities shouldn’t exacerbate the potential for California, Arizona and Nevada, which rely on water from the Colorado River, to demand that more water be sent downstream. As such, a new diversion may have to stop diverting in low-water years.

    And, for example, a new transmountain diversion shouldn’t be applied for by a city or other entity that has not yet adopted aggressive water conservation efforts. And, any new diversion project would have to address the ecological needs of the river it seeks to divert, which has not typically been the case.

    On Monday, the members of the Interbasin Compact Committee, or IBCC, reviewed, and tweaked slightly, the work done by a sub-committee over the last few months to better explain the seven principles.

    Most of the IBCC members, most of whom represent one of nine regional water-supply planning groups, or “basin roundtables,” voted on Monday to accept the revised “draft conceptual framework,” which was first adopted last year by the IBCC.

    But the effort by the IBCC to send on the revised document with a unanimous endorsement failed when the representative from the Metro roundtable, which meets in Denver, abstained from voting because the members of that roundtable do not support the levels of conservation as currently defined in the document.

    And the revised seven principles failed to gain positive votes from the two members of the IBCC who represent the Colorado River Basin roundtable, Stan Cazier and Carlyle Currier.

    Cazier and Currier voted against endorsing the document because the Colorado roundtable has not had a chance to review the revised document, and because the that roundtable to date has taken the position that the seven principles should not even be included in the draft Colorado Water Plan.

    However, both men said they thought the document had in fact been improved by the subcommittee’s work.

    “It presents a lot of requirements for someone to do any kind of transmountain diversion,” Currier said. “So I think it’s beneficial for the West Slope to have it in there.”

    Editor’s note: Aspen Journalism is collaborating with The Aspen Times and the Glenwood Springs Post Independent on coverage of rivers and water. More at http://www.aspenjournalism.org.

    More Colorado Water Plan coverage here.