Englewood/Littleton: Wastewater treatment plant upgrades complete

From the Englewood Herald News:

An April 22 celebration marked the successful completion of the four-year construction project to modernize and expand the Englewood/Littleton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Dennis Stowe, plant manager, said the project upgraded existing equipment and processes plus added additional treatment stages to bring the plant into compliance with federal regulations. Despite the size and extent of the project, it was completed on time and came in about $1.2 million under budget.

The plant is jointly owned by the cities of Englewood and Littleton. It is a regional facility that serves the area from Interstate 25 to the foothills and from Highlands Ranch north to Evans Avenue. The plant provides treatment services to about 160,000 accounts, which serves about 270,000 people.

The four-year modernization and expansion project cost more than $113 million and expanded the size of the plant by about 39 percent. Major segments of the project included substantial changes to existing treatment processes, addition of a nitrate-removal process and expansion of plant capacity from 36.3 million gallons a day to 50 million gallons a day.

Wiggins: Town council decides to build new system

From the Fort Morgan Times (Dan Barker):

…[T]he Wiggins Town Council decided Wednesday to build the town’s own new water system…

It will probably take a couple of years before new water comes out of taps in Wiggins homes, Town Administrator Bill Rogers said. Bill Rogers said he would contact a water attorney today to get water court proceedings started to convert water rights the town owns from agricultural use to municipal use. He also said Wiggins could begin using the water even before the court makes its final decision, according to legal experts…

The next step is to find the funding to do the job, Bill Rogers said. He believes the town can access about $2 million worth of grants from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and $2 million in loans at less than 1 percent interest from the Colorado Resources Power and Water Authority. The cost of the project is estimated at $4.69 million to buy even more water, build a pipeline to a farm where water can be pumped to town, purchase rights of way, build a water treatment plant and pay for legal expenses, he said. The steps after that depend on which money comes in first, Bill Rogers said. If the grants come first, the town will begin drilling wells and building the pipeline. If the loans come first, the next step is to buy more water. Grant money cannot be spent on water, he said…

Because of debt service and possible grants, the average minimum price to residential customers would be $182.75 per month if Wiggins went with Quality Water; $178 per month if it went with Fort Morgan water; and $114 per month if the town bought and treated its own water, he said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Colorado Trout Unlimited names Ed Rapp ‘Conservationist of the year’

From the Clear Creek Courant:

Clear Creek’s revival began in the late 1980s, about the time that Ed Rapp arrived on the scene. Rapp is being honored as Colorado Trout Unlimited’s conservationist of the year, Then recently a retired colonel and director of resources for the Army Corps of Engineers, Rapps quickly assumed leadership roles in reclaiming and providing a long-term, comprehensive framework for the sustainability of the Clear Creek Watershed. Acting as a county commissioner and concerned citizen, Rapp was an influential force in the early 1990s in getting the newly established Clear Creek/Central City Superfund study area placed on the national priority list for remediation of mining-related water-quality problems. Dissatisfied with the pace of work, stakeholder involvement, and lack of comprehensive scope of federal and state response, Rapp pushed for the Clear Creek Watershed Forum, the stakeholder constituency formed in 1991 to create a “culture of cooperation.”

Rapp has led additional efforts to successfully forge other organizations key to the current renaissance of Clear Creek. From among those grew the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation. Incorporated in 1997, the foundation has been led by Rapp as its unpaid president since its inception. Since 2004, Rapp has begun to supplement the foundation’s historical emphasis on water-quality issues with a broadened, more holistic agenda, and in 2006 the foundation won an EPA Regional Priorities Grant to look at the Clear Creek basin within a broader context of ecological, economic and social perspectives. He has also become active in influencing CDOT planning for future I-70 work, and led efforts to successfully thwart early plans that would have essentially destroyed the creek. Rapp’s devotion to clean waters and the advancement of Clear Creek continues to be promoted through his dynamic vision, uniquely persuasive style and downright stubbornness. His good works with the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation brought recognition to the basin by the EPA as a “targeted watershed.” The foundation is often cited by EPA and the U.S. Forest Service as an “exemplary” program, and is frequently set forth as the template for others in the mountain West looking to establish a comparable Good Samaritan entity.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Invasive mussel prevention

Here’s an update on invasive mussel prevention at Navajo Lake, from Dale Rodebaugh writing for the Durango Herald. From the article:

Seagle, the Colorado State Parks invasive species coordinator, spent Tuesday and Wednesday explaining to 13 full- and part-time state park employees why non-native zebra and quagga mussels – found other places in Colorado – are unwelcome and how to slam the door in their faces…

He held Tuesday’s training session at a boat storage yard at the state park. Seagle showed them how to find mussels on boats and how to remove them. The defense includes vigorous inspection and decontamination of watercraft at state park marinas and the education of boaters and anglers to the peril of allowing invasive mussels to gain a foothold. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has hired five inspectors to do the same at Vallecito and McPhee reservoirs from May through October, Jim White, a DOW fish biologist, said Wednesday…

A female mussel can produce 1 million eggs in a cycle, Seagle said. If only 10 percent survive, the propagation rate becomes astronomical. In Lake Mead, on the Nevada-Arizona border, a full-blown infestation of quagga mussels is increasing at a rate that astounds researchers, Seagle said. A boat moored in Lake Mead for nine months could collect 500 pounds of quaggas, he said…

Zebra and quagga mussels have natural predators such as ducks, crayfish, carp, eels, the European roach and bream, but nothing can eat them fast enough to clear Colorado reservoirs of their presence, Seagle said. A 12-acre lake in Virginia was cleared of mussels with a water softener soap but only because of the miniscule size of the lake, Seagle said.

More coverage from the Crested Butte News (Seth Mensing):

Starting May 8, motor boaters heading to Blue Mesa Reservoir are going to find some severely restricted access and a new set of rules that are all part of an increased effort to keep some of the smallest invasive species from taking over the state’s largest lake. In a meeting with the Gunnison Board of County Commissioners Tuesday, April 28, Connie Rudd, superintendent of the Curecanti National Recreation Area, which surrounds the reservoir, said the measures will be strict, but they are necessary…

“The National Park Service is going to make some dramatic changes to operations at Blue Mesa Reservoir so that we can prevent the spread of [zebra and quagga mussels]. I really have it in my head that on my watch we’re going to avoid mussels,” said Rudd. “People keep saying it’s not if, but when and the horror of that possibility is coming closer.” The possibility that quagga mussels have already invaded the reservoir took a step closer to reality for Rudd and her staff in March when an analysis of water samples came back from two separate laboratories indicating that there was genetic material from a mussel in one of the samples.

“That could mean anything. It could mean that you had a dead immature young larval quagga mussel. So there is nothing to indicate that we’re infested with a breeding population in the reservoir,” said Ken Stahlnecker, chief of resource stewardship at the park. “But they did pick up enough of an indication that something was there at the time when the water was sampled.” He said the Park Service would do very intensive water testing this summer, since the sample to test positive was taken very early in the summer last year. All of the samples were taken after the suspect sample tested negative for any genetic or visual evidence of mussels…

Now the Park Service has nearly doubled the man-power dedicated to boat inspections to eight park rangers and an additional six inspectors from the state. Inspections will also be required as boats leave the water. The number of points where people can launch their boats is also being decreased to three, including Stevens Creek, Elk Creek and Lake Fork launch areas, which will all have inspection stations open between 5:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. All other launch areas will be closed to motorized boats. Non-motorized vessels will not be subject to the launch restrictions or inspection requirements. “There is only so much we can do. Non-motorized boats, like kayaks, tend not to sit in the water, when they could collect mussels. They also don’t have the space to store standing water that could transport larvae,” said Stahlnecker. “So we’re focusing our resources on the boats that pose the greatest risk.”
For more information on the changes in rules and access points at Blue Mesa Reservoir, visit http://www.nps.gov/cure or call (970) 641-2337.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Norwood: Trihalomethanes in water supply

From the Telluride Daily Planet:

Letters went out last week letting water users know that the municipal water was once again over the limit for TTHM (Total Trihalomethanes) during the first quarter of 2009. TTHM are the by-products created by the disinfectants in the water, by-products that some people believe cause problems with the liver, kidneys and central nervous system. “We have to do something to try and alleviate the by-products within our system,” said Patti Grafmyer, Norwood’s town administrator. “The board is moving forward with the chloramination, even if we don’t get the funding.” The water commission is trying to tap into the stimulus funds, the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) package passed by Congress this year, to fund the chloramination project. The board submitted its request last week.

Chloramination is a more drastic measure than the first steps taken by the commission and the public works department. They initially hoped to solve the water issues with improvements to the system made last April. Those upgrades were on the system’s front end, where water enters the system. The TOC (total organic compounds) that enter the system are what binds with the disinfectant to create the byproducts. Those upgrades successfully reduced the TOC intake, and they also alleviated another problem by-product, HAA5 (haloacetic acids), but the TTHM problem has been more persistent. Chloramination means adding chlorine and ammonia to the water, a process that should produce water that meets the standards even at the ends of the 85-mile distribution line, when the water has had time to react with the disinfectants. “Chloramine is a disinfectant produced by combining chlorine and ammonia at a weight ratio of five to one or slightly less, which produces monochloramine,” said Grafmyer. “Monochloramine is the dominant compound formed and is considered to a suitable ‘residual’ disinfectant, i.e., appropriate for maintaining effective disinfectant levels throughout the distribution system.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Cañon City: Cotter intends to re-open mill despite unchecked groundwater contamination

From the Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

Cotter’s latest data indicate groundwater contamination from Cold War uranium-processing still is spreading unchecked toward Cañon City (pop. 15,850). And federal investigators still haven’t completed a required comprehensive look at whether contamination could be causing cancer and other health problems…

Local leaders who long tolerated the contamination — it’s been 25 years since the Environmental Protection Agency ordered a Superfund cleanup — now oppose any project until the cleanup is done. “That mill is just in the wrong place. I’d rather see them decommission and go away,” Fremont County Commissioner Mike Stiehl said…

The mill is one of four in the nation licensed to convert uranium ore into yellowcake — fuel for the nuclear power that proponents see as a “green” alternative to burning fossil fuels. It sits above the Arkansas River on the south side of Cañon City, about 100 miles southwest of Denver. Cleanup has lagged with repeated violations. For years, Colorado officials have allowed the mill to stay open on a “stand-down” basis that lets Cotter retain an operating license — an unusual situation…

Cotter’s data shows the concentration of uranium in groundwater flowing from the plant increased by 40 percent between 2000 and 2006 and Cotter “is evaluating” how fast this water is flowing, said Steve Tarlton, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s radiation program manager. “Cleanup is required whether the site is closed or refurbished,” Tarlton said. “Exposures aren’t taking place,” EPA remedial project manager Pat Smith said, although a resident recently was placed on an alternative water supply. Cotter intends to refurbish its mill, then hire up to 80 workers to process uranium ore hauled by train from a mine on Mount Taylor in northern New Mexico, said John Hamrick, vice president of milling for Cotter. It’s uncertain how much Cotter would invest and what sort of facilities it would build, Hamrick said…

“What I find perplexing is how Cotter here in Colorado can say they intend to do a deal with their sister company in New Mexico when all these issues are still pending,” said state Rep. Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, who represents residents around the mill.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Animas-La Plata Project: Animas River pumping station to go online today

The Animas-La Plata hits a huge milestone today as the pumps will will be turned on to start the first fill of Lake Nighthorse behind the Ridges Basin Dam. Here’s a report from Dale Rodebaugh writing for the Durango Herald. From the article:

The project is being built by the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency that has been testing equipment at the pumping station for two weeks. “We’re transitioning from testing to the real thing now,” Barry Longwell, deputy construction engineer, said Thursday as he led a tour of the pumping plant. “The reservoir will be filled gradually on an as-it-goes basis.”

The first fill will take 18 months to three years, depending on such factors as the flow in the Animas, the demand of senior water-right holders downstream, the amount of water needed for environmental commitments in the Animas and the capacity of the pumping station, Longwell said. The lake will be off limits until the reservoir is full. While recreation – including boating – is planned, nothing has been finalized.

Eight pumps – two each with a capacity of 14 and 28 cubic feet of water per second, respectively, and four with 56 cfs capacity – will be used. A cubic foot of water per second will produce nearly 2 acre-feet in 24 hours. In a nutshell, the A-LP, as it’s known, consists of the reservoir (120,000-acre-foot Lake Nighthorse), the pumping station and a pipeline connecting the two as well as facilities in New Mexico for partners there, including the Navajo Nation.

All New Mexico partners in the project will draw their shares of water from the San Juan River, of which the Animas is a tributary. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe haven’t specified uses for their shares of the water. The La Plata West Water Authority plans to use water for the dry southwest corner of La Plata County where residents are on wells or haul water to their homes…

“It was important to settle Ute water claims because it gives some security to other water-right holders,” Isgar said. “The Utes have water rights dating to 1868, but while the rights were never quantified and adjudicated (in water court), they gave up those claims for water from the A-LP.” After all, the right to 100 percent of water from streams that go dry in the summer isn’t as prudent as having some water, albeit less, from a reliable year-round source, Isgar said…

The Colorado partners in the A-LP are the Southern Utes, the Ute Mountain Utes, the state of Colorado and the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District. The New Mexico partners are the Navajo Nation, the San Juan Water Commission and the La Plata Conservancy District. The capacity of the reservoir is 120,000 acre-feet but only 57,100 acre-feet of depletion is allowed. The three tribes have a right to 62 percent of the water, nontribal entities 38 percent. Evaporation will account for 2,700 acre-feet a year.

Click through and read the whole article. They’re running video of the dedication ceremonies for the dam last October, they’re running some great photos and there is a timeline for the trials and tribulations for the project.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: New customers for CSU’s water?

Now that Colorado Springs Utilities has essentially gotten the “green light” for their proposed Southern Delivery System the utility has started mapping out their customer base. Here’s a report from R. Scott Rappold writing in the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

“What we’ve got to do – and it’s not an easy project at all – is to try to identify those other entities that are actually going to need the service and make sure they understand their present supply could be lost at any time if those aquifers dry up,” said Tony Elia, chair of the Utilities Policy Advisory Committee, a citizens group that advises City Council on Utilities issues.

There are many questions, the toughest of which may be how Utilities can offer water from SDS when its own projections say the city will need all of it some day. While the housing slowdown means all 78 million gallons a day won’t be needed by 2046, the year originally projected, officials say the day will come when all of it is needed. Said Elia, “You can’t tell them you’ve got to commit to 5 million gallons a day but we can take it back any time we want. If you give it to them, it’s permanent.”

Colorado Springs has always guarded its water jealously, extending water service primarily to annexed developments. While Utilities’ electric power grid serves several communities, 208,737 homes and businesses, it has 132,637 water customers. Just a few hundred customers outside the city get its water, at 1.5 times the normal cost. Utilities has two temporary sharing agreements, one to transport water owned by Manitou Springs to that city and the other to sell up to 500 acre-feet a year to the Cherokee Metropolitan District on the east side of Colorado Springs…

“We have to be able to distinguish between Colorado Springs’ water rights and the water rights owned by other entities outside the city. If you are providing your water rights to another entity, you’re basically giving them up, and we’re not going to do that,” said Mayor Lionel Rivera. He said the focus should be on using SDS to carry water that other users own, not agreeing to sell Colorado Springs’ water over a long period – though he is open to selling it on a short-term basis in wet years…

[The Cherokee Metropolitan District] suffers chronic water shortages, and customers this spring face watering restrictions at a time when supplies are abundant elsewhere. [Kip Petersen, general manager] said there is water available for purchase from Arkansas River Valley farmers, but no way to get it here – and the district would also be interested in buying from the city to augment its supply, if the price is right. “There is definitely interest in participating in the Southern Delivery System. Now we’ve got to figure out how it’s going to get done,” he said…

The Utilities Policy Advisory Council, a committee of residents that advises City Council, will begin discussing regional water-sharing Wednesday. The board meets at 8 a.m. in the Blue River Board Room, Fifth Floor, Plaza of the Rockies South Tower, 121 S. Tejon St. The meeting is open to the public.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Arkansas Valley: Lysimeter installations producing useful data

Here’s an update on Colorado State University’s lysimeter installation in the Arkansas Valley, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The devices are capable of measuring small changes in water on blocks of soil that will help determine how much water crops in the Arkansas Valley are using. That could help Colorado in its ongoing dispute with Kansas over how much water each state is entitled to under a 1948 compact as well as give farmers better information about how and when to irrigate. “We’re trying the best we can to measure consumptive use and account for all the factors that go into the equation,” said Lane Simmons, a research associate.

So far, there are not concrete results, although farmers who have toured the site are already optimistic that the research will prove what they instinctively believe – that Colorado has never gotten enough credit for its water use. Mike Bartolo, director of the research center, is careful to put the brakes on jumping to any conclusions. “It’s premature to make any conclusions,” Bartolo said. “We have one year of data and we don’t fully understand the dynamics. . . . After three or four years, we’ll have a clear picture of what’s happening with alfalfa.”

There are two lysimeters at the research center, which is about one mile east of Rocky Ford. The larger one, completed in 2007, weighs changes in a 10-feet by 10-feet cube of soil 8 feet deep. On a hot summer day, when evaporation is at its peak, there might be a change of 150 pounds in the 50-ton block. Scales connected to computers record the slightest change.

The smaller one is a reference lysimeter in a nearby field that is 5-feet by 5-feet and 8 feet deep. “It’s built for precision,” Simmons said, following a line on the computer in his office. “You can see it level off at night, then it goes down during the day, levels off again and spikes when there’s an irrigation.”[…]

To see the lysimeter itself, requires going through a metal hatch down a ladder in a 12-foot hole in the ground. The lysimeter sits on the sensitive scales, but there are also barrels to catch water as it makes its way through the soil and an array of tubes that can either vacuum water out or inject water into the sample…

Water comes into the cube either by precipitation or irrigation. It leaves through evaporation, transpiration (through growing plants) or seepage. By combining the weather data and the weight of the soil block, researchers can account for every drop. The scales can measure the changes day-in and day-out all year long…

The state is funding the research partly through a legal defense fund set up during the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case filed by Kansas over the Arkansas River Compact. During the case, a special master sided with Kansas on the use of the Penman-Montieth equation in determining crop use. Rather than a simple mathematical formula, it uses actual crop data to determine consumptive use by plants. The problem is there is no hard data available for Colorado. The closest lysimeters are in Texas and Idaho, so the numbers in the equations now being used are only a good guess…

The data also can be used to calculate better numbers for crops other than alfalfa, which is used as the reference point in the model and is also the predominant crop in the Arkansas Valley. The numbers also are helpful in an ongoing study led by Colorado State University professor Tim Gates on salinity and water tables in the Arkansas Valley. “The evapotranspiration values of crops can have direct consequences to irrigation scheduling, water augmentation plans, interstate compacts and other farm management plans,” Simmons explained. “More accurate determinations of ET values can lead to gained efficiencies in water use and irrigation management.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Taming the land: Seventh in the series

Here’s the seventh installment of Chris Woodka’s series “Taming the Land,” running in the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Huge clouds of dust routinely covered the plains, largely a product of grasslands that had been tilled for crop production. April 14, 1935, was termed Black Sunday, when the worst of the storms tore across the plains. On Dec. 12, 1935, a conference on the Dust Bowl began at the Congress Hotel in Pueblo and plans were laid to fight back against dust storms that had eaten 5 million acres of land in five states, according to accounts at the time in The Chieftain. The conference set a course of action that led to the newly formed Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) working with area soil conservation districts to reduce the worst effects of drought the land.

S.B. 09-141, Fountain Creek Watershed

Governor Ritter signed S.B. 09-141 last week. The legislation creates the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District. Here’s a report from Charles Ashby writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The measure, backed by Democratic and Republican lawmakers on both sides of the Pueblo-El Paso county line, allows officials in the two counties and area municipalities to create a new Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway District.

It was the product of years of negotiations – and infighting – between officials on both sides of the line.

“We all know how contentious water fights can be, and there have been some legendary fights in different parts of the state not the least of which have involved Pueblo and Colorado Springs,” Ritter said during a bill-signing ceremony for SB141. “That’s why this bill is so important to Colorado’s water future. This represents an incredible collaborative accomplishment between two counties over an extremely contentious issue.” Though local elected officials in the two counties were primarily responsible for working out the details, Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, and Reps. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, and Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, carried it through the Legislature. Tapia said the measure will likely become a model for other intergovernmental agreements on dealing with water issues…

The 60-page measure would establish a nine-member board that would oversee the flood plain from Fountain to Pueblo. Under it, four district boundaries would be created with varying degrees of authority. While the full boundary of the district would include all of Pueblo and El Paso counties, any fees imposed by it would apply only to a smaller area encompassing the watershed. The panel also would have some land-use authority, but only on a small tract right along the river. Under the bill, the district would have the ability to impose fees, and place before voters in both counties a new tax to help pay for improvements. It is, however, limited to asking voters for no more than 5 mills, which could raise about $30 million a year. The district also is to get about $50 million from a Southern Delivery System mitigation fund, which is to be used to get a matching federal grant that could bring in another $150 million.

From the Pueblo Chieftain:

Applicants are being sought for the joint Pueblo city-county appointment to the Fountain Creek Watershed Governing Board, which will become the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District when a new state law takes effect in July…Terms can be 2, 3 or 4 years on the nine-member board. The district will have primary land-use authority in the flood plain of Fountain Creek and will have input on land-use decisions and policy throughout the watershed. Applications are available at the Pueblo County clerk’s office or online at the county Web site. They should be completed and returned no later than 4:30 p.m. May 15.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

San Luis Valley scores some stimulus dough

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

The stimulus package will bring $20.2 million in agency spending to Colorado, although Mike Blakeman, a spokesman for the agency in the San Luis Valley, said specific spending totals for local projects would not be available until early next week…

The valley would also see habitat restoration projects for riparian areas along the Rio Grande and wetland restoration at San Luis Lakes. The Zapata Falls recreation area, just south of the Great Sand Dunes National Park, would get money for campground construction. Other spending on the Department of Interior’s lands in the San Luis Valley include $2.6 million at Great Sand Dunes National Park and $1.95 million at three national wildlife refuges.

Bessemer Ditch: Bylaws changes

Here’s a look at one Bessemer Ditch shareholder’s view on the proposed bylaw changes coming up for a vote soon along with the Pueblo Board of Water Works plans to buy shares, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Mike Bartolo is proposing a different path that would keep water rights in the hands of irrigators while guaranteeing Pueblo the ability to use some of the water when it was needed. His idea – which he admits is sketchy – is for the Pueblo Board of Works to buy the development rights shares in the Bessemer Ditch rather than purchasing shares outright. That would ensure that the water would stay in the ditch, while a portion of it would be available to Pueblo as it is needed. “The city would have to dish out less, maybe about $4,000-$5,000 an acre, rather than $10,000 to purchase rights,” Bartolo said. “The grower would retain the rights and the city could lease up to 30 percent when they need it.”[…]

Bartolo is also aware of Pueblo’s track record on past sales of the Booth-Orchard and Twin Lakes that left behind wastelands in Pueblo and Crowley counties and doesn’t trust the Pueblo water board’s promises that the same thing wouldn’t happen on the Bessemer Ditch. “I think the Board of Water Works has failed miserably to understand that they are not buying a chunk of a ditch, but are destroying the autonomy of it,” Bartolo said. “They are destroying the value of the Bessemer Ditch.”[…]

Bartolo is not opposing the right of anyone along the Bessemer Ditch to sell, and said he understands the reasons some of his friends and neighbors want to sell at this time. He believes more time investigating the potential impacts of the sale and the alternatives is needed, however. The Bessemer Ditch has been a target for urban water sales since the 1980s, when other ditches in the valley sold. Because there is not one large block of shares immediately available, as there were on the Rocky Ford Ditch and Colorado Canal, no sales ever materialized. The current sale was born from a failed effort in 2007-08 that happened in a very public way. The second time around, the water board lined up sellers through a broker at a higher price that lured more takers. While some shareholders met in the 1980s to prevent sales at that time, there has been little public discussion in the past 20 years about whether water rights should be sold or what other options are available.

Bartolo recently joined Super Ditch – a land fallowing, water management program – in an effort to share in the research into the value of ditch rights by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. He doesn’t know if the idea of selling water while while keeping the water rights through long-term lease contracts is practical, but said the idea needs to be investigated. Bartolo’s own idea is taken from practices used in some conservation easements, where the future development rights are purchased to maintain a property’s character. The price is the difference between the current worth and the value of developing the property – in this case, water rights. “It preserves the rights of guys who have worked hard and want to cash in their chips,” Bartolo said. While he’s pitched the idea to shareholders through a handout at this year’s annual meeting, to the Lower Ark board, to The Pueblo Chieftain editorial board and at an informal meeting with some members of the water board, Bartolo has found few takers so far…

The water board’s proposal amounts to a “pig in a dress,” that would buy and dry farmland, Bartolo said. “They would lease it back for 20 years, but that’s pathetic,” he said. “When it comes time, the water board will make a business decision with the goal of providing cheap water for Pueblo. The water they are leasing to Aurora could generate five to six times the revenue in agriculture. They haven’t been a good partner to the valley.” Not all of the consequences of what could happen to the Bessemer Ditch’s water rights have been explained, Bartolo added.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Animas River restoration

From the Durango Herald (Dale Stode):

The west-side riverbank will get a full-scale makeover – a retro renovation – between Ninth Street and the Highway 160 bridge. The river and west-bank renovation project was announced recently when Durango received an $86,000 grant from the Colorado Division of Wildlife for bank stabilization and habitat improvement on that stretch of the Animas River. The DOW grant was one of the final pieces of a 3½-year jigsaw puzzle, put together through the nonprofit efforts of Trout Unlimited and the Animas Riverkeepers…

With Trout Unlimited looking for a hands-on project, and Animas Riverkeepers similarly seeking an immediate project, the two joined forces for downtown Durango’s river redevelopment effort. The groups raised $7,500 for a consultant’s study and the generation of architectural and engineering plans for the Animas River project. The study and the engineering plans became the foundation of the city’s backing and an eventual grant application with the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s Fishing is Fun program…

The recently authorized mitigation project will address two primary situations, Churchwell said. First, the unregulated foot traffic in the area will be managed. Big boulders and rocks will be placed along the riverbank. Trees and shrubs will be planted. All of the dead trees and vegetation will come out, he said. Stairways down the bank to the stream side will direct foot travel…

Secondly, he said, there will be in-stream work that will help move the primary flow of water to the middle of the river. “That will create much better trout habitat,” he said of the installation of the “J hooks” (rock berms) in the river. “And we’re keeping the boaters in mind with this,” he said, adding that the in-river work will be boater friendly for kayaks, canoes, rafts, etc…

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

South Platte River: EPA orders two companies to clean up damage to river

A sand and gravel operation and concrete company have received an order from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up and repair the riparian environment along a stretch of the South Platte River after they performed some un-permitted work to expand their operations. Here’s a report from the Fort Morgan Times. From the article:

Builder’s Aggregate and JJ Concrete must remove all material placed in the riverbed and wetlands and restore affected areas to pre-impact conditions and grade. Materials the company dredged from the river and stockpiled within the channel of the South Platte must be removed within 21 days, in advance of spring runoff. Prior to beginning the remainder of the work, the companies must submit a plan detailing how removal and restoration will be accomplished, the EPA said.

Here’s the release from the EPA:

EPA orders Builder’s Aggregate and JJ Concrete to restore South Platte River near Fort Morgan

Release date: 04/30/2009

Contact Information: Diane Sipe, 303-312-6391; Richard Mylott 303-312-6654

(Denver, Colo. – April 30, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a compliance order to Builder’s Aggregate and JJ Concrete for violations of the Clean Water Act in Fort Morgan, Colo. The companies allegedly violated the Act by placing material into the South Platte River and its adjacent wetlands without a permit.

“These unauthorized actions damaged the ability of the South Platte River and its adjacent wetlands to provide habitat for birds and animals and to reduce the force of flood waters,” said Diane Sipe, Director of EPA Region 8’s Water Enforcement Program. “EPA is ordering Builder’s Aggregate and JJ Concrete to promptly restore the damage to the river and its wetlands. We will continue to pursue actions against those who violate federal laws that protect Colorado’s waters.”

The alleged violations occurred in the spring of 2008 when the companies leveled approximately two acres of wetlands adjacent to the South Platte River to expand the area for their sand, gravel and concrete operations. The companies also stockpiled material in the channel of the river and placed rip rap along the river’s banks.

EPA’s order requires measures to correct the environmental damage resulting from the unauthorized activities. Builder’s Aggregate and JJ Concrete must remove all material placed in the riverbed and wetlands and restore affected areas to pre-impact conditions and grade. Materials the company dredged from the river and stockpiled within the channel of the South Platte must be removed within 21 days, in advance of spring runoff. Prior to beginning the remainder of the work, the companies must submit a plan detailing how removal and restoration will be accomplished.

The South Platte River and wetlands disturbed by the violations provide numerous functions and values, including wildlife habitat for birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians; water quality enhancement; flood attenuation; and aesthetics.

Permits are required before performing work that results in the disturbance or placement of material into rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands. These alleged violations could have been avoided had Builders Aggregate and JJ Concrete applied for and obtained a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers before working in the South Platte River and its wetlands. Any person planning to do such work should contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Denver Regulatory Office at 9307 South Wadsworth Ave., Littleton, CO, 80128-6901 or telephone 303-979-4120.

For more information on the Clean Water Act, visit EPA’s compliance web page: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html

For more information about the importance of wetlands in flood control and habitat conservation, visit:
http://www.usace.army.mil/, http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/

Nestlé Chaffee County Project: Opposition update

Here’s an update on the opposition to Nestlé Waters North America’s Chaffee County Project, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article

Tempers have flared and barbs have been traded at three marathon public hearings as county officials wrestle over whether to issue a land-use permit to Nestle Waters North America. The company owns the land and water rights near Nathrop and says it is investing $15 million in its effort to withdraw 65 million gallons a year. It has an agreement with Aurora for that city to release 200 acre-feet a year from an upper reservoir to compensate for the water Nestle would remove from the Arkansas basin.

At the heart of the debate is whether a community benefits when a company takes water from its springs to sell on grocery store shelves. Some communities have fought such efforts – with mixed results – and the conflict in Salida could presage fights elsewhere in Colorado. Nestle has plans to tap springs in three or four more locations in the state. “I think they could buy and dry our valley,” said Vicki Klein, a board member of Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability, a group formed to fight the project. “Two hundred acre-feet might not be a huge amount initially, but where they can go from there is frightening…

Nestle says it will draw 10 percent of the springs’ flow, and the impact to the Arkansas River “will not be measurable, even in low-flow conditions.” The company touts the benefits to the county: temporary construction jobs for the pipeline and related facilities; increased tax revenue for the county; removal of a dilapidated trout hatchery along the Arkansas; and preservation of the area as open space…

At a hearing Wednesday, Terry Scanga, manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, said it could be “very injurious” to the Arkansas basin. Aurora doesn’t take all the water it owns from the mountains, and in a drought that city could draw more to make up for what it releases for Nestle, he said. “I think it’s kind of ironic that an out-of-basin entity would be leasing water to another entity who will be taking it out of the basin,” Scanga said…

It was many newcomers – retirees and others – who want to see the mountain splendor preserved, versus old-timers who say the county needs economic development…

Some of its legal difficulties with host communities, usually small, rural towns, include: a four-year legal battle with Fryeburg, Maine, to build a pumping station; a lawsuit by citizens in McCloud, Calif., who oppose a plan by the company to tap springs and build a bottling plant; and a public outcry in Enumclaw, Wash, about proposed wells and a bottling plant that led Nestle to abandon the plan…

Nestle’s Lauerman said the opposition “has very little to do with the specifics of the project itself, the viability of the project…It’s more people with a distrust for corporations, people who are anti-growth no matter what the project is. It’s people who have a philosophical bent against bottled water,” he said.

Jeanine Zeman, spokeswoman for the opposition group, admits she doesn’t like bottled water. She also believes Nestle has a poor record of working with communities where it sinks wells. With the arguments impassioned on both sides, county commissioners are in no rush to make a decision. The hearing resumes Tuesday.

More coverage from Joe Stone writing for The Mountain Mail:

The public hearing conducted by Chaffee County commissioners will continue at 1 p.m. Tuesday in the Salida Steam Plant Theater regarding two separate permit applications by Nestlé Waters. County consultants and staff members will discuss the extent to which new information from Nestlé satisfies 1041 permit application criteria. Commissioners will continue to hear public comments, but only regarding new information and unresolved 1041 permit requirements. Written comments must be received by noon Monday for consideration at the meeting Tuesday, county officials said…

The 1041 permit process requires county commissioners to approve or deny the permit by May 15 unless the applicant requests an extension, Don Reimer, county development director said…

Lauerman’s points included:

• Nestlé modified the project to address local concerns.

• Shallow nature of the wells will eliminate possibility of over-pumping the aquifer.

• The 50,000-acre aquifer recharge area indicates a sustainable source for water harvest.

• Nestlé’s annual 200-acre-foot extraction represents 2 percent of annual aquifer recharge and 1.5 percent of water available in the aquifer.

• In addition to a $500,000 local trust fund, Nestlé would provide educational opportunities and annual contributions of $25,000 to $30,000 to local organizations and events.

• Nestlé has invested more than $2 million in the project and would be investing $15 million in Chaffee County. The investment will take years to recoup at the 6-7 percent company operating profit.

• The project would provide protection for the environment that other types of development cannot offer.

• By collecting water in Chaffee County and bottling it in Denver, the company would reduce trucking by 5 million miles a year.

• A 72-hour pumping test in January revealed no effects to the water table beyond 200 yards.

• Colorado Department of Transportation found no significant traffic concerns when issuing an access permit on U.S. 24/285 at Johnson Village.

• Colorado Division of Wildlife found no significant adverse impacts.

• Colorado Trout Unlimited expressed no concerns.

Here are some comments offered up by John Emerick, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the Colorado School of Mines, Division of Environmental Science and Engineering at Wednesday’s public meeting, from the Salida Citizen.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Runoff news

Here’s an update on runoff conditions in the Eagle River valley from the Vail Daily (Chris Outcalt):

Runoff of the winter snowpack has already started and will continue through May. Water levels in the area usually peak around the end of May or beginning of June, and most kayakers are probably eagerly awaiting the runoff, said Sean Glackin, owner of Alpine Quest Sports in Edwards…

People are already paddling spots of the Eagle River by Dowd Junction and taking advantage of the whitewater park in Avon, Glackin said. Some beginners are putting in at spots around State Bridge, he said…

Vail Mountain had more than 400 inches of snow this season and snowpack levels in the valley are about average, said Mark Gillespie, snow supervisor for the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

More coveage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Above Lake Pueblo, the Arkansas River has remained near normal levels, even though some of the snowpack already is melting. Below the dam, the river has increased to late spring conditions already as downstream canals are emptying winter water and Fryingpan-Arkansas Project accounts, said Steve Witte, Water Division 2 engineer.

“Winter water or carry-over winter water is going to the Catlin, Oxford, High Line and Holbrook ditches,” Witte said. “They might have wanted to wait, but they’re in a use it or lose it situation.” Under court decreed rules, the ditches had until midnight Thursday to empty carry-over accounts, which temporarily swelled the Arkansas River to about 1,400 cubic feet per second at Avondale for several days this week, well above the median average of 881 cfs for this time of year. Meanwhile, the Bessemer Ditch was releasing water it had stored in Fry-Ark accounts, according to the daily report by the Division of Water Resources. Farmers need the water – Southeastern Colorado is still in a mild drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor – but ran more than they might have to empty accounts. Some April showers alleviated the drought’s impact to some extent, and precipitation is close to average levels…

Lake Pueblo levels have been dropping in recent weeks as the flows out exceed the natural inflow. The Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the Fry-Ark Project, stopped running additional water above Pueblo last month because there is now adequate space in Turquoise and Twin Lakes for the water expected to be brought over from the Western Slope. Reclamation will revise its forecast of imports in the near future, and is expecting more than the average of 52,000 acre-feet, but less than the 77,500 acre-feet expected in April, said Roy Vaughan, Fry-Ark Project manager. “We’ve lost some of the snowpack since the April forecast,” Vaughan said.

Statewide, the snowpack was at 94 percent of average Thursday, largely because of dry conditions in the Southwest region and Gunnison River basin. The Upper Colorado, South Platte and Arkansas River basins are all slightly above average.

Corps of Engineers looking to spend $5 million on tamarisk removal along the Colorado River

The Tamarisk Coalition is in the process of determining how best to utilize $5 million grant proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for tamarisk eradication along 56 miles of the Colorado River between Palisade and the Utah border. Here’s a report from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Le Roy Standish):

In order to get the grant, the Tamarisk Coalition is asking its partners in the Grand Valley for $10,000 to study how best to eradicate the nonnative species and determine how much each member of the coalition should spend on the program. In addition the coalition needs to appoint a lead agency — such as Mesa County, Grand Junction, a new nonprofit or an existing nonprofit such as the Mesa Land Trust — to coordinate efforts…

To assess the options, the Tamarisk Coalition is asking for money from each of its partners: $4,000 apiece from Mesa County and Grand Junction; $800 from Palisade; and $400 each from Fruita and Clifton Water. The possibility of a $5 million grant from the Corps is good news for the coalition, but it comes with financial concerns. The big catch in the Corps’ Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration grant is that whatever entity becomes the lead agency will be responsible for keeping land cleared of tamarisk forever. “In order to meet the terms of the grant, you can’t let (tamarisk) come back,” said Tom Fisher, Mesa County’s director of regional services. That would require an unknown commitment of resources on top of the initial $10,000 in seed money. The money would pay for a study to compare alternatives and costs of the program.

“What takes effort is to establish what the proposed long-term budgets would be or the physical requirements would be for each of the entities,” Carlson said. “Until that is all laid out, it is difficult for anybody to say this is what we are getting involved in.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

DOLA doles out $47 million

From the Associated Press via the Aspen Daily News:

The Department of Local Affairs awarded the money Friday for 47 projects from 55 applications seeking nearly $49 million. The grants will allow communities to leverage more than $195 million in public-private and local matching funds, which will finance $218.5 million in construction work…

Garfield County projects include the sheriff annex expansion ($600,000), the county human services annex construction ($600,000), Donegan Road expansion in Glenwood Springs ($500,000) and the Rifle water treatment plant design ($600,000).

More coverage from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Projects in Mesa County received a total of $3.6 million, more than any other county. Coming in second was La Plata County, with nearly $3 million in grants. The state said the 47 projects will be funded by more than $195 million in public-private and local matching funds, resulting in a combined $218.5 million boost in construction activity. Projects that meet basic infrastructure needs received highest priority, while emphasis also was placed on those with renewable-energy or energy-conservation components…

Rifle Mayor Keith Lambert voiced a similar sentiment. “We’re happy for anything we receive in this area because our needs are so great,” he said. The city expects its new water plant will cost between $30 million and $40 million to build…

Rangely got $495,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements and $100,000 for street and drainage upgrades.

More Coyote Gulch coveage here.

Coyote Gulch outage

Today is a travel day. I’m heading up towards the headwaters of the St. Croix and Mississippi rivers for a little rest and relaxation. Posting will be intermittent and entirely dependent on the claims of from various hotels that adverstise internet access. If I get too far behind check in a week from Monday for the backlog.

Yummm…walleye, that’s some good eatin’.

Summit County: Boat inspections for invasive mussels

From the Vail Daily (Caitlin Row):

With the Dillon Reservoir likely to open for boating by Memorial Day, Dillon is championing education about boat inspections to keep aquatic nuisance species — mainly zebra/quagga mussels — out of the water. “This is a serious matter that is not being taken lightly,” said Dillon Chief of Police Joe Wray. A new Dillon law requires inspection of all boats before and after they enter Dillon Reservoir…

Wray also wants to reinforce the two access point to the reservoir — the Dillon and Frisco marinas. Dillon has barricaded boat access points that people could use in previous years. “We’re trying to reinforce them so people can’t enter or exit outside of business hours,” Wray said. “Whether we are paying for it or Denver Water is, I don’t know.” Wray has been working with Frisco in taking safety precautions against non-native species, like zebra mussels, that could threaten Dillon Reservoir’s ecosystem and the water infrastructure of the state. Dillon and Frisco police will assist marina boat inspectors, Wray said, in enforcing its boat-inspection ordinance. For more information, contact the Dillon Marina (970) 468-5100 or Frisco Bay Marina (970) 668-4334.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Denver Water, Northern and Grand County agree to cooperate on instream flows

Denver Water (Moffat Collection System), the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Colorado-Big Thompson Project and Windy Gap Project) and Grand County have struck a deal to cooperate on instream flows in the Upper Colorado River. Here’s a report from Mark Jaffee writing for the Denver Post. From the article:

The agreement among Grand County, Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District aims to balance Front Range demands with more flow for the Upper Colorado River basin. The deal also is expected to smooth the progress of plans for two new water projects to bring 16 billion gallons of water from Grand County to the Front Range…

Diversions of water are a sore point with Grand County officials. Pipelines and tunnels already move about 60 percent of the county’s waters across the Continental Divide to serve towns and cities from Fort Collins to Littleton. As a result, flows are often low in the Fraser and Colorado rivers in summer, which threatens the county’s $18 million-a-year recreation economy…

In all, Denver Water and Northern are committed to keep 5,800 acre-feet of water on the Western Slope…

The plan will be bolstered by coordinated releases of another 5,400 acre-feet to the Colorado River from Lake Granby. This is water supplied by Front Range diverters — including Aurora Water and Colorado Springs — to meet a requirement to protect endangered fish species at Grand Junction.

“It’s all a more comprehensive approach to managing the river,” said Mely Whiting, an attorney with Trout Unlimited. “Just getting Denver Water and Northern to coordinate is a big step.”

After negotiating with Grand County and environmental groups for a year, Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District have made promises to protect stream flows and water supplies on the Western Slope. They include:

• Denver Water will allow 1,000 acre-feet of water to head down the Fraser River annually, instead of diverting it to Denver.

• Denver Water will release 1,000 acre-feet every year from Williams Fork Reservoir, near Parshall, into the Fraser River.

• Northern will guarantee 2,300 acre-feet to the Middle Park Water Conservancy District, Kremmling, every year. The district now sometimes receives only 800 acre-feet.

• Northern and Denver Water will provide $8 million to improve wastewater treatment plants and stream habitats in the county.

• Northern will slow its draw of water during the annual Gore Canyon Race week in Kremmling to improve rafting and boating conditions.

• Denver Water will release some water into the river system from irrigation ditches it owns.

More coverage from the Sky-Hi Daily News (Tonya Bina):

“This is a history-setting occurrence,” stated Grand County Manager Lurline Underbrink Curran, referring to a meeting last Thursday during which Northern and Denver representatives rolled out a list of compromises that when added up, equates to at least 11,200 acre-feet of water that could be left in Grand County rivers, to be released as needed on an annual basis…

Northern and Denver Water are under the watchful eye of West Slope water users as they work to achieve permitting on two separate projects that would firm up water rights to allow more water to be taken from both the Fraser and Colorado rivers. Already, Northern has gone through its Draft Environmental Impact Statement public comment period for the Windy Gap Firming Project, and Denver is about to release its draft statement for the Moffat firming project. In comments on Northern’s DEIS in December, the Environmental Protection Agency came out against the project’s assessment, saying the environmental impact statement failed to weigh “secondary and cumulative effects of this and other reasonably foreseeable water projects within the Upper Colorado River Basin.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should “hold the (Northern) permit in abeyance,” the EPA letter read…

…the offerings still needs to be weighed against the county’s stream management plan — now in it’s third phase — to see how what is being offered satisfies Grand County’s stream and river needs identified in the plan, according to Underbrink Curran…

Among offers, Denver Water’s willingness to give up 1,000 acre feet of annual firm yield that would normally be delivered to the East Slope is considered rare. “We’ve been very careful in all the things that we’ve done to preserve our yield because it’s very important to us,” Little said. “Yield replacement on the East Slope goes anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 dollars an acre foot,” he said. “But In this instance, we thought of Grand County’s environmental issues.”[…]

Water and sanitation district representatives, town board members, ditch shareholders, members of the ag community and others are taking the time to digest Northern and Denver’s offer — at the same time commending them for producing it. “I think that this is a paradigm shift in the relations between the East Slope water diverters and the West Slope,” said Kirk Klancke, manager of the Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District. Even so, there’s more work to be done, he said. “I would like to see the flushing flows well defined where they are not mentioned specifically in this proposal.”[…]

What Northern and Denver are offering:

• 1,000 acre-feet of firm annual yield from Fraser River Collection System
• 1,000 acre-feet annual release from Williams Fork Reservoir resulting from Fraser System bypass
• Denver Water would only take bypass water after restricting all lawn watering in Denver
• Curtail or reduce diversions in August to minimize temperature impacts to river life
• 3,000 acre-feet annually to the Middle Park Water Conservancy District
• Grand County may store 1,500 acre-feet of late-season free water in Granby Reservoir using the Windy Gap pumping facility. Denver to pay half of pumping costs shared with Grand County
• Cooperate with Grand County on the timing of releases of 5,412 acre-feet stored in Lake Granby for endangered fish recovery near Grand Junction, as part of the federal “Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program”
• Provide $6 million in improvements to the three largest wastewater facilities in Grand County to reduce discharge of nutrients to Grand County streams and lakes
• Provide $2 million for river restorations to improve aquatic habitats
• Contribute an estimated $200,000 to develop a viable cutthroat trout fishery in Grand County
• Northern offers to modify operations to lessen the impact on Granby Reservoir levels
• Provide lands for wildlife habitats, open space and/or public fishing accesses
• Curtail diversions during the Gore Canyon Race weekend each year
• Operate Big Lake Ditch, the Vail Ditch, Rich Ditch and Hammond No. 1 Ditch water in a way that enhances the Colorado and Fraser rivers.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here and here.

Pat Mulroy: The only reason why the two reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, aren’t empty is because the Upper Basin is not fully using its allocation

I ran across this interesting Q&A with Patricia Mulroy — General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority — from Stephanie Tavares in today’s Las Vegas Sun. Mulroy describes the outlook for this summer and Nevada’s challenges:

There has been a lot of talk about how small Nevada’s allotment from the Colorado River is. Can we go to the federal government and ask for more water?

Um, no. In 1922 the seven states of the Colorado (River Basin) entered into a compact that divided the water in the Colorado River between two basins. The Upper Basin is comprised of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming. The Lower Basin is California, Nevada and Arizona. Each of the basins received 7.5 million acre-feet. In the Lower Basin that water was then further divided among the three states, among Arizona, California and Nevada. California, because it had the largest agricultural production, got 4.4 million, Arizona got 2.8 million and we received the remainder, 300,000, because there was no agriculture in Southern Nevada and that was the driver on where the water was going to go. The United States then entered into a treaty in 1944 with Mexico in which it guaranteed 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico — that’s an obligation on the river. What happened was that in 1922 when (the states) went through those negotiations, they used the 50 highest flow years ever recorded on the Colorado River to determine what the average flow was. That was a mistake. We have learned since that really is not the average flow and that what they thought was around 17 million or 18 million acre-feet is probably closer to 13 million or 14 million acre-feet. So in truth, the Colorado River is already overappropriated. There has been more water given away than the river itself has. The only reason why the two reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, aren’t empty is because the Upper Basin is not fully using its allocation. So a compact is not something the federal government can unilaterally overturn. It would require the agreement and concurrence of the Legislatures in every one of the basin states. And the United States has entered into compacts with its states all over the country. So it would set a hideous precedence if it tried to unilaterally override it. The result of that is that there is not a Legislature in the West that would ever give up its allocation. It would feel that it was being severed from what it perceived to be its birthright.

I think, however, over the course of the past 20 years, we have been able to put agreements into place that have afforded Southern Nevada the opportunity to take advantage of a lot more Colorado River water than it had 20 years ago. We have entered into a banking arrangement with Arizona. We’re paying it $350 million and it is banking 1.2 million acre-feet of its unused entitlement in its ground water basins for our future use. We have a banking arrangement in California whereby water we don’t use in Nevada we can store in California and take when we need it. We’ve entered into an agreement with California and Arizona to pay for a reservoir structure on the All-American Canal and for payment of that we will receive a one-time block of water that we can take down as long as there are no shortages. So we have the opportunity. I mean, quite frankly, if we didn’t have the drought and climate change staring us in the face, we would not be pursuing the in-state water project.

We’ve also gotten the ability to take water from the Muddy and the Virgin (rivers) … at Saddle Island (in Lake Mead) and we’ve got significant waters on the Virgin and Muddy rivers.

So if we had a Colorado River that was as healthy today as it was in the ’90s, none of the controversy that we’re having to go through right now with the in-state project would even be an issue. We wouldn’t be pursuing it at all. But the reality is that if what the scientists now believe to be the case that this is not just an isolated drought, that this is symptomatic of continuing lesser flows in the Colorado River, then there is a point of crisis that we’re going to hit.

We have two intakes in Lake Mead right now. Lake Mead is full at sea-level elevation 1,204. Our upper intake that was built in 1971 sits at 1,050. The second that we put in the mid-1990s is at 1,000 and we’re currently in the process of putting in the third intake, which will go underneath Lake Mead and come back up at elevation 890. It’s a very difficult project and a very dangerous project to build.

We are currently sitting at sea-level elevation of about 1,107 at Lake Mead. The latest report from the Bureau (of Reclamation) says Lake Mead is going to go down again this year. The snow has been evaporating in the Upper Basin, it’s called sublimation. And so what we thought might possibly be at least a close to normal year has turned pretty dastardly. So we could be as close as elevation 1,090 before the year is out. That puts us 15 feet away from the first shortage declaration.

The agreement we signed with the (Interior) secretary in 2007 along with the other Lower Basin states, at elevation 1,075 the secretary declares the first shortage and Nevada gets cut back. At elevation 1,050 he declares the second shortage, and we get cut back more. At elevation 1,025 he declares the third shortage, and we get cut back even further. Well, at 1,025 in Lake Mead you have less water than what the annual demand is. If we get to an elevation less than 1,000 we have less than 500,000 acre-feet left in Lake Mead.

The possibility of that happening puts this community in a horrible position of risk. You cannot conserve 90 percent of your water supply, it is physically impossible. You won’t have enough fire pressure in the hydrants to put out a fire. For that reason, to protect the community, we started developing the in-state project, because you have to bring water in from a place that is geologically separate from the Colorado River. You can’t depend on the river anymore.

All the exchanges, whether it’s ocean desalting that we’re working on with Arizona and California, whether it’s the banks — if you physically can’t take it, if the lake is in that dire stress, none of those work anymore. So we have to be able to bring water in from outside the basin and the only place that Nevada has is to look at its unused, unappropriated ground water, which is what we’ve filed on.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: