Castle Creek Watershed Plan Stakeholders Meeting, October 15

From email from the Colorado Watershed Assembly:

Roaring Fork Conservancy invites you to get involved in your water future at a public meeting on October 1 in Aspen. The fifth of five public meetings on the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, this meeting will focus on water resources in the Upper Roaring Fork and the Castle/Maroon creek areas. Roaring Fork River flows, transmountain diversions, and storm water are among the topics to be discussed. The meeting will be held at the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies starting at 6:30 pm. For more information on the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan and these public meetings, please visitwww.roaringfork.org/watershedplan.

For More Information Contact: Mark Fuller, Ruedi Water and Power Authority (970) 963-4959 or Sharon Clarke, Roaring Fork Conservancy, (970) 927-1290.

More Roaring Fork watershed coverage here and here.

Eagle: Brush Creek restoration

From the Vail Daily (Pam Boyd):

This summer, Brush Creek was the focus of attention. Eagle Open Space Coordinator Bill Heicher said the work included stream bank stabilization to prevent erosion. “The stream enhancement work, when it is done, you can’t tell that people have been in there with heavy equipment,” said Heicher. The idea is to create a better mix of pools and riffles, which in turn makes a better environment for fish. Riffles are more shallow areas where water ripples over rocks. Riffles are important to overall stream heath because they create oxygen in the water and keep water temperatures cool. Pools are deeper areas where fish congregate and where they winter. Both conditions are vital and ideally they alternate along a stream course. By bringing in the heavy equipment, the project was able to achieve that condition. “It improved the integrity of the stream. It makes Brush Creek function better,” said Heicher.

More restoration coverage here.

Littleton: City Council to decide on wastewater rate increase October 20

From the Littleton Independent (Holly Cook):

Littleton City Council will decide Oct. 20 whether to approve a 9 percent increase in 2010 annual sanitary sewer charges for residents both inside and out of the city. If passed, inside city single family residential rates will increase by $18.86 for a total of $228.45 per year. This fee includes a charge to maintain the collection system that serves city customers. Outside city customers would pay $17.16 more per year for a total of $209.59. Even with the proposed increase, Littleton’s 2010 rates would remain lower than most surrounding municipalities, according to a rate comparison chart created by the city’s finance department.

More wastewater coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Little satisfaction with progress so far on contaminated spring near Debeque

Here’s an update on groundwater contamination from the oil and gas industry, from Nancy Lofholm writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

Tests would show the water from a spring [Ned Prather] has drank from for decades was heavily contaminated with a carcinogenic and nervous system-damaging chemical stew known as BTEX — benzene, toluene, ethylbenzine and xylene. BTEX and other volatile organic compounds come to the surface in the production water from oil and gas wells.

Prather may be the only victim of oil-and-gas-field contamination to guzzle a glass of toxin-laced water. But last year, there were 206 spills in Colorado connected to or suspected in 48 cases of water contamination. Since 2003, there have been around 300 cases. State records show BTEX has seeped into water wells when the casings designed to keep oil and gas wells from contaminating groundwater have given way. Methane, the most common contaminant found in water wells, has blown a pump house off its foundation, forced the evacuation of homes and turned tap water flammable. In Prather’s part of the country, a Garfield County hydrogeologic study shows chloride is rising in many springs besides his, indicating they are being affected by drilling.

“I’ve always stuck up for oil and gas, but now when we need them to stand up and do what’s right, they won’t,” Prather said. “If I was asked what has made me the maddest in all this, it’s the oil and gas commission not doing what they are supposed to do.” Three companies operating in the area — Marathon Oil Co., Petroleum Development Corp. and Nonsuch Natural Gas — have been released from notices of alleged violation. Williams Production has been released from a notice on one drill site but is still being investigated on another site above the Prathers’ place. The oil and gas commission has spent $129,000 on the services of four environmental contractors and two chemistry laboratories and a still untallied amount on hundreds of hours of staff time and travel…

The four companies initially suspected in the contamination of Prather’s drinking water formed a group to investigate the problem. They installed 44 groundwater monitoring wells and 37 soil gas probes. As he stood out in the middle of the monitoring pipes that bristle up the draw from the Prathers’ spring, attorney Richard Djokic, who represents the Prathers, called the commission’s actions thus far “enforcement by negotiation” and likened the self-investigation to a bungled crime scene. “Imagine you have a body on the ground here, and we’re all standing around holding guns. A cop comes and says, ‘Figure out amongst yourselves who did this and let me know.’ ” [Dave Neslin, director of the oil and gas commission] argued with that analogy. He said the commission staff reviews all the companies’ studies and raw data.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Telluride: USFS extends Bear Creek avalanche mapping permit

From The Telluride Daily Planet (Matthew Beaudin):

Starting Nov. 16 and running through ski season, the Upper Bear Creek area will be closed to all travelers from 6 to 10 a.m. Ski Patrollers will not control the drainage but study it, sometimes using explosives. “It’s just a matter of mapping everything,” Telski COE Dave Riley said. Crews will also dig pits in hopes of better understanding a snowpack that’s as fussy as a 2-year-old…

Telski’s current permit was set to expire on Dec. 31. The new permit allows the ski area to continue mapping Upper Bear Creek’s dangers through the ski season. “Reissuing the permit for the upcoming winter will allow Telski to collect a full season’s worth of information and complete the snow study in Bear Creek,” Shutza said.

More San Miguel watershed coverage here.

Fort Collins, Wellington and Larimer County receive $2.9 million flood mitigation FEMA grant

From the Loveland Reporter Herald:

Fort Collins, Wellington and Larimer County have received a $2.9 million mitigation grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to mitigate flood plain issues on Coal Creek. The tributary to the Box Elder Basin is in Northern Larimer County near Wellington. The city, town and county must match 25 percent of the grant, which they will do with work and money. The work includes improvements to the North Poudre Inlet Canal into Clark Reservoir and increasing the volume the reservoir could hold in case of a flood. The Boxelder Basin is 265 square miles that extends from Northern Larimer County into Wyoming.

More South Platte Basin coverage here.

Victor City Council hires temporary wastewater plant operator

From the Pikes Peak Courier Gazette (Norma Engelberg):

At its first October meeting, Victor City Council hired Joseph M. Groves as interim wastewater plant operator. On Sept. 24, council fired the previous operator, leaving the city without a licensed operator in violation of state statute. Mayor Serena Bielz said the city received a letter from the state to that effect and council had until Oct. 8 to hire someone with a license to operate the plant or begin paying fees. When asked how the state knew the city had no licensed operator, she said it was the duty of the mayor to inform the state when there were changes in the water and wastewater plant operations. Groves was hired officially at the meeting but is to be paid $250 a week retroactive to Sept. 25. Now that an interim operator has been hired, the city will begin advertising the position.

More wastewater coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: CPDHE reaches penalty settlements regarding Roan Plateau discharges

Here’s a release from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment:

The Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has reached penalty settlements totaling $680,000 with three oil and gas companies regarding stormwater violations on the Roan Plateau near the town of Parachute, in rural Garfield County. In 2006 and 2007, the three companies, Enterprise Products Operating LLC, Marathon Oil Company and Berry Petroleum Company, began construction activities associated with oil and gas exploration and production on the Roan Plateau.

On April 15, 2008, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, on behalf of the department, filed a complaint for injunction and penalties and requested the state District Court to issue a temporary restraining order against the companies for failing to control construction-related stormwater runoff in waterways north of the town of Parachute. The uncontrolled discharges were to Corral Gulch, Garden Gulch and Parachute Creek, which are state-regulated waters.

The complaint outlined that road and pipeline construction activities lacked the necessary stormwater control and stabilization practices to minimize sediment runoff caused by rainfall and snowmelt. As a result, loose soil was washing from an access road and pipeline project into Corral Gulch, then over a cliff into Garden Gulch. The sediment-laden water then washed into Parachute Creek, a stream that serves as habitat for trout and other cold-water aquatic life.

While the companies did obtain stormwater discharge permits for the construction activities, they did not meet the permit requirements for implementing best management practices for stormwater pollution prevention, nor for the development of functional and effective stormwater management plans.

While the oil and gas industry is vital to our state, it is important that oil and gas exploration and production companies employ sound stormwater management systems to protect the environment of the state, said Martha Rudolph, director of environmental programs at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. If not properly managed, stormwater discharges from construction activities can impact the biological, chemical and physical integrity of receiving waters.

On April 22, 2008, the department executed an agreement (joint stipulation) on the injunctive requirements requested in the District Court complaint, and the oil companies agreed to expeditiously implement proper stormwater management systems for their operations.

Under terms of these settlements, the following civil penalties will be paid to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and deposited into the states Water Quality Improvement Fund:

Berry Petroleum Company $150,000

Enterprise Products Operating LLC $182,000

Marathon Oil Company $98,000

These penalty monies will be used to provide grants for the improvement of water quality in the impacted communities; for the planning, design and construction of stormwater and domestic wastewater treatment facilities; and for nonfederal matching funds for non-point source projects, said Rudolph.

In addition, Berry Petroleum Company has agreed to donate a total of $250,000 for the following supplemental environmental projects:

$100,000 to the United States Geological Survey to be used for its Common Data Repository and Water Resource Assessment project

$150,000 to hire a third party contractor to perform water quality data collection from streams and springs on the Roan Plateau, in areas where little or no water quality data exist, for contribution to the USGSs Common Data Repository and Water Resource Assessment project

Prior to becoming fully effective, the proposed settlements will be noticed for a 30-day public comment period that will begin in October. Copies of the proposed settlement documents and Compliance Orders on Consent, can be found on the Web site of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, listed under the compliance orders on consent heading at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/enforcement/2009/2009Stormwater/Stormwater09.html

More oil and gas coverage here.

Glenwood Springs: Tamarisk cleanup this weekend

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Hannah Goulding):

Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers is seeking volunteers for an all-day tamarisk-removal project Saturday. In addition to removing the trees, the nonprofit group will revegetate trees and shrubs indigenous to the banks. Volunteers will start at Two Rivers Park, focusing on both banks of the Colorado River between West Glenwood and the Hot Springs. The event is scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

More tamarisk control coverage here and here.

EPA to take another look at Atrazine

The EPA is going to look at the effects of the Bush administration policy regarding the use of Atrazine. Here’s a report from Dina Cappiello writing for the Associated Press via The Denver Post. From the article:

EPA monitoring of 150 drinking water systems in the Midwest, where the chemical is most heavily used, have not detected it at concentrations that would trigger health problems, including cancer. But new studies have shown that even at low levels atrazine in drinking water can cause low birth weights, birth defects and reproductive problems.

In 2003, under the Bush administration, the EPA allowed atrazine to continue to be used with few restrictions. “We are taking a hard look at the decision made by the previous administration on atrazine,” said Steve Owens, an assistant administrator, in a statement released Wednesday. “Our examination of atrazine will…help determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate.”[…]

“The hope is that they will decide at the end of the day that they should be regulating it more stringently, or they will just take if off the market,” said Mae Wu, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued the EPA in 2003 for failing to adequately evaluate atrazine’s effects on endangered species. More recently, operators of drinking water systems in six Midwestern states sued manufacturers, seeking reimbursement for the cost of removing the chemical from their water supplies.

More water pollution coverage here.

Animas River: Low flows to end the water year

FromThe Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):

Statistics from the U.S. Geological Survey show the daily flow in the Animas last month averaged 194 cubic feet per second while the 2002 average flow was 317 cfs. A USGS graph shows the flow in the Animas last month was well below the 97-year average of 463 cfs for September. The 194 cfs of last month compares to a 97-year average that fluctuated from 400 to slightly more than 300 cfs. Since 2002, the September flow in the Animas had rebounded. In 2003, the Animas carried a daily average flow of 589 cfs. Then from 2004 through 2008, the average daily flow in September was 600, 344, 489, 656 and 343 cfs. The all-time low flow in the Animas in September apparently was in 1956, when the river carried a daily average of 161 cfs. Other years when the September flow averaged less than this year were 1974 (174 cfs), 1978 (201 cfs), 1959 (208 cfs) and 1953 (211 cfs).

More Animas River coverage here.

Conservation and urban water providers

Here’s a look at water planning and conservation, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

While the Colorado Water Conservation Board is looking at several ways to increase or share water supplies, cutting back on urban demand also will be a factor as part of the mix of strategies. “There really needs to be an effort to meld land-use planning into the availability of water,” Reed Dils, who represents the Arkansas River basin on the CWCB, said earlier this year in a discussion on urban conservation. “We’re just doing it piecemeal.”

Some of those pieces are coming together within Colorado, however, as urban use decreases and studies look at how to get by on even less water per person. The most noticeable effect has been the decline of use by individual water users in the cities since the drought in 2002. In some cases, it has been caused by continued restrictions and higher rates, although some cities, like Denver, have waged large education campaigns…

Last year, the Pueblo Board of Water Works found users are consistently watering their lawns less – outside watering accounts for about two-thirds of Puebloans’ water use. Surveys show customers are in favor of more conservation measures on the household level. Peak demand days were lower this year as a result, and it appears metered water sales might bring in less revenue than projected this year…

Meanwhile there are some communities being planned in a way that reduces water use, while allowing storm flows off new development to return to rivers in a more natural way, reducing the worst effects of minor floods and improving water quality. Two of those in Colorado were part of a recent study by Western Resource Advocates, a group that works for wise use of water, among other environmental causes. A neighborhood being developed at the former Stapleton airport site is being developed at a higher density than traditional suburbs – about 12 units per acre. That will allow for wetlands and improved drainage throughout the 12,000-unit development. About one-quarter of the homes have been built, and are selling well. The design of Stapleton houses, both inside and out results in a savings of water of about 40 percent per capita, according to the report. A proposed 3,000-acre, 12,500-unit development in Douglas County called Sterling Ranch is targeting supplying the needs of five households per acre-foot of water, almost twice the efficiency of nearby development…

Colorado State University-Fort Collins is studying how to recycle graywater – the product of sinks, showers and washing machines – directly on-site for irrigation and flushing toilets. Researchers are also studying how much water savings can be obtained from rainfall harvesting, reuse, conservation and graywater use.

More conservation coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment assesses $680,000 in fines against three oil and gas producers over Parachute Creek violations

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

According to a press release from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and a story in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, penalty settlements totaling $680,000 will be paid by Enterprise Products Operating LLC, Berry Petroleum Co., and Marathon Oil Co. for the incident last year.

The state, which will put the money into its Water Quality Improvement Fund, will use the funds to improve water quality in the Parachute area through the “planning, design and construction of stormwater and domestic wastewater treatment facilities.” State officials said the companies did not use best-management practices to prevent pollution, although none of the companies admitted wrongdoing in the settlement.

More oil and gas coverage here.

Arkansas Valley tamarisk control update

From the Ag Journal (Susan Pieper):

Several partners including NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), Colorado Legends and Legacies and Mile High Youth Corps, Colorado State Conservation Board, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State University, Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), Fremont County Weed Manager J.R. Phillips and his department, Fremont County Weed Control Department (FCWD); Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO), Sangre de Cristo and Southeast Colorado Resource Conservation and Development Councils, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Wildlife Program, Upper Arkansas Cooperative Weed Management Area (UACWM), several conservation districts including Fremont, Turkey Creek, South Pueblo County, El Paso, Central Colorado, Northeast Prowers, Bent County, West Otero Timpas, Custer County-Divide, Upper Huerfano and Spanish Peaks Purgatoire River Conservation Districts plus several individual landowners have undertaken a massive effort to remove tamarisk along the Arkansas River and its tributaries and have provided financial and in-kind support for all the projects being undertaken in the various counties and individual conservation districts.

Also providing the same type of support for the projects are the county commissioners in each of the counties along this stretch of the Arkansas River, Colorado State Land Board, Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District, Holly Flood District and Tri-State Generation and Transmission.

Generally, water issues can divide communities, but the eradication of this scourge has united producers and governmental agencies across property lines, county lines and even the state line.

Although the Arkansas River banks are the primary target for tamarisk removal, the plan can not be successful within only those boundaries. The Arkansas River, just like any large body of running water, is fed by tributaries and with plants that can produce up to 50,000 seeds annually, controlling the spread of tamarisk on the creeks and arroyos upstream will support the efforts along the river.

In Colorado, approximately 1,414 acres along the Arkansas River in Prowers County have been targeted for eradication with the boards of directors of several conservation districts accepting bids and choosing the applicator to assist them with controlling and eventually ridding the river of this alien species. The same is true for areas up the river where approximately 850 acres were treated, also.

<p.In the lower regions of the Arkansas River, such as in Prowers County and across the state line into Kansas, herbicide application of the plants from the air was chosen.

In Fremont and Custer counties, the targeted areas were tributary streams.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Green Mountain Reservoir update

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Due to continuing demand for Green Mountain water, we are still releasing around 740 cfs from the reservoir to the Lower Blue. I am anticipating that this demand will stay on through the weekend and probably well into next week. The reservoir is at an elevation of 7920 and dropping about 2/3 of a foot a day.

More Green Mountain Reservoir coverage here.

Bill to be introduced next session would allow water courts to consider additional mitigation before water is moved out of the basin of origin

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“We’ve all seen examples of bad buy-and-dries in the state,” said Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo. “With water folks itchy to move as much water as possible, we have to leave sidebars on to leave water in rural communities for our lifetimes and for our grandchildren’s lifetimes. If we don’t, we’re not going to see any little towns.” Pace will begin explaining his proposal at public meetings this week, beginning with a Colorado Water Congress committee Friday. He is also planning meetings with other groups in the near future…

The bill would allow judges in water courts to consider additional mitigation on any transfer of water between any of the state’s seven divisions – water administration units set up along the state’s major watersheds. Judges would be able to apply guidelines already set out in the 1937 state act governing conservancy districts. “There’s nothing new there. That’s a law that’s been on the books for 70 years,” Pace said. However, the provisions of that act would be widened to cover transfers from basins other than the Colorado River, all beneficial uses and any water exporter, not just conservancy districts. Alternatively, water exporters could develop mitigation plans with conservancy districts to avoid court-imposed actions…

“The bill doesn’t define the type of mitigation or limit what can be in the agreement,” Pace said. “On the Western Slope it might mean compensatory storage, while in Otero County it could mean money for schools.” The bill would not apply to in-basin transactions that do not cross state water district boundaries, such as the purchase of shares on the Bessemer Ditch by the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Pace said.

More transmountain/transbasin diversions coverage here.

S. 787: Clean Water Restoration Act

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

The groups, including the Izaak Walton League of America and the National Wildlife Federation said Wednesday such unregulated pollution could contaminate drinking water for more than 620,000 people living in Larimer, Weld and Boulder counties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agrees water contamination from future mining and development could go unregulated in the headwaters of some streams in the region. Pollution could threaten drinking water here because most of the county’s water supply comes from rivers fed by streams that can’t be regulated because they can’t be navigated by boat, the groups said.

Scott Kovarovics of the Izaak Walton League said if someone wants to pollute a dry stream, the law might allow that. The concern stems from a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the kinds of streams that can be protected under the Clean Water Act. According to the EPA, only those rivers and streams that affect interstate commerce – those people that can navigate by boat or are connected to such streams – are protected by the act. Excluded from protection are streams, possibly including some high in the mountains, that flow less than a few months each year and exist on private land or don’t flow into a stream that people can navigate with a boat. “We should be concerned about those (streams) because those areas are where we have a lot of our snowmelt,” said Dick Clark, wetland coordinator for the EPA in Denver…

Generally, Clark said, streams on public land are protected, and so are high mountain streams that either flow all year long or most of the year. Unregulated contamination could flow downstream from private land being mined high in the mountains, he said…

The number of streams that aren’t regulated in Larimer County aren’t known because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which determines whether federal regulations apply to certain streams, doesn’t keep track of them, said Tim Carey, chief of the Corps’ Denver regulatory office. Only two streams in Colorado have ever been determined not to fall under the Clean Water Act, Carey said. One was in the plains of eastern Douglas County, where the stream disappears into the sand, he said…

Despite the concern, the Poudre is likely to remain uncontaminated because there is little development potential in its watershed, Gertig said. “Since the Poudre is a wild and scenic river, protection of that designation may be more powerful than anything else,” he said.

More S. 787 coverage here.

Aspinall Unit update

From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):

Crystal releases will be reduced another 150 cfs this afternoon, October 7th, resulting in Gunnison River flows below the Gunnison Tunnel of 500 – 550 cfs. Crystal releases will be further reduced in the coming weeks as the Gunnison Tunnel decreases diversions. However, these changes should not affect overall flows in the Black Canyon or Gunnison Gorge and, barring any unforeseen hydrologic events, we expect conditions to remain fairly constant over the next several weeks.

Moab: 16 million tons of tailings on the move

From the Associated Press (Dan Stark) via the Aspen Times:

Since this spring, more than 330,000 tons of uranium tailings have been hauled away from a huge pile near Moab and deposited in disposal pits 30 miles to the north, according to the U.S Department of Energy. Crews began running two trainloads a day in August, doubling the amount of waste shipped to Crescent Junction each day. The pace will pick up even more next month with longer trains and bigger containers, Donald Metzler, the project’s manager for DOE, said Wednesday.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Dan Morgan, ‘I don’t think anyone should expect Washington to do the right thing if citizens aren’t informed and raising hell

Here’s a recap of College’s State of the Rockies series Monday session, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Among its many activities, the Environmental Working Group has compiled a database that details federal farm subsidies for conservation, disaster and crop support down to the farm level. For instance, Colorado farms received $3.1 billion in federal payments from 1995-2006. “If you’re going to change the world, you need data,” said Shannon, an award-winning journalist prior to joining the group. “I don’t think anyone should expect Washington to do the right thing if citizens aren’t informed and raising hell.”[…]

The Climate Bill would add the conflict of managing farmland for environmental purposes like sequestering carbon against the current dilemma of growing corn either as food or for ethanol. There are also efforts to exempt farms from the fuel consumption provisions of the bill, Morgan said.

More Colorado water coverage here.

Pitkin County urged to seek water rights for instream flows

A big part of Colorado’s economy – particularly on the west slope — is recreation. Here’s a look at reserving water rights for instream flows for recreation, from Janet Urquhart writing for The Aspen Times. From the article:

Pitkin County has discussed, but has not sought, an in-stream water right for a planned kayak park on the Roaring Fork River at Basalt. Glenwood Springs boasts what has become a hot spot in the state for kayaking and surfing at its wave on the Colorado River, but has not sought an in-stream water right to help preserve flows there. During a joint meeting of commissioners and members of the Glenwood Springs City Council Tuesday in Aspen, [Pitkin County Commissioner Rachel Richards] urged Glenwood council members to consider seeking the recreational rights. Front Range water users don’t want additional water allotted to recreational uses, she warned. “They don’t want those diversions,” she said…

When Glenwood built its whitewater park, it reserved the right to apply for in-stream rights for recreation, but did not seek them, said Mayor Bruce Christensen. The city anticipated a fight with Front Range interests, feared securing the rights would be costly and figured senior rights on the Colorado downstream from Glenwood would help keep flows in the park secure, he explained. “Now that the park is created, it’s a logical next step,” Richards said…

Richards also warned against counting as permanent the water rights held by Excel Energy’s Shoshone hydroelectric plant on the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon. It commands important flows in the Colorado that benefit Glenwood’s various rafting and kayaking opportunities, but Shoshone has become a small part of Excel’s portfolio, she noted. “There are a lot of concerns about what we here take for granted as water flows through our area,” Richards said…

When the Shoshone plant was off line for repairs in 2007, a deal was reached to maintain a certain level of flows on the river through Glenwood Canyon to protect endangered fish and the rafting industry. At that time, Glenwood and Aspen approached [Xcel] about acquiring Shoshone water rights but the energy company wasn’t interested in selling them, Christensen said.

More Roaring Fork watershed coverage here.

Elkhead Reservoir to close for boating October 25

From the Craig Daily Press

Elkhead Reservoir will be open weekends only, staff and weather permitting. The reservoir will be closed to boating for the season Oct. 25. The park will remain open for hunting, fishing and hiking only. If there are any questions, call Yampa River State Park office at 276-2061.

More Elkhead Reservoir coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek: Colorado Springs is seeking to recover legal fees from Pueblo County resulting from lawsuit over sewage spills

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A motion filed late last week in the Denver U.S. District Court asks for consideration of payment of legal fees, even though Colorado Springs agreed to pay $17,750 of the Sierra Club’s fees after U.S. District Judge Walker Miller ruled in the Sierra Club’s favor on some points. Colorado Springs was fined $35,000. The settlement with the Sierra Club left open the possibility of Colorado Springs seeking to recover its costs for [Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut]’s portion of the lawsuit. Thiebaut, along with the Sierra Club, filed the federal lawsuit in 2005 after sewage spills into Fountain Creek. Thiebaut’s lawsuit was thrown out in 2007, and his motion for reconsideration was denied in early 2008.

“Thiebaut’s legal theory for his authority and standing here was baseless and without foundation, and he continued to pursue his case long after it should have been clear that he lacked authority to do so,” attorney John Walsh wrote in the latest motion. Walsh argued that as a district attorney, Thiebaut could not file a civil suit in federal court and was not authorized by the legislature to do so. “Thiebaut never did identify the specific legal basis for his alleged authority,” Walsh wrote in the motion. “Instead, rather than rely on legal authority, Thiebaut continued to rely on a baseless interpretation of his own (nearly limitless) authority, calculated to justify the action he wanted to take.” Walsh claims Colorado Springs prevailed in its motion to remove Thiebaut from the case and is therefore entitled to recovery of expenses…

“In my opinion our case was a better case, which would have resulted in an even better order,” Thiebaut said. “Nevertheless, Colorado Springs has undertaken new programs to eliminate spills as a direct result of our lawsuit.” Last week’s motion moves in the opposite direction of recent actions by Colorado Springs, Thiebaut said. “This request is rather ironic considering that Colorado Springs continues to note that now it wants to cooperate with Pueblo on projects like Fountain Creek and the Southern Delivery System,” Thiebaut said.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Montezuma County: Montezuma Valley Irrigation vs. Dolores Water Conservancy and Reclamation

From the Cortez Journal (Steve Grazier/Joe Hanel):

Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. filed a lawsuit June 5 in U.S. District Court against the Dolores Water Conservancy District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for allegedly not meeting water requirements agreed to in a 1977 pact via the Dolores Project…

MVI attorney Kelly McCabe said Monday discussions on a possible case settlement have been ongoing between himself and conservancy district attorney Barry Spear, of the Durango firm Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel. “Our settlement conferences with the U.S. magistrate are continuing. We’re still working and expect to be through this month,” said McCabe, who noted that a status conference is set today in Durango’s U.S. District Court…

According to the MVI lawsuit, the irrigation company “has been improperly charged (or billed) and assessed ‘delivery’ of Dolores Project water in the amount of 29,658 acre-feet despite MVI’s direct-flow rights in the Dolores River have produced 100 percent of MVI’s demand. The District (also) unilaterally determined and assessed an 8,000 acre-foot deficit against MVI to commence the 2009 irrigation season.”[…]

MVI is requesting that the federal court declare a judgment that Dolores Project water deliveries to MVI shall not … be charged to the irrigation company until all irrigation requirements are met by the conservancy. In addition, MVI is asking for “other relief” that the court deems appropriate. MVI’s case was assigned to federal court because one of the defendants – the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation – is a federal agency…

MVI was formed in 1920. The water company began receiving irrigation water in 1986 via the Dolores Project, which is managed by the conservancy district and overseen by reclamation, along with other project users.

More Montezuma County coverage here.

Fountain Creek: Sierra Club cleanup this weekend

From The Pueblo Chieftain:

…[T]he Sierra Club Water Sentinels and interested volunteers will gather from 9 to 11:30 a.m. Saturday at El Centro del Quinto Sol, 609 E. Erie Ave. “Litter on streets eventually ends up in the creek area due to rain and wind. Picking up litter is one way of preventing the damage caused by litter on creek wildlife and water quality,” said Jenny Kedward, coordinator. For more information, call 582-0249.

More Fountain Creek coverage here.

Greenway Foundation

Here’s a background piece about Jeff Shoemaker, the director of the Greenway Foundation from Susan Dugan writing for The Washington Park Profile.

More South Platte Basin coverage here.

Morgan County source water protection plan drafting committee meeting recap

From The Fort Morgan Times (John La Porte):

Colleen Williams, a source water specialist with the Colorado Rural Water Association, a nonprofit organization that helps water districts and other groups with source water protection plans, presented the group with a draft of a plan for the Morgan County area. Members of the group will review the plan and suggest revisions. A final version of the plan is to be presented at the group’s next meeting Nov. 12 at 1:30 p.m. at the quality water district’s headquarters.

County buy-in to source water protection plans appears likely — Tony Carlson, one of the county commissioners; Barb Gorrell, zoning administrator; and Steve Enfante, emergency management coordinator, have been attending committee meetings. The plan will address a wide range of concerns about the protection of source water and ways of addressing those concerns. Public education looms large as a means of protecting water. In addition to county officials, the Northeast Colorado Oil and Gas Association, the city of Brush, Log Lane Village, the Morgan Conservation District and other entities have been involved in working on the plan.

The group is focusing on three areas — Hay Gulch near the border between Morgan and Weld counties, San Arroyo Creek southwest of Fort Morgan and Beaver Creek south of Brush. There are more than 600 oil and gas wells within the areas, but most of them are abandoned and capped. Regulations now call for oil and gas companies to use liners in water pits when drilling wells. In addition to oil and gas wells, other areas of possible concern to source water quality include transportation (particularly spills from vehicles), growth and development, septic systems, agricultural practices (especially fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides), private water wells, underground water storage, recharge ponds, residential practices and the Clean Harbors hazardous waste storage facility on Highway 36.

More Morgan County coverage here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Environmental effects catalogued

Here’s a recap on Thursday night’s meeting of the Garfield County Energy Advisory Board, from Dennis Webb writing for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:

…the level of disturbance where any development might take place would be significant, said Jeremy Boak, director of the industry-funded Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines. Boak said oil shale development would have less of a region-wide impact on the land than has been seen with local natural gas development. That’s thanks to the world-class richness and unmatched density of the region’s oil shale resource, which has underground concentrations of as much as a million barrels of oil per acre, he said. But where any oil shale development might occur, “you will for a time essentially have scraped off the surface if you’re doing a process like Shell’s,” Boak said…

Boak said the biggest environmental challenge for shale development is water — how much is used and how quality is affected.

More coverage from the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson). From the article:

He [Jeremy Boak, head of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the School of Mines] said one company, Red Leaf Resources in Utah, had recently completed tests on a shale-oil extraction process that involved heating up the rock in place, underground, and piping out the kerogen…

He noted that Shell, which is one of the corporate sponsors of his institute, is working on a process involving the stripping away of the surface, followed by the drilling of numerous bore holes to be used to heat the “extraction zone” to a temperature of some 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Other bores are drilled around the extraction zone, to be used to freeze the area around the zone to prevent the oil and other contaminants from flowing into nearby ground water. Once the oil has been extracted, he said, the process calls for the injection of water into the bore-holes that turns to steam and scours out the area once permeated by the kerogen. That water is then to be treated and recycled, he said…

“But it will be pretty disruptive of the surface,” he said of that technology, which would involve in-situ plants that would move from one zone to another, scraping topsoil and drilling holes. He said reclamation would be easily accomplished using the same topsoil that had been removed prior to the process. Boak indicated that some of the new technological processes are said to consume relatively little water, but conceded that studies are needed to determine how much water is available for such uses, and what might be the effects of oil shale extraction on area water supplies and water quality. In addition, he said, there are potential impacts to the general ecology of the area that must be identified, as well as the socio-economic effects on the region’s communities.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Hot Sulphur Springs turning dirt on new treatment plant

From the Sky-Hi Daily News (Tonya Bina):

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, in the amount of $3.3 million to the town, is paying for a new state-of-the art water plant, a new clear well, a second 230-gallon storage tank, a new water intake system and related river restoration work. The existing water plant will be retrofitted to be used as a pre-treatment facility, while the new neighboring plant will boast the latest technology in water filtration. Three of the town’s contracted water engineering consultants — Curt Thompson, Ed Duerr and Geoff Elliott — said the two plants combined will make “cutting-edge” technology…

The new system, said Thompson, water program manager for Merrick & Company engineering of Aurora, should satisfy the needs of Hot Sulphur Springs consumers for the next 15 to 20 years. The town will have the option to add a second membrane to the system in the future which, depending on how much Hot Sulphur Springs grows, would make the system sufficient for the next 40 years…

Low bidder Garney Companies Inc. of Littleton starts work on the new plant and system improvements this week with a completion date set for October 2010. In statements, Garney outlined that it aims to “use local work forces when available, hire local subcontractors and suppliers whenever possible, and contribute to the businesses of the community.”

More water treatment coverage here.

Bayfield: New wastewater plant online and performing well

It’s been a long time coming but Bayfield’s shiny new treatment plant is online and performing well, according to a report from Carole McWilliams writing for the Pine River Times. From the article:

Bayfield’s new sewage treatment plant has been up and running since mid-September. Town officials are delighted with the quality of effluent it is producing. They hosted a tour and grand opening of the plant on Sept. 24. The treatment system is called a “sequencing batch reactor. Outside in huge concrete tanks are the open lagoons. At any given time, one is still and one is aerating. Sludge settles out in the still pool and is screened into a third pool. From there the sludge is piped into the control building where water is pressed out of the sludge and it is compacted and moved into an outside container to be transported to a landfill. The sludge looks like black dirt, Public Works Director Ron Saba said. With the sludge removed, the treated effluent is passed through an ultraviolet light chamber to kill bacteria before it is discharged into the Pine River.
The effluent is cleaner than the river, Saba proclaimed.

The effluent is cleaner than the river, Saba proclaimed. He led a tour of the control building. The first room is a small lab for testing sewage and treated effluent samples to make sure the plant is operating properly and within state permit limits. The effluent has been testing virtually zero for ammonia and suspended solids, and 2 parts per million on bio-oxygen demand which indicates sewage residue, Saba said. “That’s amazing. The old plant, we would barely make our permit limit.” The first room also has a computer system that shows what the plant is doing in real time. After that is the large noisy room where the sewage comes into the plant. Non-sewage trash is screened out. Then a lift station sends the sewage out and up into the sequencing batch reactor tanks. “Bugs” (specialized bacteria) in the tanks do the treatment work. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe provided “seed” sludge to start the bug colony, Saba said. “We put 25,000 gallons in the first basin, and it started right up. Then the second basin.” The start-up was aided by perfect weather conditions, he added. Seasonal temperature changes won’t affect operation of this system as they did with the old lagoons. Saba and his crew are still determining how much the high tech system will cost to operate, mainly electric use and staff time. So far the staff time is equivalent to one full-time person. It may need someone there seven days a week, eight hours a day, he said. Saba said the last room where the sludge is dried and compacted is one of the most critical and labor intensive. He speculated that the process might have to happen every day, “for sure three or four times a week.” It depends on strength of sewage coming in, not total volume, he said. Someone has to be there overseeing this process. The plant has a large emergency generator to keep it going during a power failure.

More wastewater coverage here and here.

Hotchkiss: New treatment plant on schedule

From the Delta County Independent:

On the Hotchkiss Public Works Director’s wish list is that the new water treatment plant upgrade will be completed and operational by the end of January 2010. Right now, Mike Owens said the department is hard at work completing the exterior of the building while the weather holds. Members of the Hotchkiss Public Works Department stand next to a control skid with the membrane modules they will assemble for the water plant upgrade. From left to right are Chad Lloyd, Don White, Leonard McCulloch and Greg Allen. Lloyd, who is a deputy with the Hotchkiss Marshal’s Office, is working part-time on the installation. They have completed framing the building. The doors are in so the new Pall equipment is secure. Scott Electric is in the process of the electrical installation. Once the exterior is completed the crew will begin plumbing the new equipment, making all the connections to the Pall system.

More water treatment coverage here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Montrose County approves Piñon Ridge Mill 3-0

From the Telluride Daily Planet (Matthew Beaudin):

The commissioners voted 3-0 to approve the Piñon Ridge Mill, put forth by Energy Fuels Inc. Now, Energy Fuels must collect approval from the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment — a process opponents pledge will be heavily contested. The approval the company collected in Montrose was laden with 19 conditions, meaning the company must address county concerns such how much ore it processes per day. Commissioners also made a condition allowing them to tack on even more conditions in the future, cracking a door for more review.

The 880-acre project site is on private land zoned for agricultural use, not for industrial operations like processing ore, thus meriting a special use permit from Montrose County. The mill has torn an otherwise quiet region in two. Supporters say the revival of the uranium industry can create much-needed jobs in an area short of them and that uranium is the area’s roots — ore pulled from the earth went toward the Manhattan Project and shot life into boom towns like Naturita and now-bust Uravan. Opponents, meanwhile, say that the industry is part of the past and sickened people and the land alike and claim its environmental effects will be too great — from affecting crops to impacting tourism.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Flaming Gorge pipeline: Western Resource Advocates pushes needs assessment while southern Wyoming towns help with ‘evaluation’

Here’s a release from Western Resource Advocates:

At the urging of Western Resource Advocates and others, the US Army Corps of Engineers is requiring proponents of a controversial water pipeline to prove that it is needed. The proposed Million Project, a 560-mile pipeline that would move water from southwestern Wyoming to Colorado’s populous Front Range, is applying for a permit — yet there are no identified customers for the water.

At least six other major water projects that pre-date the Million Project are already in the planning stages. And although the Million Project claims it is needed to meet the Front Range’s future water demands, the proponents of these other projects have shown no indication that they’ll abandon their plans and rely on Million’s proposal instead. Thus, as a mechanism for solving anticipated regional water demands, the Million pipeline proposal is at least a decade too late.

The Million Project is vehemently opposed by residents of Wyoming and is under scrutiny in Colorado. As the largest proposed private water project in Colorado’s history, the Million Project raises concerns about speculation because it is against Colorado water law to acquire water without first identifying who will use it.

Demonstrating the need for the pipeline is but one troubling question confronting the Million Project. The movement of up to 250,000 acre-feet of water each year would require a vast amount of energy, adding to the ecological impacts of the pipeline. The pipeline could also jeopardize endangered fish, transport invasive species, and diminish recreation and wildlife habitat in the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the Green River that is already suffering from drought.

Meanwhile, from the Associated Press (Ben Neary) via The Denver Post:

U.S. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming says local governments in southwestern Wyoming will help to evaluate a private developer’s proposal to build a pipeline to take water from the Green River.
Colorado entrepreneur Aaron Million has proposed building a multibillion dollar pipeline to carry water from the Green River in Wyoming to Colorado’s Front Range. Barrasso, a Republican, says he stepped in to allow Sweetwater County, the Sweetwater County Conservation District and the cities of Rock Springs and Green River to serve as participating agencies with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in reviewing the pipeline proposal.

More Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here and here.

Buena Vista: Town board of trustees cooperating with Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District augmentation plan

From the Chaffee County Times (Kathy Davis):

In a letter to town administrator Sue Boyd dated Sept. 17, town water attorney Cindy Covell said that the UAWCD filed a water court application seeking approval of a global augmentation plan to allow the UAWCD to provide augmentation to wells, reservoirs and surface diversions that divert water from the upper Arkansas River and its tributaries, including Cottonwood Creek. This plan supplements UAWCD’s earlier plans and allows augmentation water to be provided from many sources, Covell said. The decree would allow UAWCD to have considerably more flexibility in the use of its water supplies, Covell said. The goal is to have an augmentation plan for UAWCD in which new users can subscribe without going to water court themselves, she said. According to the resolution approved by the trustees, the town originally filed a statement of opposition. Covell said the initial proposal had very few safeguards to assure protection of the town’s Cottonwood Creek water rights. The current proposed decree contains provisions that will provide greater protection of the town’s water rights than provided by the original proposals, she said. “The revised decree says that Buena Vista can monitor and make sure the town has accountability on decisions they make on augmentation,” town administrator Sue Boyd said. This is a tool, she said. Covell cautioned that the town must pay attention to this plan to make sure that it is operated properly. The plan may also result in the availability of water supplies for other projects. Town water engineer Patricia Flood of Wright Water Engineers has also reviewed the proposed decree and the technical issues involved in this proposed augmentation plan, Covell said.

More Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District coverage here.

Custer County: Fountain updates residents on plans for H2O ranch purchase

From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):

The City of Fountain purchased the 480-acre ranch for $3.5 million in partnership with the city of Widefield in March 2008 to acquire some 700-acre-feet of water. The ranch is located about two-and one-half miles west of Westcliffe on Kettle Lane. The purpose of the meeting, said Fountain and Widefield officials, was to let locals know what the future plans are for the water. “We are taking a forthright approach with no secrets,” said City of Fountain Utilities Director Larry Patterson. “We want to communicate with everyone and hear what they have to say.”[…]

Patterson also said the H2O ranch case has been filed in state water court, and he expects the case to take up to four years for completion. As part of the process for water court, said Patterson, the two entities are providing an engineering review and opinion regarding the water rights on the H2O ranch. Also in the works, said Patterson, are individual meetings with neighboring property owners. “We do not want to harm our neighbors’ ability to receive their water,” said Patterson…

“Our number one consideration at this time,” said Paterson, “is to lease the land with part of the water.” The amount of water which would be leased with the land, said Patterson, will depend upon the final water decree. Patterson also said, “We are not in the development business,” adding that the land will probably be sold sometime in the future. Other considerations, said Patterson, are placing a part of the ranch in a conservation easement, and working with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservation District to exchange the water.

More Custer County coverage here.

Windsor: Town board supports loan application for sewer improvements

From the Windsor Beacon (Ashley Keesis-Wood):

The Windsor Town Board approved a resolution on Monday night that supports a loan application for sewer system improvements that include constructing a new interceptor sewer, headworks and pumping station. The loan process is contingent on approval of the site and utility plans. “This is important because it will let us go forward with the construction,” said Windsor Director of Public Works Terry Walker.

The town has been working for several years to plan for expansion and improvement of the wastewater treatment plant. “First, we need to consolidate all the previous efforts into one 20-year wastewater utility plan,” Walker said. That plan is expected to be completed later this fall. The state must approve the site plan application, but for the state to do so, the utility plan must be completed…

To pay for the approximately $5 million project, the town can apply for a low-interest loan of 2.9 percent over 20 years through the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority.

More wastewater coverage here.

Delta-Montrose Electric Association hopes to provide 5% of maximum annual demand with small hydroelectric generation plants

From the Telluride Watch (Alan Best):

The co-operative announced [recently] that it will apply to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which administers the Gunnison Tunnel, to develop enough electricity to equal 5 percent of the co-op’s maximum annual demand. As the energy landscape changes, other jurisdictions across Colorado and the West have similarly been re-examining their assets. Small hydro-projects produce far less electricity than most coal-fired power plants, or the giant dams on the Colorado River. But they can do so without generating carbon dioxide emissions and often without increasing other environmental impacts…

The projects, says Joani Matranga, Western Slope representative for the Governor’s Energy Office, would use primarily existing infrastructure and diversions, resulting in minimal environmental impacts. “We’re not building any new dams,” she says. “We think there is still plenty of potential to go after.”[…]

The effort to harness the irrigation canal east of Montrose is part of a broad effort to reverse this decades-old trend toward centralized generation of electricity using fossil fuels. Delta-Montrose Electric Assn. officials say that local power generation produces local jobs, and will insulate electrical customers from rising costs for coal. Those costs will almost certainly rise even more if the federal government adopts a cap-and-trade regime on carbon dioxide emissions, as proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill.

“If this project moves forward through the federal permitting process – and I am confident it will – DMEA’s membership will benefit in many ways, “ said DMEA General Manager Dan McClendon. “Money we would have otherwise exported out of our community for wholesale electricity will be retained in our own community,” he said. He went on to explain that even without grants or other financial assistance, the cost – about $25 million to $30 million – will deliver electricity comparable to the existing wholesale rate…

Unlike some proposals of the past, DMEA has no plans to harness the full power of the falling water. Water from the Gunnison drops 372 feet in as series of churning, roiling steps as the irrigation ditch, called the South Canal, winds around the dun-colored adobe hills east of Montrose. DMEA plans to yoke power from just 120 feet in that fall…

Some small towns – including Hotchkiss and Cortez – have installed small hydro components into their existing water delivery systems, to harness the power of falling water. Aspen does the same, and Hines, that city’s utility engineer, points out that even towns in the Midwest with water towers could tap the power of falling water. Elsewhere in southwestern Colorado, Eric Jacobson has refurbished several small hydro-power plants, such as a 500-kilowatt plant at Bridal Veil Falls in Telluride and a 150-kilowatt plant in Ouray. A variety of other small hydro projects are also scattered across mountainous areas of Colorado.

More coverage from The Telluride Watch (Beverly Corbell):

Both President Teddy Roosevelt and President Howard Taft spoke at Saturday’s 100th anniversary celebration of the opening of the Gunnison Tunnel, but the biggest news of the day came from President Dan McClendon. McClendon, president of the board of directors of the Delta-Montrose Electric Association, announced that his cooperative and the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, sponsors of the event, would collaborate to build a hydroelectric plant on South Canal as it leaves the Gunnison Tunnel. “This will bring clean, renewable energy into DMEA’s system and will be one of the largest renewable electric facilities in western Colorado,” McClendon said. “It will keep money in our community and keep millions of dollars here in our area.”

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Environmental Protection Agency pushing overhaul of Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

From The Denver Post (Mark Jaffe):

The 33-year-old Toxic Substance[s] Control Act has “fallen behind the industry it was supposed to regulate,” [Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson] said in a teleconference with the news media. “Our cars to the cellphones in our pockets are constructed with plastics and chemical additives,” Jackson said. “As more chemicals are found in our bodies and in the environment, concerns grow.”</p

The move for an overhaul of the act drew immediate support from industry groups. The system needs “modernization,” Cal Dooley, chief executive of the major industry trade group, the American Chemistry Council, said in a separate conference call. In August, the council issued its own principles for reworking the act, and Dooley said he was pleased the EPA approach was similar. “We believe more information needs to be brought forward to determine safety,” Dooley said…

Among the EPA principles:

• Chemicals would be reviewed against risk-based safety standards.

• Manufacturers would provide the EPA with information to show that new and existing chemicals are safe and do not endanger public health.

• The EPA would have clear authority to take action to manage risk or ban a chemical.

More water pollution coverage here.

Pikes Peak: Colorado Springs Utilities struggling with plan to open south slope to recreation

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

While many of the 50 or so in attendance at a public open house had their own ideas for recreation — ranging from hiking, horseback riding and camping — most agreed on one thing: The area should have been opened a long time ago. “If they can do it on the North Slope, why can’t they do it on the South Slope?” said state Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, a mountain biker, referring to the North Slope reservoir area that opened to the public in the early 1990s. “So many other cities, Denver, Boulder, have opened their water facilities for public recreation opportunities, I find it hard to believe Colorado Springs can’t do it as well as Denver or Boulder,” Merrifield said.

Several reservoirs were built on the South Slope from 1878 to 1912. Utilities has been studying how to allow public access to the 15,000-acre area for a decade. A 1999 study recommended building four hiking trails, and in 2007 Utilities issued a plan to move forward with the trails, after public meetings and a recommendation from a citizens advisory group. But officials have since, with the agreement of the citizens panel, decided to hire a consultant to study all forms of recreation. Budget issues delayed the $200,000 project last year…

Utilities officials said they will consider the public comments and release a “conceptual plan” for public access in January, but that trails probably won’t begin being built until 2011.

River Week at Cache La Poudre Middle School

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

It’s River Week at Cache La Poudre Middle School, and for a short window of two weeks, the river, which flows serenely behind the school, serves as an outdoor classroom and laboratory for students…

Though River Week is becoming an annual tradition at the school, Russell said the [recent asphalt] spills gave her an opportunity to compare water quality data her classes gathered from the river last year with similar data they’re gathering since the spills were cleaned up. “We’re going to be looking at all the things that affect how this river remains healthy,” she said in between announcing instructions to her 33-student class, sitting in small groups along the river bank.

Using electronic probes connected to a sensor and a calculator, students fanned out into the river to test the river’s nitrate levels, pH, temperature, water hardness and other qualities. “They are doing science,” Russell said. “This is what professional scientists do when they go out into the field.” Rarely do students get such an opportunity without having to apply for funding for a field trip, she said. The river is in the school’s backyard, allowing for not only scientific study and a chance for students to get their feet wet, but a chance for English, history, math and other classes to integrate the river into their curriculums…

Once back in the classroom, students will crunch their data, compare it to last year’s numbers and then create graphs to illustrate the differences. Honors students, Russell said, will continue to gather data through the winter for a more comprehensive picture of the river’s health. Doing that kind of science in the Poudre not only gives kids an idea about the level of pollution in the river, it helps “us open our eyes to what’s really going on,” said eighth-grader Joe McKey.

More education coverage here.

CWCB: $180,000 for Upper Ark groundwater study

From the Salida Citizen (Trey Beck):

A grant of $180,000 awarded recently by the Colorado Water Conservation Board will help the Upper Arkansas Water Conservation District to determine the amount of water in the Arkansas Valley. The study will investigate the availability and sustainability of groundwater and calculate the water needed to recharge underground resources. District General Manager Terry Scanga said that this information is a vital part of any discussion about current and future water use. “Determining the amount of water available will give municipal and land use planners a tool by which they can gauge sustainability,” said Scanga. The information will also help the District anticipate the need for new water projects.

More CWCB coverage here.

Red Cliff turns dirt for new wastewater plant

From the Vail Daily (Edward Stoner):

Red Cliff Ramon Montoya and Colorado Department of Local Affairs Executive Director Susan Kirkpatrick wielded golden shovels in the official ceremony. Construction on the plant began this week and is expected to be completed in August 2010…The project has been over 20 years in the making, Montoya said. The overall project, which includes a collections system, costs $5.6 million. The project received $3.2 million in federal stimulus funds as well as $800,000 from a State and Tribal Assistance Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and $500,000 from a Department of Local Affairs Energy and Mineral Impact grant.

More wastewater coverage here.

San Luis Valley: First groundwater management sub-district trial update

Here’s a recap of the first week of the current trial, from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:

The district and the state water division, represented by the attorney general’s office, are defending their approval of the sub-district board’s management plan while attorneys representing senior water users are contesting the plan as it is currently written.

By reducing well pumping in the closed basin area of the Valley north of the Rio Grande, the sub-district intends to provide protection and mitigation of injurious depletions to senior water rights; balance the aquifer; and ensure compliance with the Rio Grande Compact, an interstate agreement with downstream states.

The water district is presenting its witnesses first. Robbins said at the conclusion of testimony on Friday that the proponents still have four witnesses to call before the opponents begin their slate of witnesses.

Kuenhold told the attorneys on Friday that he would like to hear closing arguments in the case on the Friday of the third week, October 16, if at all possible He added he would try to render a decision in about 30 days following the trial but would not promise he could meet that ambitious of a deadline. He said he has asked visiting judges to help fill in for him so he could concentrate on the water decision…

When senior water rights attorney Tim Buchanan asked [Dr. Willem Schreüder, an expert on the Rio Grande Decision Support System computer model] if the model still had limitations, Schreüder responded, “I believe that’s true of every model.”[…]

Previously on the stand was the water district’s engineer Allen Davey who remained on the stand two days. Other witnesses this week have been the water district’s general manager Steve Vandiver and sub-district board member Carla Worley.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

In February, District Judge O. John Kuenhold sent the plan back to the board of managers for Subdistrict No. 1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. Kuenhold called for the inclusion of a time frame and detailed methodology for determining the depletions well pumping caused to the Rio Grande. The subdistrict’s boundaries would include 174,000 acres of irrigated land and roughly 3,000 groundwater irrigation wells. The valley could see up to five other subdistricts move forward with management plans if the court approves this one.

Attorney Tim Buchanan, who represents 11 objectors, said the revised plan left too much discretion to the state engineer and did not clearly lay out the steps the subdistrict would take. “We need implementing language,” he said. Buchanan also argued that the revised plan had backed away from previous testimony that past groundwater depletions would be replaced. Both he and Stephane Atencio, an attorney for two other objectors, took note that 40,000 acre-feet from past pumping will deplete the river over the next 20 years…

The subdistrict’s attorney, David Robbins, said the subdistrict board had felt replacing past depletions would punish those well users who voluntarily took part in the subdistrict. He added that the valley’s well users were operating within the law when those depletions were made. “There’s no logical basis to punish those who’ve acted affirmatively to solve the problem,” he said. Robbins also reiterated the plan was an attempt by users to find a workable solution instead of being subject to the groundwater rules and regulations currently being worked on by the engineer’s office. “It’s an effort to claim a right of self-governance,” he said.

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

Larimer County: Invasive mussels update

Larimer County inspections have led to the decontamination of 54 boats. Three of the boats had mussels attached. Here’s a report from Pamela Dickman writing for the Loveland Reporter Herald. From the article:

Larimer County started the inspections in mid-April with a $300,000 grant from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Inspectors, on duty seven days a week, checked 55,571 boats through Wednesday. Of those, they believed 109 were high-risk because they had been on infested waters, seemed overly dirty or had water or plants onboard. Half of those, 54, were decontaminated because inspectors believed, after a closer look, that they were more risky…

“It’s a long, tedious process,” said Dan Rieves, visitor services manager for the Larimer County Department of Natural Resources. “The cure is exposure to hot water under pressure. They power-wash the boat, for lack of better terminology.”[…]

Now that the busiest boating season is over, inspectors will be at Carter and Horsetooth only on weekends during October. That means boaters can hit the water only on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays after their vessels have been inspected. At Boyd Lake State Park, inspectors will be on duty from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day through October, and from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. daily in November, according to the park’s Web site.

More invasive mussels coverage here and here.

Denver Water: Rate adjustment on tap for 2010?

Here’s a release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney):

Denver Water staff presented to the Board of Water Commissioners a preliminary proposal to adjust water rates for 2010 at its meeting Wednesday. The adjustment will help fund the utility’s 10-year capital plan.

The 10-year plan includes 300 projects, including upgrades to aging infrastructure to prevent putting reliable water service at risk.

The plan also calls for expansion of the utility’s system capacity to meet the future needs of its customers. Over the next 10 years, the utility plans to expand its recycled water system, enlarge Gross Reservoir by 18,000 acre-feet, finish developing gravel pits that store reusable water, and explore ways to work with other water providers to bring more supplies to its system.

Denver Water has determined the cost of making repairs and replacements to its aging infrastructure and building new supply within its system will total $1.3 billion over the next 10 years.

“Our water system is aging; some of our facilities are more than 100 years old. We need to be more proactive in our work to repair, maintain and upgrade our assets,” said Brian Good, director of operations and maintenance. “Next year’s projects include increased main replacements, more cement mortar lining of pipes to extend their useful life and upgrading underground vaults. We also will be doing major upgrades at the Marston Treatment Plant, replacing gates at Cheesman Dam that date back to the early 1900s, and installing a new hydropower turbine at Williams Fork Reservoir.”

In 2010 the water department will need an additional $13.5 million in revenue to cover rising costs associated with maintaining and improving the city’s water system. Denver Water owns and maintains 2,800 miles of distribution pipe — enough to stretch from Los Angeles to New York — as well as 12 raw water reservoirs, 22 pump stations and four treatment plants. Rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure is needed throughout the water distribution system, much of which dates back to post-World War II installation or earlier.

Under the current rate proposal, average Denver residential customers would see their bills increase by about $40 a year — an average of $3.30 per month, or about $12 on a summer bill. Typical suburban residential customers served by Denver Water would see an increase of $51 per year — an average of $4.30 per month, or about $16 on a summer bill. The effects of the proposed changes on customer bills would vary depending upon the amount of water the customer uses and whether the customer lives in Denver or is served by a suburban distributor under contract with Denver Water; the more customers use, the more they will pay.

If the proposed adjustments are approved, they would take effect February 2010. Rates for Denver Water customers living inside the city would remain among the lowest in the metro area, while rates for Denver Water residential customers in the suburbs would still fall at or below the median among area water providers.

Denver Water is funded through rates and new tap fees, not taxes. Its rates are designed to recover the costs of providing reliable, high-quality water service and to encourage efficiency by charging higher prices for increased water use. Most of Denver Water’s costs are fixed and include maintenance of the system’s distribution pipes, reservoirs, pump stations and treatment plants. Denver Water also examines and adjusts its capital plan as necessary each year.

The Board is expected to vote on the proposed changes on Wednesday, Oct. 28, after considering public comment. Public comment will be taken at the Oct. 14, 9:15 a.m., and Oct. 28, 9 a.m., Board meetings. The meetings are open to the public and will be held at Denver Water, 1600 W. 12th Ave. Public comment also will be taken at Denver Water’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting, Thursday, Oct. 15, 5:30 p.m., at Denver Water. Comments also may be sent to the Board via e-mail at dbwc@denverwater.org.

Details of the 2010 rates proposal are posted. Members of the public who have questions about the proposed rate adjustment may call 303-628-6320.

More Denver Water coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs Utilities jumps into the permitting process in El Paso County

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The El Paso County Planning Commission will have a public hearing and solicit comments, most likely in early 2010. In addition, the SDS partners will host two public meetings in November to explain the project.

In Phase 1, a treatment plant in the northeast part of the city, two pumping stations and 33 miles of pipeline will be constructed in El Paso County as part of a $1 billion-plus plan to build a 50-mile pipeline from Pueblo Dam. The pipeline would serve Colorado Springs, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West and would be designed to meet water supply needs until about 2046. The first phase of the project is expected to be complete by 2016, but construction of parts of the project would begin in 2010. Colorado Spring Utilities plans to begin work on the dam connection and some of the pipeline in El Paso County next year, as well as dredging and restoration projects on Fountain Creek, according to a timeline. Construction on the treatment plant and pump stations is not expected to begin until 2012.

In Phase 2 of the project, scheduled to begin in 2020-25, two reservoirs would be constructed on Williams Creek. Colorado Springs already has obtained approval for the project from the Bureau of Reclamation, but has not begun contract negotiations for storage, exchange and conveyance at Lake Pueblo. An Army Corps of Engineers permit under the Clean Water Act is in progress, as is an agreement with the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Cañon City: Sewer expansion moving forward with state and federal stimulus dough

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):

High Country Pipeline of Penrose recently was awarded a $1.8 million bid to build the sewer extension for Fremont Sanitation District. The North Canon Area Sewer Line Extension will serve 178 residences, running north of High Street between York and Lawrence streets and to several residences south of High Street between York and Pennsylvania. The project will consist of 17,100 feet of sewer main, 45 concrete manholes and 15,000 feet of service line. The project will be constructed completely with grants and stimulus funds and will not have to be repaid by the homeowners, said Jeff Blue, Fremont Sanitation District director.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Fountain Creek: Colorado Springs to pay Sierra Club legal fees for lawsuit over sewage spills

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs was ordered to pay a fine of $35,500 in the complaint filed by the Sierra Club in 2005 after two large spills into Fountain Creek. The Sierra Club prevailed in its argument that some Colorado Springs releases of partially treated sewage violated the Clean Water Act. However, U.S. District Judge Walker Miller ruled that Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has been “effective” and that Colorado Springs had made “substantial improvements” in its wastewater collection system. The Sierra Club sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. In a stipulation entered this week, the Sierra Club agreed to accept Colorado Springs’ offer for settlement of legal fees in the case.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley: State Engineer files new surface irrigation rules in Division 2 Water Court

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“The Irrigation Improvement Rules are designed to allow improvements to the efficiency of irrigation systems in the Arkansas River Basin while ensuring compliance with the Arkansas River Compact,” [State Engineer Dick Wolfe] said in the court filing…

The rules would take effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and would apply only to surface irrigation improvements in the Arkansas River Basin made since 1999. The goal is to prevent the depletion of return flows to the Arkansas River which could be caused by things like sprinklers, drip irrigation systems and lining of canals. Under a draft set of rules proposed in late 2007, the burden of proving that improvements did not affect return flows fell entirely on irrigators. Several changes were made in the rules that removed some on-farm improvements, such as gated pipe or concrete lining of small ditches, from the rules during those meetings. The state also recognized the need for general permits within certain parts of the Arkansas Valley and agreed to take things like pond seepage into account. The state also developed a model that builds on engineering already accepted by Kansas to determine the impact of sprinkler systems based on their location in the Arkansas Valley, finding that on ditches with adequate water supplies, efficiencies could benefit the river, while improvements on water-short ditches could reduce return flows.

After the final committee meeting on the rules, farmers indicated they are still not convinced the loss of flows can be accurately measured and questioned some of the assumptions that are made in the state’s model. Wolfe countered that the model is flexible enough to accommodate changes if new data proves the assumptions wrong.

More Arkansas Valley ag rules coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek: Pueblo County Commissioners approve the use of SDS mitigation funds to hire administrator for the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo County commissioners Tuesday approved applying Colorado Springs funds from the Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan effort toward its conditions on a 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System…

The move clears the way for hiring an administrator by the end of this year, according to a timeline presented at earlier meetings of the newly created district. [Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff] Chostner is the vice-chairman of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, formed earlier this year by the Legislature to improve Fountain Creek. The new district, Colorado Springs and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District reached an intergovernmental agreement to provide $100,000 for each of the next two years to hire an administrator and fund office expenses.

The money would be part of $600,000 committed jointly by Colorado Springs and the Lower Ark to complete the Corridor Master Plan. Colorado Springs’ $300,000 for that effort will be credited toward the $50 million the city would pay over five years once SDS is completed. Colorado Springs will pay another $300,000 over the next three years for a study of a dam or other means of flood control on Fountain Creek…

The district has direct land use authority in the Fountain Creek floodplain from Fountain to Pueblo, but will make recommendations on pertinent land use matters throughout the watershed. In its first three months, the district has recommended approval for a 62-unit subdivision that will be annexed into the city of Fountain, and denial of approval for a gravel-pit operation proposed near Pikes Peak International Raceway.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

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:

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: