Custer County groundwater study update

From the The Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):

For a number of years, the county has been participating in a water quantity survey with USGS. In the study, USGS officials monitor 60 wells spread throughout Custer County. Each well is monitored twice a year—in the spring and fall—to check water level changes. Cost to the county is some $7,000 a year. The study is paid for through 2010. The county commissioners are considering suspending the study thereafter…

[United States Geological Survey official Ken Watts of Pueblo] told the county bosses the study helps to determine what will happen to water here in the future, therefore, it was a good idea to continue. ‘You need the background information to determine future water needs,” said Watts. Watts also said it might be a good idea to add some newly drilled wells to the study and take out of the study some of the wells in the Sangres. Scanga agreed saying the data received from the local monitoring of the 60 wells will benefit a water study the UAWCD is completing to study the quantity of water in the Upper Arkansas Basin.

The study will begin in 2010 and continue through 2012. Total cost is $406,912 with USGS paying $134,281. Kicking in $6,000 is Custer County. Other entities helping to pay for the study include the Round Mountain Water and Sanitation District at $3,000, Fremont County at $15,000, Chaffee County and municipalities at $30,000, Penrose Water District at $6,000, and Canon City at $3,000. The UAWCD is paying some $226,912 plus administration costs valued at approximately $24,000.

More groundwater coverage here and here.

Pitkin County is stepping up efforts at septic system inspections

From The Aspen Times:

The county is stepping up efforts to inspect such systems and, effective July 1, 2010, a permit for a septic system will be required before a property can be sold or before a building permit will be issued for development on such properties. “Malfunctioning septic systems release pathogens and contribute to heavy nutrient loading which can contaminate both ground and surface water,” said Carla Ostberg, Pitkin County Environmental Health program supervisor, in a press release. Boulder, Jefferson and Summit counties already have similar programs in place, and have found the inspection/permit process leads to the identification and repair of problem systems that might otherwise have gone unnoticed, she said.

One-hour informational meetings on the inspection and permit process will be held Nov. 24 at 1:30 p.m. at the Schultz Health and Human Services Building in Aspen and at 4:30 p.m. at the El Jebel Community Center. Future meetings will also be scheduled.

More wastewater coverage here.

La Plata County: New water authority pitching options for dry western side of county

From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):

A couple of dozen skeptical Dryside residents heard the assessment Tuesday evening from La Plata West Water Authority board members Roy Horvath, Tom Brossia, Mae Morley and Kirk Peine. The board is starting to unveil the project publicly, which has been the subject of three reports since 2003.
“We want to familiarize you with the options,” Horvath, the board vice chairman, said. “A lot of issues remain to be resolved.” The La Plata West Water Authority was created in 2007 to draw water from Lake Nighthorse, located a mile southwest of Bodo Industrial Park in Durango, for use in western La Plata County…

At build-out in 20 to 40 years, the system would have 35 million gallons of water a day available for an estimated 8,100 taps. Residents now use well water for bathing or washing dishes and clothes, while trucking in drinking water. So far, however, only a $5.7 million intake structure has been built on Lake Nighthorse. Missing are a water-treatment plant, a storage tank, a trunk line and lateral distribution lines. Total capital costs exceed $96 million. An estimated $2 million must be found to pay the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority for the 700 acre-feet of water the authority would use.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Norwood: CWCB instream flow meeting recap

From The Norwood Post (Ellen Metrick):

Currently, the stream segments being considered for instream flow protection are Red Canyon Creek, North Fork Tabeguache Creek, San Miguel River, and Tabeguache Creek, as well as Alpine Gulch, Big Dominguez Creek, Blue Creek, Cebolla Creek, Cochetopa Creek, East Beaver Creek, Little Dominguez Creek, Spring Creek, and Willow Creek. “This segment of the San Miguel River has been identified as being an outstanding population of three fish that are species of concern,” said Mark Uppendahl of the State DOW office. According to the draft stakeholder recommendations (available online at http://www.cwcb.state.co.us, 2010 instream flow appropriations (proposed)), “The lower San Miguel River is known to provide habitat for globally imperiled riparian communities and other important riparian communities, because of the free-flowing hydrology of the river.” These communities include New Mexico Privet riparian shrubland and Skunkbrush riparian shrubland, Narrowleaf Cottonwood Communities and Fremont Cottonwood communities.

One thing that is certain, “A lot of water is lost in spring run-off,” said Goodtimes. “We need storage.” It is also true that in a dry year, there’s no water for anyone. Biologists say the fish can survive a year or two before they need water in order to repopulate and get strong again. Most of the flow in the San Miguel River (240,000 acre-feet per year, according to CWCB Web site) does come from snowmelt. Because of its relatively low, human population density and lack of large, water storage impoundments, the San Miguel Basin is considered to be one of the few ecologically and hydrologically intact river basins in Colorado. Goodtimes proposed to the Lone Cone and Gurley ditch users that they and the County band together. “Maybe we can get a grant from Southwest Water Commission to quantify and identify selected off-stem small sites for storage,” he said. “I wanna see if we can get our groups together and try and figure out a way to ask jointly.”[…]

CWCB had planned to file an application for these instream flows in January 2010, but Goodtimes said, “There was discussion about delaying that date of filing / appropriation to December 2010 to let people have a year to really look into it.” The streams mentioned in the proposed appropriations were presented by the recommending entities at the annual Instream Flow Workshop on Feb. 24, 2009.

More instream flow coverage here.

Telluride Energy scores $20,000 for hydroelectric plant at Mayflower Mill

From the Silverton Standard & The Miner (Mark Esper):

Telluride Energy has been awarded a $20,000 grant from the USDA Rural Development Renewable Energy for America Program to install an 8-kilowatt micro-hydro turbine at the Mayflower Mill near Silverton. The San Juan County Historical Society is in the process of developing the small power plant. “I am excited that USDA Rural Development can play a part in this project,” said Jim Isgar, USDA Colorado State director. “Through the REAP program, loan guarantees and grants can be used for renewable energy systems, energy efficiency improvements, feasibility studies and energy audits.” The project will utilize the currently unused energy available in the existing water supply pipeline which flows down Arrastra Gulch to supply water to the Mayflower Mill. “Once completed, the project will generate local clean energy, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 80,000 pounds annually and enhancing fire protection for a National Historic Landmark,” said Kurt Johnson of Telluride Energy.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Glenwood Springs: Requirements of federal funding bill put new wastewater treatment plant on hold

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Gardner):

According to city officials, the word came last week that the project would have to be put on hold, indefinitely, awaiting further clarification from the Environmental Protection Agency. City Manager Jeff Hecksel, who was out of the office last week, returned Monday to be blindsided by the development. “We are not sure if this applies to us or not,” Hecksel said. “If it does we are not sure what we are going to do about it.” Hecksel said that he was unsure as to why the Glenwood project would be included because the project was not seeking federal funding. However, according to Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority Finance Director Mike Brod, the new law imposes certain requirements on state funds as well as federal funds. The funds, which are used to buy down the interest rate on the loan, come through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds program. The intent of the bill, in the context of the Clean Drinking Water and Wastewater programs, was to appropriate $3.9 billion to help more than 1,500 communities improve their drinking water and wastewater systems, according to a document from the Committee on Appropriations. But the bill includes language requiring projects using funds through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to include the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement. That is where the problem arises for Glenwood. The city did not include the Davis-Bacon requirement in the wastewater contract because it was not required when the contract went out to bid on Oct. 23.

More wastewater coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: SECWCD gets into case for new irrigation rules

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The district will enter the case as an opposer, not to stop the rules, but to make sure water under its supervision is used correctly. Under the rules, filed in Division 2 water court on Sept. 30 by State Engineer Dick Wolfe, Fryingpan-Arkansas return flows can be used as replacement water to assure compliance with the Arkansas River Compact between Colorado and Kansas. However, not all of the farmland in the Lower Arkansas Valley is in the Southeastern district, explained Bob Hamilton, engineering supervisor. The district also wants to assure winter water is correctly accounted for. Winter water is stored from Nov. 15 to March 15 in lieu of irrigation…

More Ark Valley consumptive use rules coverage here and here.

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District: Regional water pool should be online next season

From The Greeley Tribune (Bill Jackson):

Municipal and industrial water users may have another source of water next year when a regional water pool program proposed by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District comes online. Brad Wind, deputy manager of the operations division for Northern, said the regional pool was first approved by the district’s board of directors in 2003, but this year has been the first year when sufficient carryover water will be available to offer the pool in 2010. The main reason the carry over is available is because of an abnormally wet spring and summer. For example, Greeley has received 18.5 inches of precipitation this year at the University of Northern Colorado, which is more than 5 inches more than the long-term average. In some areas of Northern’s boundaries, that has been doubled or even tripled in some cases. Wind, speaking at Northern’s recent annual fall water users meeting in Loveland, said the pool will be implemented in years when the district has at least 200,000 acre-feet of water in reserve. The pool will be limited to a maximum of 62,000 acre-feet each year. For 2010, it is expected there will be 37,000 acre-feet available, he said. An acre-foot is enough water to supply two families with a year’s supply of water. That water will be made available on a competitive lease basis and will be open to any qualified water user within Northern’s eight-county district…

Wind said ownership of Colorado-Big Thompson water has changed through the years. The largest transmountain water diversion in the state was built between 1938 and 1957. Originally, it was intended to provide a supplemental supply of irrigation water to farmers in northern Colorado by bringing water over the Continental Divide from the Colorado River, but now it provides supplemental water to 30 cities and towns as well. Currently, about 65 percent of the units of C-BT are owned by municipal and industrial users. “As time goes on, the water portfolios of municipalities is more robust,” Wind said, noting the demand for that water for municipalities is spread out over a longer time than that still used for irrigation of farmland. So the board began to think about ways to better optimize things and the regional pool became a reality. “The objective is to better optimize things between those who get the water and those who manage water,” Wind said. The result, he added, “will be more flexibility for those who use that water.”

More NCWCD coverage here.

Aspen: City and area residents debating the benefits and possible streamflow loss of proposed hydroelectric facility

From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times via the Grand Junction Free Press:

City officials are taking public comments on the proposal and say a more comprehensive review is possible if there is enough concern or there are issues they haven’t considered. Aspen wants to build a 1,880-square-foot hydropower plant that would draw water from Castle and Maroon creeks to generate electricity. The 1.05 megawatt plant is expected to increase production of electricity by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That would provide energy for several hundred households. City officials say getting that much electricity from a renewable source would eliminate an estimated 5,167 tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power for a 0.6 percent communitywide decrease.

Some area residents, however, are concerned about the potential effects on wildlife and water rights if too much water is diverted from the creeks. Paul Noto, an Aspen-based water attorney, who represents several residents who live along Castle Creek, said if Aspen touts itself as an environmental leader, it ought to submit the project to a full environmental review.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Precedent-Setting Decision Made by Colorado Water Conservation Board; First-of-Its-Kind Relationship Built Between Board and Pitkin County for Local Streamflows

From The Aspen Times (Janet Urquhart):

The nine voting members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board approved a trust agreement with the county Monday in Denver after a four-and-a-half-hour hearing. “Everybody had smiles on their faces — except the opponents,” said John Ely, county attorney, in a telephone interview at the close of the proceedings. The CWCB staff, Pitkin County and representatives of Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Water Trust spoke in favor of the trust arrangement, as did the city of Aspen’s water counsel, Ely said.

Opponents included the Basalt Water Conservancy District, Starwood Metropolitan District, Willow-Herrick Ditch Co. and the Roaring Fork Land and Cattle Co., he said. All of the opponents expressed concern that the county’s plan to devote some of its water rights to in-stream flows in the Roaring Fork River would impact their own water transactions. The Basalt Water Conservancy District, for example, essentially capitalizes on lower flows on the Roaring Fork by selling water to users upstream of the Fryingpan River’s confluence with the Roaring Fork, according to Ely. The users take water from the upper Roaring Fork; it is replaced by water the district owns in Ruedi Reservoir, which is released into the Fryingpan and flows into the Roaring Fork at Basalt.

The trust agreement approved Monday will allow the county to donate 4.2 cubic feet per second of water rights it holds on Maroon Creek to the CWCB, the only the only entity in the state that may hold in-stream flow rights to protect the natural environment. Other water rights can be added to the trust agreement — the allocations must also be approved by the state water court — or withdrawn over time. Or, the trust can be revoked in its entirety. The county doesn’t lose its water rights, it simply donates them to boost river flows for whatever period of time it wants to, Ely said. “We’re not giving it away,” he said. “We still own it.”

More coverage from the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith). From the article:

“It is in the best interest of the state as a whole if the CWCB acquires the water right,” Susan Schneider, an assistant attorney general in the state’s Natural Resources and Environment department told the CWCB board Monday.

After a five-hour hearing, the board approved the proposal unanimously…

The ditch water comes out of Maroon Creek, which flows into the Roaring Fork River just to the west of the Aspen Meadows resort property. To put the 4.3 cfs of water into context, there was 114 cfs of water in the Roaring Fork River below Maroon Creek on Monday. It was the first such trust entered into by the CWCB since the passage last year of Colorado House Bill 1280, which strengthened the ability of the CWCB to protect water rights it is holding for minimum stream flow purposes. The bill was sponsored by state Sen. Gail Schwartz of Snowmass Village.

“This is a precedent setting transaction,” said Amy Beatie, executive director of the Colorado Water Trust. “The trust agreement provides a model for all other water users in the state that have water rights that are not currently being used, such as municipalities that have developed water supplies beyond their immediate needs.”[…]

The trust also includes a provision for the county to transfer another 34 different water rights, equal to about 20 cfs, that it owns into the trust arrangement with the CWCB. The county could also add water rights to the trust that it acquires through its Healthy Rivers and Streams fund…

The Stapleton Brothers Ditch water right owned by the county pre-dates the 1922 Colorado River water compact, which means that states downstream of Colorado, including Arizona, California and Nevada, could not demand that Colorado send the 4.3 cfs of water to them in a drought situation.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka). From the article:

The water rights are owned by Pitkin County and were acquired partly for conservation purposes. However, under Colorado water law, only the CWCB can own an in-stream flow right. Traditionally, senior water rights not put to use would become part of the stream flow and available to junior appropriators. Under the 2008 law, the state may buy or lease those senior rights purely for conservation purposes. In January, Pitkin County asked the CWCB to approve the donation of rights through a revocable trust, the first test of 2008’s HB1280. The flow of 19 cubic feet per second comes on Maroon Creek through the Stapleton Ditch, which once served Aspen’s Airport. It is the first of 34 potential water rights in Pitkin County that eventually could be donated.

More HB 08-1280 coverage here.

West Divide Creek: Garfield County is asking the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission to step up enforcement

From the Glenwood Springs Post Indpendent (John Colson):

In 2004, chemicals began bubbling to the surface of the creek in a display of contamination generally attributed to nearby gas drilling activities, and which ultimately led to a moratorium on gas drilling in the area. The moratorium was canceled after approximately a year, however, after industry and state officials concluded that the seep had been “mitigated” by the application of additional cement to the bore drilled for the gas well. In 2008, however, [West Divide Creek basin resident Lisa Bracken] reported that the creek had begun showing signs of contamination again, and the county hired geologist Geoffrey Thyne to investigate her claims. Thyne’s findings indicated that there are signs that the re-cementing of the well bore reduced the release of gases into the surrounding ground water. But, he wrote, “It has not fully corrected the problem, and natural gas along with other harmful constituents continue to leak into the aquifer of West Divide Creek.”

The COGCC, at a hearing in Garfield County last July, promised to have the EnCana gas company, which was drilling near the Bracken property in 2004, work with Bracken to fix the problem. Bracken said that cooperation was supposed to include “thorough water monitoring” of the area near her home and the creek. But Bracken told the commissioners on Monday that EnCana had come out to inspect the scene once and that she has had “very little correspondence” with the company since.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Alamosa: Report on 2008 salmonella outbreak blames aging infrastructure, inspection regime

The Colorado Department of Health and Environment is starting to require more chlorine dosing for water systems in the state. Here’s a report from David Olinger writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

Colorado has revoked waivers from as many as 72 public drinking-water systems and is now requiring chlorine treatment of most public supplies as part of the response to a salmonella-poisoning epidemic that ravaged Alamosa last year. A Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment report released Wednesday confirmed earlier suspicions that a decrepit infrastructure allowed deadly bacteria from animals to invade Alamosa’s 320,000-gallon Weber Reservoir. Still, the report said, had the city used chlorine to disinfect its water supply, the bacteria might not have grown. That finding has now prompted the state to redouble its efforts to require chlorine treatment in most places where the public shares a water supply…

When asked what could have prevented the epidemic, state drinking-water program manager Ron Falco, the report’s co-author, answered, “Chlorination.” Alamosa had been exempted since 1974 from a state requirement to treat drinking water with chlorine, which kills salmonella bacteria. The state report concludes that salmonella bacteria from animal feces probably got into Alamosa’s drinking-water supply early in March 2008 and infected the entire city water system during the next week…

The Alamosa report cited “a perfect storm of multiple defects” in the city water system at the time of the outbreak: the chlorination waiver, poor maintenance, incorrect bacteria testing and inadequate supervision by a chronically short-staffed state drinking-water program. After the enclosed, ground-level reservoir was drained during the epidemic, the crew entering it found holes “through which daylight could be seen” and waded through layers of sediment estimated at 12 to 18 inches deep in places. It had not been drained and cleaned in 24 years.

Inspectors also found:

• There were 145 gallons of sediment and missing bolts in a city water tower of unknown age, possibly built in the 1930s. The bolt holes could have exposed the tower’s water to bird feces.

• Two mortuaries and a meat-packing and restaurant property posed an “extreme hazard” that water from their buildings could back into the public supply.

• Alamosa’s tests for coliform bacteria in its water had not complied with federal requirements for diverse sampling in the distribution system…

In Alamosa, the underground water pumped into its reservoir was warm — 75 degrees or more, a welcome environment for bacteria. Its warmth also attracted wildlife, birds and small mammals to the top of the fenced reservoir in winter. A tiny bit of salmonella-infected feces invading its holes or cracks “most likely” caused a massive disease outbreak, the report concluded. “Millions, or even billions, of germs can be released in the feces of an infected human or animal,” the report said, and a child can be infected by as few as 10 to 100 salmonella organisms.

Some towns that lost their chlorination waivers after Alamosa’s outbreak are complying with state orders reluctantly. “We had quite the round with them over that,” said Mark Brown, city superintendent in Holyoke. “We know we have good-quality water. We run our system correctly.”

More Alamosa coverage here and here.

Aspinall Unit update

From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):

Flows in the Black Canyon and Gunnison Gorge have stabilized at 500 cfs and will remain there until about the first week of December when releases will increase to around 900 – 1000 cfs for higher power demands and to achieve the December 31 Blue Mesa elevation target.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.

Precedent-Setting Decision Made by Colorado Water Conservation Board; First-of-Its-Kind Relationship Built Between Board and Pitkin County for Local Streamflows

Here’s the release from the Colorado Water Trust:

There will soon be more water for the fish who call the Roaring Fork River basin home. This boon is the result of collaborative efforts among Pitkin County, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”), and the Colorado Water Trust (“CWT”). Pitkin County has agreed to allow numerous water rights it owns to stay in local rivers, rather than be used for irrigation or other uses. It will do this by placing those water rights into a trust to be managed by the CWCB for use in Colorado’s Instream Flow Program. If all of the water rights in the trust agreement are used for instream flows, the Roaring Fork River basin could see up to a 19 c.f.s. increase in flows during the summer months (although that figure is only a raw estimate and does not consider needs of Pitkin County or changes that may be required in the water court process).

The State of Colorado has a long history of recognizing the importance of instream water uses in addition to more traditional water uses. The placement of an Instream Flow Program in the hands of the CWCB in 1973 was its clearest pronouncement. As of now, Colorado’s Instream Flow Program stewards more than 1,500 defensible water rights protecting nearly 9,000 river miles. But the CWCB has been working to increase the water available to that program. Pitkin County owns various water rights in the Roaring Fork Basin it has acquired through its Open Space and Trails Department and through its Airport Enterprise Fund. Pitkin County, with its location in the Roaring Fork Basin and significant portfolio of water rights, was a natural partner.
The trust agreement, formally approved by the CWCB today, is governed in part by House Bill 08-1280, groundbreaking bill passed by the Colorado legislature in 2008 that provides protections to and removes penalties that might accrue to water users who loan or lease their water to the CWCB for use in the Instream Flow Program.

The project is a groundbreaking project for the state’s instream flow program. Here’s why:

This project is the first use of House Bill 1280.

The trust agreement provides a model for all other water users in the state that have water rights that are not currently being used, such as municipalities that have developed water supplies beyond their immediate needs.

If this transaction is approved, more than thirty additional water rights will be submitted by Pitkin County for acceptance into the CWCB’s instream flow program. Furthermore, Pitkin County will add water rights to the trust agreement that it will acquire by using the proceeds from its new Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund. Thus, the trust agreement will form the foundation for a long-term, perhaps perpetual relationship between Pitkin County and the CWCB to increase the water available to your local streams.

The trust agreement was fought by the Basalt Water Conservancy District, Starwood Metropolitan District, the Willow Creek Ditch and Herrick Ditch Company, and the Roaring Fork Land and Cattle Company. Those parties requested the hearing before the CWCB that, today, settled the matter. After an almost five-hour hearing, the Colorado Water Conservation Board voted unanimously to approve the trust agreement.

“We’re very pleased with the arrangement. Today is the beginning of a long-term relationship with the CWCB to improve streamflows in Pitkin County and everybody benefits, from the local fish to our local businesses dependent upon healthy streams in our County,” says John Ely, Pitkin County’s attorney. Speaking for the CWCB, Linda Bassi, Chief of the CWCB’s Stream and Lake Protection Section adds: “This is a great project for a critical area of the state. We’re looking forward to continuing to work with Pitkin County under this long-term, win-win arrangement.”

Contacts: John Ely, Pitkin County Attorney, at (970) 920-5190; Chief, CWCB Stream and Lake Protection Section, at (303) 917-5916; Amy W. Beatie, Executive Director, Colorado Water Trust, at (303) 525-4736

More HB 08-1280 coverage here.

Green Mountain releases

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

A Grand County contractor, working on the county’s Streamflow Management Plan, will be collecting data along the Blue River below Green Mountain Reservoir under multiple flow regimes. In order to accommodate this data collection it will be necessary to maintain the reservoir release at 200 cfs on Wednesday and Thursday and then 400 cfs on Friday and Saturday. The release rate will be ramped down to 200 cfs by Sunday evening.

More Blue River watershed coverage here.

Coyote Gulch outage

I have a deadline at Colorado Central Magazine. I’ll see you Wednesday morning.

Aspen: Recap of public meeting for planned hydroelectric installation on Castle Creek

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

Nearly two dozen people attended a public meeting held Friday concerning the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project. City officials, paid consultants, hydrologists and aquatic biologists were on hand to explain the project and answer questions about the project. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the city should circumvent a full environmental review through a permit process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As it stands now, the city plans to apply for what’s known as a “conduit exemption,” which wouldn’t require a full-blown environmental review. But the city’s public works director Phil Overeyender said if public comment, which will be taken for the next 60 days, raises enough concern or potential effects that the city hasn’t considered, a full environmental review could be possible.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Reclamation: Fryingpan summer flows concern for fishermen

From The Aspen Times:

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a response to a letter of concern about summer water releases from Ruedi Reservoir, and it should be available to the public next week, an agency spokeswoman said. The Basalt town government and Ruedi Water and Power Authority asked the reclamation bureau for a detailed review of the water releases. The releases from the dam created a six-week “disaster” for anglers on the Fryingpan River, says a letter from the entities. Copies of the letter were sent to members of Colorado’s congressional delegation and state legislators. The reclamation bureau received the letter Monday and is collecting information for the response, said spokeswoman Kara Lamb.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project watershed coverage here.

Thompson Divide: Coalition funding water quality study to get in front of oil and gas exploration and production effects

From The Sopris Sun (Jereby Heiman):

The Thompson Divide Coalition (TDC) has organized a study that is intended to establish baseline data on the purity of streams and underground water in the threatened area to the west and southwest of Carbondale. The group has partnered with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to design and execute the study. The Roaring Fork Conservancy is a Basalt-based watershed conservation organization that employs scientists and other experts and works to protect rivers, streams, underground water and stream bank habitat. “This baseline will allow us to hold the gas drilling companies accountable,” said Jock Jacober, chairman of the TDC Steering Committee.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Cortez: New sanitation district rates take hold

From the Cortez Journal (Steve Grazier):

[District Manager Jay Conner] said business and multi-unit users will still pay $27 per month for thousands of gallons of flushing water. However, the $27 rate nets customers 3,000 gallons a month instead of the previous 10,000 gallons. Customers using more than 3,000 gallons will be charged an additional $3.50 per 1,000 gallons. Multi-unit and commercial users receiving a rate increase typically consist of Cortez’s downtown businesses, mobile-home park residents and apartment building tenants, Conner said.

The sanitation district manager cited various reasons for the rate increase, which affects about 1,100 multi-unit users and 283 commercial businesses in and near Cortez. “Our sewer lines are needing some repair,” Conner said. “The cost of billing, fuel and materials have also gone up.” Conner added that the Cortez Sanitation District has more than 100,000 feet of clay-tile sewer lines being replaced in and around the city. About 80,000 feet of asbestos-concrete lines are also in need of replacement.

Residential customers of the sanitation district are also on tap for a rate hike, Conner said. The monthly charge of $27 per household is targeted for an additional $3 in January 2010.

The sanitation district board is scheduled to vote on the issue at its Dec. 14 regular meeting, Conner said. Residential and commercial sanitation customers last received fee hikes in December 2008.

More Montezuma County coverage here.

Rico: Dolores Water Conservancy District approves alluvial well for supplemental supply

From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):

Rico proposed using alluvial wells north of town, which pump water from shallow aquifers, to supplement their current water supply. “We’ve been working on this for a couple of years now,” said Mike England, Rico town manager. “We struggle with the Silver Creek supply, especially after it rains.” “Rico’s primary point of water supply on Silver Creek faces turbidity and other issues,” said Mike Preston, DWCD manager. “They would like to drill a well up above Rico and be able to run the water down into town.”

England stressed Rico has tried to address their water concerns without new sources, but the 300 lots currently using water have put a strain on the town’s resources. “We have promoted the conservation of water,” England said. “We have raised prices for residential and commercial properties. We are near capacity and need to try to develop other water sources. This request is not for future development, just historic use.”[…]

The Colorado Water Conservation Board allows the Dolores Water Conservancy a 1 per cent, or 0.20 cubic feet per second, de minimis allowance of water usage in the instream flow segment between Rico and the confluence with Fill Gulch. De minimis allowance is the maximum amount of water usage allowed without substantial impact to instream flow. The proposed Rico project would require an allocation of 0.178 cfs. “What they are proposing is taking up a substantial part of the de minimis ,” Preston said.

Curtis walked the board through the existing water use on the section of river in question, noting there are 25 existing parcels, including reserved water usage rights for the Sundial development, that have prior claim. Ultimately, Curtis did not see a problem with the Rico request. “The way consumptive use is, we should be able to handle 300 residences,” he said. “Our conclusion was this isn’t a big use on the district and we don’t see a big impact.” The board’s approval of the request was subject to CWCB agreement that only 0.022 cfs be counted against the de minimis allowance downstream of Fill Gulch.

More Dolores River watershed coverage here and here.

Wiggins Town Council delays rate increase

From The Fort Morgan Times (John Brennan):

The Wiggins Town Council decided at its meeting Wednesday to delay a planned rate increase from $36 a month to $56 a month per household…

Town Administrator Bill Rogers said the town could impose the first $20 of the increase as soon as construction begins, or delay any increase until the project is completed. Councilman Vince Longcor said he felt the town should wait to impose even a partial rate hike until the town starts work like digging trenches or laying pipe. “There’s a lot of work being done behind the scenes (on the water project), but for a lot of people seeing is believing,” Longcor said. Rogers said he expects to be able to start construction on the project as soon as the town receives a letter of authorization from USDA Rural Development, which is loaning money for the project. That letter should come shortly after the first of the year, Rogers said. The town also decided to finalize a contract with IFE, the engineering firm doing preliminary design work on the water project. Town attorney Melinda Culley told the council she understood that the design work had been approved, but no funding had been appropriated yet. She said state law requires that funding be approved before authorizing any work, so Culley recommended that the town either hold off on approving any design work, or only authorize work for which it had funding available. Rogers said the town had about $100,000 that it could dedicate for the design work, and the expense would be reimbursable through the USDA. A representative of IFE said the agreement to be approved Wednesday would allow the firm to do some initial geotechnical and surveying work, for which there is some urgency because the town can only bore under the Bijou ditch when it is not filled with water. Rogers said that leaves the town just a “very short window” in January or February to complete that work, or face delaying the project for an entire year.

The council unanimously approved the agreement with IFE and the appropriation of the $100,000, with the understanding that it would be reimbursed by USDA for whatever portion of that money is spent.

More Wiggins coverage here.

Log Lane utilities bills to rise $10 per month

From The Fort Morgan Times (Dan Barker):

The Log Lane Village Board of Trustees approved two ordinances Thursday night, one raising the basic cost for water by $5 and the other raising the basic cost for sewer services by $5. New town attorney Carl McGuire — who was sworn in that evening — said the rise in costs was necessary because the town needed larger reserves to ensure it could pay the loan it got for the recent overhaul of those utility systems. Log Lane took out a loan from the Colorado Drinking Water Revolving Fund through the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority for the work on the systems, he said. However, the authority is demanding that Log Lane have a certain level of reserves to make sure it can pay its loan, and the current reserves are not acceptable.

More Morgan County coverage here.

Morgan County Water Quality District board meeting recap

From The Fort Morgan Times (John Brennan):

City Water Superintendent John Turner told the water board during its monthly meeting that an agreement with Quality Water could help the city in the event the supply of water from the city’s treatment plant west of town is somehow shut down. At least one connection already exists between the two water systems, Turner said, and an additional connection would be advisable. The city’s current emergency plan in the event of the loss of its water supply calls for the city to revert to the use of several wells that are still online in the city, Turner said. But the city stopped using those wells because of the high concentration of nitrates, uranium and other contaminants in the water, he noted…

Water board member Bill Baker raised the issue of the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, which many Fort Morgan residents support through a mill levy tax. LSP officials made a presentation to the water board last spring, outlining all of the water measuring and data collection the group does, Baker recalled. But he said none of the things the LSP district does have anything to do with the city of Fort Morgan. “Northern (Colorado Water Conservancy District) is our water district as far as I’m concerned,” Baker said. “But I looked at (LSP’s) budget and most of their revenue is our money. I think we should look at withdrawing (from LSP).” Powers pointed out that while individual property owners in Fort Morgan are assessed the mill levy for the LSP water district, Fort Morgan as a city does not “belong” to the district and therefore cannot withdraw…A motion by water board member Jeff Canfield, to ask the council to instruct Wells to look into possible options for withdrawing from the LSP water district, was approved unanimously…

The water board also discussed proposed bylaws governing its structure and function. Although the board has essentially been operating without bylaws since its inception, Wells said the city council approved a resolution this year that all city boards and commissions must have formal bylaws. Some exceptions were made, including the city planning commission, which is governed by state law. One of the elements of the bylaws dictated by the council is term limits. But several members of the water board felt the complex nature of the water issues it deals with make the knowledge and experience of the board members more crucial than on some other city boards, and might qualify it for such an exception. Board member Jim Green said longevity and historical knowledge are especially important on the water board. “That perspective is invaluable,” Green said. “We’re looking at things, projects, plans 20 years from now, but a lot of that depends on things that happened 20, 30, 50 years ago.”

More Morgan County coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Fountain Creek improvements still on tap despite Colorado Springs’ stormwater enterprise fund uncertainty

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The stormwater enterprise, which is expected to be phased out over eight years after Colorado Springs voters passed Doug Bruce’s Issue 300 last week, was linked to the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental impact statement. “We need to read the language carefully,” Bruce McCormick, Colorado Springs water chief, said Friday. “While the enterprise is losing funding over time, SDS is still going to be funded according to the commitments in the EIS.” If necessary, Colorado Springs would pay for those commitments through the rate structure associated with building the $1 billion-plus SDS project, McCormick said. The EIS, released earlier this year by Reclamation, says Colorado Springs is responsible for improving storm drainage in the city as it grows, so that it will not exacerbate problems associated with runoff into Fountain Creek – erosion, sedimentation and pollution…

In replies to concerns about the future of the enterprise, Reclamation responded that the actions promised by Colorado Springs are independent of the enterprise. The EIS talks about the purposes for forming the enterprise in 2005. Colorado Springs sought to address a 20-year backlog of $300 million in stormwater improvements and strengthen planning with $17 million annually in new revenues. Some of those improvements were tied to correcting conditions that led, in part, to more than 100 sanitary sewer spills between 1998 and 2005, which were cited in a federal lawsuit by the Sierra Club. Colorado Springs has promised Pueblo County it would make $75 million in improvements to fortify its sanitary sewer system, pay $50 million to the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District and make other improvements as a condition for a 1041 permit. “We plan to begin dredging in the channel through Pueblo and enhancing wetlands in 2010,” McCormick said. “Those actions have nothing to do with the stormwater enterprise. The commitments are a separate component.”

Meanwhile it looks like there will be a legal challenge to Douglas Bruces’s Issue 300, passed by Colorado Springs’ voters last week. 300 would phase out the city’s stormwater enterprise. Here’s a report from Daniel Chaćon writing for The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

The confusing and ambiguous language of ballot issue 300 is subject to various legal interpretations, and unnamed citizens groups are already talking about challenging the legality of a major part of the initiative, outgoing Assistant City Manager Mike Anderson said Thursday. The ballot initiative, which voters approved last week, is apparently in conflict with the city charter, Anderson said during a candid and wide-ranging speech before the Colorado Springs Press Association…

Anderson said Issue 300 amended the city code, but not the city charter, and the city charter allows payments in lieu of taxes. The city charter, which is analogous to state or U.S. constitutions for the city, trumps the city code, which is comprised of enacted city ordinances, he said…

Anderson said the city at this point doesn’t plan to challenge the legality of Issue 300, and he wouldn’t identify the citizens groups considering the legal challenge. Anderson would only say that “there’s some talk out there.” But the city is just starting to “dig into the implications” of 300, he said.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Kickoff celebration recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“This is our future,” Southeastern Colorado Conservancy District President Bill Long said Friday at a celebration marking the beginning of the conduit’s construction. “Sometimes I worry that we don’t think about the future the way they did in 1962 or 1942.”[…]

Members of Colorado’s congressional delegation evoked the words of President John F. Kennedy and the continued support of valley leaders such as Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings, Long and others in moving the project toward reality. “I think Jack Kennedy would be enormously proud of the Southeastern district and Southern Colorado for hanging in there all these years,” Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., said. “This is a touchstone for what we should be doing when our politics becomes crazier and crazier.” Bennet quoted Kennedy’s speech in Pueblo in 1962 that praised the public benefits of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project as he signed it into law. The conduit was a crucial part of that project, and would benefit those with the poorest quality drinking water, the Lower Arkansas Valley. It was ballyhooed as a primary benefit when golden frying pans were sold to raise money to support the project. Enthusiasm grew in the 1960s – Lamar joined the Southeastern district in 1968 to partake of the conduit – and continued well into the 1970s…

It wasn’t until this year, when a concept that would use excess-capacity revenues from the Fry-Ark Project to repay federal costs of the conduit and other unfunded portions of the project, that the project took off…

“You’ve seen what happens when water moves away from communities,” Rep. Salazar said. “What we are here today to assure is that every community in the Arkansas Valley gets good, clean drinking water.”[…]

Both Bennet and Salazar mentioned [Bob] Rawlings’ role in promoting the conduit for decades, but Rawlings went even further in history to praise the efforts of others in the history of the Fry-Ark Project. “I think this is a wonderful day,” The Chieftain publisher said. “It’s been a long time coming. The efforts of Frank Hoag, Damian Ducy, Charles Beise, Charles Boustead and many others are looking down on us and grateful that this finally is getting done.”

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

West slope to east slope water transfers, IBCC/roundtables and State Rep. Sal Pace’s proposed mitigation legislation debated

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“We already have a bureaucratic effort to achieve the same goal,” said Harold Miskel, vice-president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “I worry about legislation like this, given the sensitivities between the Eastern and Western slopes, that it may exacerbate that other effort. It’s an additional lever and a threat.” Miskel was reacting to a proposal by state Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, which he said will encourage collaboration to mitigate the impact of moving water from rural areas to cities, when water is transferred between state water divisions.

Pace has been promoting a concept to allow conservancy districts to negotiate mitigation in lieu of stricter court provisions. Pace plans to pattern the new provisions after the 1937 Conservancy District Act, which allows judges to consider court mitigation. Miskel said the solution to project urban shortfalls of water supplies could involve more transfers of water from the Western Slope, an issue that is already being addressed by the Interbasin Compact Committee and the Colorado Water Conservation Board…

“The IBCC never was given statutory authority,” Pace said in response to Miskel’s comments. “There’s a need for state legislation that provides for voluntary agreement. . . . If we’re going to have third-party mitigation, wouldn’t you like to be at the table?” Pace added that at least one legislator, whom he did not name, is looking at a proposal to disband the IBCC…

“I would not contest that the IBCC moves at glacial speed,” Miskel said. “But this effort was to encourage the Arkansas basin and the South Platte basin to talk to the Western Slope.”

Pace said his proposal would not harm that effort. “What I envision this bill doing is to encourage collaboration, to encourage outside applicants to work with local districts,” Pace said. “I’m not trying to do an anti-metro bill. Pace has not drafted a bill yet, and instead has chosen to talk with water boards all over the state – he also traveled to Salida Thursday afternoon to talk with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District – to gain input. A draft version of the bill will be distributed through Colorado Water Congress. The biggest problem Pace is facing is how to deal with leases, saying cities and water sellers could avoid the community impact question with long-term agreements rather than outright sales. “I do not want to discourage fallowing programs,” Pace said. Pace added his bill would not stop water transfers or spell out what types of mitigation could be negotiated. “Transfers are not shut down and water sales cannot be stopped by conservancy districts (under the concept), Pace said.

More transmountain/transbasin diversions coverage here.

More on last week’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling on Dry Gulch Reservoir planning horizon

From the Summit Daily News (Bob Berwyn):

According to Drew Peternell, of Colorado Trout Unlimited’s Western Water Project, the Supreme Court laid out a new test for public utilities. In the Pagosa Springs case, the court ruled that the city’s claim for water based on a 100-year planning horizon was not reasonable. “They have to show that claim for water is based on realistic projections for population growth. They can’t just pull numbers out the air,” Peternell said.

Undeveloped (conditional is the legal term) water rights are subject to periodic hearings in water court. Every six years, the water providers have to show their claim on the water is still valid. When the time for those hearings comes, they will be held to the new standards spelled out by the court, Peternell said.

Denver Water, the biggest player in Summit County, joined in the court case on the side of Pagosa Springs, along with other water providers from around the state. “We wanted the court to maintain a degree of deference to governmental entities that have to plan for future growth,” said Denver Water attorney Casey Funk. Funk said the Supreme Court decision established some new factors that water courts have to consider before awarding water rights, but that water providers still do have some flexibility in planning for future needs. Essentially, the ruling partly clarified some of the conflicts between the “great and growing cities” doctrine, which provides flexibility to plan for future water needs, and the anti-speculation doctrine, which limits pie-in-the-sky water claims.

More water law coverage here.

More Dry Gulch Reservoir coverage here and here.

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District hatches plan to accelerate the Arkansas Valley Conduit

Hoping to alleviate building delays due to the vagaries of federal funding the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is shortening the timeline for the environmental (NEPA) reports. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Thursday approved a plan to wrap up major parts of an Environmental Protection Agency grant by next March, allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to begin work on an environmental impact statement by April. “The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) piece of this needs to get started,” said Phil Reynolds, project manager. In order to do that, an EPA grant that was going to take 27 months to complete will be pushed ahead of schedule. The work also includes identifying the route of the pipeline and looking at rights of way. The parts affecting the EIS, however, need to be completed so Reclamation can begin work.

At a meeting this week with the Bureau of Reclamation officials in Billings, Mont., the district received assurances that the $5 million appropriated by Congress for 2010 will be spent in this fiscal year, Executive Director Jim Broderick told the board. “Between now and March 31, we will enter into a third-party agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation,” Broderick said. “If we had not done that, the intent was to spend $2 million this year, and encumber $3 million for the following year.” That would make it difficult for the district to ask for more money in the following year, Broderick said.

Meanwhile, here’s the SECWCD budget news, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“We are not looking at a huge shortfall,” said Kathie Fanning, chief financial officer. “So many things are coming to fruition.” Most of the district’s revenues – $12 million – go toward repayment of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, including $5.3 million for the Fountain Valley Conduit. The district began repaying $132 million on the Fry-Ark Project in 1982, and still owes $68 million on the 50-year loan. This year’s payments toward the project are about 6.5 million. Other payments toward operation of the winter water program, operation and maintenance. The largest expenses in the operating fund go toward employees, $1 million, and legal work, $515,000. Both figures are essentially unchanged from 2009. The district also has budgeted nearly $3 million for its enterprise fund, which includes an accelerated payment schedule for an Environmental Protection Agency grant for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The budget includes property tax collections of 0.944 mills for parts of nine counties. El Paso County contributes 72 percent, while Pueblo County contributes almost 16 percent. Counties west of Pueblo contribute almost 9 percent, while those east of Pueblo make up the remainder.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Fruita: Construction begins on new wastewater treatment plant

From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Le Roy Standish):

Construction of a $22.8 million wastewater treatment plant began Thursday in Fruita. The plant is being built at 15 Road near the Colorado River by Garney Construction of Littleton…

The new plant will have the ability to treat 2.33 million gallons of waste daily. Huston said the city anticipates the facility will have 20 years of operation and the ability to handle Fruita’s projected growth rate of 2.5 percent. But the main reason for the new plant is federal clean-water standards, Huston said. “The environmental laws have changed, and they will require us to meet greater nutrient removal standards by 2013,” Huston said.

More wastewater coverage here.

Republican River Water Conservation District meeting November 18-19

From The Holyoke Enterprise:

The Board of Directors of the Republican River Water Conservation District will be holding a special meeting in Greeley on Nov. 18-19. Times are 1-5 p.m. on Nov. 18 and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Nov. 19. The agenda includes a report from the District’s General Manager; reports from Colorado Rural Development, Farm Service Agency, and Natural Resource Conservation Service; updates on the CREP and AWEP programs; reports from the District’s lobbyists on legislative issues; presentation by the District’s engineer on the status of the Compact Compliance Pipeline project; report from Mike Sullivan, Assistant State Engineer, on the status of RRCA pipeline approval; report from the District’s legal counsel; and District staff performance review; presentation by the Colorado Division of Local Affairs, and Board discussion and action items, including whether to proceed with construction of the Compact Compliance Pipeline in 2010. Public comment will be held at 4:45 p.m. on Nov. 18. The RRWCD Board of Directors will hold an executive session to discuss personnel issues and water supply agreements, determine positions and instruct negotiators, and receive legal advice on legal questions related to such agreements, compact compliance, the Compact compliance pipeline. The meeting will take place at the Greeley Guest House.

For further information concerning the details of this meeting, contact Stan Murphy, General Manager Republican River Water Conservation District at 970-332-3552.

More Republican River Basin coverage here and here.

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to host celebration for $5 million in funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit Friday November 13

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A dedication for the Arkansas Valley Conduit will be at 11 a.m. Friday at the base of the Pueblo Dam. The $300 million conduit received $5 million in funding from Congress in October as part of an energy and water appropriations bill signed by President Barack Obama last week. U.S. Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey and U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, all Colorado Democrats, have been asked to speak at the event. The public is invited to attend, and may enter through the south entrance to Lake Pueblo State Park, and follow signs indicating where the ceremony will be.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Reclamation’s summer releases into Fryingpan River catching flack from anglers

From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

The Basalt town government, Ruedi Water and Power Authority, and fishing guides want a detailed review and explanation of the reclamation bureau’s releases from Ruedi Reservoir. The releases created water levels that were too high for fishing in the gold-medal trout habitat of the Fryingpan River from late July to early September. The water level in Ruedi dropped too low to allow use of the Aspen Yacht Club docks on Labor Day weekend. “In short, the six weeks between approximately July 26 and Sept. 6 was a disaster for water-related recreation in the Fryingpan Valley,” says a letter from Basalt and the Ruedi Water and Power Authority. The latter entity operates a small hyrdo-electric project at the reservoir and closely monitors Ruedi water issues for local governments. The letter was released to the public at a Basalt Town Council meeting Tuesday night. The Bureau of Reclamation office in Loveland, which manages Ruedi releases, was closed for Veterans Day so no immediate reaction was available.

Mark Fuller, director of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority, said the releases were handled differently this year than over the last decade or so. The flow in the Fryingpan River is generally maintained at 250 cubic feet per second during summer months. It has rarely exceeded 300 cfs during summers and if it did, it was only for a day or two, he said. This year the flow in the Fryingpan topped 250 cfs the week of July 29 and kept climbing. It topped 400 cfs by Aug. 12 and 500 cfs by Aug. 19. Flows didn’t drop below 250 cfs until the week of Sept. 9…

[Bruce Gabow] quizzed reclamation officials about the flow and was told a “perfect storm” of circumstances affected the releases. Ruedi is one of a handful of reservoirs used to meet the demands of downstream users who purchase water. A variety of factors affected releases this summer when there were “calls” for water. There was a brief shutdown of the Shoshone Power Plant on the Colorado River, which affected water required from Ruedi; there was a delay in declaring a surplus of water from Green Mountain Reservoir, requiring more water releases from Ruedi while Green Mountain couldn’t answer the calls; and there was the usual contribution by Ruedi to a program to benefit endangered fish species on the Colorado River east of Grand Junction. The reaction of the federal agency to concerns in the Fryingpan Valley have been frustrating Gabow for years. Officials hold the necessary public hearings to collect input and they act concerned about the points raised by local residents, Gabow said, but they don’t alter their operations. “They do whatever they want,” he said. “They’re not really accountable to anyone here. They’re the government.”

More Fryingpan River watershed coverage here.

Fountain Creek: Five finalists remain for executive director of the Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The interviews will be at the board’s next meeting, 1 p.m. Dec. 4 at Fountain City Hall. The finalists chosen are:

Gary Barber, a Colorado Springs water rights and real estate broker. Barber also is the manager of the El Paso County Water Authority and chairman of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable. He helped lawmakers write the legislation that created the Fountain Creek District.

Former Pueblo County Administrator Mark Carmel. In his more than 30-year career with Pueblo County, Carmel served as the county engineer and public works director as well.

Pueblo businessman Kevin McCarthy, whose letter explained that after working with some of those involved in projects on Fountain Creek, he is interested in becoming the “point person” for projects. He is a member of the Pueblo Board of Water Works.

Pueblo Stormwater Director Dennis Maroney, who will be retiring in January. Maroney is familiar with Fountain Creek issues after eight years working with the Corps of Engineers watershed study. He is on the Fountain Creek district’s technical advisory committee. Maroney has worked for the city since 1982.

James Munch, former head of planning for the city of Pueblo. After almost 30 years with the city, Munch became director of development for the Pueblo Springs Ranch development north of Pueblo in 2007. He is now a consultant…

The board is required to give the public at least two weeks to comment on finalists, and the Dec. 4 interviews will be conducted in public session, explained Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

S. 787: Clean Water Restoration Act

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“What we’ve offered is a compromise position on legislation governing the jurisdictional waters of the United States. The question is: What type of projects need a 404 permit?” Aurora Water Director Mark Pifher told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable on Wednesday. Pifher has worked for the Colorado Water Congress and the Western Urban Water Coalition on proposed legislation by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., which attempts to restore Clean Water Act guidelines to policies that were in place prior to a pair of United States Supreme Court decisions. The controversy centers on the definition of “navigable waters” and which federal laws need to be considered in issuing permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The Supreme Court cases are Rapanos v. the United States, decided in 2006, which involved filling in wetlands near ditches in Wisconsin; and the 2001 decision in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which centered on the city’s plans to create landfills on old gravel pits the government deemed wetlands. The effect of both decisions was to muddy the distinction of whether water projects in areas marginally connected to a watershed required a 404 permit. “After the decisions, Congress said, ‘We’re going to fix it,’ ” Pifher said.

The first attempt at fixing it caused an uproar because of a lengthy series of findings that some felt expanded the Clean Water Act into land use authority, international treaties and other areas of federal jurisdiction. Others objected to the removal of “navigable waters” from the language of the law, saying it broadened the federal authority…

“The Western Urban Water Coalition drafted a compromise that leaves in navigable waters, but defines what they are,” Pifher said. It also included exemptions for both municipal and agricultural systems in the West, and protects administration of water rights according to state laws.

More S. 787 coverage here.

EPA Study Reveals Widespread Contamination of Fish in U.S. Lakes and Reservoirs

As a nation we’re rapidly polluting our sources of fresh water. Here’s a release from the EPA:

A new EPA study shows concentrations of toxic chemicals in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs in nearly all 50 U.S. states. For the first time, EPA is able to estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs nationwide that have fish containing potentially harmful levels of chemicals such as mercury and PCBs.

“These results reinforce Administrator Jackson’s strong call for revitalized protection of our nation’s waterways and long-overdue action to protect the American people,” said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water. “EPA is aggressively tackling the issues the report highlights. Before the results were even finalized, the agency initiated efforts to further reduce toxic mercury pollution and strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act – all part of a renewed effort to protect the nation’s health and environment.”

The data showed mercury concentrations in game fish exceeding EPA’s recommended levels at 49 percent of lakes and reservoirs nationwide, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in game fish at levels of potential concern at 17 percent of lakes and reservoirs. These findings are based on a comprehensive national study using more data on levels of contamination in fish tissue than any previous study.

Burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, accounts for nearly half of mercury air emissions caused by human activity in the U.S., and those emissions are a significant contributor to mercury in water bodies. From 1990 through 2005, emissions of mercury into the air decreased by 58 percent. EPA is committed to developing a new rule to substantially reduce mercury emissions from power plants, and the Obama Administration is actively supporting a new international agreement that will reduce mercury emissions worldwide.

The study also confirms the widespread occurrence of PCBs and dioxins in fish, illustrating the need for federal, state and local government to continue efforts to reduce the presence of these harmful chemicals in our lakes and reservoirs and ensure that fish advisory information is readily available.

It is important that women of child-bearing age and children continue to follow the advice of EPA and the Food and Drug Administration on fish consumption as it relates to mercury. This study is also a strong message to state and local governments to redouble their efforts in looking for opportunities to reduce mercury discharges, as well as developing fish advisories, especially to reach those in sensitive and vulnerable populations.

Results from the four-year National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue show that mercury and PCBs are widely distributed in U.S. lakes and reservoirs. Mercury and PCBs were detected in all of the fish samples collected from the nationally representative sample of 500 lakes and reservoirs in the study. Because these findings apply to fish caught in lakes and reservoirs, it is particularly important for recreational and subsistence fishers to follow their state and local fish advisories.

EPA is conducting other statistically based national aquatic surveys that include assessment of fish contamination, such as the National Rivers and Streams Assessment and the National Coastal Assessment. Sampling for the National Rivers and Streams Assessment is underway, and results from this two-year study are expected to be available in 2011. Collection of fish samples for the National Coastal Assessment will begin in 2010.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy

More information on local fish advisories: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/states.htm

More water pollution coverage here.

Veterans Day

Take the time today to thank a veteran for their service.

Coyote Gulch outage

I’m heading down the two-lane blacktop with Mrs. Gulch for a little business and a little R&R. Posting may be intermittent until next Monday.

2009 Ag Water Summit

From The Fence Post:

The 2009 Ag Water Summit will be Dec. 1 at the Jefferson County Fairgounds, 15200 W. 6th Ave., Golden. The summit will be presented by the Colorado Ag Water Alliance, Colorado Ag Council and the Jefferson County office of Colorado State University Extension. It will begin the evening before with a network reception at the Marriott Denver West where Gov. Bill Ritter has been invited to speak. The summit will feature a keynote by Pat O’Toole, president of the Family Farm Alliance and will include legislative and budget issues, optimizing irrigation water, “new water” needs, alternatives to ag transfers and alternatives to “buy and dry.”

Registration deadline is Nov. 20; cost is $50 for ag producers, $75 for nonproducers. For registration and other information, call Crystal Korrey (303) 749-7502 or e-mail ckorrey@colofb.com.

More Colorado water coverage here.

Old Dillon Reservoir expansion update

From the Summit Daily News (Bob Berwyn):

Completion of the environmental analysis is a huge step forward for the $6.4 million project. The agency will take public comment on the environmental analysis for 30 days. Local officials hope to begin construction next summer. Dillon, Silverthorne and Summit County will share the cost of the project, which, first and foremost, would help bolster Dillon’s water supplies. The town relies mainly on surface water from Straight Creek, a source that’s susceptible to pollution. The town also felt a pinch during the 2002 drought, when Straight Creek flows dropped to record low levels.

The proposed project includes seven elements:

— enlarging the existing reservoir from 62 acre-feet to 288 acre-feet (an acre-foot is 326,000 gallons, so the capacity would go from a little over 2 million gallons to about 10.5 million gallons);

— restoring the outlet from ODR to the south to the Blue River (now Dillon Reservoir);

— reconstructing the head gate on Salt Lick Gulch and piping the entire length of the Dillon Ditch to serve the enlarged reservoir and improving the siphon under I-70;

— rehabilitating the outlet to Salt Lick Gulch;

— temporary road access improvements;

— burying existing overhead utility lines around Old Dillon Reservor; and

— wetland creation.

About 20 acres of wetlands would be affected by the reservoir enlargement, but the impacts would be addressed by adding new wetland on the southwest shorelines of the reservoir. In the long run, there would no net impact to recreational uses in the area, according to Paul Semmer, land specialist with the Dillon Ranger District. The enlargement of the reservoir would actually decrease total diversions from the Salt Lick Gulch drainage from 573 acre feet to 450 acre feet. The reservoir and dams would permanently impact 10.1 acres of forest and meadow habitat in the project area, according to the draft study.

More Old Dillon Reservoir coverage here.

Custer County looking closely at Upper Ark’s augmentation plan

From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):

On Tuesday, Aug. 11, county commissioners Lynn Attebery, Jim Austin and Carole Custer [hired] the law firm Duncan, Ostrander and Dingess of Denver to represent the county in its objection of the proposed water augmentation plan for Custer County submitted to water court by the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District in late June. Commissioner Austin will serve as contact person with the law firm. Commissioner Attebery also wanted to serve as contact person, however, commissioner Austin and Custer voted in favor of Austin. Also, attorney fees will be split with the city of Aurora as they have also retained the same law firm to handle the same matter. Austin noted Aurora is also objecting to the proposed water augmentation plan.

More Custer County coverage here.

Colorado Springs City Council moving to dissolve stormwater enterprise fund

After last week’s election Colorado Springs Mayor Rivera claimed that Issue 300 would have no effect on the city’s stormwater enterprise fund. This week he’s saying that the people have spoken and that controlling stormwater runoff should be borne by the city’s general fund. Here’s a report from Daniel Chaćon writing for The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

“I’m convinced that when people were voting on it, their primary vote was to eliminate or phase out the Stormwater Enterprise,” said Mayor Lionel Rivera, who previously maintained that Issue 300 would not affect the Stormwater Enterprise. The council’s about-face followed last week’s crushing defeat on Election Day, when voters slammed the door on a proposed property tax increase while approving a measure anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce succeeded in placing on the ballot that phases out payments to the city from city-owned enterprises. Although some city officials had questioned whether Bruce’s measure affected fees collected from residents for the Stormwater Enterprise’s drainage projects, the council Monday told the city manager to prepare a recommendation on how to do away with the enterprise and associated fee with critical projects still in the pipeline.

More stormwater coverage here.

Fort Morgan: Emergency teams train to respond to chlorine leak

From The Fort Morgan Times (Dan Barker):

This was not a real leak, but a training exercise meant to prepare those at the water plant and emergency responders in case there is ever a leak of the deadly gas, and a chance to see how well everyone had prepared for it. Tanks of liquid and gaseous chlorine are stored in an air-tight bay at the plant, used to make sure bacteria are killed before water goes to users in Fort Morgan, said employee Matt Padgett.

More water treatment coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County Commissioners vote to oppose S. 1215, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act

From the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Garfield County commissioners voted 2–1 Monday in opposition to legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver. The bill would subject fracturing to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and require disclosure of chemicals used in the process. The vote disappointed several county residents who attended Monday’s commissioner meeting and fear fracturing could contaminate drinking water. But Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin said the oil and gas industry is better off being regulated at the state level…

But fellow Commissioner Tresi Houpt, who also sits on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, questioned the contention that the bill would drive up costs. She added, “Why are we talking about costs? Why aren’t we talking about safety and health and welfare?”[…]

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association said in a news release that Garfield County joins Delta, Mesa, Moffat, Morgan, Rio Blanco, Washington, Weld and Yuma counties in opposing DeGette’s bill. The nine counties represent nearly 44 percent of the state’s gas production. By contrast, the two counties that have supported the legislation, Pitkin and San Miguel, are responsible for less than 1 percent of statewide production, the association says. Industry officials worry that the federal regulation could result in fees of up to $100,000 per well and in lengthy permitting delays that would harm domestic production…

The industry says there’s never been a documented case of fracturing contaminating groundwater. Rifle-area resident Jim Golden said he’s tired of hearing the argument that contamination is just anecdotal, and said Garfield commissioners have heard from plenty of people who are suffering as a result of drilling. “It’s absolutely horrible to have to stand up to our own local government to fight for your health and safety,” he told the commissioners…

[Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin], both Republicans, won elections last November after benefiting from independent campaign expenditures from energy-related interests. For Samson, a newcomer to office, Monday was perhaps his most significant energy-related vote to date. All three commissioners said they heard from numerous constituents regarding the fracturing legislation, and county staff members told commissioners they received thousands of comments.

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

Despite evidence of significant sentiment to the contrary among the electorate, two Garfield County commissioners voted this week to oppose federal legislation which would put the oil and gas industry partly under the control of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Commissioner Trési Houpt, the lone Democrat on the county board, said she supported what is known as the FRAC (for Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, introduced in both houses of Congress last summer. But Republican Commissioners John Martin and Mike Samson cast the deciding votes for a resolution that endorses a continued exemption for the gas drilling industry from the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, which is administered by the EPA…

Residents in Colorado and other states, living near the drilling operations, have reported getting sick themselves, watching livestock die and experiencing everything from exploding domestic water wells to finding foul-smelling slicks covering nearby waterways — all of which they believe are related to the drilling activities and the chemicals used in the frac’ing process. The energy companies, however, argue that there have never been “documented” cases of groundwater contaminated by drilling rigs, and that the FRAC Act would cause regulatory delays and increased costs for their activities.

In a wide-ranging discussion before the vote, Martin and Samson framed their decision in terms of upholding states rights against unwanted federal interference, arguing that the state could regulate the industry better. At one point Martin said that the state’s right to regulate the state’s waters goes all the way back to an 18th century “navigable waters” law passed by an early Congress. “Do you want to have the federal government come in and tell you what’s going to happen?” he asked the crowd of 25 or so at the meeting, or should it be left to what he called “the local voice”? Samson, who represents voters on the western end of the county, submitted a resolution that essentially mimicked a resolution adopted on Sept. 11, 2009, by Club 20, a Western Slope business organization. The organization lists a number of well-known energy companies as its sponsors, and nine of its 22 member counties have come out against the FRAC Act…

Paul Light of the [Grand Valley Citizens Alliance], pointing to a recent poll indicating that a majority of the region’s voters favor increased regulation of the industry, added that “the real battle is [not between federal and state regulators, but] between the industry and the people trying to drink the water.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Parker: Rueter-Hess Reservoir update

So far Parker and its partners in Rueter-Hess Reservoir — currently under construction southwest of the city — do not have enough surface water to fill the 77,000 acre-foot reservoir. Here’s a report from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

The prospect of what critics call an empty bathtub is generating anxiety around Colorado as water managers clash over the last unclaimed mountain river flows. Most water to fill the Rueter-Hess reservoir “will have to be imported,” said Frank Jaeger, manager of the Parker Water and Sanitation District, who for 25 years has led the effort to supply 450,000 suburban residents. Importing water would require multibillion-dollar pumping and piping from rivers running down the western side of the Continental Divide, such as the Colorado, back across mountains to Front Range residents, Jaeger said. Though huge, the costs likely would be less than for alternatives such as trapping and treating contaminated water from the South Platte or Arkansas rivers, he said. The option Jaeger and a Colorado-Wyoming coalition of municipal suppliers favor — one of four being considered by state natural resources officials — would divert water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in western Wyoming along Interstate 80 to Colorado…

Yet Colorado Western Slope leaders see the $230 million Rueter-Hess reservoir as folly — and bristle at talk of diverting more water across the mountains to fill it. The reservoir “is 20 times more expensive, and 10 times as big as they need. It’s going to be a little bit of water in a big bathtub,” said Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, based in Glenwood Springs. The financing, based on tap fees from anticipated housing construction, “is the water equivalent of a Ponzi scheme,” Kuhn said…”There’s a very good chance that, in the long run, there’s not going to be any more water available on the Western Slope. And, if they’re having trouble now paying for Rueter-Hess, how are they going to pay for moving water from the Western Slope? That’s why I say this is a fairy tale,” Kuhn said…

This month, more construction vehicles are rolling into action to build up the 7,700-foot-wide Frank Jaeger Dam at the reservoir. Critics “can make their claims,” but the reservoir will be crucial to sustain population growth, Jaeger said. Paying off the debt for the construction now underway all depends on tax revenues from future growth, he said. “To say, ‘We’ll just shut off growth’ will only exacerbate problems,” he said. “If you don’t pay off debt, what do you do? What does that do to the economy of the whole state? We need steady, controlled growth. All our needs for a reasonable lifestyle are tied into this.”

More Rueter-Hess coverage here and here.

Town of Fraser to absorb newly dissolved Fraser Sanitation District operations

From…[T]he Sky-Hi Daily News (Reid Armstrong):

the Town of Fraser has a little less than eight weeks to accomplish a laundry list of items required to absorb the district. Failing to meet this deadline could cost the town $100,000 said town manager Jeff Durbin…

Whereas the district’s employees are currently responsible for both the wastewater collections system and operations at the plant, all three employees will now be exclusively in charge of plant management and operations, Durbin said. The towns’ department of public works will dedicate an existing employee to deal with the wastewater collections system.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to host celebration for $5 million in funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit Friday November 13

From the La Junta Tribune-Democrat:

It will be on the south bank of the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam. People are asked to arrive by 10:45 a.m. by traveling west on Colorado Highway 96, turning right on Juniper Road and following directions to the park and event site. The public is invited to participate in the event.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

America’s most toxic cities

Many Coyote Gulch readers live in the Denver metro area. You’ll be happy to know that according to Forbes you live in the 27th most contaminated area in the U.S. — amongst the 40 largest metropolitan areas — based on poor air quality, lack of clean water and a high rate of environmental hazards. Here’s the report from Francesca Levy writing for Forbes. From the article:

To determine which cities are most toxic, Forbes looked at the country’s 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas–geographic entities that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines and uses in collecting statistics–based on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area’s principal city. The reports vary in seriousness, and not all require clean-up action from the EPA.

More water pollution coverage here.

CWCB: Live Water Supply Briefing — 2009 Water Year Review and 2010 Look Ahead, November 10

From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Ben Wade):

In lieu of a Water Availability Task Force meeting this month CWCB will be partnering with The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) for a Live Water Supply Briefing: 2009 Water Year Review and 2010 Look Ahead. Following the basin wide discussion there will be a Colorado specific presentation which will examine the current situation in Western Colorado, soil moisture conditions and a seasonal outlook. The entire webinar will last about two hours.

This first hour will take a basin wide look and will have two foci: (1) a review of the 2009 water year and an evaluation of the 2009 water supply forecasts and (2) a look ahead to 2010 including plans for future webinars and forecast services. The second hour, immediately following, will be led by Colorado Climate Center and the National Integrated Drought Information Service (NIDIS) and will focus on Western Colorado conditions as well as the NIDIS Upper Colorado River pilot project underway.

The briefing is composed of two parts, a telephone conference call and a web-based presentation. The conference call can be accessed by dialing 1-877-929-0660 a few minutes prior to the start of the call and entering the access code of 1706374. To view the web-based presentation, you will need to sign up prior to the briefing by clicking on REGISTER to sign up. A confirmation email will be sent to you and you can follow instructions from there to join the webinar.

For those unable to view the web-based presentation, you can follow the presentation by clicking web links that will be posted on the CBRFC site prior to the call.

Please contact Ben Wade atBen.Wade@state.co.usor 303-866-3441 ext. 3238 with any questions.

Here’s the link to the Interbasin Compact Committee Annual Report (pdf) published October 30. Here’s the link to the Water Supply Reserve Account Annual Report (pdf) also published on October 30.

More CWCB coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease 799.2 acres near Mt. Princeton hot springs for geothermal exploration on November 12

Update: From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times:

The Bureau of Land Management had planned to offer 800 acres of public property for geothermal during its auction this month, but will postpone action on the proposed lease until its February auction. Federal officials want more time to study the potential effects of geothermal development on water and property rights.

From The Chaffee County Times (Danny Bay):

According to the SRHA, anyone has the right to enter these federally owned sub-surface lands, prospect, and file a mining claim and plan of operation. Since the geothermal resource sits underground, it is sub-surface land. This is the basis for the sale on Nov. 12, the first geothermal lease to be auctioned by the BLM in the state of Colorado. It is open to anyone who chooses to register. Henderson said that the new owner of the federal lease will only have up to one year to create what will lead to the development of the resource. “They can’t sit on it indefinitely,” Henderson said.

But what [Buena Vista resident Steve] Glover said horrifies him is that if a developer does begin commercial production of electricity, the lease becomes open permanently. “They can ramp it up from a small project and no one could do a blessed thing about it,” he said, adding that it has the potential to expand vastly and turn one of the most aesthetically beautiful parts of Colorado into a semi-permanent industrial area…

Bill Bennett, energy use adviser for Sangre De Cristo Electric Association, said he thinks a plant could be hidden very well by building it inside, like something similar to a greenhouse or by putting bunkers around it to shield the noise. “Geothermal can run 24 hours with no down capacity. A 10-megawatt plant could supply 84 percent of all the electricity we supply all year. There are people who understand that it has no consumption, no combustion and no pollution, but they just don’t want to look at it,” Bennett said.

In response to this, Glover referenced a Salt Lake Tribune article about a 10-megawatt geothermal plant in Utah that, after six months of generating power, produces only one megawatt of net energy and buys almost as much electricity to keep the plant running as the plant produces. “There seems to be a real rush to do this. There’s a lot of ego involved in being the first to do it and I understand this. But it could come at a great cost and it should be carefully considered,” Glover said. “It would be a shame to so easily allow this to go forward.”

More geothermal 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: