Leadville residents want everyone to have a voice in California Gulch superfund operations

From the Leadville Herald Democrat (Ann E. Wibbenmeyer):

Members of the Citizens’ Advisory Group, appointed by the Lake County commissioners to advise the county on Superfund issues, were vocal in their demand for a non-appointed board for an as-yet-unformed Community Advisory Group during another formation meeting on Oct. 27. The guidelines for forming the latter group were given to Mayor Bud Elliott and Commissioner Mike Bordogna by Jennifer Lane, community involvement coordinator for the Environmental Protection Agency. Bordogna and Elliott wanted to make sure that the community had a say in pending decisions about the California Gulch Superfund Site. A Community Advisory Group, or CAG, is the EPA’s structure for ensuring community participation in EPA decisions, according to Lane. The first formation meeting was held in August, with renewed community interest in the issues. The group agreed to hire a facilitator to help structure the process of creating the group that would advise the EPA of the Lake County input on Superfund issues.

At the Oct. 27 meeting, with about 40 people in attendance, the people from the county-appointed group argued that anyone who showed up to any future meeting should be able to vote on the decisions, as opposed to just having certain people appointed to the committee. According to Bill Klauber, who is with the county-appointed group, this is the only way to ensure that every voice is heard. If a person doesn’t have a vote at the table, then that person’s voice is not being heard, he said.

More California Gulch coverage here and here.

Colorado State Parks to close most reservoirs to boating this winter to aid in the fight against invasive mussels

From the Northern Colorado Business Report:

Parks that have already closed ramps include: Barr Lake, Bonny Lake, Crawford, Elkhead Reservoir, Harvey Gap, Highline Lake, Lathrop, Mancos, John Martin Reservoir, North Sterling, Paonia, Pearl Lake, Ridgway, Rifle Gap, San Luis, Stagecoach, Sweitzer and Vega. Steamboat Lake State Park closed its ramps Friday. State parks with ramps closing Dec. 1 include Boyd Lake, Chatfield, Cherry Creek, Eleven Mile, Jackson Lake, Navajo, Spinney Mountain and Trinidad Lake. However, those ramps could close earlier if the lakes freeze.

More invasive species coverage here and here.

Uncompahgre River: Montrose River Corridor Work Group reaches consensus on recommendations for the riparian environmnent

From the Montrose Daily Press (Katie O’Hare):

Thursday — after five, two-hour meetings spanning over the past few months – the work group presented their recommendations to Montrose City Council during its work session. “It was a balance between property rights and protecting the river,” said group member Shawn Lund, a local boater and teacher. The group was able to reach a major agreement, being that a river buffer was needed in Montrose to preserve the river and riparian environment, protect water quality and wildlife habitat, preserve the view shed and to provide clarity and guidance to future development, said group member Ben Tisdel, local developer and member of Friends of the River Uncompahgre (FORU)…

The group agreed that there should be an overall buffer of 100 feet from the average yearly high water mark (HWM), and within that 100-foot buffer, there’s to be two different zones, a “no-go zone” and “slow-go zone.” (Disagreements arose on the width of the no-go zone.) The no-go zone would be 40 feet from the HWM. Within this area, there would be no buildings, linear trials or disturbance of native riparian vegetation allowed. However, short-distance, soft surface trails and usual, customary uses, such as a boat ramp, would be allowed. The slow-go zone would be the area between 40 feet and 100 feet. To develop within this zone, a person would need to obtain city permission, such as a special use permit. The method would be decided by city staff, Tisdel said, and could be processed through the planning commission similar to other permits. Any development within the slow-go zone must enhance the river corridor, such as a business that faces the river with a patio. Those that to not enhance the river corridor, such as a warehouse, would need to be screened. The group recommended that there be stricter “performance standard” as one gets closer to the 40-foot zone and that city staff work out such details, like requiring a building to sit as far back on the lot as possible. Residential single-family homes are exempt from the screening requirement.

More Uncompahgre River watershed coverage here and here.

Erie: New wastewater treatment plant

From the Erie Review (Chalan Harper):

On Nov. 9, city officials will gather to break ground on the town’s next significant upgrade — a 3.5 million gallons-per-day wastewater treatment facility. When the facility opens — construction is set to be completed by April 2011, according to officials — it will begin operation with a 1.5 million gallons-per-day capacity which will be increased over time. The planned facility will be constructed on an 11-acre plot north of State Highway 52 and east of County Line Road. The site will also include 51 acres for a reclaimed water reservoir and an additional 23-acre open space buffer. The building has also been designed to have a low impact, in case of future development in surrounding areas. “We’re going with a low-impact, ranch-style design that will fit in with the environment,” town spokesperson Fred Diehl said. The project has been in the works for about five or six years, Diehl said this week. Recently, the town’s trustees accepted a proposal for a guaranteed maximum price of $20,112,262 for the facility.

More wastewater coverage here.

Colorado Supreme Court rules against Pagosa Water and Sanitation District conditional water rights while holding that a 2055 planning horizon is reasonable

From The Pagosa Springs Sun (Chuck McGuire):

In this most recent ruling, the high court upheld the districts’ 50-year planning horizon decreed by Judge Gregory G. Lyman of District Court, Water Division 7 in a September 2008 ruling, and endorsed the districts’ planning approach to maintain a one-year water safety supply margin in its storage reservoirs. For a second time, however, the Supreme Court also remanded the case back to the District 7 Water Court for additional evidence regarding specified decree provisions and determination of “water amounts reasonably necessary to serve the districts’ reasonably anticipated needs in the 2055 period, above its current water supply.”[…]

In a press release issued Tuesday, a districts representative stated, “In its opinion, the Supreme Court endorsed statewide water rights planning efforts recently coordinated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Supreme Court opinion also linked land use planning requirements recently enacted by the Colorado General Assembly to water court determinations of conditional water rights. In doing so, the Court introduced unprecedented legal elements into future water court determinations. “Additional trial before the Water Court will enable the Districts to extend their evidence of long-term growth patterns within Archuleta County in support of their 50-year water rights planning horizon and to demonstrate the actual reliability of water rights upon which the Districts currently depend.”[…]

From TU’s point of view, however, the Supreme Court decision reinforced the principle that Colorado municipalities must base water projects on clearly demonstrated and credible projections of future need. “The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that it will not tolerate public utilities speculating in water,” said Drew Peternell, director of TU’s Colorado Water Project, who argued the case before the state’s highest court. “This is a victory for reality-based water planning.”[…]

In its most recent appeal, TU argued that the districts’ revised figures were still not in line with credible future water use projections and amounted to speculation. In Monday’s decision, the high court unanimously agreed, finding insufficient evidence to support the quantities of water Lyman awarded, either in direct flow rights or storage. In its decree, the Supreme Court ruled that the 23,500-acre-foot size approved by the water court is based on “speculative claims, at least in part.” In response, TU insists that, “Unless the Pagosa districts can now demonstrate a ‘substantial probability’ that a reservoir of that size is needed to meet future needs, the water court must reduce the amount of their claimed water.”

More water law coverage here.

Meanwhile, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District board approved a change in the diversion plan for Dry Gulch Reservoir recently. Here’s a report from Chuck McQuire writing for The Pagosa Springs Sun. From the article:

According to engineers, the modified plan will reduce water treatment costs while meeting current and short-term future demands, preserve senior West Fork water rights and allow incremental system development as needed…

As designed, Option 6A involves reconstruction of the Snowball pipeline from the West Fork diversion to a proposed treatment plant at Dry Gulch. Until development of the Dry Gulch plant is necessary, the Snowball treatment plant will be upgraded and expanded, while a segment of the Snowball pipeline (leading to the Snowball plant) is maintained. As the Dry Gulch plant is eventually built, workers will connect both plants with a new pipeline, and construct the pipeline from Dry Gulch to the cemetery tank. Meanwhile, as engineers further scrutinized the original options, they also realized that the quality of water coming from the West Fork was notably superior to that found in the main stem of the San Juan. By continuing to utilize West Fork water, PAWSD could reduce projected water purification costs, while maintaining stringent water quality requirements. Also, because the elevation of the West Fork diversion is hundreds of feet higher than the proposed Dry Gulch treatment plant, it will naturally pressurize the plant, thereby reducing the cost of building and operating expensive pumps. Too, building a new diversion at the Dry Gulch site would require transfer of the Snowball water rights from the West Fork to the main stem, through a Colorado Water Conservation Board in-stream flow water right. Based on discussions with the CWCB, doing so would likely result in subordinating the Snowball rights to the CWCB right, thus removing them from priority much of the year. The end result would be a less-than-firm water supply for District Two. According to PAWSD, Option 6A will allow system development in stages, as funding and demand dictates. An upgraded Snowball treatment plant and a newly-aligned Snowball pipeline segment around the Jackson Mountain slide area would come first, with an upgraded stretch between the slide area and the West Fork diversion next. Eventually, as the Dry Gulch treatment plant is built, an extended line would connect it and the Snowball treatment plant.

More Dry Gulch Reservoir coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Sheep Mountain Alliance files lawsuit against Montrose County Commissioners over Piñon Ridge uranium mill special use permit

From The Telluride Watch (Karen James):

In a complaint filed in District Court last week local conservation group Sheep Mountain Alliance alleged that the Montrose County Commissioners violated county zoning rules and abused their discretion when in September they unanimously approved a special use permit allowing the construction and operation of a uranium mill on 880 acres in Paradox Valley zoned for agricultural use. “Our main point is the industrial use in an agricultural zone,” said plaintiff’s attorney Travis Stills of the Durango-based Energy Minerals Law Center describing the grounds for the lawsuit against Chairman David White, Vice Chairman Gary Ellis, and Commissioner Ron Henderson…

The suit also charged that Montrose County Planning and Development Director Steve White abused his discretion and acted beyond his authority when making decisions regarding the special use permit application filed in July 2008 by Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Toronto-based Energy Fuels Inc…

Finally the complaint alleges that a meeting took place in March 2008 between EFRC representatives, the BOCC, three Montrose County employees, a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment employee, and one member of the public in violation of state open meetings laws. At that meeting transportation, water, use of uranium, jobs and salaries, and the contents of the special use permit application were discussed, according to the complaint. The Colorado Sunshine Law states that, “All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” Although no minutes were taken nor a recording made, the BOCC made several decisions regarding the proposed mill at that meeting including one to seek a special use permit for the agricultural district as a means to approve the EFRC proposal, according to the complaint. “As best as we can tell the decisions were arrived at outside the public process,” said Stills, who wrote in the court filing that “These decisions predetermined the outcome of the challenged [special use permit] proceedings and constitute an abuse of discretion and actions in exceedance of authority.”

Meanwhile, nuclear power plant developer Alternate Energy Holdings is shopping a combination nuclear/solar plant to state lawmakers, according to The Durango Telegraph. From the article:

The company has spotlighted Colorado because of its commitment to clean energy and replacing aging coal plants. Alternate Energy Holdings CEO Don Gillispie told Colorado Energy News, said the company was encouraged by the support from businessmen, labor leaders, politicians and members of the state’s administration. “They clearly understand that nuclear plants not only create clean power necessary to help with environmental challenges, but low-cost, reliable energy to stabilize the electric grid while creating thousands of high-paying jobs,” he said.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

CWCB meeting November 16-18 in Denver

From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Lisa Barr):

The Colorado Water Conservation Board is meeting on November 16-18, 2009, at the CWCB Offices, 1580 Logan Street, Suite 610, Denver, CO 80203.

The agenda is available on the CWCB website. CWCB staff memos and other materials will be available November 13, 2009, on our website.

The meeting will be “streamed” via the internet through the CWCB’s website. Click on the “Listen to the meeting LIVE!” link, found on our home page.

If you need more information about this Board meeting, please contact Lisa Barr at lisa.barr@state.co.us.

More CWCB coverage here.

Public comment sought on Moffat Project

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

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project, which proposes to enlarge Gross Reservoir north of Boulder.

Denver Water is proposing the project to help resolve three major water supply challenges it is facing:

1. the risk of a near-term water supply shortfall;
2. the risk of running out of water in the north end of its system during a single dry year;
3. and a serious imbalance in its water collection system, in which about 80 percent of the supply exists on the south side of the system.

The project is part of Denver Water’s multi-pronged water strategy to increase supply and decrease demand by implementing an aggressive conservation plan, completing and expanding its recycled water distribution system and developing additional water supply.

“Our customers have done an excellent job of conserving water, and we have been completing our recycled water system,” said David Little, director of planning. “These strategies are helping extend our supplies into the future. It is imperative, however, that we develop additional supply to correct the imbalance in our system and secure water for our future. We believe the best solution is to produce new water supply by expanding an existing reservoir instead of building a new reservoir.”

The Moffat Collection System Project proposes raising Gross Dam by approximately 125 feet. Gross Reservoir is fed by tributaries of the Colorado River and South Boulder Creek, and feeds the north side of Denver Water’s system. If approved, the Moffat Project would produce 18,000 acre-feet of new supply — enough water for roughly 45,000 households annually.

“We have been working with interest groups and local agencies to develop plans to offset environmental impacts of the Moffat Project and to provide significant environmental enhancements for the communities affected by the project,” said Little. “Denver Water is committed to encouraging wise use of the water we serve and to using our facilities and resources to enhance the environment in the watersheds we use.”

Denver Water, Grand County, the cities of Boulder and Lafayette, environmental groups and others still are discussing the proposed environmental enhancements, which go far beyond what the Corps requires for mitigating impacts caused by the Moffat Collection System Project. These enhancements will benefit tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand County and South Boulder Creek in Boulder County, among other locations.

The enhancements offered by Denver Water include:

– up to 2,000 acre-feet of additional water for augmenting streamflow in Grand County;
– $2 million for improving water quality in Grand County;
– $2 million for stream modifications to improve aquatic habitat in Grand County; and
– a partnership with Boulder and Lafayette to provide 5,000 acre-feet of storage space in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to improve aquatic habitat in South Boulder Creek.

Denver Water is encouraging public participation in the two federal regulatory processes occurring for the Moffat Collection System Project. The two processes are:

An amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Gross Reservoir hydropower license<br.
An application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Draft EIS and Draft FERC Hydropower License Amendment were published Friday, Oct. 30. Each document has a 90-day comment period ending Jan. 28, 2010.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold three Public Hearings on the Draft EIS. At each location, Denver Water will hold an Open House from 4 to 6 p.m. The Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.:

Tues., Dec. 1 — Boulder Country Club, 7350 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, CO 80301
Wed., Dec. 2 — Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446
Thurs., Dec. 3 — Doubletree Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207

See more information on how to comment on the Draft EIS and Draft FERC Amendment.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Colorado Springs and El Paso County disagree over measures to collect from Stormwater scofflaws

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Eileen Welsome):

The city wants to turn over nearly 10,000 past-due accounts to the county treasurer for collection by mid-November, but the treasurer is being cautioned against putting them on the 2010 property tax bills.

County Attorney William Louis sent a letter to County Treasurer Sandra Damron on Oct. 30, warning that the city-owned Stormwater Enterprise, which residents voted to phase out in Tuesday’s election, might not be entitled to use the county treasurer’s office to collect the fees. “Although hospitals and golf courses are operated by the private sector as well as by the public sector, there is no private sector hospital or golf course that can avail itself of this coercive power,” the letter states.

Normally, the county treasurer simply acts as a middleman, collecting the taxes and then passing them back to municipalities. But if the stormwater fees are, in fact, a fee and not a tax, the city should be barred from using “government’s most coercive powers, the tax lien collection process,” to collect payments, Louis writes.

More stormwater coverage here and here.

Did the Zipingpu Reservoir cause the devastating 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China?

From Trak.in News:

To evaluate the possible effect of the Zipingpu Reservoir on the Wenchuan earthquake, Shemin Ge from the University of Colorado and his team constructed a two-dimensional model to study how the reservoir changed the stresses on the nearby faults. The researchers considered changes in static stress due to weight of the water and changes in pore pressure in the rocks beneath the reservoir due to fluid diffusion. They estimated that the Zipingpu reservoir increased stress on the nearby faults by enough to have speeded up their rupture by tens to hundreds of years. The researchers pointed out that resolving the question of whether the Zipingpu Reservoir contributed to the Wenchuan earthquake is important for understanding reservoir and earthquake hazards, especially in regions where dams are being rapidly built near faults.

Nitrogen and high mountain lakes

From the Associated Press (Judith Kohler) via CBS4Denver.com:

Airborne nitrogen pollution from vehicle exhaust and farm fertilizer is turning algae in the alpine lakes of Rocky Mountain National Park into junk food for fish, a study says…

Arizona State University professor James Elser, the study’s lead author, said the effect of airborne nitrogen on once-pristine lakes is greater than previously believed. The nitrogen’s sources include vehicle exhaust, fertilizer used on farms and livestock feed lots and power plant emissions. More nitrogen can reduce long-term lake biodiversity because algae become poor food for other microscopic organisms and, ultimately, fish. The algae are high in nitrogen, but low in phosphorous and less nutritious. Previous studies have documented rising nitrogen levels in Rocky Mountain National Park, 70 miles northwest of Denver. Elser likened the algae to junk food. “It’s like eating marshmallows all day and expecting to grow. You can’t do it,” he said Thursday.

Colorado Division of Wildlife Native Species Hatchery sends 3,000 Roundtail chubs to San Juan River

From the Associated Press via The Durango Herald:

The New Mexico Game and Fish Department announced Wednesday that the fish were released into the river in late October. Roundtail chub were once found throughout the Colorado River basin, including the San Juan River and its tributaries in New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. The species was listed as threatened under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act in 1975 and uplisted to endangered in 1996.

They were stocked in the San Juan near the confluence with the Animas River, high in the system in the hope that they will disperse downstream into suitable habitat.

More endangered species coverage here and here.

Grand County fifth graders get a dose of prior appropriation knowledge

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

Jon Ewart of the Colorado Division of Wildlife showed students the spawning process of live salmon and the importance of lake and river health for fish; Jim Pokrandt of the Colorado River District had students “draw the perfect river town”; and Dick Batura of Search and Rescue showed students how to perform a Swift Water Rescue. In another room, Ali “Atom” Goosens of Mad Science featured demonstrations on fire, ice and wind.

Similar festivals are held on the Front Range to engage students on the importance of the resource. Werner calls it a “trickle up” theory of education. “It takes a couple of generations before every kid in Colorado understands we have to conserve every drop,” he said.

More education coverage here.

Longmont: Wastewater treatment plant bond issue passing as of Tuesday evening

From the Longmont Times Call (Tony Kindlespire):

The measure, Ballot Question 2B, was passing handily at press time, by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. The city will be able to issue bonds and use the money to make improvements to the plant, which was built in 1956. Though the plant has been expanded and upgraded and exceeds all state and federal standards, some portions that are still in use date back to the plant’s construction. Upgrades planned include repairing or replacing structures or equipment, upgrading the monitoring and control systems, and installing facilities that will generate energy from the methane produced by the plant’s sludge treatment system. The city estimates capital improvements at the plant will cost about $18.2 million over the next five years. The total cost will depend on the interest rate and the duration of the bonds, but it cannot exceed $21.13 million.

More wastewater coverage here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Ecoshale surface mining test said to be successful

From the Vernal Express (Mary Bernard):

On Wednesday, Dr. Laura Nelson, vice president of Ecoshale, said the company’s pilot project has produced a high quality oil-shale product. And, “we did so working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to make an environmentally sensitive product.” Nelson was briefing the Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining at the Uintah Basin Applied Technology College in the success of Ecoshale’s feasibility test. Ecoshale’s synthetic product has properties rated by the American Petroleum Institute (API) as 39 condensate oil and between 34 and 35 prompt oil with no fines, or impurities, in the oil. Based on the test study, Nelson projects full-production at 30,000 barrels a day would cost $20.21 per barrel, not including transportation…

“Ecoshale has access to the largest block of surface mine-able resource in region,” says Nelson. “The resource is called kerogen an organic matter with petroleum-like qualities which is heated in above ground capsules to extract oil from the shale.” The shale is mined, crushed and placed into a nearby bentonite-line earthen capsule where the oil product are extracted. It’s a slow heating process that produces a high quality product. The capsule and related structures occupy about five acres. The entire process has been patented by Ecoshale. “Our process has a small footprint, low carbon emissions, uses no water and employs a rapid reclamation of the landscape,” Nelson says. “Additionally, the bentonite lining protects against contact with surface or ground water sources throughout the process.”

More oil shale coverage here.

Silt Water Conservancy District ‘de-Brucing’ fails

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent:

A “de-Brucing” question for the Silt Water Conservancy District was rejected by a 55 percent to 45 percent margin, 1,010 votes to 823. Ballot Issue 5A would have allowed the district to keep and spend revenues above Colorado TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) limits.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Colorado Springs voters approve Douglas Bruce’s Issue 300 but Mayor Rivera says it will have no effect on the operation of the city’s stormwater enterprise fund

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

The Douglas Bruce-sponsored ballot measure requires payments in lieu of taxes to the city to be phased out over eight years, beginning in July 2010, and the money returned to rate payers. The payments are designed to compensate the city for tax revenue it would receive if Utilities were privately owned. That amounts to more than $3 million in 2010. According to the city clerk’s analysis of the ballot measure, residential bills would drop 52 cents each month, beginning in January 2010.

More coverage from The Colorado Springs Gazette (Lance Benzel). From the article:

“Even though the language was extremely vague, I’m going to be recommending on Monday that we adopt a resolution repealing the Stormwater Enterprise and the fee (associated with it),” [Colorado Springs Councilman Darryl Glenn] said. Glenn said he plans to propose the immediate creation of a committee that would include county officials. The group would be tasked with developing a proposed regional stormwater authority to take to voters for their approval in November 2010. “That’s the way we should have done it in the first place instead of imposing a fee,” he said. But in the short-term, the council has a “responsibility to carry out the voters’ intent,” Glenn said. “One thing you can’t argue is that if you drove around the community, there were enough signs that clearly stated that this issue dealt with the stormwater tax and fee,” he said. “This council is in trouble if we, in my opinion, ignore the will of the voters on 300,” he added. “We need buy-in, and there has to be a relationship of trust with the electorate and to me, this will be a slap in the face if we don’t follow the direction that we’ve been given.”

More coverage from The Colorado Springs Gazette (Daniel Chacon). From the article:

Mayor Lionel Rivera, who said Tuesday night that issue 300 wouldn’t affect the Stormwater Enterprise, left open the possibility that it did. “There’s a question on whether or not the language the way it was spelled out in 300 really applies to the Stormwater Enterprise,” he said during a news conference. “I don’t know the answer,” he added. “We have to have a discussion with the city attorney to determine how we’re going to do an implementing ordinance to put all this into effect.”

The Douglas Bruce-sponsored ballot measure requires payments in lieu of taxes to the city to be phased out over eight years, beginning in July 2010, and the money returned to ratepayers. Bruce said it was “absurd” for city officials to say the ballot issue didn’t apply to the Stormwater Enterprise…

Meanwhile, Colorado Springs Utilities officials said they were still determining when ratepayers will see an impact from issue 300. The payments made by Utilities to the city, designed to compensate the city for tax revenue it would receive if Utilities were privately owned, amounts to more than $3 million in 2010. According to the city’s analysis of 300, residential bills would drop 52 cents each month, beginning in January 2010.

Folks in Pueblo County are looking north to see if Issue 300 will effect Colorado Springs’ commitments to Fountain Creek imposed on the city utility through the permitting process earlier this year. Colorado Springs Utilities is planning to build the Southern Delivery System pipeline through Pueblo County. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Wednesday morning, Mayor Lionel Rivera and Councilman Scott Hente challenged Bruce’s interpretation that Issue 300 ended the stormwater enterprise. On Tuesday night, Bruce triumphantly tore up his stormwater bill for TV cameras, proclaiming the end of what he calls a “rain tax.” The stormwater enterprise was approved by Colorado Springs City Council in 2005 and implemented in 2007. It was designed to raise $17 million a year to address a $300 million backlog of storm sewer projects in the Fountain Creek watershed. In 2008, Colorado Springs voters rejected a similar attempt by Bruce to gut the stormwater fees. This year’s version did not mention the stormwater enterprise by name, but Bruce campaigned against it while promoting Issue 300.

Colorado Springs issued a statement Wednesday that made it clear there are no intentions to remove the stormwater fee: “The passage of Issue 300 created a new ordinance relating to City Enterprises. City Council will have to take action to implement any changes as a result of the new ordinance. “Unless and until that occurs, we will continue to proceed under current City Code. Any changes made to the Stormwater Enterprise would require future action by City Council. “City Council has publicly stated that Issue 300 will not impact the stormwater enterprise so we do not anticipate any changes at this time to our operations.”[…]

In Pueblo, those who fought to gain concessions from Colorado Springs believe the stormwater enterprise is needed. “We believe the interpretation that storm sewers were not included in the ballot language is correct,” said Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner, who is also a member of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District. “I think the people of Colorado Springs see good things happening on Fountain Creek and realize that on an important issue like this, you need to establish trust,” Chostner. Regardless of what happens to the stormwater enterprise, Colorado Springs is still obligated to meet the $125 million in payments under Pueblo County conditions, Chostner said. “I don’t think that voting down the stormwater enterprise would affect the SDS requirements,” Chostner said. “Then, the question for them internally would be how they fund it.”[…]

Ross Vincent, of the Sierra Club, said Colorado Springs still has an obligation to take care of Fountain Creek regardless of what happens as a result of Tuesday’s vote. The Sierra Club successfully sued Colorado Springs in 2005 over violation of the federal Clean Water Act. “It’s disconcerting to say the least,” Vincent said. “Clearly, the Springs has got to capture and manage its stormwater effectively, and the residents and taxpayers of Colorado Springs will have to find a way to pay for it. “If not the current stormwater enterprise, then what, and paid for by whom? They need answers – quickly – and so do we.”

More Fountain Creek watershed coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Likelihood of increased use of deep injection wells for disposal of produced water forecasted

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson):

“We’ve talked in the past about regulating oil and gas activity,” confirmed Garfield County Commissioner Trési Houpt, although the talk has focused on regulations for surface land-use considerations only. “We haven’t talked about subsurface regulating,” Houpt said, adding that she is unsure if it is feasible, given overriding state and federal laws, or advisable.

[Denise Onyskiw, of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] told the commissioners that both types of wells regulated by her program involve the injection of water and other fluids into well bores. The “recovery” wells, she said, are for the purpose of getting at oil or gas deposits that could not be brought up to the surface by normal methods. The “disposal” wells, she explained, are used because “[the gas drilling companies] have all this water and don’t have anywhere to put it,” referring to the thousands of gallons of water used in the process of drilling the wells and extracting the oil or gas.

Onyskiw told the commissioners that both types of wells regulated by her program involve the injection of water and other fluids into well bores. The “recovery” wells, she said, are for the purpose of getting at oil or gas deposits that could not be brought up to the surface by normal methods. The “disposal” wells, she explained, are used because “[the gas drilling companies] have all this water and don’t have anywhere to put it,” referring to the thousands of gallons of water used in the process of drilling the wells and extracting the oil or gas. This water carries varying levels of certain chemicals, known as “hydrocarbons,” that are either used in the drilling process or occur naturally. The fluids are injected into the disposal wells, according to Onyskiw, and the substances permitted in the wells include produced water, drilling fluids, “spent well-treatment fluids” and others. Not permitted, she said, are “unused frac’ing fluids, lubricating wastes and sanitary wastes,” among others…

Use of a well for disposal purposes, she said, requires notification of adjacent landowners within a quarter-mile of the well, and the provision of documents to the COGCC describing the existing water quality of the aquifers that might be affected, among other kinds of information. Onyskiw said the state permits this kind of disposal only when it affects aquifers that produce hydrocarbons on their own; are too deep to be used economically for drinking water, or too contaminated already to be used for drinking water. The disposal wells, she said, are lined to prevent contamination of aquifers through which the bore passes, and regulations require that the pressure used to inject the waste water be well below that used in hydraulic fracturing of actual gas wells, so that the subterranean rock around the well is not broken up.

After the presentation, Onyskiw told a reporter that the likelihood of greater use of disposal wells is related to changing regulations governing the use of pits, lined with impermeable membranes, to hold a variety of waste fluids during the drilling process. The COGCC now requires that, once the fluids are drained and disposed of, the liners themselves must be sent to a receiving site for disposal. Garfield County’s landfill will no longer accept the liners due to their bulky and potentially toxic nature, and the COGCC reportedly has considered returning to a former rule that allowed the companies to simply bury the liner in place.

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

Traffic is likely to be the biggest issue Garfield County officials will face as they deal with an expected increase in the use of injection wells to dispose of fluids associated with natural gas development, a state official said Monday.

Meanwhile, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is stepping up regulation of stormwater runoff from drilling pads, according to a report from Dennis Webb writing for the Grand Junction Sentinel. From the article:

The state also is seeking information such as schedules for stormwater-management inspections and maintenance on the pads, and the number of associated pits and whether they have fencing to keep out wildlife. State regulators inspect sites once wells are drilled, and they can ensure requirements such as those for any interim reclamation are met. But companies aren’t required to notify the state when pads have been constructed. Oil and gas officials are concerned about pads that may have been built before companies realized they would be cutting back on drilling, leaving state inspectors unaware of them because drilling never began. The issue is particularly pertinent for Western Slope operations because climate and topographical factors often cause companies to build pads months in advance of planned drilling, which because of the slowdown may not have ended up occurring on some pads. “What we want to do is get the location of these pads, work with the operators, see where we stand on interim reclamation,” said Margaret Ash, the agency’s field inspection manager. Oil and Gas Commission Director Dave Neslin said the agency is particularly concerned about runoff problems that could occur on inactive pads during the snowy winter. Ash said inspectors want to make sure the sites are stabilized from an erosion control standpoint and are properly secured if no activities are taking place on them.

Michael DeBerry, manager of Chevron’s operations near De Beque, said its temporary suspension of drilling has caused it to go ahead with interim reclamation efforts such as stormwater control and weed management on some pipeline rights of way and other oil and gas development sites. “It’s purely a matter of, with the slowdown, it’s appropriate to take these steps. It’s just a matter of environmental stewardship,” he said.

More oil and gas coverage here.

Redstone: Voters approve debt for wastewater plant

From The Aspen Times:

The district’s existing plant serves 140 users in the Redstone vicinity, south of Carbondale. It’s 35 years old, and 15 years beyond its life expectancy, according to Brian Olesen, district manager. Even with Tuesday’s vote, the district won’t go ahead with construction of a new plant unless additional federal stimulus funds become available to help pay for the project, Olesen said in advance of the election. “If more funds are made available, we’ll have voter approval in our pocket to go out and do something,” he told The Aspen Times last month. “It’s basically to take advantage of an opportunity if it arose.” Voters authorized the district to take on $2 million in debt (a $2.6 million repayment cost with interest) and to increase the district’s mill levy by no more than 5 mills to repay the loan. If the district can get $1 million from stimulus funds, plus a zero percent interest rate as a qualifying project for the money, the project would be doable, according to Olesen.

More wastewater coverage here.

Castle Pines North Metropolitan District closes on South Platte shares

From The Douglas County News-Press:

The first water right acquisition is a water right known as the Hock Hocking Mine, which generates approximately 330 acre-feet of water. This water is diverted near Fairplay and flows down the Upper South Platte reservoir into Chatfield Reservoir. This water right was previously owned by the Mount Carbon Metropolitan District…

At the district’s board meeting on Oct. 19, the board of directors also approved the acquisition of 25 shares of the Fulton Irrigation Company. This right is one of the most senior rights on the lower South Platte River and is diverted from the South Platte River near Brighton. On an average annual basis these shares are projected to yield approximately 35 acre-feet of water. The district is currently performing diligence on approximately 60 additional shares of the Fulton Irrigation Company and hopes to close those purchases by the end of this year.

In addition to these recent purchases the district acquired approximately 253 acre-feet of senior water rights in April 2009 along with approximately 280 acres of farmland that will be used by the district to maintain the historic use of these agricultural shares until they have been converted from agricultural use to municipal use…

According to [James McGrady, district general manager] the next steps will be to develop contractual relationships with Aurora, Denver, and other members of the South Metro Water Supply Authority to move this water to the Castle Pines North community.

More South Platte Basin coverage here.

Durango: Five Rivers Chapter of Colorado Trout Unlimited finishes Animas restoration project

From Colorado Trout Unlimited (Ty Churchwell):

After three years of raising money, advocating and planning, the largest and most ambitious 5 Rivers TU project to date is complete…

The section of the Animas below 9th street, along Roosa Ave., was determined to be the highest priority, this due to its visibility and proximity to the downtown corridor and the tree assets in peril. Additionally, trout habitat in this section was minimal and in need of improvement. Many of our visiting anglers find this water to be the most convenient for their quick afternoon outings while the family shops.

More Animas River watershed coverage here and here.

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District annual fall water users meeting

From The Greeley Tribune (Bill Jackson):

Eric Hecox with the Colorado Water Conservation Board said studies are have been started to determine the state’s water supply future, warning that agricultural water users in the South Platte will face a myriad of new challenges as well as opportunities. The biggest of those challenges, he said, is a requirement of an additional 830,000 to 1.7 million acre feet of additional water to meet municipal and industrial needs by 2050. An acre foot of water is enough supply two families with a year’s supply of water. The price tag of meeting those new needs will be in the neighborhood of $7.5 billion to $10 billion just for addtional storage. Maintaining the status quo, he said, would result in “a significant loss of irrigated acres” in the basin.

More South Platte Basin coverage here.

Conservation easement primer

Here’s a primer on the subject of conservation easements for landholders, from RegisteredRep.com. From the article:

Twelve states currently provide tax credits based on a percentage of the dollar amount of a person’s donation. Some states, such as Colorado, make their credits transferable to other people as a tax incentive. The Colorado tax credit is up to a maximum of $350,000—among the highest credits available in the nation. Iowa has just instituted a state tax credit with a maximum of $100,000 based on 50 percent of the fair market value of a conservation easement donation. Note, though, that states also impose caps and limitations—so please check carefully.

More conservation easement coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County commissioners urge COGCC officials to start cleanup of spring near Debeque

Outfitter Ned Prather’s spring is still contaminated and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is under fire from the Garfield County Commissioners asking that the cleanup proceed while the search for the contamination goes on. Here’s a report from John Colson writing for The Aspen Times. From the article:

Commissioner Mike Samson joined Commissioner John Martin in agreeing to send a resolution to the COGCC urging that something be done quickly to clean up the contamination at the Prather springs. Commission[er] Trési Houpt, who serves on the COGCC, excused herself from the discussion to avoid a conflict of interest. But, speaking from a seat in the gallery, she urged her fellow commissioners to “do what you need to do” in order to call attention to the situation.

After examining months worth of investigations by the COGCC and the various gas drilling operators working wells in the area, a consultant reported in September of this year that the contamination “likely” came from drilling rigs. According to the report, the types of chemicals found in the springs matched the types of chemicals used in the drilling operations of Williams and OXY, two prominent gas companies. The consultants also found “inconsistencies” in the earlier investigations by the gas companies themselves, and recommended further monitoring of the situation. This would include soil samples, water samples and tests to determine whether the plume of contaminants has spread beyond the immediate area around the springs. But, according to Dick Prather (Ned’s brother) and attorney Richard Djokic, there is no plan for such monitoring and testing. And while the Prather brothers were assured that a cleanup plan would be in place by last June, there is no such plan in existence that they know of, Djokic said…

Judy Jordan, the county’s liaison for the oil and gas industry, at one point told the commissioners, “This doesn’t have to do with the commission, it has to do with the staff.” She said the COGCC staff should have long ago recommended to the oil and gas commission that, regardless of where the contamination came from, the state should clean up the mess so the Prathers can salvage their livelihood as outfitters. Speaking after the meeting, Jordan said that once it is known where, exactly, the contamination came from, the state can then go to the appropriate company for payment of the cleanup costs. Representatives of Williams and OXY reported that their companies are doing all they can to determine the source of the contamination, although they indicated that the problems did not come from their companies…

Visibly unhappy about the fact that he and his brother cannot ply their trade for fear of poisoning their clientele, Prather said, “I guess the frustrating part is that, as landowners, you would think that [the gas companies] would want to be sure they did what was right” as far as impacts on other landowners.

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

[Commissioner Mike Samson] said Gov. Bill Ritter is shortchanging the county by seeking to divert severance taxes away from energy-impacted communities to help balance the state budget, while leaving the COGCC without the resources to do its job. [Commissioner Trési Houpt] said the agency has a fund for remediation projects. The county’s oil and gas liaison, Judy Jordan, suggested that the state do remediation on the property now and bill the responsible companies once they’re identified.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate hydraulic fracturing techniques to determine safety to water supplies. Here’s a report from Katie Burford writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:

The call for a study was included in a conference report accompanying the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on Friday.The conference report provides the EPA and other funded agencies additional instructions on how to use the money. The provision urges the EPA to “carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information.” Because the report must be approved by both houses of Congress, [Bruce Baizel, a staff attorney with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project] said it represents a clear consensus on the need for more study…

[Christi Zeller, executive director of the La Plata Energy Council, an industry group] said the EPA had studied fracing under the Clinton and Bush administrations, but never as it specifically related to drinking water. The differences on fracing lie in the question of whether the EPA should regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act and whether companies should be forced to disclose the chemicals they use. Federal legislation introduced in the House and Senate in June would require both. So far, Udall, Bennet and Salazar have not signed on as co-sponsors for the bill, which in the House was introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver.

Finally, near Walsenburg, according to the Associated Press (Judith Kohler) via the Denver Post:

Bernice and Jerry Angely like to show visitors the singed T-shirt a friend was wearing when their water well exploded and shot flames 30 feet high. The friend wasn’t hurt. But that and an explosion at another home weeks earlier forced Colorado to suspend natural gas drilling around this southern plains town until someone could find out why dangerous levels of methane were getting into the groundwater…

“The water is so saturated with methane and other chemicals it is not to be used for human consumption,” said Bernice Angely, who’s had water trucked to her home 10 miles west of town since her well blew up in July 2007.

Petroglyph Energy Inc., a Boise, Idaho-based firm that has worked the rolling plains of the Raton Basin since 1999, suspended drilling until it can stem the methane. Colorado also is rewriting rules that had allowed Petroglyph to discharge water runoff from its drilling into streams and creeks. But Petroglyph says it’s not clear the drilling caused the methane leaks or prompted other area water wells to run dry. Eying what it calls an extremely promising natural gas field, it believes a shallow water formation tapped by area homeowners isn’t connected to a deeper one pumped by the company for its drilling operations. Petroglyph chief operating officer Paul Powell also believes a growing number of new homes in the area could explain some of the dry water wells. “We’ll do what we need to do,” Powell said, stressing that his firm is working with the state on a solution.

Petroglyph has a plan to prevent the flow of methane into water wells by creating a hydraulic barrier. The company has proposed pumping water from an underground formation and injecting it into a row of wells where gas drilling occurs. Powell said gas will migrate into a void, and “if the void is full of water, there isn’t room for gas to migrate through it.” State regulators say the plan is plausible but that Petroglyph needs to prove it works. Democratic U.S. Rep. John Salazar, who farms in the nearby San Luis Valley, has asked the U.S. Geological Survey to weigh in by evaluating the area’s water quality and formations to determine if the gas drilling is to blame for the problems.

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

Despite some speculation the commissioners might vote Monday on a resolution of support for the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, a measure introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Boulder), the commissioners actually decided to take on the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC).

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Colorado Supreme Court rules against Pagosa Water and Sanitation District conditional water rights while holding that a 2055 planning horizon is reasonable

Here’s the release from Colorado Trout Unlimited (Randy Scholfield):

Colorado Supreme Court hands down anti-speculation water ruling

Trout Unlimited hails decision as a “victory for reality-based water planning”

(Denver)—The Colorado Supreme Court today handed down a decision that reinforced the principle that Colorado municipalities must base water projects on clearly demonstrated and credible projections of future need.

In the case, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District and San Juan Water Conservancy District v. Trout Unlimited, the Court ruled that Pagosa area water districts had not sufficiently demonstrated a need for the amount of water they claimed for the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir, based on projected population growth and water availability over a 50-year planning period.

“The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that it will not tolerate public utilities speculating in water,” said Drew Peternell, director of TU’s Colorado Water Project, who argued the case before the state’s highest court. “This is a victory for reality-based water planning.”

The ruling is the second time Trout Unlimited has challenged the district water court’s decrees in the so-called Dry Gulch case—and the second time it has won.

In 2006, TU challenged a decision by Judge Gregory G. Lyman, the District Court judge who serves as the water judge in Division 7 in Colorado’s southwest. The decision would have allowed a reservoir of 35,300 acre feet two miles northeast of Pagosa Springs, using diversions from the San Juan River totaling 180 cubic feet per second.

Trout Unlimited appealed that decision to the Colorado Supreme Court, which in 2007 reversed Judge Lyman’s findings and remanded the case back to him for reevaluation of the districts’ future water needs.

Without examining new evidence, as the Court had suggested would be necessary, Judge Lyman issued another decree in 2008, awarding the Pagosa Springs districts enough water to build a Dry Gulch Reservoir of 25,300 acre feet in size, using diversions from the San Juan River totaling 150 cfs.

Trout Unlimited appealed again, arguing that the revised figures still weren’t in line with credible future water use projections and amounted to speculation.

Today, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously agreed with TU. While the Court did allow a 50-year planning horizon (TU had argued that a 40-year timeframe was reasonable), the Court found that there wasn’t evidence to support the quantities of water the judge had awarded, either in terms of the direct flow rights or in terms of storage.

The 23,500 acre feet size approved by the water court for the Dry Gulch Reservoir is based on “speculative claims, at least in part,” said the Court. Unless the Pagosa districts can now demonstrate a “substantial probability” that a reservoir of that size is needed to meet future needs, the water court must reduce the amount of their claimed water.

“The ruling underscored that municipalities can’t justify a new water right without real evidence to support it,” said Melinda Kassen, director of TU’s Western Water Project. “This protects Coloradoans from irresponsible water grabs and speculative development.”

Colorado law already has rules preventing speculation in water rights. Although there is an exception in some situations for municipalities, the Supreme Court today made clear that the public exception should be interpreted narrowly.

Looking ahead, TU called this latest ruling an opportunity for all water stakeholders to sit down and craft comprehensive solutions for meeting the region’s real water needs.

“We’re ready to talk with the Pagosa Springs stakeholders and craft a solution that meets a range of valid needs, including municipal growth, agriculture and recreation and wildlife,” said Peternell. “But any solution has to be based on credible, substantiated numbers about future water supply and needs.”

Link to full Court ruling: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2008/08SA354.pdf.

More water law coverage here.

Energy policy – nuclear: New rules for in-situ uranium mines under review

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

Once the state approves them, those rules, now in the process of being written by Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety officials, aim to keep groundwater contamination from the mine in check and determine how much input the public will have in the mine permitting process…

The proposed rules lay out how Powertech would have to study what the groundwater quality is at the mine site before mining begins, prove that other similar mines elsewhere have been able to prevent groundwater contamination, and how it plans to reclaim the mine once its operations are complete and return the groundwater quality to what it will be before mining begins. The rules, required by a 2008 state law regulating in situ leach uranium mines like the one Powertech is proposing, have been evolving since May. The latest revision went public Oct. 20…

Specifically, the proposed rules would require the company to, among other things:

> Compare the plans for the Centennial Project to and describe at least five other in situ leach mines elsewhere that did not contaminate the groundwater, illustrating Powertech’s ability to keep its toxic chemicals contained.

> Submit a plan to the DRMS for determining the mine site’s “baseline” water quality, or the groundwater quality prior to the start of mining. Once the plan is submitted, the public will be allowed 10 days to comment.

> Carry out that plan for five calendar quarters, describing in detail both pre-mining surface and ground water conditions.

> Create an extensive groundwater monitoring plan.

The proposed rules allow the state to deny Powertech a mining permit if it can’t prove it will fully reclaim the mine and clean any groundwater it has contaminated, there are any future domestic or agricultural uses for any of the groundwater Powertech might contaminate, or, among other reasons, Powertech willfully violates environmental protection requirements of the rules.

More nuclear coverage here.

Aspen: The Aspen Institute was surprised by $140,000 stormwater bill and is considering building its own stormwater system

From the Aspen Daily News:

The Institute, which postponed a scheduled hearing before Aspen City Council this week to work on its plan, has to bring something to the city before a Nov. 23 meeting. The Institute was caught off guard by the size of the fee, which assesses $2.88 per square foot of impervious surface area, which includes paved areas and most roofs. However, the fee isn’t just for new construction. If an addition larger than 500 square feet is built onto an existing building, then the fee applied to all the impervious area associated with the building. About 55 percent of the tab was for a project adding about 1,000 square feet of impervious area (600 square feet of built space) to the Paepcke Auditorium building. The rest is for a project installing a rock and dirt ground covering for the 21,000-square-foot Greenwald Pavilion tent. “Very few people realize the magnitude” of the stormwater fee, Institute planning consultant Jim Curtis said.

More stormwater coverage here.

Creede: Hydroelectric project retrofit scores stimulus dough

From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

[Aspenite Ruthie Brown] secured a $308,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a $600,000 low interest loan to install a 340-kilowatt hydroelectric project at her family’s A.E. Humphrey Ranch in Creede. The system will produce roughly enough power to supply 230 homes once it is completed in spring 2011. Brown said she is a strong supporter of renewable energy and wanted to demonstrate to ranchers in the San Luis Valley that hydroelectric power is a cost-effective investment. Her family is negotiating with a local utility to sell the power generated back to the grid. That will provide the income to maintain the historic ranch and keep the land undeveloped for additional generations, she said. Her family tapped into a special program by the agriculture department to award $62.5 million in stimulus money to grants and loans for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The funds were awarded to 705 farms and ranches across the country. Flux Farms of Carbondale, a consulting firm on renewable energy projects, is helping Brown with the project…

The cost of the project is about $900,000. Utilizing the existing dam that her great grandfather constructed 90 years ago was key to making it affordable, Brown said. She is projecting that the project will show a small profit after just one year, thanks to the grant and low-interest loan through the agriculture department. Brown is working with state Sen. Gail Swartz of Snowmass Village to streamline the permit process for micro-hydro projects so that more landowners in Colorado will pursue them. Construction at the Humphreys Ranch is expected to begin next year.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Hayden: Water rate increase approved on first reading

From the Steamboat Pilot & Today (Blythe Terrell):

The Hayden Town Council approved the first reading of an ordinance that would raise base rates 19 percent, to $19 per month for most customers and $11.40 per month for seniors. Usage rates would not change. Town Manager Russ Martin and some council members drew a distinction between the rate increase and water system losses.

Resident Gordon Dowling said he was frustrated the town would raise rates when it could be losing as much as 30 percent of its water a year, according to analyses. “This 30 percent kills me,” he said.

But Martin said the town’s water fund was in debt about $90,000 a year without tap fees. Even if 100 percent of the town’s water was accounted for, that debt still would exist, he said. Martin laid it out this way: The town produces about 100 million gallons of water a year. The production cost — without staff costs, which would be stable regardless of production — is $52,000 a year. A 30 percent water loss would cost the town $15,000 a year, Martin said. The fund still would be $75,000 in debt. Much of that comes from the $115,000-a-year loan the town is paying on the plant. As written, the rate increase would produce only $25,000 to $30,000, so the town still would have to cover the rest of gap out of its general fund.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Roaring Fork Watershed Plan update

From The Sopris Sun (Jeremy Heiman):

Organizers of a recent series of public meetings soliciting input for the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan say those meetings were successful. “It’s really been valuable to get the input of people who haven’t been immersed in this for years,” said Mark Fuller, director of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority, the main sponsor of the watershed plan…

Fuller said attendance and participation was pretty consistent up and down the valley. He said people who showed up for the meetings have shown a lot of concern about the impacts of development, and especially about the health of the fishery in the river and its tributaries…

The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan is “an opportunity for interested stakeholders to help set the direction for long-term management of the Roaring Fork Watershed’s water resources,” states a document associated with the plan. The “State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report,” represents Phase I of the two-part effort. It examines regional water management; surface and groundwater quantity; water quality; the quality of riparian and instream habitat; the potential effects of climate change; and the effects of diversion of Western Slope water to Front Range cities. Phase II of the project entails the drafting and distribution of the watershed plan itself, including public meetings on the issues facing the subwatersheds of the Roaring Fork. The creation of a plan to direct the management of water in the Roaring Fork drainage dovetails with an initiative begun in 2002 by the Colorado Water Conservation Board to conduct a basin-by-basin study of the state’s water supply and demand over the coming 30 years. Colorado’s population was 4.3 million in 2000. It is expected to balloon to 7.1 million by 2030. When it is complete, the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan will be integrated by authorities representing the Colorado River basin into an assessment of the water needs for the entire basin. It will have the ability to influence how the state manages water in the region until 2030.

More Roaring Fork watershed coverage here and here.

Orchard City: New raw water source running into regulatory snafus

From the Delta County Independent (Hank Lohmeyer):

With regulatory hang ups and delays frustrating the Ward Creek Diversion project at almost every turn, [Orchard City Town administrator David Varley] told the trustees at their October regular meeting, “I think it’s pretty much impossible that we’re going to get that project constructed this year.” The seemingly simple and relatively inexpensive idea was proposed last year. It was seen as a way to increase the efficiency of the town’s water system by diverting an existing raw water supply directly into a pipeline to the treatment plant. The project entailed about $38,000 in construction costs, and the town board had good hopes at the outset that the work could be completed in 2009. But contingency planning for the project failed to foresee the entangling involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers and the state Water Quality Control Commission. Varley gave those two agencies most of the responsibility for regulatory delays that will push the project’s completion date into next year.

More Surface Creek watershed coverage here.

Conservation organizations warn against Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project’s ecological effects on the Fraser River and Upper Colorado River

Here’s a release from Colorado Trout Unlimited:

Trout Unlimited, the Colorado Environmental Coalition and a broad group of conservation organizations warned today that a proposal to divert more water from a tributary of the upper Colorado River poses a serious risk to the ecological health of the river system.

“Multiple water diversions have pushed the Fraser River to the brink of collapse,” said Kirk Klancke, President of the Colorado Headwaters Chapter of TU, based in Grand County. “This is a river on life support.”

At present, Denver Water’s Moffat Tunnel and other diversions take about 60 percent of the Fraser’s stream flow. The Moffat pipeline carries most of it under the Continental Divide to supply water for the Denver metro area. Under a proposed expansion of the Moffat tunnel pipeline, Denver would take even more of the river’s native flows.

In 2005, the Fraser was listed as one of the most endangered rivers in America by American Rivers, a national conservation group.

The statement from TU and the Colorado Environmental Coalition came in response to the Friday release of the draft environmental impact statement for the Moffat Tunnel proposal—the first step in a public review of the project by the Army Corps of Engineers.

“We are looking forward to digging deeper into the DEIS, and are hopeful that we can have a substantive conversation with Denver Water in the coming months about how we can ensure our resources are protected,” said Becky Long of Colorado Environmental Coalition.

Looking ahead, the conservation groups identified several broad environmental goals that should be included in the project’s mitigation plan, including:

–Adequate baseline flows in the Fraser throughout the year to sustain fisheries and recreation.

–Sustained peak flows at key times of the year to mimic a natural flow regime and ensure the health and resilience of the river ecosystem.

–Aggressive urban water conservation and efficiency measures to save more water, such as incentives for homeowners to replace Kentucky bluegrass with drought-tolerant landscaping. More than half of residential water use goes to watering lawns.

–Ongoing monitoring of the river’s health and a mitigation plan with the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions.

“We have already met with Denver Water’s staff, and they seem open to discussing some of these concepts,” said Mely Whiting, Legal Counsel for TU’s Colorado Water Project. “We hope the Denver Water Board seizes this opportunity to create a legacy, where water development and environmental protections can go hand in hand.”

“Front Range residents must recognize the connection between our water use and the health of our rivers and streams, fisheries and wildlife habitat,” said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “We can’t continue to take and take from these rivers without accounting for our impacts. The glass is not even half full—it’s almost drained dry.”

Contact:
Mely Whiting, (720) 470-4758
David Nickum, (303) 440-2937, x 101
Kirk Klancke, (970) 531-2199
Becky Long, (303) 405-6714

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

…the public is invited to comment on the project starting Friday, Oct. 30, when The Denver Water Moffat Collection System Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement is planned to be released. Similar to the recent process of the Windy Gap Firming Project, the public will be able to comment on the Moffat document for 90 days, until Jan. 28, 2010.

In essence, Denver Water has identified a shortfall in supply beginning in 2016. According to its statements, Denver Water plans to address about 16,000 acre-feet through “additional conservation,” leaving Denver Water with a remaining annual shortage of 18,000 acre-feet. Denver Water maintains that unless it expands one of its existing reservoirs — particularly the one near Golden, which sits 340 feet above the South Boulder Creek streambed — it may be forced to shut down one of its three treatment plants in the future and would not meet the water demands of Arvada, Wesminster, and the water company that services Lakewood, Wheat Ridge and eastern Jefferson County, among others.

But securing more of its prior-claimed water means additional water would be carried from the Fraser River basin and Williams Fork River basin in Grand County through the Moffat Tunnel…

The Moffat water project became a catalyst for various West Slope water users — including river districts, water districts, counties and irrigators — to start serious water negotiations with Denver Water, to “settle a number of outstanding issues with Denver,” Underbrink Curran said…

Public meetings on the draft environmental impact statement are set for 4 p.m. (open house) and 6 p.m. (public comments) on Dec. 1, Dec. 2 and Dec. 3 in Grand County, Denver and Boulder to allow interested parties to ask questions and make a comment. The meetings will end when all participants have had the chance to make their comments. Of the five alternatives listed in the draft environmental impact statement, Denver Water prefers the Moffat Collection System Project, the alternative that details enlarging the existing Gross Reservoir by 72,000 acre-feet.

More Denver Water Moffat Collection System Project coverage 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: