What is the strategy for Arkansas Valley agriculture?

A picture named irrigation.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

[Retired Lamar Community College teacher Fred Heckman of McClave] has been attending water meetings throughout the Arkansas Valley on behalf of the Fort Lyon Canal Co. for several years, with one goal in mind: To make better use of water. The idea was first proposed at a Fort Lyon meeting in 2004, by Heckman’s son Bert and others in an independent shareholders group that resisted selling to High Plains A&M (now Pure Cycle), but liked the idea of finding more profitable uses for water. The stated goal of High Plains, which had purchased about one-quarter of the ditch’s shares by 2003, was to move water to growing Front Range communities through a pipeline. Pure Cycle has continued with that goal, but has been more open to efforts like Super Ditch that could use its water resources within the valley. The shareholders group from the beginning wanted to expand the horizons of Fort Lyon shareholders beyond the flood irrigation that has dominated valley agriculture for more than 140 years…

Heckman is among those who have joined Super Ditch, a water leasing cooperative that would allow farmers to hold onto their water rights while selling some of the water under contract. “Leasing water would put a cushion of income under the farming operation to help the farmer withstand weather losses and variable prices,” Heckman said. Heckman is wary of new state consumption rules that target improvements on farms like sprinklers and drip irrigation using surface water. The rules ultimately will add costs for farmers who already operate on a thin margin. “Government involvement, no matter what department it comes from, is as much a threat to the farmers survival as the weather and price variation,” Heckman said. “Micro-managing the farmer is coming.”

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen city council approves $2.3 million for Castle Creek hydropower project

A picture named hydroelectricdam.jpg

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

The council approved a contract with Denver-based Western Summit Constructors to build a pipeline that will deliver water from Castle Creek via the Thomas Reservoir to the plant, which will be located below the Castle Creek bridge.

The city plans to circumvent a full-blown environmental analysis and instead apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for what’s called a “conduit exemption” to build the hydroelectric plant once the pipeline is under construction. Officials say by delivering water from the reservoir to the plant, the city can take advantage of water for hydropower while providing needed flood protection to properties downhill of the Thomas Reservoir, such as the hospital.

The council also approved a $48,400 contract with Miller Ecological Associates to conduct an aquatic biology study to determine the effects of taking water from the creek. The study was requested by the Colorado Division of Wildlife to evaluate the effect of stream-flow changes between the point of diversion and the point of return in the creek…

Several people said they were concerned about a decreased flow in Castle and Maroon creeks because water will be drained out of both to generate power. Under an agreement with the state, the city of Aspen would never go below 12 cfs in Castle Creek and 14 cfs in Maroon Creek…

If approved, the water would travel down a 42-inch pipe, supplying the hydro plant with approximately 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) coming from Castle Creek and 60 cfs out of Maroon Creek. The city diverts water from both creeks for the primary purpose of supplying municipal water and maintains the in-stream flow of 12 and 14 cfs. The third priority would be for hydroelectricity, but if there isn’t enough water available in a dry year or during certain times of the year, it wouldn’t be diverted, officials have said. The project would utilize existing water rights, head gates and water storage of the original Castle Creek hydroelectric plant, which met all of Aspen’s electric power needs from 1892 through 1958, when the plant was decommissioned…

The electricity would be placed on the city’s grid and taken up to the water treatment campus to power those facilities, and to potentially produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles. When completed, the 1.05 mega-watt facility is expected to increase electric production by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That power production will prevent more than 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, officials said. It would generate renewable energy for the city and increase its supplies by 8 percent over its current level of about 75 percent. City officials say that switching from primarily coal-fired energy purchases to hydroelectric power production would represent a 0.6 percent community-wide reduction in carbon emissions based on a 2004 greenhouse gas emission inventory.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Hot Sulphur Springs: Water rehab project to start turning dirt March 15

A picture named fountainpavementdrawing.jpg

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

The Town of Hot Sulphur Springs is scheduled to begin construction on the town water project on Monday, March 15, with some exploratory excavation work near the water tank site, to be followed by more extensive digging at that site. The $3.3 million project is being funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act…

Beginning April 5, construction will also begin near the water plant. Both construction sites will be excavated using “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, Southway said, including the use of rice-straw wattles and pine-beetle-killed log berms to control sediment from moving off site. Construction will generally take place Monday through Friday between 6:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

More infrastructure coverage here.