Climate change and human water use alter rivers, eliminate top predators

A picture named bigfishlittlefish.jpg

Here’s the release from the U.S. Geological Survey (Theodore Kennedy):

Climate change and growing human demands for water are leaving an indelible mark on rivers and streams, shortening food chains and eliminating some top predators like large-bodied fish, according to a new study led by Arizona State University and co-authored by a U.S. Geological Survey scientist.

The team studied the food webs of 36 rivers and streams in the United States, ranging in size from the Mississippi and Colorado Rivers to their small tributaries. The study found changes in river hydrology, both drying and flooding, reduce the populations of some species in the middle or top of the food chain, and increase the likelihood of top-predator fish species being eliminated from aquatic ecosystems.

“The question becomes can you have fish and tomatoes on the same table?” said John Sabo, an Arizona State University associate professor and the study’s lead author. “Our results suggest that drying a river to provide water for agriculture and other uses may reduce the production of river-caught fish, a particularly important source of protein in the developing world.”

Worldwide, rivers are drying with increasing frequency because of human appropriation of water. Models indicate climate change will further exacerbate river drying and lead to more variable river flows, including flooding, in the future.

“This information has important implications for the management of U.S. rivers,” said USGS co-author Theodore Kennedy. “For instance, it may be possible to use controlled disturbances, such as experimental high-flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, to manipulate the system to benefit native fish.”

Results of the study, The role of discharge variation in scaling of drainage area and food chain length in rivers, were released October 15, 2010, in Science Express and will appear in Science in November. The research team includes John Sabo, Arizona State University, Tempe; Jacques Finlay, University of Minnesota, St. Paul; Theodore Kennedy, U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.; and David Post, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Here’s the release from the National Science Foundation (Cheryl Dybas/Skip Derra):

Rivers and streams supply the lifeblood to ecosystems across the globe, providing water for drinking and irrigation for humans as well as a wide array of life forms from single-celled organisms up to the fish humans eat.

But humans and nature itself are making it tough on rivers to continue in their central role to support fish species, according to new research by a team of scientists including John Sabo, a biologist at Arizona State University.

Globally, rivers and streams are being drained due to human use and climate change. These and other human impacts alter the natural variability of river flows.

Some affected rivers have dried and no longer run, while others have seen increases in the variability of flows due to storm floods.

The result is that humans and nature are conspiring to shorten food chains, particularly by eliminating top predators like many large-bodied fish.

“Floods and droughts shorten the food chain, but they do it in different ways,” said Sabo.

Sabo is the lead author of a paper reporting results of a study of 36 rivers in this week’s issue of the journal Science.

“The length of food chains is a crucial determinate of the functioning of ecosystems,” says Alan Tessier, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.

“Ecologists have long sought to explain why food chain length varies among different ecosystems. This study provides a quantitative answer to that question for stream ecosystems, and provides critical evidence for the importance of flow variation.”

High flows “take out the middle men in the food web, making fish [the top predator] feed lower in the food chain,” said Sabo. “Droughts completely knock out the top predator.”

“The result is a simpler food web, but the effects we see for low flows are more catastrophic for fish–and are long-lasting.”

Sabo and co-authors–Jacques Finlay, University of Minnesota, St. Paul; Theodore Kennedy, U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.; and David Post, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.–suggest that the fate of large-bodied fishes should be more carefully factored into the management of water use, especially as growing human populations and climate change affect water availability.

The researchers studied rivers and streams in the U.S. ranging in size from the Mississippi and Colorado Rivers, down to small tributaries.

The rivers provide water to large cities like New York City, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

The study employed naturally occurring stable isotopes of the element nitrogen to measure how top-predators were faring in the food chain.

Nitrogen provides an indicator as it bioaccumulates, increasing by 3.4 parts per million with each link in the food chain.

“Floods simplify the food web by taking out some of the intermediate players so the big fish begin to eat lower on the chain,” Sabo said.

“With droughts, it’s completely different: droughts eliminate the top predator altogether because many fish can’t tolerate the low oxygen and high temperatures that result when a stream starts drying out.”

He added that climate change will play a growing role in coming years.

“Climate is giving us a new set of operating terms to work with,” Sabo said. “We will experience overall drying and greater weather variability, both of which will shorten river food chains.

There will be drying in some regions, particularly along the equator, and increased flow in some rivers, primarily at higher latitudes, scientists believe.

“We will see more variability because there will be change in the seasonality of storms,” said Sabo. “Ocean currents are changing, and the way the ocean blows storms our way is going to be different.”

The human effect on rivers and streams, and the food chain they support, is closely tied to land-use change, such as water diversion and regulation of flows due to dams.

Sabo outlined a classic scenario that humans face during drought years.

As drought takes hold, the need for water for irrigation and agriculture increases and leads to a draw-down of natural river flows.

The effects downstream can be devastating.

“We would not have guessed that the infrequent drought that results would have a big effect on a stream, but our results show that it does,” Sabo said.

“Some streams affected by drying five to ten years ago are still missing large-bodied fishes, compared with same-sized streams that never dried.

“Food webs can recover sooner after a flood, in roughly a year, but it takes far longer to recover in the case of drying or drought.”

The study hints that competing users of a river’s water–for agricultural production and recreational uses like fishing–need to work out amenable uses of rivers and streams that not only look to the immediate future, but also project long-term effects.

“The question becomes: can you have fish and tomatoes on the same table?” Sabo asked.

“They compete for the same resources, and society depends on both: agriculture for grain, fruits, vegetables, and fish for protein, particularly in the developing world.

“Humans may need to make hard decisions about how to allocate water so that we grow the right food, but still leave enough in rivers to sustain fish populations.”

More climate change coverage here.

Dust on snow

A picture named dustonsnowsanjuans.jpg

Here’s Part 3 of Mike Horn’s series running in The Crested Butte News. Click through and read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:

There’s a delicate balancing act here of ranching, recreation, water storage and stream health. And when there isn’t enough water to go accommodate everyone’s ideal stream flows, challenging—and often contentious—decisions need to be made. Fortunately things haven’t reached a desperate level in the Gunnison Basin—yet. But if drought conditions and climate change continues, and dust on snow continues to negatively affect water yields and reschedule runoff, conflicts are sure to arise amidst the many stakeholders, near and far, looking for their fill.
After a dry September in the Gunnison Basin, and the continuation of what the experts call a nine- to ten- year drought, stream flows are currently running well below normal. Some of that deficit can certainly also be attributed to dust on snow, and the resulting reduction in overall runoff, paired with snowmelt occurring up to three weeks earlier in the spring.

For ranchers, low flows this time of year make it more difficult to irrigate fields, and raise potential conflicts between recreation and ranching. Significant water is released during the summer from storage facilities like the Taylor Reservoir to accommodate recreation, be it for the boating or fly fishing industry. However, that is not the time of year ranchers need higher stream flows; they need adequate flows in the fall to irrigate their fields as they prepare next season’s hay crop, and bolster feed for cattle that will graze on-site through the winter.

More Gunnison River basin coverage here.

Colorado River District’s fourth quarter meeting October 19

A picture named coloradoriverbasincgs.jpg

Here’s the link to the agenda.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

NIDIS Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment Summary of the Upper Colorado River Basin

A picture named usdroughtmonitor10122010

Here are this week’s notes from the Colorado Climate Center.

Denver Water rates going up?

A picture named cityparksunrise.jpg

Here’s a release from Denver Water (Lori Peck):

Denver Water staff presented to the Board of Water Commissioners a preliminary proposal to adjust water rates for 2011 at its meeting today. The adjustment would provide further funding for the utility’s capital projects, which include upgrades to aging infrastructure over the next decade.

“We need to invest in our water system so we can continue to provide reliable service and clean water to our community,” said Angela Bricmont, director of finance. “Next year’s projects include more forest health related work like dredging Strontia Springs Reservoir, as well as replacing the 105-year old valves at Cheesman Dam, finishing major upgrades at Williams Fork Reservoir and Dam, and stepping up our pipe rehabilitation and replacement program.”

The effects of the proposed changes on customer bills would vary depending upon the amount of water the customer uses and whether the customer lives in Denver or is served by a suburban distributor under contract with Denver Water; the more customers use, the more they will pay. Under the current rate proposal, average Denver residential customers would see their bills increase by about $41 a year — an average of $3.40 per month. Typical suburban residential customers served by Denver Water would see an increase of $32 per year — an average of $2.66 per month. For example, the average annual cost for water for an inside-city customer in 2010 was $330, and would be $371 in 2011. Similarly, the average annual cost for an outside-city customer in 2010 was $555, and would be $587 in 2011. Adjustments also have been proposed for commercial, industrial and government customers.

“The future is going to be very challenging for every western water system,” said Tom Gougeon, Denver Board of Water Commissioners vice president. “We all face similar issues, including the need to invest in infrastructure, new supplies, watershed protection, recycled water and conservation. And, we live in an era where climate change will likely shrink supplies and increase demand. Even with a focus on cost control, productivity and efficiency, the cost of providing water is going to go up. Our job is to ensure that our customers are getting good value for the increasing investment they will need to make.”

If the proposed adjustments are approved, they would take effect March 2011. Rates for Denver Water customers living inside the city would remain among the lowest in the metro area, while rates for Denver Water residential customers in the suburbs would still fall at or below the median among area water providers.

Denver Water owns and maintains more than 3,000 miles of distribution pipe — enough to stretch from Los Angeles to New York — as well as 12 raw water reservoirs, 22 pump stations and four treatment plants. Ongoing rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure is needed throughout the water distribution system, much of which dates back to post-World War II installation or earlier.

Denver Water plans to expand its system capacity over the next decade to meet the future needs of its customers by expanding the utility’s recycled water system, enlarging Gross Reservoir by 18,000 acre-feet, finishing the development of gravel pits that store reusable water, and exploring ways to work with other water providers to bring more supplies to its system.

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

The Board is expected to vote on the proposed changes on Wednesday, Nov. 17, after considering public comment. Public comment will be taken at the Nov. 10 and Nov. 17 Board meetings at 9 a.m. The meetings are open to the public and will be held at Denver Water, 1600 W. 12th Ave. Public comment also will be taken at Denver Water’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting, Thursday, Oct. 21, 6:15 p.m., at Denver Water. Comments also may be sent to the Board via e-mail.

See details of the 2011 rates proposal. Members of the public who have questions about the proposed rate adjustment may call 303-628-6320.

More Denver Water coverage here.

Aurora: Prairie Waters dedication today

A picture named prairiewaterstreatment.jpg

From the Denver Business Journal (Cathy Proctor):

The project (website here) boosts Aurora’s water supply by 20 percent — about 3.3 billion gallons of water a year. It came in ahead of schedule and $101 million under the original $754 million budget, said Greg Baker, spokesman for the Aurora Water Department. “We’re ahead of schedule and well under budget,” Baker said. “How often does a city get to say that?”

Water equivalent to what Aurora gets from the Western Slope, uses and sends into the South Platte River is pumped out of the river near Brighton, then filtered through a series of gravel and sand beds into a pipeline. The 34-mile pipeline sends the water to a new treatment plant. From there it goes on to city residents and businesses — who use it before its returned to the river. It’s a continuous loop of use and re-use. “It’s one of the most sustainable new water supplies in the Southwest,” said Scott Ingvoldstad, a spokesman for CH2M Hill. “It combines natural purification with a state-of-the-art new treatment facility that uses the latest technology to ensure that Aurora will have a sustainable and high-quality water supply for many decades. “It uses water rights that Aurora already owns and recaptures them in the South Platte River so that they didn’t have to build a new dam on the Western Slope. It’s making the most efficient use of the water rights that they already own,” Ingvoldstad said.

More Prairie Waters coverage here and here.

Pueblo County files appeal of judge’s ruling forcing the county out of Fountain Creek lawsuit

A picture named fountaincreekwatershed.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Robert Boczkiewicz):

[Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut] filed a notice Wednesday in U.S. District Court that he is appealing a judge’s 2007 decision that kicked out his 2005 lawsuit against Colorado Springs.
“Our office is confident the district court orders will be overturned by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and that our claims will be reinstated,” Thiebaut said…

[Senior Judge Walker Miller] concluded in a 2007 decision in favor of the city that district attorneys do not have the legal authority to use the Clean Water Act to sue, as Thiebaut had done, on behalf of county citizens.
Thiebaut, in addition to appealing Miller’s decision to throw out his lawsuit, stated in Wednesday’s court filing that he also is challenging other decisions the judge made. One of those decisions granted the request of city-owned Colorado Springs Utilities to be removed as a defendant. Another decision granted Colorado Springs’ request to recover from Pueblo County about $7,475 in costs — not attorneys’ fees — the city purportedly incurred in fighting Thiebaut’s lawsuit. Appeals to the federal appeals court in Denver, where Thiebaut’s challenges are headed, typically take 18 to 24 months to be decided by the appellate judges.

More Fountain Creek coverage here. More on the lawsuit here.

Arkansas River Basin: Walsenburg water rights meeting recap

A picture named arkansasriverbasin.jpg

From The Trinidad Times (Steve Black):

James G. Felt, a Colorado Springs-based water rights lawyer, was the featured speaker at the meeting, along with Steve Witte, State Engineer for Colorado. Felt, who also teaches at the University of Colorado’s Continuing Education Division in Advanced Real Estate Law and Water Law, commented on the increasing awareness of the scope of the water rights problem. He said one of the reasons he and Witte had come to the meeting was to clear the air, describing the history of the water rights issue in the mountain West, and offering solutions to water users who find it difficult to understand complex, and sometimes confusing, water rights laws.

Felt spoke about the recent controversy in Crowley County, where the city of Colorado Springs bought up a canal long used by area farmers and ranchers. The water from the canal was then diverted to supply the exploding population of Colorado Springs, resulting in economic and environmental devastation for Crowley County. Without water for irrigation, the county’s agricultural land dried up, the land lost most of its value, the tax base collapsed, jobs were lost and essential government services could no longer be maintained. Felt spoke about County 1041 regulations, the state legislature’s reaction to what had happened in Crowley County, and other places in the state. “The purpose of the county 1041 regs is to mitigate the damage caused by drying up land,” Felt said. “If you dry up agricultural land it affects the tax base. The 1041 regs are designed to create a formula for balancing competing interests. By these laws, if you dry up farmland and that causes a loss in the tax base, then that loss has to be countered by a gain somewhere else.”[…]

Ponds are a popular option for many area citizens and communities, as much for beautification as for agricultural purposes. Water held in ponds is subject to evaporation, thus lessening its utility as a resource. Felt emphasized that the ponds are subject to regulations and that those having them or wanting to build them need to know what the rules are regarding ponds. He also discussed the issue of head stabilization ponds, where a rancher can hold water in a pond for a maximum of 72 hours before releasing it downstream. Augmentation, a process where, when water is depleted from a resource it must be replaced from another resource, was also discussed at length by Felt. He has worked on augmentation issues for 35 years, and said that laws vary on the subject, depending on whether the resource used is a tributary or non-tributary source.

More Arkansas River basin coverage here.

2010 Colorado elections: Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61

A picture named blackcanyoninnercanyonnps.jpg

From The Aspen Times (Janet Urquhart):

“It’s dangerous to use the citizen initiative process to write fiscal policy into the constitution,” said [Reeves Brown, executive director of Club 20], appearing Thursday in Aspen to give his presentation on the three initiatives to anyone who cared to listen. The audience included county Commissioner Rachel Richards, the county’s representative on the Club 20 board of directors, two newspaper reporters and commissioner candidate Jack Johnson. Brown has been traveling the state to present pie charts, graphs and fiscal projections associated with each of the ballot measures. Next week will take him to Grand Junction, Glenwood Springs, Pagosa Springs and Durango, he said.

Club 20, a nonpartisan and generally conservative voice for the Western Slope, represents a diverse constituency spread over 22 counties, but the 22-member board of directors voted unanimously last spring to oppose 60, 61 and 101, or the “Bad Three” as opponents call the measures. “When Club 20 speaks and speaks unanimously, that carries some weight,” Brown said…

The potential effects of the measures are complex and difficult to summarize, he said, and a voter who reads only part of the ballot language for the three measures isn’t likely to realize their ramifications. “Collectively, they will put Colorado in a constitutionally mandated recession,” he said.

More 2010 Colorado elections coverage here.

Interbasin Compact Committee meeting recap

A picture named ibccroundtable.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

State agencies often throw obstacles to moving water projects because of conflicting missions, legal restrictions and narrow interpretations of their purpose, a subcommittee of the Interbasin Compact Committee reported Thursday. “The state needs to be involved in asking the people of the state to support a water project,” said Travis Smith, chairman of the subcommittee. Smith is a rancher and represents the Rio Grande basin on the Colorado Water Conservation Board as well. “There has to be a willingness of state agencies to solve problems rather than create problems.” A task force of state agencies that would establish a process to gain approval for water projects was suggested. It would give proponents of projects a clearer idea of what is needed to obtain permits, Smith said.

The IBCC discussed whether the governor, Legislature or agency directors need to act, and when action would be appropriate. Other concerns included how to interact with federal agencies, overcoming legal restrictions of water court and how the turnover in state government could affect water projects that might take a generation to develop…

“We have to start doing things in a new way, because our tools today are different than 40 years ago,” said Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River Conservation District. “We have to find new approaches to move creative ideas through water court, or else we’re fighting yesterday’s battles.” Kuhn said the district reached substantial agreement with Denver, Colorado Springs and other Front Range water suppliers eight years ago, but the process has stalled in water court…

The IBCC gave the proposal its nod as part of a report on how to deal with projected shortfalls of municipal water supply. The final report is expected to be completed in December.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

2010 Colorado elections: Salazar/Tipton debate recap

A picture named lakeforkgunnisonriver.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Peter Roper):

Tipton has campaigned against earmarks, the special projects that Salazar and other lawmakers put in budget bills for their districts. Salazar was happy to hold up the $5 million he secured this year for the initial funding of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, the pipeline that is intended to take water from Lake Pueblo to communities down the valley.

He said Tipton apparently preferred to “stand idly by” while federal dollars were sent to other states. “Stand idly by?” Tipton answered, saying Salazar had voted for spending bills that helped drive the deficit to $13 trillion. That was greeted by Salazar supporters with shouts of “Bush! Bush!” — a reference to President George W. Bush’s administration. Pressing on, Tipton said he would support the conduit too, “But we also need to look out for our wallets.”

More coverage from Joe Hanel writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:

The Chieftain of Pueblo sponsored the debate. The newspaper has long advocated for the protection of the area’s water, and the first two questions centered on water issues. “The Salazars have never walked away from a water fight,” Salazar said, noting that he fought the 2003 water bonds known as Referendum A.

Tipton also said he would fight for water, but he would oppose earmarks in Congress, even for popular local projects like an Arkansas Valley water system.

“I think you as American citizens deserve to be dealt with squarely. Let’s have a straight-up vote,” Tipton said.

Salazar said he was proud that he secured an earmark for the Arkansas Valley project, and he will not stop seeking earmarks for his district.

“(Tipton) would rather sit idly by and allow California and New York to fight for that funding. I went to Washington to fight for the 3rd Congressional District, and I will fight to the death,” Salazar said.

Tipton replied that the federal debt is already too large to allow more spending without also making cuts.

More 2010 Colorado elections coverage here.