Arkansas Valley Conduit update

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“The fact that it’s in the president’s budget gives us the dollars to get us where we need to be,” Executive Director Jim Broderick told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board Thursday. The federal budget request, which still has to find its way through Congress, should provide enough money to finish an Environmental Impact Study that will determine the best route for the conduit. The conduit will be a mostly gravity-fed water line from Pueblo Dam to Lamar that would provide clean drinking water to more than 40 communities and 50,000 people along its 130-mile route. In the past, the district has requested more money to work on different parts of the project, such as preliminary engineering and land acquisition.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Snowpack/streamflow/storage/whitewater news

From Steamboat Today (Tom Ross):

It almost sounds sacrilegious to talk about spring runoff as Steamboat bears down on what could be its fourth 400-inch winter in six seasons. With seven weeks to go in ski season 2010-11, Steamboat already has surpassed 310 inches at mid-mountain, putting the tally ahead of the recorded-history average of 308 annual inches…

Risa Shimoda, of USA Freestyle Kayaking, has announced that for the first time, Steamboat’s Paddling Life Invitational freestyle competition will be added to the premier freestyle kayaking point series in North America. The Steamboat event on May 30 will come right after the Pro Rodeo in Buena Vista on May 27 and 28, ensuring the best in the sport will be in the Steamboat neighborhood.

If you like a dash of controversy with your water on the rocks, we’ve just learned that the Grand County Commissioners have applied for water rights on the Colorado River, both in Hot Sulphur Springs and below Gore Canyon, to ensure adequate flows for all forms of recreation. The recreational in-channel diversion rights would be attached to whitewater parks in Hot Sulphur and below the canyon near Pumphouse, Nathan Fey, of American Whitewater, reports. Fey said Grand County is seeking to protect 900 cubic feet per second of flow at Hot Sulphur and 2,500 cubic feet per second below Gore Canyon.

From the La Junta Tribune-Democrat (Bette McFarren):

…all reservoirs in the state are up with the exception of John Martin and Trinidad. The realtime streamflow in Fountain Creek is normal. Flow on the Arkansas River below Timpas and below John Martin Reservoir is lower than normal. Above Pueblo, there is 91 percent of the water present last year. The snow pack in the upper basin is at 80 to 90 percent of peak, with possible early spillage…

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts drought conditions in the lower Arkansas basin through March and April.

The Colorado Basin Roundtable and the Yampa/White Basin Roundtable release energy consumptive use assessment

Here’s the report, Energy Development Water Needs Assessment, from the Colorado River District website. From the introduction:

The Joint Energy Development Water Needs Committee reported that total demands can be seen in Table 13 of the Final Scenarios report. Maximum water demands are about 120,000 acre-feet per year, a substantial decrease from the 400,000 acre-feet per year in the Phase I study. The reduction stems from 3 primary factors:

1. It was assumed a portion of an in-situ oil shale industry would use some form of down-hole combustion process instead of electrical heaters, which results in reduced electrical generation requirements. We know that from Phase I, water for electrical generation for oil shale actually exceeded the water directly needed for oil shale production.

2. It was assumed combined cycle natural gas fired turbines would be used for electrical generation. These require approximately a third less water. If coal-fired generation was used to meet electrical demand, we believe the generating capacity would occur out of the basin.

3. With extensive input from industry, the committee fine-tuned the unit water demands for oil shale. It believes these revisions are a more realistic estimate of how water might be used in oil shale production. For example, the unit demand estimates reflect information from industry that the in-situ conversion process results in the molecular production of water from the organic compounds in the oil shale.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here. More Yampa River basin coverage here. More White River basin coverage here.

Colorado River District: Tom Sharp named president of the board of directors

From Steamboat Today (Mike Lawrence):

Steamboat Springs attorney Tom Sharp has been named the new president of the Colorado River District’s board of directors. Sharp is the board’s former vice president, has served as a director of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District since 1977 and has held numerous prominent, water-related positions in Northwest Colorado…

Sharp said much of his time leading the district will be spent in continuing negotiations with Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Con servancy Dist rict, two Front Range entities that are seeking to increase their usage of water from the Colorado River system to fill potential new storage capacity on the Front Range…

“Denver Water has agreed that it will not seek to acquire any new water right on the West Slope, including the Yampa River, beyond its existing supplies except with the cooperation from the (Colorado) River District and the county commissioners of the affected counties,” Sharp said Wednesday in his Fourth Street office. “What we’re principally going to be spending time on this year is finalizing the nuts and bolts of that agreement.”[…]

Colorado River District spokesman Jim Pokrandt said Sharp is more than qualified to guide the district through the challenging times ahead. “Tom is certainly an experienced water leader,” Pokrandt said. “He’s a veteran of serving on the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado Water and Power Authority over the years. … It’s not his first time around the rodeo.”

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

CPDPHE and CWQD extend U.S. Energy’s Mt. Emmons mine water quality progress report until April 1

From The Crested Butte News (Mark Reaman):

U.S. Energy was sent a “Compliance Advisory Letter” at the end of December by the division. The letter advised the company of “possible violations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, its implementing regulations and permits, so that it may take appropriate steps to avoid or mitigate formal enforcement action.” U.S. Energy is the primary mining patent holder for the Mt. Emmons project, a proposed mine that would extract molybdenum from Mt. Emmons. Water quality sampling between 2008 and 2010 has shown that the water from the mine property exceeds water quality standards for Coal Creek, according to Dave Akers with the water Quality Control Division.

More Mt. Emmons mine coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison Forests Supervisor Charlie Richmond signs ‘consent to lease’ for certain lands

From The Telluride Watch:

This decision does not authorize surface disturbing activities. Should the land be leased by BLM and subsequent development be proposed, additional environmental analysis would be required. [Supervisor Charlie Richmond] stated, “I carefully considered the information in the analysis and the extent of the required stipulations as I made my decision.” He went on to state that while there are some significant requirements to protect surface resources, some of the benefits of this decision include the potential to: provide an opportunity to develop renewable energy sources that can lead to clean sources of energy; reduce or off-set possible greenhouse gas emissions; and provide economic benefits to the surrounding communities.

More geothermal coverage here and here.

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

Here are the notes from this week’s webinar.

Durango: City to expand water and sewer service north of town

From The Durango Herald (Gavin Wisdom):

Developer Wessman Holdings LLC will renew its contract with the city to continue with the original Utility Service Agreement, which expired in July 2010. “A few years ago, it was smart to do, and it’s smart to do it tonight,” Councilor Doug Lyon said…

City Planner Greg Hoch said the city has no intentions of annexing Riverside, and the city’s primary reason for extending its services is to avoid placing septic tanks along the Animas River. Hoch said 64 septic tanks lined up just off the bank of the Animas would be a hazard to a portion of the city’s drinking water, which is drawn only a few miles south of the development at 29th street. The developer also agreed to reserve 78 acres for open space in exchange for the Utility Service Agreement.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Whitewater business news

From the Aspen Daily News:

According to the annual “Commercial River Use in the State of Colorado” report issued by the Colorado River Outfitters Association (CROA), commercial rafting companies in the state hosted 507,392 user days during the 2010 season, up 16,500 user days, or 3.4 percent, from 2009. A “user day” is defined as a paying guest on a river for any part of a day. The visitor figures have exceeded a half-million for four straight years from 2005-2008 before taking a temporary dip in 2009 during the heart of the national downturn. The rebound was warmly welcomed…

As the CROA report indicates, every user day contributed much-needed revenue to state coffers and local businesses. The combined economic impact of commercial river rafting in 2010 was $150.3 million, up 4.9 percent, or $7 million, from 2009. That was the second-highest total since CROA began tracking these statistics in 1988, trailing only the banner year of 2007.

Over a season that runs from April to September, CROA’s outfitters collectively raft more than 20 rivers across eight major basins. The Colorado and Arkansas rivers saw the largest increases from 2009 to 2010 and still have excess capacity to allow for more visitors. Many other rivers in the state have limits to increased use and therefore have seen their numbers stabilize. Overall, notes Cantamessa, the diversity of opportunity means that most Coloradans – and many in neighboring states – are within an easy day’s drive of a rafting vacation that suits their tastes.

More whitewater coverage here.

Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District board meeting recap

From the Pagosa Daily Post (Bill Hudson):

The meeting began with a thoughtful and well-researched presentation by former Pagosa Post magazine editor Glenn Walsh, about the possible future of the [Water Resource Fee] — still under moratorium until April 1. Using input from the Water Supply Community Work Group (WSCWG), Mr. Walsh proposed at least three possible approaches to the WRF, including eliminating it entirely.

The WRF — a new fee charged against all new construction projects in the PAWSD district — was created in 2006 as, supposedly, the primary funding mechanism for a proposed 35,000 acre-foot reservoir in the Dry Gulch valley. As the Archuleta County construction industry began fading into a mere ghost of its former self, starting in 2007, the construction and real estate industries began pointing an accusing finger at the WRF and other PAWSD fees on new construction as one of the culprits in that decline.

More Pagosa Springs coverage here.

Chaffee County: Pueblo West asks commissioners to wave 1041 regulations for waterworks projects

From The Mountain Mail (Jessica Wierzbinski):

Proposed structures include an infiltration basin on the Frantz Ditch near U.S. 285 and three water level and/or flow measurement systems. The measurement systems would be installed on Gas Creek Ditch, at Willowdale Ditch headgate on Chalk Creek and on the Pioneer Ditch in Mesa Antero subdivision. The structures are required to allow Pueblo West to use water rights from the Hill Ranch. Pueblo West bought the rights in 2001 from Western Water Rights, LLP who acquired them from Hill Ranch owners in 1986. Commissioners directed Chaffee County personnel to review 1041 regulations to determine applicable requirements.

More Arkansas River basin coverage here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Accuracy of Pitkin County’s streamflow data in question

From The Aspen Daily News (Curtis Wackerle):

Boulder firm AMEC Earth and Environmental, hired by Pitkin County, found that the city may have overestimated stream-flows by as much as 30 percent at the diversion points where water would be taken out of Castle and Maroon creeks to feed the hydroplant. “If such an error exists and is ignored,” wrote Tim McFlynn, who has been organizing the mediation effort, “hydropower and revenue generation would be overestimated and healthy bypass flows in streams would be similarly impacted.”

The closed-door mediation session was scheduled for Feb. 8 in an attempt to bridge the gap between supporters and opponents of the project. But comments from the panel of experts hired by the county’s Healthy Rivers and Streams board for $50,000, which were submitted to the city two weeks ago, have prompted facilitators to take a time-out.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Huerfano County: Two Rivers Water Company acquires Orlando Reservoir storage and surface flow rights

Here’s the release from GlobeNewsWire.com:

Two Rivers Water Company (“Two Rivers”) (OTCBB:TURV), a company focused on acquiring and developing water and farming operations in Colorado, announced today it has acquired the Orlando Reservoir and associated surface flow water rights in Huerfano County, Colorado.

The Orlando Reservoir has an absolute decree to store 3,117 acre feet of water per year and the associated senior surface flow water rights have absolute decrees permitting the diversion of 9 cubic feet per second, or approximately 2,500 acre feet per year, from the Huerfano River for irrigation purposes.

John McKowen, Chairman and CEO of Two Rivers said, “The acquisition of the Orlando puts in place the final piece of the original large storage and surface flow system that was developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s to farm 20,000 plus acres of irrigated farm land. Two Rivers expects to acquire additional strategic water assets in 2011 to further expand its water portfolio in Huerfano County. Our best use of this water is within Huerfano County, to the extent that is available, and we are committed to restoring the historic uses of these rights.

“We love farming and we love irrigated farm land. We like the grain markets as a hedge against US dollar inflation. We also like grains because of the increased demand for protein from the emerging markets, such as China. We don’t see the recent increases in grain prices as a short term phenomenon. We see long term sustainable growth in demand for grains as a basic component of the world’s food supply. The United States is the world’s largest producer and exporter of grains. In the United States we grow grain crops better than anywhere else on the planet.

“The plains of Colorado provide a warm dry climate with excellent soils and renewable snow melt for irrigation. When renewable snow melt is also combined with reliable sources of ground water, a more balanced, sustainable and consistent environment for irrigated grain production is created. At Two Rivers, we have taken this opportunity to reassemble the historic Huerfano-Cucharas irrigation system and reintroduce its water in appropriate amounts back onto excellent farmland. That system, because of its potential 70,000 acre feet of storage capacity, allows us to time our irrigation of grain crops more efficiently. Additionally, because the system is advantageously located in the foothills of the Colorado Front Range, we are able to work with local communities and help balance their municipal water needs with our farm production.”

More Arkansas River basin coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: The State Land Board pulls 3 tracts from lease sale

$A picture named marcellushydraulicfracturing.jpg$

From The Fairplay Flume (Jason Douglas):

Two of the tracts are adjacent to southwestern Park County’s Antero Reservoir, a major source of water for Denver and a gold medal trout fishery. The third tract is adjacent to the South Platte River – also a gold medal trout fishing location and part of the Denver watershed. The action was made at the request of the Denver Water Board, which owns Antero Reservoir…

The Land Board currently leases out to others somewhere between 65 and 70 mineral leases on a total of about 30,000 acres in Park County, according to Mark Davis, the Land Board’s mineral director. Davis said that about 100 tracts go up for auction each quarter and that this quarter, none of the tracts up for auction are “virgin,” or never- before-leased land…

Matt Bond, a community relations spokesman for Denver Water, said that Denver Water’s board asked the Land Board to remove tracts 66 and 67 in Township 12 south 76 west because it is concerned that oil and gas development there could have an adverse effect on water quality, not only from hydraulic fracturing fluids but also from runoff that could be created by platform and road construction. According to Bond, Antero has a dam that is more than 100 years old, and no one knew how it might have been affected by nearby oil and gas development.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Boulder: City council approves expanded authority for city manager in times of drought

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Heath Urie):

The city’s drought strategy calls for reducing the overall amount of water that Boulder uses — including residential, commercial and government uses — by up to 40 percent during the most extreme water shortages. A “moderate” drought, the lowest level of an official drought declaration, calls for citywide water reductions of 8 percent. Allowing the city manager to reduce water budgets during a drought is designed to be an easy way of reducing overall water consumption citywide. Other regulations that are still in the draft stages would impose additional fines on customers who repeatedly go over their water budget during a drought.

More South Platte River basin coverage here.

Pagosa Springs scores $4 million for wastewater treatment plant

From the Pagosa Sun (Jim McQuiggin):

Last Thursday, the Town of Pagosa Springs received notice from the USDA that it would receive the funds for the construction of the facility. The money includes $3,145,000 in loans (at 2 percent interest) and $787,000 in grants. Along with other funds secured two years ago (a $2 million loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority and a $1.25 million grant from the Department of Local Affairs), the Town of Pagosa Springs has just over $7 million to construct the plant. “I’m relieved that we’re finally moving forward,” said Phil Starks, supervisor for the Pagosa Springs Sanitation General Improvement District. According to Starks, the town would most likely break ground on the project in May…

…timing for the funding award was more than mere providence: the town’s current wastewater treatment system occasionally exceeds ammonia levels in its discharge during the winter months, and also risks hydraulic problems and violations during the spring when snow runoff can overload the system. Those violations not only got the town sideways with the CDPHE (which in turn answers to the EPA), but put the town at risk of further sanctions at the state and federal level, severely hampering badly needed economic development in the area…

With the award of over $4 million in USDA funds, the Town of Pagosa Springs can breathe easier, not just in regard to meeting CDPHE mandates, but also in the knowledge that it will soon treat one of its most valuable resources — the San Juan River — with much-improved respect.

More wastewater coverage here and here.

Snowpack news

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Snowpack in the Upper Arkansas River basin is above average, particularly above 10,000 feet, but is far below average in the southern mountains. In the Colorado River basin, which provides supplemental water for the Arkansas River, more good conditions exist. “In the Colorado basin, we’re looking at 80-90 percent of the peak, which is good for this time of year,” [Pat Edelmann, head of the Pueblo office of the U.S. Geological Survey] said. Snow and streamflow forecasts are good in the Upper Arkansas.

Not everything is so rosy, particularly in the Purgatoire River basin and Lower Arkansas Valley. “NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is indicating the drought through April is likely to persist or intensify,” Edelmann said.

Southern Delivery System update

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo West landowners who are unhappy with offers for easements as part of the Southern Delivery System have been unable to reach settlements with Colorado Springs. Next week, Colorado Springs Utilities is expected to report to City Council on the progress in dealing with holdouts on 15 of 133 properties it must acquire to build SDS…

Colorado Springs City Council told utilities to make another attempt to negotiate with Pueblo West property owners last month, and is scheduled to review progress at its meeting Tuesday. The city has offered residents payments for easements across part of their property. Landowners say the amount is too small for the inconvenience they expect to endure as SDS is being built…

Colorado Springs committed to use eminent domain only as a last resort in obtaining property or easements for SDS under its 1041 land-use permit with Pueblo County in 2009. Utilities wants to begin building the water pipeline from Pueblo Dam soon in order to meet a projected completion date in 2016. Last month, Dan Higgins, SDS construction delivery manager, said Colorado Springs will continue to work with landowners even if condemnation actions begin in court.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Colorado congressman Scott Tipton and Utah congressman Scott Matheson are against a review of the Bush era exploration and production rules

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Tipton’s 3rd Congressional District includes the world’s largest deposits of oil shale, a sedimentary rock that, when heated, releases a petroleum substance that can be refined into transportation and other fuels.

Across the state line, U.S. Rep. Scott Matheson, D-Utah, said he disagreed with the announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Bureau of Land Management Director Robert Abbey to revisit the decisions made under the administration of George W. Bush.

Federal officials are looking over progress made in Utah, where a company with a research-and-development leases says it is producing petroleum with far less water than previous efforts.

“Because of advances made by Utah companies, the effect of oil shale development on water supplies may be greatly reduced,” Matheson said in a statement. “I am an advocate for a level playing field when it comes to access to leasing, so that these emerging technologies are able to compete.”

More coverage from the High Plains Midwest/Ag Journal. From the article:

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union President Kent Peppler praised Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s announcement that Interior will look closely at water issues and agricultural impacts as the discussion of oil shale development moves forward.

“Secretary Salazar described water use as an essential issue in the oil shale debate, and we couldn’t agree more,” Peppler said. “Most of the oil shale lands are on the Colorado River basin, which has been over-allocated from the beginning of the interstate compact. We need to know how much water oil shale developers need, where they expect to get it, and what condition it will be in when they are through with it. Agriculture is the cornerstone of Colorado’s economy and the basis for America’s food security. The secretary understands this, and we urge him to keep it in his thoughts as we move forward slowly on oil shale development.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Department of Interior policy update

From The Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

“As we all know, the energy challenges our country faces are serious and have gone unaddressed for far too long,” U.S. Bureau of Land Management director Bob Abbey said Tuesday, “and therefore we believe we need to responsibly develop our oil and gas supplies to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we also must do so in a thoughtful and balanced way.”

Abbey was speaking the same day the BLM filed a settlement in federal district court in Colorado promising to revisit oil shale leasing rules approved in the waning days of the Bush administration in 2008. Those rules opened up 2 million acres of BLM land to commercial oil shale leasing and set a royalty rate of 5 percent. Several environmental groups filed two lawsuits in 2009 challenging those rules.

“The previous 2008 regulations made critical decisions such as royalty rate before the RD&D [research, development and demonstration] program had a chance to deliver information and answers,” U.S. Interior Secretary and former Colorado senator Ken Salazar said. “They put the cart before the horse, and in so doing they heightened the risk of speculation and bad decisions and yet another oil shale bust.”[…]

“From our perspective, oil is perhaps a scarce resource, but water is also pretty scarce here in the arid West, and fish and wildlife habitat and the hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation that habitat provides is a resource that has helped sustain rural communities in the West,” said Kate Zimmerman of the Rocky Mountain Regional Center of the National Wildlife Federation.

Bill Midcap of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU) worries oil shale production could adversely impact his industry as well. “Every drop of water Mother Nature blesses Colorado with has the potential to run out of our state,” Midcap said. “How society chooses to use that water is a really good question. The dependence on agriculture in this state is huge; we are the second largest industry in the state. We can’t just keep doing more with less.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Fort Morgan: New water code approved by the city council

From The Fort Morgan Times (Dan Barker):

In the past, the city expected any business which used significant amounts of water to purchase shares of Colorado-Big Thompson water to use, he said. However, sometimes a business needed just over an even amount of shares, and it was a burden for it to buy a whole new share, the council was told Jan. 4. Under a new internal policy, the city will round that off the water shares to the nearest half-share in order to be business friendly, Wells said.

Also, the city will decide on a case-by-case basis on how to convert inside water meters to outside water meters, but that will not be part of the code itself, he said. For the most part, changes to the water code are things the council has already done in the past by resolution, but were not included in the code itself, said Acting City Manager Jeff Wells.

More Morgan County coverage here and here.

2011 Colorado legislation: HB 11-1150 sponsor agrees to pull bill if new Department of Natural Resources agreement to fund water projects is adopted

From The Fort Morgan Times:

The agreement came from discussions with DNR and the newly formed Citizen’s Wildlife Advisory Council, a broad-based group of stakeholders that work on wildlife issues. CWAC was formed to open a dialogue to address the adversarial relationship between the sportsmen community and landowners. The group is bi-partisan and has worked to find common ground between various stakeholders.

The CWAC voted to support [Representative Jon Becker (R-Fort Morgan)] in his plan to pull the bill if the agreement with DNR is finalized citing that the compromise is of benefit to both sides. The major concern of the group was whether Federal Dingell-Johnson/Pitman-Robertson funds would still be available. Becker and DNR agreed that those dollars would still be utilized by the DOW and these water projects would benefit sportsmen as well as all the citizens of Colorado.

Here’s the release from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Todd Hartman):

The Colorado Division of Wildlife is announcing a five-year goal to prioritize investments in water projects that benefit wildlife and wildlife recreation. The Division owns 104 dams and has a program to maintain existing facilities for safety, storage, and release. The Division has identified 17 dams and associated infrastructure in need of repairs and improvements and is seeking storage agreements, exchange-of-use agreements and other water projects with water providers and water users for this purpose.

“We have several critical water development needs, such as repairing the dam at Beaver Reservoir to allow us to store water again,” said Division of Wildlife Director Tom Remington. “We also have some great opportunities, such as reaching a storage agreement with Rio Grande Reservoir operators to store Division of Wildlife water critical to our needs in the San Luis Valley.”

In cooperation with Representative Jon Becker (R-Fort Morgan), the Division is exploring other opportunities that will first and foremost benefit wildlife and wildlife recreation, but will also help other entities and individuals who depend on water resources in the state. The Division intends to allocate at least $6 million for these types of projects over the next five years.

“I am glad to see the Division of Wildlife seeking additional opportunities for water development that will benefit both wildlife and sportsmen,” Rep. Becker said. “At the same time, the ancillary benefit to agricultural and other interests across the state is a win-win for all involved.”

“In the face of budget issues that are creating challenges throughout state government, it is especially challenging to plan for increasing water demand while protecting natural resources over the long term,” Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Mike King explained. “There is a lot of overlap between healthy wildlife habitat and what sportsmen and agricultural communities need. We welcome the opportunity to combine these goals and find ways to make limited state funding go further.”

More coverage from KRDO.com:

The division provided the following information on its new initiative: The division owns 104 dams and has a program to maintain existing facilities for safety, storage and release. The Division has identified 17 dams and associated infrastructure in need of repairs and improvements and is seeking storage agreements, exchange-of-use agreements and other water projects with water providers and water users for this purpose.

“We have several critical water development needs, such as repairing the dam at Beaver Reservoir to allow us to store water again,” said Division of Wildlife Director Tom Remington. “We also have some great opportunities, such as reaching a storage agreement with Rio Grande Reservoir operators to store Division of Wildlife water critical to our needs in the San Luis Valley.”

More HB 11-1150 coverage here. More 2011 Colorado legislation coverage here.

2011 Colorado legislation: HB 11-1083 (Hydroelectricity & Pumped Hydro) passes in state House of Representatives

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Patrick Malone):

The Colorado House on Tuesday unanimously passed a bill that would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to consider hydroelectric operations a renewable energy source. Sponsored by state Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-Pueblo West, HB1083 could open the door for a hydroelectric plant near Penrose. TransCanada’s proposed South Slope project would create up to 300 construction jobs and up to 30 permanent positions…

Also according to testimony, [pumped] hydro projects are an economical energy storage option that fits well with the emergence of wind and solar energy sources. That’s because hydro projects can fill gaps in wind and solar productivity. More than 120 hydro projects exist nationally. The barrier to more is the high up-front cost.

More 2011 Colorado legislation coverage here.

2011 Colorado legislation: HB 11-1066 — Due Process Prior To Gov Taking

Here’s a recap of a recent meeting where state Representative Wes McKinley discussed his bill, HB 11-1066, from Patrick Malone writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

McKinley, D-Walsh, has introduced HB1066, which seeks to stop the government from taking property without due process. It seeks to buffer citizens’ livelihood from encroachment by government agencies and specifically targets infringement on airspace, water rights and livestock. Real-life problems facing residents of Southern Colorado inspired the bill, McKinley said. Noisy military flyovers, the seizure of livestock and state rule changes in how farmers can irrigate motivated McKinley’s proposal. About 25 people with firsthand experience in those areas — most of them from Southeastern Colorado — attended an informal meeting McKinley held Wednesday to talk about what has been taken from them.

Marvin Greenloh of Lamar said the state is taking his water rights through a shift in its interpretation of seep irrigation, which reuses water that seeps through the soil…

Greenloh said the state’s demand that he stop using seep water could be catastrophic to his and neighbors’ livelihoods. “Basically, it would be the end of our farm because we won’t have the water to carry on,” he said…

In Greenloh’s estimation, more populous parts of the state have forgotten where their food originates and put their own needs ahead of farmers’ with the state’s backing. “What I think it is, they’re trying to keep enough water on the Front Range and don’t care if it’s hurting farmers,” he said.

More 2011 Colorado legislation coverage here.

Energy policy — geothermal: Salida scores $50,000 from the Governor’s Energy Office to evaluate geothermal potential

From The Mountain Mail (Cailey McDermott):

A $50,000 geothermal energy grant for the city-owned Poncha Hot Springs was unanimously approved by Salida City Councilmen Tuesday. The grant from the Governor’s Energy office will be used to explore the site for geothermal potential.

More geothermal coverage here and here.

First identification of endocrine disruptors in algae blooms

Here’s the release from the American Chemical Society:

Scientists are reporting for the first time that previously unrecognized substances released by algae blooms have the potential to act as endocrine disruptors, which can interfere with the normal activity of reproductive hormones. The effect is not caused by microcystin toxins, long recognized as potentially harmful to humans and aquatic animals, but as yet unidentified substances. As a result, the scientists are calling for a revision of environmental monitoring programs to watch for these new substances. The findings appear in ACS’s journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Theodore Henry and colleagues note that harmful blooms of toxin-producing algae, called cyanobacteria or blue-green algae, occur in waters throughout the world and are a growing health and environmental concern. The algae produce microcystins that can harm fish, plants, and human health. Possible human health effects include skin rashes, fever, and liver damage. Although scientists have focused mainly on microcystins’ biological effects, new evidence suggests that other potentially harmful substances also may be present.

In an effort to find out, Emily Rogers supervised by Theodore Henry, and co-authors Michael Twiner, Julia Gouffon, Jackson McPherson, Gregory Boyer, Gary Sayler, and Steven Wilhelm turned to zebrafish, often used as a stand-in for people and other animals in laboratory experiments. They found that something released by algae, other than microcystins, had an endocrine disrupting effect on the fish. The report recommends that environmental protection agencies may need to update monitoring programs for algae blooms to include potential endocrine-disrupting substances.

Energy policy — oil and gas: The State Land Board pulls 3 tracts from lease sale

$A picture named marcellushydraulicfracturing.jpg$

From the Summit Daily News (Janice Kurbjun):

Melissa Yoder of the Colorado State Land Board said two of the parcels were adjacent to Antero Reservoir and were removed at the request of Denver Water. The third tract was near a Gold Medal fishery on the Middle Fork of the South Platte, and Colorado Division of Wildlife officials advised it be removed.

“The South Park Basin is incredibly important for our drinking water and rich in wildlife resources,” said Matt Garrington, program advocate for Environment Colorado, in a press release. “The Colorado State Land Board made a wise decision today recognizing that some areas are too sensitive to be drilled where the full impacts are not yet fully known.”

The Land Board commissioners “asked its staff to go back through the oil and gas auction list to ensure the Division of Wildlife didn’t have any additional stipulations to put on tracts as it related to specific wildlife habitat impacts,” Yoder said.

She added that if there are concerns, leases receive stipulations to accommodate the habitat issues identified. In that area, mule deer and pronghorn could be affected by drilling operations.

“The State Land Board will auction lands with high wildlife values, such as severe winter range for mule deer and pronghorn and greater sage grouse habitat,” said Suzanne O’Neill, executive director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, in the press release. “It is absolutely critical that the State Land Board confer with the Division of Wildlife about how to best avoid, or at least mitigate, impacts to wildlife habitat.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Burlington: 23rd annual Central Plains Irrigation Conference and Equipment Exposition in Feb. 22-23

From the Holyoke Enterprise:

All events will be held at the Burlington Community Center at 340 S. 14th St…

Speaking at the general session on Tuesday is Craig Beyrouty, Colorado State University. He will cover “The Future of Global Food Supplies.” On Wednesday, Dick Wolfe, Colorado Division of Water Resources, will talk about “Water Issues in Colorado.”

Technical sessions topics are “Limited/Deficit Irrigation,” “Irrigation Scheduling,” “Subsurface Drip Irrigation,” “Irrigation System and Pumping Plant Maintenance,” “Center Pivot Sprinkler Automation” and “Energy Crops for Irrigation.”

The trade show will be open at various times throughout both days. It will close at 10:30 p.m. on the second day. It is open to the general public and there is no admission charge for it.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Save Our South Park Water and the South Park Coalition are in opposition to more exploration in South Park

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

A 1,000-square-mile grassland basin between Pikes Peak and the Collegiate mountains, South Park holds headwaters of the South Platte River. In 2009, it was declared a national heritage area, one of three in Colorado and 49 in the United States. On Tuesday, Houston-based El Paso Corp. confirmed it has drilled one well in South Park and holds government permits to drill two more. Plans to drill up to 300 wells in South Park and install a gas pipeline depend on whether enough gas is found, El Paso Corp. spokesman Richard Wheatley said…

“It would be nice if the federal government, State Land Board, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Park County, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission would start talking to each other,” [Eddie Kochman, a former state fisheries chief] said. “It would be nice if Denver Water, instead of sitting in the bleachers, would take an active role.”

Denver Water officials who provide water to 1.3 million metro-area residents “are not experts on oil and gas exploration or fracking,” director of operations Brian Good said. “We’re water folks. We’ve got to trust that the regulatory bodies are doing their job in reviewing applications and assigning permits.”[…]

South Park residents Tuesday met with Park County authorities to consider using a county trust fund to conduct their own baseline study of water resources. Some say they’re not opposed to limited drilling if it could really be done safely — with none of the damage seen elsewhere around Colorado.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: The Department of Interior proposes a settlement of environmental organizations’ lawsuit over leasing terms

From the Associated Press (Cathy Proctor) via the Denver Business Journal:

The review settles two lawsuits that environmental groups filed in 2009 over the federal government’s rules for commercial-scale oil shale operations, Salazar said. The government hasn’t issued any commercial leases for oil shale production under the 2008 rules. Nor will the review change rules governing existing or proposed leases for oil shale research, a federal spokesman said. The rules for commercial oil shale operations were put forward in the last weeks of President George W. Bush’s administration. They changed oil-shale plans by the Bureau of Land Management, an agency of Salazar’s Interior Department, in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The agreement to review the 2008 rules in coming months was accepted by plaintiffs in the suits, said Kate Zimmerman, an attorney with the Rocky Mountain regional office of the National Wildlife Federation. The federation was one of the 13 environmental groups that were party to the two lawsuits. The review will look at the amount of water available for use in oil shale operations; potential impacts on federal lands, wildlife and watersheds, and the amount of royalties that oil shale production should pay, Salazar said.

The U.S. Geological Survey, another Interior agency, also will analyze the amount and quality of water available to better understand the groundwater and surface water systems that might be affected by commercial-scale oil shale operations, he said. “Oil shale is an important resource for the U.S.,” said Salazar, a former U.S. senator from Colorado. “We need to move forward and examine the possibility of developing oil shale as part of our national portfolio, but we need to do it in a smart way.”

More coverage from The State Colunm (U.S. Senator Michael Bennet):

“This announcement is a welcome step forward in our efforts to ensure thoughtful, responsible development of Colorado’s natural resources while protecting the land, water and way of life we in the West hold dear. Our approach to oil shale development should be both measured and responsible given the potential effects extraction could have on Colorado’s precious water supplies, farmers, ranchers and local communities in the arid West. While we should allow for research and development to proceed, we must also be mindful of the need to protect our land and water and provide a fair return to American taxpayers.

“Beyond today’s announcement of a path forward for commercial leasing rules, I am also pleased to hear that scientists will undertake a full analysis of oil shale in the context of Colorado’s water supply, considering the importance of this precious resource to farmers and local communities.”

More coverage from Sheila Kumar writing for the Associated Press (via Bloomberg). From the article:

The proposed settlement filed in federal court in Denver would give the Bureau of Land Management more discretion when awarding oil shale leases and would remove the 5 percent royalty rates approved by the Bush administration for mining oil shale on public land. The lawsuits by environmentalists challenged the rate as too low. Little is known about the potential environmental impact oil shale development will have on water and wildlife resources, a fact highlighted by the lawsuits. The settlement proposes requiring environmental reviews of commercial development, including impacts on air and water quality and water supplies. “We’re very pleased with the secretary’s emphasis on the importance of water as we move forward with the research and discussion,” said Bill Midcap, the renewable energy development director at the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.

More from U.S. Representative Jared Polis via The State Column:

“The Department of Interior has taken a well reasoned approach to the future of Oil Shale on public lands with their announcement to take a closer look at how this form of energy could affect our precious and dwindling western water supplies,” said Polis. “The Department has struck a positive balance between researching future potential and ensuring that long term water needs and water impacts will be taken into account before companies invest dollars or the public invests it’s natural resources.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Pueblo Board of Water Works meeting recap

From The Pueblo chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The board voted to enter a $1 million contract with Deere & Ault Consultants to provide engineering for its Water Court application to change the use of shares it has purchased on Bessemer Ditch. In 2009, the water board bought about 27 percent of the largest ditch in Pueblo County for $55 million. Nearly all of the Bessemer Ditch water is being leased back to farmers, but eventually the water rights need to be changed to allow for municipal and other uses in order for the water board to make full use of it. The board anticipates filing an application for the change in late 2012.

The $1 million contract with Deere & Ault covers four major areas, explained Alan Ward, water resources administrator:

Analysis to quantify the historic use of the water, including consumptive use, return flows and stream depletions.
– A description of future uses for those same areas.
– Conditions that would be needed to protect other water rights on the Arkansas River.
– A method of ditch operation that protects other Bessemer Ditch shareholders.

“We have committed to the Bessemer Ditch and the St. Charles Water District to consult with them on specific areas of concern and addressing those issues,” Ward said.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Pueblo Board of Water Works Tuesday agreed to lease a little more than 10,000 acre-feet of water to other users in the Arkansas River, bringing in about $500,000 of additional revenue. The water board typically sells water from supplies it owns, but probably will not be able to use in the current year, through a competitive bid process. The leases do not include the $7 million in revenue projected from leases to Xcel, Aurora, Black Hills and others through longer-term contracts this year…

Prices for water that will be sold through the leases this year range from $42 per acre-foot for the Fort Lyon Canal, the valley’s largest ditch, to $400 for Holcim Inc., which has a cement plant near Florence. The largest amount paid was $144,000 by the Colorado Water Protective and Development Association, which augments return flows to the Arkansas River from depletions by both municipal and agricultural wells…

No water from the Bessemer Ditch, which is 27 percent owned by the water board, will be used in the leases. That water, under the terms of the 2009 sales of shares, is first offered to farmers on the Bessemer for the cost of assessments. Nearly all accepted that offer this year, Ward said.

More Pueblo Board of Water Works coverage here.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project update

From email from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Tomorrow afternoon (Feb. 16) around 1 p.m., we will bump up our releases from Ruedi Reservoir to the Lower Fryingpan-River by about 25 cfs. This will put approximately 102 cfs at the gage below Ruedi Dam. The reason for the increase this early in the season is due to the current snow pack projections. It is possible we could have a run-off season similar to last year’s. We are moving some water from the reservoir now in anticipation of above-average run-off flows in late spring…be sure to check out our webpages at http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/ruedi.html.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Aspinall Unit update

From email from Reclamation (Dan Crabtree):

The Colorado River Basin Forecast Center has just issued the February mid-month April through July runoff forecast. The forecast for Blue Mesa Reservoir remained at 775,000 acre-feet or 108 percent of average. In order to assure space in Blue Mesa Reservoir to manage the runoff, Reclamation will again increase reservoir releases. To accomplish this, we plan to increase Crystal releases by 300 cfs, from 800 cfs to a total release of 1100 cfs, on Friday, February 18th. If you have any questions, please reply to this email or call 970-248-0600 and ask for Erik Knight or Dan Crabtree.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.

Monument: Board of trustees meeting recap

From the Tri-Lakes Tribune (Lisa Collacott):

The town of Monument unanimously approved four resolutions pertaining to water at its most recent board of trustees meeting.

To establish a contract with El Paso County Water Authority and make the name change to Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority.

To participate in the Colorado-Wyoming Project Participation agreement.

To sign on the Super Ditch Project Participation agreement.

To sign on the Southern Delivery System Project Participation agreement.

Monument has been paying dues to the EPCWA and PPRWA. Recently the two water authorities merged and stayed with the name of PPRWA. The dues to the water authority for 2011 will cost the town $2,950. “It’s a good thing for the town. We were paying dues to two authorities and there really was no need for two authorities,” said Rich Landreth, public works director…

The Board of Trustees also approved the resolution for the Super Ditch Participation Agreement. The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District is considering a plan to lease water used for agricultural purposes to cities. The town of Monument has been part of the project for several years.

The final resolution approved was the Southern Delivery System Project Participation Agreement. The project would allow members to negotiate, as a group or individually, the delivery of water through the SDS with Colorado Springs Utilities.

More Arkansas River basin coverage here.

2010 Colorado gubernatorial election transition: Interview with Colorado commissioner of agriculture John Salazar

The Fence Post is running a interview with Mr. Salazar that lays out his vision for the department and agriculture under a Hickenlooper administration. The interview is from The Greeley Tribune. Here’s an excerpt:

Tribune — Water has to be among your priorities.

Salazar — I’ve been involved with water all my life. I served on the Rio Grande Water Conservation District when AWDI (American Water Development Inc.) was trying to take San Luis Valley water out of the valley. We need to find ways to protect water for agriculture production. There’s a lot of new technology coming … but right now most of that is very expensive. However, as long as cities don’t use water to consumption, we can recycle it and use it again and again.

Tribune — The governor has indicated he may be in favor of the Northern Integrated Supply Project in northern Colorado. Where do you stand?

Salazar — I’ve come out in favor of it, but I want to see if it protects water for agriculture. I will support it as long as it doesn’t dry up agriculture. I live and breathe agriculture.

More 2010 Colorado election coverage here.

IBCC strategy report public meeting February 25, statewide Roundtable summit March 3

From email from IBCC Director John Stulp:

As the new IBCC director, I am looking forward to a lively discussion regarding the report the IBCC sent to former Governor Ritter and Governor Hickenlooper. As part of my new charge, Im seeking to engage not only the roundtables, a process that is underway, but also a wider set of the water community on this emerging framework. My goal is to have enough information on this framework that we can have a productive conversation at the March 3rd Statewide Roundtable Summit to improve the document with a geographically and politically diverse group of people in the room.

I have asked CWCB staff and the IBCC facilitator Heather Bergman, in support of the IBCC, to coordinate a public input process. You are officially invited to provide feedback at the facilitated public forum on February 25th 1-4, Glenwood Springs Community Center, 100 Wolfsohn Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO.

At the meeting, participants will go over the IBCC framework, participate in a survey that will focus the discussion, and then have small group discussion on framework elements.

This information will be incorporated in the feedback for the Statewide Roundtable Summit on March 3rd.

For those not able to attend the Feb. 25th meeting, written feedback can be provided through the Feedback Survey and Comment Opportunity, available at the Statewide Roundtable Summit webpage in the additional information section on the right side of the page. Additional comment emails or attachments may be sent to Viola.Bralish@state.co.us, but all are encouraged to take the survey. Surveys and written public feedback are due February 24th.

The March 3rd Statewide Roundtable Summit at the Doubletree Hotel Denver – North, 8773 Yates Drive, Westminster, CO 80031. Participants in the Summit are expected to participate in one of the above forums first. Registration is $25 for non-roundtable members to cover conference costs. Please register by clicking here.

In order to download a copy of the report, or hear IBCC members discussion with Governor Ritter, please visit the Statewide Roundtable Summit webpage.

I look forward to learning from all of you.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Reclamation’s fiscal year 2012 budget request — $1.0 billion

Here’s the release from the Bureau of Reclamation (Dan DuBray):

President Barack Obama’s FY 2012 budget request released today includes a total of $1,018.4 billion for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. The President’s request reflects his continuing commitment to be prudent with taxpayer dollars while setting priorities for spending. The 2012 budget reflects many difficult budget choices, cutting worthy programs in order to fund the highest priority requirements, and advancing efforts to shrink Federal spending while being mindful of ongoing opportunities.

“The President’s budget proposal promotes fiscal responsibility while maximizing the community, economic, and environmental benefits of Reclamation’s projects and programs by promoting certainty, sustainability, and resiliency with respect to the use of water resources,” Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor said today. “The President’s proposal continues to ensure the reliable and efficient delivery of water and production of renewable, clean hydropower, but also reflects the tough choices we must make in order to address the critical budget deficit.”

The budget emphasizes Reclamation’s core mission to address the water needs of a growing population in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner; and assisting States, Tribes and local entities in solving water resource issues. It also emphasizes the operation and maintenance of Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic and reliable manner; ensuring systems and safety measures are in place to protect the public and Reclamation facilities. Reclamation’s funding request addresses Administration, Departmental, and Reclamation priorities. These priorities include Ecosystem Restoration, Renewable Energy, Cooperative Landscape Conservation, Water Conservation and the WaterSMART Program, Strengthening Tribal Nations and Youth Recruitment activities.

The President’s budget proposal for Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources account of $805.2 million includes $398.5 million for water and energy, land, and fish and wildlife resource management and development activities. This funding provides for planning, construction, water conservation activities, management of Reclamation lands including recreation and actions to address the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife. The request also emphasizes reliable water delivery and power generation by requesting $406.7 million to fund operation, maintenance and rehabilitation activities at Reclamation facilities, including dam safety. Reclamation is committed to working with water and power users, States, Tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to address and meet the mix of water resource needs in 2012 and beyond. Specifics of the budget request include:

Ecosystem Restoration – In carrying out its mission Reclamation has a responsibility to focus on the protection and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments affected by its operations. Some highlights of Reclamation’s Ecosystem Restoration activities, many of which support the President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, and are also needed to fulfill Endangered Species Act recovery programs, include:

– Of the $154.6 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP), a significant portion is for ecosystem restoration including $34.8 million for the Red Bluff Pumping Plant and Fish Screen and $10.5 million for the Trinity River Restoration Program.

– $18.3 million for the Multi-Species Conservation Program within the lower Colorado River basin to provide long-term Endangered Species Act compliance for river operations.

– $20.0 million for Endangered Species Act Recovery implementation programs including $11.0 million to implement the Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program and $6.2 million for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Programs.

– $18.6 million for the Klamath Project, of which a significant portion is for environmental protection and restoration; to continue funding for studies and initiatives related to improving water supplies to meet the competing demands of agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge; and to address environmental needs in the Klamath River basin including endangered species recovery and other restoration activities.

– $39.7 million for the California Bay-Delta Program for categories aligned with the Interim Federal Action Plan are as follows: $26.2 million to address degraded Bay-Delta ecosystem activities; $11.5 million for smarter water supply and use; and $2.0 million for a renewed Federal-State partnership.

– $53.1 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund to continue funding a variety of activities to restore fish and wildlife habitat and populations in the Central Valley Project service area of California.
$23.6 million for the Middle Rio Grande Project, of which a significant portion is to support environmental activities developed through the ESA Collaborative Program.

– $17.8 million for the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project for implementation of the Biological Opinions for the Federal Columbia River Power System.

Renewable Energy and Cooperative Landscape Conservation – Reclamation is supporting the Department’s integrated strategy for responding to climate change impacts:

– Reclamation is working with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Energy and its Power Marketing Administrations to determine the climate change effects to hydropower generation.

– $7.0 million will support both the continued implementation of Reclamation’s West-wide Climate Risk Assessments and co-coordination of two Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, under Reclamation’s Basin Study Program; and Reclamation’s Science and Technology Program supporting research improving our capability to manage, conserve, and expand water supplies in response to multiple stresses in the West, including drought and climate change.

The WaterSMART Program – The FY 2012 budget for Reclamation proposes $58.9 million for the WaterSMART Program – Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow – to assist local communities in stretching water supplies and improving water management. The WaterSMART Program will help to improve water management by encouraging voluntary water banks, reducing demand, implementing water conservation and Title XVI water reuse projects, and taking action to improve energy efficiency, promote renewable energy and reduce environmental conflicts. Reclamation will also partner with States, Tribes and local entities under the WaterSMART Program to develop the WaterSMART Clearinghouse website as a resource to provide leadership and assistance in coordinating and integrating water conservation and sustainable water strategies.

Strengthening Tribal Nations – The FY 2012 budget continues support of tribal nations through Reclamation’s request of $12.8 million for the Animas La Plata Project (Colorado, New Mexico) to continue construction and implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000; and $7.0 million for the Native American Affairs Program to continue support of Reclamation activities with Indian tribes. These activities include providing technical support for Indian water-rights settlements; assisting tribal governments to protect, manage and develop water and related resources; and supporting Indian self-governance and self-determination programs.

Additionally, the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery, Klamath, Central Valley Project Trinity River Division, Yakima and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement projects mentioned above under Ecosystem Restoration and five of the eight authorized rural water projects (discussed below) benefit Tribal nations in recognition of their long-standing treaty rights.

Further, in FY 2012 Reclamation will enhance support of tribal nations, most notably through the establishment of a new Indian Water Rights Settlements account in response to the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which authorizes and establishes requirements for four water rights settlements benefiting the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona, the Crow Tribe in Montana, the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico, and the Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos in New Mexico. Reclamation is requesting $51.5 million for the account with $26.7 million to begin implementation of the four new settlements. The new account would also include $24.8 million for the implementation of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, for which mandatory funding is provided under Title VII of the Act and appropriations are authorized by P.L. 111-11, of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is a key element of the Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement on the San Juan River in New Mexico.

Other Project Highlights include –

– $35.5 million for ongoing construction on seven rural water projects in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota and as well as operation and maintenance on completed tribal features for two of the projects. Five of the projects directly benefit tribal nations.

– $83.7 million for the Dam Safety Program to continue dam safety risk management and risk reduction activities throughout Reclamation’s inventory of high- and significant-hazard dams. Corrective actions are planned to continue or start at a number of facilities. A major focus continues to be modifications at Folsom Dam (California).

– $25.9 million for Site Security to continue Reclamation’s on-going site-security program that includes physical security upgrades at key facilities, guards and patrols, anti-terrorism program activities and security risk assessments.

The Bureau of Reclamation throughout the 17 western states is committed to helping meet the many water challenges of the West. A driving force behind Bureau initiatives is resolution of water issues that will benefit future generations.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The funds [request for the Arkansas Valley Conduit] total $2.958 million and are included in the Department of Interior’s budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. “We have to finish up the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) study before we can proceed with the construction,” said Kara Lamb, public information officer for the Bureau of Reclamation at Loveland. “We’re still in the very beginning stages.”

The Environmental Impact Statement for the conduit is on track to be completed by late 2012 or early 2013. It will determine the corridor the conduit will follow along its 130-mile route from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads, as well as other details of the project…

“The Arkansas Valley Conduit is more than a priority,” said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo. “It is necessary to provide and protect water supplies for more than 40 communities along the Arkansas Valley.”

More Reclamation coverage here. More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

2011 Colorado legislation: HB 11-1068 withdrawn

According to Joe Stone writing in The Mountain Mail the bill has been withdrawn. Here is Mr. Stone’s recap of a recent Upper Arkansas Water Conservation District meeting. From the article:

District engineer Ivan Walter reported the Temporary Water Transfer legislation, House Bill 1068, was recently withdrawn from consideration after numerous objections.

One reason for objections, Walter said, is that most entities in the state water community consider the [Hydrolocical Institutional Model] inappropriate for determining consumptive use under widely varying conditions. It was developed by Kansas to quantify water depleted from the Arkansas River by wells in Colorado. Terry Scanga, UAWCD general manager, said the model contains presumptive numbers that could cause injury to water right holders. Because lower valley right holders rely on return flow from upstream use, inaccurate numbers could affect amount and timing of return flow, Scanga said. With a change of water right under a temporary transfer, faulty numbers could cause more water to be transferred than was historically used. Scanga explained that could lead to premature calls by holders of senior rights in the lower valley. Premature calls, he said, would cause injury by reducing the amount of water available for junior right holders in the upper valley.

He said a more robust model would have statewide benefits and other entities have expressed interest in supporting the project, including Pueblo Board of Water Works, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “If we don’t do this,” Scanga said, “it will cost us several hundred thousand dollars in opposition costs.”[…]

Hydrologist Jord Gertson reported ice caused gauges to stop functioning properly at Cottonwood Lake and Poncha and Texas creeks. He said the fill rate at Boss Lake dropped from 20 acre feet per month in December to 15 acre feet in January. He said O’Haver Reservoir lost about 4 acre feet of water in January. Gertson said backup equipment was purchased for weather stations and stream gauges and will enable the district to replace any component that might go down, thereby minimizing data loss. Gertson updated directors about offering provisional stream, reservoir and weather data via the district website at http://uawcd.com/water_resources.php.

In other business, directors:

• Learned the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation approved $285,000 for high-elevation data collection platforms and wants to highlight success of platforms already installed within the district.

• Approved financial reports indicating a district general fund balance of $11,985.12 and an Enterprise Committee general fund balance of $59,764.09.

• Heard an augmentation report indicating the state approved applications for 251.81 acre feet of augmentation water.

• Learned about House Bill 11-1066, which would grant some priority to seep ditch rights in continuous use at least 25 years.

• Learned of efforts by Colorado Historical Society to list irrigation ditches on the historic register which would complicate maintenance and operation of irrigation equipment on those ditches.

• Approved $1,000 annual district membership in Family Farm Alliance because the organization provides contacts and information about federal legislation.

• Agreed to oppose a Catlin Canal Co. application for change of use for as much as 40 percent of the company ditch shares.

• Learned about progress on the Arkansas Basin Decision Support System, including need to study evaporation from undecreed reservoirs estimated as much as 30,000 acre feet per year.

• Voted to enter Water Court case No. 10CW98 involving exchanges on Beaver Creek by the City of Victor, Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Co.

• Learned the district reached an agreement in principle with owners of Willow Creek Ranch near Leadville including protections for district water.

• Received feedback from directors about the recent Colorado Water Congress annual convention.

• Heard a legal report from attorney Julianne Woldridge regarding district applications and court decrees.

Here’s an essay from Dave Miller about the legislation. Mr. Miller writes, “Colorado’s HB1068 is the product of Balkanized single-basin water planning.” More from the article:

U.S. Department of Interior reports indicate Colorado has beneficially used only about 2.2 million acre-feet of its annual 3.87 million acre-feet of Colorado River Compact entitlements since the 1970s. This means Colorado still has major interstate rights that should be developed as soon as possible for urban growth. As a primary headwater state and water source for 11 down-river states, Colorado has several innovative high-altitude renewable water and energy storage sites and solutions for state and regional needs. This breakthrough high storage concept is described in Central Colorado Project’s (CCP) White Paper, dated April 4, 2007, and its applicable U.S. Patent No. US 7,866,919 B2, dated Jan. 11, 2011.

To date, Colorado’s statewide water planning entities — Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority and the Interbasin Compact Committee — have not shown interest in Colorado’s integrated high-altitude storage options for statewide and regional water and energy needs. This skepticism would, in all likelihood, change to enthusiasm if preliminary modeling were used to confirm the extraordinary economic and environmental advantages of high-altitude reservoirs for Colorado and the southwestern region.

More coverage from Patrick Malone writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

State Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, withdrew HB1068 to give a task force time to develop a better approach to long-term leasing and fallowing of land. Sen. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, was the bill’s Senate sponsor. The bill would have established a pilot program that allowed agricultural water-rights holders downstream from Pueblo Dam in the Lower Arkansas basin to lease up to one-third of their holdings to municipalities for up to two 40-year terms, meanwhile, fallowing the land it would have watered. It also would have granted authority to the state engineer to approve water transfers presently under the purview of state Water Courts. Fischer said the bill’s intent was to establish a long-term leasing mechanism so agricultural holders of water rights could continue to reap financial benefits for their rights without forfeiting them. “I was trying to solve a very complex issue about how we in the future as a state are planning to be able to meet our water needs as the population of our urban areas increases without having the default be permanent ag dryup, or buy-and-dry, as they call it,” Fischer said.

Fischer said he proposed to give the state engineer authority over water transfers to make the process more accessible. He said going through the existing channels in Water Court to establish leasing arrangements is cost-prohibitive to most holders of water rights. Last week, John Stulp, Gov. John Hickenlooper’s appointee to head the Interbasin Compact Committee, visited the Arkansas Basin Roundtable and the formation of a task force to review leasing of water rights developed. So instead of moving forward with his proposal, Fischer said allowing the task force to fully study how best to approach leases would be prudent…

[Arkansas Basin Roundtable member Bud O’Hara] said the proposed pilot project that could have stretched into 80 years of leasing represented too long a time frame. He said granting authority over water transfers to the state engineer might not be seamless, considering turnover in that post that typically follows election of a new governor. “There is an existing process for getting concerns reviewed through Water Court, and an opportunity to comment,” O’Hara said. “We just want them to use that process rather than circumvent it by going directly to the state engineer.”

More Dave Miller coverage here and here. More Upper Ark coverage here.

Snowpack News

Bump and update From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Despite dry conditions during January, snowpack totals throughout the Arkansas River watershed remained near average at 103 percent by Feb. 1…

Since December, snowpack in the southern mountains of the Arkansas River basin have remained at about 60 percent of average, while the Upper Arkansas snowpack declined by 21 percent. The Brumley snowpack telemetry or SNOTEL operated by the conservation service recorded the best snowpack percentage in the basin at 155 percent of average and 161 percent of the February 2010 reading. The Fremont Pass SNOTEL reported the deepest snowpack in the area at 54 inches with a water content of 13.4 inches. The Trout Creek Pass station recorded the least amount of snow with 8 inches – equivalent to 1.3 inches of water. Statewide, Colorado snowpack reduced during January from 136 percent of average to 117 percent. The east side of the Sangre de Cristo Range recorded the lowest Feb. 1 snowpack since 2006. Cucharas and Huerfano sub-basins are at 60 percent of average, and the Purgatoire basin is at 64 percent.

Stream flow forecasts based on snowpack predict good flow in the Upper Arkansas Valley with Chalk Creek forecast at 130 percent of average at Nathrop and the Arkansas River at Salida predicted to carry 111 percent of average volume. Water storage at 13 major Arkansas Valley reservoirs is 91 percent of average, matching the Feb. 1, 2010 percentage. Lowest snowpack percentage is 80 percent of average in the Rio Grande basin. Combined San Juan, Animas, Dolores and San Miguel basins are reported at 106 percent of average. Lowest stream flow forecasts in Colorado are for streams originating in the Sangre de Cristos where volume is expected to be 40-80 percent of average. Flow on the Rio Grande and San Juan rivers is predicted below average for 2011.

Gunnison basin snowpack is 126 percent of average, and the Colorado River and North Platte basin snowpack totals exceed 130 percent of average.

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

Snowpack in the high-elevation mountains above Middle Park now ranges from 111 percent to 170 percent of the 30-year average (1971-2001). Last-year snowpack at this time was only about 65 percent of average. “We’re just lucky this year,” said Mark Volt of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Kremmling Field Office…

Snow density is averaging 25 percent, which means that for a foot of snow, there are 3 inches of water. “This is pretty dense snow for this time of year,” Volt said.

From the Leadville Herald-Democrat:

According to the latest snow surveys, conducted by the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado’s statewide snowpack decreased from 136 percent of average on Jan. 1 to 117 percent of average on Feb. 1. Decreases in snowpack percentages were measured in all of the major river basins of the state, according to Allen Green, state conservationist with the NRCS. While this year’s snowpack is considerably better than last year at this time, the current statewide percentage ties that measured on this date back in 2009. Those basins across southwestern Colorado experienced the driest conditions during January, recording only about one quarter of their normal precipitation for the month. Snowpack percentages decreased by 38 percentage points in the combined San Juan, Animas, Dolores and San Miguel basins, declining from 144 percent of average on Jan. 1, to 106 percent of average on Feb. 1. Similar decreases were also measured in the Gunnison Basin, decreasing from 158 percent of average a month ago, to only 125 percent of average…

Even after experiencing a dry January, the current snowpack remains well ahead of that measured a year ago at this time. With the exception of southwestern Colorado, the 2011 readings are consistently well-above those of last year. Statewide totals are currently tracking at 137 percent of those from a year ago.

Boulder: City council is considering changes in city’s drought response plan

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Heath Urie):

While the plan provides a number of ways for the city to regulate water during a drought — including restricting lawn irrigation, filling swimming pools and washing vehicles — a proposed change would give the city manager the ability to reduce water budgets during a drought.

Water budgets are set by the city based on the type of property and its expected water needs each month. Most single-family homes have a budget of 7,000 gallons a month, plus an allotment for outdoor water use. Commercial customers may have water budgets set based on average monthly use, three-month averages or custom evaluations.

Water budgets are connected to a tiered pricing structure, which the city began using in 2007 as a way to encourage water conservation. The rates include five tiers — ranging from $2.18 per 1,000 gallons to $14.50 per 1,000 gallons — depending on how much users exceed their monthly water budget.

The city’s drought strategy calls for reducing the overall amount of water that Boulder uses — including residential, commercial and government uses — by up to 40 percent during the most extreme water shortages. A “moderate” drought, the lowest level of an official drought declaration, calls for citywide water reductions of 8 percent.

Allowing the city manager to reduce water budgets during a drought is designed to be an easy way of reducing overall water consumption citywide. Additional regulations that are still in the draft stages would impose additional fines on customers who repeatedly go over their water budget during a drought.

More conservation coverage here.

Is the Colorado Water Conservation Board serious about conservation as a wedge in Colorado’s water supply gap curve?

Here’s an essay about Colorado’s water supply gap from Heather Hansen writing for the High Country News weblog The Range. She echos the points made at the recent Interbasin Compact Committee meeting by Melinda Kassen and Taylor Hawes. Colorado utilities and other water users should get serious now about conservation since it’s the easiest and cheapest of the four strategies outlined in the IBCC strategy document. Here’s an excerpt:

Water and growth in Colorado have been the subjects of a few interesting studies released recently: “Colorado’s Water Supply Future/State Water Supply Initiative 2010,” produced by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), and the “Cost of New Water on the Front Range” which came out of the Western Water Policy Program at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Natural Resources Law Center…

Where the studies drastically diverge is how to address our growing thirst. In an abundance of bar graphs and pie charts, the CWCB suggests a number of somewhat nebulous solutions involving inter-basin and trans-basin transfers (when water is moved from one river basin to another) and agricultural transfers (a popular stopgap technique used today in which farmers sell their water rights to urban areas). The huge future demand is also “forcing authorities to consider building new water storage and pipeline projects,” says the study…

In contrast, while the CU study makes no hard and fast recommendations, it concludes that utility-sponsored water conservation programs are the least expensive new water supply strategy for Colorado’s Front Range. Conservation efforts result in an additional one acre-foot of water (326,000 gallons) for an average of $5,200, compared to $16,200 per acre-foot for new supply projects and $14,000 per acre-foot for major water transfers…

Even if we could afford it, cost is only one consideration in meeting future water demands. Why else might we pursue conservation as an important adaptation strategy? Because we need our farmers. Colorado has 36,500 farms. We grow millet, potatoes, cabbage, onions, pinto beans, peaches, apples, cantaloupe, and produce more than one billion eggs per year. There are 2.6 million head of cattle here, and 36,000 bee colonies producing 2.7 million pounds of honey every year. Agriculture contributes over $7 billion to the Colorado state economy annually. More than 105,000 jobs in Colorado are related to agribusiness.

Despite this bounty, since Colorado law allows water rights to be bought, sold and transferred, it’s a common practice for cities to buy farmers’ water. According to Kenney, the Colorado-Big Thompson project along the northern Front Range saw agricultural ownership of water shares dropped from 85 to 47 percent from 1957 to 1998 as growing Front Range cities bought agricultural water. If farmers make more by selling water allocations than by farming, then we’re not going to have many farmers in the future.

Conservation doesn’t have to be a scary. We don’t need to start issuing summons for lengthy showers. We could start with the simple fact that roughly half of municipal water deliveries in the summer are for landscape irrigation, specifically the very-thirsty Kentucky blue grass. We could plant native and drought-resistant plants instead. Inside our homes, there are plenty of opportunities to improve efficiency; a leaky toilet, for example, can waste 36,500 gallons of water per year.

Of course enforcing a statewide conservation standard would be hugely difficult to implement since planning is a local government responsibility today.

More conservation coverage here.

CWCB: The board unanimously declares its intent to appropriate an instream flow water right on a 16.5-mile stretch of the San Miguel River

From The Telluride Watch (Karen James):

Both the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the US Bureau of Land Management recommended that the appropriation be declared one year ago when the CWCB met for its January 2010 meeting. At that time, however, the board voted to delay the action for another year in order to allow water users time to develop plans for off-stem water storage in the watershed.

The federal agencies made the recommendation primarily to prevent three dwindling species of native fish – flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and roundtail chub – from being listed for federal protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.

“That kicks off our notice and comment procedure,” said Linda Bassi, chief of the CWCB’s Stream and Lake Protection Section, noting that any entity choosing to oppose the instream flow has until March 31 to file a notice to contest the action.

Here’s the list of streams for appropriations from the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

More San Miguel watershed coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: The Sheep Mountain Alliance files lawsuit over the licensing procedure for the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium/vanadium mill

From The Telluride Daily Planet (Katie Klingsporn):

The lawsuit argues that Colorado regulators violated federal and state laws and ignored dangers to western Colorado’s clean air and water when they issued the permit.

“Sheep Mountain Alliance exhausted all remedies before we decided to file this lawsuit,” said Linda Miller, a member of Sheep Mountain Alliance’s board of directors, in a release. “We participated in the approval process but our concerns were not addressed. We’re disappointed that the state did not issue a decision that would have protected the public interest and we must now rely on the district court to uphold the law.”

The license permits Energy Fuels to construct a uranium/vanadium mill roughly 12 miles west of Naturita in Paradox Valley — a lonely valley of redrock walls where the Dolores River flows. The mill, which would be situated on roughly 17 acres of land, could process up to 500 tons of material per day. As planned, the facility would run 24 hours a day, almost every day of the year, with up to 85 employees, Energy Fuels has said.

Gary Steele, senior vice president of corporate marketing at Energy Fuels, said the company has not had a chance to fully review the lawsuit. “We’re reviewing it, and we’re highly confident that the record we’ve built over the last many months will see us through any challenges that come at us,” he said on Tuesday…

The complaint against the CDPHE alleges a spate of violations in the state agency’s decision, and seeks revocation of the license. Among its allegations:

• That the CDPHE violated state statutes meant to protect Colorado residents from carrying the financial burdens of cleaning up uranium mills by only requiring Energy Fuels to provide $11 million to cover future cleanup and decommissioning costs.

• That state regulators didn’t follow the provisions of the Colorado Radiation Control Act when they issued the license.

• That in not allowing the public or members of SMA to ask the CDPHE or Energy Fuels technical questions about the project, regulators violated the federal Atomic Energy Act.

• That despite the recently passed Uranium Processing Accountability Act, which prohibits the licensing of a uranium mill where groundwater has been shown to exceed state standards, regulators ignored data that revealed groundwater samples taken at the Piñon Ridge mill site exceeded allowable standards for both radioactive materials and heavy metals.

“If state regulators ignore basic federal and state law to permit this mill, how can we ever trust them to monitor the mill once it’s in production?” Miller said in the release.

More coverage from the Montrose Daily Press (Katharhynn Heidelberg):

The Sheep Mountain Alliance is heading back to court for Round 2 in its fight to stop a uranium mill from being built in the West End of Montrose County. Claiming Colorado regulators violated state and federal laws, the grassroots environmental group’s Feb. 4 suit seeks the invalidation of the radioactive materials license for Energy Fuels Resources’ Piñon Ridge Mill. The alliance further wants a finding that the state must reconsider the license and deny it.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

IBCC: 2010 SWSI Update

Eric Hecox was kind enough to respond to two questions I had from the recent IBCC Committee meeting Here you go:

CG – Was there an attempt to identify water quality costs in the SWSI update?

EH – Water quality costs were only included on the supply side. We identified the quality of the source water and determined if it would need conventional or advanced treatment. However, we did not identify water quality costs on the discharge side so that would add to the cost projections.

CG – Does groundwater make up a wedge in the future supply curve?

EH – Groundwater is included in the water provider’s IPPs. Some providers are relying on developing groundwater and that is included to the extent they indicated in their plans. Water providers who are currently using nonrenewable groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifer face a different issue. They are trying to reduce their reliance on groundwater so replacement of groundwater with a renewable supply is also included in our projections.

More IBCC – basin roundtables coverage here.

Custer County: Commissioners agree to give a fresh look at the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District’s proposed augmentation plan for the county

From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):

On Jan. 19 commissioners Lynn Attebery, Jim Austin and Allen Butler recapped the water forum held here on Jan. 15, and decided to meet with the county’s planning commission chair and co-chair to discuss the viability of the planning commission investigating the feasibility of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District bringing a water augmentation plan to the county and making a recommendation to that effect to the commissioners. That meeting with the two county planning commission members – chairman Vic Barnes and vice-chair Keith Hood – took place during the Jan. 31 commissioners’ regular meeting. Following a lengthy discussion, with Barnes and Hood agreeing that the planning commission’s role should be to gather data only, the county commissioners decided to discuss the matter with county attorney John Naylor before making a final decision regarding the planning commission’s role, if any. Also during the Jan 19 meeting, commissioner Austin made a motion to send a letter to the UAWCD stating the county commissioners were not to blame for UAWCD’s recent decision to pull its proposed blanket water augmentation plan for Custer County from water court. Instead, said Austin, the commissioners objected because the UAWCD did not honor its agreement with the former county commissioners. That agreement, noted Austin, was that the commissioners be allowed to review the water augmentation proposal before UAWCD submitted it. “That didn’t happen,” said Austin.

More Custer County coverage here and here.

Reclamation Seeking Partners for WaterSMART Basin Studies

From email from Reclamation (Dan DuBray):

The Bureau of Reclamation is seeking eligible non-federal entities interested in participating in a Basin Study under the WaterSMART Program. Those entities interested in proposing a Basin Study to Reclamation must submit a letter of interest to their respective Reclamation regional office by March 16, 2011.

Basin Studies are comprehensive studies that define options for meeting future water demands in river basins in the western United States where imbalances in supply and demand exist or are projected. Reclamation will work cooperatively with state and local partners to conduct the study.

A Basin Study is comprised of four main elements:

1. Projections of water supply and demand, including the risks of climate change
2. Analysis of how existing water and power infrastructure and operations will perform in response to changing water realities
3. Development of options and mitigation strategies to improve operations and infrastructure to supply adequate water in the future
4. Trade-off analysis of the options identified, findings and recommendations as appropriate

Information regarding the risks and impacts of climate change may be developed as part of the Basin Studies, or may include baseline analyses developed through the West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments, another activity under the WaterSMART Program.

The non-federal entities interested in participating in a Basin Study must contribute at least 50 percent of the total study cost as cash or in-kind services. Basin Studies are not a financial assistance program; therefore Reclamation’s share of the study costs may only be used to support work done by Reclamation or its contractors.

Proposed letters of interest for Basin Studies will be reviewed by Reclamation regional office staff. Those selected for further consideration will work with Reclamation technical experts to develop a joint study proposal for evaluation and prioritization by a Reclamation-wide review committee. The committee will develop a group of final recommendations to be considered for funding within existing budget parameters.

To learn more about proposing a Basin Study or to learn more about the WaterSMART Program, visit www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/. To determine the Reclamation region in which your specific basin is located, visit www.usbr.gov/main/regions.html.

More Reclamation coverage here.

Snowpack news

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

Snowpack in the high-elevation mountains above Middle Park now ranges from 111 percent to 170 percent of the 30-year average (1971-2001). Last-year snowpack at this time was only about 65 percent of average. “We’re just lucky this year,” said Mark Volt of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Kremmling Field Office…

Snow density is averaging 25 percent, which means that for a foot of snow, there are 3 inches of water. “This is pretty dense snow for this time of year,” Volt said.

From the Leadville Herald-Democrat:

According to the latest snow surveys, conducted by the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado’s statewide snowpack decreased from 136 percent of average on Jan. 1 to 117 percent of average on Feb. 1. Decreases in snowpack percentages were measured in all of the major river basins of the state, according to Allen Green, state conservationist with the NRCS. While this year’s snowpack is considerably better than last year at this time, the current statewide percentage ties that measured on this date back in 2009. Those basins across southwestern Colorado experienced the driest conditions during January, recording only about one quarter of their normal precipitation for the month. Snowpack percentages decreased by 38 percentage points in the combined San Juan, Animas, Dolores and San Miguel basins, declining from 144 percent of average on Jan. 1, to 106 percent of average on Feb. 1. Similar decreases were also measured in the Gunnison Basin, decreasing from 158 percent of average a month ago, to only 125 percent of average…

Even after experiencing a dry January, the current snowpack remains well ahead of that measured a year ago at this time. With the exception of southwestern Colorado, the 2011 readings are consistently well-above those of last year. Statewide totals are currently tracking at 137 percent of those from a year ago.

Montezuma County: The McElmo Creek Flume named to Colorado Preservation Inc.’s 2011 Most Endangered Places list

From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):

The McElmo Creek Flume, an irrigation flume located three miles east of Cortez near the Montezuma County Fairgrounds, was named to Colorado Preservation Inc.’s 2011 Most Endangered Places list last week. The flume is the first site of its kind to gain such recognition. “This nomination was really interesting for us because I don’t know if anyone on our staff was familiar with the flume when it was first nominated,” said Patrick Eidman, Endangered Places program manager. “We like to see diversity, not just a list of homes in Denver, but all the different historic resources, and this was the first water conveyance site that was nominated.”[…]

The local site was nominated for placement on the list by the Cortez Historical Preservation Board, Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co., the Montezuma County Board of Commissioners, the Montezuma County Historical Society, and the Dolores Water Conservancy District. The flume was one of six sites chosen from a list of 44 nominees. It is the first site in Montezuma County to garner recognition as an endangered place. “Our water history is so important in this state,” Eidman said. “You can’t separate the development of Colorado from water history. Having a water resource on the list speaks directly to that importance. It is a really interesting resource, and I loved its story and recognized right away it would be a cool site for us. It is very evocative for people in Colorado when you start talking about water.”

The McElmo flume was one of roughly 104 flumes constructed throughout Montezuma County to transport irrigation water across canals and arroyos in the region. The original flume system was conceived in the late 1800s, according to Les Nunn, manager of Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. from 1978 to 2006. “The flumes were built to deliver water throughout the Montezuma Valley,” Nunn said. “In 1920, MVI started using the flumes when they bought out Montezuma Valley Irrigation Water District. At that time, there were 104 flumes on the system.”

More Montezuma County coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: EPA Submits Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan to Independent Scientists for Review / The draft plan is open to public comment

$A picture named marcellushydraulicfracturing.jpg$

Here’s the release from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Jalil Isa):

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today submitted its draft study plan on hydraulic fracturing for review to the agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), a group of independent scientists. Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing that vital resource. EPA scientists, under this administration and at the direction of Congress, are undertaking a study of this practice to better understand any potential impacts it may have, including on groundwater. EPA announced its intention to conduct the study in March 2010 and use the best available science, independent sources of information, a transparent, peer-reviewed process and with consultation from others. Since then, EPA has held a series of public meetings across the country with thousands attending and the agency has developed a sound draft plan for moving forward with the study.

The scope of the proposed research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced or used water and its ultimate treatment and disposal.

The SAB plans to review the draft plan March 7-8, 2011. Consistent with the operating procedures of the SAB, stakeholders and the public will have an opportunity to provide comments to the SAB during their review. The agency will revise the study plan in response to the SAB’s comments and promptly begin the study. Initial research results and study findings are expected to be made public by the end of 2012, with the goal of an additional report following further research in 2014.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process in which large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are injected at high pressures to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations. The process creates fractures in formations such as shale rock, allowing natural gas or oil to escape into the well and be recovered. Over the past few years, the use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction has increased and has expanded over a wider diversity of geographic regions and geologic formations.

For a copy of the draft study plan and additional information:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/d3483ab445ae61418525775900603e79!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.1#2

More information on hydraulic fracturing:
www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

More coverage from The Huffington Post (Nicholas Kusnetz). From the article:

Drillers have been fracking wells for decades, but with the rise of horizontal drilling into unconventional formations like shale, they are injecting far more water and chemicals underground than ever before. The EPA proposal notes that 603 rigs were drilling horizontal wells in June 2010, more than twice as many as were operating a year earlier. Horizontal wells can require millions of gallons of water per well, a much greater volume than in conventional wells.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: The Colorado State Land Board yanks two Park County parcels near Antero Reservoir from proposed lease sale

From the Associated Press via Bloomberg:

A spokeswoman for the Colorado State Land Board said Friday that staffers have removed the land near Antero Reservoir from the list of parcels to be auctioned. The announcement follows concerns raised by a citizens group. Be the Change pressed for a moratorium on leases in the area until more is known about how drinking water might be affected by hydraulic fracturing, a technique for extracting oil and natural gas.

Meanwhile Be the Change USA is hosting Fracking and Our Water on February 19. Click here for here for registration information. There will be a Denver Mayoral candidate forum and a screening of the film Gasland.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: