A sweet spot for fish water: water for ancient fish a bother for veteran anglers

The crest of the dam across the Fryingpan River that forms Ruedi Reservoir, which can hold 102,373 acre-feet of water. Photo courtesy Bureau of Reclamation.
The crest of the dam across the Fryingpan River that forms Ruedi Reservoir, which can hold 102,373 acre-feet of water. Photo courtesy Bureau of Reclamation.

BASALT – Anglers, and almost certainly fish, can sense how much water is running down a river at any given time.

Last summer and fall, for example, some fly-fishermen who regularly wade in the Fryingpan River below Ruedi Reservoir thought there was too much water flowing out of the reservoir, as the river was running at 275 to 300 cubic feet per second. At that level, the river can be hard to cross in places.

Flows were up in the Fryingpan last year because a record amount of water was being released from Ruedi for the benefit of the 400 or so remaining Colorado pikeminnow living in 15 miles of the Colorado River between Grand Junction and Palisade.

Yet there still wasn’t enough water in the river for the pikeminnow last summer, despite a total 24,412 acre-feet of water released from Ruedi and sent down the Fryingpan, Roaring Fork and Colorado rivers. The “fish water” sent out of Ruedi last summer and fall may have helped the native fish struggling to survive in the heavily depleted Colorado River, but it still wasn’t enough on many days in August, September and October to reach the target flow level of 1,240 cfs set by biologists.

The same water sent downstream to make ancient fish in the Colorado River happier made veteran anglers on the Fryingpan River crankier. A similar scenario may play out again this summer, as up to 27,412 acre-feet of “fish water” is poised to be released from Ruedi this year to benefit the fish in the Colorado. On its way down, the water could cause late summer and early fall flows to rise again in the Fryingpan to 250, 300 or 350 cfs.

Ruede fish water releases by AF and CFS

A graph from USFWS showing the flow target of 1,240 cfs in 15-mile last August, September and October, actual flow in blue, and what flow would have been without releases of fish water from various upstream reservoirs. In short, the fish water helps meet the target flows, but it is still not enough. Source: USFWS
A graph from USFWS showing the flow target of 1,240 cfs in 15-mile last August, September and October, actual flow in blue, and what flow would have been without releases of fish water from various upstream reservoirs. In short, the fish water helps meet the target flows, but it is still not enough. Source: USFWS

Experienced anglers

“My perfect flow for the ‘Pan, where everything is gravy, dry-fly fishing is perfect, and older people can get around, is 220 cfs,” said Marty Joseph, manager of Frying Pan Anglers. “Three hundred cfs is on the high side, especially for the older guys.”

A big part of “wadability” is “crossability,” or whether someone can get across the river to fish a better hole without the water rising above their waist and sweeping them off their feet.

“There are a lot of spots on the river, especially where I like to fish, where its crossable at 250 cfs with a client,” Joseph said. “But at 300 cfs, you can’t cross at that same spot.”

Last year’s flow, especially the steady 300 cfs that ran down the ‘Pan in late September and early October, caught the attention of many of his regular clients.

“We do get most of our experienced guys at the end of season, and a lot of them are older, and a lot of them are very particular, and they’ve been coming here for 10 or 15 years, and then all of a sudden they see this hike in the flows, and they’re having trouble with that,” Joseph said.

140730_fishing_JC

Frustrating flow

At least 10 of his clients wrote letters to him complaining about the high flows, and those letters recently were sent to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which has a role in sending fish water out of Ruedi.

“We enjoyed our time at Taylor Creek cabins again this fall,” wrote one client to Frying Pan Anglers, “but, I should let you know that fishing was not very good attributed to the very high flows (300 cfs) in the Frying Pan (sic) River. These flows prevented us from wading in many areas of the river we are accustomed to fish. This was disappointing and frustrating.”

Frying Pan Anglers is one of the two larger fly-fishing guide services in Basalt. The other is Taylor Creek Fly Shops.

An economic analysis commissioned in 2014 by the Roaring Fork Conservancy found that anglers spend $3.3 million a year on fly-fishing trips to Basalt, factoring in their total spending from fishing equipment to guides to lodging.

A survey included with the analysis found that “wadeable flows on the river” was the second highest concern of visiting anglers after “insect hatches.” Of those surveyed, 37 percent said they would spend more days on the Fryingpan if the number of days when the river was flowing over 250 cfs was reduced.

But the flow levels out of Ruedi could be going up in the future.

A view of Ruedi Reservoir showing the face of the dam, the spillway, the building that houses a hydropower plant, and an overflow outlet just above it. The pool just below the outlets often has the biggest fish on the river lurking within it.
A view of Ruedi Reservoir showing the face of the dam, the spillway, the building that houses a hydropower plant, and an overflow outlet just above it. The pool just below the outlets often has the biggest fish on the river lurking within it.

Water flavors

There are three types of water released each summer and fall from Ruedi, a major storage reservoir for the Colorado River Basin opened in 1968 with a capacity of 102,373 acre feet. The first is a base flow, which in the absence of other water is 110 cfs. On top of that can be a fairly steady flow of “fish water” released at a rate that has varied over the last five years from 100 to 189 cfs. Last year, the flow rate of the fish water from Ruedi did not go above 175 cfs.

And on top of the layer of fish water can be a relatively thin layer of “contract water.” That’s water released in accordance with contracts the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which built the reservoir, has with 30 different owners. These pools of stored water are not often released, but the contracts do range from as little as 15 to much as 12,000 acre feet and collectively total 39,000 acre feet, so there is potential for significant future releases.

The dam manager working for the Bureau of Reclamation looks for the sweet spot on the Fryingpan and tries to deliver enough fish and contract water to meet demands while also keeping the river at a level that works for anglers. But that may be harder to do in the future, as there is more fish water than ever in Ruedi, and all of the available contract water has been sold, which means more people may call for it to be released, especially in the late summer and fall.

A map showing the location of the 15-mile reach.
A map showing the location of the 15-mile reach.

Sweet spot

Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service value water in Ruedi because it only takes two days for it to get to the critical reach where the pikeminnows and other endangered fish enjoy “feeding, breeding and sheltering.”

Over the years, officials have developed a pool of 15,412.5 acre feet of fish water in Ruedi. Then last year, the Colorado Water Conservation Board gave Fish and Wildlife another pool of water by leasing 12,000 acre feet from Ute Water Conservancy District, a water provider in Grand Junction.

Ute Water bought 12,000 acre feet of water in Ruedi in 2013 for $15.6 million to use as a back-up supply. It’s the biggest pool of contract water in the reservoir. And rather than leave it there, Ute Water entered into a lease with the CWCB to use it as fish water in 2015.

The CWCB, in coordination with Fish and Wildlife, then released 9,000 acre feet of the 12,000 acre-foot pool in September and October. It would have released more if not for its self-imposed limitation of flows not to exceed 300 cfs.

Ute Water plans to lease 12,000 acre feet to the CWCB again this year to send down the Fryingpan River and on to the Colorado River to benefit the fish. Between the existing 15,412.5 acre feet of fish water in Ruedi, that could bring up releases to 27,412.5, which the ancient native fish might appreciate.

Danielle Tremblay of Colorado Parks and Wildlife holding a Colorado pikeminnow collected on the Colorado River in Grand Junction. An apex predator in the Colorado, pikeminnows used to be found up to six feet long and weighing 100 pounds.
Danielle Tremblay of Colorado Parks and Wildlife holding a Colorado pikeminnow collected on the Colorado River in Grand Junction. An apex predator in the Colorado, pikeminnows used to be found up to six feet long and weighing 100 pounds.

Big, old fish

The Colorado pikeminnow, which is considered an indicator species for ecosystem health in the 15-mile reach, “evolved as the main predator in the Colorado River system,” states a 1999 programmatic biological opinion, or PBO, that guides recovery efforts for the fish.

“It is an elongated pike-like fish that during predevelopment times may have grown as large as 6 feet in length and weighed nearly 100 pounds,” the PBO states.

One pikeminnow with a radio tag was tracked swimming up the Colorado River nearly 200 miles from Lake Powell to the 15-mile reach above Grand Junction between April and September 1982, a year of very high flows.

Another endangered fish, the humpback chub, likes to live in deep fast-moving water. About 1,800 to 1,900 wild native chub are still making a go of it in the Black Rocks and Westwater sections of the Colorado, downstream from Loma.

Two other species, the razorback sucker and bonytail, have had a tougher time over the years, although hatchery-bred suckers are now said to be doing fairly well.

A razorback sucker fresh from the Colorado River.
A razorback sucker fresh from the Colorado River.
A graph, courtesy of the Colorado River District, showing the releases of fish water in 2015 from four Western Slope reservoirs: Green Mtn, Ruedi, Wolford and Granby. The graph shows that flows from Ruedi, in blue, were fairly steady last summer and fall.
A graph, courtesy of the Colorado River District, showing the releases of fish water in 2015 from four Western Slope reservoirs: Green Mtn, Ruedi, Wolford and Granby. The graph shows that flows from Ruedi, in blue, were fairly steady last summer and fall.

Of AF and CFS

To make up for low flows in the Colorado where the fish live, a total of 1.3 million acre feet of water since 1998 has been sent downstream from regional reservoirs. Of that total, 329,032 acre feet came out of Ruedi and flowed down the Fryingpan. On its way, the water has apparently helped, not hurt, the trout stream, but it has compromised wadability.

Complaints about flow levels have been recognized in previous environmental reviews on the impacts of storing and releasing fish water in Ruedi. And the benchmark to try and hit was 250 cfs.

But a recent modeling effort by Colorado Parks and Wildlife suggested 300 cfs was also an acceptable wadability level, and that level was used last year to guide releases on the Fryingpan.

“We have done some surveys in the past, and using modeling, came up with 300 to 350 cfs is where you significantly lose wadablity in the river,” said Kendall Bakich, a wildlife aquatic biologist with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. “But angler experience is a little different than what a model can say, so that’s where that 300 target came from.”

But on March 21, after reading the letters to Frying Pan Anglers, officials from the CWCB and the Fish and Wildlife Service said at a meeting in El Jebel that they will try to keep releases to the 250 cfs level this summer.

“Our board said that staff should work with the Bureau of Reclamation and angling interests to try and accommodate to the extent practicable angling concerns so that releases of water under the water lease agreement shall not cause the flows to exceed 250 cfs,” said Ted Kowalski, a section chief of the CWCB, referring to the CWCB’s recent approval of renewing the lease with Ute Water for the 12,000 acre feet of water.

It’s not a firm cap, though, and if necessary to meet the goals of the endangered fish program, releases could go to 300 cfs, and the river to 350 cfs after tributary flow is factored in.

Joseph at Fryingpan Anglers said the fishing wasn’t bad at 300 cfs, and that experienced guides can still find good spots to wade with clients. But Joseph has his concerns.

“My worry is this year they say 300 is acceptable and next year it’s going to be 350, and two, four, five years, it is going to 400 cfs,” Joseph said. “They’re slowly just going to keep moving on it.”

That’s also a concern of some local officials.

“One of the fears that we’ve had from the very beginning here, and one these days it’s going to come true, its that the Fryingpan is going to be converted from a gold medal trout fishery, with a occasional high releases, to a sluiceway that does basically nothing but deliver water downstream,” said Mark Fuller, the director of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority, which recently sent comments on the issue to the CWCB.

Personnel from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service electrofishing on the Colorado River. The results from monitoring  fish populations on the Colorado between Rifle and Lake Powell is now of regional interest.
Personnel from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service electrofishing on the Colorado River. The results from monitoring fish populations on the Colorado between Rifle and Lake Powell is now of regional interest.

Fish Patrol

Fuller and regional water managers understand the value of working to keep the endangered fish alive in order to avoid enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.

“The 500-pound gorilla in the room is the PBO,” said Larry Clever, general manager of Ute Water, referring to the 1999 programmatic biological opinion.

The PBO requires that progress be made on sustaining the endangered fish. If not, an extensive environmental reviews known as “section 7 consultations” may be required under the ESA for all new or improved water projects on the upper Colorado River system.

“If those four endangered fish don’t make it, everybody has a section 7, for everything,” Clever said. “And, oh, we did one on a pipeline expansion. It cost $2.4 million. If the PBO goes south, we’re all in trouble.”

A USFWS employee holding a smallmouth bass, caught via electrofishing, that just swallowed a native bluehead sucker. Non-native fish eating  young native fish is a big obstacle to developing healthy populations of native fish.
A USFWS employee holding a smallmouth bass, caught via electrofishing, that just swallowed a native bluehead sucker. Non-native fish eating young native fish is a big obstacle to developing healthy populations of native fish.

The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program has been managing regional efforts to see what can be done for the fish both in the spring, when peak flows of at least 15,660 cfs are important to the fish, and in the late summer and early fall.

The goal is to stabilize populations through a variety of methods, including river flows, removing predatory non-native fish that eat young native fish and improving native fish passage around diversion dams.

As the 2016 runoff season approaches, water managers up and down the Colorado River are poised to again coordinate, via a weekly conference call, the release of fish water from reservoirs in the upper Colorado River basin.

They’ll do so for the sake of the remaining 400 adult Colorado pikeminnows, and their optimistic offspring, who desire at least 810 cfs of water in the fall, if it is a dry year, and 1,260 cfs if it is a normal year.

And for visiting anglers, they’ll also work to keep flows in the Fryingpan near 250 cfs.


Editor’s note:
Aspen Journalism and the Aspen Daily News are collaborating on coverage of rivers and water. The Daily News published this story on Sunday, March 27, 2016.

#Colorado #Snowpack news: SWE is heading in the right direction N. and Cent. Mountains

Click on a thumbnail graphic to view a gallery of snowpack data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Here’s the Westwide SNOTEL map from this morning.

Westwide SNOTEL map March 27, 2016 via the NRCS.
Westwide SNOTEL map March 27, 2016 via the NRCS.

From The Durango Herald (Ann Butler):

Purgatory Resort reported 4 inches of snow in the last 24 hours as of Saturday afternoon.

It snowed heavily most of the day Saturday at Wolf Creek Ski Area. The area reported receiving 17 inches of snow in the previous 24 hours as of Saturday afternoon. Silverton Mountain reported 4 inches in the previous 24 hours and 18 inches in the previous 72 hours Saturday morning and hadn’t updated the report on Saturday afternoon.

“Monday night and Tuesday, there will be another storm coming through,” said Ben Moyer, a meteorologist with the Grand Junction office of the National Weather Service. “There won’t be much of anything in Durango again, but we’re predicting 9 to 10 inches in the mountains.”

From The Denver Post (Jesse Paul):

Colorado’s statewide snowpack as of Thursday remained below normal despite storms over the past several weeks that dropped feet of snow in some areas.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service showed the statewide pack at 96 percent of normal and 93 percent of the median…

The NRCS reports, however, that snowpack levels in the South Platte River basin have recovered since dipping below normal earlier this month.

The basin includes Denver and nearly all of the metro area.

The South Platte’s snowpack as of Thursday was 6 percent above normal and 5 percent above the median.

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Will Grandbois):

After a wet January and dry February, snowpack in western Colorado is hovering around normal. As of Friday afternoon, gauges across the Upper Colorado River Basin were registering a snow water equivalent 102 percent of the 30-year median for the date. The Roaring Fork Watershed trailed slightly, with 90 percent of the median.

“We had that pretty big snow cycle that caused powder days and snow days at the end of January. Otherwise, it was looking a bit dry, and February was particularly dry,” said Roaring Fork Conservancy education and outreach coordinator Liza Mitchell. “Not only is it important how much more precipitation we get, but the timing of the warming can have a huge impact.”

Snowpack in the high country generally peaks around April 10, when melting outpaces snowfall and rivers begin to rise. Last year, a relatively light snow year peaked in mid-March, with a potentially bad fire season averted thanks to a cool, wet spring.

This year has already surpassed the 2015 peak, but is still well behind the robust winter of 2014.

That may seem strange to residents of Glenwood Springs, where more than 2 feet of snow fell in January – including 7 inches on Jan. 17 alone – with almost as much in December. It’s not the precipitation on the valley floor that makes the big difference, though.

“We get more melting cycles down in the lower elevations. The water supply is more in the mountains, where it’s kept longer due to temperatures,” Mitchell said. “The snowpack we have in the mountains really acts as a natural reservoir. Over the course of the year, it’s going to melt and keep our rivers running all summer long.”

As such, a better indicator might be Bison Lake on the Flat Tops, where depth and snow water equivalent are measured each March 1. This year, that came to 56 inches of snow or about 17 inches of water if you melted it down. In 2015, it was 49 inches deep with 13.4 inches of water, and in 2014, 74 inches and 20.9 inches, respectively…

Even the National Weather Service’s three-month outlook looks like a mixed bag, calling for both above-average precipitation and higher temperatures in Western Colorado.

“You don’t often see those together,” said Norv Larson, a meteorologist for the weather service in Grand Junction. “It might mean warm temperatures during the day with thunderstorms developing in the afternoon – our typical monsoon pattern.”

He shied away from linking the weather to El Niño conditions in the Pacific.

“We’re one of those areas that’s transitional, so it depends on where the pattern sets up,” he said.

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

Over the last month and a half, the Upper Rio Grande Basin snowpack has “flat lined,” according to Colorado Division of Water Resources Division 3 Engineer Craig Cotten.

Cotten told members of the Rio Grande Water Users Association during their annual meeting in Monte Vista Thursday afternoon that as of March 16, the basin snowpack sat at 85 percent of average, considerably less than it was earlier this year. In January the basin snowpack was more than 120 percent of average.

“A month and a half ago we were looking really good,” Cotten said. “We are not looking so good now, but we have got some time we could potentially get some more storms coming in.”

He said for the last three years the basin snowpack has held to a pretty similar trend, but the “flat lining” usually does not occur until March.

Cotten said the National Weather Service predicts above average precipitation for this region during April, May and June. However, “they have called for above precipitation over the last several months, and that hasn’t occurred,” he said. “We are hoping that will start to occur.”

Cotten also shared the index flow forecast for the Rio Grande, based on calculations from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS.) Their forecast for the Rio Grande this year is 620,000 acre feet. Last year the Rio Grande experienced 665,100 acre feet, and the long-term average is about 650,000 acre feet, Cotten explained.

Of the predicted 620,000 acre-foot flow on the Rio Grande, about 170,000 acre feet will have to go downstream to New Mexico and Texas to satisfy the Rio Grande Compact that Colorado has with those downstream states. Cotten said that would likely require 12-13 percent curtailment during the irrigation season. He explained that Colorado has about 6,800 acre feet of water in storage in the Rio Grande Reservoir, and if that were released, it could reduce the amount of curtailment to about 11.5 percent.

Cotten talked with the water users about the options for when and how the stored water might be released. For example, if a water year was good, it might be best to keep the water in storage. Another option is to release the water even before the irrigation season begins to wet down the system. Another option would be to hold onto the water until fall to see how the compact obligations are going and release it then if it was needed to meet the compact.

Cotten said storing compact water at the Rio Grande Reservoir rather than down at Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico avoids evaporation losses. The evaporation rate of surplus compact water in Elephant Butte is about 15 percent, Cotten said.

He added that the reservoir storage at Rio Grande Reservoir is a new tool his office is determining how best to use. He welcomed ideas from the water users.

2015 #coleg: Rainwater harvesting bill stalls in #Colorado Senate — The Colorado Independent

Photo credit: Photo credit: Krzysztof Lis, Creative Commons, Flickr. Via the Colorado Independent.
Photo credit: Photo credit: Krzysztof Lis, Creative Commons, Flickr. Via the Colorado Independent.

From The Colorado Independent (Marianne Goodland):

A perennial bill that would allow Coloradans to collect rainwater from rooftops in two 55-gallon barrels for watering lawns and gardens was sailing toward the Governor’s desk to be inked into law. But the measure stalled out in the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

Just like last year, Eastern Plains Republican Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg said he worried rainwater harvesting would shortchange rural senior water-rights holders from what they were due, and the state would have no way to stop the harvesters from hoarding what the law states is not theirs.

Rainwater harvesting enthusiasts are now asking if anything could convince Sonnenberg that two 55-gallon rain barrels attached to downspouts per household would not put a significant dent into his rural constituents’ water rights.

In Colorado, whoever lays first claim to a water right, in a river, stream or ditch, gets their water first. Everyone else takes a back seat, and may get less water, especially in times of drought. This is the backbone of state water law, a doctrine called prior appropriation.

Sonnenberg and other rural lawmakers fear rainwater collection would impact those senior water rights. And those fears were not put to rest with testimony from the Department of Natural Resources.

Sonnenberg questioned Kevin Rein, the deputy state engineer, about how the department would shut down rain barrel use when someone with senior water rights claims they’re losing their rightful water supply. Rein noted the bill grants the state engineer, who monitors water usage, the authority to ensure everybody complies with Colorado water law.

That applies to rain barrel use, too. Just how that would work, however, wasn’t clear.

Rein pointed to a study from Colorado State University that claimed there would be little or no impact from rain barrel use.

That didn’t sway Sonnenberg, who suggested a hypothetical: What if the city of Greeley is losing 40 acre-feet of water, and believes it’s due to rain barrel use in Denver? How would the state engineer determine which rainwater harvesters were to blame, which barrels were holding what was due downstream That’s where things got messy. Rein said the first place he would look was not at rain barrels, but at water used by someone with a lower priority claim to the water. Crawling around through people’s alleys and backyards isn’t likely a workable way to figure out if that’s where the loss is coming from, Rein said.

When the bill was in the House, its sponsors, Democrats Reps. Jessie Danielson of Wheat Ridge and Daneya Esgar of Pueblo, worked with rural lawmakers, such as Rep. Jon Becker of Fort Morgan, to add language that said rain barrel use was not intended to harm senior water rights.

“It worries the heck out of me when the state engineer says when water is short,” if that shortage could be attributable to rain barrels, the person who pays for it instead is the junior water rights holder, Sonnenberg said. “That says the amendments put on in the House are lip service and not enforceable.”

Last year, Sonnenberg did exactly the same thing. He allowed testimony on the bill, which was heard in the Senate Ag Committee on April 16, then put it on hold until the day before the 2015 session ended, in effect killing the bill.

It’s not like there aren’t the votes in the Senate to pass it. The bill is supported by one of Sonnenberg’s Ag Committee colleagues, Senate President Pro Tem Ellen Roberts, a Durango Republican. Her vote, along with the committee’s Democrats, are enough to get the bill out of the Ag Committee. But only if the bill is allowed to come to a vote.

Those who advocated for the bill point to its popularity with Coloradans. Theresa Conley of Conservation Colorado told The Colorado Independent Thursday they’re encouraged by the bill’s broad support, which she noted included representatives from Greeley Water and the Colorado Farm Bureau. Both organizations opposed the bill in 2015.

It’s not always clear where to lay the blame when someone’s water rights are injured, said Conley. She vowed to sit down with Sonnenberg to figure out a way to address his concerns.

The bill’s Senate sponsor, Democrat Mike Merrifield of Manitou Springs, said he is confident the bill will eventually clear the committee and make it through the Senate.

“Citizens of Colorado want to be able to do this,” Merrifield told reporters Thursday. “Rain barrels are an efficient way to learn about water policy in Colorado.”

From Aspen Public Radio (Bente Birkland):

“I didn’t plan on today being Groundhog Day, I anticipated that the bill would pass,” said state Sen. Michael Merrifield (D-Colorado Springs), sponsor of House Bill 16-1005 [.pdf].

“Citizens of Colorado want to be able to do this,” Merrifield said. “A rain barrel is an efficient way for people to learn about water policy in Colorado.”

Opponents worry rain barrels would prevent some water from reaching downstream users. The bill already passed in the House where Democrats added changes to bring Republican opponents on board. One amendment would give the state water engineer the ability to shut down rain barrels if they are determined to impact downstream users. Another clarifies that having a rain barrel is not a water right.

“I indeed had high hopes that those were helpful,” said Senator Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling), chair of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Like many inside the capitol, he’s tired of having the rain barrel debate.

“I want to be done with this, but right now I’m not comfortable,” he said.

Sonnenberg disputes a study from Colorado State University water experts that found rain barrels would not hurt other water users, because that water would otherwise be absorbed in the grass and shrubs. Sonnenberg posed a hypothetical scenario.

“Say the town of Greeley looks like they get shorted 40 acre-feet and it can be attributed to rain barrel usage in the city and county of Denver,” Sonnenberg said. “How would you deal with that specific type of instance? You obviously can’t walk up and down alleys and see who has rain barrels to curtail them.”

Bill supporters say that scenario would never happen because rain barrels have no impact, but Sonnenberg still wants more information before voting. Colorado is the only state in the country that doesn’t allow rain barrels. Water experts say the measure’s time has come, and they want to move beyond this debate and start focusing on substantive policy changes to deal with projected long term water shortages.

Despite the hurdle in the committee hearing, Sonnenberg and others don’t think there will be a repeat of the bill’s 2015 fate; they expect something to pass before the session ends.

Hickenlooper: ‘Time is now’ to move on West’s leaking mines — The Denver Post

Colorado abandoned mines
Colorado abandoned mines

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

Feb. 21 confab in Washington, D.C., with the EPA-triggered Gold King disaster still roiling, Hickenlooper determined that a consensus had emerged: make tackling these tens of thousands of ecological time bombs a priority.

“There was a consensus the time is now,” Hickenlooper said, conveying his vision in an interview last week. “Let’s get a thorough inventory, assess — or, let’s say, reassess because almost all these mines have been assessed in the past — and begin looking at real timelines. How much would this cost? And what would be the best way to get the maximum reduction in toxicity?”

The problem is huge, even after so many Superfund cleanups, Hickenlooper said, “but it doesn’t mean you quit.”

“What Gold King did is put it front and center,” he said. “So, I think, there is a willingness to go.”

As part of the push, Hickenlooper said he would like to call a water summit at Four Corners with governors from New Mexico, Arizona and Utah.

And he’s “all for” turning Silverton, beneath the Gold King Mine in southwestern Colorado, into a research hub to find the best way to neutralize old mines — short of installing water treatment plants on every contaminated waterway.

Bonita Mine acid mine drainage
Bonita Mine acid mine drainage