The dam at Purdy Mesa Reservoir, one of Grand Junction’s reservoirs used for drought reserves on the south side of Grand Mesa, failed after it sustained a major crack and currently is drained of water. That failure is but one of several age-related problems that need to be fixed. Grand Junction city councilors have informally agreed to a plan to borrow $2.6 million and charge water users the remainder to raise $30 million to fund capital improvements over the next 10 years.
FromThe Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
The city of Grand Junction is planning to fix and refill its Purdy Mesa Reservoir on the south side of Grand Mesa this year after successfully obtaining a $1 million loan and $100,000 grant last week from the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
The city plans to spend about $1.15 million altogether on rehabilitation of the dam, which has about an 80-foot-long crack in it and has had to be emptied pending repairs.
The reservoir, also known as Hallenbeck Reservoir No. 1, holds about 700 acre-feet. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons.
The reservoir plays a particularly important storage role in case of drought, and also lets the city regulate water in the adjacent, larger Juniata Reservoir and improve its water quality.
“It’s definitely something that we want to have in our raw water storage in event of a drought condition,” Bret Guillory, utility engineer for the city, said of the out-of-service reservoir. “It plays a fairly critical function in our raw water storage system and it will be good to have it back online.”
The reservoir also is stocked by Colorado Parks and Wildlife for fishing. Guillory said the state-record bluegill came out of the reservoir.
The crack developed in 2014 in the downstream slope of the earthen dam. Guillory said design work for the repairs is complete and the city will solicit for contractors to do the work. Repairs probably will start later in June and take six to eight weeks, after which the reservoir can start to be refilled.
The rehabilitation work will upgrade the dam to current standards and improve its structural integrity, Guillory said. Earthen dams by their nature have water seep through them, but he said what’s called a blanket filter that makes use of sand will be installed to collect seepage into piping rather than having water move through the dam in an uncontrolled manner. Earthen material will be placed over the filter to hold it in place and further stabilize the dam.
The loan for the project comes with a 2.65 percent interest rate and $10,000 service fee, and will be paid back over 20 years.
The project is one of a number of water system upgrades the city is undertaking this year and in coming years.
It has begun raising water rates to pay for them, and plans to raise rates more than 50 percent altogether over seven years. The main upgrade involves replacement of cast-iron lines with PVC lines less prone to leaking or breaking.
Guillory said that if the city hadn’t gotten the loan, it might have had to delay its water-line replacement work for a year.
The Longmont City Council weighed adviser, resident and staff testimony about both future water needs and water rates and voted 5-2 Tuesday to go with one of the more expensive participation levels in the Windy Gap Firming Project…
The council voted to start the process of participating in the $387.36 million Windy Gap Firming Project at the 10,000 acre-foot level…
The decision before the council was whether to participate at the 6,000, 8,000 or the 10,000 acre-foot level. Staff in the past had recommended that 6,000 acre-feet of water is projected as enough to cover a one-in-100-year drought. The Longmont Water Board, meanwhile, urged council to participate at the more-expensive 10,000 acre-foot level.
Early in Tuesday’s meeting, Longmont residents spoke about the plan during the public comment portion of the meeting. Some, such as Jim Wilson, were against the idea that rates may need to increase beyond the already-approved annual 9 percent increase to pay for Longmont’s portion of the Windy Gap Firming Project.
Site of proposed Chimney Hollow Reservoir — Windy Gap Firming Project via the Longmont Times-Call
Chimney Hollow Reservoir site
Chimney Hollow Reservoir site via the Bureau of Reclamation
Moffat Collection System Project/Windy Gap Firming Project via the Boulder Daily Camera
Click here to read the latest Headwaters. Allen Best knocks it out of the park with his article about collaboration. Here’s an excerpt:
Conflict has been our central water narrative in Colorado. It’s been shovel-wielding neighbor against neighbor, city against farm, Eastern Slope versus Western Slope, and, purely from a Colorado perspective, us versus those water-wasting scoundrels downstream in California, Arizona and Las Vegas. In headlines, for sure, and sometimes in fact, we have always been at war over water.
Water matters, absolutely. We all know that. But is conflict the only way to understand Colorado’s water history—or future? Or might cooperation and its close cousin, collaboration, also help us understand where we’ve come and guide us better through the 21st century? Your computer dictionary will probably use cooperation and collaboration interchangeably, but the Webster Third New International Dictionary suggests a distinction. Cooperation comes with allies, but collaboration especially occurs with an enemy or an opposed group. Parsing collaboration, you find the root word “labor.” To labor requires “expenditure of physical or mental effort, especially when fatiguing, difficult or compulsory.”
Tuesday marked World Water Day, an observance by the United Nations of water issues impacting the world over that dates to the early- ’90s in order to inspire action. The country’s leading advocates for bird health, the National Audubon Society, piggybacked off the occasion to spread awareness about the importance of protecting important bird areas.
The nonprofit, focused on identifying and preserving the natural environments of these wildlife-of-the-sky since 1905, notes that almost 85 million people in the United States are amateur ornithologists, or bird watchers and photographers. But aside from aesthetics, birds are important because they can act as an indicator species.
“The lives of birds are very closely tied to water, and our own,” said Abby Burk, Audubon Rockies’ western rivers outreach specialist. “They’re the canary in a coal mine, and that’s what we’re looking at with birds and rivers.”
Habitat areas along the Colorado River Basin, where more than 400 species of bird make their homes, is a particular priority of Audubon. The Colorado River and its offshoots, which include seven states and support more than 35 million people, offer food, shelter and a migratory passageway for many of those species.
It’s why Colorado is a primary place of emphasis for Audubon. The organization, through its Western Rivers Action Network, swung its weight behind the release of the Colorado Water Plan this past November and is now concentrating on implementation of the first-of-its-kind policy for the state, hoping to secure funds for stream management and river restoration plans.
“Habitat is what’s so important,” said Jennifer Pitt, director of Audubon’s Colorado River Project. “When it’s missing or invaded, there’s something awry in how the river is being managed and how it creates natural habitats. Some species have become endangered in this region, like the southwestern willow flycatcher, and we correlate that status of the bird with the condition of our rivers.”
To assist in restoration efforts of these streamside, riparian zones — what are often referred to as “ribbons of green” because of the linear growth patterns of these forests and wetlands — Audubon asks that local citizens apply a couple conservation practices. The practices help both human and winged varieties.
First, water reduction techniques are as easy as shifting from Kentucky bluegrass lawns to native plants and low-water use landscapes. Estimates put savings of 12,000 gallons of water per 1,000-square-feet of space annually. Native plants also reduce the use of pesticides, providing improved sources of food for birds.
And then the organization asks that people support agriculture through efficiencies like water banking, a water management practice that forgoes the precious resource at points of the year and stores it for later use. Audubon also supports WaterSMART, a program from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that tries to establish collaborative partnerships to stretch water supplies to meet future demands.
“One of the biggest wrestling matches is water in the West,” said Burk. “Healthy flowing rivers, benefit all water uses and users. And when you protect water, you’re protecting a resource for a huge cross-section of wildlife.”
To some, protecting waterways merely for the sake of birds and other wildlife that greatly rely on vegetation that grows along rivers and streams is a hard sell. Which is why Burk emphasizes in so doing, people also sustain other environmental purposes, in addition to Colorado’s $9 billion recreation industry that substantially benefits the local economy.
And when it comes to birds, there’s also a considerable economic benefit from those amateur ornithologists, otherwise known as birders. In just 2011, almost 47 million Americans who participated and traveled to watch our feathered friends had a total financial impact of $107 billion nationally. So the rewards for maintaining birds’ lives is multifaceted, and once more, a measure of our own health and value of water sources used by all.
“When we having diminished or reduced numbers of birds, or less diversity present and abundance dwindling, we have to look at habitat,” said Burk. “It’s an indication of habitat for us, and the abundance of water and the quality of the ecosystem. Because if it’s broken, birds won’t be there.”
Yellow-billed cuckoos have nearly been extirpated from the western U.S. Photo courtesy Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.
Barr Lake State Park photo via Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Southwestern Willow flycatcher
Piping plover
Whooping Cranes
Sandhill Cranes in flight via Colorado Parks and Wildlife
The Yellow Jacket project’s lead researcher, Abdel Berrada, spoke last week at the Four States Agricultural Expo at Montezuma County Fairgrounds.
The research center received almost $250,000 from a grant to fund the study, which examines how cover crops can improve soil quality for dryland farmers.
Although Berrada said he and other researchers have a long way to go before they find out what works in the region, he told a crowd of about 25 people that cover crops can increase organic matter in the soil, suppress weeds and prevent erosion.
“Cover crops make sense,” Berrada said. “We’re looking at factors to see what works best for the area.”
As part of the study, five farmers in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah are administering plots of cover crops such as yellow clover, winter peas and others.
After three years, researchers hope to quantify the effects of cover crops on ground moisture, soil health and weed control, Berrada said. Another goal of the project is to determine which cover crops are most profitable. Those goals will help determine if cover crops can enhance the sustainability of farming in Southwest Colorado and southeast Utah.
Colorado State University Dolores County Extension director Gus Westerman said researchers will collect a second round of data in the next year. They’ll use data collected at the end of the three years to compare the effects of cover crops in the region with results from other areas, he said.
Westerman said more people in the industry are becoming aware of water issues.
But the study runs for only three years, and Westerman said that’s a short time in terms of soil science. He said the project hopes to extend the grant to get more time for study.
CSU Extension West Region Specialist John Rizza said there hasn’t been much research on cover crops in the region to date. Few studies have been done to examine which cover crops are most successful for dryland farmers, he said.
Rizza and Westerman said the level of interest in cover crops is increasing regionally. More farmers are participating and it’s now easier to show people how they work, Rizza said.
A major milestone in implementing the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement was reached last week when the water court signed a decree to secure and preserve environmental water flows in the Fraser, Williams Fork and Colorado rivers.
The decree protects releases of 2,000 acre-feet of water made available from Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and Williams Fork Reservoir to preserve and improve the aquatic environment in the Fraser and Colorado rivers all the way through Grand County — a continuous stream reach of 73 miles — and beyond.
“This is truly a unique transbasin collaborative and milestone that provides the additional environmental flows on the Fraser River as contemplated by the CRCA,” said Grand County Board of County Commissioners Chairman Jane Tollett.
Once the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project is complete, Denver Water will be able to provide more water for county streams by delivering water to the Fraser River Basin at diversion points along its system, and by releasing water from Williams Fork Reservoir to the Colorado River.
The decree also provides for the delivery of 375 acre-feet to a number of Grand County water users for municipal and snowmaking purposes. If the water is not needed for those purposes, it can be added to the water being provided for environmental benefit.
The decree represents the most recent success in meeting the agreements outlined in the CRCA.
“In only a few short years since the CRCA went into effect, we’re already seeing that through collaboration, we can help improve the health of the Fraser and Colorado rivers,” said Jim Lochhead, Denver Water CEO/manager. “This decree is another step in ensuring that we are prepared to fully implement the CRCA conditions as they become effective.”
In 2014, Denver Water made a payment of $1.95 million to Grand County for two water supply projects. The Jim Creek Bypass and Pipeline, which Winter Park Water and Sanitation District is already designing, will help protect water quality at its water treatment plant in low-flow periods, and provide system flexibility. And, the Fraser River Pump Station, Pipeline and Discovery Park Pond project, pays for much-needed improvements that will help stabilize the business of Winter Park Resort and other businesses in the upper Fraser Valley.
“The CWCB is extremely pleased to be able to work with Grand County and Denver Water to implement this important agreement,” said James Eklund, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “This is a great example of how effective the state’s Instream Flow Program can be in the context of multipurpose projects.”
The CRCA ushers in a new era of cooperation between Denver Water, West Slope entities and conservation groups to create a spirit of cooperation instead of litigation over water resources through “Learning By Doing,” a monitoring and adaptive management program with the goal of maintaining, and where possible, improving the health of Colorado River headwater streams in Grand County.
“Thanks to the Learning by Doing framework, we’re finding ways to maintain healthy flows for fish and wildlife in the Upper Colorado,” said Mely Whiting, counsel for Trout Unlimited. “We’re learning — by doing — that collaboration and cooperation can help ensure the health of our rivers while meeting other diverse needs, like municipal water. These flows will make a real difference for the river and for Grand County’s important recreation economy.”
Partner contact info:
Grand County: Ed Moyer, emoyer@co.grand.us, 970-725-3102
Denver Water: Travis Thompson, travis.thompson@denverwater.org, 303-628-6700
Colorado Water Conservation Board: Linda Bassi, Linda.bassi@state.co.us, 303-866-3441 ext. 3204
Trout Unlimited: Mely Whiting, MWhiting@tu.org, 720-375-3961
A state water judge has signed off on a deal between Denver Water and Grand County to leave 651 million gallons of water a year that otherwise would be diverted in headwaters of the Colorado River.
That water would be left each year for the purpose of improving stream health — habitat for fish and other wildlife — once Denver completes its Moffat Project to divert more water under the Continental Divide to the heavily populated Front Range.
Denver Water officials said the water, at least 2,000-acre feet, is enough to sustain 5,000 metro households each year.
State water judge James Boyd signed the decree last week.
The deal was done under the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, finalized in 2013 between Denver and western slope communities, to try to balance growing urban demands with environmental needs.
Colorado’s Water Conservation Board would protect the water left in streams and use it to preserve natural conditions.
Denver Water manager Jim Lochhead said the deal shows Denver is prepared to fully implement the agreement.
Grand County authorities could not be reached for comment.
Under the agreement, Denver Water must conserve and recycle water and transfer up to 45,000 acre-feet a year in treated wastewater to suburbs on the condition that the suburbs agree not to pursue their own diversion projects and pay a surcharge. Western Slope communities, not including Grand County, would drop opposition to Denver’s Moffat Project.
Gross Reservoir in the mountains to the southwest of Boulder. Denver Water hopes to increase the height of the dam 131 feet, to a new height of 471 feet, to store three times as much water, which it says will help it meet increasing demands and to better weather severe droughts.
Gross Dam enlargement concept graphic via Denver Water
Gross Dam
Workers pose for a photo in the Moffat Water Tunnel in this 1930 photo.
West portal Moffat Water Tunnel
South Boulder Creek near the East Portal of the Moffat Tunnel via Jason Lee Davis
Moffat Collection System Project/Windy Gap Firming Project via the Boulder Daily Camera
For more than 80 years, the Ogallala Aquifer, the largest freshwater aquifer in the world, has been the main source of agricultural and public water for eastern Colorado and parts of seven other states in the Great Plains. Now, Colorado State University will take a leading role as part of a USDA-NIFA funded university consortium to address agricultural sustainability on the Ogallala Aquifer.
$10 million over four years
The consortium, comprised of CSU and seven other universities as well as USDA-ARS, has been awarded a USDA Water for Agriculture Challenge Area CAP grant which will provide $10 million over four years for innovative research and extension activities to address water challenges in the Ogallala Aquifer region.
The Ogallala, along with many of the world’s aquifers, is declining on a path many consider to be unsustainable. The Ogallala Aquifer region currently accounts for 30 percent of total crop and animal production in the U.S and more than 90 percent of the water pumped from the Ogallala Aquifer is used for irrigated agriculture.
Cutting-edge science and technology
“This project will integrate cutting-edge science and technology with an evaluation of policy and economic strategies as well as outreach to foster adaptive management,” said Meagan Schipanski, assistant professor of Soil and Crop Sciences, and the project’s lead investigator. “Our interdisciplinary team has an exceptional track record of work in the region, and this project offers an opportunity for much-needed integration and collaboration to extend the life of our shared groundwater resources.”
Meagan Schipanski, assistant professor of Soil and Crop Sciences
Tremendous impact on rural economies
“Irrigated crop production has a tremendous impact on rural economies and Colorado’s overall agricultural output,” said Ajay Menon, dean of the CSU College of Agricultural Sciences. “Professor Schipanski brings her leadership along with the collective expertise of the CSU scientists to a team of Land Grant University researchers who are positioned to make a major impact on our understanding of the aquifer system by determining what approaches can improve the productivity and resiliency of this important region.”
The multi-disciplinary team includes scientists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Kansas State University, Oklahoma State University, New Mexico State University, Texas Tech University, West Texas A &M University, Texas A & M AgriLife and the USDA-Agricultural Research Service.
To learn more about the project, visit the USDA news site.
Published on Mar 17, 2016
What’s happening to the Colorado River is tragedy on an epic scale – for the Native Americans whose water has been poisoned; for a western United States parched by drought and sliding towards chronic, irreversible water shortage; for the planet as a whole, as the rapidity with which the river is drying up is signaling how climate change is already reshaping our world.
Collectively’s Cayte Bosler traces the stories along the course of the Colorado from the air – joining a group of students and Aspen’s Eco-Flight project, who are working to raise awareness of, and find solutions for, the source of this iconic river’s alarming decline.
Here’s the release from the US Bureau of Reclamation (Peter Soeth):
The Bureau of Reclamation has released the Republican River Basin Study, which identifies adaptation strategies that address water management challenges in the basin. This study, which includes a study area of 2.7 million acres of irrigated agriculture served primarily by groundwater supplies, represents an extensive collaborative effort among Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas.
“The Republican River Basin is a complex and important basin for these states,” Reclamation Commissioner Estevan López said. “Because of its importance, new ground and surface water modeling tools were developed to evaluate future hydrology and operations within the basin. These tools will assist water managers as they make decisions to build resiliency against future climate change, while also maintaining compliance with the Republican River Compact.”
The Republican River basin covers approximately 16 million acres and lies primarily within the Ogallala Aquifer. It originates in the high plains of eastern Colorado and flows east into Nebraska and Kansas.
The basin study found that climate change may impact future supplies and demands across the basin. Nebraska focused on augmenting the supply of Swanson Lake and creating new surface water storage on Thompson Creek, a tributary of the Republican River, while Kansas evaluated alternatives that increase the storage volume at Lovewell Reservoir. The modeling tools that were developed for the study evaluated alternatives to improve the supply reliability at the Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District in Nebraska, as well as the Bostwick-Irrigation District of Nebraska and Kansas.
Surface water supplies include a system of seven Reclamation reservoirs and one U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir. These projects provide flood control benefits, as well as supplies to six irrigation districts that serve approximately 140,000 acres. The Republican River is subject to an interstate compact between Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas that was ratified in 1943.
The Republican River Basin Study is a part of Reclamation’s WaterSMART Program. The report is available online at http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp.
WaterSMART is the Department of the Interior’s sustainable water initiative that uses the best available science to improve water conservation and help water resource managers identify strategies to narrow the gap between supply and demand. For more information on the WaterSMART program, visit http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART.
Here’s the release from the US Bureau of Reclamation (Jessica Kershaw):
Putting the national spotlight on the importance of water sustainability, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation released a basin-by-basin report that characterizes the impacts of climate change and details adaptation strategies to better protect major river basins in the West that are fundamental to the health, economy, security and ecology of 17 Western states.
The SECURE Water Act Report, produced by Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and its state and local partners, was released following today’s first White House Summit on Water in observance of World Water Day.
“One of the greatest challenges we face is dealing with the impacts of climate change on our nation’s water, which is really the lifeblood of our economy,” said Interior’s Deputy Secretary Michael L. Connor. “We need to continue to develop collaborative strategies across each river basin to ensure that our nation’s water and power supplies, agricultural activities, ecosystems, and other resources all have sustainable paths forward.”
The report identifies climate change as a growing risk to Western water management and cites warmer temperatures, changes to precipitation, snowpack and the timing and quality of streamflow runoff across major river basins as threats to water sustainability. Water supply, quality and operations; hydropower; groundwater resources; flood control; recreation; and fish, wildlife and other ecological resources in the Western states remain at risk.
The report, which responds to requirements under the SECURE Water Act of 2009, shows several increased risks to western United States water resources during the 21st century. Specific projections include:
a temperature increase of 5-7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century;
A precipitation increase over the northwestern and north-central portions of the western United States and a decrease over the southwestern and south-central areas;
A decrease for almost all of the April 1st snowpack, a standard benchmark measurement used to project river basin runoff; and
a 7 to 27 percent decrease in April to July stream flow in several river basins, including the Colorado, the Rio Grande, and the San Joaquin.
These projections will have specific basin-level impacts that include:
Southern California: In Southern California, warming and population growth are projected to increase water demand, reliance on imported water and the use of groundwater in the area, leading to development of alternative water supplies, such as recycled water.
Colorado River Basin: Reductions in spring and early summer runoff could translate into a drop in water supply for meeting irrigation demands and adversely impact hydropower operations at reservoirs.
Klamath and Truckee River Basins: Warmer conditions may result in increased stress on fisheries, reduced salmon habitat, increased electricity demand, increased water demands for in-stream ecosystems and increased likelihood of invasive species’ infestations.
Columbia and Missouri River Basins: Moisture falling as rain instead of snow at lower elevations will increase the runoff during the wintertime rather than the summer, translating to reductions for meeting irrigation demands, adversely impacting hydropower operations, and increasing wintertime flood-control challenges.
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins: Earlier season runoff combined with a potential for increasing upper watershed evapotranspiration may reduce the capacity to store runoff in Reclamation’s Central Valley Project and state water resources reservoirs.
Rio Grande Basin: Reduced snowpack and decreased runoff likely will result in less natural groundwater recharge. Additional decreases in groundwater levels are projected due to increased reliance on groundwater pumping.
“Reclamation, its customers and stakeholders have adapted to various climate conditions for more than 100 years,” the Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Estevan López said. “Now changing climate is creating a greater challenge; but through collaboration and cooperation, we will work to ensure a sustainable and secure water supply now and into the future.”
While climate change poses significant risks to Western water resources management, Reclamation is already addressing vulnerabilities through adaptation strategies being developed with water managers across the West. For example, under the WaterSMART Program, collaborative basin studies evaluate the impacts of climate change and identify a broad range of potential options to resolve current and future water supply and demand imbalances.
Reclamation has forged collaborative relationships in 15 of the 17 Western states with a diverse group of non-Federal partners, including state water resource agencies, tribal governments, regional water authorities, local planning agencies, water districts, agricultural associations, environmental interests, cities and counties. These partnerships focus on identifying and developing adaptation strategies to address the vulnerabilities related to drought and climate change.
In addition to the new Report, the Interior Department launched an online tool enabling the public to visualize the regional impacts and potential adaptation options. The tool allows users to check, by basin, how temperature, precipitation and snowpack are projected to be affected by climate change and how climate change may affect runoff and water supplies. The viewer can also check the projected flow of a river at specific points and times of the year and display adaptation options.
The Report and visualization tool provides a five-year update on the river basins listed in the SECURE Water Act—the Colorado, Columbia, Klamath, Missouri, Rio Grande, Sacramento-San Joaquin and Truckee river basins— as well as other Western river basins.
During the White House Summit, the Administration announced new efforts and commitments from the federal government and more than 100 external institutions to enhance the sustainability of water in the United States. For more information, click here.
The SECURE Water Act Report, fact sheets on projected climate change impacts on the eight western river basins, and the visualization tool are available at http://www.usbr.gov/climate/secure.
The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the Nation. It provides more than 10 trillion gallons of water each year for municipal use and provides water to approximately 10 million acres of irrigated farmland that collectively produce 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of the Nation’s fruits and nut corps. Additionally, Reclamation is the largest supplier of hydroelectric power in the Western United States, operating 53 power plants that serve 3.5 million households.
10 Things You Didn’t Know About the Hardest Working River in the West
On World Water Day, especially with this year’s theme of “Water and Jobs,” we should celebrate the waterways we all depend on and love — and redouble our efforts to ensure our vital water resources are available for generations to come.
Unfortunately, one of our country’s most important rivers, the Colorado River, is also one of our most threatened. The drought in the West has only served to make a bad situation worse — for the cities that depend on the river for drinking water, the farmers who depend on it to grow the crops that feed the nation, the wildlife that depend on it as part of their habitat, and the local recreation economies that depend on it for jobs.
Fortunately, the communities in the Colorado River Basin are coming together and collaborating with government at all levels to put into place water conservation and drought resiliency efforts that will protect this vital river and all who rely on it.
The Colorado River Basin. The Upper Colorado River Basin is outlined in black.
Whether you’ve boated on Lake Powell or Lake Mead, rode the rapids in the Grand Canyon, or fished the blue ribbon streams that feed the river, there are countless ways in which the Colorado is the lifeblood of the Southwest and an economic engine for the entire country.
Here are just a few key facts about the hardest working river in the West:
The Colorado River winds 1,450 miles through the Southwest, providing water to seven states and Mexico.
Demand for water from the Colorado outstrips supply, and the drought and rising temperatures are making the imbalance more precarious.
The Colorado River is the hardest working river in the West, supporting 16 million American jobs in agriculture, energy production, and recreation, among others. The economic activity supported by the Colorado River accounts for 10 percent of our national GDP.
The Colorado supplies clean drinking water to more than 36 million people.
More than 5.36 million people use the river for recreational activities each year, providing a boon to the economy.
The Colorado River irrigates nearly 5.7 million acres of land, which grow 15 percent of the nation’s crops.
For most of the last half century, the Colorado River has dried up before reaching the sea.
Lake Powell, a major driver of tourism in the Southwest and the United States’ second-largest reservoir, recently fell below 40 percent of capacity, its lowest level since 1937.
The iconic Hoover Dam has the capacity to produce 2074 megawatts of energy, but as water levels in Lake Mead continue to drop, power capacity has been reduced to only 1735 megawatts in recent years — which means energy shortages equivalent to the power needs of more than 200,000 people.
The Colorado River is home to 30 endemic fish species and attracts anglers from across the country each year, bringing nearly $2 billion into the economy of the river basin.
As we work to protect the river — and the jobs, people and wildlife it supports — it’s encouraging to see the Obama Administration and Congress taking this issue seriously. On World Water Day, the White House Water Summit is highlighting the need for increased coordination among federal agencies responding to the drought, enhanced funding for conservation programs, and ongoing action and innovation to protect the Colorado River and the livelihoods that depend on it. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and Congress to provide critical support for water conservation efforts in the Colorado River Basin.
Here’s the release from the University of Waterloo:
Dangerous nitrate levels in drinking water could persist for decades, increasing the risk for blue baby syndrome and other serious health concerns, according to a new study published by researchers at the University of Waterloo.
Nitrogen fertilizer applied to farmers’ fields has been contaminating rivers and lakes and leaching into drinking water wells for more than 80 years. The study, published this week in a special issue of the journal Environmental Research Letters, reveals that elevated nitrate concentrations in rivers and lakes will remain high for decades, even if farmers stop applying nitrogen fertilizers today.
View of runoff, also called nonpoint source pollution, from a farm field in Iowa during a rain storm. Topsoil as well as farm fertilizers and other potential pollutants run off unprotected farm fields when heavy rains occur. (Credit: Lynn Betts/U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service/Wikimedia Commons)
The researchers have discovered that nitrogen is building up in soils, creating a long-term source of nitrate pollution in ground and surface waters.
“A large portion of the nitrogen applied as fertilizer has remained unaccounted for over the last decades,” said Nandita Basu, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Civil and Environmental Engineering. “The fact that nitrogen is being stored in the soil means it can still be a source of elevated nitrate levels long after fertilizers are no longer being applied.”
Their paper presents the first direct evidence of a large-scale nitrogen legacy across the United States’ Mississippi River Basin.
Forced to invest millions of dollars to upgrade their water treatment plants, Des Moines Water Works, Iowa’s largest drinking water utility, is currently suing three upstream counties for failing to address harmful surface-water nitrate levels that are more than twice the US federal drinking water standard.
Such nitrate concentrations are likely to remain stubbornly high, according to the Canadian research team.
Professor Basu and her group analyzed long-term data from over two thousand soil samples throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reveal a systematic accumulation of nitrogen in agricultural soils. In many areas, this accumulation was not apparent in the upper plow layer, but instead was found from 25-100 cm beneath the soil surface
“We hypothesize that this accumulation occurred not only because of the increased use of fertilizers, but also increases in soybean cultivation and changes in tillage practices over the past 80 years,” said Kim Van Meter, a doctoral student in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences in the Faculty of Science.
Their modeling results suggest that this nitrogen legacy could still be leaching into waterways more than three decades after nitrogen is no longer being applied to fields.
Similar to phosphorus, nitrogen is a limiting nutrient for plants and when applied as fertilizer helps increase crop yields.
Unfortunately when too much nitrogen is added, the excess enters waterways, causing hypoxic conditions such as the Gulf of Mexico’s massive dead zone and threatening drinking water quality. Exposure to excessive nitrate in drinking water causes serious health problems, including Methemoglobinemia or blue baby syndrome in infants.
Since the 1970s, farmers and policymakers alike have worked hard to reduce the amount of fertilizer leaking from agricultural fields to groundwater and nearby lakes and streams. Yet in some rural areas, nitrate levels have been found to be more than ten times the drinking water standard.
“The presence of this legacy nitrogen means it will take even longer for best management practices to have a measurable benefit,” said Professor Basu, also a member of the Water Institute. “If we’re going to set policy goals, it’s critical we quantify nitrogen legacies and time lags in human impacted landscapes.”
Basu and other researchers at the University of Waterloo are currently exploring nitrogen legacies across North America as well as at the global level.
A Coyote Gulch reader suggested that I highlight the plight of the Colorado River for this year’s World Water Day so I want to point you to my Colorado River categories on both the pre-2009 blog and the current Coyote Gulch:
In recognition of World Water Day and in conjunction with the White House Water Summit, the U.S. Geological Survey is raising awareness of water issues and potential solutions in the United States.
Yep. It’s Getting Hotter and Drier Out There
“Hotter droughts,” which are severe droughts associated with human-caused climate change, are an emerging but poorly understood threat to forests worldwide. As climate change drives much of the nation into hotter, drier conditions, forest managers and scientists are not able to rely on historical patterns of temperature and precipitation for planning and decision making. Yet it is critical to identify forests and tree species most at risk.
Thus, USGS scientists and their collaborators are using California’s recent hotter drought (2012-2015) as a preview of the future, gaining the information needed to help forest managers adapt to a warming world.
Drought is More Than a Low Water Supply – And Why That Really Matters
We usually think of droughts as periods of low water supply caused by less rain or snow, but often overlook the other side of the equation: the drying power of the atmosphere, or atmospheric water demand. For example, if we look only at precipitation records, California’s recent drought would rank as severe but not unprecedented; comparable periods of low precipitation occurred during the Dust Bowl era of the 1920s and 1930s. However, compared to the Dust Bowl era, temperatures during the 2012-2015 California drought averaged about 1º C (about 2º F) warmer. Even though this may not seem like much, it significantly increased the atmospheric water demand and easily made this the most severe drought in California’s 120-year instrumental record, and perhaps much longer.
Additionally, water supplies for California’s cities, agriculture, industry and forests all depend on the accumulation of a thick mountain snowpack each winter, which then melts and slowly releases water during the otherwise dry summer months. But the higher temperatures of the recent drought meant that virtually no snow accumulated during the winter, and the little bit that did accumulate melted far earlier than usual in the spring.
California’s hotter drought has already killed millions of trees, particularly in low-elevation forests. (Photo credit: N. Stephenson, USGS)
FromThe Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Charles Ashby):
Some Western Slope lawmakers are concerned that a bill that won preliminary approval in the Colorado House on Monday could lead to water being permanently taken off of the state’s farms and ranches.
Reps. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio, and Don Coram, R-Montrose, said the measure, HB1228, could create a situation where half of an agricultural operation’s water could be removed on a permanent basis.
Brown became so concerned about the measure after it was altered in the House Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources Committee earlier this month that he’s planning to take his name off of it.
He signed onto the bill initially because he believed it was aimed at protecting agricultural water rights’ owners when they lease water that they don’t need.
“The concern is that farmers are going to have to go to court proving that they are not harmed by somebody else doing this,” Brown said.
As the bill is written now, the Colorado River Water District is opposed to it because of the harm it could cause water rights’ owners who aren’t involved in such diversions, which is known as a flexible water right.
Coram said the Legislature approved a new law a few years ago that allows for such flex water leases for up to three out of every 10 years, requiring a water rights’ owner to obtain a new decree in water court for each diversion.
This new bill allows for up to 50 percent of an agriculture water right to be leased for non-agricultural use, and be renewed twice without having to go through water court as long as that lease doesn’t change, he said.
“They say this is to prevent buy and dry, but lease and cease is the same thing,” Coram said. “It’s one thing to take the water out three out of every 10 years, but if you take it forever it’s very devastating for communities.”
But Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, one of the main sponsors of the bill, said neither lawmaker needs to worry.
Becker said he has an amendment to fix their main problem with the bill, which deals with in-stream flows.
That amendment is to be tacked onto the bill when it is debated in the Senate, where Sens. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, and Kerry Donovan, D-Vail, are sponsoring the bill.
Joe Ramey (The National Weather Service — Grand Junction Office) has been digging through the climate data. Here’s his deep-dive into trends in daily temperatures for Eastern Utah and Western Colorado:
How has the climate of eastern Utah and western Colorado been changing? One way to explore this question is to look back at the climate record for sites within this region. If we go back to 1911 there are only 11 sites in eastern Utah and western Colorado with mostly unbroken climate records (Figure 1). A different set of climate records were also analyzed, nine sites within National Parks and Monuments (Figure 2). The Park set would have less problems with urbanization, site location change, or instrumentation changes. A disadvantage to the Park data set is their climate record only generally began in the 1960s.
Figure1. Eleven sites with strong climate records back to 1911.Figure 2. Nine National Parks and Monuments in eastern Utah and western Colorado. These sites would have minimal or zero problems with urbanization, site or instruementation changes.
These two data sets show strongly similar trends. Maximum temperatures (Figure 3) show little overall trend. Minimum temperatures (Figure 4) show a warming trend since the 1970s. Precipitation graphs (Figure 5) show large variation but with a wet period in the 1980s into the 1990s and a subsequent dry trend.
Figure 3. The graph of forecast maximum temperatures for the 11 Forecast Area sites and nine Parks and Monument sites. The Parks and Mounument sites are offeset warmer because of their lower average elevation. Since the 1930s, you can see some up and down but little overall trend. The latest five years, 2011-2015, are dashed to indicate a different time frame than the decade time increments.Figure 4. Minimum temperatures graphs for the Forecast Area sites and Park sites. Here we can see a warming trend beginning in the 1970s. Again the Park sites are offset warmer due to their lower elevation. The latest five years are dashed.Figure 5. precipitation graphs. The Park data set is still offset drier also because of its lower overall elevation. The latest five years are dashed. The two data sets still show a strongly similar overall trend. We can see the dry years in the 1930s, 1950s, 1970s and wet years in the 1980s into the 1990s. The trend since then has been drier.
It is not a given that the eleven forecast area sites are a good representation of any climate trends for the forecast area as a whole. However the Park data set seems to follow the same climate trends and adds confidence to these trends.
Rules changing the way well owners operate in the San Luis Valley will go to trial in 2018.
Rio Grande Water Users Association Attorney Bill Paddock told that group of water users during their annual meeting on Thursday that a trial date has been set to hear objections to the rules, which the state filed last fall. The court has scheduled the trial to begin on January 2, 2018.
One of the reasons for setting the trial so far out is the amount of time the trial could take. The judge has scheduled up to eight weeks for the trial, Paddock said.
He reminded the group that 30 statements of opposition were filed in response to the state’s groundwater rules for the Rio Grande Basin, which encompasses the San Luis Valley. About half of those “statements of opposition” were in favor of the rules and about half against. The only method to voice support for the rules was to file a “statement of opposition.”
The groundwater rules focus on protecting senior water rights, promoting sustainability and upholding the state’s Rio Grande Compact with downstream states. The rules require wells in the basin to make up for the injuries they have caused surface water rights or face the possibility of being shut down.
Paddock said the objections to the rules range from concerns about the irrigation season, which is specified as part of the rules, to challenges about how the state plans to determine and enforce the sustainability requirement that is part of the water rules.
Paddock said the sustainability issue was likely the strongest piece of the legal challenge. The state is requiring water users to bring the confined, or deeper, aquifer back to the level it was during the period of 1978-2000 , but the state does not have enough data to determine what those levels should be, so it will be collecting further data to enforce that portion of the rules.
Paddock said some water users, such as those in the Alamosa/La Jara area defined in the rules, have not changed how much they have pumped since that 1978-2000 period, while other areas of the Valley have experienced dramatic changes in pumping since that time.
“That’s going to be the biggest issue,” Paddock said.
He said the state would begin negotiating with objectors to see if it can work out some of their concerns short of trial. He said he was optimistic a number of issues people have raised could be resolved simply through those negotiations or as legal questions decided by the judge.
If that is the case, the courts will not be looking at an eight-week trial but something less than that, possibly 4-6 weeks, Paddock said.
“On the confined aquifer sustainability issue, there is likely to be a trial,” he said, “and if that’s the issue it’s likely to be a 4-6-week trial because of the complexity of the problem and the number of expert witnesses who will have to testify.”
Pond on the Garcia Ranch via Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust
Jiliane Hixson, who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting over conservation easement tax credits with the Department of Revenue, left the Statehouse in tears last week. Lawmakers had watered down a bill she hoped would help her recoup some of her money.
Thirteen years ago, Hixson converted parts of her Lamar farm into a conservation easement, what should have been a win-win deal.
Colorado’s conservation easement program works like this: Landowners create a contract with a land trust. The land trust holds the deed to the property and blocks housing projects, oil and gas wells, solar or wind power farms or any other kind of development. The landowner gets a hefty tax credit and still owns the land: Farmers continue to grow crops, ranchers keep grazing cattle, and homeowners keep living there.
At least, that’s how the programs are supposed to work.
But four years after entering into an agreement, the Department of Revenue rejected Hixson’s tax credits. She still does not have control of her land and has agreed to a settlement with the Department of Revenue. She will be paying back those tax credits for the next 20 years.
Hundreds of other Coloradans, like Hixson, have been fighting the Department of Revenue over those tax credits.
A bill in the House was originally going to set a January 1, 2016 deadline for the Department of Revenue to resolve the conservation-easement tax credit disputes that still plague roughly 55 families. For those families whose property is now controlled by land trusts, if the Department of Revenue rejected those tax credits, the easement would be canceled and the deed to the land would return to the homeowner.
The Department has a four-year statute of limitations to accept or deny tax credits issued on the conservation easements.
But the department has ignored the four-year limit, fighting with hundreds of landowners over the tax credits, some from more than 13 years ago.
It has cost 800 Colorado families, many of whom are farmers and ranchers, tax credits totalling in the millions of dollars. Some have declared bankruptcy after fighting the department, which has alleged some appraisals were overvalued by incompetent appraisers or property owners who committed fraud.
The Department of Revenue’s spurious allegations of mass fraud have not been substantiated in the courts. Only one case has been prosecuted in the program’s 16-year history.
The measure, House Bill 16-1174, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jon Becker of Fort Morgan, thinly skated out of the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee a month ago. It won the support of one Democrat on the committee, Rep. Max Tyler of Lakewood, who said the discussion on the issue must continue.
Last week, the House Finance Committee, which deals with bills about tax issues, took up the bill, which by then had garnered opposition from the governor. That put Becker to work with Democrats to save the bill.
Becker reached an eleventh hour deal Tuesday with Democrats to completely rewrite the bill. The new version substantially reduced the cost from its initial $11 million price tag. But more importantly, it took out the language that would have given Hixson and hundreds like her control of their land.
The rewritten bill only applies to those 55 cases still in dispute, and only cancels out any further interest or penalties on the tax credits while the cases are being settled.
Becker put the Department of Revenue and the Attorney General’s office that has backed the Department on notice during the hearing, warning if they don’t speedily resolve the remaining cases, he’ll be back next year and “It won’t be nice…Moving forward shows the departments we are serious.”
The decision to gut the bill was clearly emotional for Becker. “Fighting the state shouldn’t come to the point where families are destroyed,” he told the committee.
Lawmakers aren’t supposed to become too emotionally vested in their bills, but that has been the case for Becker with HB 1174. He pledged to keep the issue in the public eye and said he will continue to try to find solutions to help people like Hixson, who won’t be aided by the revised bill.
The bill now goes to the full House for debate, and if successful, to the Senate. Another bill to address the conservation easement issue, sponsored by Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling, was killed by the Senate Finance Committee two weeks ago. Sonnenberg requested the action, stating he knew the bill would not have been passed by the committee.
A graph showing CWCB releases in October and September 2015 as compared to total releases from Ruedi Reservoir in the same time frame. The graph illustrates how CWCB;'s water, leased from Ute Water, made up the total release levels. Note also that the 9,000 acre-feet of water released by CWCB was only part of the 24,412 acre-feet of water from Ruedi delivered to the 15-mile reach. This graphic from CWCB compares flows from Ruedi Reservoir in 2015 with flows in the 15-mile reach in the Colorado River, along with the target environmental flow of 1,240 cfs.
LA JUNTA – The directors of the Colorado Water Conservation Board have given their staff the go-ahead to let 12,000 acre-feet of water out of Ruedi Reservoir this year to benefit endangered fish in a 15-mile reach of the Colorado River above Grand Junction.
The board’s unanimous approval to renew a one-year lease with the Ute Water Conservancy District came last week in a meeting in La Junta. The approval includes the condition that releases from the dam should not go above 300 cubic feet per second, or bring overall flows in the lower Fryingpan River above 350 cfs.
And after hearing of complaints by clients of Basalt-based fly-fishing outfitters about last year’s releases, also at the 300 cfs level, the CWCB board additionally gave its staff the flexibility to try and keep the release levels at or below 250 cfs to make it easier for wading anglers.
A meeting with local stakeholders about the CWCB’s planned releases from Ruedi this year is set for today at 4 p.m. in El Jebel at the Eagle County building.
Two CWCB officials are expected to attend the meeting: Ted Kowalski, the head of CWCB’s interstate, federal and water information section; and Linda Bassi, the section head of the agency’s instream flow program.
In a memo written in advance of the CWCB board meeting, Kowalski and Bassi had noted that last year’s releases from Ruedi “by most accounts, worked very well for everyone involved.”
But on March 15, two days before the Ruedi lease was on the CWCB’s agenda, Marty Joseph, the manager of Frying Pan Anglers in Basalt, sent the agency a list of 32 clients upset about conditions last year on the Fryingpan River during the first year of CWCB releases from Ruedi.
“The ideal flow for our older clients is around 220 cfs, please take this into consideration for future water flows on the Frying Pan (sic) River,” Joseph told the CWCB in an email on March 15. “We only started collecting emails for about three weeks before our season was over last year (Oct. 5, 2015). We could easily have had 10 times more if we started it at the beginning of the season.”
Joseph’s email was followed the next day by an email to Bass at the CWCB from Warwick Mowbray, also of Frying Pan Anglers. He sent in ten letters from clients complaining about the flows. He said he had requested comments from clients back in October about the high flows at the request of Jana Mohrman, a hydrologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
One client told Frying Pan Anglers, “this past August, the flow rate at the beginning of my stay was 25O cfs then increased to just over 300 cfs and then dropped to around 28O cfs. The fishing was adversely affected by both the high flow and the numerous fluctuations in the rate.
“Additionally, for the first time while fishing the Frying Pan River, I lost my balance and fell in the river,” the client said. “This occurred on a number of occasions. I felt that wading my normal sections of the river were unsafe due to the high flow rate. If the high flow rates experienced this past summer become the norm for the Frying Pan, it is likely that I will find another location for my fishing trips.”
Another client said that their trip to the area “was especially disappointing as my son and I took our eight-and-half-year-old grandson wading for the first time. With the 300 (cfs) flows, only place on the whole twelve-mile stretch of the ‘Pan’ was a few feet from shore at the shallows at the dam where it was safe enough for him.”
A USGS graph showing flows on the Fryingpan River, at Rocky Ford below the dam, from July 1 to Nov. 1, 2015. The gauge records direct releases from Ruedi dam, as seen in the linear nature of the flow rate. A graph showing the releases from Ruedi Reservoir in summer and fall 2014. Releases were relatively close to 300 cfs, but did reach the steady 300 cfs level. The graph also shows flows were much higher in Oct. 2015 than Oct. 2014.
Flow numbers
It should be noted that the CWCB’s releases of water were only one factor in the overall flow in the lower Fryingpan River last summer and fall.
Last year, for example, releases from Ruedi Reservoir, which is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, generally ranged from 275 to 300 cfs from early August to mid-October, according to the USGS gauge just below the Ruedi dam.
But the releases of water controlled by CWCB came only in parts of September and October and never contributed to more than 170 cfs of the total river flow, according to the CWCB.
For example, from Sept. 3 and 20, the CWCB sent 6,000 acre-feet down the Fryingpan, at the rate of 170 cfs.
And between Oct. 6 and 17, the CWCB sent another 3,000 acre-feet downstream, also at 170 cfs.
The CWCB is not the only entity releasing water from Ruedi to reach target flow levels in the 15-mile reach. As a graphic presented by Kowalski notes, a total of 24,412 acre feet was released from Ruedi last year to flow to Grand Junction.
But beyond the nuances of whose water was being released by the Bureau of Reclamation for what purpose, the perception by some anglers was that the river was higher than usual, especially in the fall.
Acknowledging anglers
During his presentation to the CWCB board on March 17, Kowalski acknowledged the recently-arrived complaint letters from anglers about flows in the Fryingpan.
“If there are ways that we can accommodate angling interests, we will do so,” Kowalski said, noting it will be easier to do this year if it is drier than last year.
But Kowalski said any concessions to anglers would be a lessor priority for the agency than meeting CWCB’s “intended purpose of the full 12,000 acre feet being dedicated to the 15-mile reach.”
Kowalski also noted that Ruedi is, after all, “a water supply reservoir.”
“We are paying state dollars for specific purposes, and the endangered species purposes are important to the state and to water users within the state,” Kowalski said. ”Nevertheless, we want to be sensitive to the local concerns and we’re looking forward to the meeting and a spirited discussion.”
The CWCB plans to pay $7.20 an acre foot to lease the 12,000 acre feet of water owned in Ruedi by Ute Water. The water can be used for instream flow purposes, and the CWCB holds an instream flow right of 581 cfs in the 15-mile reach.
Russ George, who represents the Colorado River basin on the CWCB board, favored keeping release levels at 300 cfs, despite the concerns of some anglers.
“First of all, I don’t know who it is that can’t fish with a little bit more water,” said George, who is now chair of the CWCB board. “Twenty-five cfs is not a lot of water in that river. So I’m a little confused, but that’s probably because I’m a poor fisherman.
Jay Skinner, an instream flow specialist at Colorado Parks and Wildlife, told the CWCB board the flows were not having an impact on the quality of the fishery on the lower Fryingpan.
“My understanding of that whole issue of the 250 to 300 cfs is more ‘fishability’ than its impacts on the fishery itself,” Skinner said.
But the water from Ruedi is apparently helpful to the fishery in the 15-mile reach and, secondarily, to the major water providers and managers in Colorado and the upper Colorado River basin.
Helping ancient fish
The program’s goal is to maintain populations of four species of large native fish, the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, and humpback chub. A key part of the effort is keeping flows in the 15-mile reach at 1,240 cfs or higher.
The program also helps protect the status of 1,216 water-diversion projects in Colorado and their collective ability to move 2.1 million acre-feet of water a year off the river.
If the ancient warm-water fish species in the 15-mile reach above Grand Junction start to disappear completely, lawsuits regarding compliance with the Environmental Species Act could lead to reduced diversions on the river.
“The program serves as the environmental compliance for hundreds of diversions and water storage projects in the upper basin,” Kowalski said.
In 1988, regional water interests began to collaborate on the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
And while non-native fish eating young native fish remains a primary obstacle to growing populations, there are signs the recovering program is making a difference.
For example, in 2015, 1,331 small “young-of-year” Colorado pikeminnows were collected from Colorado River backwaters, according to the 2015-2016 report on the program.
“This was the highest catch in this reach of river in 30 years,” the report said.
And, Kowalski noted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its annual review of the program, recognized last year’s lease of water from Ute Water as contributing to the effort.
Editor’s note: Aspen Journalism and the Aspen Daily News are collaborating on coverage of rivers and water. A version of this story was published by the Aspen Daily News on Monday, March 21, 2016.
John Martin Reservoir is kind of like the Mama Bear in the Goldilocks story.
Too far away from Pueblo or Colorado Springs for municipal storage, but close enough to users in the Lamar area.
Too politically charged to easily carve out new storage space, but designed to settle differences on the Arkansas River between Kansas and Colorado that have festered for more than a century.
And too big to ignore as a means of gaining storage space on a river where all the water rights have been spoken for.
So the Colorado Water Conservation Board approved a $48,000 grant to find out what may be “just right” when it comes to storage.
“This is making better utilization of John Martin Reservoir to benefit the basin,” said Alan Hamel, the CWCB member from the Arkansas River basin.
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District will work with the state to identify who could use storage in John Martin as part of a more detailed engineering study to be presented to the Arkansas River Compact Administration in 2017.
It also will incorporate an ongoing Colorado State University study that is looking at proposed operational changes at John Martin.
The reservoir was completed in 1948 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and operates under compact procedures approved in 1980 and revised in 1984 and 2010. Those rules require 35 percent of water stored in the reservoir to move into accounts for Kansas’ benefit.
It also governs winter water storage and flood control protocol.
By contrast, Lake Pueblo offers “if-and-when” or excess capacity storage that can be used when it is not storing Fryingpan-Arkansas water, its primary purpose.
John Martin Reservoir, like Lake Pueblo, is not full most of the time. It was last filled in 1999, although it nearly reached the top of the conservation pool during prolonged rains last year.
Getting a new kind of storage account would require some tricky negotiations with Kansas, which sued Colorado, and lost, on the point of Lake Pueblo’s construction and operation as part of a 24-year lawsuit over the compact.
That’s anticipated as part of “stakeholder” meetings called for in the grant. It also would require cooperation from downstream users in Colorado before any changes are made.
Still gazing at the ripples cast by Colorado’s Water Plan, the Colorado Water Conservation Board is getting ready to dive into another wave of the future.
The board is preparing to update the Statewide Water Supply Initiative, which first outlined projected water needs of the state in 2004 and was updated in 2010.
The document now serves as the technical basis for the state water plan as well as basin implementation plans adopted by each of the nine basin roundtables.
The Arkansas Basin Roundtable got its first notification of the coming update at its [recent] meeting.
The first version of SWSI in 2004 predicted a shortfall of water for growing Front Range communities and helped launch legislation to form the Interbasin Compact Committee and basin roundtables in 2005.
The 2010 version identified strategies and refined estimates of shortfalls of water. It also better reflected the state’s need to preserve agricultural water and nurture local projects. It provided the groundwork for the state water plan.
The 2016 update will include new areas including strategies to deal with scenario planning, climate change and hydrologic variability. Gaps in water supply for agriculture, environment and wildlife will be addressed. It will also incorporate basin implementation plans and the economic value of water.
The IBCC this month looked at ways to fund the additional $100 million annually in water projects called for in the state water plan beginning in 2020. Jay Winner reported some ideas included a 25-cent statewide tap fee, container tax or lottery tickets, but no decisions were made…
In other moves, the roundtable approved a letter of support for the Arkansas River Watershed Collaborative for a five-year $650,000 grant from the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities. The collaborative is working on improving forest health throughout the Arkansas River basin in order to protect watersheds.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
FromThe Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
A state board has agreed to renew a lease with the Ute Water Conservancy District to boost local flows in the Colorado River later this year to benefit endangered fish.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board’s action this week comes despite concerns about impacts to recreational fishing in the Fryingpan River near Basalt. The water would come from Ruedi Reservoir, which is in the Fryingpan River Valley.
The CWCB is planning a meeting today at 4 p.m. at Eagle County’s El Jebel Community Center to hear and address those concerns.
The deal involves water Ute Water owns in Ruedi. The water is a backup supply for Ute Water as well as a source to meet potential new demand. Last year, the CWCB agreed to lease up to 12,000 acre-feet of water, and ended up using 9,000 acre-feet in September and October at a price of $7.20 per acre foot, or $64,800.
Last year’s one-year lease is renewable for up to five years.
Last year’s extra water boosted flows in what’s known as the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River upstream of its confluence of the Gunnison River, benefiting four endangered fish — the humpback chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker.
The lease arrangement also provided some operational flexibility for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “and operators of other reservoirs that release water in late summer to benefit the endangered fish habitat,” according to a memo to the CWCB board from its staff.
The water also was run through the Ruedi Reservoir and Orchard Mesa Irrigation District hydropower plants, providing additional benefits, according to the memo.
On the minus side, CWCB has been hearing in recent weeks from angling interests who say more river in the Fryingpan makes it hard to wade in the river and also could affect hatches of aquatic insects, impacting trout in the river and the fishing. The Fryingpan is considered a world-class flyfishing river.
CWCB has agreed to keep the water releases below 300 cubic feet per second, but fishing advocates want them limited to 250 cfs.
CWCB staff member Ted Kowalski said the agency is willing to work with fishing interests to keep flows below 250 cfs where possible, depending on hydrology and how dry a year it is.
Kirk Webb, assistant manager of Taylor Creek Fly Shops in Basalt, which offers guided fishing trips, said flows higher than even 150 cfs can make it harder for older clients to safely wade and cross the river, limiting their access. Higher flows also can force fish to gather in certain areas rather than spreading out, he said.
Still, while he said more water can “put a damper” on hatches, he said he also sees benefits to higher flows, including an overall benefit to the fishery. And he said guide operations also can benefit downstream on the Roaring Fork River in late summer if more water comes in from the Fryingpan, cooling down the Roaring Fork and improving fishing, while also boosting float-fishing conditions.
Jay Skinner, instream flow specialist with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, told the CWCB that hatches are temperature-dependent, and he questions how much higher flows would influence them on the Fryingpan.
“I have a hard time imagining that adding this amount of water from a deep reservoir to an already very cold river has a lot of impact on the hatches,” he said.
When it comes to dissolved lead, residents in the West are lucky because a large majority of the region’s housing stock and infrastructure – interior piping, water mains and service lines – are newer and less likely to contain components that can leach lead into water.
Copper water lines that were installed in a house before the early 1980s might have been connected using lead-based solder (after about 1981, we switched to a tin/antimony solder formulation). Even so, that’s likely not a big worry. Many municipal water suppliers inject chemicals, such as sodium carbonate, that attach to the inside of pipes and form a barrier to isolate lead solder intrusion. Plus, even the purest water contains some microscopic organic contaminates that, over time, build up a thin layer of slime that also coats the inside of the piping.
One easy way to “get the lead out” is to run your cold water full force for a minute or two when you get up in the morning (or anytime the system has been still for six or more hours). That will flush stale water from the pipes and ensure that fresh product from the street main is available for drinking. If you’re the conserving type, you can collect it and use it on houseplants. Also, check the screens in the faucet aerators and remove any metal particles they have caught.
Water companies are required to monitor their supplies for excessive lead and other contaminates. But if you’re concerned that the water running through old pipes is not safe, get it tested; the local health department can help. The EPA considers any concentration above 15 parts per billion as an action level, requiring mitigation or avoidance. If your level is too high, it would be advisable to have a plumber replace suspected piping in your home plus the water service line.
You also can filter the water. A simple $200 reverse osmosis system under your kitchen sink can remove about 95 percent of the lead contaminates. Can you shower and bathe if the lead concentration is high? Yes. Lead is not absorbed through the skin.
Israel has been at the forefront of water solutions for decades, with Jewish National Fund (JNF) being a major force in water resource development in Israel. With a water crisis plaguing our region, it’s timely that JNF is tackling the issue head on by hosting a series of community-wide water summits with LA Times Best-Seller Seth M. Siegel, author of Let There Be Water: Israel’s Solution for a Water-Starved World. On Tuesday, March 29, 2016, JNF is bringing the Water Summit to Denver, CO (Temple Emanuel – 51 Grape St., Denver, CO 80220).
The Colorado-Israel Water Summit, co-chaired and generously sponsored by Bob Lembke, president of United Water & Sanitation District, and Drs. Toby and Mort Mower, and Netafim, a global leader in drip and micro-irrigation solutions, will provide a unique opportunity to meet, hear from, and network with water industry executives and public officials, to expand awareness of Israel’s water leadership, and to bring drought solutions to local communities and the world…
The Water Summit will feature Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, former Governor Bill Ritter, best-selling author Seth M. Siegel, JNF VP Campaign Ken Segel, Israeli Consul for Political Affairs Yaki Lopez, Netafim’s Director of Marking Ze’ev Barylka, and many other dignitaries and water industry experts…
The Water Summit will take place from 9:00 am to 2:30 pm with panels titled “Colorado Approaches to Water Use Efficiency” and “Colorado’s Water Supply Future.” Registration is required via http://jnf.org/cowatersummit. For more information, please contact Hannah Cohen at http://watersummit@jnf.org or 212.879.9305 x262. There is no cost to attend and lunch will be provided.
Billy barr, business manager at Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, confirmed that as of last weekend, total snowfall in Gothic was 28 percent below normal: 221 inches compared to an average snowfall 305 inches year-to-date.
Snowpack was 36 percent below normal. barr, who has been collecting data since the winter of 1974-75, said that placed this winter at the bottom of the barrel—40th out of 42 winters for total snowpack as of Saturday, March 12.
By Tuesday, a small snowfall had bumped it up the list, placing it slightly better than four other winters.
“It’s definitely one of the lower winters. This is very similar to last year the way the whole winter has gone, except that early in winter we had a lot of cold weather. Lately it’s been a lot of hot weather, which is why today seems so completely unenjoyable,” barr said of Tuesday’s return to winter conditions.
According to Kugel, regional SNOTEL sites show that snow water content is below average as well. The Butte site on Crested Butte Mountain is at 92 percent of average and Schofield Pass is at 84 percent of average. Water year-to-date precipitation is even lower for both locations.
“To get a complete picture of a site you need snow water content and water year-to-date precipitation. Normally they’re pretty close,” Kugel explained.
At Schofield, however, water year-to-date precipitation is 74 percent of average. Kugel said that lower percentage could reflect a dry period last October and early November, which could have left soil dry heading into winter.
“If soil is drier than normal, it adversely affects runoff. More of the melt goes in the ground rather than running into the streams,” he said.
He sees that same discrepancy at a few other locations around the basin. And while official projections suggest that Taylor Reservoir will fill by the end of June, Kugel doesn’t believe that reflects current conditions.
“That was with a higher forecast so at this point it looks like operations may need to be curtailed if we want to have Taylor Park Reservoir fill. It’s starting to have an impact on the reservoirs. Currently the storage amount is in good shape but there may need to be adjustments to have a fill on both reservoirs,” he said, referring to Blue Mesa Reservoir as well.
While this week’s snowfall does help, both barr and Kugel suggested that spring storms are going to be required to boost water supplies. Last winter, when the valley was in a similar situation, snow in April and May did make up the difference. According to barr, May was the heaviest snow month—something that never happens.
The sponsors of this bill hope to encourage water-wise practices. Water-rights holders are acutely aware of the value of water and understand the importance of conservation, but they are looking for assurance that their water availability and their long-fought-for rights won’t be harmed.
After amendments added recently to address data collection on impacts, provide for a review and objection period, and expressly stipulate that rain water-harvesting does not constitute a water right, it looks like the bill may pass this time.
Take a closer look at the issue and you’ll realize it isn’t as simple as conservationists versus farming. Water rights are an important component in our state’s laws, and affect flows that underpin a broad spectrum of critical water uses, stream conservation, farming, and municipal supply, among others. They are inherently tied to our economy and ability to grow sustainably.
Here’s a deep-dive into stormwater planning in the Montclair and Park Hill basins from Alan Predergast writing in Westword. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:
The modest proposal, known initially as the Two Basin Drainage Project (TBDP) but now being touted as the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems, is intended to help control storm runoff in the northeast part of the city — water that flows north and west from Fairmount Cemetery through the Montclair, Park Hill, Cole and Whittier neighborhoods to Elyria, Swansea, Globeville and ultimately the South Platte River. The $134 million undertaking is being overseen by Denver’s Department of Public Works, with some financial and technical assistance from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District.
Although many details of the project are still officially “under study” and have not been finalized, certain basic features have been presented in public meetings in recent months — and have raised hackles among neighborhood groups. One essential component is an open channel, fifteen blocks long and up to a hundred feet wide, to be dug along East 39th Avenue between Franklin and Steele streets, that would slow down heavy storm runoff headed to the river. Another key piece of infrastructure is a detention “pond,” around thirty acres in size, to be situated either in the Cole neighborhood or on the golf course. The pond would remain dry except in the most extreme storm conditions, yet building it could require demolishing several houses in Cole — an early configuration, since rejected, would have taken out more than forty homes — or removing up to 280 of the 872 trees on the golf course. And that’s just for the first phase of the project, addressing drainage needs in the Montclair Basin; another detention pond is planned for the Park Hill Golf Course as part of drainage improvements for the Park Hill Basin, the second basin in the TBDP.
City officials say the project is urgently needed to fix long-festering drainage problems in some of Denver’s poorest neighborhoods — and curtail hazardous street flooding, such as one event last June 24 after heavy rains in the area. “It is my fervent belief that in this project the city is acting as an advocate for neighborhoods, to deliver the project as fast as we can to provide stormwater relief,” Gretchen Hollrah, the city’s deputy chief financial officer, told one gathering of neighborhood organizations last month.
A growing chorus of residents and activists across several neighborhoods portray I-70 as the motivating force: the largest factor driving what they see as a set of invasive projects that could scar the City Park and Park Hill golf courses, disturb potentially toxic soils, and sacrifice neighborhoods and parkland to make the highway project viable.
City officials dispute those characterizations. For months, at dozens of public and neighborhood meetings, they have underlined city experts’ assessment of the threat posed by giant storms that, even if very rare, would wreak havoc across a wide swath of the area.
Plenty agree with the plans. But even as officials honed their message, critics who sometimes discount the level of flooding threat have been emboldened.
That’s in part because some areas that would host projects wouldn’t benefit as much as the highway and other neighborhoods to the north — or, initially, at all. Those that would gain protection include parts of the city that are about to see an influx of redevelopment, including some of River North, industrial areas near I-70 and the National Western Center site, only feeding skepticism.
Storm drain and open channel improvements between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and the South Platte River (Globeville Landing Outfall), Stormwater detention/conveyance between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and Colorado Blvd, (Montclair Basin) Stormwater detention/ conveyance immediately east of Colorado Blvd. (Park Hill Basin). Via Denver Public Works.
Thousands of cranes come to Colorado’s San Luis Valley every spring…
Every year at this time, 20,000 sandhill cranes leave New Mexico and arrive in Colorado’s San Luis Valley to feast before taking off again for their summer breeding grounds in the greater Yellowstone area…
Seeing the sandhill cranes by the thousands is a spectacle humans can’t resist. We turn out in the thousands, too, to see them graze on fields in the San Luis Valley, perform courtship dances, flock into their roosting grounds in the evening. We’re far outnumbered, though. Jenny Nehring, one of the organizers of the Monte Vista Crane Festival, said about 6,000 people come to town to see the cranes during the festival and the weekends surrounding it.
Sandhill Cranes
Sandhill Crane in flight via DanonArtFrames.com
Sandhill Cranes in flight via Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Two Colorado nonprofit organizations are developing projects that will bolster Buena Vista’s local economy thanks to grants from the Colorado Tourism Office.
The Arkansas River Outfitters Association and the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative were awarded donations of $25,000 and $85,000 respectively late last year, which will be used to attract more visitors to both the Arkansas and Colorado peaks.
The Arkansas River is one of Buena Vista’s most lucrative recreational attractions.
The tourism the river produces creates an influx of revenue for local businesses, stimulating the economy of the town.
In 2014 alone, the area saw an economic impact of $60,734,207 from the Arkansas River (2014 Commercial Rafting Use Report). With the acquisition of the grant, AROA hopes to further the number of clientele visiting the river, thereby increasing the income of the town.
This goal will be executed through the production of promotional media. Mike Kissack, executive director of AROA, revealed plans to increase advertising in broader regions.
“Our (public relations) department is working to endorse the Arkansas as a tourism destination across states,” Kissack said. “Part of the budget is going to be spent on producing a new video and a social media campaign.”
Although Buena Vista currently enjoys a fair amount of tourists from areas in Kansas and Texas, Kissack, who runs American Adventure Expeditions, said a main goal of the project is to attract customers from neighboring states like Arizona, Utah and New Mexico.
AROA will use the grant awarded by the Colorado Tourism Office to publicly promote the Arkansas River as the destination for rafting, fly fishing, kayaking and other activities its members offer.
The matching funds grant was received in part as a collaborative effort of the Chaffee County Visitors Bureau and Colorado Parks and Wildlife and is the second issue of $25,000 the Colorado Tourism Office has provided AROA.
The revenue produced by American Adventure Expeditions and other AROA members alone “directly affects all the businesses in the area in a very positive manner,” Kissack said. A recreationist enjoying the Arkansas also contributes income to local hotels, restaurants and gear supply stores.
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, meanwhile, is using its grants to install sustainable foot trails on Mount Columbia, Colorado’s 35th tallest peak.
It is one of a dozen fourteeners in Chaffee County. Whether they be for recreation or inspiration, the fourteeners are integral to the lives of Chaffee County residents.
Mount Columbia is already a popular location for climbers. The current most popular unsanctioned trail, however, is a steep 9 miles and cuts through existing wildlife habitats. CFI’s new path is intended to preserve fragile alpine trails and minimize erosion.
CFI Executive Director Lloyd Ackner said the organization will work with the U.S. Forest Service to “design paths that are beneficial to plant life and animal ecosystems while giving people better and more enjoyable trails to climb on.”
The CTO grant was matched by outdoor equipment giant REI through a project called Every Trail Connects.
“REI has been a long-term corporate partner with us,” Ackner said. “We usually receive $10-15,000, but their contribution this year was exceptionally big.”
He said CFI hopes this project will attract hikers and campers from all over to the otherwise undeveloped mountain.
Though it is difficult to calculate the precise economic impact, CFI is working to install “trail counters” on Colorado fourteeners, which track the foot traffic along each mountain. Each individual climbing the trail – assuming they are arriving within a 25-mile radius of the location – will signify an estimated dollar value that CFI can use to calculate resident profit.
CFI began accepting volunteers for the Mount Columbia project Tuesday.
From Conservation Colorado (Sophia Guerrero-Murphy):
I grew up in rural Southern Colorado, which is very different than the Front Range. I lived in Alamosa, which is a good-sized town of 10,000 people, but the most populous city for 120 miles in any direction. The area is high desert, and among its giant peaks and vast stretches of chico bushes, there are fields of potatoes, ranch lands filled with grazing cattle, and almost no water.
Little towns in the San Luis Valley are at risk of being forgotten. For example, for many years, nuclear waste was transferred from truck to train within throwing distance of Conejos River, which flows through the town of Antonito. If the waste had ever spilled, it would have polluted a river that irrigated acres of ranch and farm land, and would have ruined the livelihood of many generational farmers.
I guess the proverbial “they” thought no one would notice or mind the risk of a toxic spill. Fortunately, the mayor of Antonito, Aaron Abeyta, whose family has lived in the area for many generations, noticed the large containers of waste sitting on the tracks and decided to investigate.
After Mayor Abeyta took his concerns of this suspicion to representatives in the Colorado General Assembly and to a national level, no action was taken. So, he re-approached the issue with the support of people in his community. He knew what communities can do and the power they have when they come together, so he decided to approach local grassroots. Eight-five percent of the population in the San Luis Valley is Latino, which shows that the majority taking action for this were Hispanic. Mayor Abeyta informed community members about the nuclear waste that could contaminate their water, so they decided stand up and do something about it. Community members began writing letters, making phone calls, and petitioning the government.
These grassroots efforts led to a victory! The waste no longer gets moved and jostled near the river anymore — the waste doesn’t even get transferred in Antonito.
As a community organizer at Protégete: Nuestro Aire, Nuestra Salud with Conservation Colorado, I interact with and hear the concerns of the Latino community and know that movements like the one in Antonito can happen anywhere. We can come together and fight for clean air, affordable clean energy, better jobs for better causes, and combat climate change to improve the lives of all Coloradans.
It’s important for community members to be aware of the power that Latinos have when we come together and stand up for the protection of our families.
To make your voice heard, join us at the Capitol on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:30 AM for Women and Family Wednesdays, as the Protégete team presents to community leaders regarding environmental justice and to lobby on environmental issues that are important to Coloradans. Si se suede!
A relatively dry February and March in Summit County following a strong start to the 2015-16 ski season resulted in slightly below-average snowpacks. Area percentages of customary levels have varied from between the mid-80s to mid-90s ahead of this week’s storms, which delivered more than two feet of fresh snow over 72 hours in some areas. That’s led to an immediate impact and quickly bumped snowpack to greater than average levels at this point of the winter.
It’s important to the entire state that this precipitation arrives before too long or it won’t have the desired effect of satisfying its late-spring and early-summer water demands.
“In a normal year, past the beginning of May, that’s when you’re not really seeing as much influence from snowpack accumulation,” said Karl Wetlaufer, assistant snow survey supervisor at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). “You typically see that big peak in streamflow in late-May or early-June, about a month after the highest snowpack, more or less.”
[…]
“Lake Powell is the ultimate barometer,” said Jim Pokrandt, chair of the Colorado Basin Roundtable and director of community affairs for the Colorado River Water Conservation District. “It’s the savings account by which we meet Lower Basin obligations and the big measure of how our water supply is.”
[…]
“We’re snow farmers,” added Pokrandt. “We follow snowpack figures because the snowpack crop is what feeds the Colorado River, which feeds the West. It’s vitally important we raise a good crop each year.”
Traditionally, the annual snowpack is built through mid-to-late-April, so there’s still time to reach routine levels. Even so, while most of Summit County’s measuring sites at Loveland Ski Area, Arapahoe Basin, Copper Mountain, Hoosier Pass and Summit Ranch are now each above 100-percent levels, many other portions of the state remain a shade under average totals.
According to the NRCS, the statewide Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) as of Thursday, March 17, was 95 percent of median levels. That missing 5 percent is not of major concern, so long as future weather conditions stay consistent.
“At this point, we are more and more confident as the days go by that we’re in pretty good shape as far as snowpack from a streamflow standpoint,” said Wetlaufer. “If the proverbial faucets turned off right now and there was no more snowpack, then we’d see lower levels. But it’s pretty likely that we’ll continue to get more precipitation in next month or so, and it’s looking encouraging.”
[…]
Heavy snowpack years — which the state could still be heading toward depending entirely on how the rest of the winter and spring weather materializes — actually result in oversupplies of water and is ideal. Those circumstances help establish higher water levels in many of these major headwaters that all leave the state, the Platte, Rio Grande and Arkansas, aside from the Colorado, and are a benefit to all states that utilize these sources.
“In general, a surplus leads to a lot less disagreements in the long run,” said Wetlaufer, “as opposed to a year where we are below normal, which is when those issues get a lot more contentious and people want to make sure they get their fair share. This year seems to be a pretty near-normal snowpack, especially around Summit County, and we should be in good shape for an ample water supply … and in a good place overall.”
In the past 72 hours, 20 inches of snow has fallen at Loveland Ski Area and Arapahoe Basin. Eldora Mountain Ski Resort tops the charts, reporting 32 inches of new snow during that period…
Winter Park Resort says it has gotten some 45 inches of new snow in the past seven days.
Vail is reporting 27 inches of new snow in the last week while Aspen Snowmass said it has gotten 18 inches over than span.
A U.S. Drought Monitor report released Thursday showed most all of El Paso County and all of Pueblo County enveloped by pre-drought conditions.
“In southeast Colorado, hot temperatures (and) strong winds were drying out soils and sending crops downhill fast, and numerous range fires were also occurring,” the report said.
Just over a quarter of the state, including eastern Washington County and extreme northwest Colorado, were listed as being abnormally dry.
In June, the monitor reported drought and abnormal dryness had been eliminated from southeastern Colorado after years of dry conditions there.
That news followed a May report from the National Weather Service reducing the southeast’s drought classification to “abnormally dry” from “extreme.”
The Citizens’ Advisory Committee of the Gold King Mine spill’s long-term impact review team will meet with the community at 5:30 p.m. Monday, March 28 in the Suns Room of the Henderson Fine Arts Center at San Juan College, 4600 College Blvd.
The committee consists of 10 volunteers from northwest New Mexico who work to get information about the spill to the community. It is part of a review team created by Gov. Susana Martinez in August to investigate potential impacts the mine spill could have on the community.
During the meeting, Kevin Lombard, an associate professor at New Mexico State University, and Bonnie Hopkins, an agricultural agent for the San Juan County Extension Office of New Mexico State University, will present information about agriculture and irrigation ditches in San Juan County, according to a press release from the New Mexico Environment Department. They will discuss safeguards that can be taken in light of heavy metal residues that were left in the watershed after the August mine spill.
The public will also have an opportunity to comment during the meeting.
This image was taken during the peak outflow from the Gold King Mine spill at 10:57 a.m. Aug. 5. The waste-rock dump can be seen eroding on the right. Federal investigators placed blame for the blowout squarely on engineering errors made by the Environmental Protection Agency’s-contracted company in a 132-page report released Thursday [October 22, 2015]
Arkansas River issues took center stage at this week’s meeting of the Colorado Water Conservation Board at Otero Junior College.
The board awarded 11 grants totaling $734,000 to projects in the Arkansas Valley, while touring some other projects in the La Junta area that already are underway. It also reviewed the progress of a pilot program by the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch, which was authorized under legislation in 2013 and heard plans by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water
Conservancy District to introduce new water banking legislation.
Diane Hoppe at CFWE President’s Award Reception 2012
The board paused for about an hour Wednesday to remember Diane Hoppe, who chaired the board until her death last month. Hoppe was a former state lawmaker who had been active in state water issues for more than 30 years.
On Tuesday, the CWCB staff and board toured the Catlin Canal, a channel-clearing project at North La Junta and a flume-replacement project on the Fort Lyon Canal.
The Catlin project is overseen directly by the CWCB under HB1248, which allows the state to do administrative water transfers without changThe Lower Ark district is championing the Super Ditch as a way to allow farmers to keep water rights while leasing some water to cities.
In the Catlin project, river flows are augmented by releases of water stored in Lake Pueblo and recharge ponds that have been built on farms. Cropland is dried up for no more than three years in 10, and the water is leased to Fowler, Fountain and Security.
At Wednesday’s session, Lower Ark attorney Leah Martinsson explained new legislation that would expand the concept to allow the CWCB to administer small transfers of water through a new kind of water bank. Past efforts to establish water banks relied on storage, while the new concept would allow direct flow rights to be leased.
“This is a different kind of tool,” Martinsson said. The bill, not yet numbered, would be sponsored by Democrat Reps. Jeni Arndt of Fort Collins and Ed Vigil of Fort Garland and Sen. Larry Crowder, R-Alamosa.
Like HB1248, the new law would put a 3-in-10 year limit on dry-ups, require approval by the state engineer and prohibit transfers out of basin. It would rely on court-approved rules to allow transfers, but would not create a new kind of water right. It covers small transfers over a 10-year period to avoid large-scale speculation, Martinsson said.
The draft bill released to the CWCB is 19 pages long and fairly complex. CWCB member Patricia Wells asked whether the board would be expected to review many small transfers using such complicated criteria.
Martinsson replied that the rule-making process and ongoing review by the state engineer would simplify the process.
Peter Nichols, Lower Ark and Super Ditch attorney, said the proposed water bank would be more useful to farmers than existing statutes, giving them flexibility without altering water rights.
“It’s a better way to do this,” Nichols said. “It adds rigor to the process without going to water court for major changes.”
Meanwhile, the CWCB awarded a grant to study flood control on Fountain Creek. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:
Visions, studies and arguments over flood control on Fountain Creek have consumed attention in El Paso and Pueblo counties for the past decade.
Real work may finally be just around the corner — give or take a few bad floods.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board gave its approval this week to a $41,800 grant that will be added to $37,500 in local funds to begin evaluating potential sites for a dam or other flood control structures on Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and Pueblo.
Like the creek itself, getting even to this point has been a meandering process, hitting snags and jumping out of the channel, as Larry Small, executive director of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District explained to the CWCB.
“We first chose two scenarios to move forward,” Small said, explaining that a U.S. Geological Survey studied identified a dam or series of detention ponds between Fountain and Pueblo as the best way to protect Pueblo from intermittent flooding. “The water rights protection task came first.”
After a study last year confirmed flood control on Fountain Creek could be attained without harming water rights, the district moved to the next step of identifying where structures might be located. The existing study by the Army Corps of Engineers is limited to big projects and more than 40 years out of date.
The water rights issue doomed an earlier grant request at the Arkansas Basin Roundtable. Since then, the state Legislature passed a law that allowed storage of flows for flood control for up to 72 hours, except on Fountain Creek. The Fountain Creek district completed its study of water rights last year, however, and it passed roundtable scrutiny.
“We resolved the differences between stakeholders,” Small said. “It showed that water rights are a top priority in future projects.”
The preliminary work is needed as the Fountain Creek district prepares to receive $50 million over a five-year period specifically for flood control projects to protect Pueblo. The district is looking at the money to leverage more funding that would be needed to complete at least $150 million in projects already identified in plans.
The $50 million is a condition of a 1041 permit issued by Pueblo County for construction of the Southern Delivery System pipeline from Pueblo Dam to the El Paso County line.
Here’s the blog post from NOAA (Click through to watch their video.):
According to NOAA’s U.S. Spring Outlook released today areas of the country still under water from torrential rainfall last week have an elevated risk of moderate flooding through the rest of the season. Parts of Louisiana, Arkansas and eastern Texas have an elevated risk of moderate flooding, along with communities along the Mississippi and Missouri River basins and the southeastern United States, from Alabama to North Carolina. Surrounding areas are at risk of minor flooding this spring.
Spring flood risk
U.S. regions at risk for minor (light blue) and moderate (dark blue) flooding from April-June 2016. Large version shows Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. NOAA Climate.gov map, based on NWS forecast.
NOAA hydrologists determine the spring flood risk based on environmental intelligence collected across the country, including late summer and fall precipitation, frost depth, soil saturation levels, stream flows, snowpack, temperatures and rate of snowmelt. This national assessment is a compilation of local threats evaluated by the National Weather Service’s 122 weather forecast offices and 13 river forecast centers. Contributing to the risk of flooding this spring, December 2015 was the wettest December on record for the contiguous United States, according to NOAA climate data.
“Our assessment of spring flood risk is based in large part on saturated soils and elevated streamflows from the Gulf Coast northward along the Mississippi River, although heavy rainfall at any time can cause local or regional flooding, even in places where the risk is currently considered low,” said Tom Graziano, Ph.D., acting director of NOAA’s National Water Center. “We encourage people to be prepared for the range of spring weather threats, including flooding, and tune into local forecasts to monitor their personal risk.”
Drought
Meanwhile, snowmelt and rain continue to improve drought conditions in northern California, while the rest of the state saw only a small benefit from recent precipitation fueled by a near-record El Nino, and remains in a persistent drought condition.
Drought conditions as of March 8, 2016. Large version shows Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto RIco. Map by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data from the Drought Monitor project.
New drought is likely to develop this spring across most of Arizona and western New Mexico.
Seasonal drought outlook for the months of April-June 2016. Large version shows Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Map by NOAA Climate.gov, based on CPC data.
Temperature and precipitation
NOAA climate forecasters announced last week that El Niño conditions remain in place, but a weakening is forecast over the course of the spring months. However, El Niño continues to be a strong climate signal that will shape the nation’s weather this spring.
National precipitation outlook for April-June 2016. Large version shows Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Colors indicate the probability of above- or below-average precipitation, not how far above or blow average the precipitation is likely to be. White indicates equal chances for any outcome—above-, below-, or near-normal precipitation—not a prediction of “normal” conditions. Map by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data from the Climate Prediction Center.
For April through June, the U.S. Spring Outlook favors above-average precipitation across western Alaska, and the southern half of the country including most of California, the Southwest, the Gulf Coast and the Southeast. Below-average precipitation is favored around the Great Lakes, parts of the Pacific Northwest, the southern Alaska Panhandle and Hawaii. Most of the country, except the Central and Southern Plains, is favored to see above-average temperatures from April through June.
National temperature outlook for April-June 2016. Large version shows Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Colors indicate the probability of above- or below-average temperature, not how far above or blow average the temperature is likely to be. White indicates equal chances for any outcome—above-, below-, or near-normal temperature—not a prediction of “normal” conditions. Map by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data from the Climate Prediction Center.
Click here to go to the US Drought Monitor website. Here’s an excerpt:
Summary
A westerly flow of Pacific weather systems pummeled the west coast this U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM) week, bringing much-needed rain and snow to northern California and the Pacific Northwest and improving the drought situation. An upper-level low cut off over Mexico early in the period, funneling tropical moisture into the Lower Mississippi Valley and causing widespread heavy rains and flooding. Meanwhile, upper-level ridging brought above-normal temperatures to much of the country. Precipitation largely missed the Southwest, central to northern Plains, and Southeast. Windy conditions coupled with temperatures well above normal were drying out soils across the Plains. Light to moderate showers fell across Puerto Rico, while Alaska and Hawaii saw another warmer- and drier-than-normal week…
Southern and Central Plains
The upper-level low pressure system funneled saturating rains into the eastern sections of the Southern Plains, but the rains mostly missed the western sections. As noted earlier, extreme eastern Texas received over 10 inches of rain this week, with 2+ inches stretching from southeastern Oklahoma to the lower and mid Rio Grande Valley. D0 and D1 in eastern, central, and southern Texas were eliminated. But rainfall amounts dropped off the further west you went in the region, with virtually no rain measured in the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles into southeast Colorado and southwest Kansas and across most of Nebraska. D0 expanded from the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles into these parts of Colorado and Kansas and also adjacent parts of New Mexico, and D1 was added to the Oklahoma panhandle. USDA NASS reports from March 13 had 45% of the topsoil and 37% of the subsoil in Kansas short or very short of moisture, statewide, with conditions worse in the southwest to central sections, and USGS streamflow was quite low in central Kansas. This was early in the growing season, so only 7% of the winter wheat crop was rated in poor to very poor condition. Even though an inch or more of rain fell locally in western Oklahoma, the D0-D1 was left unchanged there to reflect continued low lake levels. In southeast Colorado, hot temperatures & strong winds were drying out soils and sending crops downhill fast, and numerous range fires were also occurring…
Northern Plains
Where it rained, less than half an inch fell but most locations had little to no rain this week. With dryness for the last 7 days to 6 months, and temperatures 16-20 degrees above normal the past 7 days accompanied by strong winds, soils are drying quickly. Local reports from McIntosh County in North Dakota indicate ponds and dugouts were very low and many small wetlands completely dry, and winter grain planted last fall was developing slowly. D1 expanded in North Dakota to extend from McIntosh/Dickey counties in the south to Eddy County in the north, and D0 expanded further into northeast North Dakota. D0 expanded in northwest and southwest South Dakota, with some expansion into adjacent Wyoming, to reflect dryness at the 7-day to 6-month time scales…
The Far West
A steady stream of Pacific fronts brought precipitation to parts of the Far West every day this USDM week. The precipitation fell as rain at the lower elevations, with 1 to 2 feet of new snow measured at the higher-elevation SNOTEL sites in the Cascades and parts of the Sierra Nevada. Mountain snowpack was near to above average at most of the high elevation SNOTEL sites across the Far West. Ten inches or more of precipitation occurred in favored upslope areas of northern California to Washington, with 2 inches or more from central California to Washington. Precipitation amounts dropped off to the lee of the mountains and in Southern California, with essentially no precipitation falling along the California-Arizona border. This week’s precipitation, coupled with last week’s, totaled over 20 inches in the favored upslope locations. While it improved mountain snowpack and reservoir levels, significant precipitation deficits remained across California from the state’s 4 to 5 year drought.
D1-D4 were pulled back in northern to central California and along the coast based on several criteria. Improvements were made where 6-month precipitation deficits were erased and reservoir levels were restored to average for this date. As of March 14, near-average reservoirs included Shasta Reservoir (106% of average), Folsom Lake (120%), and Lake Oroville (101%). Napa County reservoirs are all full, apart from Berryessa. But most of the other California Department of Water Resources (DWR) reservoirs were still below-average, including Trinity Lake in the north (at 60% of average). The surface soils were saturated due to the recent rains, but the deeper groundwater levels had not recovered. Wells were still going dry in Tuolumne County and deficits continued in groundwater and reservoir levels supplying areas such as San Joaquin County. DWR March 14 statistics showed mountain snowpack snow water content (SWE) at 100% of the April 1 average in the Northern region, 90% in the Central region, and 77% in the Southern region. With a near to below-normal mountain snowpack, streamflow is expected to be near to below normal during this summer at current projections…
Rockies, Intermountain West, and Southwest
Two inches or more of precipitation fell in the northern Rockies, improving SWE to near to above normal. Details are discussed in the Pacific Northwest section of The Far West section. Precipitation amounts dropped off considerably to the south, with little to no precipitation falling across much of the Southwest. Mountain snowpack was effectively melted out already in Arizona and New Mexico, having dry implications for spring and summer streamflow. SWE was near to above normal at many SNOTEL sites in Utah and Colorado and further north. WYTD precipitation was below normal across western New Mexico and much of Arizona. New Mexico was seriously drying out now with back-to-back days of red flag fire warnings and wind advisories. Some of the wildfires were large in southwest New Mexico. D0 and D1 expanded in western New Mexico, with a bit of D1 enlargement in adjacent eastern Arizona.
D4 was removed from western Nevada east of Lake Tahoe in Washoe, Storey, Carson City, Lyon, and Douglas Counties. Even though this area was in a rain shadow and didn’t benefit much from the systems of the last 2 weeks as did California, the area shows up as wet at 6-24 months, is benefiting from the above-normal SWE in the Sierra Nevada to the west, and has improved water supply along the Truckee and Carson rivers. D3 should be adequate to reflect the ongoing drought status.
In the Pacific Northwest, D0 was pulled back in eastern Washington-northern Idaho-northwest Montana to reflect above-normal precipitation for the water year-to-date (WYTD) and near to above-average reservoirs and SNOTEL SWE. The D1 in southeast Idaho was removed due to above-normal precipitation for the last 7 days to 12 months, and near to above-average reservoirs. In southwest Oregon, soils were saturated and producing sustained flow of water in draws where there is rarely water, higher elevation snowpack was above normal, and reservoirs have responded well. Crater Lake reported 120 inches of snow on the ground March 13, which compares to an annual peak daily value of 149 inches. D2 was pulled back in southwest Oregon to reflect these improved conditions. In eastern Oregon, the large Owyhee, Warm Springs, and Phillips Reservoirs were still below average, but the smaller reservoirs were near to above average (Bully Creek, Thief Valley, Beulah, Unity). In northeast Oregon, McKay Rerservoir was near normal but Cold Springs was still below normal. In central Oregon (Deschutes Basin), Wickiup was still below average but Prineville, Crescent Lake, Crane Prairie, and Ochoco were above average. SNOTEL SWE percentiles were a mixed bag in central to eastern Oregon (some above average and some below), but SNOTEL WYTD precipitation was mostly above average. D2 shrank in northeast Oregon to reflect improved reservoir and SWE conditions, but D1-D2 in southeast Oregon were left alone to reflect precipitation deficits which show up at many time scales…
Looking Ahead
During the next 5 days (March 17-21), a ridge will develop over the western U.S., bringing warmer-than-normal temperatures, and a trough over the east with colder-than-normal air masses. Up to 2 inches of precipitation may fall along the northern California to Washington coast, with a tenth of an inch to an inch further inland over the interior Northwest and central to northern Rockies. But most of the West to Great Plains will see little to no precipitation. Coastal lows will spread up to an inch to 2 inches from central Texas, along the Gulf of Mexico Coast, and up the Atlantic coast, and an inch to 2 inches may fall over the western Great Lakes. But precipitation is expected to be less towards the Ohio Valley with less than a quarter inch falling from the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys to the Mississippi Valley.
For days 6-10 (March 22-26), the odds favor below-normal precipitation in northern Alaska, in the Southwest to southern Plains of the CONUS, and along the Southeast coast, and above-normal precipitation across the northern tier states and along the Mississippi to Ohio Valleys. Above-normal temperatures are expected everywhere except northern Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and southern Florida.
Holding water. The Ruedi spillway and dam on the Fryingpan River above Basalt.
BASALT – The Colorado Water Conservation Board is poised to approve a second round of water releases from Ruedi Reservoir for the benefit of endangered fish in a 15-mile reach of the Colorado River above Grand Junction.
Like last year, the CWCB wants to release up to 12,000 acre-feet of water from Ruedi and send it down the Fryingpan, Roaring Fork and Colorado rivers to help struggling populations of Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, ponytail, and humpback chub.
The CWCB signed a lease with the Ute Water Conservancy District in August to release the district’s 12,000 acre-feet, a back-up supply of water that it owns in Ruedi.
In September, 6,000 acre-feet of water was released from Ruedi, and another 3,000 acre-feet of water was released in October.
In an effort to maintain both fishing in the Fryingpan and hydropower production at the Ruedi dam, the flow rate did not exceed 300 cubic feet per second during the two months of releases, or cause the Fryingpan to go above 350 cfs.
The CWCB paid Ute Water $64,800 for the 9,000 acre-feet of water it actually used against its 12,00 acre-feet lease agreement. The price offsets what the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation charges Ute Water for managing the water in Ruedi.
Ute Water provides water to over 80,000 people in Palisade, Clifton, Grand Junction, Fruita, Loma and Mack. The district’s main water sources are on the Grand Mesa.
It paid $15.6 million in 2013 to the Bureau of Reclamation for the 12,000 acre-feet in Ruedi. It’s a back-up or emergency water supply for Ute Water that can also be used for instream flow purposes.
Concluding in a March 17 memo that last year’s release program “by most accounts, worked very well for everyone involved,” CWCB staffers are now proposing entering into a second one-year lease for Ute Water’s 12,000 acre-feet of Ruedi water.
At a CWCB board meeting Thursday in La Junta, CWCB staffers will seek approval for a lease with the same terms as last year, or 12,000 acre-feet for $86,400. The agency has $435,000 to spend for instream flow purposes from its Conservation Species Trust program.
The 2016 lease between CWCB and Ute Water includes the same release limit of 300 cfs and the same river-flow cap of 350 cfs below Ruedi.
CWCB staffers are set to meet with local stakeholders in the Eagle County Building in El Jebel on Monday, March 21, at 4 p.m. to talk about this year’s “lease and release” program.
The meeting is, somewhat awkwardly, four days after the lease is to be considered by the CWCB board of directors.
Mark Fuller, director of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority, which is coordinating Monday’s meeting in El Jebel, said it wasn’t possible to schedule a meeting before this week’s CWCB meeting.
Ruedi Water, Pitkin County and the city of Aspen have all told the CWCB they have concerns about the release program, including that it might set a precedent for higher flows in the lower Fryingingpan, which could crimp recreation.
Higher flows in the river make wading trickier for anglers, and releases drop the water levels in the reservoir, making it harder to launch and take out boats.
The lower Fryingpan River in March.
CWCB pleased
In their March 17 memo, CWCB staffers said last fall’s release of 9,000 acre-feet “resulted in higher flows in the 15-mile reach and provided some operational flexibility for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and operators of other reservoirs that release water in late summer to benefit the endangered fish habitat.”
The CWCB, a state agency charged with both water-supply planning and environmental protection, holds an instream flow right of 581 cfs in the 15-mile reach, which starts at the river-wide roller dam in lower DeBeque Canyon above Palisade.
“This reach is sensitive to water depletions because of its location downstream of several large diversions,” a CWCB memo from May 2015 states. “It provides spawning habitat for these endangered fish species as well as high-quality habitat for adult fish.
“Due to development on the Colorado River, this reach has experienced declining flows and significant dewatering during the late summer months, and at times, there are shortages in the springtime,” the memo adds.
The CWCB’s release program has the support of the Colorado Water Trust, Western Resource Advocates, The Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited.
But Ruedi Water also expressed concern about how the program may change long-standing water management practices on the lower Fryingpan.
The authority, in a May 2015 letter to CWCB, said the benefits of helping endangered fish “must be balanced with protection of existing economic, recreational and environmental values that have been fostered by Ruedi Reservoir management practices over the last 40-plus years.”
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 Monday, March 15, 2016.
Crews put the finishing touches on a new diversion structure on the Poudre River near the Environmental Learning Center just west of Interstate 25 [February 2016]. Specialists used rocks to create just the right shape and size of pool, at right, at the edge of a passage for native fish species. (Fort Collins Natural Areas / Special to the Reporter-Herald)
From the Loveland Reporter-Herald (Pamela Johnson):
The passage will allow many fish species to migrate upstream to expand their habitat and seek refuge from predators — a move that will counteract habitat destruction without affecting agricultural use and water rights.
“We saw this as a win-win to work with North Poudre,” said Jennifer Shanahan, watershed planner with Fort Collins Natural Areas Department.
“Our goal is, over the next decade or two or three, to improve the river by creating more fish habitat.”
[…]
North Poudre Irrigation Co. was willing to work with the natural areas specialists and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to build one such diversion into the structure that pulls water from the Poudre River to fill Fossil Creek Reservoir.
The original diversion structure was constructed between 1902 and 1910 and was rebuilt in the 1980s. Then, the 2013 floods took out the entire structure.
The North [Poudre] Irrigation Co. built a new diversion structure in the same location, next to the Environmental Learning Center, last month.
Included in the $860,000 project, completed with a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board was the fish passage, designed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Scott Hummer, general manager of North Poudre Irrigation Company, talks about how his agency worked with Fort Collins Natural Areas and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to include a fish passage when the irrigation company replaced a diversion structure on the Poudre River that was destroyed by the 2013 floods. Work was completed [in February 2016]. (Pamela Johnson / Loveland Reporter-Herald)
“This is the first true fish passage to be constructed into an operation (on the Poudre) that has been a truly agricultural operation,” said Scott Hummer, general manager of the irrigation company.
Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, excited to cooperate on the project, pitched in $30,000.
The passage is designed with specially placed rocks that allow the fish to migrate upstream, stopping and resting behind the rocks when needed, Shanahan explained. Also, the pool at one side of the passage was crafted with rocks to create a specialized effect for the benefit of fish.
“Fish passage is only one piece of the puzzle,” said Shanahan. “It’s opening the door to get to the next level, sustained low flow.”
This means that there would always be a certain level of water in the river, which sometimes runs dry in areas depending upon how much water is being diverted for agricultural and domestic water use.
Natural areas officials understand the importance of water rights and are in no way wanting to challenge or limit those uses, Shanahan said.
What they hope to do, and what has been happening through a local coalition called The Poudre Runs Through It, is to bring those water users together with environmentalists, rafters, researchers and farmers to find creative ways to meet all needs of the river. That effort is underway.
“It’s a creative way that is not stepping on anyone’s water rights,” Shanahan said, stressing that it is important for water users to realize the goal includes maintaining their water rights.
Added Hummer, “It’s new ground for some people, so people are cautious.”
The group, and river specialists, hope to find a unique solution that will continue to improve the fish habitat in the river, which will benefit the health or the river as well as the recreation and habitat that surround the Poudre.
Lead comparable to levels in Flint, Michigan, has contaminated drinking water sources in a place you might least expect: the picturesque mountains near Estes Park, known for its spectacular views of Rocky Mountain National Park.
Documents show four locations clustered near Estes Park since 2012 have met or exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s action level for lead in drinking water.
The results catapulted Larimer County to a tie for the most sites in the state with drinking water test results of 15 or more parts of lead per billion parts of water between 2012 and 2015. Clear Creek County, west of Denver along Interstate 70, also had four sites with lead contamination during that period.
Fort Collins tested well below federal lead standards.
The Estes Park sites are:
YMCA of the Rockies, which sees thousands of guests annually and has flirted with the action level for lead since at least 2012.
Covenant Heights Camp and Retreat, which in 2015 saw lead levels in two staff cabins comparable to the highest levels documented in Flint.
Prospect Mountain Water Company, which supplies water to about 120 Estes Park residents and as recently as 2014 displayed an average lead about equal to Flint.
Ravencrest Chalet, a bible school and retreat that just exceeded the action level for lead in 2013.
Officials with the town of Estes Park water system, which supplies water to Prospect Mountain Water Company and Ravencrest Chalet but operates independently from all four sites, said Estes Park water sources aren’t to blame for the lead contamination. The Estes Park water system tested 2 parts per billion for lead in 2015, and none of its 23 samples exceeded the EPA’s action level of 15 ppb.
“They have their own distribution systems,” Estes Park water distribution supervisor Cliff Tedder said of the contaminated sites. “Whatever they’re doing isn’t working.”
‘Fully compliant’
YMCA of the Rockies, located just southwest of Estes Park, supplies drinking water to more than 3,700 guests and staffers. It is the largest water system in Estes Park that has seen elevated lead levels. YMCA collects water from the Wind River Stream diversion, disinfects it and distributes it to guests and staff independently of Estes Park’s water system. YMCA uses a corrosion control system, spokeswoman Martha Sortland said.
YMCA’s lead levels tested from 10 to 60 water samples around the property, has been 15 ppb four times since 2012. Every year since at least 2012, at least one drinking water sample from the property has tested at or above 15 ppb.
Sortland said at least one of the samples that contained lead higher than the EPA’s action level came from a guest cabin. But YMCA didn’t take action because “we were, and are, fully compliant with Colorado drinking water regulations,” Sortland said.
She’s right.
A water system’s 90th percentile lead value, which means 90 percent of test sites will have levels below the threshold, has to be more than, not equal to, 15 ppb to trigger action such as mandatory treatment plans and public water quality warnings. But the facility’s water contained more than seven times the amount of lead present in Town of Estes Park water.
FromUSA Today (Trevor Hughes) via the Fort Collins Coloradan:
[Firestone] officials repeatedly notified all water customers of the high levels and distributed information explaining how to reduce the risk. But the town, about 30 miles north of Denver, has taken no direct action to help residents replace the aging faucets and fixtures blamed for leaching lead into their drinking water.
The town’s testing found lead contamination only in homes built before 1986…
The town’s water provider installed a system in the fall to inject a phosphate coating agent into the water to help reduce the corrosive effect that leaches lead from plumbing. That’s the solution required by state regulators, who say Firestone is making progress in bringing down lead levels.
“It is our hope that this additive to our water supply will continue to reduce the lead levels inside these older homes,” Mayor Paul Sorensen said in a prepared statement.
Like many fast-growing towns on Colorado’s Front Range, Firestone is a small, old-town area surrounded with new suburbs. The town has a few blocks of old homes amidst nearly 3,500 newer ones.
In Firestone’s case, testing never has found lead in the municipal water supply or in any of the newer homes. That means the bulk of the town’s 12,000 residents face almost no risk.
Engineers, attorneys and those who explain the complications of the world of water control in Colorado met on Tuesday in La Junta at the beginning of a three-day conference of the Colorado Water [Conservation] Board, the first in 10 years to be hosted here.
Tuesday was a day of touring projects currently sponsored in part or in whole by the CWCB, including The Catlin Canal Pilot Project, the North La Junta Flood Mitigation project, and the Fort Lyon Canal Horse Creek Flume Replacement.
The Catlin Canal Pilot Project was explained by Jack Vogle, Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy Board engineer. He gave a rundown on the Super Ditch, a program introduced three years ago to help both municipalities to get water and farmers to gain income. He explained that farmers can fallow up to 30 pecent of their cultivated land (that is, not irrigate), giving their water right portion of water to municipalities. In return, they are paid $1,020 per acre for the water that would have gone to the irrigation of the fallowed acres. The farmers may plant a cover crop to prevent weed invasion and blowing dirt, but they may not irrigate the land. Six farms are engaged in the Catlin Canal Pilot Project, which is now in its second year. So far, the results have been good for both the cities and the farmers.
The CWCB group met at the recharge pond on the Schweizer property. This is a plowed shallow area to gather water and allow the water to seep back into the ground to replace water that would historically have been returned to the river by the irrigated fields. This recharge pond will seep into Timpas Creek, which flows into the Arkansas River near La Junta. The other recharge pond is located on the Hanagan farm at Swink, visible from Highway 50 on the north side of the road.
The second site visited was the North La Junta Flood Mitigation project, where Gary Harper, the project’s grant writer, Jeanette Myers, LAVWCD Manageer Jay Winner and Otero County Commissioner Kevin Karney explained the difficulty, the improbability and the success of the project so far. At this time, five islands which created a pinch point on the Arkansas River at North La Junta have been removed, with the result that, although a record flow may be spilled down the Arkansas from the Pueblo Dam this year in April, the water will flow on down the stream without flooding North La Junta. It is a win-win situation for North La Junta and water users downstream. CWCB members could be heard discussing how economically the project has been managed so far. Phase I is complete, but Phase II will be up for approval on Wednesday afternoon at the CWCB meeting, open to the public at Otero Junior College Student Center.
The third site visited was the Fort Lyon Canal Flume project site. The Fort Lyon Canal, largest ditch in Colorado, is 140 miles long. The flume project is a gigantic pipe which replaces a previous flume which had failed after seven years. Last year the new pipe filled up 31 times, with an average of 220 acre-feet of water transferred each time. “Money well spent,” commented Travis Smith, representative from the San Luis Valley Irrigation District and representative to the CWCB from the Rio Grande Basin.
From email from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Ben Wade):
A Joint Water Availability & Flood Task Force meeting will be held on Thursday, March 24, 2016 from 9am-12:00p at the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Headquarters, 6060 Broadway, Denver in the Bighorn Room.
Here’s the release from Colorado Trout Unlimited (Randy Schofield):
Trout Unlimited has awarded Denver Water, the Denver metro area’s largest water utility, its 2016 River Stewardship Award, recognizing the utility’s leadership in urban water conservation and its collaborative efforts with Trout Unlimited and other stakeholders to promote river health in the Upper Colorado River and South Platte basins. TU presented the award at its annual River Stewardship Gala http://coloradotu.org/2016/02/2016-river-stewardship-gala/ Thursday evening at Mile High Station in Denver.
“We’re recognizing the fact that, 25 years after the divisive Two Forks Dam battle, Denver has engaged former adversaries as partners in a shared 21st Century effort for river stewardship,” said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “That’s a remarkable and encouraging sign of progress in protecting the rivers that help sustain Colorado’s wildlife, communities and recreation economy.”
Denver Water provides water supply to approximately 25 percent of Colorado’s population with less than 2 percent of all the water used in the state and has been a leader in advancing water conservation, with customers reducing water use by more than 20 percent over the past 10 years, despite a 10 percent increase in population.
Denver has also established new collaborative relationships with the West Slope and with conservation groups, including TU, to help improve river conditions in the Colorado River headwaters through “Learning By Doing https://denverwaterblog.org/2016/01/27/ending-a-rocky-mountain-family-feud/,” a monitoring and adaptive management program with the goal of maintaining, and where possible, improving the health of Colorado River headwater streams in Grand County http://coloradotu.org/2014/07/moffat-agreement-whats-in-it-for-the-river/. Under LBD, Denver has agreed to promote flexibility in their operations to deliver flows when and where they are most needed to minimize river impacts, as well as invest in restoration projects to help improve stream habitat and water quality.
The LBD partnerships follow similar collaborative efforts in the South Platte River through the South Platte Protection Plan, which emerged as a locally developed alternative to Wild and Scenic designations being considered for segments on the South Platte River upstream of Denver. For nearly 12 years, the Plan has promoted collaboration among water suppliers, local governments, recreationists and conservationists – including flow management, an endowment to support investment in
river-related values, and partnerships for water quality and watershed health. Development of the Plan also inspired the creation of the Coalition for the Upper South Platte, a group that has helped direct millions of dollars into watershed restoration efforts including post-Hayman fire recovery projects.
“In the years since the Two Forks veto, Denver Water has truly changed its culture,” said Nickum. “Rather than looking at conservationists and the West Slope as enemies to be defeated, they have engaged those parties as allies in conserving the watersheds we all share. Colorado TU is pleased to recognize Denver Water for its leadership in promoting partnerships that not only supply water to Denver citizens, but also promote stewardship of Colorado’s rivers as well.”
“Part of what makes Colorado an amazing state are our great cities, variety of recreational opportunities and beautiful natural environment. Denver Water is committed to continuing to collaboratively work together with partners from all sectors to keep our rivers healthy,” said Jim Lochhead, Denver Water CEO/manager. “We’re honored to receive the 2016 River Stewardship Award from Trout Unlimited and look forward to continuing our work with them in the future.”
Denver Water CEO Jim Lochhead, left, receives award from CTU executive director David Nickum
The Upper Colorado River system and the Fraser/Williams Fork rivers
provide important aquatic habitat and serve as a critical municipal,
agricultural, recreational and industrial water supply for the state as
a whole. A substantial percentage of the native flows of the Colorado,
Fraser and Williams Fork rivers is currently diverted for Front Range
water supply projects, and as a result, the health of the rivers has
declined over the years. Two projects will divert additional native
flows from these rivers across the Continental Divide to meet growing
municipal needs of the Front Range: the Windy Gap Firming Project and
the Moffat Collection System Project. Although these two projects
triggered conflicts between West Slope and East Slope entities, years of
negotiation produced the 2012 Colorado River Cooperative Agreement
(CRCA), which establishes a long‐term partnership between Denver Water
and the West Slope. The CRCA is a framework for numerous actions to
benefit water supply, water quality, recreation, and the environment on
both sides of the Continental Divide. The LBD Cooperative Effort emerged
from the CRCA.
“If you build it, they will come,” said [Ben Nielsen], an engineer at Denver’s McLaughlin Whitewater Design Group, a subsidiary Merrick & Co. “I think these projects make a market for activities like stand-up paddle boarding, kayaking, really anything having to do with any kind of watercraft. I don’t think it’s a huge leap of faith to say that this park will help make a surfing market in Denver.”
Nielsen and his team plan to redevelop a half-mile stretch of the South Platte River, just north of Union Avenue, into a park with a jungle gym, trail system and underwater ramps for river surfing. The $14 million complex, called “River Run Park,” aims to add six surfable waves to the Platte once it’s complete in spring 2017.
The first phase, which is under construction and set to open this year, will feature ramps on the bottom of the riverbed that create waves by diverting the water’s flow. One of the ramps, called a “waveshaper,” has hydraulic pumps that can change its angle in order to alter the size of the waves.
The second phase, which will include a trailhead, fish habitat and four more wave features, will begin construction this year and is slated for completion in 2017.
The project is being funded through grants from Arapahoe County, the City of Englewood and the State of Colorado, Nielsen said. Get Outdoors Colorado (GoCO), a public institution that uses proceeds from lottery sales to fund outdoor projects, will vote on a resolution to fund the project next month.
Surfing rivers is different from riding the massive waves off the coast of Hawaii or California. For one, river surfers don’t actually move down the river while they ride. The waves from the underwater ramps push surfers in the opposite direction of the river’s flow, keeping them essentially in the same spot.
And river surfboards differ in design from their ocean counterparts. River boards generally use more fiberglass in their construction because they have to stand up to rocky riverbeds.
Oxford Reach Whitewater Park Looking Upstream Toward Oxford Avenue via Arapahoe County.
The orange plume flows through the Animas across the Colorado/New Mexico state line the afternoon of Aug. 7, 2015. (Photo by Melissa May, San Juan Soil and Conservation District)
New Mexico officials Tuesday accused Colorado of blindly accepting assurances from the Environmental Protection Agency that the Animas River has returned to conditions that existed before the Gold King Mine disaster — and warned they’re still mulling a legal battle.
New Mexico’s chief environmental official also is pressing the EPA to reimburse $1.5 million spent responding to the agency-triggered Aug. 5 blowout, which spilled 880,000 pounds of acidic heavy metals downriver.
“Colorado and the EPA keep saying everything has returned to pre-event levels. That’s just false, not backed up by the data,” said New Mexico’s Ryan Flynn, a Cabinet secretary who runs the state Environment Department.
“There’s still a hazard. The risk is still there. We’re having to deal with that risk. We shouldn’t be having to address, on our own, a risk that was created by others,” Flynn said.
Colorado officials didn’t respond.
EPA spokeswoman Nancy Grantham said the agency has been working with New Mexico “and will review their submission as quickly as possible.” New Mexico sought reimbursement for about $375,000 about a week ago then revised that to include additional response costs, Grantham said…
New Mexico residents in Farmington, Aztec and other communities have raised concerns about lead and other heavy metals deposited along river banks. They contend that heavy rain and flooding dislodge contaminants, causing spikes in lead levels. They acknowledge that municipal treatment plants remove contaminants and that lead may have existed in soil before the disaster — but they demand further study…
And New Mexico also is pleased that Silverton residents and Gov. John Hickenlooper have asked the EPA to launch a Superfund cleanup, he said. “But the jury is still out on whether we’re going to move forward to court.”
A $1.5 million bill sent by New Mexico to the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday could be the last chance for federal officials and the state of Colorado to avoid a lawsuit related to the Gold King Mine spill.
Meanwhile, Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman on Tuesday asked the EPA to quickly resolve individuals’ claims, which have not been settled more than seven months after the incident.
The requests from New Mexico and Colorado highlight the uncertainty that lingers in the aftermath of the spill.
New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ryan Flynn told The Durango Herald on Tuesday that his researchers reject assertions from Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Colorado environment officials that the Animas River quickly returned to safe pre-event conditions after the Aug. 5 spill of toxic heavy metals.
The rift between New Mexico and Colorado is a departure from the unity promised when Coffman hosted the attorneys general of New Mexico and Utah in Rotary Park in Durango just a week after the spill…
New Mexico also asked the EPA to provide financial and technical support for a long-term monitoring plan it developed in partnership with Utah. And the state wants a seat at the table for ongoing Superfund discussions.
“If we can’t come to alignment on those issues, then ultimately the state of New Mexico will have to do what is necessary to make sure our communities are protected,” Flynn said.
Coffman said her office has been in communication with New Mexico.
“I think these interstate matters are best resolved by talking to one another rather than lashing out in the press …” she said in an email to The Durango Herald. “We are committed to working with all the parties affected by this catastrophe to reach a good outcome as quickly as possible.”
Coffman’s letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressed concern for EPA’s “apparent failure to process claims of citizens” affected by the spill.
Fifty-one claims from individuals totaling nearly $5 million have not been paid, despite the EPA promising to “make every effort” to respond quickly.
“EPA’s inaction effectively forces Colorado citizens into federal court to resolve their claims or they must suffer further delay and uncertainty …” Coffman wrote to McCarthy. “Neither is fair or consistent with your commitment to take full responsibility for the damage.”
In January, New Mexico officials filed a notice of intent to sue the EPA and Colorado. A lawsuit could come as early as mid-April.
Colorado would become entangled in the lawsuit, as Flynn and attorneys for his department suggest that the state is liable for the incident. He added that his office is working “in lockstep” with New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas’ office…
Colorado officials with the Department of Natural Resources have maintained since September that its Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety was never on board with the EPA’s restoration plan.
The disagreement came to light after the Aug. 24 release of an internal investigation by the EPA that determined that the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety agreed to put drainage piping through the entrance of the mine, contributing to the spill.
But former Colorado Department of Natural Resources Director Mike King wrote in response to the EPA’s investigation: “DRMS did not have any authority to manage, assess, or approve any work at the Gold King Mine … Operations at Gold King were entirely under EPA management using EPA contractors on an EPA response action.”
For its part, Colorado state officials submitted a request to the EPA for reimbursements of approximately $315,000. The request is being evaluated.
Separately, the EPA made initial payments of $197,792 to La Plata County and $220,000 to San Juan County. Another $71,571 is pending to the San Juan Basin Health Department…
The EPA also is working with states and tribal governments to allocate $2 million for water-quality monitoring, according to Grantham. She added that the agency is addressing New Mexico’s $1.5 million request.
A spokeswoman for Hickenlooper said the office would “not weigh in on Mr. Flynn’s comments. We remain focused on the work at hand which is supporting our local communities.”
“From afar, there seems to be this strange dance that’s occurring between the state of Colorado and EPA, where on one hand you have certain agencies like CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) who seem strongly aligned with EPA and … on the other hand, you have agencies like the Department of Natural Resources in Colorado who really seem to be disagreeing with EPA …” Flynn added. “I’m hopeful that Colorado will join the other downstream communities and really have that conversation so we can put in place some measures … to move forward.”
Location map for abandoned mine near Silverton. The Silver Wing is in the upper right corner of the aerial.
This is the oldest known photo of Louisville. In this beautiful image you are looking west on Spruce Steet from Main Street and can see the Flatirons in the hazy distance. This photo provides an amazing feel of how wide open the spaces were between the new cities on the front range. Photo via DowntownLouisville.com.
Seeing a significant need for infrastructure repair, the Louisville City Council on Tuesday approved a 13 percent water utility rate increase for 2017, with city ratepayers projected to see their bills rise much higher over the next five years.
The average Louisville ratepayer currently forks over $63 combined for water, wastewater and stormwater services, and the newly approved schedule will see that figure bumped up to $71 on May 1, through the end of 2017. Unofficial projections from the city suggest the average could be in the range of $93 by 2021. And 10 years from now, citizens may be paying twice what they pay now.
According to staff from the city’s Public Works Department, the extra money will fund improvements at the Louisville wastewater treatment plant that bring the city to compliance with mandatory federal and state standards. The rate increases will also provide revenue that staff believes is needed to properly operate and maintain city utility systems.
Though the City Council unanimously approved the hike, several lamented the rising cost burden on citizens.
“We’re at the point now where we have to make significant reinvestment,” Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Lipton said. “But we’re looking at raising rates another 48 percent over five years. Some people can afford it, some people are going to be challenged by it, but we’ve always got to keep this in mind. … We’re continuing to increase the cost of living here in a variety of ways.
FromThe Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
A curious local meteorologist’s dive into century-old regional weather data has yielded a disconcerting finding — a notable increase in average minimum weather temperatures consistent with the expectations of climate-change researchers.
National Weather Service forecaster Joe Ramey has analyzed records from 11 western Colorado and eastern Utah sites all dating back to at least 1911, including both valley and higher-elevation communities. He found that while average maximum temperatures per decade haven’t changed much over the last century, average minimum temperatures showed a notable increase. The increase has largely occurred since the 1970s, rising from 28.7 degrees that decade to 31.8 degrees for 2011-15, when that half-decade is included in the comparison.
Ramey said while he was surprised to see average minimum temperatures rise noticeably, but not average maximums, in fact that’s in keeping with what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been saying to expect with a changing climate.
The IPCC has said to expect faster increases in daily minimum temperatures than daily maximum ones almost everywhere, leading to a decrease in 24-hour temperature ranges. In 2011, when NOAA reported a half-degree overall U.S. increase in temperatures between 1981-2010, compared to 1971-2000, it showed higher jumps in nighttime maximum temperatures than daytime maximums in many states.
“That’s what NOAA has been saying for awhile, that we would see larger changes in the minimum temperature, and indeed that’s what I found occurring here,” Ramey said of his local findings.
“It’s data, right. It’s not wisdom, and it’s no projection for the future. … But what I’m seeing at local specific sites in our forecast areas is what seems to fit for what NOAA says for the nation and what IPCC is saying for the planet.”
‘A very simple study’
Ramey said he undertook what is “really a very simple study” involving crunching historical weather records in the region and seeing what trends they might reveal. It was driven in part by personal curiosity, and also by a side climate assignment of his job, outside his forecasting work. He became interested in going beyond what NOAA was saying, and trying to better determine what was going on specific to the region.
He first began looking at 30-year averages that are updated once a decade, most recently in 2011, to look for changes over time. He compared data from 21 sites, but as he went further back in time he got to the point where just 11 remained that date back to at least 1911, and he focused on them.
While detecting the temperature trend, he worried that some of those long-term monitoring sites may have been affected over time by things such as changes in specific measurement locations, changes in the instrumentation used to make measurements, and increasing urbanization that can have effects like warming as pavement and rooftops increase. Grand Junction’s measurement location was originally downtown, for example, before moving twice, most recently to the Grand Junction Regional Airport.
But then Ramey considered the fact that there are weather stations in the region that aren’t subject to these influences — at national parks, monuments and recreation areas. He looked at data from nine of them, including at Colorado and Dinosaur national monuments, and Canyonlands and Mesa Verde national parks. Their one drawback is that their data generally dated back only to the 1960s. But Ramey saw the same distinct pattern of sizable increases in average minimum temperatures per decade and little noticeable change in average maximum temperatures. That similarity in trends gave him confidence that the older data was pretty reliable despite the concerns he’d had about it.
Ramey then looked farther to compare historical records, to places like Salt Lake City, Denver, Fort Collins, Rocky Ford, Taos, N.M., and Lander, Wyo.
“They too showed the same trend as the data that I’d seen here,” he said.
Ramey analyzed precipitation trends as well, and saw a lot of variation over the last century. The wettest decade was the 1980s, with more than 16 inches of annual precipitation on average, but there’s been a drying trend since then.
Ramey said precipitation is a complicated thing to forecast, for seven days much less over the longer term. He said that generally speaking, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, and experts predict that with warming will come wetter wet periods and drier dry periods.
He was careful to note that individual sites he has studied have seen differing trends, and his findings apply to the region as a whole. For example, Grand Junction actually has seen a cooling trend over the last five years, which Ramey suspects may be the result of strong wintertime temperature inversions. The warming trend has been stronger at higher-elevation sites over the last five years than across the region as whole.
Ironically, too, Ramey has noted an actual shortening recently of local growing seasons as determined by first and last frosts, something he thinks might be the result of stronger shoulder-season storms that bring in cold fronts.
Just the facts
Ramey has given some public presentation on his findings, but said he’s not trying to jump to conclusions or forecast the future based on them.
“I’m just trying to show people what we’ve seen since we’ve had a fairly robust hundred years of climate information now — what that information says.”
Asked if he’s concerned about climate change, he said, “Personally, yes it concerns me. But that’s just personally.”
“… I’m trying to avoid any kind of political whatever. My point is, here’s my methodology, here’s what I was curious about … here’s the results, here’s what we’re seeing.”
He said while a lot of people have opinions about climate change, he wanted to see what the facts — the numbers — say in the region. “I think it’s an important, a hugely important topic, and I wanted to say that I actually looked into it and this is what I found.”
He said for him personally, climate change is enough of a concern “that three or four years ago we put solar panels on our house.”
He said that wasn’t an economic decision, as it will take a long time to recover that investment, but it was just something he felt a need to do.
Colorado as a whole has seen an increase in overall average temperatures in recent decades. Nolan Doesken, state climatologist at Colorado State University’s Colorado Climate Center, said those who have tracked such data have tried to normalize comparisons despite changes over the decades such as a decrease in weather stations in the mountains.
“It’s hard to perfectly adjust for major changes in the locations and numbers of weather stations,” he said.
He said there are few individual weather stations with what he considers a perfect long-term weather record, but the stations in Grand Junction and Montrose are two of the better ones on the Western Slope.
He said it’s generally been consistent statewide and nationwide that nighttime minimum temperatures have shown a bit more warming than daytime maximums have. He said one line of thinking is that during the wet 1980s there was increased nighttime cloud cover that trapped heat at night. With the drier period of the last 10 or 15 years, some people believe the discrepancy between average temperature increases between night and day may be diminishing, he said.
Evidence grows
Doesken said he’s been in Grand Junction a number of times, and knows a lot of people locally think the climate is changing and a lot don’t. Scientists are on the side of thinking it is changing, he said, adding, “Every year there’s more evidence on that side of the argument, that’s for sure.
“Fifteen years we said, well, give us another 15 years and we’ll know for sure, and we know a lot more now with 15 more years of information. But now I’ll say for sure we’ll know in 15 years.”
He said if current projections are even halfway close to correct, by 2030 or so it will be distinctly warmer almost everywhere, with what are now considered to be really hot years being pretty much the norm by 2030-40.
Rising temperatures, and the expectation of more to come, concern everyone from Colorado ski resort operators, to forest officials who fear more insect infestations and fires, to water managers.
Hannah Holm, coordinator of the Ruth Powell Hutchins Water Center at Colorado Mesa University, said increasing temperatures are expected to pinch water supplies.
“I think the main thing is that it’s becoming more and more apparent that even in the absence of much change in precipitation, higher temperatures make drought worse because they increase water use by plants, whether that’s native vegetation or agriculture,” she said.
She said Ramey’s findings are in keeping with other data she’s seen experts present. “It’s a pretty consistent story,” she said.
And despite the uncertainty over what may happen precipitation-wise in coming years, “the temperature projections are all pretty consistent and they pretty much all say we’re getting hotter.”
Streamflows also likely will go down, Holm said Tuesday from St. George, Utah, where she was headed into a climate-change presentation at the Utah Water Users Workshop.
A contract for a pilot program that would leave some of Pueblo’s water on the Western Slope was approved Tuesday by the Pueblo Board of Water Works.
Pueblo Water will leave 200 acre-feet (65 million gallons) of water from the Ewing Ditch for a fee of about $134,000 as part of an $11 million pilot project to test tools to manage drought in the Colorado River basin.
The program is paid for by the Upper Colorado River Commission, Bureau of Reclamation, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Denver Water, Central Arizona Water Conservation District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
It will test methods to maintain levels in Lake Powell and Mead through conservation techniques in all seven states in the Colorado River basin.
“How is it tracked?” water board member Kevin McCarthy asked.
“It’s going to be hard to watch 200 acre-feet from the top of Tennessee Pass to Lake Powell,” said Alan Ward, water resources manager. “But in theory, it gets there.”
Pueblo Water only has to bypass the flows, Ward explained.
The board approved the concept last summer, and the bypass is only about one-third of what originally was proposed.
The Ewing Ditch was purchased by Pueblo Water from Otero Canal in 1954 after it was dug in 1880 to bring Colorado River basin water over Tennessee Pass into the Arkansas River basin. It typically yields about 900-1,000 acrefeet per year, although the amount can vary. In some years, such as 2015, there might not be places to store the water.
The water board also passed a resolution supporting HB1005, which would legalize rain barrels in Colorado. Board President Nick Gradisar requested the resolution after already offering his personal support to the bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Daneya Esgar, D-Pueblo.
A contract of $275,000 to Black & Veatch to study water distribution was also approved.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
![This image was taken during the peak outflow from the Gold King Mine spill at 10:57 a.m. Aug. 5. The waste-rock dump can be seen eroding on the right. Federal investigators placed blame for the blowout squarely on engineering errors made by the Environmental Protection Agency’s-contracted company in a 132-page report released Thursday [October 22, 2015]](https://i0.wp.com/coyotegulch.blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/goldkingminespill1057am08052015viaepa.png?ssl=1)
![Crews put the finishing touches on a new diversion structure on the Poudre River near the Environmental Learning Center just west of Interstate 25 [February 2016]. Specialists used rocks to create just the right shape and size of pool, at right, at the edge of a passage for native fish species. (Fort Collins Natural Areas / Special to the Reporter-Herald)](https://i0.wp.com/coyotegulch.blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/cachelapoudrefishpassageconstruction032016fortcollinsnaturalareas.png?resize=700%2C424&ssl=1)
![Scott Hummer, general manager of North Poudre Irrigation Company, talks about how his agency worked with Fort Collins Natural Areas and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to include a fish passage when the irrigation company replaced a diversion structure on the Poudre River that was destroyed by the 2013 floods. Work was completed [in February 2016]. (Pamela Johnson / Loveland Reporter-Herald)](https://i0.wp.com/coyotegulch.blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/cachelapoudrefishpassage022016lovelandreporterheraldscotthummer.png?resize=300%2C201&ssl=1)
