Following heavy rains which fell mid-Septembet 2013 in Colorado, the pool elevation at the Bear Creek reservoir rose several feet. At 4 a.m., Sept. 15, the reservoir pool elevation surpassed its previous record elevation of 5587.1 feet, and peaked at a pool elevation of 5607.9 ft on Sept. 22, shown here. Bear Creek Dam did what it was designed to do by catching the runoff and reducing flooding risks to the hundreds of homes located downstream.
To see how a dam on Fountain Creek might function, it isn’t necessary to look far.
For more than 30 years, three flood control dams have protected downtown Denver from flooding. The first was built on Cherry Creek in 1950, but when waters from the 1965 flood inundated Denver, two other dams, Chatfield and Bear Creek were also built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Of the three, Bear Creek Lake is the most similar to the type that would be built on Fountain Creek.
The earthen dam, 1 mile long, was completed in 1982 and usually stores a relatively small amount of water, about 2,000 acre-feet. Most of the remaining area behind and around the dam is a city of Lakewood park, which offers camping, fishing, picnic areas, trails, archery ranges and golf courses. Other recreational lakes and wetlands are behind the dam.
But twice in the past three years, the dam has prevented millions of dollars of damage by holding back water in a 236-square-mile drainage area — its primary function.
“It reached a record level in 2013 and close to that level in 2015,” said Joe Maxwell, operations manager for the Corps. “There were no abnormalities found as we monitored and it performed as it should.”
Wall of water
In the September 2013 flood, the largest in Colorado’s recorded history, damage to numerous communities, highways and water structures was recorded. But Bear Creek, Chatfield and Cherry Creek kept it from being worse.
Bear Creek Lake stored 28,500 acre-feet of the wall of water that descended during the 2013 event, well within its capacity. The lake level reached an elevation of 5,607 feet, higher than ever before and 50 feet above normal. Water releases began even as other areas still registered high water, because of the Corps’ protocols for operating all three reservoirs in tandem. It took three to four weeks to empty the floodwater.
“The goal is to release the water as soon as possible, but you don’t want to release it too fast,” Maxwell said.
Repairs to trails, roads and structures in the park cost $372,000 and were newly complete last May, when sustained rains pounded the Front Range. Like other areas, Bear Creek Canyon had weeks of sustained rain, which surprised the Corps by filling Bear Creek Reservoir again. The level of the lake rose 50 feet, and didn’t drop to normal until the end of July.
Repairs the second time around in 2015 were less extensive, because there was more warning, a different type of flooding and lessons learned from 2013, said Drew Sprafke, Lakewood regional parks supervisor.
“It was a different character without the high flow in the creek,” he said. “It re-impacted some of the same area, but we had more notice and knew how to respond.”
The city of Lakewood didn’t have to foot the whole bill, but matched county, state and federal funds to make the repairs. But the inundation of water has changed the character of the park, Sprafke said.
“We were able to make repairs,” he said. “But we lost 300 trees that will have to be clear cut. It’s a massive change to the park. The trees were under water for 11-12 weeks in both events, and invasive weeds came in. It will take at least five to 10 years to recover.”
Fountain Creek outlook
A dam, or multiple dams, on Fountain Creek would function in much the same way and has been talked about for years as a way to protect Pueblo from flooding.
The first idea for a dam on Fountain Creek came as part of an Army Corps of Engineers study in 1970 following the flood of 1965. The dam was never funded, and levees on Fountain Creek were completed through the city of Pueblo instead.
A multipurpose dam was brought up again by Pueblo County’s water attorney, Ray Petros, in 2005 as a potential alternative for Southern Delivery System.
As sedimentation has diminished the effectiveness of the levees, the dam idea has been revived in recent years.
A study last year by Wright Water Engineers for Pueblo County showed that 370,000 tons of sediment are deposited south of Colorado Springs each year as flows into Fountain Creek increase. Much of that winds up in Pueblo, raising the level of Fountain Creek and decreasing the effectiveness of the levees.
A payment of $50 million toward flood control on Fountain Creek was written into Pueblo County’s 1041 permit for SDS, and a dam is central to studies.
The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, formed in 2009 as an outgrowth of the Vision Task Force, funded a U.S. Geological Survey study of hypothetical dam sites in 2013. That study showed the most effective way to reduce peak discharge and capture sediment would be a large dam about 10 miles upstream from the confluence of Fountain Creek at the Arkansas River.
Another alternative would involve several detention ponds north of Pueblo, which would be nearly as effective in reducing peak flows, but would capture less sediment.
A study for the district last year by engineer Duane Helton showed negligible impact on downstream water rights if flood control structures maintained a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second through Pueblo during all but the largest flood events.
The district is now preparing for more detailed feasibility studies that would show where structures could be located and how much they would cost.
That’s a long way from the parks and trails that Lakewood residents enjoy near their flood control dam, but the Fountain Creek district is committed to protecting the creek and topping it with increased recreational opportunities only as the areas along the creek are stabilized.
The district has spearheaded both flood control and recreation demonstration projects so far.
The annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii jumped by 3.05 parts per million during 2015, the largest year-to-year increase in 56 years of research.
In another first, 2015 was the fourth consecutive year that CO2 grew more than 2 ppm, said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network.
“Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years,” Tans said. “It’s explosive compared to natural processes.”
Levels of the greenhouse gas were independently measured by NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory and by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
In February 2016, the average global atmospheric CO2 level stood at 402.59 ppm. Prior to 1800, atmospheric CO2 averaged about 280 ppm.
The last time the Earth experienced such a sustained CO2 increase was between 17,000 and 11,000 years ago, when CO2 levels increased by 80 ppm. Today’s rate of increase is 200 times faster, said Tans.
The big jump in CO2 is partially due to the current El Niño weather pattern, as forests, plantlife and other terrestrial systems responded to changes in weather, precipitation and drought. The largest previous increase occurred in 1998, also a strong El Niño year. Continued high emissions from fossil fuel consumption are driving the underlying growth rate over the past several years.
The one and only Charles Fishman joins The Water Values Podcast to discuss a momentous development in water: the presence of a $267 million federal budget request from President Obama targeted to water initiatives. Charles brings his unique insight and gift for storytelling to this major development.
In this episode, you’ll learn about:
The backstory of how Charles came to write The Big Thirst
Why a federal budget request for water technology innovation is so significant
How water technology innovation even came to be in the federal budget request
How the Paris climate talks impacted the budget request
The programs that the budget request for water proposes to target
Charles’ idea for furthering water technology
How Charles proposes to implement his idea to release a flood of water innovation
Since the creek landed on the list, people who work for the town and the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District have worked on plans to repair the damage. The district, in fact, has done the lion’s share of research and studying. But it’s ultimately the town government that has responsibility for rehabilitation efforts.
IMMENSE TO-DO LIST
Those efforts will be complicated. After studying the problem, then working on possible solutions, the plan has roughly 220 action items on its to-do list.
That to-do list is so long because the problem is so complicated. It became apparent early on that the stream’s health couldn’t be improved by one, or even 10, efforts.
Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Manager Kristen Bertuglia said that what’s affecting the creek is called non-point source pollution, meaning it comes from places up and down the watershed. That spread-out pollution will have to be addressed through actions including education and getting residents involved in helping clean the creek through their own actions.
But there are other, more easily-defined problems. Road sand is a problem, of course. So is storm runoff. The first year’s plan alone has budgeted $750,000 for design and improvement work to the town’s storm drain system…
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT KEY
That’s why there’s a big educational element in the plan, and money budgeted to carry it out. In fact, the town will for two years hire a full-time employee to handle education and public outreach.
Beyond that, there will be money set aside for programs including a landscaping course at the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, newspaper ads and information on the town’s website.
All of it is important, Bruno, said.
“We really need to get the community involved,” she said. “We need to get (residents) to understand we’re serious about bringing the Gore back.”
[…]
Bertuglia said she has modest, but realistic, expectations of what she’d like to see as 2020 approaches.
“I’d like to see a stable, or upward trend in the number of macroinvertabrates,” she said. “That would be progress.”
Macro Invertebrates via Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge Water Quality Research
Here’s the release from the US Bureau of Reclamation (Peter Soeth):
The Bureau of Reclamation is initiating the 2016 basin study selection process and requests letters of interest from eligible non-federal entities interested in participating in a new basin study. A short letter of interest is due to the respective regional office by April 4, 2016.
Through basin studies, Reclamation works with state and local partners to conduct comprehensive water supply and demand studies of river basins in the Western United States. Reclamation anticipates funding two studies in 2016.
Basin studies include four main elements:
Projections of water supply and demand, including the risks of climate change.
Analysis of how existing water and power infrastructure will perform in response to changing water realities.
Development of adaptation and mitigation strategies to improve operations and infrastructure in order to supply adequate water in the future.
Trade-off analysis of the strategies identified and findings.
Entities must contribute at least half of the total cost as cash or in-kind services. This is not a financial assistance program and Reclamation’s share of the study costs will only be used to support work done by Reclamation or its contractors.
Reclamation’s regional office staff will review all letters of interest. Those selected for consideration will then work with Reclamation to develop a joint study proposal for evaluation and prioritization by a Reclamation review committee.
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.
Click here to read the newsletter. Here’s an excerpt:
Spring Water Users Meeting
Northern Water’s annual Spring Water Users Meeting is sheduled for Wednesday, April 13, 2016, at The Ranch in Loveland.
The Spring Water Users Meeting is a forum to discuss the current water outlook and water-related issues, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project quota and updates on the Northern Integrated Supply Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project.
This spring’s meeting agenda also includes a presentation on the role of the Colorado Water Congress; activities of Metropolitan State University’s One World, One Water Center; and an update on the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The keynote luncheon speaker will be Mike King, former executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and currently the planning director for Denver Water.
To register for the meeting visit http://www.northernwater.org; view our April calendar and click Spring Water Users Meeting on April 13. There is a registration tab on the popup screen.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project Map via Northern Water
How much water reaches the Westwater stretch of the Colorado River, and then Lake Powell, is taking on increasing importance to Colorado water officials. A new study is underway to look at much more water is available to develop on the Western Slope, and it’s caught the attention of east slope water officials. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
PUEBLO – A big question in Colorado is how much water is left to divert and use from the Colorado River before levels drop too low in Lake Powell to make hydropower and deliver water downstream. The answer to that question is of interest not only to water-planning roundtables on the west slope, but on the east slope as well.
Last week, three east slope roundtables, the South Platte, Metro and Arkansas, chose members to sit on a technical advisory committee that is preparing a study on how much water is left to develop on the Western Slope while still keeping the Glen Canyon Dam functioning as it does today.
The roundtable members from the east slope are all senior officials at major water providers including Denver Water, Aurora Water, Colorado Springs Utilities and Pueblo Board of Water Works.
The level of officials eager to join in on what started as a west slope study of the issue is an indication of how important is the question, and the potential answers.
The west slope water study, known as the “risk study,” was originally conceived in December 2014 at a meeting of the four west slope roundtables, which include the Colorado, Yampa, Gunnison, and Dolores, San Miguel and San Juan (or Southwest) roundtables.
The west slope roundtables, especially the Yampa and the Gunnison, found they were not in agreement about future water development on the Western Slope, but they did agree on the need for more information.
“They needed to have a better understanding of what’s going on, on the river,” said Eric Kuhn, the general manager of the Colorado River District, during a Feb. 23 meeting of the Interbasin Compact Committee in Broomfield.
The IBCC includes representatives from each of the state’s nine basin roundtables and serves as a statewide water policy advisory board.
Upon recently learning of the west slope study, the three east slope roundtables asked to be included, which the west slope then agreed to.
“We always intended that this would be open and transparent, and open to the east slope roundtables,” Kuhn told the IBCC members, explaining that the original plan was to invite the three non-voting out-of-basin members serving on the Colorado and Gunnison roundtables to participate in the study.
But those out-of-basin seats, originally set up in 2005, have fallen out of use on the roundtables, so it was agreed to ask the east slope roundtables to choose their own committee members.
And the South Platte, Metro and Arkansas roundtables each met last week and did just that.
The Colorado River in Cataract Canyon, just above Lake Powell, where water officials are keeping a close eye on water levels. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
Committee members
The South Platte roundtable assigned three people: Kevin Lusk, a senior engineer from Colorado Springs Utilities and the president of the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co.; Jim Yahn, the manager of the North Sterling Irrigation District and a South Platte representative on the IBCC; and Jerry Gibbens, a project manager and water resource engineer at Northern Water.
The Arkansas roundtable also selected three members: James Broderick, executive director of Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Brett Gracely, manager of Colorado Springs Utilities; and Terry Book, executive director of Pueblo Board of Water Works.
And the Metro roundtable assigned four members: Mark Waage, manager of water resources planning at Denver Water, who is also an IBCC member; Joe Stribrich, planning director at Aurora Water and an IBCC member; Eric Hecox, executive director of the South Metro Water Supply Authority and Kerry Sundeen, a principal engineer and consultant at Wilson Water.
At the IBCC meeting on Feb. 23, Waage thanked the west slope roundtables for allowing east slope participation in the study.
“I think there just was a period of ‘what are they doing, what’s going on,” Waage said. “And the fact that you guys are open to including us is really helpful.
“We would really like to deal with this issue on a statewide basin if we can and in concert with the four other upper basin states,” Waage added. “The east slope feels pretty strongly that that’s our best position. And we ought to always seek that approach rather than a east versus west kind of thing.”
The Colorado River District is managing the study and is seeking state funding on behalf of the participants to help pay for it.
The four west slope roundtables each have approved $8,000 in state funding from their basin accounts, totaling $32,000.
The River District and the Southwest Water Conservancy District have each agreed to put in $10,000, for a total study cost of $52,000.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board is expected to approve the $32,000 in state funding at its next regular meeting on March 16 in La Junta.
A flow map of Colorado’s river helps illustrate why so much attention is paid to the Colorado River.
Tied to framework
The main question the study will seek to answer is, “What is the likelihood of the elevation of Lake Powell going below 3,525 feet under selected water supply and water demand scenarios?”
The cited level of 3,525 feet in elevation is just above the “minimum power pool” level in Lake Powell of 3,490 feet.
If water levels fall below that, then the upper basin states will have trouble delivering enough water to lower basin states to meet their collective obligation under the Colorado River compact.
And a “curtailment” call could then come up the river and some of the biggest water providers on the east slope could be forced to stop diverting west slope water.
“We need to keep in mind that 20 to 25 percent of our consumptive use of Colorado River water is on the east slope,” Waage said. “The majority of those post-compact rights that would be curtailed are on the east slope.”
And that’s why the study is called the “risk study,” as in what’s the risk of triggering a compact call by taking more water out of the Colorado River?
Kuhn said the study is tied to point number four in the conceptual framework, which was developed last year by the IBCC to guide negotiations over a potential new transmountain diversion project.
Point four, as cited in the Colorado Water Plan, says that “a collaborative program that protects against involuntary curtailment is needed for existing uses and some reasonable increment of future development in the Colorado River System, but it will not cover a new TMD.”
In other words, before the state’s water sector builds a new transmountain diversion, it should figure out how it’s going to keep enough water in Lake Powell.
“Those are lots of variables here, so this isn’t a simple effort,” Kuhn told the IBCC about the risk study. “There’s hydrology, demand levels, what’s happening in other states. So you’ve got four or five different variables and there are lots of permutations of different outcomes.”
Kuhn said the study would build on information gathered as part of several other ongoing exploratory efforts.
One effort is a water banking investigation, now 10 years in the making, that is looking at ways ranchers and water providers could use less water in a drought.
An offshoot of that effort is an ongoing two-year “system conservation” pilot program to pay Western Slope ranchers and others to leave water in the upper Colorado River system to flow toward Lake Powell.
Kuhn said the exploratory efforts are important because “at some point in order to maintain reservoir levels in Lake Powell, in order to maintain the system, in order to accomplish framework point number four, which is to avoid a curtailment, we’re going to have to reduce our demands,” Kuhn said.
A third ongoing effort is “contingency planning,” which is studying how to use water released from federal upstream reservoirs, including Flaming Gorge and Blue Mesa, to keep Lake Powell at a certain level.
“What this four-basin roundtable study will do is collect what we’ve done, and educate people on what it is we’re doing, and what the trade-offs are,” Kuhn said.
Jeris Danielson, the manager of the Purgatoire Water Conservancy District and an Arkansas roundtable member, asked Kuhn if the west slope intended to postpone discussion at the IBCC level of a new TMD until the risk study was complete.
Kuhn said the study should be finished by the end of the summer, and that it made sense to develop a common understanding about how the Colorado River works before talking about a new TMD.
“You’ve got to bring the experts, the people who work in this business, up to a common level of understanding before they can have a common platform to help educate everyone else,” he said.
Editor’s note: Aspen journalism and the Aspen Daily News are collaborating on coverage of rivers and water in Colorado. The Daily News published this story on Monday, March 14, 2016.
Colorado statewide precipitation during February was the lowest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service SNOw TELemetry network of mountain weather stations.
The combined San Miguel, Dolores, Animas and San Juan basin received 35 percent of the normal February precipitation. Statewide mountain precipitation, while still poor, was only slightly better at 56 percent of normal.
“February in the mountains of Colorado is typically a slightly drier month than compared to say, April,” said Brian Domonkos, snow survey supervisor with the NRCS. “But a dry February like this could have big ramifications should April and May not pan out.”
As expected, snowfall came up short as well. Statewide snowpack is near normal at 99 percent, down 13 percent during February. Most major watersheds in the state currently fall within a narrow range from 102 percent in the Arkansas and South Platte to 97 percent in the combined San Miguel, Dolores, Animas and San Juan basins.
The numerical outlying basins are the combined Yampa, White and North Platte River basins at 93 percent of normal.
Reservoir storage has been consistent since the beginning of the water year, not wavering 1 percentage point at 110 percent of the 30-year normal. Currently reservoir levels are far better than the deficits that were experienced during the winters of 2013 and 2014.
The majority of streamflow forecasts in the state fall between 75 and 105 percent of normal, yet are down from last month.
With the two most significant precipitation months yet to come, spring and summer runoff is heavily dependent on March and April weather systems, which leaves room and the possibility for improvement.
Federal forecasters have downgraded their projections for the Colorado River after an unusually hot, dry February that has increased the likelihood of a first-ever shortage declaration at Lake Mead.
Forecasters are now predicting the arrival of shortage conditions at the nation’s largest man-made reservoir in January 2018.
Just a month ago, forecasters expected Lake Mead to narrowly avoid the shortage line for at least the next two years. But Paul Miller, a senior hydrologist with the National Weather Service’s Colorado Basin River Forecast Center in Salt Lake City, said that all changed after a “historically dry” February in the mountains that feed the Colorado.
Some monitoring sites in the region logged their lowest February precipitation totals on record, Miller said…
In early February, federal forecasters were predicting that the Colorado would carry about 94 percent of its average flow during the all-important April-July time frame, when mountain snowmelt collects in Lake Powell on the Utah-Arizona border.
That estimate has dropped to 80 percent of average in the latest forecast released Monday by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which now expects Lake Mead to shrink just enough to start 2018 below the all-important shortage line.
A federal shortage declaration would force Nevada to reduce its Colorado River water use by 4 percent while Arizona and Mexico take larger cuts.
The Las Vegas Valley draws 90 percent of its water from Lake Mead. According to the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a 4 percent cut won’t impact the community because residents have already reduced their water consumption by about 30 percent in response to the drought.
The worsening outlook for this year comes despite a powerful El Niño some predicted would soak the Southwest and improve conditions on the Colorado. Instead, Miller said, the Pacific Ocean climate pattern has soaked the Pacific Northwest and delivered some snow to the Sierra Nevada range in California and Northern Nevada.
“It’s been a very atypical El Niño event,” he said.
Barring a sudden turnaround, 2016 will mark the 13th year of below-average flows on the Colorado River since 2000.
In March of that year, Lake Mead was close to full with a surface elevation of 1,211 feet above sea level. The surface of the reservoir has fallen almost 130 feet since then, and forecasters expect it drop another 10 feet by this time next year.
What’s happening on the river comes as no surprise to Connie Woodhouse, a researcher from the University of Arizona in Tucson.
She just authored a report, published last week, that shows a strong link between higher temperatures and reduced flows in the Colorado.
Woodhouse and company found that over the past three decades or so, average temperatures in the upper Colorado River Basin have been increasing during the March-through-July “runoff season,” and that can have a significant impact on how much water ends up in the river.
“What we’re seeing since the 1980s is that temperature plays a larger role in stream flow and in exacerbating drought,” Woodhouse said.
The study, based on data from from 1906 to 2012, was co-authored by Stephanie McAfee of the University of Nevada, Reno and scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.
Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam December 2015 via Greg Hobbs.
A bill that would allow half of a farmer’s water to be transferred for one year to other uses passed the House agriculture committee 8-5 Monday.
The bill, [HB16-1228], was opposed by Western Slope water districts and legislators as unnecessary, expensive to farmers or ranchers and potentially harmful by allowing water that could be used within the state to flow out. Former state Sen. Bruce Whitehead called it “borderline speculation.”
However, diverse groups such as Ducks Unlimited and Colorado Corn Growers testified that the bill keeps water in agriculture by providing another way to use it without diminishing a water right. Those groups have been working on alternative transfer programs in the South Platte River basin for several years.
The bill is the latest version of a flex water right that has failed in the past two sessions. It would determine the historical consumptive use — how much water crops use — and establish alternate points of diversion in advance of one-year substitute water supply plan which might or might not occur. The bill also requires water to stay in the same river basin of historic use as defined by state water divisions.
Water users still would be required to get an administrative substitute water supply plan in each year water is transferred.
Sponsors Jeni Arndt, D-Fort Collins, and Jon Becker, D-Fort Morgan, said the bill provides an “agricultural water protection water right” that prevents more ag water from being sold to cities.
But Don Coram, R-Montrose, at one point asked a witness, “What’s the difference between buy-and-dry and lease-and-cease?”
Both the Southwestern Colorado and Colorado River conservation districts oppose the bill, which they say would require farmers and ranchers to spend more out of pocket to defend water rights.
But the Colorado Water Congress, Division of Water Resources and Colorado Water Conservation Board all voiced support of the legislation, saying it could be administered fairly and would not create any more need for legal defense than already exists.
Terry Fankhauser, of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, said his group is merely monitoring the bill at this point. But he questioned whether allowing water to be leased, and land to be fallowed, for five years in every 10 is a good idea. He pointed to studies in the Arkansas Valley which indicate three in 10 years is the maximum to keep farmland in shape for on-again, off-again farming.
With the legislative session in full swing in Denver, several water-related bills have been submitted in the Colorado General Assembly, including House Bill 16-1005, a rainwater-harvesting bill.
Ken Baker, retired attorney and consultant to the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, discussed these bills during the district board meeting Thursday, indicating HB-18-1005 was passed by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
The bill would allow the collection of precipitation from a residential rooftop using no more than two rain barrels per residence with a maximum capacity of 110 gallons.
As the bill is currently written, the residence must have four or fewer units, and the collected water must be used for outdoor purposes on the property where it is collected.
Baker said the bill, if passed, would fail legal challenges based on the Colorado Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, often summarized as “first in time, first in right.”
Under Colorado law, an appropriation is made when an individual takes water from a stream or aquifer and puts that water to a specific beneficial use, like farming. The first person to do so has the first right to use that water within a particular stream system.
After receiving a court decree verifying their status, this person becomes the senior water-right holder on that stream, and that water right takes priority over any other water right on that stream.
Since capturing rainwater prevents that water from flowing into a stream or seeping into an aquifer, it effectively takes water from someone who owns the right to that water, thereby violating the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.
Baker expressed optimism that the bill would be amended in the Republican-controlled Senate to require augmentation, i.e., replacing the water collected with water from another source to prevent injury to senior water rights.
Baker also discussed other water-related legislation, including:
HB 16-1228, a “complicated” bill that would allow temporary, 1-year transfers of up to 50 percent of a water right to a use other than the use for which the water right was decreed.
HB 16-1109, an effort to protect owners of a water right from federal stipulations that would require relinquishing that water right in order to use federal land.
HB 16-1256, which would commission a study to determine the amount of South Platte River water that has been delivered to Nebraska in excess of the amount required along with possible locations for a new reservoir on the South Platte River.
SB 16-128, which would allow specific portions of water augmentation plans or substitute water supply plans to be opened for amendments in Water Court without reopening the entire plan.
HB 16-1283, an attempt to reduce water losses by domestic water suppliers through annual audits.
McPhee Reservoir managers announced Friday that the forecast calls for a whitewater release below McPhee Dam.
“The forecast shows a 22-day whitewater season,” said Bureau of Reclamation engineer Vern Harrell. “But it is a 50-50 probability, so it is not guaranteed it will materialize.”
Based on this year’s impressive snowpack in the mountains, runoff forecasts show the reservoir will fill, and there will be 68,000 acre-feet available for a spill into the lower Dolores River.
Here is the plan if the snowpack holds:
On May 17, flows below the dam would be increased to 500 cubic feet per second. It would ramp up to 900 on May 18, then 1,300 cfs on May 19, and 1,500 cfs on May 20.
From May 21-25, the plan is to max out the flows at 2,000 cfs, then they will drop slightly to 1,800 cfs from May 26 to June 1 for the Memorial Day weekend.
On June 2 flows will be reduced to 1,400, cfs, drop 1,000 cfs on June 3, to 800 cfs on June 4 and 5, to 600 cfs on June 6 and 7, to 400 cfs for June 8 and 9, then 200 cfs for June 10 and 11.
Minimal rafting flows is 600-800 cfs, and for kayaks it is 300-400 cfs. Tubing could be done at 200 cfs.The boating community is excited, but cautious, said Josh Munson, vice president of the Dolores River Boating Advocates…
There has not been a whitewater release below the dam since 2011.
The surge of water into the lower canyon will benefit the natural environment, Munson said, and create an economic boon to the area as recreational boaters descend to the various launch sites.
From the Colorado Independent (Marianne Goodland) via The Sterling Journal-Advocate:
The first step to building a reservoir or dam to capture millions of gallons of water flowing down the South Platte River won unanimous approval this week at the state Capitol.
Rep. J. Paul Brown, an Ignacio Republican, has been sounding the siren call on South Platte storage for the past year. It’s an idea area residents have talked about for generations.
Millions of gallons of water have flowed into Nebraska far exceeding the amount required under the Colorado-Nebraska compact that governs South Platte water use. And Colorado wants and needs to keep that water.
The question lawmakers have to answer now is how to store the water and more importantly, where.
A proposed storage project in the Narrows Valley near Fort Morgan won congressional approval several decades ago. But building a dam or reservoir anywhere on the main channel of the South Platte won’t work, said Eric Wilkerson of Northern Water, which is leading the effort to build a new dam on the Poudre River.
The trouble is that there isn’t anywhere to store that water. Existing reservoirs aren’t large enough, and that means water rushing to Nebraska would flood fields and basements along the way.
Water advocates point to several possible methods of collecting and storing that water, including funneling it into underground storage or by expanding existing reservoirs. But there is no silver bullet solution.
Brown’s bill, which was heard Monday by the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Energy Committee, calls for a study to identify ways to store more water.
The bill sailed through the Democrat-controlled Ag Committee, a needed political victory for Brown, whose seat has been targeted by Democrats. The 13-member committee includes Republican Rep. Jon Becker of Fort Morgan.
“We can’t keep depending on the Western Slope for water for Front Range growth,” Brown told the Ag Committee Monday. He warned that without more storage, the Front Range will have to rely on agricultural buy-and-dry, the practice where municipal water providers buy irrigated farmland for the water rights.
These buy-and-dry deals have dried out thousands of acres of farmland, mostly on Colorado’s Eastern Plains.
In Crowley County, for example, buy-and-dry has left this once agriculturally-prosperous county with one-tenth of the farmland it had before the 1970s, devastating the economy.
Colorado faces a massive water shortage. By 2050, due in part to an expected doubling of the state’s population, the state could be short a million acre feet of water a year, according to the 2010 Statewide Water Supply Initiative, a study commissioned by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. An acre-foot of water is the amount it would take to cover one acre of land with one foot of water, or about 326,000 gallons.
Finding a way to store excess water on the South Platte would help agricultural production and enhance the state’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Brown said. It also would improve migratory bird and wildlife habitats in Colorado.
The bill has the support of the Hickenlooper administration. James Eklund, head of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, told the committee the bill would be a step forward in addressing the state’s water needs outlined in the state water plan.
Rep. KC Becker, a Democrat whose district includes Boulder and west-of-the-Continental Divide counties such as Grand and Jackson, pointed out the problems of resuscitating the Narrows idea.
She noted former Commissioner of Ag and state Rep. Don Ament of Sterling gave the project a thumbs down just a few months ago. Ament has been Colorado’s representative on a three-state Platte River recovery program for close to 20 years. The program handles negotiations over the Platte River water supply and how it satisfies environmental concerns, particularly in Wyoming and Nebraska.
Ament told the Interim Water Resources Review Committee last October that storage on the South Platte would take pressure off of agriculture, which faces its own water shortfall in the future.
Two counties in Colorado — Weld and Yuma — are among the top 20 in the nation’s most productive agricultural counties, he said.
In the last six years, Ament said, the South Platte has sent four million acre-feet of water into Nebraska over and above what’s required in the compact.
The Narrows Project would have been the largest earthen dam in the world, and it had strong support for years, including two congressional approvals. But President Jimmy Carter, based on recommendations from the US Fish & WIldlife Service that the project would harm Nebraska wildlife habitats, vetoed the project in the late 1970s.
In the intervening years, some of the land planned for the Narrows site has been developed or turned into agricultural land, although the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which acquired land for the project, still owns much of the site and has not declassified the project, according to Ament.
A project as large as the Narrows, estimated at a million acre-feet of water storage, isn’t feasible, Ament said.
Other sites have been identified, even gravel pits. What’s needed are many smaller places to hold water, rather than a massive one, he said.
The study would look at storage possibilities along the South Platte from Greeley to Julesburg.
Ament also discussed the relationship between South Platte storage and the state’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
“When you divert water from the South Platte, you’re responsible for impacts on birds at Grand Island (Neb.),” Ament explained.
The state has no choice but to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act in every possible way, Ament said, because it “trumps everything this legislature does and anything anyone else does, including water users. When they declare we have Endangered Species Act problems in Grand Island, Neb., and we’re big water users, we have to do something.”
Brown indicated Monday any storage solution should take into account a state guarantee of its continued compliance with the Act.
Eklund added the state’s looming water shortfall is most critical in the areas along the South Platte, whose headwaters are in the mountains just south of metro Denver and flow downstream to Julesburg and into Nebraska. “Big gains” in water supply can be made on the South Platte, he said.
The bill, which would study storage solutions, carries a cost of $250,000, to be paid out of a fund under the control of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the state’s basin roundtables, state-authorized groups that work on water issues and include representatives from city and county governments, and agricultural, recreational, environmental and industrial interests.
Eklund said the CWCB, which will conduct the study, will rely as much as possible on existing data rather than reinventing the wheel.
Storage on the South Platte wouldn’t just help with the state’s water shortfall, Eklund said. It also would help people with low-priority water rights who might not otherwise get the water they need.
The only opposition to Brown’s bill came from Trout Unlimited’s David Nickum, who said he sympathized with Western Slope residents who fear the water shortfall will require more diversions of mountain water into the Front Range.
A new dam or reservoir on the main channel of the South Platte would affect water quality and stream habitats, Nickum said, suggesting a better solution would be underground aquifers or storage along South Platte tributaries.
The fear of another transmountain diversion prompted concerns from Rep. Diane Mitsch-Bush, a Steamboat Springs Democrat. She proposed an amendment to ensure the study wouldn’t look at mountain water as a way to fill a South Platte reservoir.
The bill goes onto the House Appropriations Committee for funding approval.
A dry and warm February and early March bodes poorly for San Luis Valley irrigators but it may have a slight silver lining if snow returns to the high country later this spring.
Temperatures ranging to as much as 6 degrees above normal in February led to an early thaw on the valley’s creeks and rivers, allowing Colorado to send more water downstream than it might otherwise.
That water goes toward Rio Grande Compact requirements that divvy the river’s water between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas.
And the February flows, which were 900 acre feet above normal on the Conejos River and nearly 4,300 acrefeet higher than normal on the Rio Grande, mean curtailments might be 1 to 3 percentage points lower fwor irrigators once they begin watering their crops in April.
“It puts a little smile on our face to get this bonus delivery but we’re more concerned about what’s going to happen for our irrigators,” said Pat McDermott a staff engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources in Alamosa.
The Rio Grande basin’s snowpack, which stood at 126 percent of normal at the end of December, was at 98 percent at the beginning of March.
The dwindling snowpack comes despite an El Nino weather pattern that was expected to favor the San Juan Mountains.
“We all expected this El Nino to come in roaring like a lion and it’s meowing like a kitten,” McDermott said.
Snowpack could still rebound.
The National Weather Service’s forecast still calls for above average precipitation in the region through May.
As of now, the Division Engineer’s office for the valley is predicting slightly more than the 620,000 acre-foot average that annually passes through Del Norte on the Rio Grande.
The valley’s second biggest river, the Conejos, is expecting roughly 290,000 acre-feet, which would mark the sixth year in a row the river has had below-average flows.
How much electricity the turbines in the bowels of Glen Canyon Dam can generate depends upon how much water is delivered from the Wind River Range of Wyoming and the high mountains of Colorado into Lake Powell. Photo/Bureau of Reclamation.
Just how much more water can be drawn from the rivers that originate near Winter Park, Breckenridge, and Aspen, as well as Crested Butte, Telluride, and Durango, before the electrical supply powering the ski lifts gets wobbly?
That sounds a bit like a zen koan, but in fact, it’s at the heart of a discussion now underway in Colorado. The Colorado River that originates in those mountain towns is already heavily tapped by local farms. Then there’s the matter of the giant straws that convey 450,000 to 600,000 acre-feet per year to Denver, Colorado Springs, and other cities at the base of the Rocky Mountains as well as other farms on the Great Plains.
There’s only so much water in the Colorado River, and its use is strictly governed by interstate compacts: a 1948 compact apportioning use among the headwaters states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. More importantly, those four upper-basin states are obligated to allow roughly half the water in the Colorado River to flow downstream from Lake Powell and through the Grand Canyon, to the lower-basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as to Mexico.
Just how much water remains to be developed in Colorado, whether for ski areas, cannabis farms, or Front Range cities? Nobody really knows.
But an upcoming $50,000 study funded by several organizations from the Western Slope of Colorado aims to get a better answer. Aspen Journalism reports that water organizations on Colorado’s Eastern Slope also want to get involved.
Chris Treese, the external affairs manager for the Colorado River Water Conservation District, recently explained the dynamics. If Lake Powell drops so low it can’t produce hydropower, he said, it also means the dam will not be able to release enough water to meet its rolling 10-year obligation under the 1922 Colorado River Water Compact.
“The earlier crisis point—and I don’t think that’s overstating it – is when Lake Powell falls to a level that is below the point where power can be produced through the dam,” Treese explained. That, in turn, means there’s too little water in Lake Powell to release the 8.23 million acre-feet required to meet the compact obligations.
Aspen Journalism explains that this call for a more definitive study has been spurred by a disagreement among river basins on Colorado’s Western Slope. The Yampa-White River Basin (includes Steamboat Springs) wants to reserve the right to dam and divert more water. The Gunnison Basin (includes Crested Butte) is concerned it will hasten what is called a “compact call,” or reduced water use in all basins.
And about that electricity? The turbines at Glen Canyon Dam, which creates Lake Powell, produce massive amounts of electricity, along with those at other dams in the West. This low-cost (and non-carbon) electricity is then distributed to utilities that serve many of the ski towns in Colorado and other states, too.
Group plans that will help resolve water issues for more than 160 farms were filed this week with the Colorado Department of Water Resources by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District.
Called Rule 10 plans, they give farmers a way to comply with surface irrigation rules put in place in 2010 as a response to on-farm improvements such as sprinklers and drip irrigation. The state went to court to implement the rules to head off future challenges of the Arkansas River Compact by Kansas.
The state must approve the plans and comments are open on them until April 11.
The Lower Ark district filed two plans, one for farmers on the Fort Lyon Canal, the largest ditch in the Arkansas Valley, and another for farmers on other ditches.
The Fort Lyon plan covers 62 farmers and 99 farms. It projects a credit of 639 acre-feet, but because of monthly accounting, will have to provide some replacement water, said Jack Goble, Lower Ark engineer.
The non-Fort Lyon plan covers 46 farmers and 62 farms on 11 ditches: Amity, Baldwin Stubbs, Bessemer, Buffalo, Catlin, Fort Bent, High Line, Holbrook, Lamar, Las Animas Consolidated and Rocky Ford. It projects a credit of 315 acre-feet, but some recharge and replacement water will be provided on a monthly basis.
Among sources of replacement water for the two plans are Lower Ark storage at Lake Pueblo, Fryingpan-Arkansas water, ditch return flows and leased water from Pueblo Water.
Most of the improvements involve sprinklers fed by ponds, and the Lower Ark district sponsored a study over the past three years which showed leakage from ponds is twice the value originally presumed by the state. The new figure, about four inches per day, is incorporated into both plans.
All of the farms are on ditch systems, since water is generally used in rotation.
Straight line diagram of the Lower Arkansas Valley ditches via Headwaters
Learn from Jamie Weiss, Audubon Rockies Habitat Hero Coordinator, as she describes from a birds-eye view how you can create gardens that are designed to minimize water consumption and provide essential habitat for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife, large and small. Water is the lifeblood for both birds and people and the Habitat Hero program seeks to grow a network of engaged citizens taking on-the-ground action in their own yards.
Here’s an in-depth look at a fallowing experiment on the Carpenter Ranch in the Yampa Valley from Tom Ross writing in Steamboat Today. Click through and read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:
Beginning in 2015, the Nature Conservancy committed four hay fields comprising 197 acres at the Carpenter Ranch to a multi-state pilot project conceived to determine how irrigated hay fields in the region would respond to being temporarily left fallow in order to leave more water flowing in the Yampa River. The stronger summer flows would support habitat and help to replenish the vast reservoirs of the Southwest that supply water to cities in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California.
The ranch is among five pilot sites in Colorado and five in Wyoming to make up the Colorado River System Conservation Program.
The Conservancy’s Yampa River Project Director Geoff Blakeslee told Steamboat Today in August 2015 that the water project essentially involves a water transfer plan that could someday allow ag water users to be compensated for temporarily taking water off their land to be used elsewhere.
“It’s very much an exploratory project,” Blakeslee said last year. “We’re doing what we call a split-season fallowing of four fields on Carpenter Ranch just to help with information gathering — what are the impacts to the ranch? What are the impacts to the river?”
It’s understood that the short-term consequences may be a smaller hay harvest that could support fewer cattle. But there are also benefits in the program that flow to the ranchers.
The $11 million program to conserve water is funded by water providers in Las Vegas, Los Angeles and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.
The Yampa River flows through the Carpenter Ranch. Photo courtesy of John Fielder from his new book, “Colorado’s Yampa River: Free Flowing & Wild from the Flat Tops to the Green.” — via The Mountain Town News
Republicans want to make sure rain barrels don’t put a crack in state water law and ensure that those with the [most senior] water rights get their [water in priority].
Rep. Jessie Danielson, a Democrat from Arvada, said the House bill she’s sponsoring is about clarifying the law, which might encourage more people to use rain barrels. The measure has passed the state House and is headed to the Senate.
“Even if we can conserve the smallest amount of water, it is less treated drinking water being poured out onto our lawns,” Danielson said…
Proving that use of a rain-barrel is causing harm to a water right in court could be a tough job, said Bill Paddock, one of Colorado’s top water lawyers.
To start, someone would have to figure out how many rain barrels are being used in a watershed that feeds downstream water rights. Since there’s no requirement to register them, even in the proposed legislation, analyzing any harm done to holders of water claims would mean checking downspouts door to door to get a count.
Then there would need to be a measurement of how much water each barrel stored. Then the analysis would have to show how much, if any, of that water would have made it back to the river, Paddock said.
“It’s really a question of whether the water that runs off your roof and into a rain barrel and onto a garden is injuring someone else’s water right,” he said.
The bill would require the Colorado Water Conservation Board to study the amount of water that has been delivered over 20 years to Nebraska from the river in excess of the amount allowed under the South Platte River agreement.
The legislation was amended on Monday to require approval from the South Platte Basin Roundtable and Colorado Water Conservation Board before spending the $250,000 on the study.
In addition to studying water leaving the state, it would also examine possible locations for a reservoir along the river between Greeley and Julesburg.
Water officials will report back to lawmakers with findings.
The House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee backed the bill unanimously. It now heads to appropriations, where it is likely to survive, as funding would require approval from the basin roundtable and water board, and the $250,000 would come from existing severance taxes.
“We are depending on Western Slope water to continue to supply the growth on the Front Range, and the water’s just not there,” Brown explained of the intent of the bill…
While the South Platte represents only one basin, it impacts water across the entire state. There are 25 transmountain diversions, meaning water from rural Colorado is used for municipalities along the Front Range.
“Looking at these alternative supplies will help us meet our gap in the future without putting as much demand and pressures for additional supplies,” said Bruce Whitehead, executive director of the Southwestern Water Conservation District.
But the South Platte is only one component on an extensive wish list addressing water problems facing Colorado.
Lawmakers also heard this week about problems involving wastewater treatment facilities that need to be updated and toxic algae growth, such as microcystin, which is a liver toxin. The concern is when people are exposed during recreation.
But overshadowing the concerns is money.
Wastewater treatment facilities need about $4.5 billion and drinking water facilities need over $5 billion over the next 20 years.
“We’ve already said that we don’t have the money to pay for it, so these communities cannot meet those standards – what happens next?” Rep. Don Coram, R-Montrose, asked members of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, referring to water quality standards.
“This is a tough nut to crack,” responded Barbara Biggs, a member of the commission. “There isn’t funding for the infrastructure, and yet there’s tremendous pressure to protect the environment.”
Get ready you flows from mountain snows!
Get ready you host of high mountain reservoirs,
who stores last year’s melt into the golden leaves
who releases life-giving flows to trout over-wintering,
beneath the ice you Poudre Wild and Scenic!
At your mouth, out into the high plains, a Heritage Corridor
forges the old Union Colony into the newer Greeley/Ft. Collins,
who bears the work of the farming and the laboring peoples
who lifts a White Pelican along a bikeway throughout her flyway,
into the gathering communities of we the young Centennial state!
Greg Hobbs
Peterson Reservoir, Tributary to the Poudre Wild and Scenic River,
Flows into Poudre River National Heritage Corridor
Along the fence at Greeley’s Centennial Village Island Grove Park
The Poudre a working and singing river
Of soaring White Pelican
Of an onion farmer preparing to drip-irrigate a greening field
Kristin, Colorado Foundation for Water Education, welcomes the 2016 Water Fluency Leadership Class to a lunchtime BBQ
Nicole convenes the group on the grounds of the 1870 Union Colony
Mayor Tom Norton addresses
Learning and centering
Seaman Reservoir, upstream on the North Fork,
Readies to receive and deliver fresh-melt waters of the Great Divide.
“Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting” is a phrase that U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Interior Mike Connor despises.
Addressing a half-full Lory Student Center theatre, Connor, who has served the public sector as federal offical for over 20 years, outlined strategies to combat water management and sustainability issues in the American West as part of the inaugural Dr. Norm Edwards Endowed Lecture Series.
Co-sponsoring the event were the Colorado Water Institute, the CSU Water Center and part of CSU’s Office of Engagement.
As the keynote speaker for Wednesday evening, Connor prescribed collaboration as the primary antidote to water conservation issues in the next century.
“To keep pace with increasingly complex challenges, we at the federal level also need to govern more effectively in bringing parties together in developing innovative solutions that will stand the test of time,” Connor said. “Sharing authority—that’s the model we’ve been moving toward over time.”
Before securing his current position in 2014, Connor had operated as commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation since 2009 where he who was responsible for improving hydropower-generation facilities and fostering Indian water rights settlements.
In 2012, Connor, who has been called “the most important water manager in the western U.S.,” helped in modifying a 1944 Mexico-U.S. water relations treaty in response to ongoing climate changes, in which both nations agreed to share water surpluses and shortages from the Colorado River.
Connor’s hour-long speech was followed by a Q&A session with a panel of CSU faculty and grad students. Among those on the panel was Stephanie Kampf, associate professor of ecosystem science and sustainability.
“There are new approaches that government agencies are having to take to deal with modern challenges,” Kampf said. “Especially that collaborative approach across watersheds that involves different states and entities interacting with each other.”
Kampf said that Coloradans should be concerned about changes in snow pack and how urban sprawl across the front range will impact the region’s water usage.
Also on the panel was Kelsea Macilroy, a doctoral candidate in sociology studying agricultural water conservation in the Colorado River Basin.
“The future of the water in the west is about that willingness to collaborate,” Macilroy said. “Really, when we think about water in the west, it’s not a future of fighting but a future of working together and having those conversations.”
Connor said the public should keep an optimistic outlook in moving forward concerning the handling of water management issues.
“One cannot be pessimistic about the west,” Connor said, quoting from Wallace Stegner’s 1969 book, “Sound of Mountain Water.” “When it fully learns that cooperation, not rugged individualism, is the quality that most characterizes and preserves it…then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery.”
Colorado River below average despite strong El Nino
Water levels and rainfall for the Colorado River basin were below-average in January and February, and will remain so until at least July 2016, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
The basin is at only 61 percent of its seasonal average. Likewise, inflow into Lake Powell and Lake Mead is also below the seasonal average. These numbers come as a disappointment after many experts predicted that this year’s El Nino, which is one of the strongest on record, would increase precipitation in the American Southwest and help alleviate the crippling drought there. El Nino is part of a cyclical fluctuation of temperatures in the south Pacific Ocean. It’s generally accompanied by an increase in rain and snowfall in the southwestern United States. Meteorologists called this year’s El Nino the “Godzilla El Nino” because of its size and its potential to quench droughts in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.
Instead, that precipitation has been largely missing, and the drought has only gotten worse in the Colorado River basin. The U.S. Department of the Interior reported that the water levels of Lake Mead, which is filled by the Colorado River and provides water to much of California, Arizona and Nevada, have dropped 121 feet since 2001.
Likewise, that same period has been the driest stretch for the Colorado River in at least the past 100 years.
March and April are traditionally snowy months in the region, so there’s a chance that this year’s El Nino could still offer some drought relief, but so far, the returns haven’t been promising.
Colorado unveiled a statewide water plan this past November to better prepare for an estimated doubling of its population by the year 2050, from about 5 million to an estimated 10.5 million. In the meantime, both intra- and interstate interests are presently at work attempting to gobble up every ounce of the Colorado River before it flows to the next.
Between four separate proposed diversion projects across Colorado, Utah and Wyoming — three states that make up the Upper Basin section of the Colorado River — about another 250,000 acre-feet of water would be pulled from these vital headwaters…
Specific to Colorado, those projects are the Moffat Collection System Project (A Denver Water enterprise that would remove 18,000 acre-feet), and the Windy Gap Firming Project (A Northern Water undertaking to obtain 30,000 acre-feet). And then Wyoming is in the initial stages of the Fontenelle Dam Re-engineering proposal, which would claim the largest amount of water at 123,000 acre-feet, and finally Utah’s Lake Powell Pipeline, which would require 86,000 acre-feet.
The idea is, basically, to stockpile water for each individual community before it can get downstream. The impediment standing in the way though — aside from their respective project approval processes, of course — is senior rights to the water source, as per the Colorado River Compact of 1922, from the states of the Lower Basin: California, Nevada and Arizona…
TAPPING OUT
All of these advancing claims on the Colorado River, on top of another plan suggested by Wyoming concerning 10 new Green River reservoirs over the next 10 years, several others in Colorado, as well as a small diversion project in New Mexico, are fast tapping the source out. The state’s water plan, produced through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), was designed in part to help offset such concerns. But even this program is already running into its own set of troubles.
The director of the CWCB, James Eklund, recently scheduled a stakeholders meeting to discuss permitting of water diversions and additional storage but did not invite any of the counties and other entities associated with these headwaters. After learning of the meeting after the fact, the counties of Summit, Pitkin, Grand and Eagle (and joined by Gunnison and Park counties) sent a letter to Eklund stating that holding such meetings without this group was improper.
“We expressed our extreme disappointment,” said Summit County Commissioner Karn Stiegelmeier, “and this was not in the spirit of the letter of the Colorado Water Plan. “It was great frustration that right after this was passed, and we think we have good understand, and there have been so many hours and hours of meetings about how we should move forward and not leave local government out, and there was this meeting.”
[…]
A headwaters local government representative will now attend the next such meeting. The letter’s message was clear, said Stiegelmeier, who is also the vice chair of the Colorado Basin Roundtable.
“You may figure out how to comply with the EPA and all of the different federal agencies,” she said, “but if you’re not looking at local authorities and regulations, then you may be spinning your wheels and missing the boat. If you don’t include the local governments, you’re basically wasting time, and then it puts us on the defensive.”
DOWN THE RIVER
The water plan, which is not law but merely a consensus agreement, has now moved toward the next stages. No longer are the proposals to secure more water throughout the state, in particular for its most populous cities, a theory, but it’s transitioned to figuring out how to pay for all of it, with estimates coming it at $100 million a year.
Statewide tap fees and taxes are two funding sources currently be investigated by the CWCB. In the meantime, these other water diversion plans from within Colorado, in addition to those of neighboring states, move forward.
Decisions on the next steps for the two Colorado projects are due some time in 2016, while the Lake Powell Pipeline is on a federal fast-track plan and could be executed as early as the next two or so years. The Wyoming projects are still in the early phases of development.
The Colorado River Basin is divided into upper and lower portions. It provides water to the Colorado River, a water source that serves 40 million people over seven states in the southwestern United States. Colorado River Commission of Nevada
Moffat Collection System Project/Windy Gap Firming Project via the Boulder Daily Camera
James Eklund and Governor Hickenlooper roll out the Colorado Water Plan, Thursday, November 19, 2015 via The Colorado Independent
A screenshot from the website for Colorado’s Water Plan.
Mid-February 2016 plume of ENSO predictions via the Climate Prediction Center.
Click here to read the latest diagnostic discussion. Here’s an excerpt:
ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
Synopsis: A transition to ENSO-neutral is likely during late Northern Hemisphere spring or early summer 2016, with close to a 50% chance for La Niña conditions to develop by the fall.
Sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies decreased across most of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during February. The latest Niño-3.4 and Niño-3 weekly values were near 2°C, while the Niño-4 and Niño-1+2 indices were 1°C and 1.4°C respectively. The subsurface temperature anomalies in the central and eastern Pacific decreased substantially in association with the eastward shift of below-average temperatures at depth. Low-level westerly wind anomalies and upper-level easterly wind anomalies continued, but were weaker relative to January. The traditional and equatorial Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) remained strongly negative. In addition, convection was much enhanced over the central and east-central tropical Pacific and suppressed over parts of Indonesia and northern Australia. Collectively, these anomalies reflect the continuation of a strong El Niño.
All models indicate that El Niño will weaken, with a transition to ENSO-neutral likely during the late spring or early summer 2016. Thereafter, the chance of La Niña conditions increases into the fall. While there is both model and physical support for La Niña following a strong El Niño, considerable uncertainty remains. A transition to ENSO-neutral is likely during late Northern Hemisphere spring or early summer 2016, with close to a 50% chance for La Niña conditions to develop by the fall (click CPC/IRI consensus forecast for the chance of each outcome for each 3-month period).
El Niño has already produced significant global impacts and is expected to affect temperature and precipitation patterns across the United States during the upcoming months (the 3-month seasonal outlook will be updated on Thursday March 17th). The seasonal outlooks for March – May indicate an increased likelihood of above-median precipitation across the southern tier of the United States, and below-median precipitation over the Midwest and part of Pacific Northwest. Above-average temperatures are favored across the North and West, with below-average temperatures favored in the south-central region.
Snowpack in the Rio Grande Basin has slipped below normal, Colorado Division of Water Resources Staff Engineer Pat McDermott told water leaders Tuesday afternoon in Alamosa.
“We are well above last year,” he said, “but we have dipped below average.”
He told members of the Rio Grande Roundtable that the basin has not had much snow since February 23 and only had two substantial snowfalls in February.
El Niño is not expected to bring much more moisture this month, he added, but perhaps April and May will be wetter months. He said the forecast for April through June predicts above normal precipitation for this area, near normal precipitation in July and August and a “heat wave” into the fall, followed by a dry spell through the end of the year.
“I hope we get something here soon,” he said.
McDermott said the streamflow forecast has dropped significantly since the last report, with Saguache Creek runoff predicted at 106 percent, Rio Grande near Del Norte at 101 percent , Alamosa River above Terrace at 91 percent, Ute Creek 88 percent; Conejos near Mogote 93 percent and Culebra Creek 87 percent.
As far as the Rio Grande Compact, Colorado is in good standing with its downstream neighbors, having delivered more than required in 2015, McDermott reported. The exact amount of over delivery is still being worked out among the division engineers , he added. That will be part of the agenda for the annual compact meeting , which this year will be hosted by Alamosa on March 31. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District’s new building will be open by then and will host the compact meeting.
Endangered species will also be part of the discussion during the compact meeting, McDermott said.
For example, since the compact storage reservoir at Elephant Butte has seen such low water levels , Southwestern Willow Flycatchers have taken up residence there on the delta, so money is being spent now to find additional habitat where the birds can relocate when the reservoir fills up again.
McDermott said this side of the New Mexico border is providing ample habitat. This area is required to host 25 pairs of the tiny birds and is currently up to 60 pairs.
The fate of the silvery minnow is also a concern along the Rio Grande, McDermott said. He added that Colorado sent more water than it had to downstream to try to keep the minnow afloat, but it has been a struggle in New Mexico to keep the minnow’s habitat from drying up.
“It’s been a tough five years on the Rio Grande for the silvery minnow,” McDermott said.
In a report released Thursday morning the National Weather Service said that El Niño was in the process of weakening and could be over by early summer.
El Niño is a phenomenon where a warming of the waters in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean can have significant impacts on the global weather pattern…
Mother Nature was very generous to Colorado between November and January with a series of soggy storm systems that brought above average snowfall to both the mountains and the Front Range.
But a dry weather pattern that developed after a heavy snow in early February has prevailed for several weeks, causing mountain snowpack to dwindle and the eastern plains to dry out…
Some of the driest conditions can be found in the Arkansas River Valley east of Pueblo where pre-drought conditions are being experienced.
As of March 1 nearly 9% of Colorado was considered to be “abnormally dry” or in pre-drought. That number jumped to 14% by March 8.
It’s a similar story in the mountains where snow is lagging behind during the most important month for snow accumulation in the central Rockies…
Current long-range forecasts show the possibility of a weather maker by the middle to end of next week.
FromThe Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
That taste of spring that western Coloradans have enjoyed for the past few weeks has taken a toll on the state’s snowpack.
Blue skies and warm days have contributed to Colorado’s snowpack falling to below normal, at 98 percent of median as of Monday, according to Natural Resources Conservation Service data.
That comes after what had been a strong start for snowfall accumulation in the state in recent months. But a drier midwinter also was expected by forecasters as part of this year’s El Niño weather pattern. And the good news from a snowpack perspective is that the experts also believe the odds are that moister weather lies ahead this month and next based on past El Niño patterns.
“Right now it does look like that we are looking toward a change in (weather) pattern right around the seventh of March,” said Joe Ramey, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Grand Junction.
He said that in recent weeks, a ridge of high pressure west of Colorado has weakened storms coming in from the Pacific Ocean.
“We just get light snowfall in the mountains, if any,” he said.
That ridge is expected to remain in place this week, which reduced the amount of snowfall expected with the weather system that moved in on Monday. But Ramey said the ridge should then get pushed east, at least for a while, opening the door for more generous snowfall in the mountains by next Monday or so.
“It does look like we’re heading back to a shift toward more winter-like conditions now that everybody’s thinking about, I don’t know, golfing and gardening,” Ramey said.
Painful as a weather change might sound to some, it would provide a welcome boost for the state’s water supplies. Statewide snowpack is down 19 percentage points from 117 percent as of Feb. 2. The Colorado and Gunnison river basins were respectively at 116 and 122 percent of median then, but by Monday both had fallen to exactly 100 percent of median, with the Upper Rio Grande and South Platte basins also at that amount.
The San Miguel, Dolores, Animas and San Juan basins dipped to 98 percent of median, the Yampa/White basins are at 93 percent, the North Platte is at 92 percent and the Arkansas is at 99 percent.
Colorado’s winter so far has been doing pretty well at following the script for El Niño winters, a reference to winters with weather dictated by above-normal water temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. That script called for an above-average start precipitation-wise in the state, followed by a below-average period and then a wet end to the snowfall accumulation season, if a strong El Niño persists long enough, which Ramey said it’s doing.
Ramey said he had expected the dry period to arrive in January, but it showed up a little later.
“We’re still thinking that March and April overall have a tendency to be wet during especially strong El Niños,” he said.
He said the weakened high-pressure ridge next week could even result in snow in the Grand Valley.
“It will be a marked change from what we’ve had in the past few weeks,” he said.
“Since all of us like to drink water and wash our dishes and water our lawns, it has to be a positive aspect for most folks.”
Ramey is uncertain how long the moister trend next week may last, however, pointing to signs that the high-pressure ridge to the west could rebuild beyond March 10 and lead to a drier pattern again.
Erik Knight, a hydrologist with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Western Colorado Area Office, said he’s expecting Blue Mesa Reservoir to fill this year.
“Some of that is based on hoping the storms return in March and April,” Knight said.
He said it has helped that recent problems and maintenance work at power plants downstream from the reservoir led to reduced water releases from the reservoir and let it carry more water through the winter.
As of Feb. 1, reservoir storage across the state was at 110 percent of average. Storage was at 108 percent of average in the Upper Colorado basin and 109 percent in the Gunnison basin.
Knight said that outside of a storm at the start of February, “things have been pretty dry, not a whole lot of extra snow accumulation up there” for the month.
“Now we’re just kind of banking on El Niño producing in March and April, and if it does we’ll be good and if it doesn’t we might struggle to fill the (Blue Mesa) reservoir,” he said.
All of the snowfall in Grand Junction in February came at the start of the month, including 4 inches on Feb. 1 and small amounts on Feb. 4 and 6, Ramey said. The 4.7 inches in total amounted to above-average overall snowfall for Grand Junction for February, he said.
Melanie Mollack, an employee at The Board & Buckle, a ski and bike shop in Grand Junction, said this winter season couldn’t have started off better in terms of snowfall at Powderhorn Mountain Resort.
Now, “it’s spring skiing. There’s still snow up on the mountains and as long as you understand there’s not been anything fresh, there’s still a great time to be had. There’s no bad snow, there’s just a bad attitude,” she said.
She said her store has continued to be busy, particularly on the gear rental side.
“It’s just been all hands on deck, really,” she said.
Looking forward, Mollack chooses to believe that more good snow is on its way, prior to the true spring ski season beginning.
“You have to just say, yes, it’s going to happen, and then it will happen for us,” she said.
However this El Niño winter turns out, Ramey says Coloradans can expect a different kind of winter next winter, with indications that a La Niña weather pattern will occur as water temperatures in the eastern Pacific shift to below-average temperatures.
Whereas El Niños typically result in above-average snowfall in the southern part of the state, La Niñas tilt the odds in favor of higher snowfall north of Interstate 70, which is good news for ski areas in places like Steamboat Springs and Winter Park.
But that’s getting ahead of things, with some pivotal months left in this year’s snowpack season.
“Let’s keep our fingers crossed for a wet spring,” Ramey said.
Click here to go to the US Drought Monitor website. Here’s an excerpt:
Summary
Early in the period, a ridge of high pressure over the Southwest directed Pacific storm systems into the Northwest, bringing persistent unsettled weather to Washington and Oregon but dry and warm weather further south. Meanwhile, an upper-air trough of low pressure over the East steered these Pacific storms southeastward across the Midwest which then tracked northeastward into New England. Since these systems were moisture-starved and moving rather fast, precipitation that fell on parts of the Southeast, Ohio Valley, and Northeast was mostly light. Later in the period, however, a change in the upper-air pattern allowed Pacific storm systems to move farther southward into California. This brought the state some badly-needed precipitation after rather dry and mild conditions the past 3 weeks caused a sharp decline in the Water Year-To-Date (WYTD) precipitation and snow pack that were both above-normal in early February. In the meanwhile, warmer and drier weather enveloped the eastern third of the Nation. As the period ended, the California storm began to impact the southern Plains. Showers and thunderstorms developed in north-central Texas and eastern Oklahoma late Monday, and expanded and intensified across the southern Plains and Delta after the 12 UTC (7 am EST) Tuesday Drought Monitor cutoff time. Therefore, the appropriate improvements in these two regions will be made next week. Weekly temperatures averaged above-normal in the West and Plains, and subnormal in the eastern third of the Nation. Light to moderate showers fell across Puerto Rico, while Alaska and Hawaii were quite dry. Unseasonably mild air persisted across Alaska – just like much of this winter…
Southern Plains
Similar to the lower Mississippi Valley, the first 6 days of the period were dry and warm, with temperatures averaging 6 to 12 degF above normal. By Day 7, however, the California storm system had just entered the southern Plains, and showers and thunderstorms rapidly developed in parts of central and northern Texas and eastern Oklahoma overnight Monday into Tuesday (March 8) morning. However, the only D0 area to be impacted (improved) by the Day 7 rains was in west-central Texas (near San Angelo and Abilene), with the other rainfall occurring over non-drought portions. With many tools showing short-term dryness at the 2- and 4-month time frames, and where no rain fell before the 12 UTC Tuesday, March 8 cutoff, D0 was expanded in eastern Texas (and into Louisiana), D1 was slightly increased in extreme south Texas (Starr and Hidalgo counties) – where no February rain was measured at McAllen, Harlingen, Brownsville, and Port Isabel – new and expanded D0 in the Panhandle (which extended northward into Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kansas), and a new D1 area in the northeastern Texas Panhandle (and northwestern Oklahoma)…
Central and Northern Plains
In association with the D0 and D1 in the Texas Panhandle and no Day 7 rainfall, short-term dryness (at 30-, 60-, and 90-days), unseasonable warmth, low humidity, and occasional gusty winds, plus with less residual moisture from the November and December storms, abnormal dryness was increased into southeastern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, north-central Oklahoma and the Panhandle. A new D1 area was drawn in Roger Mills and Ellis Counties where 90-day percentages were 25-50% of normal. Although February was quite dry in eastern Kansas (and southwestern Missouri), reports on the ground indicated no issues yet. Examples included intermittent streams still flowing, full ponds, and running springs as residual moisture from November and December storms persisted.
Farther north, adjustments were made to the D0 and D1 areas in the Dakotas, western Minnesota, and eastern parts of Montana and Wyoming based upon short-term dryness (or wetness) at 60- and 90-day station data (ACIS) using percent of normal (PNP) and SPI, the lack of decent snow cover this winter, and the greatest positive temperature anomalies during these periods. In general, the consensus for D0 is more of a concern for limited soil moisture in the near future if the temperature and precipitation patterns persist. With respect to changes, D0 was extended southward into south-central North Dakota, across extreme northern South Dakota (where 90-day PNPs were below normal and temperatures well above normal), and west-central Minnesota (similar conditions to South Dakota). In contrast, the short-term indicators were wet in southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming, thus D0 was removed there…
Rockies, Intermountain West, and Southwest
In the northern Rockies, a reassessment and update of monthly tools (with February now in the books) indicated modifications were needed in most of western Montana, southeastern Washington, Idaho, eastern Oregon, and northeastern Nevada. A continued active winter weather pattern brought 1 to 2 inches of precipitation to northern and central Idaho, northwestern Montana, and parts of eastern Washington and Oregon, keeping WYTD basin average precipitation above normal, and basin average snow water content (SWC) near normal. In much of the northern Rockies, most river basins have achieved 80% of their annual peak snowpack, with snows still accumulating in the higher elevations, and lower elevation snows melting out and filling reservoirs. Therefore, a 1-category improvement was made in much of the northern Rockies. Some D1 and D2 was kept in basins with lower WYTD precipitation and SWC, such as southern part of Idaho’s Big Lost River basin, and D2 in northwestern Montana where WYTD basin average precipitation is 76% and SWC at 68%. In southern Idaho, recent rains have started the melt out in the Owhyee basin, and the Mountain Home irrigation district in Elmore County is seeing reservoirs filling that were completely dry for the past few years. To the west in north-central Oregon, continued wet weather (0.5-1.5 inches) has maintained above-normal WYTD precipitation and SWCs that continue to fill reservoirs, thus D1 was removed. No changes were made in the central Rockies and Intermountain West as most locations received light precipitation (0.5-1 inches), not enough for improvement but enough to hold off deterioration. The WYTD basin average precipitation and SWC in this area remained near to above normal.
In the Southwest, however, moisture from the Western storms failed to reach southeastern California, southern Nevada and Utah, and most of Arizona and New Mexico. 3-month SPEIs (December-February) were driest in southern California, southern Nevada, and most of Arizona and western New Mexico. Although WYTD basin average precipitation was near normal in central Arizona and western New Mexico, the SWC had dropped to near zero in some areas, and 10-25% elsewhere. To the north and west, however (e.g. southern Utah and Colorado, northern New Mexico), WYTD basin average precipitation was above normal, and basin average SWCs were close to or above normal. Accordingly, D2 was expanded into the Yuma, AZ area, D1 was extended eastward into extreme southeastern California and western Arizona, and D0 now covered most of Arizona. Impacts from the short-term dryness were difficult to find as much of this region is irrigated. As of Feb. 29, percent of average reservoir storage ranged from 81-89% in central Arizona, but only 27-32% in western New Mexico and southeastern Arizona…
The Far West
Early in the period, a series of storms dropped ample precipitation on the Pacific Northwest, but bypassed most of California. Fortunately, a change in the upper-air pattern around mid-week allowed the storms to shift southward, bringing welcome precipitation to all of California except the extreme southeastern sections (see Southwest). Most locations from western Washington southward to south-central California, including the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, received 3 to 6 inches, with 8 to 12 inches locally in the Olympic Peninsula, portions of coastal northern and central California, and the northern Sierras. While the precipitation was beneficial in California, dry and warm weather during the previous 3 weeks halted the normal increase in snow pack in the Sierras, stalled the accumulated WYTD precipitation, and decreased the normal inflow into streams and reservoirs. In addition, the storm was rather mild, with freezing levels above 8000 feet in the Sierras, and not the best for building snow packs in lower elevations. For example, after decent December and January precipitation and snowfall, the Feb. 2 northern, central, and southern Sierras, and the state SWCs (inches) stood at 22.7, 21.3, 16.4, and 20.2, respectively, or above normal (107-120%) for this day. By March 8 (after the storms), however, they stood at 22.5, 23.2, 19, and 21.8, respectively, or below normal (79-86%) for this day. With February normally one of the wettest months of the year in California, the state was primed to see big increases in the WYTD precipitation and snow pack, but instead those last 3 weeks of the month stalled or lowered these figures. Precipitation-wise, as of March 9, the northern, central (San Joaquin), and southern (Tulare basin) Sierra station indices rebounded back above normal, standing at 42.1 inches (115%), 31.9 inches (109%), and 22 inches (105%), respectively. More good news from the recent storm was that reservoir storages did increase from the heavy rains and snowmelt from the lower elevations. For example, selected reservoirs depict the differences between Feb. 1 versus March 8 historical averages/capacities (percent): Shasta 52/77 vs 68/90; Oroville 44/67 vs 61/86; Don Pedro 41/59 vs 50/70; San Luis 34/43 vs 45/52; Exchequer 14/29 vs 23/43. Reservoirs in the south, however, lost capacity as significant precipitation fell to the north (e.g. Castaic 34/41 vs 30/34; Perris 36/44 vs 34/41). Therefore, considering that this storm basically negated the decline caused by the prior 3 weeks of dryness and warmth, no changes were made this week. However, with the state now recharged with short-term moisture, any additional precipitation, especially from a colder system (e.g. lower elevation snows), should provide some improvement to the state, especially in northern and central areas…
Looking Ahead
During the next 5 days (March 10-14), an ongoing storm in the southern Plains and Delta (as of Wed., Mar. 9) is expected to slowly track northeastward, dumping heavy rains (more than 2 inches, locally to 10 inches in Louisiana) on the southern Plains, lower and middle Mississippi, Tennessee, and Ohio Valleys, and New England. This is expected to cause localized flooding in many parts of the Delta (and did in northern Louisiana Tuesday night). In the Far West, Pacific storm systems are forecast to drop heavy precipitation (8-14 inches) on western sections of Washington, Oregon, and northern and central California, including the Cascades and Sierra Nevada, with lesser totals (up to 4 inches) in the northern Rockies. In addition, temperatures should be much lower with this set of storms as compared to the early March storm, producing more snow for the Cascades and Sierra Nevada. Unfortunately, little or no precipitation is expected in-between these two large events (Southwest, central and southern Rockies, northern and central High Plains). Temperatures will also average well above normal from the Rockies eastward.
For days 6-10 (March 15-19), the odds favor above median precipitation in the Rockies, northern Plains, eastern half of the Nation (except southern Florida), and southern Alaska. Below median precipitation probabilities were found in the Far West, Southwest, south-central Plains, southern Florida, and northern Alaska. The eastern half of the U.S. and southern Alaska will see good chances for above normal temperatures, while near to below normal readings are likely in the West and northern Alaska.
Here’s the release from the University of Arizona:
A UA-led study, the first to examine the instrumental historical record, discovers that temperature has played a larger role in streamflow and in exacerbating drought since the 1980s.
Warmer-than-average spring temperatures reduce upper Colorado River flows more than previously recognized, according to a new report from a University of Arizona-led team.
Although climate models have suggested that spring temperatures affect streamflow, this study is the first to examine the instrumental historical record to see if a temperature effect could be detected, said lead author Connie Woodhouse, a UA professor of geography and development and of dendrochronology.
“Forecasts of streamflow are largely based on precipitation,” Woodhouse said. “What we’re seeing since the 1980s is that temperature plays a larger role in streamflow and in exacerbating drought.”
The bulk of streamflow in the upper Colorado comes from snowpack. However, temperatures during the “runoff season” of March-July can have a significant impact on the amount of water that ends up in the river, the researchers found. The team studied the records of temperature, cool-season precipitation and streamflow for the years 1906 to 2012.
“In certain years temperature became a very strong influence. It was a bit of a surprise,” Woodhouse said. “If we have a warmer spring, we anticipate that the river flows will be less relative to the amount of snowpack.”
Seven Western states and Mexico use water from the Colorado River for agriculture and for cities. Major U.S. cities that use Colorado River water include Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Diego.
Woodhouse’s co-authors are Gregory Pederson of the U.S. Geological Survey in Bozeman, Montana; Kiyomi Morino of the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research; Stephanie McAfee of the University of Nevada, Reno; and Gregory McCabe of the USGS in Denver. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Southwest Climate Science Center funded the research.
From her previous work with water managers in the region, Woodhouse knows they are interested in how temperature affects streamflow in the Colorado River.
She and her colleagues wanted to determine how Upper Colorado River Basin winter precipitation, March-July temperatures and November soil moisture levels influence annual streamflow at Lees Ferry, Arizona.
For each year from 1906 to 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimates natural upper Colorado River flow based on data recorded from streamgages at Lees Ferry. At that location, Colorado River streamflow reflects water that has drained from the upper basin, which includes Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.
Using the streamflow data, the researchers identified six droughts that occurred in the Upper Colorado River Basin from 1906 to 2012. A drought was defined by consecutive years with below-average streamflow punctuated by no more than one year of normal or above-average flow.
The drought periods were: 1931-1940, 1950-1956, 1959-1969, 1972-1977, 1988-1996 and 2000-2012.
For average winter precipitation and March-July temperatures for the Upper Colorado River Basin, the research team turned to a database that provides climatological data at very high spatial resolution for locations all over the U.S. The database goes back more than 100 years.
Soil moisture records don’t exist very back far into the 20th century. Therefore, the team used a hydrologic model, which is based on modern observations, to generate annual averages for November soil moisture going back to 1906.
The team found November soil moisture had only a small effect on streamflow.
The researchers found that winter precipitation and average runoff-season temperatures varied from drought to drought.
“The 1950s was the driest period, but also the coolest,” Woodhouse said. “In contrast, the most recent drought of 2000 to 2012 was the warmest, but only moderately dry.”
If the temperatures during the runoff season — March to July — were cooler than average, streamflow was higher than expected on the basis of winter precipitation alone, the team found. However, when runoff-season temperatures were above average, streamflow was less than expected on the basis of winter precipitation.
During and since the 1980s, average Upper Colorado River Basin temperatures during the runoff season have been increasing.
“If we have a warmer spring, we can anticipate that the flows will be less relative to the amount of snowpack,” Woodhouse said. “What we’re seeing is not just the future — it’s actually now. That’s not something I say lightly.”
For at least the past decade, climate models have indicated that warming temperatures have an increasing effect in modulating streamflow, she said. The team’s findings, which are based on real, observed data, mirror the predictions of the climate models.
Flooding in Colorado Springs June 6, 2012 FromKKTV.com (Jessica Leicht):
Wednesday marked this year’s first stormwater project, a detention pond at Woodmen Road and Sand Creek.
Unlike a retention pond, detention ponds temporarily store excess storm water. This project should help prevent flooding — and stop sediment from going downstream and ending up in places like Pueblo.
Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said this is just the beginning of the city’s stormwater commitment.
Suthers said since the city did away with the stormwater enterprise six years ago, the city hasn’t been spending the amount of money it should be spending on stormwater projects.
The city said it plans to commit $445 million over the next 20 years to projects that will benefit the city and our downstream neighbors in Pueblo County.
“We have a responsibility as the city grows and creates more impervious surfaces that drain into our creek basins; we have a responsibility to make sure that doesn’t damage property here, or downstream,” Suthers said.
The detention pond project costs $3 million and is expected to be completed by June.
The city said it plans to spend $19 million this year on stormwater projects.
How dry was February? The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s snow measurement stations at Beaver Creek and Vail Mountain recorded just more than 50 percent of the average snowfall for the past 30 years — 58 and 54 percent, respectively.
That’s still better than other areas around the Western Slope. The measurement site at Schofield Pass, between Aspen and Crested Butte, reported 33 percent of the historical average during February.
Despite a lack of new snow and warmer-than-normal temperatures, the area’s snowpack remains in good shape.
The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District reported that snowfall at the Vail, Copper Mountain and Fremont Pass recording sites was tracking either at or slightly above historical averages on Feb. 1.
“Being at 90 percent (of average) — that’s all right,” Eagle River Water & Sanitation District communications and public affairs manager Diane Johnson said. “We were in worse shape in 2013 until we got bailed out by that storm that hit after (Vail) Mountain closed.”
HIGH PRESSURE RIDGE BREAKS
That dry February was largely the result of a ridge of high barometric pressure that set up to the west of Colorado and stayed for a few weeks.
Matthew Aleksa, a meteorologist at the Grand Junction office of the National Weather Service, said that high pressure ridge let only a few small snowstorms into this part of the Rockies after the last significant snow-making system hit the area between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2. Johnson said that storm boosted snowpack in this area to levels that helped the area ride out a dry month.
Aleksa said the high pressure ridge has finally broken down and moved off to the east. That opened the door for the storm system that hit the Vail Valley March 6 and 7.
MONDAY’S SNOWSTORM
That system left a coating of wet snow on local roadways that snarled Monday traffic from about 7 a.m. into the late morning. At one point, it took just more than an hour to drive from a point about a mile west of Avon on Interstate 70 into the Vail Daily building in Eagle-Vail.
While snow fell past the early-morning reporting period, Vail Mountain’s website was reporting 3 inches of new snow Monday morning. Beaver Creek’s website reported 4 inches of new snow during the same period.
Aleksa said areas to the west of the Vail Valley were harder hit, with snow reporting stations on the Grand Mesa, southwest of the valley, reporting between 5 and 10 inches of new snow.
LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE
While snowpack held largely steady during February, that is one of the area’s more snowy months, so there’s catching up to do.
That won’t come for a while. Aleksa said current prediction models forecast another warm, sunny week through the region, with no new snow in the forecast until March 15 or so.
That’s about as far into the future as meteorologists can look with any certainty. Longer-range forecasts aren’t nearly as accurate. Still, the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center has some potentially good news.
The 90-day outlook for precipitation shows a 50 percent chance of above-average precipitation for all of Colorado through the end of May. That could bode well for the final month or so of the current ski season at Vail and Beaver Creek. It could also be good news for water supplies, since most of the valley’s drinking water comes from snowpack.
This snow season — which stretches from October through May — also seems to be hewing to historical norms for El Nino weather patterns, which develop to the west of South America in the Pacific Ocean. Those patterns, which are typified by warmer-than-normal ocean temperatures in that area, usually bring more precipitation early and late in the snow year, with relatively dry conditions through the mid-winter months.
There’s more potentially good news in the future for the Vail Valley. While this year’s El Nino pattern has about run its course, Aleksa said that temperature monitors show that the next pattern to develop will be a La Nina, which has cooler-than-normal temperatures in the same area of the Pacific. The storms spawned by La Nina conditions are generally more favorable to this part of the Rockies. The epic snow season of 2010 — 2011 came during a La Nina pattern.
But that’s next season — maybe. For now, it looks as if the region is on track for a good finish to the snow season, if not the ski season.
Releases from Crystal Dam will be decreased from 800 cfs to 600 cfs on Tuesday, March 8th. Dry conditions in February resulted in another reduction in the runoff forecast. The latest runoff forecast is now at 86% of average. The current content of Blue Mesa Reservoir is 557,000 acre-feet which is 67% full.
Flows in the lower Gunnison River are currently above the baseflow target of 1050 cfs. River flows are expected to stay above the baseflow target for the foreseeable future.
Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations Record of Decision (ROD), the baseflow target in the lower Gunnison River, as measured at the Whitewater gage, is 1050 cfs for March.
Currently, there are no diversions into the Gunnison Tunnel and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon are around 800 cfs. After this release change Gunnison Tunnel diversions will still be at 0 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon should be around 600 cfs. Current flow information is obtained from provisional data that may undergo revision subsequent to review.
Nolan Doesken — Colorado Water Foundation for Water Education President’s Award Presentation 2011
From email from Nolan Doesken:
I just wanted to give you a quick climate update.
We’ve had a fairly average winter so far in terms of precipitation and mountain snowpack accumulation throughout much of the Upper Colorado River Basin and the remainder of Colorado. But after the first few days of February, the frequency and intensity of storms has declined, winds have increased, accumulation of mountain snowpack has leveled off in many areas and we’ve seen a marked warm up in temperatures with a loss of low elevation snow (welcomed by those of you who live and work in some of the mountain valleys that “enjoyed” a frigid winter thanks to localized cold-air pooling.) This is not totally abnormal, but a bit troubling.
We’re now in the final and often most important months of the winter in terms of water supply. Forecasters are back pedaling on their earlier predictions for wet weather this coming 1-2 weeks. The storms are still anticipated to bring copious moisture to northern and central California but now seem more likely to dissipate as they move into the Central Rockies. But long range seasonal predictions (see the 3-month March-May precipitation outlook http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/) are sticking
with the forecast of a good chance for a wet and fairly cool spring — even though the El Nino Southern Oscillation appears to be weakening now (consistent with previous forecasts). Cool wet springs, when they occur, are always a boon for water supplies and sometimes an indicator of flood potential.
If you’ll recall, last year we were very dry and quite warm in March and early April and were losing hope that the anticipated wet spring would material. But it did show up in dramatic fashion. The current forecast is somewhat similar to what was issued for this same time period last year — driven, again, by El Nino relationships — but will likely not play out in the same fashion. Every year is different.
Looking beyond spring, it is very difficult to anticipate summer precipitation anomalies. But most forecasts lean towards anticipating a hot summer — a reliable trend in recent years.
Meanwhile, California’s wet season only has a few more weeks to go, so this week’s anticipated storm is a big deal there. Here in the Rockies our spring “wet seeason” is much longer — lasting to early June on the Front Range and eastern plains. So we’ll have more opportunities, hopefully..
I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, but just want to make sure we’re all paying attention at this critical time in the water year. As we’ve seen time after time — with particularly dramatic drying in spring 2012 and wetting in spring 2015, these next few weeks can make a huge difference.
We will continue to do our detailed weekly assessments and will send e-mail updates each week on Tuesday evening with links to updated climate and water information http://climate.colostate.edu/~drought/
We will also be on “high alert” with an approx 2-week cycle for Tuesday morning 10 AM webinars where you can watch, listen in and chime in.
We are aware that we may be trying to cover too much information in too much detail, so we’re working to streamline these briefings and leave more time for feedback and local input.
If you know of others who would like to be on our distribution list, please let me know. Likewise, if you are tired of getting all this climate information every week just unsubscribe. Finally, I appreciate your input and suggestions on how to improve our information delivery.
We notice that 40% or more of our mailing list do open our weekly update messages — so I guess that’s good.
OK, one LAST thing. Precipitation varies dramatically over short distances in nearly every storm. If you’re not already, please consider joining the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow network (CoCoRaHS) and help monitor precipitation from your own back yard. Take a look at the CoCoRaHS maps http://www.cocorahs.org (click on your state and county) and you’ll quickly see what I mean. Experience has shown time after time that one station every square mile is great, and more than that can be even better. Sign up and help out. Don’t worry, you don’t have to be home to measure every day. That’s the power of having lots of volunteers. Report when you can, and don’t worry about it when you can’t. If you know of others — especially folks that live in some of our data gaps — please encourage them to join. Click the “Join CoCoRaHS” button on the website.
The Colorado Corn Administrative Committee allocates thousands of dollars annually to research endeavors, and has already made sure 2016 will be no different, as the organization recently committed $211,389 to research projects.
These efforts come in addition to the organization’s approximately $185,000 invested in ongoing or recently concluded research endeavors.
Over the years, Colorado Corn has provided dollars, as well as input and resources, to a long list of projects that have evaluated irrigation methods, alternative water-transfer methods, seed varieties, root structure, livestock, farm safety, environmental impacts, biofuels, rotational fallowing and a number of other aspects of farming, all to help producers become more efficient.
Along the way, Colorado Corn has teamed up with municipalities, businesses, universities, research facilities, the state of Colorado and many others – relationships the organization will continue building upon in the never-ending efforts to bring more tools and knowledge to Colorado’s producers.
“Each of these projects represents yet another step in Colorado Corn’s efforts to help farmers produce more food with less resources, and also discovering the most sustainable methods of doing so,” said Colorado Corn Executive Director Mark Sponsler. “Like other research endeavors we’ve supported over the years, these new projects and their results will play a critical role for the future of our farmers and our state’s $40-billion agriculture industry.”
Following all-day meetings and presentations in recent weeks, the Colorado Corn Administrative Committee’s Research Action Team agreed to fund the following endeavors:
• $141,282 ($47,094 per year, over three years) to Colorado State University’s Raj Khosla, Robin Reich and Louis Longchamps, to research and determine the most productive, efficient, profitable and sustainable water, nutrient and seed management strategies for irrigated corn. In particular, this project will examine the agronomic advantages of using variable rate precision-irrigation management, precision-nitrogen management strategies, and variable seeding rates.
• $31,580 to Kirk Broders at Colorado State University, to complete a comprehensive survey of bacterial, fungal and viral pathogens of corn grown in Colorado, including foliar, ear, stalk and root pathogens. This information will later be used to direct future pathological studies of corn at CSU.
• $21,240 to Jerry Johnson and Sally Sauer with Colorado State University, to continue testing yield performance of four drought tolerant corn hybrids compared to four traditional, non-drought tolerant hybrids at three different plant densities under dryland production conditions in northeast Colorado.
• $17,287 to Louis Comas with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, to continue overseeing development of a tool for monitoring and managing water stress in corn.
Other agencies concerned with the impact of the Southern Delivery System on Fountain Creek are awaiting their chance to provide input in the face of new offers by Colorado Springs.
“I think the mayor (John Suthers) is being more realistic about how to address the problem,” said Steve Nawrocki, president of the Pueblo City Council. “What they first came to us with was $19 million for one year, so this is an improvement. I’m not sure it will be enough. We haven’t had a chance to talk about it as a council.”
In January, council unanimously approved a resolution asking that a $500 million backlog in Colorado Springs stormwater projects be addressed within 10 years, and Suthers came close to that over 20 years. Suthers indicated the number was reached during negotiations with Pueblo County, led by Commissioner Terry Hart.
Hart Tuesday said he was surprised at how Suthers had broken the news to media, but said many of the figures he presented are close to what has been discussed.
“There are also things we want in the agreement, but have not made public,” Hart said.
Nawrocki argued that the city of Pueblo should have a seat at the table in the current negotiations between Pueblo County and Utilities.
“I think the county has been pretty secretive in the way they’ve gone about it,” Nawrocki said.
Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, agrees that there should be more openness in writing and enforcing any agreement.
He would like an outside agency, such as the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, to review the list of 73 critical projects as well as the county in order to determine benefit to Pueblo and other downstream communities.
Pueblo County has hired Wright Water Engineers to evaluate the benefits, but as the Environmental Protection Agency’s audit of Colorado Springs’ stormwater permit showed, one set of eyes might not be enough, Winner said.
“I have more faith in John Suthers than I did in Steve Bach,” Winner said, referring to the current and previous mayors of Colorado Springs. Bach opposed a regional drainage district that voters rejected, while Suthers has actively worked to find solutions. “But everyone is term-limited. There needs to be a third party with technical expertise.”
Larry Small, executive director of the Fountain Creek district, says it’s in a chicken-and-egg situation, awaiting funding for both flood control projects and the day-to-day operation of the district.
The district is continuing its studies of what kind of flood control structures would be built and the location, but needs funding to move that work along. Small, who was vice president of Colorado Springs City Council when Pueblo County’s 1041 permit for SDS was issued, contends the first of five $10 million payments to the district is past due.
“The longer it takes them to reach an agreement, the longer it takes for us to begin work,” Small said.
From the Colorado Independent (Marianne Goodland):
Colorado is the only state in the country that outlaws rainwater collection, a popular conservation technique among urban farmers and gardeners that has some rural farmers and ranchers worried cityfolk would violate first-come-first-serve water rights.
A new bill that would allow Coloradans to collect rainwater runoff from their roofs and protect downstream senior water-users rights is coursing its way through the state Capitol.
Leading negotiations between urban and rural water users: Republican Rep. Jon Becker of Fort Morgan.
Under the 2016 bill, residents could collect rainwater in no more than two 50-gallon rain barrels. The state engineer would be responsible for providing information on the appropriate use of rain barrels, and under a Becker-sponsored amendment, would ban rainwater harvesting in years when there’s not enough to go around.
Becker has opposed rainwater harvesting in the past, twice last year, and once this session, when an earlier version of the bill went through the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.
Most Republicans at the Capitol have opposed the bill in the past. Were rain barrels to become popular, opponents worry benevolent city slickers would suck up water farmers and ranchers need for their livelihood.
Prior appropriation example via Oregon.gov
[First in time, First in right] water rights, called prior appropriation, are the backbone of Colorado water law. The first person to use a water source secures the rights. Farmers, ranchers and municipal water providers often have first dibs on water that comes from rivers, streams and ditches.
Senior water rights holders worry that during droughts, which Colorado experiences regularly, there would be no way to enforce restrictions on rain water harvesting and that urban dwellers would abuse their rights.
Rainwater harvesting enthusiasts and environmental groups say the practice will help educate urban and suburban Coloradans about the importance of conservation and where their water comes from. This is a compelling argument to rural water users who complain city dwellers are clueless about where their water comes from and fail to understand how precious every drop is.
Collecting rainwater would have a minimal impact, if any, on water rights, according to a recent study from Colorado State University that proponents have used to show the practice would not impact senior water-rights holders.
The Ag Committee amended the rain barrel bill, House Bill 16-1005, to declare water a property right. Under the amendment, the use of rain barrels would be subject to the prior appropriation doctrine. But the declaration doesn’t have the force of law and did not outline how disputes would be addressed, abuses curbed and rules enforced.
Becker and several other committee Republicans still weren’t convinced, and voted against the bill.
After a week of negotiations between Becker and the measure’s sponsors, the bill was ready for the full House debate last week.
“Is there an appropriate path for an injured party to go through in order to curtail the use of rain barrels?” Becker asked the House, suggesting an amendment to clarify that the state engineer could ban rainwater collection when a downstream user with senior rights didn’t have the water they were entitled to. That authority is granted under a 1963 law intended to address a shortage issue when wells pump out too much water. Becker said rain barrels should apply to this rule, too.
Becker’s amendment also asked the state engineer to keep a close eye on rain barrel use. Under the amendment, the state engineer would report back to the House and Senate ag committees on whether rain collection has violated water rights, based on complaints, rainwater collection pilots or any other data. But that report wouldn’t be due until 2022.
Proving that collecting rainwater in a barrel hurts downstream users isn’t so easy and that concern is sure to be a stumbling block when the bill reaches the Republican-controlled Senate. Still, Becker’s amendment was enough to eliminate much of the Republican opposition to the measure.
“It’s a responsible way to look at rain barrels,” Becker told the House. His efforts didn’t go unnoticed. The bill’s Democratic sponsors and House Majority Leader Crisanta Duran of Denver all applauded Becker’s work on the bill, which gives it a better chance of surviving the Senate.
As amended, the bill garnered support from 16 more House Republicans than a year ago, including Becker, and it passed the House almost unanimously, 61-3.
Here’s a guest column from Samantha Fox running in the Loveland Reporter-Herald:
Rain barrels are in the news again in Colorado, the only state in the U.S. where collection of rainwater is illegal. House Bill 1005, now with the Senate, is an attempt to change that; a similar bill was defeated last year.
Many people react strongly to this debate with a question: why is rainwater capture, a strategy that seems aligned with a water conservation ethic, illegal in a dry state that needs to conserve water?
Others answer just as strongly that the longstanding and tightly managed “prior appropriation” system of Western water rights must be protected. Once the spigot on rain barrels has been opened, can it be turned back off if water rights owners are affected?
Those two poles sum up most of the discourse around rain barrels, but it need not be a polarizing issue. Here are some of the nuances being carefully considered behind the scenes:
• Rainwater harvesting has actually been legal on a limited basis in Colorado since 2009 — those who can’t connect to a municipal system qualify. How many people are operating in this capacity? Has there been evidence of injury to water rights from this law?
• In urban areas, impervious surfaces funnel rain into municipal systems or storm drains. Does this mean it isn’t available to streams for diversion by water right holders anyway? Municipal supply often comes from rural areas. If rainwater harvesting catches on, how would water rights in big drainages be affected by changing the current storage dynamic of rainwater?
• In times of low or even average river flows, some water right holders have to place “calls” that halt junior diversions in favor of senior ones. Just how tenuous is this balance? Is it really so tight that rainwater harvesting could immediately cause some rights holders to lose water? If so, where does this happen and what’s the recourse?
• Colorado is a headwater state for six states dependent on Colorado River water. It’s also the only mainland state that has rivers flowing out but no rivers flowing in. All of Colorado’s water comes from snowpack and rain. Could the scale of rooftop water harvesting become big enough to impact water legally promised to other states? A 2007 study found that 97 percent of rain in one Colorado county evaporated or was taken up by plants. But that is one county in a state with diverse topography and microclimates. How does this dynamic work in every area that is crucial to stream flows?
• Some people have been capturing rainwater illegally for years in Colorado. In other states, rainwater capture is only used by 5 to 10 percent of households; how does Colorado currently compare to this number, and will it reach the same plateau of adoption?
• In the language of the bill, rooftop snow accumulation is equivalent to rain under the generic term, “precipitation.” How does the seasonality of these flows affect water right holders who expect injury?
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 that 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. Asking the less obvious questions is more likely to lead us to a solution we can all live with.
It’s not clear whether the Southern Delivery System will be up and running by the end of April as Colorado Springs desires.
“We’ve seen significant movement, and the commissioners understand the sense of urgency,” said Pueblo County Attorney Greg Styduhar. “But that does not mean we will not continue to apply the same critical eye and comprehensive analysis we have used so far.”
Pueblo County, through its 1041 permit, might not have filled in all the boxes associated with turning on the water by that time, and has been working with Colorado Springs Utilities to complete the checklist. But it has taken time to work through issues, particularly the question of stormwater.
“Both sides have been working diligently and there have been some concessions, but no meeting of the minds,” Styduhar said. He said a final version of an agreement should emerge in the next few weeks, and the commissioners would like to give the public the opportunity to comment.
Once a deal is reached, the public process could add another month for more review.
For almost a year, the county and Utilities have been negotiating an IGA that would allow SDS to start up. The meetings started as an alternative to a “show-cause” hearing on whether Colorado Springs Utilities was meeting all of its commitments under the 1041 agreement. Few details of the talks have emerged up until this week.
Meanwhile, the pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs already has been pressed into service, twice, to supply Pueblo West, which along with Security and Fountain is an SDS partner. Testing continues and Colorado Springs wants to fire up SDS by the end of April, when testing ends and warranties kick in.
Anxious to get things moving, Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers this week revealed a proposal to Pueblo County that puts more than $450 million into play over 20 years to fix drainage problems on Fountain Creek. It also would pave the way to release $50 million over five years to build flood control structures on Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and Pueblo.
The offer increases the amount of money on the table, the range of projects and the time frame, all of which Pueblo County has continued to fight for in negotiations. Styduhar agrees with Suthers that it would be an enforceable contract, citing Supreme Court decisions that back that viewpoint.
The question is timing.
“Certainly, there is a time crunch,” Styduhar said. “But it’s still important to look at it with
a critical eye.”
Southern Delivery System map via Colorado Springs Utilities
Chief Justice Nancy Rice has designated retired Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs to be a mediator in water court cases. The Water Judges of Colorado’s seven water divisions, after conferring with the attorneys in particular cases, will decide whether or not to refer the case to Senior Water Judge Hobbs for mediation. All mediation sessions will be confidential.
New Mexico’s congressional delegation has concerns with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over delays in compensation for expenses and damages caused by the Gold King Mine spill.
The delegation announced Monday that it sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. It asks her agency to process millions of dollars in reimbursement claims submitted by the state and the Navajo Nation and to set up a claims office to begin processing compensation for victims.
The lawmakers also want EPA to adopt a robust, long-term plan for the independent monitoring of the area’s water quality.
“We are deeply troubled that these two issues are still far from resolved six months after the spill,” the lawmakers wrote.
The delegation also warned that the spring snowmelt will increase water flow in the Animas and San Juan rivers and that could stir up lead, arsenic and other contaminants deposited in the wake of August 2015 spill.
The EPA recently announced that it plans to return to the Gold King Mine in southwestern Colorado this spring or early summer to resume preliminary cleanup work after it triggered the 3-million-gallon spill of wastewater that fouled rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah…
The EPA is considering Superfund status for the Gold King and 47 other mining sites in the Bonita Peak Mining District north of Silverton, which would free up millions of dollars in federal funds for an extensive cleanup.
The EPA estimates that about 5.4 million gallons of acidic mine waste flows from those sites each day, eventually reaching the Animas River.
Location map for abandoned mine near Silverton. The Silver Wing is in the upper right corner of the aerial.
FromThe Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Charles Ashby):
A Western Slope lawmaker wants to help folks on the eastern side of the state store more water.
Doing so not only would help serve the growing water demands of thirsty Front Range cities, but also take pressure off other areas of the state from transmountain diversions, said Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio.
Brown, along with Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, introduced a bill to do a comprehensive study on how much water is leaving the South Platte River basin into Nebraska, particularly when there are heavy flood years, such as the massive floods that devastated the state in 2013.
Because of a lack of any additional storage on the Eastern Plains, some of that water ended up in the aquifers, but most of it flowed downstream into Nebraska and Kansas.
The House Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources Committee agreed, unanimously approving the measure, HB1256.
It calls for the Colorado Water Conservation Board to receive $250,000 from the state’s Water Supply Reserve Fund to conduct a hydrology study of the river basin, specifically estimating for each of the past 20 years the volume of water that has been diverted to Nebraska in excess of what the state is required to send downstream.
That study is also to examine how to save that water, either in recharging aquifers or in a new reservoir.
“It’s just one little step in the direction of what we need to do, and that is to manage our water properly,” Brown told the committee. “If we can do that over here (on the Eastern Plains), we will need less Western Slope water, we won’t dry up area farm land (and) we’ll have a bigger supply for municipal, industrial, environmental and agricultural.”
Several groups around the state spoke in favor of the measure, including Christian Reece, executive director of Club 20, who said her group has long advocated for more water storage projects statewide.
“One potential location for a water storage project is the South Platte River,” she told the committee, testifying remotely from Grand Junction. “In 2015, more than 2 million acre feet of water left the state that could have been stored for use here in Colorado. Club 20 has been a long advocate of pursuing additional water storage throughout Colorado, but specifically on the Front Range, where the population demand is the highest.”
Brown said he’s hopeful the study can find new ways to store any excess water, which he said would go a long way in addressing the state’s long-range water needs.
“We’ll increase agricultural production, we’ll have enough water for growth in the state, and that will be good for business and for the environment,” he said.
The bill heads to the House Appropriations Committee for more debate.
