Aspinall Unit operations update #GunnisonRiver #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

From email from Reclamation (Erik Knight):

60 percent of #Colorado in extreme or exceptional #drought — The Kiowa County Press

From The Kiowa County Press (Chris Sorensen):

As drought conditions in western Colorado continue to degrade, 60 percent of the state is now in extreme or exceptional drought – the two worst categories – according to the latest report from the National Drought Mitigation Center. Much of the state experienced above average temperatures and little to no precipitation during the week.

Colorado Drought Monitor October 6, 2020.

The United States Monthly Drought Outlook for October shows drought persisting through the month. Temperatures during the month and through the end of the year are likely to remain above normal, while precipitation is expected to remain below normal.

October 2020 monthly drought outlook via the Climate Prediction Center.

Persistent drought over the summer continues to impact agriculture producers. The United States Department of Agriculture reported that Colorado livestock producers in east central counties are continuing to provide supplemental feed to livestock, and that fields normally cut for grass hay were too short and dry to produce hay this year.

Overall, 17 percent of Colorado is in exceptional drought, up from three percent during the previous week. Extreme drought fell from 50 percent to 43 as conditions degraded. Severe drought also fell from 36 to 31 percent as areas moved into worse conditions. Moderate drought dropped from 10 to 9 percent, while abnormally dry conditions were steady at one percent.

West Drought Monitor October 6, 2020.

#NobelPrize for chemistry honors exquisitely precise gene-editing technique, #CRISPR – a gene engineer explains how it works


American biochemist Jennifer A. Doudna, left, and French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier were awarded this year’s Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Alexander Heinl/picture alliance via Getty Images

Piyush K. Jain, University of Florida

Researchers have been able to manipulate large chunks of genetic code for almost 50 years. But it is only within the past decade that they have been able to do it with exquisite precision – adding, deleting and substituting single units of the genetic code just as an editor can manipulate a single letter in a document. This newfound ability is called gene editing, the tool is called CRISPR, and it’s being used worldwide to engineer plants and livestock and treat disease in people.

For these reasons the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry has been awarded to Emmanuelle Charpentier, director of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Germany, and Jennifer Doudna, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, for discovering and transforming CRISPR into a gene-editing technology. It’s the first time two women have shared a Nobel prize.

I’m a CRISPR engineer, interested in developing novel CRISPR-based gene-editing tools and delivery methods to improve their precision and function.

In the past, my colleagues and I have created a version of CRISPR that can be controlled using light, which allows precise control of where and when gene editing is performed in cells, and can be potentially used in animals and humans. We’ve also created a targeted system that can package and deliver the editing components to desirable cell types – it’s like GPS for cells. Most recently, we engineered a tool that improved the speed and precision of CRISPR so it could be used in rapid diagnostic kits for COVID-19, HIV, HCV and prostate cancer.

While CRISPR scientists like me have been speculating about a Nobel Prize for CRISPR, it was exciting to see Charpentier and Doudna win. This will encourage young, talented engineers and researchers to enter the field of gene editing, which can be leveraged for designing new diagnostics, treatments and cures for a range of diseases.

Gene-editing technology enables researchers to edit the DNA of organisms and reprogram them.
Johan Jarnestad/The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, CC BY-NC

CRISPR/Cas systems as gene editors

Many variants of CRISPR/Cas systems have been discovered, engineered and applied to edit genes. There are already over 20,000 scientific publications on the topic.

CRISPR dates back to 1987, when a Japanese molecular biologist, Yoshizumi Ishino, and colleagues discovered a CRISPR DNA sequence in E. coli. The CRISPR sequence was later characterized by a Spanish scientist, Francisco Mojica, and colleagues, who named it CRISPR, which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.

While people and animals have evolved complex immune systems to fight viral attacks, single-cell microorganisms rely on CRISPR to find and destroy a virus’s genetic material to stop it from multiplying.

Charpentier and Doudna figured out how to borrow this innate biological capability from microbes and apply it to genetic engineering of bacteria.

In a landmark paper, published online on June 28, 2012, Charpentier and Doudna showed that the CRISPR gene-editing machinery includes two components: a guide molecule that serves as sort of a GPS to find and bind the target gene site on the DNA of an invading virus, which then teams up with a CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) that serves as a molecular scissor that snips the DNA.

Jennifer Doudna explains what CRISPR is and how it is used.

Around the same time, Virginijus Siksnys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius, made a similar discovery and submitted results for publication that appeared a few months later, in September 2012. Feng Zhang, a biologist at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and colleagues showed that CRISPR can be improved and used for editing mammalian cells. He currently owns one of the first patents on using CRISPR for gene editing, which is being contested by Doudna’s institution, UC Berkeley.

Once the DNA has been cut in the right spot, the cell will try to repair the cut. But the repair mechanism is error prone, and oftentimes the cells fail to fix the cuts perfectly, ultimately disabling the gene. Disrupting a gene is particularly useful for studying its function and find out what happens if you stop a gene from working. This technique is also useful for treating cancer and infections, where turning off a gene can potentially stop cancer cells and pathogens from dividing or kill them outright.

During this cutting-repair process, one can fool the cells by providing a new piece of DNA. The cells will then incorporate this piece of DNA with desirable edits into the genetic code. This enables researchers to correct a genetic mutation that causes a genetic disease, or replace a defective gene with a healthy one.

The beauty of CRISPR lies in its simplicity. CRISPR can be easily customized to target any gene of interest, whether it is in plants, animals or people. CRISPR applications range from tools for understanding biology, as diagnostics and as new kinds of therapeutics to applications in producing better crops, biofuels and transplantable organs.

[The Conversation’s science, health and technology editors pick their favorite stories. Weekly on Wednesdays.]

Why CRISPR deserved a Nobel Prize

While there is still plenty of room for improvement of these technologies, scientists have already begun testing CRISPR in a number of clinical trials for treating cancer and genetic disorders. CRISPR-based diagnostics have been also been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization for COVID-19 testing.

CRISPR does come with a lot of ethical concerns that warrant caution. For example, in 2018, a Chinese scientist prematurely and unethically used CRISPR for editing human embryos and created CRISPR-edited babies that could pass these genetic alterations to their offspring for generations to come. Some have used the technology for other CRISPR-related DIY biohacks that raise more concerns over regulating the gene-editing technology.

Despite these concerns, CRISPR has huge potential to transform how scientists can detect, treat and even eradicate diseases as well as improve agricultural products. Society is already seeing the benefits of this Nobel-winning technology.The Conversation

Piyush K. Jain, Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, UF Health Cancer Center, University of Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nestlé 2009 Chaffee County 1041 permit agreement was controversial — The Ark Valley Voice

Arkansas River headwaters. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

From The Ark Valley Voice (Daniel Smith):

Editors note: This is the second of a three-part series examining the proposal to renew the county 1041 permit for Nestlé Waters North America.

With public hearings upcoming on whether Chaffee County should grant a 10-year extension with Nestle Waters North America (NWNA) of its 1041 permit to pump water from a local aquifer to truck to Denver for bottling as Arrowhead Spring Water, a review of the agreement’s history is informative.

The initial 1041 permit approved in 2009 was new legal ground for the county at the time.

Nestlé purchased more than 100 acres of land from the late Frank McMurray, the Big Horn Springs, in 2007; reportedly for more than $850,000. Nestlé had planned to pull water from that spring, but NWNA Natural Resources Manager Larry Lawrence said the company decided against using that spring over environmental concerns. A promised conservation easement on that property at the time has yet to be completed.

Nestlé also purchased the onetime fish hatchery property from Harold and Mary Hagen on the site of the Ruby Mountain Spring. This is the spring that Nestlé now taps for the water it takes from Chaffee County. The 11 acres reportedly sold for more than $2,800,000.

Nestlé established a pumping station at Johnson Village after buying about 1.4 acres of land and the liquor store owned by Steve Hansen for $1,125,000. The store was torn down at the site and the pumping station with large storage tanks built on the site, connected by miles of pipeline from the Ruby Mountain Springs pump house.

State water law requires use permits to include replacement (augmentation) of the water they extract, under complex rules mindful of numerous water rights, especially of those with senior water rights downstream on the Arkansas River.

Terry Scanga, head of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, explained that while the district didn’t agree then to lease the company water for its replacement, it was able to strike an agreement for the water with the City of Aurora. That agreement ended at some point; the district now does leave the replacement water to Nestlé, contingent on it being placed into the river upstream of its spring site.

The district received more than $152,000 last year from Nestlé for that replacement water.

The original 1041 pact would allow Nestlé to pump as much as 65 million gallons annually from the spring. But local officials say that currently, the amounts pumped never approaches that limit.

At the pumping station, 25 large tanker trucks per day fill up with the water collected in a 30,000-gallon storage tank on-site, and then drive up U.S. Hwy 285 about 130 miles to the Denver bottling plant, where it is treated and packaged in plastic bottles for sale in hundreds of stores around the state.

Lawrence said each of those trucks weighs about 87,000 pounds fully loaded, so drivers take their time getting to their destination. The firm doing the hauling, D.G. Coleman, has a good safety record.

Scanga, who has dealt with water law and water issues for decades, said from his perspective Nestlé has met the requirements of their 1041 permit regarding the water regulations.

Opposition groups, including Unbottle and Protect Chaffee County Water and the long-established environmental group 350 Central Colorado disagree and point to other permit conditions such as hiring local truck drivers, they say have not been met.

They are also critical of what they term is a lack of real oversight of the operation by the county.

Nestlé, portraying itself as a ‘good neighbor,’ has financially supported community causes and provided funds for educational programs.

These include paying a half-million dollars into two education endowments for Salida and Buena Vista schools. It has made $20,000 in one-time donations; including $10,000 to the Chaffee County Community Foundation, as well as contributions to the Boys and Girls Club; local Trout Unlimited chapter, and others.

Thousands of cases of Nestlé Water were also donated to Food Bank of the Rockies and other entities.

Critics often say while commendable, those community benefits are relatively minor in comparison to the profits the company garners from its bottled water sales and the loss of county water as a resource.

We’ll explore more specifics of the pros and cons of this contentious issue in our next report.

Public hearings on the proposed permit renewal are scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Oct. 20 and 9:00 a.m. Oct. 22 at the Chaffee County Fairgrounds. Attendance has to be limited due to COVID-19 concerns, but the hearings will also be available for viewing online.

These hay fields may know something we don’t: how to save the #ColoradoRiver — @WaterEdCO #COriver #aridification

Research technician and Grand County rancher Wendy Thompson collects hay samples as part of a far-reaching experiment to see if ranchers can fallow hay meadows and conserve more water for the Colorado River. Credit: Dave Timko, This American Land. Aug. 12, 2020 via Water Education Colorado

From Water Education Colorado (Jerd Smith):

Grand County rancher Paul Bruchez stands in a hay field near Kremmling, holding a small tuft of hay between his fingertips, twirling it back and forth, seeing how quickly it disintegrates after a summer without water.

The plant, known as timothy, is native to Colorado and feeds thousands of cattle here in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

This hay species and others are being closely watched this year as part of a far-reaching $1 million science experiment, one designed to see if ranchers can take water off of hay fields and successfully measure how much was removed, how much evaporated, and how much was used by plants. They also need to know how reducing their irrigation in this fashion affects the nutritional value of the hay.

If certain hay species retain more nutrients than others when they’re on low-water diets, then ranchers know their cattle will continue to eat well as they evaluate whether they can operate their ranches on less H20—not all the time, but perhaps every other year or every two to three years.

“We’ve spent centuries learning how to irrigate these lands,” Bruchez said. “Now we’re learning what it’s like not to irrigate them.”

Any water saved could be left in the Colorado River, allowing it to become more sustainable, even as the West’s population grows and drought cycles become more intense.

Scaling up

While similar small-scale experiments on five or 10 acres have been done before, this one by comparison is vast in scale, involving 1,200 acres of high-altitude hay meadows, nine ranch families, a team of researchers spread across Colorado, Utah and Nevada, and the backing of powerful water groups, farm interests, and environmentalists.

“We’ve never had a project this large in the state of Colorado,” said Perry Cabot, a Colorado State University researcher who is the lead scientist on the project.

The undertaking is sponsored by the Colorado River Basin Roundtable, whose members include Bruchez.

“We set out on a mission to ensure we have as much science and data as possible,” Bruchez said.

The data being collected serves several needs. It should help ranch families see if they can afford to participate in these modern-era conservation efforts.

It will allow researchers to better understand what works on the ground and what to do, for instance, when rambunctious bulls destroy research equipment enclosures 25 miles from the nearest town.

And it will give policy makers insight into the political problems that will have to be solved, as well as how much money could need to be raised, to make large-scale conservation on the Colorado River feasible.

The $1 million, three-year project is being funded by the state and several environmental groups, with the money being used to pay researchers, buy equipment, and compensate ranch families who temporarily fallow their fields.

Rancher and fly fishing guide Paul Bruchez’s daughter and nephew sit in a hay field at the family ranch near Kremmling. Bruchez is helping spearhead a study among local ranchers, which could inform a potential statewide demand management program. Photo credit: Paul Bruchez via Aspen Journalism

Water for Powell?

Agriculture uses some 80 percent of the water in the seven-state Colorado River Basin, and hay meadows that grow feed for cattle are among the basin’s largest water users.

Last year, under an historic drought agreement on the Colorado River, a new specially protected drought pool in Lake Powell was authorized.

Now Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico, the four states that comprise the Colorado River’s Upper Basin, above Lake Powell, are studying whether they can or should help save enough water to fill that drought pool. The pool, authorized at 500,000 acre-feet, is intended as further insurance that the Upper Basin won’t be forced to involuntarily reduce water use from the river under the terms of the Colorado River Compact.

Colorado expects it would need to provide roughly half the water for the drought pool, and, led by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, is working out difficult questions about how that water would be saved and ushered downstream to Lake Powell under a possible voluntary program known as demand management. The research being done near Kremmling will help answer several critical questions.

Wendy Thompson is a rancher who also serves as the research technician for the pilot program, cutting hay samples and gathering soil moisture and precipitation data, among dozens of other tasks. She has driven hundreds of miles across Grand County this summer, checking each of the program’s 24 research sites every week or so, lugging an aging laptop from one meadow to the next.

She knows better than most that ranch families will need real information, such as how fallowing affects crop yields and soil health and production costs, in order to make decisions about whether to join in a voluntary multi-state conservation effort or to back away.

Intuition vs. facts

“The experiment is important to us,” Thompson said. “We want to make decisions based on the science and the data, not a gut feeling.”

Much of the work is grueling, like cutting hay samples week after week, and low tech, like measuring water levels in rain gauges.

But dramatic advances in satellite imagery and global evapotranspiration databases are helping people like Perry Cabot create science-based templates that eventually will be useful not just in Colorado, but Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico and perhaps even farther downstream, on cotton fields in Arizona and avocado groves in California’s Central Valley.

“We now have the ability to measure the whole field,” Cabot said. “It’s becoming more accurate and it’s tremendously convenient if you’re trying to get a good understanding of patterns. We don’t have to rely on one data point anymore.” [Editor’s note: Cabot sits on the board of Water Education Colorado, which is a sponsor of Fresh Water News.]

A view of the popular Pumphouse campground, boat put-in and the upper Colorado River. Photo credit: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

That this particular team has agronomists, economists and environmentalists pitching in with their expertise is also helping move the science forward.

Brass tacks

“What makes this different is the scale and the depth of the questions we’re asking,” said Aaron Derwingson, an agricultural water specialist with The Nature Conservancy’s Colorado River Program, which is helping to fund the project.

“When we’re done it will be relevant to more people than just the ranchers. We will be able to extrapolate these field conditions and what it means for water savings and the recovery of different species,” he said.

“It’s tough to figure all that out on paper. Here we’re getting down to brass tacks,” Derwingson said.

With irrigation season over, Cabot and his team have serious number crunching to do before they begin monitoring next year, measuring how the hay fields survived their fallowed season, how quickly they return to health, and precisely how much water was conserved.

Early estimates indicate that the ranchers may have saved 1,500 acre-feet to as many as 2,500 acre-feet of water this year. If this process can be replicated, scientists and ranchers could begin to see how long it might take to fill the 500,000 acre-foot drought pool at Lake Powell.

No collateral damage

But even more important to Bruchez and state policy makers is the impact the pilot is having on a highly skeptical ranching community, some of whom are deeply worried that they will lose control of their water.

“We wanted a project that would be as smooth as possible,” Bruchez said. “We wanted to simplify it and ensure there weren’t unintended damages to neighbors who weren’t participating.

“Some people were comfortable about what we were doing and others had great fears,” he said. “We just had to keep telling them, ‘We are not delivering water to Lake Powell. We are trying to fill data gaps.’”

Jerd Smith is editor of Fresh Water News. She can be reached at 720-398-6474, via email at jerd@wateredco.org or @jerd_smith.