Opinion: Hoping for a miracle to save the #OgallalaAquifer? Prepare for the new Dust Bowl — The #KansasReflector

In this archive photo, an ATV races along the dry bed of the Arkansas River at Dodge City, Kansas. Because of irrigation and other factors, the river has been dry since the late 1970s. Max McCoy

Click the link to read the guest column on the Kansas Reflector website (Max McCoy):

June 30, 2024

In the summer of 1894, a curious railway car plied the tracks of western Kansas, a chemical soup wafting to a sky ruled by a demon sun and chastened by moisture-devouring winds. At the helm of this experiment on wheels, owned by the Rock Island railroad, was a 32-year-old train dispatcher who had convinced railway officials and town leaders across the state that he had the secret to make it rain.

The aspiring rainmaker, Clayton B. Jewell, was an instant celebrity in a parched land thirsting for heroes. Rock Island officials were so confident of his ability they eventually designated three cars for his rain-making experiments, which by their count had succeeded in all of 52 attempts.

Jewell kept the concoction of chemicals he sent to the sky a closely held secret and scoffed at others who said they had achieved similar results with his method. In an 1895 letter to his hometown newspaper, the Topeka State Journal, he boasted that if only he had the necessary equipment he would โ€œwager my life itself that I could produce rain in ten minutes in the clearest of skies.โ€

Jewell traversed western Kansas in his rainmaking car during the worst drought in Kansas that anybody could remember and the seventh straight year of crop failures. The drought had lasted an agonizing 20 months. The resulting economic chaos had ruined farmers and threatened the businesses, like railroads, that depended on profits from hauling and selling crops.

At Clay Center, W.I. Allen, assistant general manager of the Rock Island line, had in April sat in his private car at Clay Center, and surveyed the dry Kansas prairie.

โ€œWe will stop this thing,โ€ Allen declared, as reported by the Kinsley Mercury. โ€œWe will send our rainmakers into southern and western Kansas, temper this heat and save the corn crop.โ€

But no relief was to come.

Map of the Arkansas River drainage basin. Created using USGS National Map and NASA SRTM data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79039596

โ€œThe great Arkansas Valley, one of the richest west of the Missouri River, with its great underflow of water, is to-day a vast desolate waste,โ€ reported the New York Times in August 1894. โ€œHundreds of square miles of fine crops have been burned up in less than three days, and the cornstalks are scarcely worth cutting for fodder, as all the blades will fall to pieces when handled.โ€

The harsh reality of agriculture beyond the 100th Meridian, which runs through Dodge City and roughly separates the arid western third of the state from its more humid majority, was already well known. John Wesley Powell, the Grand Canyon explorer and director of the U.S. Geological Survey during the late 19th century, had argued that plans for settlement and development west of the line should be different because of the lack of water. Powellโ€™s warning was ignored, according to Wallace Stegnerโ€™s 1954 book on Powell and the West, โ€œBeyond the Hundredth Meridian.โ€

After the Civil War, a myth took hold on the Great Plains that โ€œrain follows the plow.โ€ This phrase, which expanded on previous notions that once broken the sod would absorb rain like a sponge, was coined in 1881 by Charles Dana Wilber, a journalist and land speculator. Simply planting lush green crops, Wilber wrote, would cool the earth and attract showers.

Many homesteaders staked their futures on the belief that simply breaking ground for crops would attract enough precipitation to allow rain beyond the 100th Meridian, and for a few years it seemed to work. Then came trials that must have seemed Biblical in nature: the locusts and the periodic droughts and terrifying twisters. The economic spasms of bust and boom continued until the Dust Bowl of the 1930s wiped just about everyone out, with southwest Kansas and the Oklahoma panhandle at the center of the disaster.

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s wiped out Midwestern farmers and prompted a mass migration. (Arthur Rothstein/Library of Congress)

The Dust Bowl was the result of severe drought, economic collapse, and poor soil conservation. It was an environmental crisis made worse by greed and bad decisions, and it prompted one of the largest migrations in American history. By 1940, some 2.5 million people had abandoned the plains states. Powellโ€™s warning about settlement west of the 100th Meridian had proven true.

After World War II, technology provided a solution to the problem of farming in the arid West: irrigation.

Flood irrigation — photo via the CSU Water Center

In western Kansas and most of the Great Plains in the first decades of the last century, irrigation meant โ€œflood irrigation.โ€ It was an inefficient method of flooding cropland by diverting the flow of water from a river by way of a canal (or โ€œditchโ€ as they are mostly called in the West). Ditches are still used to move water from one place to another, but by far the most water used in agriculture in western Kansas is groundwater from the Ogallala Aquifer. The aquifer is one of the worldโ€™s largest and lies beneath eight states, from South Dakota to Texas.

McGuire, V.L., and Strauch, K.R., 2022. Data from U.S. Geological Survey.

In the 1950s, it was thought the water in the aquifer was inexhaustible. More and more wells were drilled to reach the aquifer and new delivery methods, chiefly center point irrigation, revolutionized farming. But unlike surface water such as that found in a river, with a relatively quick recharge from rain and snow, the groundwater in the Ogallala Aquifer is prehistoric. It is recharged on a geological time scale. Now we know the aquifer is not inexhaustible. In some places, such as beneath the community of Jetmore, north of Dodge City, the aquifer is already nearing depletion. That depletion is accelerated by climate change and continued over pumping of water.

Once the water is gone, itโ€™s gone for the rest of our lifetimes โ€” and because geologic recharge is so slow, several hundred or perhaps thousands of lifetimes to come. Kansas Reflectorโ€™s Allison Kite, in partnership with Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy, reported in May that despite the grim prognosis, one of the stateโ€™s locally controlled water management districts has resisted adopting meaningful water conservation methods.

Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District 3, perched just above the Oklahoma panhandle in the extreme southwest corner of Kansas, is under fire for its travel expenses, lack of a formal conversation policy and its alienation of farmers who would like to conserve water. Despite a budget of $1 million, it has spent little of it on conservation, although executive director Mark Rude argues everything the district does is in the name of conservation. But in contrast to other districts, District 3 is clearly lagging.

The stateโ€™s five groundwater management districts were established in the 1970s, according to the Kansas Geological Survey. In 2020, for example, Groundwater Management District 1 used a state law that allows for the creation of โ€œLimited Enhanced Management Areasโ€ to commit farmers to reduce consumption by 50% over seven years.

By 2026, according to a new state law, all districts โ€” including District 3 โ€” will be forced to submit reports to the Legislature and file a water conservation action plan with the stateโ€™s chief engineer.

Much of the resistance in District 3 is cultural. Locals like being in control, dislike being told what to do, and consider their legacy water rights sacred. On the districtโ€™s website you can read about how the district was organized to โ€œprovide for the stabilization of agriculture by establishing the right of local users to determine their own destiny with respect to the use of groundwater.โ€

Such declarations ignore the rest of us, who have a reasonable right to expect that prehistoric groundwater in the Ogallala Aquifer should belong to us all. But Kansas water rights are based on the โ€œfirst in time โ€” first in rightโ€ principle, which means the earliest users are given priority.

Kansas Aqueduct route via Circle of Blue

Perhaps the thinking of District 3 officials is best represented by a couple of stunts in which thousands of gallons of Missouri River water was trucked 400 miles to southwest Kansas. The project was meant to drum up support for an aqueduct that would take water from the Missouri River in northeast Kansas to a reservoir in Utica. Since water flows downhill, and taking water to the west in Kansas is literally an uphill battle, 15 pumping stations would be required. The ground-hugging aqueduct โ€” really, just a glorified ditch โ€” would cost an estimated $18 billion to build and another billion a year in ongoing costs.

The Kansas aqueduct is a nutty idea, but one that has taken root among some individuals in western Kansas desperate for a solution to continue irrigation after the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. Aside from its expense and impracticality, it is a regressive idea that harkens back to the days of ditches and avoids a conversation about us having squandered the resource beneath our feet. It also ignores any objections the folks on the other side of the Missouri River, in Iowa and Missouri, might have to say about us taking water from a river we share.

Sprinklers irrigate a field in Hamilton County, Kansas, where some farmers have petitioned to be removed from a local groundwater management district. State lawmakers are pressuring the district to do more to conserve water in the Ogallala Aquifer. (Allison Kite/Kansas Reflector)

The aqueduct is something our 1890s rainmaker, Clayton B. Jewell, might have understood. At least, he might have appreciated how desperate some folks are to believe in a solution that doesnโ€™t really address the problem.

The problem is that agriculture in the state is unsustainable beyond the 100th Meridian without irrigation. Instead of an anomaly, the magnitude of drought that drove the Dust Bowl can be expected to occur with alarming frequency.

โ€œPaleoclimatic data collected for western Kansas indicate a drought as severe as the Dust Bowl occurs there, on average, three to four times a century, according to a Kansas Geological Survey circular. โ€œBased on that probability, there is a 35% chance for a severe drought year in any decade, a 70% chance within a 20-year span, and a 100% chance over the estimated 40-year working lifetime of a western Kansas farmer.โ€

The new law that requires District 3 to deliver a water conservation action plan was passed in response to the Kansas Water Authority saying last year that the stateโ€™s longstanding policy of simply slowing depletion was insufficient to protect the Ogallala aquifer. The law is a step toward the state taking control of water management from local districts if consumption continues to outpace conservation.

The battle over the aquiferโ€™s decline pits good policy against powerful agricultural and political interests. Add to the mix the independence that seems woven into the cultural fabric of southwestern Kansas, and you have the ingredients for a water war that might define the region for decades to come.

But this is one war we may already have lost.

Weโ€™ve already killed the Arkansas River in western Kansas, leaving just a dry bed behind. Every other river and stream and creek in that third of the state has also vanished. The natural recharge just isnโ€™t enough to keep water in them. Worse, climate change appears to be driving the arid zone to the east, creating an even bigger water crisis.

About a third of Kansas counties are currently in a moderate to severe drought, with some of the worst conditions in the area served by District 3, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. The drought puts pressure on farmers to pump more water instead of voluntarily committing to conserve. Itโ€™s difficult to get people to do the right thing when itโ€™s against their economic interests.

If only Jewellโ€™s apparatus had really worked.

The rainmaking railway car was inspected in 1892 by a newspaper reporter who described the mysteries within.

โ€œInside the laboratory part of the car a wide shelf about two feet from the floor extends from one end to the other,โ€ the correspondent wrote. โ€œOn this are many curious-looking bottles and boxes said to contain the chemicals from which the rain producing gases are made.โ€

There were also pipes, bottles, other laboratory apparatus, and a 24-cell battery. Jewell said the gases produced would rise to 8,000 feet, then condense, creating a vacuum that would be filled with moisture โ€” and produce rain.

โ€œThere are many thinking people in Kansas who believe absolutely in Jewellโ€™s rain-making system, and they are encouraging him in every possible way,โ€ wrote the observer. In other quarters, however, Jewellโ€™s work was received with skepticism, and sometimes superstition, as those who prayed for rain regarded his apparatus as the work of the devil.

Jewell died in Coffeyville in 1906, aged 44, from pneumonia.

โ€œFor two or three seasons Mr. Jewell did little else besides operating this (rainmaking) car and apparatus,โ€ noted his obituary in the Topeka Capital, โ€œbut it was finally abandoned.โ€

No rainmaker, no aqueduct, and no prayer will save western Kansas from the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. The best we can hope for is to reduce consumption, buy a little more time, and adjust to a changing climate and economy. It is time to heed the warning John Wesley Powell gave us so long ago โ€” and prepare for the new Dust Bowl.

Max McCoy is an award-winning author and journalist. Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Rivers of Kansas map via Geology.com

In #Colorado, new scrutiny and possible fixes coming for drinking water in mobile home parks: State officials got a head start on a new testing program at one community in Western Colorado — The Water Desk

New Castle back in the day via the Red Slipper Diary

Click the link to read the article on The Water Desk website (Eleanor Bennett):

May 16, 2024

In western communities, mobile home parks provide a more affordable place to live, but residents often face problems with their drinking water. 

In Colorado, a new law gives the state authority to test water quality in these communities and force owners to fix any issues.

The state plans to start testing the water at hundreds of parks across the state this summer. Officials have already gotten a head start at one community in Western Colorado that helped spur the legislation.

Apple Tree Park sits on the banks of the Colorado River just across from the town of New Castle. 

Silvia Barragรกn moved to the park in 2015. Her street is lined with trees and she has a big yard with a garden. 

โ€œSome people might look at this as just a trashy mobile park, but itโ€™s not,โ€ Barragรกn said. โ€œItโ€™s a nice, nice neighborhood. Thereโ€™s a lot of kids in the summer running around and thereโ€™s a lot of elderly people that have lived here most of their lives.โ€

Barragรกn is originally from Michoacรกn, Mexico, and she raised her family in western Colorado. Her experience at Apple Tree Park over the last decade has mostly been positive. 

โ€œSince I moved here, I felt peaceful and at home,โ€ Barragรกn said. โ€œMy neighbors are great neighbors and I havenโ€™t had any issues in Apple Tree except the water.โ€

For years, Barragรกn and her neighbors have been speaking out about the discolored water that comes out of their taps. 

โ€œItโ€™s kind of brownish, yellowish. Itโ€™s kind of nasty,โ€ she said. โ€œItโ€™s like river water, like if Iโ€™m camping and I go get river water, thatโ€™s what it looks like.โ€

Barragรกn only wears black now because the water stains her clothes and laundry, and it ruins her appliances.

It has an unpleasant smell and taste, so she fills up water jugs at the local grocery store.

โ€œI buy water,โ€ Barragรกn said. โ€œI buy water for cooking, I buy water for drinking, I buy water for the dogs.โ€ 

When the state tested the water at Apple Tree Park, they found it meets federal EPA standards under theย Safe Drinking Water Act, passed in 1974, but it has higher than normal levels of heavy metals such as iron and manganese. The park is supplied by groundwater wells, and is outside the limits of the nearby town of New Castle, which draws the majority of its drinking supply from a nearby creek.

Joel Minor used to manage the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmentโ€™s environmental justice program, and said Apple Treeโ€™s situation โ€” of heavy metals showing up in underground well water โ€” is pretty common. 

โ€œBecause of the taste and color and odor of the water, it can be unpleasant to drink and can cause other issues,โ€ Minor said. โ€œWe recognize that that creates challenges for park residents and may require them to spend money on things like bottled water or repairing or replacing appliances.โ€

While Apple Treeโ€™s overall water system meets federal health standards for drinking, a recent round of testing this winter found that a few samples out of the 200 taken had manganese levels that were above the EPAโ€™s health advisory for infants. High levels of manganese can negatively impact babiesโ€™ brain development.

When the state got the test results back in February, they worked with the park ownerโ€”Utah-based company Investment Property Group (IPG)โ€”to notify residents and local health officials about the issue. 

โ€œWhat we want folks to know is to be cautious about using tap water from the park for making formula for infants under the age of six-months-old,โ€ Minor said. โ€œThese particular locations where this occurred seem to be spots where maybe the water isnโ€™t being flushed quite as well.โ€

With the passage of the Mobile Home Park Water Quality Act in 2023, the stateโ€™s been working with IPG to do more regular testing and to fix the water issues. The company didnโ€™t respond to multiple requests for comment. 

In 2020, IPG bought the mobile home park from the local Talbott family, which had owned the park since its inception. The company has properties across 13 states, including more than 110 mobile home parks, according to the Mobile Home Park Home Owners Allegianceโ€™s online database.

The state has been having regular meetings with IPG, Garfield County health officials, local advocacy groups and park residents to come up with a variety of ways to improve the water. 

โ€œOne key short-term solution that weโ€™ve been working with the park on is flushing the water system more frequently, which can help remove iron and other metals that have accumulated in the system,โ€ Minor said. โ€œWeโ€™ve also worked with that same coalition to put on an informational webinar about how to do in-home flushing for appliances like water heaters and pipes so that residents are also able to flush their own water systems.โ€

Another short-term fix already underway is putting in water stations where residents can fill up jugs for cooking and drinking. 

The state is providing direct funding to the park in the form of an assistance grant to help install these stations. One has already been installed at a local school across from the mobile home park thatโ€™s also owned by IPG, and the company plans to install a second by early June in a communal area near the entrance to the park. 

โ€œThat was something we came up with based on feedback from park residents that folks are having to drive across the river and across the highway into New Castle to fill water jugs for drinking and other purposes,โ€ Minor said. โ€œSo these are key short-term solutions, but we recognize they donโ€™t address the root cause of the problem.โ€

To address the root cause, the state is proposing bigger engineering solutions like installing a filtration system, or even connecting Apple Tree to a municipal water supply. 

But Apple Tree is just one of about 750 mobile home parks in Colorado. The new legislation gives the state authority to test, but the full scope of just how bad water quality could be at those parks, and the costs to fix the various causes could easily begin to rise as testing ramps up.

There is additional funding available for park owners to make these system-wide changes, and if they donโ€™t, the state could impose fines until the problem is fixed. 

โ€œWe are really trying to prioritize solutions that wonโ€™t increase rent for park residents by either looking at lower cost options or ways of getting outside funding that can ensure that some of those costs donโ€™t get passed on to residents,โ€ Minor said. โ€œWe know that passing along the cost could potentially make the equity challenges that are already at play worse if residents have to pay more for their water bills or their space rents.โ€

Alex Sanchez leads the Glenwood Springs-based Latine advocacy nonprofit Voces Unidas, which worked with Apple Tree residents and Democratic Colorado House Representative Elizabeth Velasco of Glenwood Springs to pass the water quality legislation. 

โ€œWeโ€™re not opposed to getting state dollars and federal dollars to be able to support or incentivize some of these solutions,โ€ Sanchez said. โ€œBut ultimately, we believe itโ€™s the responsibility of those corporate owners who have been making a lot of profit off the backs of hardworking folks without having access to, you know, quality water, potentially sidewalks, infrastructure and other benefits that many of us take for granted.โ€ย 

For Sanchez and Voces Unidas, the new law is just the first step in addressing a widespread environmental justice issue โ€” many people living in these communities have lower incomes, donโ€™t speak English as a first language, donโ€™t have access to resources to file complaints, and are Latines or other people of color. 

โ€œThe issue is not just contained to one or two parks. Something is happening in these mobile home park communities and because theyโ€™re not regulated, thereโ€™s not a lot of accountability,โ€ Sanchez said. โ€œMany of these communities across Colorado are owned by corporations that are from out of state.โ€ 

In a recent statewide poll in Colorado, Voces Unidas found 41% of mobile home park residents surveyed did not trust or drink their water. 

Since 2020, the stateโ€™s health and environment department has received 66 formal water quality complaints from 42 parks. State officials estimate that it will take them four years to test the water at all of Coloradoโ€™s roughly 750 parks. 

For her part, Apple Tree Park resident Silvia Barragรกn is glad that her community is at the top of the stateโ€™s list. 

โ€œWhen I bought this place, I thought I was gonna retire here,โ€ Barragรกn said. โ€œSo I would be sad to think that I need to buy another place just because, you know, I havenโ€™t seen any change.โ€

Barragรกn hopes the new legislation will speed things up, but she doesnโ€™t know how much longer she can wait for clean water. 

This story was produced by Aspen Public Radio, in partnership with The Water Desk, an independent initiative of the University of Colorado Boulderโ€™s Center for Environmental Journalism. 

2024 #COleg: A #Colorado Program the Colorado Way — Audubon Rockies

Photo credit: Audubon Rockies

Click the link to read the release on the Audubon Rockies websiite (Abby Burk):

On May 29, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis stated โ€œWater is life in Colorado and today I was proud to protect our water resources that are essential for our agriculture, our economy, and our way of life.โ€ That day, he signed HB24-1379 Regulate Dredge & Fill Activities in State Waters, making Colorado the first state in the nation to pass legislation that addresses the stream and wetlands protection gap created by the May 2023 Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision. It took a lot of hard work, long days, collaboration, substantive and technical outreach, leaning into complex topics, working through misinformation, and dealing with a competing bill. We had to make some compromises, but ultimately, we came together in the โ€œColorado wayโ€ on a new law that works for Coloradoโ€™s unique intermountain waterways and protects wetlands and streams that were put at risk of losing protection by the Sackett decision.

Audubon convened and facilitated conversations to support consensus around a good solution and worked to depoliticize wetland and stream protections. After all, they support all of us. Audubon celebrates our network who submitted 2,248 comments to legislators in support of creating a robust Colorado Dredge and Fill Program that covers all streams and wetlands. Audubon members also made more than 60 contributions to the “What’s Your Wetland?” storymap in support of HB24-1379. Audubon celebrates our critical partnerships with the Protect Colorado Waters Coalition and the Colorado Healthy Headwaters Working Group as we worked together to preserve our critical needs through a storied and challenging process.

The new lawโ€”led by Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie (D-Dillon), Senator Dylan Roberts (D-Frisco), Representative Karen McCormick (D-Longmont), and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) Director of the Water Quality Control Division, Nicole Rowanโ€”is excellent news for Colorado’s birds and communities that critically depend upon clean water. It helps lead the way for other states in their pursuit of wetland and stream protections in the post-Sackett landscape.

House Bill 24-1379 was one of two proposed bills that sought to address the regulatory gap created by the Sackett decision. Senate Bill 24-127, sponsored by Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer (R-Brighton), was the second. Due to the two competing approaches of the two bills, consensus was found after a wild ride of public engagement, testimonies, intense negotiations, and 29 amendments. Notably, Senator Kirkmeyer became a co-sponsor to the amended and final HB24-1379 within the last week of the legislative session, winning bipartisan backing.

Why Was a โ€œColorado Programโ€ Necessary to Protect Wetlands and Streams? 

Wetlands and stream systems are essential for birds and provide ecosystem services such as water purification, wildlife habitat, and flood, wildfire, and drought mitigation. Colorado has lost about 50 percent of its wetlands due to development since statehood, so protecting what remains is imperative. 

The Clean Water Actย  provides authorities for the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to define and regulate different types of water bodies. This includes the 404 Permit Program, which determines which wetlands must be regulated and which kinds of dredge-and-fill activities must be permitted for specific waterways.ย The U.S. Supreme Court decision inย Sackett v. EPAย dramatically narrowed the scope of these regulations and undercut waters subject to federal regulation and placed an estimated 60 percent of Colorado wetlands at risk of losing protections. Moreover, all ephemeral streams and a significant portion of intermittent streamsย in every area of the state would have lost protection if a new state program was not adopted. The United States Geological Survey’s National Hydrography Dataset* (as reported inย Colorado’s 2022ย Sackettย Amicus Brief) estimates that 24 percent of Colorado’s streams are ephemeral and 45 percent are intermittent** meaning over two-thirds of Colorado’s waters are temporary and lack year-round flow. ย 

The Sackett decision opened the doors for development to occur next to and on top of wetlands on private land, so long as there is no surface water connection between them and flowing waterways. House Bill 24-1379 was drafted to moderate the pendulum swings in federal wetland and stream protection levels in Colorado by creating a predictable State permitting and protections program that would work for Coloradoโ€™s intermountain semi-arid waterways.

What Does the New Law do for Coloradoโ€™s Wetlands, Streams, and Restoration Projects?ย 

The new state Dredge and Fill Permit Program created by HB24-1379 contains many details established in statute, and there are areas where more time and attention is needed to determine outcomes through a rulemaking process. Although the new law contains all of the federal 404 agricultural exemptions and some new exemptions tailored to Colorado needs on irrigation ditches, and much more, the below list pertains to Audubon and the Colorado Healthy Headwater Working Groupโ€™s direct work in protecting wetlands and streams and restoration project capabilities. 

  • The new regulatory protections program, with its broad application to Colorado ‘State Waters,’ surpasses the scope of the federal ‘Waters of the United States.’
    • “State Waters” C.R.S. 25-8-103(19) means any and all surface and subsurface waters which are contained in or flow in or through this state, but does not include waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment works of disposal systems, waters in potable water distribution systems, and all water withdrawn for use until use and treatment have been completed.“
  • The new permitting program is structured to prioritize avoidance of adverse impacts to State Waters, followed by minimization and, finally, compensatory mitigation of the unavoidable impacts.
  • Federal 404 guidelines are the floor and not the ceiling for any state rules, allowing Colorado to customize regulations that work for intermountain semi-arid waterways.
  • The existing Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) will draft the new rules and review and issue individual permits so that no new regulatory commission will be formed, and reports will be generated detailing the functionality of the new permitting approach.
  • The new law creates a new definition in the statute of “ecological lift,” which โ€œmeans an improvement in the biological health, as well as the chemical, geomorphic or hydrologic health of an area that has been damaged, degraded for destroyed.โ€
  • This new definition is used as one of several criteria for when certain restoration projects will not be required to obtain a state dredge and fill permit: For ephemeral streams, the WQCC must promulgate rules that include: โ€œAn exemption for voluntary stream restoration efforts in ephemeral streams that do not require compensatory mitigation and are designed solely to provide ecological lift where the activity is taking place.โ€ This was one of the provisions that Audubon pressed hard for to maintain the status quo that restoration of rangeland ephemeral drainages to stop erosional headcuts from destroying critical mesic areas could continue to take place without having to obtain a dredge and fill permit (as these areas have always fallen outside of the federal 404 permit jurisdiction). These mesic area restoration projects have been happening for about 10 years in Colorado with great success.
  • For perennial and intermittent streams, if your restoration project requires a federal USACE 404 Nationwide Permit 27 or other general permit, provided those activities result in net increases in aquatic resource functions and services, then a project proponent will not need a separate permit from the Water Quality Control Division.ย 

What Are the Next Steps? 

CDPHE will initiate the rulemaking process starting September 2024 through December 2025 to fully form the regulatory program put in place by HB24-1379. All voices will play a role in both the design and implementation of HB24-1379โ€™s regulatory program, helping to set up Colorado for long-term success. Watch for additional information and engagement from Audubon. Sign up for notifications and learn more here!

Conclusion 

Water connects us all, and rivers do not stop flowing at state lines. More must be done to restore federal protections for interstate river health while adequately supporting state wetland and stream protection programs. As a headwater state, Colorado must continue to lead the way for the rest of the West and the nation in terms of what can be accomplished with collaboration and shared vision. HB24-1379 does that and puts Colorado on a path to protect its waterways for future generations. At Audubon, we know the value and connectivity of our watersheds, wetlands, streams, and rivers; these are waterways we all depend uponโ€”birds and people. We also know the value of bringing people together for durable solutions and we cannot do this work without you. Together, we can protect our most precious natural resource, water, and the health of our waterways and continue the Colorado way of coming together to address our most pressing issues.

Thank you for helping us pass this historic legislation. 

Healthy mountain meadows and wetlands are characteristic of healthy headwater systems and provide a variety of ecosystem services, or benefits that humans, wildlife, rivers and surrounding ecosystems rely on. The complex of wetlands and connected floodplains found in intact headwater systems can slow runoff and attenuate flood flows, creating better downstream conditions, trapping sediment to improve downstream water quality, and allowing groundwater recharge. These systems can also serve as a fire break and refuge during wildfire, can sequester carbon in the floodplain, and provide essential habitat for wildlife. Graphic by Restoration Design Group, courtesy of American Rivers

Could #Wyoming water get piped to #Colorado? A decades-old plan resurfaces — @WyoFile

Gas drilling infrastructure in the Atlantic Rim field in 2015. (Ken Driese)

Click the link to read the article on the WyoFile website (Mike Koshmrl):

May 31, 2024

A gas exploration company with Florida ties is pursuing plans to pull groundwater out of existing coalbed methane wells in southern Wyoming, then pipe it into the lower reaches of the water-stressed Colorado River Basin. 

The project was formally initiated in December, when the State Engineerโ€™s Office received 21 groundwater test well applications from Mark Dolar of Dolar Energy, LLC. The test wells are all located on Bureau of Land Management property south of Rawlins in the Atlantic Rim gas field.

Two test well applications have since been rescinded by Dolar to comply with the state of Wyomingโ€™s sage grouse and big game migration policies, according to an email from State Engineer Brandon Gebhart. 

A project review letter from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department summarizes what the project proponent seeks to do with the water. 

โ€œIf the water is of sufficient quality, the applicant hopes to transport groundwater to Colorado via a pipeline,โ€ states a letter signed by Habitat Protection Supervisor Will Schultz.

But Sen. Larry Hicks (R-Baggs), whoโ€™s on staff with the Little Snake River Conservation District, has met with Dolar and believes thatโ€™s one of several uses of the water being considered if the plans move forward. Exchanges within Wyoming, he said, could also be an outcome.

โ€œThe simple fact is the marketโ€™s much more lucrative now than it was 20 years ago,โ€ Hicks told WyoFile. โ€œHe doesnโ€™t have to send it to Colorado.โ€

Sen. Larry Hicks (R-Baggs) during the Wyoming Legislatureโ€™s 2024 budget session. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

Hicks used that rough historic benchmark because there have been repeated efforts since Atlantic Rim field drilling started in the mid-2000s to make use of the water surfaced during gas production. Currently, he said, the produced water is injected back into the ground โ€” which takes energy and money โ€” and it doesnโ€™t make sense given the currently dismal economics of natural gas. 

โ€œThe water is probably, at this point in time, as valuable or more valuable than the natural gas,โ€ Hicks said. โ€œItโ€™s just a matter of figuring out how you utilize that water, and whether thereโ€™s a sufficient enough quantity to justify a lot of expenditures.โ€

Energy companies in the past ultimately determined that using Atlantic Rim formation water didnโ€™t pencil out, even though itโ€™s considered pretty high quality. And theyโ€™ve tried, even building out infrastructure. 

A historic endeavor 

Steve Degenfelder, then a land manager for Atlantic Rim driller Double Eagle Petroleum, recalled that his former employer secured permits to surface discharge a limited volume of untreated water via a pipeline and separately desalinate other volumes. Neither worked out long-term. 

โ€œWe did discharge some into Muddy Creek, but very little,โ€ Degenfelder said. โ€œWe just got a lot of resistance from the environmental community and BLM.

Gas drilling infrastructure in the Atlantic Rim field in 2015. (Ken Driese)

Groundwater in the Atlantic Rim area is both abundant and filled by snowmelt coming off the west slope of the Sierra Madre Range, Degenfelder said. During the heyday of the Atlantic Rim fieldโ€™s development, the two largest drilling companies were producing roughly 100,000 barrels of byproduct water daily โ€” the equivalent of a small stream that flows continuously carrying nearly 7 cubic feet per second. Oftentimes water encountered during the drilling process has a lot of organic matter like oil, but in this region, itโ€™s pretty pristine, he said.

โ€œThereโ€™s a great deal of water to be had and itโ€™s class three water [in Wyoming regulation],โ€ Degenfelder said, โ€œso itโ€™s very good for livestock and wildlife to consume.โ€ 

But itโ€™s also too salty for the most likely use: irrigation. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has standards, and the Atlantic Rim water generally doesnโ€™t cut it. 

โ€œThe sodium is too high,โ€ Hicks said. โ€œ[DEQ] was concerned that when you irrigate with high-sodium water, you poison the soil. It turns white.โ€ 

White crusts of natural salts along a tributary to Muddy Creek. (Carleton Bern/U.S. Geological Survey)

Already, there are issues with too much salt in Atlantic Rim waterways, and disturbing the soil in the region through industrial activity might have increased salinity levels at times. Salt concentrations in the main drainage in the area โ€” Muddy Creek โ€” increased by between 33% and 71% in the years 2009-2012 compared to 2005-2008, according to a 2015 U.S. Geological Survey study. But the sharp uptick in salinity also doesnโ€™t perfectly align with the height of the drilling boom, the Earth Island Journal reported at the time.

Itโ€™s unclear how Dolar Energy would deal with water thatโ€™s too salty for irrigation.

Hicksโ€™ understanding is that Dolar Energy seeks to โ€œcherry pickโ€ the highest-quality water from the test wells and potentially market that only. 

Whatโ€™s the plan this time?

Mark Dolar did not respond to multiple WyoFile requests for an interview. His companyโ€™s website includes little information, though it does feature a short podcast that describes his interest in natural gas resources in the Atlantic Rim field. A map included on the website shows that heโ€™s also done business in the Pinedale area, three parts of Utah plus Coloradoโ€™s Piceance Basin. 

Dolar Energy at one time was a registered business with the Wyoming Secretary of State Office, though itโ€™s been listed as inactive since 2018. The LLC for the oil and gas exploration company is currently registered and considered active with the Florida Department of State. 

Dolarโ€™s bid to put Wyoming water in a pipeline and send it to Colorado has been attempted before on a much larger scale. 

Conceptual route for the Flaming Gorge Pipeline — Graphic via Earth Justice

More than a decade ago Fort Collins, Colorado residentย Aaron Million pushed a failed proposalย to tap Flaming Gorge Reservoir and pipe the water across southern Wyoming and the Continental Divide to the Colorado Front Range. Although itโ€™s been shot down repeatedly, a fourth iteration of the project wasย still on the table as of 2022, and the dream of the largest privately funded water project in the history of the West is still not dead, according to aย recent feature storyย in the progressive magazine Mother Jones.ย 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir on the Utah side near the dam in September 2021. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

Degenfelder has met Dolar before but was unaware of his recent proposal. โ€œI wonder what those guys can sell Wyoming water to Colorado for?โ€ he asked. 

The Atlantic Rim and Muddy Creek drain into the Little Snake River Basin, a tributary of the Green River thatโ€™s part of the overallocated Colorado River Basin. Amid long-term drought, itโ€™s an era of depleted reservoirs and cuts to water allocations in the region โ€” which may be mandatory in Wyomingโ€™s portion of the basin by 2025. 

Given the shortages, Hicksโ€™ sense is that the value of water in the Colorado River Basin has increased โ€œastronomicallyโ€ and that thereโ€™d be a market for the Atlantic Rim water. Still, he said, there are many factors that could prevent the plan from coming to fruition, one of them being the economics of tapping less than two dozen abandoned wells.

โ€œIs there enough water there of sufficient quality that it doesnโ€™t have to be treated?โ€ Hicks asked. 

Hurdles and hurdles

Hicks sees another hurdle: Itโ€™s unclear whether water taken out of Atlantic Rim-area aquifers and surface discharged is subject to interstate water agreements. 

โ€œIf he produces all of that [water] and they say, โ€˜Thatโ€™s connected to the surface water,โ€™ Wyomingโ€™s only entitled to 14% of that under the Upper Colorado River Compact,โ€ the state senator said. 

Groundwater is subject to the Colorado River Compact โ€œto the extent it is Colorado River System water as that term is used in the compact,โ€ Gebhart, the state engineer, explained in an email. 

โ€œHowever, the seven states which are subject to the compact have never mutually determined to what extent groundwater constitutes Colorado River System water,โ€ Gebhart wrote. โ€œThe ability to use groundwater within Wyoming is only subject to our individual state laws.โ€

Gas drilling infrastructure in the Atlantic Rim field in 2015. (Ken Driese)

Constitutionally, the groundwater is owned by the state of Wyoming. If Dolar Energy proceeds with its plans, the company intends to file applications for the โ€œpoints of useโ€ of the Atlantic Rim groundwater, Gebhart said. 

Permitting for activities and disturbances to federal land is another potential obstacle. 

The State Engineerโ€™s Office sent Dolar Energyโ€™s 21 groundwater test well applications to the Bureau of Land Management on Feb. 15, according to the state engineer. At that time, the state office shared concerns about who would be responsible for the currently plugged and abandoned coalbed methane wells if they werenโ€™t going to be used after being reentered. 

The BLMโ€™s Wyoming office hasnโ€™t taken any action because Dolar Energy hasnโ€™t submitted anything, said Brad Purdy, deputy state director for communications. All of the leases for the old wells have been terminated, he said. 

โ€œIf the company is interested in doing commercial H2O wells off of those CBM wells, we have to get some applications,โ€ Purdy said. โ€œWe donโ€™t have any right-of-way applications, we have no [applications to drill] to reenter a plugged well. The proponent has a lot of stuff they need to submit before we can run NEPA and even begin to analyze this.โ€ 

Wildlife managersโ€™ concerns are another potential impediment to Dolar Energyโ€™s plans. 

Coalbed methane gas pads litter the Atlantic Rim field in the Muddy Creek drainage in south-central Wyoming. (Google Maps screenshot)

The Wyoming Game and Fish Departmentโ€™s review letter shows that 19 of the 21 applied-for test wells (two were later rescinded) are located within the designated Baggs Mule Deer Migration Corridor. Of those, six wells are located on ground thatโ€™s both โ€œstopoverโ€ and โ€œhigh useโ€ habitat. One well each fell solely within high use and stopover areas, while the remainder would be located within โ€œlowโ€ or โ€œmediumโ€ use areas. 

โ€œThe proposed well sites were recently plugged and the pads reclaimed,โ€ Game and Fishโ€™s letter states. โ€œWe are concerned that disturbance at these well sites, specifically within the high use area and stopovers within high use areas, will impede or reverse the reclamation process while also negatively impacting migrating mule deer.โ€ 

โ€œLastly, it should also be noted that a water pipeline in the Baggs area will likely traverse sensitive and vital wildlife habitats, much like these exploratory wells,โ€ the letter noted.

Yampa River Basin via Wikimedia.

โ€˜Time for a reckoning.โ€™ Kansas farmers brace for water cuts to save #OgallalaAquifer — The #Kansas Reflector

Sprinklers irrigate a field in Hamilton County, Kansas, where some farmers have petitioned to be removed from a local groundwater management district. State lawmakers are pressuring the district to do more to conserve water in the Ogallala Aquifer. (Allison Kite/Kansas Reflector)

Click the link to read the article on the Kansas Reflector website (Allison Kite and Kevin Hardy):

June 13, 2024

After decades of local inaction, Kansas lawmakers are pushing for big changes in irrigation.

This story, the second in an occasional series about water challenges facing the American heartland, is a partnership between Kansas Reflector and Stateline. Read the first story here.

JETMORE, Kan. โ€” An inch or two of corn peeks out of the dirt, just enough to reveal long rows forming over the horizon.

Sprinkler engines roar as they force water from underground to pour life into dusty fields.

Thunder cracks. The wind whips up dirt as a trail of dark storms looms. The crashing hot and cold fronts would probably set off tornado sirens โ€” if there were any in this remote part of the state.

Itโ€™s spring in southwest Kansas, a hub for the nationโ€™s crop, dairy and beef industries.

Ogallala aquifer via USGS

As the familiar seasonal rhythm plays out, some farmers are bracing for major changes in how they use the long-depleting Ogallala Aquifer. The nationโ€™s largest underground store of fresh water, the Ogallala transformed this arid region into an agricultural powerhouse.

After 50 years of studies, discussions and hand-wringing about the aquiferโ€™s decline, the state is demanding that local groundwater managers finally enforce conservation. But in this region where water is everything, theyโ€™ll have to overcome entrenched attitudes and practices that led to decades of overpumping.

โ€œIt scares the hell out of me,โ€ farmer Hugh Brownlee said at a recent public meeting in the district on the changes to come.

Last year, Kansas lawmakers passed legislation squarely targeting the Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District, which spans a dozen counties. Unlike the two other Kansas districts that sit atop the crucial aquifer, this one has done little to enact formal conservation programs that could help prolong the life of the aquifer. The new law aims to force action.

The district has come under fire from legislators increasingly incensed by its substantial travel expenses, its lack of formal conservation policies and its alienation of farmers who are trying to save water. At a hearing in February on a bill meant to help farmers in one county leave the district, a Kansas House member floated the idea of doing away with the organization, also known as Groundwater Management District 3, altogether.

โ€œMaybe thatโ€™s something that we need to consider โ€” just dissolve GMD 3 so that these other boards that are doing good work are not affected,โ€ said state Rep. Cyndi Howerton, a Republican from Wichita.

District leaders think the criticism is unfair. But even they acknowledge that painful change is brewing. Change that will force farmers to cut back.

Clay Scott, a farmer and rancher who has served on the districtโ€™s board for more than two decades, said most local farmers are ready to change. Thatโ€™s partly because they donโ€™t want to give the state a reason to impose its own restrictions, he said.

Scott said the problem of overuse has been generations in the making and canโ€™t be reversed overnight.

โ€œItโ€™s going to take us time to turn this ship around,โ€ he said.

But critics say the organization has already had plenty of time. Decades.

โ€œMy biggest disappointment with GMD 3 is theyโ€™ve had 50 years to build a consensus on conservation and they failed to do it,โ€ said Frank Mercurio, who works for a dairy with facilities across southwest Kansas and southeast Colorado.

The discussions here mirror those occurring not just across the eight Ogallala states (Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming) but also across the country. The dual threat of climate change and overpumping of groundwater threatens farming and agricultural communities coast to coast.

Outside the town of Syracuse, Kansas, Brownlee runs a small farm with dryland and irrigated fields divided by a curvy two-lane blacktop. More than 200 years ago, Mexican and American traders following the Santa Fe Trail crossed this part of the plains on ox-pulled wagons.

Brownlee, who farms part time and drives a propane truck, said he understands the shrinking water supply. But he thinks the state is to blame โ€” not farmers. Decades ago, Kansas officials issued more water rights than the aquifer can sustain.

The state should fix that, rather than punishing farmers with across-the-board cuts, he said.

โ€œThey want to be able to flip the switch and just stop it,โ€ Brownlee said. โ€œThatโ€™s not going to do anybody no good.โ€

Hugh Brownlee walks by a dry creek bed on his farm near Syracuse, Kansas. Farmers such as Brownlee could face irrigation cutbacks following legislation from Kansas lawmakers. (Allison Kite/Kansas Reflector)

โ€˜Should have been done 40 years agoโ€™ 

In a community center on Main Street in Lakin, Kansas, a few dozen farmers in feed and seed hats last month pulled folding chairs off a big metal rack.

Just below the stained drop ceiling panels, a tilted projector shone onto a bare beige wall the districtโ€™s plans to comply with the new law. The first step: identifying priority areas for its conservation efforts.

An expert from the Kansas Geological Survey pointed to maps of the district. Blood red blots showed where aquifer conditions were most severe. In some parts of the district, the aquifer is already all but gone. Other areas have more than 60 years of water left even if they donโ€™t cut back their usage.

But at this and a series of meetings across southwest Kansas, district leaders outlined plans to declare its entire territory a priority area. Some critics viewed the move as a stall tactic, but district leaders say it leaves all options available to them. The district in 2026 will have to present an action plan, which it says will reflect the huge variations in aquifer conditions.

Kansasโ€™ chief engineer, Earl Lewis, who will evaluate the boardโ€™s plan and future conservation efforts, said the board likely can designate the whole region a priority, though heโ€™s not sure it meets โ€œthe spiritโ€ of the law.

In the series of meetings, farmers ran through familiar questions, concerns and excuses.

What about the farms pumping the aquifer down in Oklahoma?

What about all the new dairies and feedlots coming in?

What about city drinking water wells?

Crop irrigation accounts for 85% of all water use in Kansas โ€” even more in western Kansas.

The group also discussed the possibility of paying growers to shut down their wells.

But one farmer said he canโ€™t farm his sandy soil without irrigation. After the meeting, he declined to be named, saying he could get in big trouble for sharing his real feelings.

Local farmer Steve Sterling interjected at the first meeting in Garden City to say conservation planning โ€œshould have been done 40 years ago.โ€ Some of his neighbors abandoned their farm when he was 12, he said. They were out of water.

Katie Durham, who manages Groundwater Management District 1 in western Kansas, drove south to attend some of the meetings in GMD 3. She said she hoped the farmers in attendance understood that change is coming under the new law.

โ€œThis is happening,โ€ Durham said. โ€œI just hope that urgency and sense of wanting to be involved and kind of taking ownership of the future on a local level โ€” I just hope people are understanding that.โ€

McGuire, V.L., and Strauch, K.R., 2022. Data from U.S. Geological Survey.

โ€˜This is a cultural thingโ€™

Between the 1950s and the 1970s, Kansas created the fundamental problem that allows aquifer depletion by granting farmers the right to pump more water out of the aquifer each year than returns to it via rainfall. But the state has largely left it up to locals to find solutions to the problem.

The state charged the three groundwater management districts over the Ogallala with protecting both the agricultural economy and aquifer water. But their five-decade histories primarily have been marked by further decline of the Ogallala Aquifer. Two districts have made progress in recent years and helped farmers to slow, or even stop, the decline.

GMD 3 is different.

Burke Griggs, a water attorney who previously worked for the state, argues the southwest Kansas district isnโ€™t doing much compared with the other two.

โ€œThe law is the same. The regs are basically the same,โ€ he said. โ€œThis is a cultural thing.โ€

He argues the state should take a firmer stance in aquifer management.

โ€œI think itโ€™s time for a reckoning,โ€ Griggs said.

District officials say farmers in GMD 3 have used 13% less water in the past 10 years compared with the decade before. But itโ€™s unclear how much of that change is intentional โ€” from conservation โ€” or a reflection of the limited water available in the declining aquifer.

Though its territory is twice the size of the other two districtsโ€™ combined, the southwest Kansas district hasnโ€™t accomplished as much. The other districts have offered financial assistance to farmers investing in water-efficient irrigation systems and championed large-scale restrictions on pumping.

GMD 3 has done none of that. Between 2010 and 2022, financial records show, the district spent, on average, only 13% of the money it budgeted for conservation. In most years, it didnโ€™t spend anything on conservation.

Mark Rude, who has been the organizationโ€™s executive director for nearly two decades, said the districtโ€™s entire budget supports water conservation. The district takes in more than $1 million per year and spends 70% of that on salaries and benefits, according to financial documents received through a records request. The rest goes largely to office equipment, travel and other administrative costs.

โ€œI mean, ultimately, thatโ€™s why weโ€™re here,โ€ Rude said, โ€œand if you look at the $600,000-plus we (spend) on staff, why is the staff here?โ€

This summer, the district board will consider a 38% increase in the fee it imposes on water users, which is expected to raise more than $200,000 each year. Rude said that money would primarily be used to hire two new employees to help with grant projects offering technical assistance to farmers trying to conserve water.

Between 2010 and 2022, GMD 3 spent about four times as much on travel for Rude and staff as on water conservation. On average, the GMD pays more than $20,000 each year for Rudeโ€™s travel โ€” plus another $20,000 for the rest of its staff members โ€” compared with $10,000 for water conservation.

Last year, the district changed its financial statements, reporting fewer, broader categories. The new financial structure did not distinguish travel costs from other expenses.

Rude defends the spending by saying itโ€™s necessary to build the partnerships and relationships needed to achieve district goals, including its aim of piping in water from out of state.

โ€œHow else do you do it?โ€ Rude said. โ€œReally, please show us: How else do you do it?โ€

Mark Rude, executive director of the Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District, addresses farmers at a community center in Lakin, Kansas, on May 20, 2024. Kansas lawmakers are requiring the district to create a new plan to help preserve the Ogallala Aquifer, which spans eight states. (Allison Kite/Kansas Reflector)

Last year, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle questioned Rude during a committee hearing on why the district wasnโ€™t doing more to conserve groundwater.

State Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, an Overland Park Democrat, said during a legislative hearing that the district had 50 years to act but made no progress on addressing aquifer decline.

โ€œThe issue is only becoming more urgent,โ€ Vaughn said, โ€œand I am discouraged to see that there arenโ€™t any real efforts right now to get the ball rolling and coming up with a long-term plan.โ€

The districtโ€™s lack of action also has drawn the attention of farmers who mounted a campaign to secede.

In 2022, Hamilton County farmers submitted a petition to withdraw from the groundwater district.

They characterized the organization as a bureaucratic mess with a ballooning budget that spends little on conservation, obstructs programs meant to slow groundwater decline and provides no benefits for dryland farmers who also pay assessments.

Kansas Aqueduct route via Circle of Blue

The petition criticized groundwater district leadersโ€™ fixation on building an aqueduct across the state. The organization twice has trucked water 400 miles from the Missouri River to western Kansas in an effort to sell the idea.

In their petition, Hamilton County farmers said the project only managed to move and dump water with โ€œno tangible benefit to anyone.โ€

Richard Geven, owner of the 10,000-head Southwest Plains Dairy, was among those who signed the petition to leave.

Geven, a native of the Netherlands who has been farming here for nearly 20 years, said he sees little reason for the groundwater district. When he has issues with his wells or needs clarity on water rights, he works with state regulators.

But he pays assessments every year to the district.

โ€œWe donโ€™t know what the purpose is,โ€ he said. โ€œWe think, โ€˜What are they doing? We donโ€™t need them.โ€™โ€

Vast expanses of wheat grow in Southwest Kansas. Long an agricultural hub, the region is facing renewed pressure from state leaders seeking to preserve the quickly depleting Ogallala Aquifer. (Kevin Hardy/Stateline)

โ€˜They will face the same choicesโ€™

Across most of the Ogallala states, governments have preferred to encourage voluntary conservation rather than mandating steep cutbacks, said Kevin Wagner, director of the Oklahoma Water Resource Center at Oklahoma State University.

Oklahoma allows farmers to use up to 2 feet of water each year on every acre they own. But usage is not monitored. Farmers report annual estimates of water usage.

And the state has not banned the drilling of new irrigation wells.

Researchers have closely monitored the decline of the aquifer across the Oklahoma Panhandle โ€” itโ€™s dropping about half a foot per year, he said.

But thereโ€™s no telling how much individual farmers are using or conserving.

โ€œWhen I talk to producers in Oklahoma, thereโ€™s a lot of feeling that Oklahoma producers are doing just as good at conserving as their neighbors in Texas and in Kansas,โ€ Wagner said. โ€œAnd honestly thereโ€™s no data out there right now.โ€

Oklahoma state Rep. Carl Newton, a Republican, introduced legislation this year that would require irrigators to meter their water use.

The measure passed, but amid steep opposition from agriculture trade groups, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed it. He called it government overreach and a violation of private property rights.

Newton said he plans to reintroduce the bill, which he described as โ€œa starting pointโ€ for conservation efforts.

โ€œYouโ€™ve got to find out where your problem is to get an idea of where to go,โ€ he said. โ€œThat was my whole goal.โ€

Kansas started requiring irrigators to install meters and report water usage in the early 1990s.

Formal conservation efforts have been underway in other parts of the region for years.

Republican River Basin. By Kansas Department of Agriculture – Kansas Department of Agriculture, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7123610

In Nebraskaโ€™s Republican River Basin, groundwater regulators have helped producers install soil moisture probes and more accurate meters that use telemetry to conserve. And Colorado offers a master irrigator course to help farmers grow crops more efficiently.

In Wichita County, Kansas, just beyond the bounds of GMD 3, farmers created a conservation program that launched in 2021. Called a local enhanced management area, farmers committed to cutting water use by at least 25%.

Farmer Don Smith said the program provided a chance for locals to act together before the state stepped in.

Smith, his brother and nephews together run Smith Family Farms, which grows corn, wheat and milo against a backdrop of massive wind turbines. Shiny grain bins emblazoned with the family name tower near the office, where a curious Australian shepherd keeps watch, rearing up on hind legs to peer through the door.

The farm is mostly dryland. Its irrigated fields draw upon 38 wells, connected to advanced sprinkler systems that help reduce water use. The farm also has transitioned to no-till methods, which keeps more moisture in the soil.

Smith said the farm shows that growers can save water and still make money. Lower water use does lead to lower yields, he said. But it also makes growing crops less expensive.

Smith knows the groundwater district just to his south has deeper wells and more abundant water. But the declining aquifer eventually will force changes there.

โ€œI guess itโ€™ll be interesting to see if at some point somebody responds before the gunโ€™s to their head,โ€ he said. โ€œThey will face the same choices we all north of them have had to face.โ€

In Wichita County, Smith said, test wells show the changes have slowed or even reversed aquifer decline. But even so, he doesnโ€™t think irrigated farming will last forever. He expects the day will come when pumping small amounts of water wonโ€™t be worth the cost.

โ€œWe all understand that we are sucking water out of a bathtub,โ€ he said. โ€œAnd the rate weโ€™re taking it out of the bathtub exceeds the rate Mother Nature can put it back in.โ€

Credi: Kansas Reflector

Report: Advocacy in Action Sackett v. EPA: The state of our waters one year later — @AmericanRivers

Click the link to access the report on the American River website. Here’s the introduction:

Introduction
One year ago, the Supreme Court issued its sweeping decision in the case Sackett v. EPA, which invalidated federal Clean Water Act protections for most streams and wetlands in the United States. Since then, the fight for clean water protections has been at the state level. This report outlines the state of clean water protections one year out from the Sackett decision and why federal protections for our critical waters is vital in the face of worsening climate change and other threats.

In the year since the Supreme Court ruling, two states passed or introduced legislation to create new permitting programs to fill the gap in federal protections and eight states passed or introduced stronger laws and policies to strengthen state protections. Two states passed legislation weakening state-level protections, while efforts to weaken state protections failed in four other states.

2024 #COleg: #Coloradoโ€™s new wetlands protections lead the nation 1 year after EPA rules were struck by Supreme Court — Fresh Water News

Autumn view of the wetlands and cottonwood groves in the Yampa River basin at Carpenter Ranch, located west of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Photo courtesy of The Nature Conservancy

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

One year after  the U.S. Supreme Court removed federal regulations protecting wetlands and streams from development pressures in its Sackett v. the EPA decision, Colorado is the first state in the nation to pass legislation replacing those regulations, according to a new national report.

The report, by the Clean Water For All coalition and Lawyers for Good Government, shows that eight other states have taken action to restore some level of protection or are trying; five launched failed attempts to impose further cutbacks; and one state, Indiana, rolled back protections further. Thirty-five states have taken no action.

Environmentalists say the spotty response is a clear indication that Congress must intervene to create consistent, clearly defined protections that work for all states, and which protect rivers and wetlands that cross state boundaries.

โ€œDifferent states are struggling to see how to respond to it,โ€ said Kristine Oblock, senior campaign manager for the Clean Water for All coalition. โ€œAnd the state-by-state solutions are not going to be enough to protect our waters. โ€ฆ Our goal is to restore federal protections.โ€

The problem is particularly acute in Colorado and other Western states, where vast numbers of streams are temporary, or ephemeral, flowing only after major rainstorms and during spring runoff season, when the mountain snow melts. The Sackett decision said, in part, that only streams that flow year-round are subject to federal oversight. It also said that only wetlands that had a surface connection to continually flowing water bodies qualified for protection. Many wetlands in Colorado have a subsurface connection to streams, rather than one that can be observed above ground.

The Sackett decision came after decades of federal court battles over murky definitions about which waterways fall under the Clean Water Actโ€™s jurisdiction, which wetlands must be regulated, and what kinds of dredge-and-fill work in waterways should be permitted. There also were long-running disputes over what authority the act had over activities on farms and Western irrigation ditches, and what activities industry and wastewater treatment plants must seek permits for.

Finding a clear, bipartisan solution that Congress might embrace isnโ€™t likely to be easy. โ€œItโ€™s only been a year, so a lot of different entities are still working out the path forward,โ€ said Jonathan Wood, vice president of law and policy at Montana-based Property and Environment Research Center, or PERC, a conservative think tank that filed a brief supporting the Sacketts, in last yearโ€™s Supreme Court case. The Sacketts are private landowners.

โ€œItโ€™s possible that Congress could act,โ€ Wood said. โ€œI think there is an appetite for it but it seems unlikely. And if the suggestion is to just go back to how it was applied pre-Sackett, I donโ€™t see a path forward for that.โ€

Polls in Colorado and nationwide show majority support among Democrats, Republicans and independents for restoring protections.

Colorado lawmakers were able to win bipartisan backing for their bill after weeks of intense negotiations. Whether the same thing could occur at the national level is a big question.

โ€œBipartisan is easier at the state level because you arenโ€™t trying to regulate different hydrologies across the country. Any time youโ€™re trying to establish a rule that applies to New England and the West, it is difficult,โ€ Wood said. That Colorado lawmakers were able to agree on regulatory exemptions for agriculture, developers, some cities and other industries also likely helped propel the measure to passage, Wood said.

And there are other options besides Congress. PERCโ€™s mission is to find free market solutions to environmental problems. Wood said PERC would like to see incentives for private landowners to protect wetlands, something Indiana lawmakers approved this year, even after removing other protections. PERC would also like to see industry held accountable for paying the costs of restoring the wetlands that have already been lost.

โ€œWetlands reduce pollution from someone else, so why not make the polluters pay,โ€ Wood said. โ€œThese kinds of opportunities all provide a path forward that is less conflict ridden than the Clean Water Act regulations that have applied for the last several decades.โ€

Still, environmentalists plan to keep their eyes on Congress, said Josh Kuhn, senior water campaign manager for Conservation Colorado.

โ€œItโ€™s clear that there is bipartisan support for this effort from the public and we need them to make their voices heard,โ€ Kuhn said. โ€œDoing so will create the political will to address the threat of deteriorating water quality and the impacts of climate change,โ€ Kuhn said.

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

Report: Advocacy in Action Sackett v. EPA: The state of our waters one year later — Clean Water for All/Protect Our Waters

Click the link to access the report on the ProtectCleanWater.org website. Here’s the introduction:

One year ago, the Supreme Court issued its sweeping decision in the case Sackett v. EPA, which invalidated federal Clean Water Act protections for most streams and wetlands in the United States. Since then, the fight for clean water protections has been at the state level. This report outlines the state of clean water protections one year out from the Sackett decision and why federal protections for our critical waters is vital in the face of worsening climate change and other threats.

In the year since the Supreme Court ruling, two states passed or introduced legislation to create new permitting programs to fill the gap in federal protections and eight states passed or introduced stronger laws and policies to strengthen state protections. Two states passed legislation weakening state-level protections, while efforts to weaken state protections failed in four other states.

Healthy mountain meadows and wetlands are characteristic of healthy headwater systems and provide a variety of ecosystem services, or benefits that humans, wildlife, rivers and surrounding ecosystems rely on. The complex of wetlands and connected floodplains found in intact headwater systems can slow runoff and attenuate flood flows, creating better downstream conditions, trapping sediment to improve downstream water quality, and allowing groundwater recharge. These systems can also serve as a fire break and refuge during wildfire, can sequester carbon in the floodplain, and provide essential habitat for wildlife. Graphic by Restoration Design Group, courtesy of American Rivers

Toโ€™Hajiilee water line groundbreaking: โ€œan impossible projectโ€ — John Fleck (InkStain.net)

An impossibility. Photo credit: John Fleck/InkStain.net

Click the link to read the article on the InkStain.net website (John Fleck):

May 15, 2024

With the obligatory shovels in pre-softened dirt, a group of political leaders from the Navajo Nation, New Mexico state and local government, and water agencies this morning (Wed. 5/15/2024) formally inaugurated a new pipeline being built to connect the Navajo community of Toโ€™Hajiilee to the 3.5 million gallon reservoir in the picture โ€“ clean, piped water to a community that now has one working well and water so bad no one drinks it.

One of the oldtimers whoโ€™d been working on it for more than two decades walked up to me and said, โ€œThis is an impossible project.โ€

What he meant was that the project had overcome seemingly insurmountable hurdles in the interactions between a welter of government agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and sometimes incompatible responsibilities.

I went to the event wearing two hats โ€“ as a member of the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authorityโ€™s Technical Customer Advisory Committee, and on behalf of the Utton Center, which has a long history of working on Native American water stuff. (I was literally wearing my ABCWUA gimme cap, I donโ€™t have an Utton one.)

Toโ€™Hajiilee, 35-ish miles west of Albuquerque, has six water wells. Five have already failed. The sixth is regularly off line. When itโ€™s down, they have to shut down school and the clinic. When itโ€™s working, the water is awful.

The vision statement from the Universal Access to Clean Water For Tribal Communities project is simple: โ€œEvery Native American has the right to clean, safe, affordable water in the home ensuring a minimum quality of life.โ€

In this 1999 book Development as Freedom, the Nobel laureate economist and moral philosopher Amartya Sen explains freedoms as โ€œthe capabilities that a person has, that is, the substantive freedoms he or she enjoys to lead the kind of life he or she has reason to value.โ€

โ€œRightsโ€ are tricky political terrain, because theyโ€™re often framed in negative terms โ€“ the absence of coercion or interference from others, particularly the state. But Senโ€™s making an affirmative argument here. It is not enough for the collective to simply get out of the individualโ€™s way. The collective has an affirmative moral obligation to create the conditions under which the individual can flourish โ€“ to pursue that which they โ€œhave reason to value,โ€ to repeat Sen. Thatโ€™s sorta what my friends at the Universal Access project are saying with their vision statement.

At the urging of a colleague, Iโ€™ve been reading Sen lately in an effort to make sense of the moral underpinnings of the collective choices we face as we cope with the reality of less water. (For those familiar with Sen, know that I am not reading the mathy parts โ€“ theyโ€™re impenetrable!)

THE PLUMBING โ€“ PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL

The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utilityโ€™s 7W reservoir, the tan thing in the picture, sits on high ground midway between Albuquerque and Toโ€™Hajiilee, a perfect water source for the community. In eighteen months under the current construction schedule, weโ€™ll have a 7 mile pipe from here to there.

If the tally in my notes is correct (donโ€™t hold me to this, Iโ€™m not a real journalist any more), itโ€™s a ~$20 million project, with a mix of federal, state, and Navajo Nation funding.

The actual water in the pipes is the result of a fascinating agreement between the Navajo Nation and the Jicarilla Apache Nation in norther New Mexico. The Navajo Nation will lease Jicarailla water, which will be wheeled down the San Juan River, into the Rio Grande, and then diverted by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, treated, and pumped up to 7W.

THE STRUGGLES TO GET THIS DONE

Former Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie Oโ€™Malley, speaking at the groundbreaking, told the story of the bare-knuckle politics it took to overcome the intransigence of a landowner that stood in the way of the project โ€“ Western Albuquerque Land Holdings. And for sure, Oโ€™Malley and the group she worked with deserve a ton of credit for the use of their knuckles at a critical point in the struggle to get the pipeline built.

But more important is the community of Toโ€™Hajiilee itself, people like Mark Begay, my colleague on the Albuquerque water utilityโ€™s Technical Customer Advisory Committee. For decades, Begay and the other leaders in Toโ€™Hajiilee acted on behalf of their community to pursue โ€œthat which they had reason to valueโ€ โ€“ water!

This is about the communityโ€™s own collective agency, โ€œthe result of collective processes and collective actions in which peopleโ€™s interactions shape their common destiny.โ€ (Oscar Garza-Vรกzquez)

It was a joy to share the celebration of their success. Iโ€™ll be back in 18 months when they open the taps.

Article: Declining #groundwater storage expected to amplify mountain streamflow reductions in a warmer world — Nature Water #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Healthy mountain meadows and wetlands are characteristic of healthy headwater systems and provide a variety of ecosystem services, or benefits that humans, wildlife, rivers and surrounding ecosystems rely on. The complex of wetlands and connected floodplains found in intact headwater systems can slow runoff and attenuate flood flows, creating better downstream conditions, trapping sediment to improve downstream water quality, and allowing groundwater recharge. These systems can also serve as a fire break and refuge during wildfire, can sequester carbon in the floodplain, and provide essential habitat for wildlife. Graphic by Restoration Design Group, courtesy of American Rivers

Click the link to access the article on the Nature Water website (Rosemary W. H. Carroll,ย Richard G. Niswonger,ย Craig Ulrich,ย Charuleka Varadharajan,ย Erica R. Siirila-Woodburnย &ย Kenneth H. Williams). Here’s the abstract:

May 23, 2024

Groundwater interactions with mountain streams are often simplified in model projections, potentially leading to inaccurate estimates of streamflow response to climate change. Here, using a high-resolution, integrated hydrological model extending 400โ€‰m into the subsurface, we find groundwater an important and stable source of historical streamflow in a mountainous watershed of the Colorado River. In a warmer climate, increased forest water use is predicted to reduce groundwater recharge resulting in groundwater storage loss. Losses are expected to be most severe during dry years and cannot recover to historical levels even during simulated wet periods. Groundwater depletion substantially reduces annual streamflow with intermittent conditions predicted when precipitation is low. Expanding results across the region suggests groundwater declines will be highest in the Colorado Headwater and Gunnison basins. Our research highlights the tight coupling of vegetation and groundwater dynamics and that excluding explicit groundwater response to warming may underestimate future reductions in mountain streamflow.

ย 

    โ€˜Time is running outโ€™: Navajo Nation urges Congress to act on Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expansion bill — #Utah News Dispatch

    Navajo miners near Cove, Arizona in 1952. (Photograph by Milton Jack Snow, courtesy of Doug Brugge/Memories Come To Us In the Rain and the Wind)

    Click the link to read the article on the Utah News Dispatch website (Shondin Silversmith):

    May 16, 2024

    Kathleen Tsosie remembers seeing her dad come home every evening with his clothes covered in dirt. As a little girl, she never questioned why, and she was often more excited to see if he had any leftover food in his lunchbox.

    โ€œWe used to go through his lunch and eat whatever he didnโ€™t eat,โ€ Tsosie said, recalling when she was around 4 years old. โ€œAnd he always had cold water that came back from the mountain.โ€

    Tsosieโ€™s father, grandfather, and uncles all worked as uranium miners on the Navajo Nation near Cove, Arizona, from the 1940s to the 1960s. The dirt Tsosieโ€™s father was caked in when he arrived home came from the mines, and the cold water he brought back was from the nearby springs.

    Tsosie grew up in Cove, a remote community located at the foothills of the Chuska mountain range in northeastern Arizona. There are 56 abandoned mines located in the Cove area, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

    In the late 1960s, Tsosie said her grandfather started getting sick. She remembers herding sheep with him and how he would often rest under a tree, asking her to push on his chest because it hurt.

    Tsosie said she was about 7 years old when her uncles took her grandfather to the hospital. At the time, she didnโ€™t know why he was sick, but later on, she learned he had cancer. Her grandfather died in October 1967.

    Over a decade later, Tsosieโ€™s father also started getting sick. She remembers when he came to visit her in Wyoming; she was rubbing his shoulders when she felt a lump. She told him to get it checked out because he complained about how painful it was.

    Her father was diagnosed with cancer in 1984 and went through treatments, but died in April 1985.

    โ€œWhen my dad passed away, everybody knew it was from the mine,โ€ Tsosie said. He was just the latest on a long list of Navajo men from her community who worked in the uranium mines and ended up getting sick and passing away.

    She recalls how her father used to tell her that, one day, it may happen to him, but she did not want to believe him. Her dad worked in the uranium mines for over 20 years.

    The sickness did not stop there. In February of 2007, Tsosie was diagnosed with breast cancer, and she would spend years in treatment and eventually go into remission in December 2007.

    But, this year, Tsosie got the news in February that her cancer has returned, and she is now taking the steps toward getting treatment.

    Tsosieโ€™s family history with uranium mining and growing up in an area downwind from nuclear testing sites is similar to many Navajo families in Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. Her family is among the thousands potentially impacted by radiation from nuclear weapon testing, according to National Cancer Institute research.

    Because of that history, Tsosie became an advocate for issues related to downwinders and uranium mine workers from the Navajo Nation, including the continuation of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

    The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, provides a program that compensates individuals who become ill because of exposure to radiation from the United Statesโ€™ development and testing of nuclear weapons.

    RECA was initially set to expire in 2022, but President Joe Biden signed a measure extending the program for two more years. Now, itโ€™s set to expire in less than a month.

    Tsosie first heard of the program in the 1990s after her mother applied for it because her father was a uranium mine worker. She remembers the day her mother got a compensation check for $100,000 and handed it to her.

    โ€œShe gave it to me, and she said, โ€˜This is from your dad,โ€™โ€ Tsosie said, adding that her mother didnโ€™t go into many details at the time, only saying that families with loved ones who died of cancer were getting checks.

    Tsosie said she was upset about the check because her father had died, and $100,000 was nothing in comparison.

    โ€œI was really mad, and thatโ€™s just how the federal government thinks of us as Navajo people,โ€ she explained.

    The second time she worked with RECA was for her own case. After her cancer treatments concluded in December 2007, she took some time to heal before determining in March 2008 whether she qualified for RECA. She did qualify and received compensation.

    Since RECA was passed in 1990, more than 55,000 claims have been filed. Of those, more than 41,000 claims, or about 75%, have been approved โ€” and roughly $2.6 billion had been paid out as of the end of 2022.

    Claims for โ€œdownwindersโ€ yield $50,000. For uranium mines and mill workers providing ore to construct nuclear weapons, claimants typically receive $100,000.

    Proving that exposure to nuclear waste and radiation causes cancers and other diseases is difficult. However, the federal program doesnโ€™t require claimants to prove causation: They only have to show that they or a relative had a qualifying disease after working or living in certain locations during specific time frames.

    In July 2023, the U.S. Senate voted to expand and extend the RECA program, and it was attached as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which funds the Department of Defense.

    It could have extended health care coverage and compensation to more uranium industry workers and โ€œdownwindersโ€ exposed to radiation in several new regions โ€” Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, and Guam โ€” and expanded coverage to new parts of Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

    The defense spending bill for 2024 was signed into law on Dec. 22 by Biden, but the RECA expansion was cut from the final bill before it landed on his desk.

    When she heard that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act amendments failed to pass, Tsosie said it really impacted her, and she cried because so many people deserve that funding.

    โ€œI know what it feels like. I know what it feels like to suffer,โ€ she said.

    Without an extension, RECA is set to expire in June, and the deadline for claims to be postmarked is June 10, 2024, according to the DOJ.

    Navajo leaders advocate for RECA

    The sunset of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act is approaching fast, and leaders from the Navajo Nation are urging Congress to act on the expansion bill that has been waiting for the U.S. House of Representatives to take it up for more than two months.

    โ€œTime is running out,โ€ Justin Ahasteen, the executive director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office, said in a press release.

    โ€œEvery day without these amendments means another day without justice for our people,โ€ he added. โ€œWe urge Congress to stand on the right side of history and pass these crucial amendments.โ€

    Republican Sen. Josh Hawley from Missouri introduced S. 3853 โ€“ The Radiation Exposure Compensation Reauthorization Act, which funds RECA past its June sunset date for another six years.

    The bill passed through the U.S. Senate with a bipartisan 69-30 vote on March 7.  But since being sent to the House on March 11, the bill hasnโ€™t moved.

    The RECA expansion bill would include more communities downwind of nuclear test sites in the United States and Guam. It would extend eligibility for uranium workers to include those who worked after 1971. Communities harmed by radioactive waste from the tests could apply for the program, and expansion would also boost compensation payments to account for inflation.

    โ€œThe Navajo Nation calls for immediate passage of S. 3853,โ€ Ahasteen said in a press release. โ€œThis is to ensure that justice is no longer delayed for the Navajo people and other affected communities.โ€

    Ahasteen told the Arizona Mirror in an interview that congressional leaders holding the bill back due to the programโ€™s expense is not a good enough reason not to pass it.

    โ€œThey keep referencing the cost and saying itโ€™s too expensive,โ€ he said. But, he explained, the RECA expansion is only a sliver of U.S. spending on foreign aid or nuclear development.

    And it shouldnโ€™t even be a matter of cost, Ahasteen said, because people have given their lives and their health in the interest of national security.

    โ€œThe bill has been paid with the lives and the health of the American workers who were exposed unjustly to radiation because the federal government kept it from them and they lied about the dangers,โ€ he said. 

    Navajo uranium miners at the Rico Mine in 1953. (Source: The Navajo Uranium Miner Oral History and Photography Project at the Center for Southwest Research, University Libraries, University of New Mexico)

    From 1945 to 1992, the U.S. conducted a total of 1,030 nuclear tests, according to the Arms Control Association.

    Many were conducted at the Nevada Test Site, with 928 nuclear tests conducted at the site between 1951 and 1992, according to the Nevada National Security Site. About 100 of those were atmospheric tests, and the rest were underground detonations.

    According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, atmospheric tests involved unrestrained releases of radioactive materials directly into the environment, causing the largest collective dose of radiation thus far from man-made radiation sources.

    Between the 1940s and 1990s, thousands of uranium mines operated in the United States, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Most operated in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and Arizona, typically on federal and tribal lands.

    The number of mining locations associated with uranium is around 15,000, according to the EPA, and of those, more than 4,000 have documented uranium production.

    Navajo Nation leaders advocated and worked with officials in Washington, D.C., for decades to get the amendments added to the RECA that would benefit more Navajo people who have been impacted by uranium mining, as well as radiation exposure.

    Their efforts continue with the current expansion bill: Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, Navajo Nation Council Speaker Crystalyne Curley and the Navajo Nation Washington Office team have been working on an advocacy push this week with congressional leaders.

    โ€œOur people have borne the cost of Americaโ€™s nuclear program in their health and well-being,โ€ Nygren said in a written statement. โ€œThe amendments we advocate for today are not merely legislative changes; they are affirmations of justice and a commitment to heal the wounds of the past.โ€

    On May 14, Nygren and Curley met with former Navajo uranium miners and members of Congress to urge passage of the amendments before RECA expires in a few weeks.

    โ€œAs the Navajo Nation, we feel that thatโ€™s the best fit for us, especially for our miners,โ€ Curley told the Mirror about her support of the expansion bill.

    Curley said sheโ€™s spent her time in Washington educating congressional leaders about the Navajo Nation and the impact uranium mining has had on their people.

    โ€œA lot of our Navajo fathers, grandparents, and uncles went into these mines without any protection,โ€ she said. โ€œAnd now, many decades later, weโ€™re dealing with the health effects.โ€

    The legacy of uranium mining has impacted the Navajo Nation for decades, from abandoned mines to contaminated waste disposal.

    From 1944 to 1986, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from Navajo lands, according to the EPA, and hundreds of Navajo people worked in the mines, often living and raising families in close proximity to the mines and mills.

    Ahasteen said those numbers show exactly how large the uranium operations were on the Navajo Nation and the impact it would have on the Navajo people.

    โ€œThere are photos on record to show Navajo people being exploited, not given any proper protective equipment, but (the federal government) knew about the dangers of radiation since the โ€™40s,โ€ Ahasteen said. โ€œThey were given a shovel and a hard hat, and they were told: Go to work. Youโ€™ll earn lots of money. Youโ€™ll have a nice life, and we did that, but it didnโ€™t work so well for us.โ€

    Although the mines are no longer operational across the Navajo Nation, contamination continues, including 523 abandoned uranium mines in addition to homes and water sources with heightened levels of radiation.

    The health risks associated with this contamination include the possibility of lung cancer from inhaling radioactive particles, as well as bone cancer and impaired kidney function resulting from exposure to radionuclides in drinking water.

    โ€œWe want to remind all of the members of Congress that it was because of the Navajo Nation that we are where we are today,โ€ Ahasteen said. โ€œIt is because of the uranium workers (that) the United States is the nuclear power that it is today.โ€

    Ahasteen said the Navajo people have demonstrated their patriotism for the U.S. time and time again, but the country continues not to recognize that.

    โ€œThatโ€™s really whatโ€™s appalling,โ€ he added.

    As of December 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that 7,704 claims from tribal citizens representing 24 tribal nations had been filed with the RECA program, 5,310 had been granted and more than $362.5 million had been awarded.

    Navajo people make up 86% of the claimants, according to the DOJ, and they have received awards totaling more than $297 million.

    RECAโ€™s downwind affected area covers land within multiple federally recognized tribal nations, including the Navajo, Hopi and White Mountain Apache.

    Ahasteen provided RECA claim numbers for Arizona as of April 2023. A total of 15,603 RECA claims had been submitted in Arizona, 3,052 of which came from the Navajo Nation.

    โ€œThat accounts for about 20% of all claims in Arizona,โ€ he said.

    In New Mexico, he said that there were a total of 7,300 claims, and 2,900 were Navajo.

    โ€œThat means 40% of all of New Mexico claims are Navajo,โ€ Ahasteen said. โ€œCombined between Arizona and New Mexico, Navajo makes up about a fourth of all RECA claims.โ€

    Ahasteen said it is disappointing that the program is approaching expiration and that the expansion bill still hasnโ€™t moved in the House.

    โ€œWe are hopeful that when it is brought to the House floor for a vote, Congress will speak, and they will move forward with the amendments because itโ€™s the right thing to do,โ€ he added.

    Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

    Graphic credit: Environmental Protection Agency

    2024 #COleg: Coloradoโ€™s demand for water is slated to surpass supplies by 2050. Did lawmakers do enough to address the crisis? — The #Denver Post

    A wetland along Castle Creek. Photo credit: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

    Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:

    May 18, 2024

    Nine major bills aim to reduce water use in cities, replace nixed federal protections of wetlands and minimize the amount of toxic โ€œforever chemicalsโ€ leaching into water supplies. Gov. Jared Polis already has signed four of the bills into law, while four more await his signature and one will go to voters…But momentum must continue if Colorado is to avoid looming water shortages, lawmakers and advocates said. Critical conversations aboutย paying farmers and others to use less waterย and making sure that conserved water is used thoughtfully must turn into policy, they said…

    The biggest achievement this year, lawmakers and advocates said, was the passage ofย House Bill 1379, whichย fills a gap in wetlands and stream protectionย created by a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year…Among other water-related bills passed this session were two focused on quality:ย Senate Bill 81, which has been signed into law, bans the sale of some consumer products withย intentionally added PFAS chemicalsย โ€” like cookware and ski wax โ€” beginning in 2026 and another class of products in 2028, in part to reduce how much of the chemicals reach waterways. Andย Senate Bill 37ย (not yet signed into law) orders a study of ways to use โ€œgreen infrastructureโ€ to improve water quality…Voters will be asked in November to decide a ballot measure referred byย House Bill 1436ย allowing the state to keep more sports betting tax revenue for state water projects. The measure would remove the cap on the amount of money that goes for those projects…

    Several other bills are targeted at conservation in various ways:

    • Senate Bill 197ย (not yet signed into law), would implement recommendations from the Colorado River Drought Task Force convened last year. That includes making it easier for tribal nations to apply for state water grants and allowing people who hold agricultural water rights to loan them to the state water conservation board to boost flows.
    • Senate Bill 5ย (signed into law), bans theย installation of new non-functional turfย and artificial turf on commercial, industrial, government and HOA-owned property beginning in 2026.
    • House Bill 1362ย (signed into law), allows the installation of graywater systems in new construction statewide. Graywater systems collect water after its first use and reuse it for a variety of purposes, like flushing toilets or watering plants.
    • House Bill 1435ย (not yet signed), would allocate $56 million toย water projectsย through state agencies, including water supply forecasting and turf replacement. The bill also includes $20 million for the purchase of theย Shoshone power plant water rights.
    • Senate Bill 148ย (signed into law), allows stormwater facilities toย harvest and store rainย running off hard surfaces like asphalt.

    #Nevada water right holders have little choice but to sell, say water regulators — Nevada Current

    The state Division of Water Resources recently reported about 35 miles of dry channel with no flow on the Humboldt River. (Photo Credit: Colton Brunson, Water Commissioner, Nevada Division of Water Resources)

    Click the link to read the article on the Nevada Current website (Jennifer Solis):

    May 13, 2024

    After two decades of dwindling aquifers, landowners in northern and central Nevada are choosing to surrender their groundwater rights to the state in exchange for cash payments, and more are waiting in line. 

    Everyone from family farmers to residents in mid-sized towns depend on groundwater in Nevada, but over-pumping and persistent drought means there is simply not enough water to go around.

    The Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program was allocated a total of $25 million in funding last year to address groundwater conflicts by purchasing groundwater rights from private landowners in over-pumped and over-appropriated basins in northern and central Nevada communities, and thereโ€™s been massive interest.

    While the program is only available to landowners in about half of Nevadaโ€™s counties, water rights sellers have offered to sell a total of $65.5 million in water rights in a matter of months โ€” about $40 million more than available funding. 

    โ€œFarmers want to farm,โ€ said Jeff Fontaine, the executive director of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority and the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority. โ€œBut a lot of them see the writing on the wall.โ€

    Throughout the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority region โ€” an agency created to proactively address water resource issues in the region โ€” there are 25 over-appropriated groundwater basins, eight of which are also over-pumped. An over-pumped basin is one that is pumped at a greater rate than it is replenished.

    Water regulators have until September to enter into contractual agreements and acquire those groundwater rights, but as of May the program has already received commitments to retire more than 25,000 acre-feet of ground water annually. Thatโ€™s about the average amount of water in both the Boca Reservoir and Donner Lake any given year.

    โ€œWeโ€™re gonna do that in one year,โ€ said James Settelmeyer, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, during a Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources meeting Friday.

    Due to high interest in the program not every application will result in a purchase, but state water regulators noted that not a single applicant has voluntarily dropped out of the program.

    โ€œWe had some of the oldest ranches in the state that were looking at selling,โ€ Settelmeyer said, adding that the decision came down to the rising cost of digging deeper and deeper wells to reach the shrinking water table.

    Water rights holders are asking โ€œโ€™Do I drill another well or take my old well and go down an additional 200 to 300 feet? Or do I look at this program?’โ€ he said, adding, โ€œthere are some that are getting a bit older and may not have someone willing to take over the property.โ€

    Nevada landowners understand theyโ€™re between a rock and a hard place, said local water regulators. 

    Fontaine, the executive director of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority and the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, said sharply declining groundwater levels is what motivated farmers in Humboldt Countyโ€™s Middle Reese River Valley and Antelope Valley to sell.

    โ€œSome of the applicants we talked to were looking at having to spend potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to deepen their wells. And at some point they realized that the situation isnโ€™t getting any better anytime soon,โ€ Fontaine said, during the Friday meeting.

    Most of the funding will likely go to Eurekaโ€™s Diamond Valley, a small farming community in central Nevada, and the stateโ€™s only โ€œcritical management area,โ€ as designated by the Nevada State Water Engineer. The designation means the valleyโ€™s groundwater levels are rapidly declining, and groundwater rights holders in the area are required to create a plan to address over-pumping or risk losing their rights.

    More water rights than water

    If all sales go through, the state expects to retire about 30% of the annual groundwater yield in Diamond Valley, Fontaine said.

    Water regulators said the program application process was designed to purchase water rights that are in regular use and to weed out water rights sellers who have not pumped over the last five years, in order to effectively address shrinking aquifers in northern and central Nevada. 

    Decades of granting more water rights than actual available water has left Nevada in a difficult position. Before electricity and modern pumping technology was available, there was little threat of draining an aquifer โ€œbut times have changed,โ€ Fontaine said.

    โ€œThe state did over-appropriate these groundwater basins. The past thinking was that water users were not going to put their entire allocations to use,โ€ he said. 

    Colorado, Kansas and Oregon have set up similar programs. But those programs have not seen the level of interest and demand Nevadaโ€™s water retirement program has. 

    โ€œThere was a lot of interest in this program. In fact, I would say that it exceeded our expectations,โ€ Fontaine said.

    During the meeting, water managers and conservation groups in the state emphasized the need to establish a permanent statewide voluntary water rights retirement program based on the success of the limited program currently available for select counties.

    Republican Nevada State Sen. Pete Goicoechea sponsored a bill in 2023 that would have created a statewide program to buy and retire water rights. But the legislation never made it to the floor for a vote.

    โ€œAs we go into the next legislative session, we have the chance to take this pilot project and its learnings and create a stable funding mechanism to ensure that we can leverage these opportunities in the future,โ€ said Peter Stanton, the CEO of the Walker Lake Conservancy, which focuses on restoring and maintaining Walker Lake.

    Walker Lake, Nevada, with sign in lower-right showing lake elevation in 1908. By Raquel Baranow – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28993516

    Lincoln Park/Cotter Community Advisory Group encourages well owners to participate in monitoring program — The #CaรฑonCity Daily Record #ArkansasRiver

    Lincoln Park/Cotter Mill superfund site via the Environmental Protection Agency

    Click the link to read the article on the Caรฑon City Daily Record website. Here’s an excerpt:

    May 10, 2024

    In February 2023, the current Radiation Materials License holder, Colorado Legacy Land (CLL), declared insolvency and stated they could no longer maintain staff to ensure site security or continue regular operations. The Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) took emergency action and contracted with the existing company, Ensero Solutions LLC, to continue with the necessary on-site activities.ย  CDPHE assumed the monitoring program including wells and air monitoring stations because CLL had abandoned these responsibilities.

    At the end of February, the CDPHE sent a letter to residents of Lincoln Park who have been part of the well-monitoring program established decades ago to keep track of groundwater contamination associated with the former Cotter Uranium Mill. The agency was asked for permission to access properties and test wells as had been done routinely in the past by either Cotter or CLL.

    At the Community Advisory Group (CAG) meeting on April 16, Shiya Wang, CDPHE Radiation Project Manager, announced that of the 38 letters sent to well owners, only 16 responses were received to allow CDPHE representatives to continue the monitoring program. If you, the well-owner, receive a follow-up letter, please take the time to complete your information and get it back to the CDPHE. Any questions can be directed to the agency or the CAG at its Facebook page, โ€œLincoln Park/Cotter Community Advisory Groupโ€

    The reason for monitoring, as stated in the letter, is: โ€œContinuous sampling of environmental media provides valuable data to both the State and to the Lincoln Park Community regarding the migration of hazardous constituents in the environment that have been associated with historical operations at the Site. Residents are encouraged to continue providing access to the sampling location so that this information can continue to assist the Stateโ€™s, as well as the communityโ€™s, understanding of the current conditions in the area.

    Report on microplastics published by USGS — NGWA

    Diagram credit: USGS

    Click the link to read the release on the NGWA website:

    May 6, 2024

    The U.S. Geological Survey published a report on May 2 on the critical topic of microplastics in the environment.

    The report titled โ€œIntegrated Science for the Study of Microplastics in the Environment โ€”  A Strategic Science Vision for the U.S. Geological Surveyโ€ is available on the USGS website.

    The report which covers microplastics and nanoplastics states โ€œa myriad of environmental exposure pathways to humans including ingestion, inhalation, and bodily absorption, are likely to exist.โ€ It adds there is growing evidence that bioaccumulation of microplastics in tissues and organs of humans can potentially lead to nutritional and reproductive effects.

    Current science gaps are mentioned. The report says that โ€œunderstanding if or when environmental exposures pose a health risk is complicated by the diversity of microplastic sizes, morphologies, polymer types, and chemicals added during manufacturing or sorbed from the environment; ongoing challenges in analytical methods used to detect, quantify, and characterize microplastics and associated chemicals in our ecosystems; and the fact that ecotoxicological studies regarding microplastics are still in their infancy.โ€

    It also adds that a better understanding of the sources, pathways, fate, and biological effects of microplastics has become a priority of the federal government as well as some state governments.

    One of the most cited Groundwaterยฎ papers in recent years is โ€œMicroplastic Contamination in Karst Groundwater Systemsโ€ by Samuel V. Panno et. al. NGWA members can view the complete paper on Wiley Online Library.

    The Environmental Protection Agency rejects plan to pump Moneta oilfield waste into potential drinking water — @WyoFile #ActOnClimate #KeepItInTheGround

    On the Wind River Indian Reservation, Fort Washakie is home to nearly 1,800 people. (Matthew Copeland/WyoFile)

    Click the link to read the article on the WyoFile website (Angus M. Thuermer Jr.):

    April 24, 2024

    Federal environmental officials have rejected a request by Aethon Energy to pump Moneta Divide oilfield wastewater into the Madison aquifer, saying the deep reservoir could be used for drinking water, especially by tribal nations on the Wind River Indian Reservation.

    The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in November 2020 approved wastewater disposal into the 15,000-foot deep well, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said last week the stateโ€™s decision did not align with federal rules.

    Aethonโ€™s plan does not support a finding โ€œthat the aquifer cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water,โ€ the EPA wrote in a 20-page record of decision. Aethon argued, and the Wyoming commission agreed 4-1, that the underground Madison formation was too deep and remote to be used for drinking water.

    The EPA relied on the Safe Drinking Water Act as the authority under which to protect the aquifer. It also cited climate, environmental justice and tribal interests in its decision, pointing to the nearby Wind River Indian Reservation as a community that could use the water.

    โ€œThe significance of that is the EPA finally didnโ€™t wimp out on us,โ€ said Wes Martel, a member of the Wind River Water Resources Control Board. โ€œWeโ€™re just glad they now have some people in place following up on their Indian policy.โ€

    The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes โ€œforesee increased reliance on groundwater for drinking water purposes and anticipate needing to access deeper aquifers, such as the Madison aquifer, as the climate changes and water resources grow scarcer,โ€ the EPA wrote in a 94-page analysis of tribal interests. The agency cited historic cultural and spiritual ties to the land and water and tribesโ€™ status as sovereign nations in its decision.

    โ€œWe have to make sure our future generations have a reliable source of clean water,โ€ Martel said. โ€œOur reservation, this is all we have left. Weโ€™ve got to do our best to protect it.โ€

    The Powder River Basin Resource Council, along with the Wyoming Outdoor Council and others, has spent years monitoring discharge reports and industry permits and was vital in challenging pollution threats, Martel said.

    The EPA understood that science, and the law did not support Aethonโ€™s request, said Shannon Anderson, organizing director and staff attorney with the resource council. โ€œThey recognized the value of our groundwater resources and the need to protect those into the future,โ€ she said, hailing the decision.

    Vast quantities of water

    Aethon must find a way to dispose of produced water โ€” a brine pumped from energy wells to release gas and oil โ€” as it expands the Moneta Divide field by 4,500 wells. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management authorized that expansion in 2020, leaving the question of water disposal to Wyoming, which has authority over surface and underground water quality under overarching federal standards.

    Aethon must find a way to dispose of the equivalent of 120 Olympic-sized swimming pools full of produced water a day to expand the field. Aethon and Burlington Resources, a co-producer at Moneta, could generate $182 million a year in federal royalties, $87.5 million a year in Wyoming severance taxes and $106 million annually in County Ad Valorem taxes from the expansion.

    An elk skull adorns a fencepost near the Eastern Shoshoneโ€™s buffalo management land on the Wind River Indian Reservation. (Katie Klingsporn/WyoFile)

    But Aethon has violated state permits that allow it to pump some produced water into Alkali and Badwater creeks that flow into Boysen Reservoir, a drinking water source for the town of Thermopolis. Wyomingโ€™s Department of Environmental Quality has notified the Dallas-based investment company of its infraction and has required Aethon to reduce the salinity of surface discharges this year.

    The DEQ this year listed the two creeks as โ€œimpairedโ€ and unable to sustain aquatic life. Underground injection of wastewater into the Madison was to be a new component of the disposal program.

    The EPA cited climate change, drought, increasing temperatures and use of reservation surface water by others as some of the reasons to preserve the Madison aquifer.

    โ€œRemoving the existing statutory and regulatory protections for a potential source of high-quality drinking water for the rural and overburdened communities in Fremont County and on the WRIR would further exacerbate existing inequities particularly with respect to historic and ongoing adverse and cumulative impacts to water resources and community health,โ€ the EPA wrote.

    โ€œThus, equity and environmental justice considerations, which include Tribal interest considerations, support maintaining the existing [Safe Drinking Water Act] protections that apply to the aquifers consistent with Congressional intent to protect both current and potential future sources of drinking water,โ€ EPA documents state.

    Neither Aethon nor a representative of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission responded immediately to a request for comment Wednesday. But WyoFile received this response from Tom Kropatsch, oil and gas supervisor for the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, shortly after publication:

    โ€œWe do not agree with EPAโ€™s decision on this application. We are still reviewing their decision and the information utilized by EPA in support of their decision. Much of this information was not part of the original application or a part of the record. EPA did not follow the standard procedure of allowing the WOGCC and the applicant to review and respond to the additional information they had available prior to making their final decision. EPA evaluated data that differs in its geographic, geologic, engineering, and other technical information. EPA also inappropriately related the proposed injection location to other areas of the state. Since the data EPA reviewed does not accurately reflect the conditions at the location of the proposed disposal well it is not appropriate to rely on it for a decision on this application. The WOGCC is reviewing EPAโ€™s decision and weighing its options for further action.โ€

    Wyoming rivers map via Geology.com

    2024 #COleg: Colorado Bill Protects Wetlands & Streams — Getches-Wilkinson Center

    Blanca Wetlands, Colorado BLM-managed ACEC Blanca Wetlands is a network of lakes, ponds, marshes and wet meadows designated for its recreation and wetland values. The BLM Colorado and its partners have made strides in preserving, restoring and managing the area to provide rich and diverse habitats for wildlife and the public. To visit or get more information, see: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo/blanca_wetlands.html. By Bureau of Land Management – Blanca Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Colorado, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42089248

    Click the link to read the article on the Getches-Wilkinson Center website (Andrew Teegarden):

    May 8, 2024

    On May 6th, 2024 the Colorado Legislature passed HB24-1379 โ€“ a bill designed to protect the wetlands and streams at risk after the U.S. Supreme Courtโ€™s ruling in Sackett v. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). The passage of the house bill saw overwhelming support from the regulated community, environmentalists, and concerned citizens.

    HB24-1379 would not have been passed if not for the hard work and dedication of the bill sponsors; Speaker Julie McCluskie, Senator Dylan Roberts, Representative Karen McCormick, and Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer. These sponsors worked tirelessly to advocate for our state waters by compromising with and listening to stakeholders throughout the session.

    Colorado is one of the first states in the country to pass legislation to restore protections to wetlands and streams from development activities. Other states will be able to model the stakeholder engagement process utilized by the bill sponsors to provide protections from unmitigated development.

    The Protect Colorado Waters Coalition was the primary driver behind the campaign which helped HB24-1379 cross the finish line. Both Kristine Oblock, Campaign Manager with Clean Water for All and Josh Kuhn, Senior Water Campaign Manager with Conservation Colorado, upheld the coalition and worked behind the scenes to have foundational elements included in the legislation. For example, the coalition was successful in keeping the current definition of state waters. The bill sponsor went a step further to directly include wetlands within that definition to permanently expand the scope of covered waters. As we detailed in previous posts, the more comprehensive definition of state waters removes the need to quibble over jurisdiction and streamlines the permit process for applicants. Additionally, the coalition advocated for the federal 404(b)(1) guidelines to act as the floor rather than the ceiling for environmental review of permit decisions.

    We, here at the Getches-Wilkinson Center, are ecstatic to see the coalition’s efforts result in meaningful legislation designed to protect our aquatic ecosystems for generations to come. Our mission is to promote the sustainability of the lands, air, and water in the Western United States and HB24-1379 aligns with that mission. We look forward to the rulemaking process where the Water Quality Control Commission within the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment will promulgate rules to establish how permits are issued, and the requirements applicants must follow.

    Ephemeral streams are streams that do not always flow. They are above the groundwater reservoir and appear after precipitation in the area. Via Socratic.org

    US military bases teem with #PFAS. Thereโ€™s still no firm plan to clean them up — Grist

    Petersen Air Force Base. Photo credit: Peterson Air and Space Museum

    Click the link to read the article on the Grist website (Sachi Kitajima Mulkey):

    April 29, 2024

    Excessive levels of PFAS have been detected at 80 percent of active and decommissioned military bases.

    In 2016, Tony Spaniola received a notice informing him that his family shouldnโ€™t drink water drawn from the well at his lake home in Oscoda, Michigan. Over the course of several decades, the Air Force had showered thousands of gallons of firefighting foam onto the ground at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, which closed in 1993. Those chemicals eventually leached into the soil and began contaminating the groundwater.

    Alarmed, Spaniola began looking into the problem. โ€œThe more I looked, the worse it got,โ€ he said. Two years ago,ย  his concern prompted him to co-found the Great Lakesย PFASย Action network. The coalition of residents and activists is committed to making polluters, like the military and a factory making waterproof shoes, clean up the โ€œforever chemicalsโ€ theyโ€™ve left behind.

    PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of nearly 15,000 fluorinated chemicals used since the 1950s to make clothing and food containers, among other things, oil- and water-repellent. Theyโ€™re also used in firefighting foam. These chemicals do not break down over time, and have contaminated everything from drinking water to food. Research has linked them to cancer, heart and liver problems, developmental issues, and other ailments.

    The U.S. Department of Defense, or DOD, is among the nationโ€™s biggest users of firefighting foam and says 80 percent of active and decommissioned bases require clean up. Some locations, like Wurtsmith, recorded concentrations overย 3,000 times higherย than what the agency previously considered safe.

    Today, the EPA considers it unsafe to be exposed to virtually any amount of PFOA and PFOS, two of the most harmful substances under the PFAS umbrella. Earlier this month, it implemented the nationโ€™sย first PFAS drinking water regulations, which included capping exposure to them at the lowest detectable limit. As of April 19, the agency also designated these two compounds โ€œhazardous substancesโ€ under the federalย Superfundย law, making it easier to force polluters to shoulder the costs of cleaning them up.ย 

    Meeting these regulations means that almost all of the 715 military sites and surrounding communities under Defense Department investigation for contamination will likely require remediation. Long-standing cleanup efforts at more than 100 PFAS contaminated bases that are already designated Superfund sites, like Wurtsmith, reveal some of the challenges to come.

    โ€œThe heart of the issue is, how quickly are you going to clean it up, and what actions are you going to take in the interim to make sure people arenโ€™t exposed?โ€ said Spaniola.

    A sign warning hunters not to eat deer because of high amounts of toxic PFAS chemicals in their meat, in Oscoda, Michigan. Drew YoungeDyke, National Wildlife Federation

    In a statement to Grist, the DOD says its plan is to follow a federal clean up law called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, to investigate contamination and determine near- and long-term clean up actions based on risk. But many advocates, including Spaniola, say the process is too slow and that short-term fixes have been insufficient. 

    The problem started decades ago. In the 1960s, the Defense Departmentย worked with 3M, one of the largest manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, to develop a foam called AFFF that can extinguish high-temperature fires. The PFAS acts as a surfactant, helping the material spread more quickly. By the 1970s, every military base, Navy ship, civilian airport, and fire station regularly used AFFF.ย 

    Firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals is responsible for contamination in Fountain Valley. Photo via USAF Air Combat Command

    In the decades that followed, millions of gallons flowed into the environment. According to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, or EWG, 710 military sites throughout the country and its territories have known or suspected PFAS contamination. Internal studies and memos show that not long after 3M and the US Navy patented the foam in 1966, 3M learned that its PFAS products could harm animal test subjects and accumulated in the body. 

    In a 2022 Senate committee hearing, residents from Oscodatestified about the health impacts, such as tumors and miscarriages, from the PFAS contamination at Wurtsmith. In 2023, Michigan reached a settlement after suing numerous manufacturers, including 3M and Dupont. Today, thousands ofย victims across the country are suingย the chemicalโ€™s manufacturers. While some organizations and communities have tried to hold the military financially responsible for this pollution โ€” farmers in several states recently filed suits in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina to do just that โ€”ย the DOD says itโ€™s not legally liable.

    Congressional pressure on the Pentagon to clean these sites has been growing. In 2020, National Defense Authorization Acts required it to phase out PFAS-laden firefighting foam by October, 2023. Since passing that law, Congress has also ordered the department to publish the findings of drinking and groundwater tests on and around bases.

    Results showed nearlyย 50 sitesย with extremely high levels of contamination, and hundreds more with levels above what was then the EPAโ€™s health advisory. Following further congressional pressure, the military announced plans to implement interim clean-up measures atย three dozenย locations, including a water filtering system in Oscoda.

    According to a report by the Environmental Working Group, it took an average of nearly three years for the Department of Defense to complete testing at these high-contamination sites. It took just as long to draft stopgap cleanup plans. Today, 14 years after PFAS contamination was discovered at Wurtsmith, the first site to be tested, no site has left the โ€œinvestigationโ€ phase, and there has yet to be a comprehensive plan to begin permanent remediation on any base.

    The Department of Defense says any site found to have PFAS contamination exceeding the Environmental Protection Agencyโ€™s previous guideline of 70 parts per trillion will receive immediate remediation, such as bottled waters and filters on faucets. When a site is found to be contaminated, the EPA says, the department has 72 hours to provide residents with alternate sources of water.

    After six years spent working with various clean up initiatives, Spaniola says waiting for the military to take action has taken a toll on the people of Oscoda. โ€œThe community had a really good relationship with the military,โ€ he said. โ€œIโ€™ve watched that change from a very trusting relationship to a terrible one.โ€ 

    Dozens of states have mandated additional requirements to treat PFAS in municipal water systems, but such efforts often overlook private well owners. Thatโ€™s leaving thousands of people at risk, given that in Michigan, where some 1.5 million people drink water from contaminated sources, 25 percent of residents rely on private wells.  

    Nationwide, the Environmental Working Group found unsafe water in wells nearย 63 military bases in 29 states. While the DOD has tested private wells, it has not published the total number of wells tested or identified which of them need to be cleaned up.ย 

    Typical water well

    โ€œFor those who are on well water, itโ€™s a real problem until thereโ€™s a bit of recognition for some sort of responsibility for the contamination,โ€ said Daniel Jones, associate director of the Michigan State University Center for PFAS Research. He is advising cleanup efforts near Grayling, Michigan. โ€œIt sort of comes down to who has pockets deep enough to pay for the things that need to be done.โ€

    The EPAโ€™s recent decision to designate PFOA and PFOS โ€œhazardous substancesโ€ under the federal Superfund law isย unlikely to provide quick financial assistance to communities, even though the agency has madeย $9 billion availableย for private well owners and small public water systems to address contamination. Whether that support reaches private well owners is up to individual states, which can work with regional EPA offices to draft project plans beforeย applying for grantsย to secure funding.

    The agency has established a five-year window for water systems to test for PFAS and install filtering equipment before compliance with the newly tightened levels will be enforced. While EPA says the new PFOA and PFOS regulations do not immediately trigger an investigation or qualify them as Superfund sites on theย National Priorities List,ย decisions for each site will be on a case-by-case basis.

    โ€œIt is a tremendous win for public health, it is tremendously important and cannot cannot come soon enough, particularly for military communities who have been exposed for decades,โ€ said Melanie Benesh, vice president of governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group. Benesh hopes that the new rules help push the Defense Department to move more quickly.

    PFAS contamination in the U.S. October 18, 2021 via ewg.org.

    2024 #COleg: Correcting Discrepancies within SB24-127 — Getches-Wilkinson Center

    Every March, thousands of Sandhill cranes stop in #GreatSandDunes National Park & Preserve on their way to their northern breeding grounds. The fields and wetlands of #Coloradoโ€™s San Luis Valley provide excellent habitat for these majestic #birds. With the dunes and mountains nearby, they dance and call to each other. Itโ€™s one of natureโ€™s great spectacles. Photo @greatsanddunesnps by #NationalPark Service.

    Click the link to read the article on the Getches-Wilkinson Center website (Andrew Teegarden):

    April 24, 2024

    Currently, there are two conflicting bills in the Colorado Legislature that would create a new state program regulating the dredge and fill of wetlands and streams across the State โ€“ HB 24-1379 and SB 24-127. A key question facing lawmakers is the scope of this new program or, in other words, which wetlands and streams will be protected. The sponsors of the Senate Bill assert that it will mirror the federal program as it existed under the Obama Administration and that it adopts the โ€œsignificant nexusโ€ test, which dictated the scope of the federal Clean Water Act program during that timeframe. This article dispels that argument and demonstrates that SB24-127 would, in fact, coverย far fewer wetlands and waterbodiesย than were protected under the significant nexus test of the federal Clean Water Act.

    I. The โ€œSignificant Nexusโ€ Test

    The history of wetland regulation at the federal level has a long and complicated history that we have previously detailed. The Supreme Court has now decided four cases that address the definition of โ€œWaters of the United Statesโ€ (WOTUS). In response to those cases, nearly every administration since 2000 has attempted to craft its own definition of WOTUS by regulation.

    In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Rapanos v. Army Corps of Engineers, and Justice Kennedy developed by the significant nexus test in his concurring opinion.1 Pursuant to this test, wetlands were said to have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters if, โ€œeither alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters.โ€2 To conform with this test, the Obama administration amended the regulatory definition of WOTUS and included eight categories of waters.

    Under this regulatory definition of the significant nexus test, any wetlands located within the 100-year floodplain and are not more than 1500 feet from the ordinary high-water line were defined as โ€œadjacentโ€ and therefore a WOTUS.3 Additionally, wetlands within 4,000 feet of the high-water mark of any traditional navigable water, interstate water, territorial seas, impoundments, or covered tributaries could be included as a WOTUS if they have an effect on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of navigable waters.4 Therefore, the significant nexus set a floor by including all wetlands within the 100-year floodplain and within 1500 feet from the ordinary high-water line while also protecting certain other wetlands within 4,000 feet of a high water mark depending on site characteristics.

    II. Distinguishing SB24-127 from the Significant Nexus Test

    SB24-127 does not fill the gap created by Sackett, because it does not provide potential protections for those wetlands out to 4000 feet from the ordinary high-water mark, which could include a significant number of wetlands in a high elevation state like Colorado. SB24-127 would limit the jurisdiction of the new state removal fill program, to those waters within the 100-year floodplain and those not more than 1500 feet from a lake, reservoir, or stream.5 Unlike the Obama Administrationโ€™s significant nexus test, however, SB24-127 does not provide for coverage for any wetlands outside the 100-year floodplain and 1500-foot demarcation, regardless of whether those waters have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. Thus, if a wetland were outside the 100-year floodplain and 1501 feet away from a state water, it would not be protected regardless of how important that wetland may be in protecting the integrity of state waters and wildlife habitat.

    SB24-127 claims to limit jurisdiction under these parameters because it would help remove the time intensive and costly process of completing case-specific analysis to determine jurisdiction. However, the program will still have to engage in determining which wetlands are subject to the state agencyโ€™s jurisdiction.

    Moose heading down to the wetlands and the Colorado River in Rocky Mountain National Park May 19, 2023.

    III. Implications for Colorado

    Our analysis demonstrates that SB24-127 does not fill the gap created by theย Sackettย decision. As compared to the significant nexus test that was put in place by the Obama Administration after theย Rapanosย decision, SB24-127 would protect far fewer wetlands across Colorado even though these wetlands play a critical role in protecting clean water, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation.

    In our view, HB24-1379 is the better policy choice, because it includes all wetlands within the definition of state waters and thus does not require time-consuming and expensive case-by-case determinations about jurisdiction. HB 24-1379 also includes exclusions for certain activities โ€“ not categories of wetlands โ€“ which are much easier to administer. And it relies heavily on general permits for routine categories of activities, which provide predictability and certainty for the regulated community.

    If we make the wrong policy choice in designing Coloradoโ€™s wetland protection program, we may possibly threaten the interconnectedness of our water systems in Colorado, create long-term water quality impacts, and affect downstream waters. Our state waters also play a vital role in flood and fire mitigation which are likely to be of greater importance as climate change ravages the Western United States.

    SB24-179 does not fill the Sackett gap, it instead creates new, unpredictable regulatory gaps that will be difficult and expensive to administer, creating uncertainty for the regulated community and other stakeholders. If there is one thing we have learned from the tortured history of the federal wetland program it is this โ€“ any attempt to define the scope of the program based on the โ€œconnectionโ€ between a wetland and other surface water is doomed to conflict and unnecessary expense. All wetlands deserve protection, especially here in the state of Colorado. We have an opportunity right now to avoid that morass, but SB24-179 would simply lead us back down that same dusty road.

    1 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

    2 Id. at 780.

    3 33 C.F.R ยง 328.3 (2018).

    4 Id.

    5ย SB24-127 p. 19 lines 7-10 available atย https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_127_01.pdf

    Wetlands – Russell Lakes SWA with Avocets. Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife

    How much water remains in southeast #Coloradoโ€™s aquifers?: Colorado legislative committee approves many millions for water projects in Colorado โ€” including $250,000 for a study crucial for Baca County — Allen Best (@BigPivots) #OgallalaAquifer #RepublicanRiver #RioGrande

    Corn in Baca County. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

    Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

    Unanimous votes in the Colorado Legislature are rare, but they do happen. Consider HB24-1435, the funding for the Colorado Water Conservation Board projects.

    The big duffle bag of funding for various projects was approved 13-0 by the Senate Water and Agriculture Resources Committee. It had bipartisan sponsors, including Rep. Marc Catlin, a former water district official from Montrose.

    โ€œColorado has been a leader in water for a long, long time, and this is bill is an opportunity for us to stay in that leadership position,โ€ said Catlin, a Republican and a co-sponsor.

    โ€œThis is one of my favorite bills,โ€ said Rep. Karen McCormick, a Democrat from Longmont and former veterinarian. She is also a co-sponsor.

    This historical photo shows the penstocks of the Shoshone power plant above the Colorado River. A coalition led by the Colorado River District is seeking to purchase the water rights associated with the plant. Credit: Library of Congress photo

    The bill has some very big-ticket items, including $20 million for the Shoshone power plant agreement between Western Slope interests and Public Service Co. of Colorado, better known by its parent company, Xcel Energy. Andy Mueller, the general manager of the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River District, called the effort to keep the water in the river โ€œincredibly importantโ€ to those who make a living in the Colorado River Basin.

    This map shows the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River near Grand Junction, home to four species of endangered fish. Map credit: CWCB

    Mueller also pointed out that keeping water in the river will benefit of four endangered species of fish that inhabit what is called the 15-mile stretch of the Colorado River near Grand Junction.

    Another $2 million was appropriated for the turf-replacement program in cities, a program first funded in 2022. Another mid-range item is telemetry for Snotel sites, to keep track of snow depths, the better to predict runoff. It is to get $1.8 million.

    Among the smallest items in the budget is a big one for Baca County, in Coloradoโ€™s southeast corner. The bill, if adopted, would provide the Colorado Water Conservation Board with $250,000 to be used to evaluate the remaining water in aquifers underlying southeastern Colorado. There, near the communities of Springfield and Walsh, some wells long ago exhausted the Ogallala aquifer and have gone deeper into lower aquifers, in a few cases exhausting those, too. Farmers in other areas continue to pump with only modest declines.

    What exactly is the status of the underground water there? How many more decades can the agricultural economy dependent upon water from the aquifers continue? The area is well aside from the Arkansas River or other sources of snowmelt.

    A study by the McLaughlin Group in 2002 delivered numbers that are sobering. Wes McKinley, a former state legislator from Walsh, at a meeting in February covered by the Plainsman Herald of Springfield, said the McLaughlin study numbers show that 84% of the water has been extracted. That study suggested 50-some years of water remaining. If correct, that leaves 34 years of water today.

    Tim Hume, the areaโ€™s representation on the Colorado Groundwater Commission, has emphasized that he believes this new study will be needed to accurately determine how water should be managed.

    How soon will this study proceed? asked Rep. Ty Winter, a Republican from Trinidad who represents southeastern Colorado. Tracy Kosloff, the deputy director of the Colorado Division of Water Resources, answered that the technical analysis should begin sometime after July. โ€œI would think it is reasonable to finish it up by the end of 2025, but that is just an educated guess.โ€

    She said the state would work with the Baca County community to come up with a common goal and direction โ€œabout how they want to manage their resources.โ€

    Ogallala Aquifer groundwater withdrawal rates (fresh water, all sources) by county in 2000. Source: National Atlas. By Kbh3rd – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6079001

    Unlike the Republican River area of northeastern Colorado, where farmers also have been plunging wells into the Ogallala and other aquifers, this area of southeastern Colorado has no native river. In the Republican Basin, Colorado is trying to remove 25,000 acres from irrigation by the end of 2029 in order to leave more water to move into the Republican River.ย See story. A similar proposition is underway in the San Luis Valley, where farmers have also extensively tapped the underground aquifers that are tributary to the Rio Grande.ย See story.

    San Luis Valley Groundwater

    The closest to critical questioning of the bill came from Rep. Richard Holtorf, a Republican who represents many of the farming counties of northeastern Colorado. He questioned the $2 million allocated to the Office of the Attorney General.

    He was told that $1 million of that constantly replenishing fund is allocated to the Colorado River, $110,000 for the Republican River, $459,000 for the Rio Grande, $35,000 for the Arkansas and $200,000 for the South Platte.

    Then thereโ€™s the litigation with Nebraska about the proposed ditch that would begin in Colorado near Julesburg but deliver water to Nebraskaโ€™s Perkins County. Colorado hotly disputes that plan.

    Lauren Ris, the director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, said Colorado is โ€œvery confident in our legal strategy.โ€

    Holtorf also noted that the severance tax provides 25% of the funding for the water operations. The severance tax comes from fossil fuel development. As Colorado moves to renewable energy, โ€œwhat happens to this Colorado water if we kill the goose that lays the golden egg?โ€

    Ris replied said future declines in the severance tax is a conversation underway among many agencies in Colorado state government.

    The South Platte Hotel building that sits at the Two Forks site, where the North and South forks of the South Platte River come together. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

    โ€˜Forever chemicalsโ€™ found in Sleepy Bear well water system: City water shows undetectable amount of PFAS — Steamboat Pilot & Today

    Click the link to read the article on the Steamboat Pilot & Today website (Suzie Romig). Here’s an excerpt:

    April 14, 2024

    Children age five and younger, and women who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant or breastfeeding, are more susceptible to health impacts from commonly called โ€œforever chemicals,โ€ which have been found so far in unhealthy levels in one neighborhood water system in Routt County…Sleepy Bear mobile home park, located along U.S. Highway 40 on the western edge of Steamboat Springs, has recorded PFAS levels in the neighborhood water system that are higher than health advisory and national drinking water standards. The mobile home park is not part of the city water system and uses a well water system, according to the local park manager…

    โ€œMost people living in the United States have some amount of these chemicals in their blood,โ€ according to the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. โ€œPeople in communities that have been contaminated by PFAS โ€” through water or other sources โ€” are more likely to have health impacts.โ€

    […]

    Consumer drinking water testing for Sleepy Bear showed 9.2 parts per trillion of PFOA, which is more than double the newly released legally enforceable standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA limits PFOA and PFOS drinking water standards to four parts per trillion. The CDPHE, which issues water system permits in the state, advised Sleepy Bear residents to โ€œconsider taking action to reduce your exposure.โ€ Since the EPA previously issued a health advisory in June 2022, Sleepy Bear voluntarily participated in a proactive testing program for PFAS water sampling in June 2023. Sleepy Bear contracted water operator Ron Krueger, owner of Crystal Clear Water Treatment in Lakewood, said Thursday he is awaiting direction from the CDPHE for next steps…

    Mount Werner Water & Sanitation District General Manager Frank Alfone said the district has been conducting voluntary PFAS testing that will continue throughout 2025. The most recent testing in February showed no detectable levels of PFAS in the city drinking water supply.

    This epic slice of Arizona feeds their [Navajo Nation] souls but lacks a basic necessity: Water — The Los Angeles Times #SanJuanRiver #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR

    Click the link to read the article on The Los Angeles Times website (Tyrone Beason). Here’s an excerpt:

    April 7, 2024

    The Navajos live in the same 1,400-mile-long Colorado River Basin that brings fresh water to millions in Southern California, yet about 30% of homes on the reservation were built without indoor plumbing. With the absence of pipes connecting homes in this isolated corner of the reservation to a water source, many Navajos must spend hours each week driving to a community center in the tribal settlement of Dennehotso to refill portable tanks. While California wrangles with other Western states over the Colorado Riverโ€™s drought-stricken water supply, Navajo water rights advocates estimate that the 175,000 members who live on the reservation subsist on average on just 5 to 10 gallons a day per person. Compare that to the 76 to 100 gallons of water the Environmental Protection Agency says most Californians use daily…

    Some see hope in a proposed landmark agreement that would settle all outstanding water rights disputes between the Navajo, Hopi and San Juan Southern Paiute tribes and the state of Arizona. If the final terms of the agreement are approved by the tribal government, the Navajos will ask Congress for $5 billion in federal funding to expand the reservationโ€™s water delivery infrastructure, says Navajo Nation Council Speaker Crystalyne Curley. 

    โ€œIn the past, weโ€™ve tried to get all of the parties to the table to secure water rights, which since time immemorial weโ€™ve had to fight for,โ€ Curley says…

    The failure to extend water service to all Indigenous Americans is especially galling given their traditional role as natureโ€™s caretakers, says Heather Whiteman Runs Him, associate clinical professor and director of the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona in Tucson. 

    โ€œWe respect water in ways that many other Americans donโ€™t,โ€ says Whiteman Runs Him, a Crow tribal member from Montana. โ€œThe vast majority of Americans take water access for granted. You pay a water bill but donโ€™t think about what youโ€™re paying for.โ€

    […]

    The disparity in water access between Navajo tribal members and other Americans was dramatized in a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.ย Brushing aside a host of treaties and legal precedents dating to the formation of the reservation on a fraction of Navajo ancestral territory in 1868, the court determined that the federal government is not obligated to help the tribe get more access to water from natural sources such as the Colorado River basin.

    Navajo Reservation map via NavajoApparel.com

    PFAS โ€˜forever chemicalsโ€™: Why EPA set federal drinking water limits for these health-harming contaminants

    Scientists test drinking water for PFAS at an EPA lab in Cincinnati. AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel

    Kathryn Crawford, Middlebury

    The more scientists learn about the health risks of PFAS, found in everything from nonstick cookware to carpets to ski wax, the more concerning these โ€œforever chemicalsโ€ become.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now believes there is no safe level for two common PFAS โ€“ PFOA and PFOS โ€“ in drinking water, and it acknowledges that very low concentrations of other PFAS present human health risks. The agency issued the first legally enforceable national drinking water standards for five common types of PFAS chemicals, as well as PFAS mixtures, on April 10, 2024.

    I study PFAS as an environmental health scientist. Hereโ€™s a quick look at the risks these chemicals pose and efforts to regulate them.

    What exactly are PFAS?

    PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. This is a large group of human-made chemicals โ€“ currently estimated to be nearly 15,000 individual chemical compounds โ€“ that are used widely in consumer products and industry. They can make products resistant to water, grease and stains and protect against fire.

    Waterproof outdoor apparel and cosmetics, stain-resistant upholstery and carpets, food packaging that is designed to prevent liquid or grease from leaking through, and certain firefighting equipment often contain PFAS.

    In fact, studies have found that most products labeled stain- or water-resistant contain PFAS, and another study found that this is even true among products labeled as โ€œnontoxicโ€ or โ€œgreen.โ€ PFAS are also found in unexpected places such as high-performance ski and snowboard waxes, floor waxes and medical devices.

    A firefighter walks past a row of firefighter gear.
    Firefighters are concerned that PFAS in firefighting foams and protective gear could be a reason cancer rates are rising. AP Photo/Steven Senne

    At first glance, PFAS sound pretty useful, so you might be wondering whatโ€™s the big deal?

    The short answer is that PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment.

    Some of the very same chemical properties that make PFAS attractive in products also mean these chemicals will persist in the environment for generations. Because of the widespread use of PFAS, these chemicals are now present in water, soil and living organisms and can be found across almost every part of the planet, including Arctic glaciers, marine mammals, remote communities living on subsistence diets and in 98% of the American public.

    The U.S. Geological Survey estimates common types of PFAS are now in at least 45% of the countryโ€™s tap water. PFAS maker 3M, facing lawsuits, announced a settlement worth at least US$10.3 billion in June 2023, with public water systems to pay for PFAS testing and treatment.

    What are the health risks from PFAS exposure?

    Once people are exposed to PFAS, the chemicals remain in their bodies for a long time โ€“ months to years, depending on the specific compound โ€“ and they can accumulate over time.

    Research consistently demonstrates that PFAS are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. A review by a panel of experts looking at research on PFAS toxicity concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage, and kidney and testicular cancer.

    A woman lying on her back on white carpet holds up a little girl who is pretending to fly. A white couch is behind them.
    Stain-resistant fabrics and carpets often contain PFAS. Deagreez via Getty Images

    Further, they concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS also affect babies exposed in utero by increasing their likelihood of being born at a lower birth weight and responding less effectively to vaccines, while impairing womenโ€™s mammary gland development, which may adversely affect a momโ€™s ability to breastfeed.

    The review also found evidence that PFAS may contribute to a number of other disorders, though further research is needed to confirm existing findings: inflammatory bowel disease, reduced fertility, breast cancer, and an increased likelihood of miscarriage and developing high blood pressure and preeclampsia during pregnancy. Additionally, current research suggests that babies exposed prenatally are at higher risk of experiencing obesity, early-onset puberty and reduced fertility later in life.

    Collectively, this is a formidable list of diseases and disorders.

    Whoโ€™s regulating PFAS?

    PFAS chemicals have been around since the late 1930s, when a DuPont scientist created one by accident during a lab experiment. DuPont called it Teflon, which eventually became a household name for its use on nonstick pans.

    Decades later, in 1998, Scotchgard maker 3M notified the Environmental Protection Agency that a PFAS chemical was showing up in human blood samples. At the time, 3M said low levels of the manufactured chemical had been detected in peopleโ€™s blood as early as the 1970s.

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has a toxicological profile for PFAS. And the EPA had issued advisories and health-based guidelines. But despite the lengthy list of serious health risks linked to PFAS and a tremendous amount of federal investment in PFAS-related research in recent years, PFAS hadnโ€™t been regulated at the federal level in the United States until now.

    The new drinking water standards set limits for five individual PFAS โ€“ PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS and HFPO-DA โ€“ as well as mixtures of these chemicals. The standards are part of the EPAโ€™s road map for PFAS regulations.

    The EPA has also proposed listing nine PFAS as hazardous substances under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a move that worries utilities and businesses that use PFAS-containing products or processes because of the expense of cleanup.

    While waiting for federal action, states have taken their own steps to protect residents against the risk of PFAS exposure.

    At least 28 states have laws targeting PFAS in various uses, such as in food packaging and carpets. About a dozen have drinking water standards for PFAS. But relying on state laws creates a patchwork of regulations, which places burdens on businesses and consumers to navigate regulatory nuances across state lines.

    How can you reduce your PFAS exposure?

    Based on current scientific understanding, most people are exposed to PFAS primarily through their diet, though drinking water and airborne exposures may be significant among some people, especially if they live near known PFAS-related industries or contamination.

    The best ways to protect yourself and your family from risks associated with PFAS are to educate yourself about potential sources of exposure.

    Products labeled as water- or stain-resistant have a good chance of containing PFAS. When possible, check the ingredients on products you buy and watch for chemical names containing โ€œfluor-.โ€ Specific trade names, such as Teflon and Gore-Tex, are also likely to contain PFAS.

    Check whether there are sources of contamination near you, such as in drinking water or PFAS-related industries in the area. Strategies for monitoring and reporting PFAS contamination vary by location and PFAS source, so the absence of readily available information does not necessarily mean the region is free of PFAS problems.

    For additional information about PFAS, check out the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, EPA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites, or contact your state or local public health department.

    If you believe you have been exposed to PFAS and are concerned about your health, contact your health care provider. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have published guidance on PFAS exposure, testing and clinical follow-up, which includes information to help health care professionals understand monitoring and clinical implications of PFAS exposure.

    This is an update to an article originally published June 21, 2022.

    Kathryn Crawford, Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Middlebury

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

    2024 #COleg: New wetlands, stream oversight proposal surfaces at the #Colorado Capitol — Fresh Water News

    Blanca Wetlands, Colorado BLM-managed ACEC Blanca Wetlands is a network of lakes, ponds, marshes and wet meadows designated for its recreation and wetland values. The BLM Colorado and its partners have made strides in preserving, restoring and managing the area to provide rich and diverse habitats for wildlife and the public. To visit or get more information, see: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo/blanca_wetlands.html. By Bureau of Land Management – Blanca Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Colorado, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42089248

    Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

    March 27, 2024

    Colorado lawmakers will consider a fresh proposal to grant the state authority to oversee streams and wetlands left unprotected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year.

    House Bill 24-1379, sponsored by House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, and Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, would allow the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to oversee a wide array of industrial players, including home and road builders and mining companies, and determine what steps are necessary to minimize any damage to streams and wetlands caused by their activities.

    In May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling inย Sackett vs. EPAย that sharply limits the streams and wetlands that qualify for protection under the Clean Water Act, a decision that water observers said had a particularly broad impact in the West. In Colorado and other Western states, vast numbers of streams are temporary, flowing only after major rainstorms and during spring runoff season, when the mountain snow melts.

    Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

    In addition, hundreds of Colorado wetlands lack an obvious surface connection to streams, in part because so many of the stateโ€™s streams donโ€™t flow year-round.

    โ€œAs a state we donโ€™t want to let a good crisis go to waste,โ€ McCluskie said in a briefing last week, referring to the Sackett decision and the regulatory gap that was created. โ€œOur water is part of the romance and tradition of being a Coloradan. Protecting those waterways could not be more important. But we recognize there needs to be clarity and certainty for our industry partners. And we have tried to be very considerate of differing viewpoints.โ€

    At issue is how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now defines so-called Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, which determines which waterways and wetlands are protected under the federal Clean Water Act. The definition has been heavily litigated in the nationโ€™s lower courts since the 1980s and has changed dramatically under different presidential administrations.

    The U.S. Supreme Court decided in May that the WOTUS definition that included wetlands adjacent to streams was too broad.

    In its ruling, the court said only those wetlands with a direct surface connection to a stream or permanent body of water, for instance, should be protected.

    The courtโ€™s decision in the WOTUS case means it will be up to Colorado and other states to decide whether and how to handle that regulation โ€” including permitting โ€” and enforcement.

    Colorado enacted temporary emergency protections last year to give the state time to create a new program.

    And last month, Republican Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, of Brighton, introducedย ย Senate Bill 24-127, alsoย designed to fill the regulatory gap. The Kirkmeyer measure, which has broad industry support, is scheduled for its first hearing April 4, but itโ€™s likely to meet stiff resistance in the Democratic-controlled General Assembly.

    Among the key differences between the two measures is that Kirkmeyerโ€™s proposal states that any new rules canโ€™t be more restrictive than those in place prior to the Sackett decision, while McCluskieโ€™s says protections should be โ€œat least as protectiveโ€ as those in place at that time, according to Jarrett Freedman, spokesman for the House Democrats.

    Another difference is that Kirkmeyerโ€™s bill would place the new oversight program within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources instead of the CDPHE. Kirkmeyer said a huge permitting backlog at CDPHE  shows the agency would be unable to handle dredge-and-fill permitting required under her proposal.

    McCluskie, however, believes the new program would be better housed within the state health department and that new funding would alleviate permitting delays.

    The first hearing on theย House Bill 24-1379ย has not been scheduled, Freedman said.

    A broad array of environmental groups has come out in favor of McCluskieโ€™s measure.

    Iron Fen. Photo credit from report “A Preliminary Evaluation of Seasonal Water Levels Necessary to Sustain Mount Emmons Fen: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests,” David J. Cooper, Ph.D, December 2003.

    โ€œWetlands are natureโ€™s kidneys, they filter natural pollutants, they help reduce the severity of wildfires,โ€ said Josh Kuhn, senior water campaign manager at Conservation Colorado who spoke on behalf of the Protect Colorado Waters Coalition.

    โ€œBut the Sackett decision left many of those wetlands unprotected โ€ฆ and we have also lost protections for seasonal streams.  If pollution is dumped into streams when snow melts and runs off, that pollution gets washed into the larger rivers. โ€ฆ If there is mining or development activity and they are dumping fill, or dirt, into dry streambeds, when there is water moving through those streambeds it is going to take those pollutants with it and pollute our water supply,โ€ he said.

    Farm, homebuilding and mining interests have been closely watching the bill, which includes extensive exemptions for agriculture for such things as irrigation ditch repair, and on-farm water management activities. It also includes some exemptions for mining operations.

    But there is still concern about the regulatory burden the new program will place on those industries and the time it will take to write new regulations and launch the program.

    House Bill 24-1379 stipulates that rules be written by May 31, 2025.

    โ€œThe rulemakings that they are contemplating are going to be complicated and detailed, and itโ€™s going to be a lot to accomplish in a short period of time,โ€ said John Kolanz, a northern Colorado attorney who often represents developers and who is tracking the bill. โ€œIt seems like a tall task.โ€

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

    Ephemeral streams are streams that do not always flow. They are above the groundwater reservoir and appear after precipitation in the area. Via Socratic.org

    Wetlands Status and Trends report — U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

    Click the link to read the report on the USFWS website.

    Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, we are required to submit decadal reports to Congress on wetland status and trends (area and change). These National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Program reports provide the data necessary to effectively manage wetlands and determine if the goal of โ€œNo Net Lossโ€ of wetlands is achieved. This is the 6th report in a series spanning nearly 70 years. Covering the period between 2009 to 2019, the report provides the extent of wetlands in 2019, as well as changes in wetland area and type between 2009 and 2019 for the contiguous United States. It highlights the importance of wetlands in providing ecosystem services, as well as the effects of wetland loss, gain, and type change. The report includes a recommendation and four strategies aimed at achieving no net loss of wetlands, including vegetated wetlands.

      #OgallalaAquifer Summit 2024: Tackling Tough Water Issues — AgWeb.com

      Center pivot sprinklers in the Arikaree River basin to irrigate corn. Each sprinkler is supplied by deep wells drilled into the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer.

      Click the link to read the article on the AgWeb.com website (Greg Henderson). Here’s an excerpt:

      March 19, 2024

      Seeking collaboration on solutions to conserve and extend the lifespan of vital water resources in the High Plains, the third Ogallala Aquifer Summit brought politicians and stakeholders from across the region this week to Liberal, Kansas.ย  Calling the Ogallala Aquifer โ€œcritical to the viabilityโ€ of agriculture and maintaining historic economic growth, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly delivered the summitโ€™s opening remarks by praising attendees for their work to address โ€œone of the regionโ€™s most pressing issues.โ€

      โ€œHaving a clean, stable water supply is critical to maintaining our way of life in all communities across Kansas, rural and urban alike,โ€ Kelly said. โ€œItโ€™s critical to maintaining Kansas as we know it and love it.โ€

      […]

      The impact from the Ogallala Aquifer is massive, with estimates that 95% of groundwater pumped from the aquifer each year is for irrigated agriculture, though it also supports livestock, businesses and municipal needs. The aquifer supports approximately $3.5 billion in crop production in Kansas. Throughout the summit attendees were reminded depletion of the aquifer is not a problem to be solved; it is a situation to be managed. Speakers emphasized that the regionโ€™s water resources would need constant management, technical innovation, financial and economic support and infrastructure changes…Economic analyses suggest that depletion of the aquifer could result in a $56 million annual loss for Texas and a $33 million loss for Kansas agriculture by 2050…

      Ogallala Aquifer groundwater withdrawal rates (fresh water, all sources) by county in 2000. Source: National Atlas. By Kbh3rd – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6079001

      While crop irrigation accounts for a majority of the water use, the aquifer also supplies water for the regionโ€™s large livestock feeding operations. Those businesses are working to conserve water, too, says Joel Jarnagin, Cobalt Cattle Co. Thirty years ago Jarnagin estimates feedyards used โ€œ15 or 16 gallons of water,โ€ per head per day. Cobalt Cattle Co., which operates six feedyards with a one-time capacity of 300,000 head, has averaged โ€œ10.5 to 11.7 gallonsโ€ water use per head, per day over the past four years.

      Kansas Aqueduct route via Circle of Blue

      2024 #COleg: Western Slope lawmakers introduce rival bill to protect #Colorado wetlands — Summit Daily

      Blanca Wetlands, Colorado BLM-managed ACEC Blanca Wetlands is a network of lakes, ponds, marshes and wet meadows designated for its recreation and wetland values. The BLM Colorado and its partners have made strides in preserving, restoring and managing the area to provide rich and diverse habitats for wildlife and the public. To visit or get more information, see: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo/blanca_wetlands.html. By Bureau of Land Management – Blanca Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Colorado, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42089248

      Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Elliot Wenzler). Here’s an excerpt:

      March 22, 2024

      House Bill 1379 is only one of the approaches being considered by the Colorado legislature this session.ย Senate Bill 127, introduced in February by Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, proposes that the permitting system should instead be managed by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.ย 

      โ€œThey do the floodplain planning, the water planning, theyโ€™re responsible for the streams and rivers, thatโ€™s not the health department,โ€ she said. 

      Kirkmeyer argues that the permitting shouldnโ€™t be under CDPHE because the department already has a huge backlog for its other permit programs.ย The two bills have several other key differences, including how they define which waters should be protected and how stringent the permitting process is for different industries, such as mining. Agricultural activities would be largely exempt under both bills.ย  Senate Bill 172 has a more narrow approach to which state waters should be protected, largely consistent with the Sackett decision. House Bill 1379 would go somewhat beyond the scope of what was protected before that ruling…

      House Bill 1379 was assigned to the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee. Senate Bill 172 is set to be heard by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee April 4.

      EPA officials pledge to clean up old uranium mines at the first Navajo Superfund site — AZCentral.com

      Graphic credit: Environmental Protection Agency

      Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral website (Arlyssa D. Becenti). Here’s an excerpt:

      March 23, 2024

      Representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency met with Cove community members last week to discussย the agency’s decisionย to place the Lukachukai Mountains Mining District on the National Priorities List. Although the meeting was intended to be informational, tribal, Navajo EPA and community leaders expressed their uncertainty about whether the federal government will actually start addressing the cleanup of the abandoned uranium mines that landed the site on the EPA list, also known as the Superfund program. The mining district encompasses Navajo Nation communities of Cove, Round Rock and Lukachukai in the far northeastern corner of Arizona.ย 

      โ€œWe are looking at what happened in the past and how the federal government could have prevented a lot of this contamination,โ€ said Council Delegate Amber Kanazbah Crotty, โ€œcouldโ€™ve prevented our community from getting sick. What I donโ€™t want them (children) to have to deal with is another three or four decades before actual action happens.โ€

      […]

      Phil Harrison remembers when his childhood community of Cove was alive with family gatherings, ceremonies, rodeos, farming and ranching, but after decades of uranium contamination, those days are a thing of the past…Harrisonโ€™s father was a miner in the uranium mines of Cove, which was where uranium was first discovered on the Navajo Nation. Uranium production in the northern and western Carrizo Mountains of the Navajo Nation began in 1948, peaked in 1955 and 1956 and declined to zero again by 1967. 

      2024 #COleg: #Colorado Battles Another โ€˜Terribleโ€™ U.S. Supreme Court Decision With Wetlands Protection Bill — Colorado Times Recorder

      Wetlands, which are havens of biodiversity, offer priceless ecological benefits. As wetlands are lost to development nationwide, critics of the dam project worry about its local impact. (Photo Credit: John Fielder via Writers on the Range)

      Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Times Recorder website (David O. Williams):

      March 21, 2024

      Outrage over the Trump-packed U.S. Supreme Court rolling back federal reproductive rights has in some ways overshadowed the now 6-3 conservative majorityโ€™s relentless assault on environmental regulations that for decades protected Coloradoโ€™s clean air and water.

      Former president and current GOP candidate Donald Trumpโ€™s recently installed SCOTUS (he appointed three of the six staunch conservatives in his last term), has consistently ruled against federal environmental regulation โ€“ from carbon-spewing power plants to downwind air pollution. And itโ€™s likely to rule against President Joe Bidenโ€™s new vehicle emissions limits.

      Last yearโ€™s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision โ€“ in which an Idaho couple simply didnโ€™t want to have to apply for a federal wetlands dredging permit โ€” largely flew under the national outrage radar, but it stripped away Clean Water Act protections for fully two-thirds of Coloradoโ€™s wetlands and streams, according to an amicus brief filed in support of those federal protections by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.

      Now Colorado lawmakers are trying to step into that regulatory void with Wednesdayโ€™s filing of the Regulate Dredge and Fill Activities in State Waters bill (HB24-1379). If passed, it would require a rulemaking process by the Colorado Department of Health and Environmentโ€™s Water Quality and Control Division to permit dredge and fill activities on both public and private land.

      โ€œThereโ€™s no mistake that [the Sackett] decision came right after Trump appointed three new justices to the Supreme Court, where thereโ€™s a conservative majority who could issue an industry-favorable ruling on this issue,โ€ Conservation Colorado Senior Water Campaign Manager Josh Kuhn said in a phone interview.

      โ€œItโ€™s unfortunate that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of industry but now it does create an opportunity for Colorado to create regulatory certainty, and itโ€™s imperative that we get this done the right way,โ€ Kuhn added. โ€œThe Supreme Courtโ€™s decision ignores the science of groundwater. What it did is it said if you are standing in a wetland, and you donโ€™t see surface water connecting that wetland to another covered [by EPA regulation] water body, it is no longer protected.โ€

      Iron Fen. Photo credit from report “A Preliminary Evaluation of Seasonal Water Levels Necessary to Sustain Mount Emmons Fen: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests,” David J. Cooper, Ph.D, December 2003.

      Anyone whoโ€™s hiked Coloradoโ€™s backcountry knows there are all sorts of water bodies that are disconnected from rivers, streams and lakes, fed by springs and often only existing on the surface when itโ€™s been raining or following a decent snow year. In fact, the Colorado Wetland Information Center identifies 15 different types of wetland ecological systems in Colorado.

      Those wetlands and ephemeral (not continually flowing) streams provide critical habitat for Coloradoโ€™s dwindling wildlife, guard against increasingly devastating wildfires fueled by manmade climate change and filter pollutants from vital sources of drinking water.

      โ€œColorado has already lost half of our wetlands since statehood, and they are super-important for ecosystem services, where they mitigate floods, decrease the severity of wildfire, help retain water like sponges and release that water to provide base flows in drier parts of the year, providing critical wildlife habitat for about 80% of wildlife,โ€ Kuhn said.

      Now, thanks to the right-leaning SCOTUS โ€“ including Coloradoโ€™s own Neil Gorsuch โ€“ 60% of those waterbodies are currently unprotected by the Clean Water Actโ€™s 404 permit process administered successfully for five decades by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Now the state of Colorado must attempt to fill that role.

      โ€œWater is a precious resource and is critical to our economy and way of life,โ€ Colorado Gov. Jared Polis wrote in a press release Wednesday. โ€œI am committed to protecting Coloradoโ€™s water today and building a more water-efficient, sustainable, and resilient future. Today, we further our commitment to protect Coloradoโ€™s water for the next generation of Coloradans.โ€

      The Polis-backed bill is sponsored in the Colorado Senate by Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, and in the Colorado House by state Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, and Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon.

      A competing bill (SB24-127) was introduced last month by Republican state Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer. That proposal, dubbed the Regulate Dredged & Fill Material State Waters bill, has the backing of the Colorado Association of Homebuilders โ€“ a development trade organization that did not return a call seeking comment on the Dem-backed bill.

      โ€œNow that [definition of] Waters of the U.S. is much more limited than it was, the things that [SCOTUS] said are not โ€˜Waters of the U.S.โ€™ are ephemeral streams, disconnected wetlands and fens,โ€ Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry said in a phone interview. โ€œSo on the Western Slope, the mountains, nearly all of our streams are not year-round streams. They flow when thereโ€™s water. So if those are not protected anymore by the feds, then are they going to be protected by the state or not? Thatโ€™s the question thatโ€™s going be answered in these two competing legislative bills.โ€

      Chandler-Henry is currently the Eagle County representative for and president of both the Colorado River District and the Water Quality and Quantity (QQ) program of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. She said both groups are likely to weigh in on the new bill at some point.

      Conservation Coloradoโ€™s Kuhn said the Kirkmeyer bill โ€œbasically draws a political line. It says that if waters are outside of 1,500 feet from the historical floodplain, they would be unprotected.โ€

      That would make state regulation of dredge and fill more expensive, he argues, because the state would then have to physically survey and determine whether bodies of water outside of that boundary should be regulated. State regulation will primarily be paid for by permit fees and possibly some federal grants. Colorado is out front nationally on this contentious issue.

      Blanca Wetlands, Colorado BLM-managed ACEC Blanca Wetlands is a network of lakes, ponds, marshes and wet meadows designated for its recreation and wetland values. The BLM Colorado and its partners have made strides in preserving, restoring and managing the area to provide rich and diverse habitats for wildlife and the public. To visit or get more information, see: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo/blanca_wetlands.html. By Bureau of Land Management – Blanca Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Colorado, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42089248

      โ€œThe Kirkmeyer bill houses the program in the Department of Natural Resources, and so that would also drive up the costs because youโ€™d have to create a new division, and youโ€™d also have to create a new commission and staff for that commission, whereas that expertise already exists within the [CDPHEโ€™s] Water Quality Control Division and the Water Quality Control Commission.โ€

      Kuhn thinks Coloradoโ€™s agriculture industry should support HB24-1379.

      โ€œWeโ€™re actually hopeful that ag will not be opposing this legislation because in the existing 404 program there are longstanding exemptions and exclusions,โ€ Kuhn said. โ€œOne of those exemptions is for certain types of agricultural activity. That would be copied and pasted into legislation and that should appease concerns from the ag community.โ€

      And Kuhn added that while the new law will mostly focus on development aimed at dredging and filling bodies of water on private land, thereโ€™s a concern about protections for wetlands on Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land facing development.

      โ€œThe [SCOTUS] ruling does apply to both public and private land, but the majority of the development pressure is on private land,โ€ Kuhn said. โ€œThat doesnโ€™t mean if there was a mining claim on Forest Service land and they wanted to build a road or something โ€“ [in the past] they would have had to secure a 404 permit โ€” but if those waters werenโ€™t jurisdictional today, they could just go out and destroy it without a permit.โ€

      Mark Eddy, representing the Protect Colorado Waters Coalition, cited AG Weiserโ€™s contention that responsible industry should not fear reasonable regulation.

      โ€œThatโ€™s the way we look at this is itโ€™s reasonable, itโ€™s transparent, everybody knows what the rules are, and it protects a valuable resource,โ€ Eddy said. โ€œIt is not saying you can never touch these places; itโ€™s that thereโ€™s a process in place to determine which ones you can touch, and then, when you do have to develop them, what kind of mitigation needs to occur.โ€

      Tom Caldwell, co-owner and head brewer at Big Trout Brewing Company in Winter Park, said in a press release that his company needs clean, cold water to craft award-winning beer.

      โ€œOur town depends on clean water for a multitude of tourist activities that bring people from all over the world,โ€ Caldwell said. โ€œWe need to protect our waterways and wetlands. House Speaker Julie McCluskie and Senator Dylan Robertsโ€™ bill is a needed remedy to a terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.โ€

      Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

      Click the link to read “State lawmakers propose plan after half of Coloradoโ€™s waters lost federal protections: Bill would create state program to regulate dredging and filling waterways” on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:

      March 21, 2024

      Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday night introduced a bill that requires the state to create a permitting process for people who want to fill in, dredge or pave over waterways. Colorado has had no method to regulate these dredge-and-fill activities since the May court decision removed federal protection for more than half of Coloradoโ€™s waters…House Bill 1379 would require the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to develop a permitting process by May 1, 2025. That process would need to minimize harm to the environment when people want to dig up or fill in waterways while building housing developments, roads or utilities. The permitting process would mirror the federal process that no longer applies to wetlands and seasonal streams…

      Both wetlands and seasonal streams serve critical roles in the stateโ€™s environment, conservation advocates said. Seasonal streams deliver snowmelt to larger streams during runoff season. Wetlands act like a sponge in the ecosystem โ€” they absorb floodwaters, serve as critical animal habitat and act as a buffer to wildfire…Half of Coloradoโ€™s wetlands have disappeared or been destroyed since the late 1800s, according to the Colorado Wetland Information Center…โ€œ

      Wetlands, headwater streams, and washes are profoundly connected like capillaries of the circulatory system to larger waters downstream,โ€ Abby Burk, senior manager of the Western Rivers Program at Audubon Rockies, said in a news release. She called the waterways โ€œessential for birds and vital natural systems,โ€ which support the resilience of water supplies in Coloradoโ€™s drying climate.

      Colorado River headwaters near Kremmling, Colorado. Photo: Abby Burk via Audubon Rockies

      Click the link to read “Democratic leaders introduce bill to protect Colorado wetlands” on the Colorado Politics website (Marianne Goodland). Here’s an excerpt:

      March 21, 2024

      Nearly a million acres of wetlands in Colorado could gain state protection that lost federal oversight when the U.S. Supreme Court decided last year wetlands that lacked direct connection to bodies of water didn’t require Environmental Protection Agency preservations…Last summer, lawmakers heard from municipal and state officials that Colorado needed to develop its own protections for those wetlands…

      Alex Funk, director of water resources and senior counsel for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said in August that almost 90% of fish and wildlife in Colorado rely on the state’s wetlands at some point during their lifecycle. That includes species such as the Gunnison sage grouse, greenback cutthroat trout, and migratory birds. These ecosystems are also crucial to the state’s economy, Funk said. They provide other benefits, such as filtering pollutants from drinking water or regulating sedimentation that may otherwise clog up infrastructure and reservoirs…

      The bill would apply to about 60% of Colorado’s wetlands and is intended to cover those wetlands that are not already federally protected. The permitting framework in HB 1379 “is based on well-established approaches already used by the Army Corps of Engineers and will provide clarity on when a permit is needed. Normal farming and ranching activities, such as plowing, farm road construction, and erosion control practices would not require a permit,” the statement said. Untilย Sackett, the Army Corpsโ€™ permitting program protected Colorado waters from pollution caused by dredge and fill activities.

      “Dredge and fill activities involve digging up or placing dirt and other fill material into wetlands or surface waters as part of construction projects,” the statement explained.ย 

      Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow. Photo credit: Colorado Natural Heritage Program

      A top #Colorado farming region is running out of water, must retire land to avoid well shutdown: To meet #RepublicanRiver compact, northeastern part of state must stop irrigating 25,000 acres by 2029 — The #Denver Post

      Ogallala Aquifer groundwater withdrawal rates (fresh water, all sources) by county in 2000. Source: National Atlas. By Kbh3rd – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6079001

      Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:

      March 3, 2024

      For decades, farmers in the Republican River basin have pumped water from the underground Ogallala Aquifer to grow wheat, beans, corn, potatoes, and feed for cattle and hogs. But the water is running out. Flows in the Republican River system are shrinking as the aquifer depletes, making it harder for Colorado to send enough water downstream to the east to fulfill its agreements with Kansas and Nebraska. To meet its obligations, Colorado is legally required to stop irrigating 25,000 acres in the southern part of the basin by the end of 2029 โ€” more than a quarter of all irrigated acreage in that area. If the mandate is not met, state water officials say they will turn off wells for all 540,000 irrigated acres in the broader swath of the state thatโ€™s in the river basin, a move that would devastate the regionโ€™s economy and way of life…

      With wells cut off, farms wouldnโ€™t be able to grow crucial crops that feed Colorado and the wider region. The companies that sell farming supplies, such as seed, tractors and sprinklers, would lose massive amounts of business…Less local income would mean fewer meals at local restaurants in the plains towns and trips to the movie theater or bowling alley. Tax revenue would fall, potentially impacting schools and emergency and social services. Without irrigation, land values would drop โ€” giving farmers less collateral for the loans they depend on to begin each season.

      โ€œWhatโ€™s frightening about it is that itโ€™s really an existential issue for those living in that region,โ€ said Jordan Suter, a Colorado State University professor tasked with examining the economic fallout from that scenario. โ€œWith good reason. If irrigated production goes away, the area canโ€™t really support a large population.โ€

      Groundwater from the aquifer makes irrigated farming possible across a large part of Coloradoโ€™s Eastern Plains that spans about 7,000 square miles across eight counties โ€” an area the size of New Jersey. In 2022, the counties produced more than $2.6 billion worth of agricultural products, according to the U.S. Department of Agricultureโ€™s farm census. The state has made some progress, but even if it meets the 25,000-acre goal, the aquiferโ€™s water level is still declining.

      A newly published study from the U.S. Geological Survey explains how salinity in the Upper #ColoradoRiver Basin has changed over the past few decades and shows how #climate, irrigation and flow of groundwater contribute to salinity in the watershed #COriver #aridification

      Click the link to read the release on the USGS website (Alexandra (Allie) Weill and Olivia Miller):

      February 8, 2024

      A newly published study from the U.S. Geological Survey explains how salinity in the Upper Colorado River Basin has changed over the past few decades and shows how climate, irrigation and flow of groundwater contribute to salinity in the watershed. The study correlates overall salinity declines in the river basin since the 1980s with a transition from wet to dry conditions.


      High salinity can limit water available for agriculture, drinking water, aquatic life and infrastructure, with significant impacts to the economy and human health. Salt occurs naturally in water, but salt loads are influenced by irrigated agriculture, geology, land cover, land-use practices and precipitation. Salinity can exacerbate corrosion of lead pipes and increase lead levels in drinking water and mobilize other metals or pollutants as well. High salinity levels in the Colorado River reduce agricultural yield, damage infrastructure and are estimated to cause $348 million per year in damage to infrastructure and crop production.

      Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Salt deposits along the Paria River, UT. (Olivia Miller, USGS)

      โ€œThis study shows us how irrigation and climate work together to influence salts going into streams,โ€ said USGS hydrologist Olivia Miller, lead author on the study. โ€œFuture climate change in the Southwest, combined with changes in irrigation, may affect stream water quality, but we donโ€™t yet understand how these interactions will play out, so our next step is developing a model to test scenarios of future climate change.โ€

      Wet periods have higher salinity loads because increased runoff from rain and melting snow and increased groundwater movement bring more salts into rivers. In contrast, drier periods have lower salinity loads. Irrigation also plays an important role, contributing salts to the river more efficiently than any other source. 

      โ€œSalt loading to the Upper Colorado River and tributaries is a significant economic and environmental concern which limits the utility of the Colorado River and creates economic damages to downstream water users,โ€ said Don A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.

      For the new study, USGS scientists created a dynamic model that simulates the flow of water and salts throughout the whole Upper Colorado Basin between 1986 and 2017, allowing them to estimate salinity in the river and identify its sources for every year over that time.

      The study confirmed previous findings that salts come primarily from groundwater (66-82%), with smaller portions attributed to runoff and springs. The salts in groundwater may initially come from infiltration of irrigation water, but once dissolved in groundwater, tracing the source is difficult. Groundwater is stored for long periods underground, meaning that there can be a time lag between when the salts enter the groundwater and when they end up in the river. As a result, while salinity management efforts focused on surface runoff processes may produce small results in the short term, larger impacts may take longer to work through the groundwater system.

      “The Upper Colorado River Basin States are taking actions to reduce salinity in the Colorado River for the benefit of the 40 million people who use the Riverโ€™s water,โ€ said Paul Kehmeier, Salinity Program Coordinator, Colorado Department of Agriculture. โ€œThis study helps clarify that the sources of salt vary over time and it will help inform managers on strategies to continue improving the quality of water in the Basin.”

      The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

      Click here for more science from the USGS Utah Water Science Center.

      Sources/Usage: Public Domain. View Media Details The Dolores River, CO. (Olivia Miller, USGS).

      Navajo Nation nears deal for #Arizona water rights on #ColoradoRiver and the #LittleColoradoRiver — AZCentral.com #COriver #aridification

      Confluence of the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River. Climate change is affecting western streams by diminishing snowpack and accelerating evaporation. The Colorado Riverโ€™s flows and reservoirs are being impacted by climate change, and environmental groups are concerned about the status of the native fish in the river. Photo credit: DMY at Hebrew Wikipedia [Public domain]

      Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral.com website (Arlyssa D. BecentiDebra Utacia Krol). Here’s an excerpt:

      March 1, 2024

      For the past 60 years, Navajo leaders have worked to settle water claims in Arizona. The aim of the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement is to affirm and quantify the nation’s rights to water in the state and to secure funding to build much needed water delivery infrastructure to homes on the Navajo Nation, according to a summary of the agreement.

      “When we took office last year there was a huge push for us to start talking about our water rights, our water claims,” Navajo Nation Speaker Crystalyne Curley told The Arizona Republic. “It’s been far too long, going through COVID, climate change, drought that we are facing every year, we had to take into account of what we want to secure for the next 100 years.”

      The U.S. Supreme Court held last summer that the United Statesย did not have an affirmative treatyย or trust obligation to identify and account for Navajo Nation water rights on the Colorado River. Curley said that ruling was a pivotal moment that led the Navajo Nation and its water rights negotiation team to focus on completing on the settlement…

      The Coconino Aquifer. The fundamental law of the Navajo (Dine) people believes water to be one of the four sacred elements that was put forth by Diyin dineโ€™eโ€™ (Deities) as a source of life. Water is part of prayer in the Hozho ceremonies for healing. All human and all life on Nahasdzaan (Mother Earth) have a degree of water in their system. Water is precious to native people โ€“ it is life. Credit: Dineโ€™eโ€™ C.A.R.E.

      The agreement will settle all of the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe and San Juan Southern Paiute water rights for the upper and lower basins of the Colorado River, the Little Colorado River basin, the Gila River Basin (including Big Boquillas Ranch) and claims to groundwater in the Navajo Aquifer, the Coconino Aquifer and other alluvial aquifers.

      Presentation details Lincoln Creek contamination but solutions unclear: #ClimateChange may be increasing leaching-metals pollution of #LincolnCreek — @AspenJournalism

      Grizzly Reservoir was a bright shade of turquoise in September 2022. The man-made alpine lake has high concentrations of metals that are toxic to fish, according to a report from the Environmental Protection Agency. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

      Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

      February 5, 2024

      Presenters at a public meeting Thursday [February 1, 2024] about contamination on Lincoln Creek hosted by agencies that oversee water quality offered a lot of information, but few solutions yet to the problem.

      The meeting, held at the Rocky Mountain Institute in Basalt, featured the results of water quality sampling and presentations from a panel of experts from agencies including Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, the U.S. Geological Survey, environmental group Trout Unlimited and Pitkin County Environmental Health.

      โ€œWe have a lot of questions,โ€ said Kurt Dahl, Pitkin County environmental health manager. โ€œIs (the contamination) going to continue to increase? What does it mean for the Roaring Fork? For my office? For human health? โ€ฆ Thereโ€™s also this question around mitigation. I think we want to get our arms around, is this a possibility? What does this look like? What are the costs? Can we afford it?โ€

      A reportย released in Novemberย by the EPA based on water-quality samples from 2022 found that Lincoln Creek in the four miles between the Ruby Mine and Grizzly Reservoir exceeds state water quality standards for aquatic life for aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese and zinc. Aluminum and copper concentrations were especially high.

      Water quality issues on Lincoln Creek have been a concern for years, with the creek above the reservoir often running a yellowish color, and Grizzly Reservoir often a bright turquoise. In September 2022, Lincoln Creek below the reservoir turned a milky-green color, and white and yellow sediment settled on the streambed, prompting water quality testing in the fall of 2022 and the EPA report. These conditions in 2022 could be seen downstream at the confluence with the Roaring Fork River, sparking concern for local residents and organizations.

      And the problem has gotten worse in recent years. The high concentrations of aluminum and copper are toxic to fish, and Lincoln Creek and Grizzly Reservoir experienced a fish die-off in 2021. In fall of 2023, there was a fish kill downstream in the Roaring Fork in the North Star Nature Preserve, which experts say was probably due to a combination of high metals concentrations and too-warm water.

      The EPA report also found that the main source of contamination is not drainage from the Ruby Mine, but is naturally occurring from a โ€œmineralized tributaryโ€ just downstream from the mine.

      During the Q&A portion of the meeting, attendees asked whether the Ruby Mine, where turn-of-the-20th-century prospectors dug for gold and silver, could really be the source of contamination. Mindi May, water quality program director with CPW, said she initially shared the audienceโ€™s skepticism that the mine wasnโ€™t the main source of contamination, but after visiting the site she agrees with geologistsโ€™ findings that itโ€™s naturally occurring.

      โ€œYou could just see the water from the mineralized trib just seeping out of the ground,โ€ she said. โ€œSo at this point I am convinced โ€ฆ that the mineralized trib and the Ruby are separate and that the mineralized trib is natural and that it really is the problem.โ€

      The fact that the contamination of the creek is naturally occurring creates a question about whoโ€™s responsible for cleaning it up. The EPA is authorized to address elevated metals concentrations only from human-caused sources, not contamination from natural sources.

      Primarily an ecological problem

      Panelists addressed the potential human health impacts from the contaminated water in the creek and at Grizzly Reservoir, a popular spot for summer camping, hiking and fishing. The U.S. Forest Service manages the seven-site Portal Campground near the reservoir.

      Mike Carney, a toxicologist with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said his agency is primarily concerned with arsenic and lead, which have health risks but arenโ€™t the main contaminants in Lincoln Creek. He said thereโ€™s not much risk associated with someoneโ€™s skin coming into contact with the copper and aluminum-laden water. As for drinking the water, backpacking filters are unlikely to filter out all the contamination and gastrointestinal distress could result. But would-be guzzlers of the orange-tinted water would probably be turned off by the taste.

      โ€œAt those concentrations, that water would likely not be palatable because it would taste very bad,โ€ Carney said. โ€œThis is primarily an ecological problem here.โ€

      Carney said they did not find worrisome concentrations of metals accumulating in the tissue of fish sampled from Grizzly Reservoir. CPW restocks the fish every summer so they may not spend enough time living in the reservoir to build up metals concentrations before they die or are caught and eaten by anglers.

      Twin Lakes collection system

      Lincoln Creek feeds into the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Companyโ€™s transmountain diversion system, in which Grizzly Reservoir is used as a collection pool before sending water through the Twin Lakes Tunnel to the Arkansas River basin, where it is used primarily in Front Range cities, including for drinking water. Colorado Springs Utilities owns the majority of the water in the Twin Lakes system.

      The November EPA report said the substantial mixing, the distance that the water travels to the Front Range and the water-treatment process limit the impacts to Colorado Springsโ€™ drinking water.

      Twin Lakes is planning to drain Grizzly Reservoir this summer so it can do a rehabilitation project, including installing a membrane over the steel face of the dam, replacing the gates that control the flow of water into the Twin Lakes Tunnel and repairing the outlet works that release water down Lincoln Creek.

      Repairs to fix damage after a log got caught in the outlet works in 2015 resulted in the release of a slug of contaminated water and sediment from the reservoir that quickly boosted flows in the Roaring Fork near Aspen and turned it yellow, alarming residents. Twin Lakes board president Alan Ward said that wouldnโ€™t happen with this summerโ€™s planned draw-down.

      โ€œThe company was very embarrassed by that, we do not want that to happen again,โ€ he said. โ€œWe talked with our contractor about a drawdown plan and we need to make sure that as we get to those sediments, that weโ€™re moving slowly and have a lot of sediment control in place so that weโ€™re not putting that in the creek.โ€

      Lincoln Creek is one of several drainages that flow into Grizzly Reservoir, a collection pool for Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company. Drainage from defunct upstream mines may be partly responsible for the waterโ€™s yellow color. Photo credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism

      Leaching metals and climate change

      When water and oxygen come into contact with pyrite-rich rock, it reacts to form sulfuric acid and causes the leaching of metals from the rock. One take-away from Thursdayโ€™s presentations is that this type of metals contamination of Colorado waterways is increasing with climate change.

      Thomas Chapin, a research chemist with USGS, said drought and climate change have reduced the volume of streamflows, meaning metals concentrations will be higher even if the overall amount of metal leaching stays the same. But melting ice and ground that was once frozen also allow water and oxygen to come into contact with rock that used to be inaccessible to the leaching process.

      Prior to mining, snowmelt and rain seep into natural cracks and fractures, eventually emerging as a freshwater spring (usually). Graphic credit: Jonathan Thompson

      โ€œThe combination of the decrease in flow coming down, so less dilution, and the lowering of the water table and exposing more material to acid rock drainage, itโ€™s a double whammy,โ€ Chapin said.

      Pitkin County isnโ€™t the only place in Colorado where increasing metals concentrations is negatively impacting water quality. Chapin said a recent study looking at the Snake River, a tributary of the Blue River in Summit County, found a 100% to 400% increase in the amount of zinc concentrations over 30 years.

      โ€œWe saw similar data with Lincoln Creek,โ€ he said. โ€œThose September values have gone up quite a bit.โ€

      The recently released Climate Change in Colorado report found that temperatures have warmed more in fall than other seasons.

      Dahl wrapped up the meeting, which ran 30 minutes past its scheduled time of 6 to 7:30 p.m., by saying that local water quality experts are talking about next steps and plan to hold another public meeting this spring.

      โ€œWe recognize that there was a lot of information here without a lot of opportunity to ask questions,โ€ he said. โ€œWeโ€™ve already agreed that we need to have another public meeting.โ€

      This story ran in the Feb. 3 edition ofย The Aspen Times.

      Map of the Roaring Fork River drainage basin in western Colorado, USA. Made using USGS data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69290878

      2024 #COleg: Colorado lawmakers gear up to create new protections for unshielded wetlands and streams — Fresh Water News

      Blanca Wetlands, Colorado BLM-managed ACEC Blanca Wetlands is a network of lakes, ponds, marshes and wet meadows designated for its recreation and wetland values. The BLM Colorado and its partners have made strides in preserving, restoring and managing the area to provide rich and diverse habitats for wildlife and the public. To visit or get more information, see: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo/blanca_wetlands.html. By Bureau of Land Management – Blanca Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Colorado, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42089248

      Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

      February 14, 2024

      Whatโ€™s the best way to protect hundreds of acres of wetlands and streams in Colorado, in the absence of federal rules that once did that work? Itโ€™s one of the biggest water issues facing state lawmakers this year.

      But as the legislative session kicks into high gear, there is no consensus yet on how to proceed.

      Last week, Republican Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, introduced Senate Bill 24-127 as a first stab at figuring it out. 

      At issue is how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now defines so-called Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, which determines which waterways and wetlands are protected under the federal Clean Water Act. The definition has been heavily litigated in the nationโ€™s lower courts since the 1980s and has changed dramatically under different presidential administrations.

      In May, in Sackett v. EPA the U.S. Supreme Court decided, among other things, that the WOTUS definition that included wetlands adjacent to streams, was too broad.

      In its ruling, the court said only those wetlands with a direct surface connection to a stream or permanent body of water, for instance, should be protected.

      The courtโ€™s decision in the WOTUS case means it will now be up to the state to handle that regulation โ€” including permitting โ€” and enforcement.

      Last year limited temporary emergency protections were put in place to give the state time to create a new program.

      Water experts said the Sackett decision and the new Colorado permitting program will have far-ranging implications for the environment, as well as agriculture, construction and mining, all major parts of Coloradoโ€™s economy.

      The Sackett decision may have more impact in semi-arid Western states, where streams donโ€™t run year-round and wetlands often donโ€™t have a direct surface connection to a stream.

      The U.S. Geological Survey, for instance, estimates 44% of Coloradoโ€™s streams are intermittent, meaning they are sometimes dry, and 24% are ephemeral, meaning they can be dry for months or years and appear only after extraordinary rain or snow. Just 32% of Colorado streams are classified as being perennial, meaning they flow year-round.

      Kirkmeyerโ€™s bill would create a new, nine-member commission appointed by the governor that would be housed in the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. The commission would oversee a staff responsible for issuing permits regulating how any activity impacting nearby streams and wetlands, such as road building, home construction and mining, would be conducted to minimize and repair any disturbances the activity caused. It would also sharply limit the kinds of streams and wetlands that could be protected, in keeping with the narrow scope enshrined in law by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Sackett v. EPA decision, Kirkmeyer said.

      โ€œThese waters are important to all of us,โ€ the Brighton lawmaker said. 

      Wetlands, which are havens of biodiversity, offer priceless ecological benefits. As wetlands are lost to development nationwide, critics of the dam project worry about its local impact. (Photo Credit: John Fielder via Writers on the Range)

      The bill is supported by the Colorado Livestock Association, Weld County and the mining giant Freeport-McMoRan. Conservation Colorado and the Sierra Club, and liberal environmental nonprofits, oppose the measure.

      Kirkmeyer  said she proposed placing the program in the Department of Natural Resources, in part, because the Colorado Department of Public Health Environmentโ€™s Water Quality Control Division has been plagued with huge backlogs in processing permits in other programs it oversees.

      Her proposal, however, may face an uphill battle in the Democratically controlled legislature. There are also questions about what the stateโ€™s new regulatory burden will mean in terms of cost.

      A broad-based working group convened last year by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is still analyzing options on how best to address the regulatory gap, and has been briefing lawmakers on possible options. Those options, however, would likely give the regulating job to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and would likely seek to cover a broader class of streams and wetlands than Senate Bill 127 envisions, according to Alex Funk, a member of the working group who is also director of water resources and senior counsel at the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

      Iron Fen. Photo credit from report “A Preliminary Evaluation of Seasonal Water Levels Necessary to Sustain Mount Emmons Fen: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests,” David J. Cooper, Ph.D, December 2003.

      Funk said he wants to see a bill that is housed within the health department and which offers broader protection for uniquely Colorado waters, such as fens, a kind of high-altitude bog, as well as playa lakes, small shallow pools found on the high plains.

      โ€œThere is a real opportunity (this session) for Colorado to provide some clarity once and for all with a program that is inclusive of all stakeholders,โ€ Funk said.

      โ€œThe federal program has been a tennis ball,โ€ he said, referring to the programโ€™s long history of lawsuits over shifting definitions of what constitutes protected wetlands and streams.

       โ€œEveryone has agreed that hasnโ€™t worked well. But I think Colorado can get this right.โ€

      The Federal Regulatory Commission Deny Permits for Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Projects on Navajo Land, Citing Lack of Consultation With Tribes — Inside Climate News

      The Colorado River from Navajo Bridge below Leeโ€™s Ferry and Glen Canyon Dam. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

      Click the link to read the article on the Inside Climate News website (Noel Lyn Smith,ย Wyatt Myskow):

      February 17, 2024

      The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced a new policy requiring that any energy project seeking to build on tribal land must get the tribeโ€™s approval before it will permit the project.

      Federal officials Thursday denied preliminary permits for multiple pumped storage hydroelectric projects proposed on the Navajo Nation that would have required vast sums of water from limited groundwater aquifers and the declining Colorado River, citing a lack of support from tribal communities. 

      In the order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced it was implementing a new policy requiring that any project proposed on all tribal land must gain the respective tribeโ€™s consent to be approved, a move that local tribes, opposed to the proposed hydroelectric projects, had been calling for. The decisions pave the way for increased tribal sovereignty in energy-related projects seeking federal approval across the country.

      โ€œThis is a federal commission acknowledging tribal sovereignty,โ€ George Hardeen, a spokesman for the Navajo Nation presidentโ€™s office, said. โ€œIf a company wants to do business on the Navajo Nation, it, of course, needs to talk to and get the approval of the Navajo Nation. And in the eyes of FERC, that has not yet happened.โ€

      The Navajo Nation opposed the preliminary permits for the projects through motions to intervene that were submitted by its Department of Justice in 2022 and 2023.

      Future projects โ€œshould work closely with Tribal stakeholders prior to filing,โ€ to FERC, agency officials wrote in their decision. Before this new policy, the agency had โ€œapplied the general policy of granting permits even where issues were raised about potential project impacts without a distinction for projects on Tribal lands opposed by Tribes.โ€ 

      The decision is the latest setback for the development of hydropower in the U.S. While many see electricity generated by turbines in dams as a key source of renewable energy, a growing body of scientific evidence has found that the reservoirs behind dams are a significant source of carbon emissionsโ€”particularly methane, a potent greenhouse gas thatโ€™s roughly 80 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Hydroelectric dams also block fish from traveling upstream to their spawning grounds, which studies have long shown interfere with their ability to reproduce. 

      Hydropower dams have hadย major effects on riversย across the country, including the Colorado River and its tributaries, where four native fish species are now endangered. Such issues have led to theย removal of damsย along some other river systems.

      Pumped hydroelectric generation illustrated. Graphic via The Mountain Town News

      Pumped storage has been seen by some in the industry as a way to keep hydropower a relevant part of the renewable energy transition, as they donโ€™t always require a river or dam to function. However, environmental problems, and opposition, remain. The projects FERC denied had garnered widespread opposition from the Navajo Nation and Indigenous and environmental groups over the lack of consultation developers offered and the impacts they would have on cultural sites, endangered species and water resources in the area.

      In its motion to FERC for a project on the western part of the Navajo Nation near Page, Arizona, the tribeโ€™s Department of Justice wrote that โ€œmeaningful consultationโ€ between the company and the tribal government, including chapter administrations and local communities, was โ€œunclear.โ€

      The department also stated that the project might impact the tribeโ€™s water rights or its use of water from the Colorado River system.

      โ€œThe Navajo Nationโ€™s interests would be directly affected by the outcome of this proceeding,โ€ the department wrote.

      Graphic credit: Jonathan P. Thompson/The Land Desk

      Daryn Melvin, a Hopi Tribal member who works as the Grand Canyon manager with the Grand Canyon Trust, which opposed the projects, said the hydro projects are โ€œjust the latest in a number of developments that were threatening the area in places that are of particular importance to Native communities.โ€ The impacts of coal and uranium mining persist to this day, he said, and local tribes and environmental groups pushed to find new ways to protect the area, including reform in the FERC permitting process.

      In particular, a proposal from Nature and People First to build three pumped storage hydropower projects across 40 linear miles on Black Mesa drew intense scrutiny. Project opponents say the developer never reached out to locals about the project and attempted to pit communities in the area against one another. Representatives of Nature and People First did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

      Black Mesa, west of Chilchinbito, Arizona. By Doc Searls from Santa Barbara, USA – 2008_08_19_bos-lax_078Uploaded by Babbage, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10393831

      Nature and People First states on its website that Chilchinbeto Chapter, where one of the projects on Black Mesa would be located, supported the proposal because it would create jobs and economic opportunities. The company filed resolutions to FERC from the Western Navajo Agency Council and the chapters of Tsโ€™ah Bii Kin and Oljato that supported the project.

      How Pumped Storage Hydropower Works

      Over a dozen hydro projects have been proposed in recent years on or near the Navajo Nation for pumped storageโ€”a nearly century-old technology experiencing a surge of interest as the U.S. looks for ways to store energy from renewable sources as it pivots away from fossil fuel-generated electricity. 

      Pumped storage can help store electricity from wind and solar energy projects for when it is needed and serves as an alternative to utility-scale lithium-ion batteries to bank renewable energy.ย 

      Graphic credit: Inside Climate News

      The projects use two water reservoirs, one above the other. Water is pumped uphill to the higher reservoir at night when energy costs are low, then sent back down through electricity-generating turbines when energy demand peaks or renewable resources canโ€™t generate electricity, helping to ensure grid stability during system-stressing events like record-hot summers. 

      But to work, they need certain geographic characteristics, namely a rapid change in elevation over a short distance, leading many of the projects to be proposed in the Mountain West. But they also need water, and a lot of it, which is something lacking in many arid Western communities. 

      Thatโ€™s led to pushback across the region as rural residentslook to protect their limited ground- and surface water supplies from diversion to pumped storage projects and, potentially, further depletion.

      Impacts to Local Water Supplies

      If all of the proposed pumped storage projects near the Navajo Nation were built, it would require over 2 million acre feet of water. Thatโ€™s enough water for over 5 million homes in Arizona and about the same amount of water that federal officials are currently allowing the state to take from the Colorado River in recent drought conditions.ย 

      If developed, the projects would further impact flows on the Colorado River and its tributaries, as well as the levels of local aquifers that serve tribal communities. The Hopi Tribe, for example, is completely reliant on the same groundwater sources some of these hydro projects would likely pull from.ย 

      โ€œWater scarcity is a simple fact of our region,โ€ said Taylor McKinnon, the Southwest director for the Center for Biological Diversity, which opposed the projects. โ€œTheir failure to see that caused them to run headlong into the problem of aridity.โ€


      The Coconino Aquifer. The fundamental law of the Navajo (Dine) people believes water to be one of the four sacred elements that was put forth by Diyin dineโ€™eโ€™ (Deities) as a source of life. Water is part of prayer in the Hozho ceremonies for healing. All human and all life on Nahasdzaan (Mother Earth) have a degree of water in their system. Water is precious to native people โ€“ it is life. Credit: Dineโ€™eโ€™ C.A.R.E.

      The Black Mesa projects proposed pulling groundwater from the Coconino aquiferโ€”colloquially known as the C aquiferโ€”which provides the base flows for the Little Colorado River, McKinnon said. โ€œThat water comes out of the earth in Blue Springs, and it creates a river,โ€ he said, noting that the flow was critical to an endangered fish. โ€œThat river is where the last source population of humpback chub in the world live.โ€

      Thursdayโ€™s ruling, for now, puts an end to seven of the proposed projects in the region that would have collectively required around 1.6 million acre feet of water. โ€œThis is an agency actually stepping forward and saying, โ€˜we have the authority to do the right thing and weโ€™re going to do the right thing,โ€™โ€ McKinnon said. โ€œWe applaud that.โ€

      The projects have also received pushback from the Hopi Tribe, whose land is adjacent to the Navajo Nation. The projects on Black Mesa not only threatened water sources for the Hopi, but also endangered species and cultural resources, like ancestral trails and shrines, said Stewart B. Koyiyumptewa, tribal historic preservation officer for the tribe.

      โ€œWe still have a vested interest in our cultural resources left by our ancestors throughout the landscape,โ€ Koyiyumptewa said.

      FERC has a policy statement for consulting with federally recognized tribes that preexisted Thursdayโ€™s order. While the commission recognizes the government-to-government relationships the U.S. holds with sovereign tribes, how it notifies tribes about proposed projects is dependent on laws, like the National Historic Preservation Act.

      For Koyiyumptewa, this leaves tribes cut off from key information about proposalsโ€”especially when projects are not on the tribeโ€™s land, but could impact it.

      โ€œWe werenโ€™t given the opportunity to provide opposition,โ€ he said of the early process for the Black Mesa projects.

      2024 Ogallala Aquifer Summit March 18-19, 2024: #Building Trust, Mobilizing Collaboration” — Irrigation Innovation Consortium

      Click the link to go to the Irrigation Innovation Consortium website for all the inside skinny and register.

      Ogallala Aquifer. Credit: Big Pivots

      USGS includes Indigenous knowledge in #GrandCanyon uranium study — Jonathan P. Thompson (@Land_Desk)

      Click the link to read the article on The Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

      + UT nixes Bears Ears swap; Mining Law reform … NOT!

      Though it sits just 10 miles from the Grand Canyonโ€™s south rim, the controversial Pinyon Plain (nรฉe Canyon) uranium mine goes unnoticed by the millions of people who drive past it on their way to the national park.ย Itโ€™s tucked in among the trees about two miles off the highway, and its total above-ground footprint is a mere 17 acres โ€” smaller than an upscale shopping center in Flagstaff.ย 

      Officials at Energy Fuels, Pinyon Plainsโ€™ operator, highlight the facilityโ€™s inconspicuousness when responding to opposition to plans to rev up the mine. Curtis Moore, Energy Fuelsโ€™ VP of marketing, told the Navajo-Hopi Observer in 2022 that the mine โ€œis about as small and low-impact as commercial mining gets.โ€ Thereโ€™s no gaping open pit like those at the copper mines further south in Arizona nor hulking piles of waste rock and toxic tailings and, Moore insisted, the Pinyon Plain is the most heavily regulated conventional mine in the nation, which should prevent it from contaminating groundwater or the air. 

      Mooreโ€™s assurances donโ€™t ease the concerns of many Havasupai people, however, who are affected by the mine in ways that transcend regulations and the scope of conventional Western science. โ€œWe have a belief system that they donโ€™t understand,โ€ Havasupai elder Carletta Tilousi told The Guardian in 2022. โ€œIn our stories, that area where the mine is located is Mother Earthโ€™s lungs. So when they dug the mine shaft, they punctured her lungs.โ€

      This is the sort of potential harm that almost never makes it into environmental impact statements or regulatorsโ€™ considerations of proposed projects. That may be changing. The United States Geological Survey has published a new report on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, one that incorporates Indigenous knowledge to identify exposure pathways that standard risk analyses might miss. The report, by Carletta Tilousi (Havasupai Tribe) and Jo Ellen Hinck (USGS), is an eye-opening read. 

      In the Grand Canyon-area, high-grade uranium ore often occurs in geologic features known as breccia pipes, prompting prospectors to stake hundreds of claims there from the 1940s to the 1980s, when the domestic uranium mining industry collapsed. Interest was revived in 2007, when prices shot up again, and more claims were staked. The Pinyon Plain Mine โ€” which was developed years ago but never produced ore โ€” sits a few miles from Red Butte, a landform held sacred by several tribal nations, and in Mat Taav Juudva, or โ€œsacred meeting corridorโ€ for the Havasupai. It is now within the boundaries of Baaj Nwaavjo Iโ€™tah Kukveni โ€“ Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. New mining claims canโ€™t be staked here, but since Pinyon Plain was an existing, valid claim when President Biden established the monument last year, it is grandfathered in. 

      The Havasupai Tribe has pushed back against uranium mining for decades, saying it endangers their health, land, and culture. The Pinyon Plain Mine sits above the Redwall-Muav aquifer, and mining could contaminate this precious store of groundwater. Indeed, when the mine shaft was sunk in 2016, it encountered a perched aquifer, which drained into the shaft. This not only threatens the tribeโ€™s drinking water, but also its very existence. The report quotes Havasupai Vice-Chairman Edmond Tilousi thusly: โ€œIf the R-Aquifer becomes contaminated, and we must abandon our ancestral home of Supai Village, we will leave the blue-green waters of Havasu Creek behind and consequently will cease to be the Havasuw Baja. While we may still breathe air, we, the People of the Blue Green Water, will have become extinct.โ€

      The aquifers are just one exposure pathway. Others will appear in standard risk assessments of mines, like this one: 

      Typical conceptual site framework for a mining site that highlights human health and ecological risk assessment considerations. From Park and others (2020). Source: Conceptual Risk Framework for Uranium Miningโ€”An Update to Include Havasupai Resources at Risk. Credit: The Land Desk

      And yet others are typically overlooked. This updated contaminant exposure framework shows both the pathways revealed by standard analyses, and those identified through Indigenous knowledge and the Havasupai perspective:

      Contaminant exposure framework for uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region from the Havasupai perspective. Photographs by Blake McCord and Dawn Beauty. Source: Conceptual Risk Framework for Uranium Miningโ€”An Update to Include Havasupai Resources at Risk. Credit: The Land Desk

      This new report, โ€œExpanded Conceptual Risk Framework for Uranium Mining in Grand Canyon Watershedโ€”Inclusion of the Havasupai Tribe Perspective,โ€ gives a far more holistic view of mining and its impacts than standard analyses. As such, it gives a much more complete vision of what is actually at stake. Hopefully other researchers and federal agencies will take note and follow the authorsโ€™ lead. 

      Read the report.


      I will admit that I was pretty psyched to hear that Congress was finally taking up mining law reform. After all, the General Mining Law of 1872 hasnโ€™t been significantly altered since then President Ulysses S. Grant signed it into law. Isnโ€™t it about time to tighten things up a bit and end the 152 years of public land giveaways? Apparently not. 

      Yes, Congress is considering the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. But no, it is not reforming the law in a good way. 

      See, the law currently says that for a mining claim to be valid, the claimant has to prove it contains a valuable mineral deposit. And if itโ€™s not valid, then a mining company canโ€™t use or occupy the claim. For decades, this requirement was more or less ignored when it came to mining companies using invalid claims on public lands to store waste rock or mill tailings. But in recent years, judges have handed down some significant rulings โ€” most notably the Rosemont decision โ€” blocking mines from storing waste on invalid, unproven claims. 

      The โ€œClarity Actโ€ pushed by Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, would essentially validate invalid claims by removing the โ€œvaluable mineralโ€ requirement. The language from the bill reads: โ€œA claimant shall have the right to use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land, with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit,โ€ if the claimant pays their location fee and annual maintenance fees. 

      In other words, it further loosens an already lax and antiquated law.


      ๐Ÿคฏ Annals of Inanity ๐Ÿคก

      It really seems as if the Republican-led Utah legislature is looking to one up Congress in the dysfunction department. Nearly every day we hear some news of boneheadedness coming out of Capitol Hill, and nearly every time itโ€™s follow up by something even more head-scratching out of Salt Lake City. 

      This weekโ€™s moronic moment comes to you courtesy of Gov. Spencer Cox and his comrades in the legislature, who put the kibosh on a land exchangethat would have swapped out state parcels in Bears Ears National Monument for federal land outside the monument. You might be thinking that Utah felt like they were getting the short end of the stick here, and merely wanted to renegotiate. But in fact, as Utahโ€™s School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration officials and Utahโ€™s congressional delegation will tell you, the swap is a really good deal for the state and for the schools and institutions revenues from the lands support.

      The exchange would allow SITLA (Utahโ€™s School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration) to dispose of discrete parcels within the monument with minimal revenue-generating potential. In return, theyโ€™d receive consolidated blocks of Bureau of Land Management land in areas targeted for lithium, potash, uranium, helium, oil and gas, and/or residential development. Meanwhile the BLM would rid itself of the headache of dealing with all of these little inholdings within the monument. SITLA officials estimated the swap would net the state hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue over the long term, which was good enough for Utahโ€™s entire congressional delegation to sign onto federal legislation that would have ratified the deal (it stalled out, however, which opened the door to this weekโ€™s withdrawal). 

      So whatโ€™s changed that would spur the withdrawal? Nothing. Cox and his Republican colleagues claim they made this imbecilic move because: the BLM โ€œhas signaled that it will adopt an exceptionally restrictive and unreasonable land management plan {for Bears Ears NM} that would negatively impact the communities surrounding the Monument and the state’s public school childrenโ€ฆโ€

      Yes, Utahโ€™s elected leaders are throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars for public schools because they perceived โ€œsignalsโ€ about something they didnโ€™t like. The draft management plan for Bears Ears NM hasnโ€™t even been released, and even if it is restrictive as all get out, canceling the exchange will do nothing to change it. Nothing! All this little political circus act will do is, yes: Take money away from public school children. 

      In other words, this whole thing is merely an exercise in ideology-driven stupidity. Echoing their GOP brethren in Washington, D.C., Utahโ€™s Republicans are acting against their constituentsโ€™ best interest in order to make a political point. Only not even they know what that point might be. 

      Decades long effort to regrow #Utahโ€™s vanishing salt flats may have backfired — The Salt Lake Tribune

      Visitors at the Bonneville Salt Flats. By Bureau of Land Management – Bonneville Salt Flats, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42087569

      Click the link to read the article on The Salt Lake Tribune website (Leia Larsen). Here’s an excerpt:

      The Bonneville Salt Flats west of the Great Salt Lake are so flat that racersย can drive at mind-boggling speeds that break the sound barrier. But the expanse of salty crust began rapidly receding in the 1980s and hasnโ€™t stopped. In just 30 years, the salt flats shrunk from 50 square miles to 35 square miles. They lost a third of their volume. The racing community pointed at nearbyย groundwater pumping for potash mining as the culprit, so in the late 1990s, land managers approved a process called โ€œlaydownโ€ โ€” mixing all the leftover mining salts with groundwater and flooding it across the flats in an effort to help the crust regrow…

      Turns out, groundwater extraction โ€” including the pumping done for brine laydown โ€” has dramatically changed the aquifer beneath the salt flats. The subterranean water that built up the salt pan over thousands of years is now flowing away from the flats, carrying the salt away with it. Researchersย published their findingsย in the Utah Geological Association Journal on Jan. 14. The site the potash company used to pump water for the laydown process was on the edge of the flats, next to the Silver Island Mountains. Supporters of the project may not have realized the water it extracted was linked to the aquifer beneath the shrinking salt crust.

      Cost to water crops could nearly quadruple as #SanLuisValley fends off #ClimateChange, fights with #Texas and #NewMexico — Fresh Water News #RioGrande

      Sunrise March 16, 2022 San Luis Valley with Mount Blanca in the distance. Photo credit: Chris Lopez/Alamosa Citizen

      Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

      Hundreds of growers in Coloradoโ€™s San Luis Valley could see their water costs nearly quadruple under a new plan designed to slash agricultural water use in the drought-strapped region and deflect a potential legal crisis on the Rio Grande.

      A new rule approved by the areaโ€™s largest irrigation district, known as Subdistrict 1, and the Alamosa-based Rio Grande Water Conservation District, sets fees charged to pump water from a severely depleted underground aquifer at $500 an acre-foot, up from $150 an acre-foot. The new program could begin as early as 2026 if the fees survive a court challenge.

      โ€œItโ€™s draconian and it hurts,โ€ said Sen. Cleave Simpson, a Republican from Alamosa who is also general manager of the Rio Grande water district.

      The region, home to one of the nationโ€™s largest potato economies, has relied for more than 70 years on water from an aquifer that is intimately tied to the Rio Grande. The river begins high in the San Juan mountains above the valley floor.

      Both the river and the aquifer are supplied by melting mountain snows, but a relentless multi-year drought has shrunk annual snowpacks so much that neither the river nor the aquifer have been able to recover their once bountiful supplies.

      And thatโ€™s a problem. Under the Rio Grande Compact of 1938, Colorado is required to deliver enough water downstream to satisfy New Mexico and Texas. If the aquifer falls too low, it will endanger the riverโ€™s supplies and push Colorado out of compliance. Such a situation could trigger lawsuits and cost the state tens of millions of dollars in legal fees.

      Subdistrict 1 has set state-approved goals to comply with the compact. Within seven years, it must find a way to restore hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water to the aquifer, a difficult task.

      Rio Grande River, CO | Photo By Sinjin Eberle

      An acre-foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons of water, or enough to cover an acre of land with water a foot deep.

      The specter of an interstate water fight is creating enormous pressure to reorganize the valleyโ€™s farming communities in a way that will allow them to use less water, grow fewer potatoes, and still have a healthy economy.

      For more than a decade, valley water users have been working to reduce water use and stabilize the aquifer. Many have already started experimenting with ways to grow potatoes with less water by improving soil health, and to find new crops, such as quinoa, that may also prove to be profitable.

      They have taxed themselves and raised pumping fees, using that revenue to purchase and then retire hundreds of wells. In fact, the district is pumping 30% less water now than it was 10 years ago, according to Simpson.

      But the pumping plans, considered innovative by water experts, havenโ€™t been enough to stop the decline in aquifer levels. The Rio Grande Basin is consistently one of the driest in the state, generating too little water to make up for drought conditions and restore the aquifer after decades of over pumping.

      With the new fees, the region will likely have some of the highest agricultural water costs in the state, said Craig Cotten, who oversees the Rio Grande River Basin for Coloradoโ€™s Division of Water Resources.

      Perhaps not as high as water in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project on the northern Front Range, where cities and developers and some growers pay thousands of dollars to buy an acre-foot of water.

      Still it is much higher than San Luis Valley growers and others have paid historically. Fees at one time were just $75 an acre-foot, eventually reaching $150 an acre-foot. The prospect of the fee skyrocketing to $500 is shocking.

      โ€œThat is high,โ€ said Brett Bovee, president of WestWater Research, a consulting firm specializing in water economics and valuations. Typically such fees across the state have been in the $50 to $100 range, he said.

      But Bovee said the water district is taking constructive action while giving growers opportunities to find their own solutions to the water shortage. โ€œItโ€™s putting the decision-making power into the hands of growers and landowners, rather than saying โ€˜everybody take one-third of your land out of production.โ€™โ€

      Third hay cutting 2021 in Subdistrict 1 area of San Luis Valley. Photo credit: Chris Lopez

      Subdistrict 1 is the oldest and largest of a group of irrigation districts in the valley, according to Cotten. Its $500 fee has triggered a lawsuit by some growers, who believe the district is applying the new fees unfairly.

      โ€œThe responsibility for achieving a sustainable water supply is to be borne proportionately based on (growersโ€™) past, present and future usage,โ€ Brad Grasmick, a water attorney representing San Luis Valley growers in the Sustainable Water Augmentation Group and the Northeast Water Users Association, said, referring to state water laws. โ€œBut we believe the responsibility is being disproportionately applied to our wells.โ€

      Those growers are now trying to create their own irrigation district and they are suing to stop the new fee.

      โ€œI think that more land retirement and more reduction in well pumping is needed and that is what my group is trying to do,โ€ Grasmick said. โ€œNo one wants to see the aquifer diminish and continue to shrink. If everybody can do their part to cut back and make that happen, that is the way forward. My guys just want to see the proportionality adhered to.โ€

      To date, tens of millions of dollars have been raised and spent to retire wells in the San Luis Valley, with Subdistrict 1 raising $70 million in the last decade, according to Simpson. And in 2022 state lawmakers approved another $30 million to retire more wells.

      But itโ€™s not enough. With each dry year, the water levels in the aquifer continue to drop.

      Republican River Basin by District

      Similar issues loom for Eastern Plains irrigators

      The San Luis Valley is not the only region faced with finding ways to reduce agricultural water use or face interstate compact fights. Colorado lawmakers have also approved $30 million to help growers in the Republican River Basin on the Eastern Plains reduce water use to comply with the Republican River Compact of 1943, which includes Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado.

      Lawmakers are closely monitoring these efforts to reduce water use while protecting growers.

      Sen. Byron Pelton, a Republican from Sterling, said the combined money that is going to the Rio Grande and Republican basins is critical. But the potential for legal battles, he said, is concerning.

      โ€œAgriculture is key in our communities,โ€ Pelton said. โ€œBut the biggest thing is that we have to stay within our compacts. Sometimes youโ€™re backed into a corner and that is just the way it has to be. I hate it, but we have to stay in compliance.โ€

      How much irrigated land will be lost as wells are retired isnโ€™t clear yet. Simpson said growers who have access to surface supplies in the Rio Grande will still be able to irrigate even without as many wells or as much water, but the land will likely produce less and farms may become less profitable.

      And it will take more than sky-high pumping fees to solve the problem, officials said. The Division of Water Resources has also created another water-saving rule in Subdistrict 1 that will force growers to replace one-for-one the water they take out of the aquifer, instead of allowing them to simply pay more to pump more.

      Cotten said the hope is that the higher fees combined with the new one-for-one rule will reduce pumping enough to save the aquifer and the ag economy.

      Valley growers are already shifting production and changing crops, said James Ehrlich, executive director of the Colorado Potato Administrative Committee in Monte Vista, an agency involved in overseeing and marketing the regionโ€™s potato crops.

      Still the new fees could jeopardize the entire potato economy, Ehrlich said.

      โ€œThere are a lot of creative things going on down here,โ€ Ehrlich said. โ€œBut we have to farm less and learn to survive as a community together. And Mother Nature has not helped us out. Weโ€™ve stabilized but we canโ€™t gain back what (state and local water officials) want us to gain back. It is just not going to happen.โ€

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

      San Luis Valley Groundwater

      2024 #COleg: Bill limiting nonfunctional turf planting clears #Colorado Senate — Allen Best (@BigPivots) #ActOnClimate #conservation #cwcac2024

      A bill moving through the Colorado General Assembly would require local jurisdictions to amend their landscaping codes to eliminate use of thirsty species of grasses from alongside roads such as this streetscape in Arvada.ย CREDIT:ย ALLEN BEST/BIG PIVOTS

      Click the link to read the article onโ€‚the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

      January 30, 2024

      Minor pushback to proposed limits on new water-thirsty grasses in areas that get little or no foot traffic

      This story was produced as a collaboration between Big Pivots and Aspen Journalism โ€” two nonprofit news organizations covering Coloradoโ€™s water. It follows a five-part series that examined the intersection of water and urban landscapes in Colorado.

      Colorado legislators in 2022 passed a bill that delivered $2 million to programs across the state for removal of turf in urban areas classified as nonfunctional. By that, legislators mean Kentucky bluegrass and other thirsty-grass species that were meant to be seen but rarely, if ever, otherwise used.

      Now, they are taking the next step. The Colorado Senate on Tuesday voted in favor of a bill, Senate Bill 24-005, that would prevent thirsty turf species from being planted in certain places that rarely, if ever, get foot traffic, except perhaps to be mowed.

      Those places include alongside roads and streets or in medians, as well as in the expansive areas surrounding offices or other commercial buildings, in front of government buildings, and in entryways and common areas managed by homeowners associations. 

      The bill also bars use of plastic turf in lieu of organic vegetation for landscaping.

      โ€œIf we donโ€™t have to start watering that turf in the first place, we never have to replace it in the future,โ€ state Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, a co-sponsor, said in making the case for the proposed new state standard.

      Roberts stressed that the prohibition would not apply to individual homes or retroactively to established turf. โ€œIt applies to new development or redevelopment. It does not apply to residential homes,โ€ he said. โ€œThis is about industrial, commercial and government property across the state.โ€

      Kentucky bluegrass and other grass species imported from wetter climatic zones typically use far more water than buffalo grass and other species indigenous to Coloradoโ€™s more arid climate. The bill, however, does allow hybrids that use less water as well as the indigenous grass species.

      Originally reviewed by an interim legislative committee in October, the bill was subsequently modified to provide greater clarity about what constitutes functional versus nonfunctional turf, while giving towns, cities and counties greater flexibility in deciding which is which within their jurisdictions. If the bill becomes law, local jurisdictions will have until Jan. 1, 2026, to incorporate the new statewide standard into their landscaping code and development review processes.

      After being approved on a third reading by the Senate by a 28-5 vote on Wednesday morning, the measure now moves to the House.

      Advocates do not argue that limits on expansion of what the bill calls nonfunctional turf will solve Coloradoโ€™s water problems. Municipalities use only 7% of the stateโ€™s water, and outdoor use constitutes roughly half of municipal use. 

      โ€œOne more tool in the toolbox,โ€ Roberts said.

      State Sen. Cleave Simpson, R-Alamosa, said if the standard had been adopted 20 to 30 years ago, perhaps 10,000 acre-feet of water could have been saved annually. 

      โ€œAs a percentage, it is minimal,โ€ he conceded. โ€œItโ€™s closing the gaps in small increments as best you can as opposed to large sweeping change.โ€

      The backdrop for this is more frequent drought and rising temperatures since 2002, what Simpson called the aridification of the West. The climatic shift is forcing harder choices.

      โ€œWe are all trying to figure out how to live and work in this space,โ€ Simpson said.

      In a Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee meeting Jan. 25, Simpson also said he was motivated to help prevent water grabs by Front Range cities from the San Luis Valley, what locals sometimes call Coloradoโ€™s south slope. Three separate attempts have been made in the past 35 years to divert water from the San Luis Valley, a place already being forced to trim irrigated agriculture to meet requirements of the Rio Grande Compact.

      โ€œThatโ€™s largely my motivation to be part of this conversation and do everything I can to reduce that pressure on my rural constituents and our way of life,โ€ Simpson said in the committee hearing. The bill passed the committee on a 4-1 vote.

      Developing water for growing cities โ€” particularly along the Front Range but even in headwaters communities โ€” has become problematic as the climate has veered hotter and, in most years of the 21st century, drier.

      The result, as was detailed in a five-part collaboration in 2023 between Big Pivots and Aspen Journalism, has been a growing consensus about the need to be more strategic and sparing about use of water in urban landscapes.

      Agriculture uses nearly 90% of the stateโ€™s water, as was noted by state Sen. Chris Hansen, D-Denver. At Tuesdayโ€™s Senate hearing, he chided Roberts, Simpson and other legislative sponsors for not addressing efficiency in agriculture.

      Hansen, who grew up in a farm town in Kansas near the Colorado border, applauded the bill but questioned why the interim committee hadnโ€™t come up with legislation to improve efficiency of agricultural water use. He cited the use-it-or-lose-it provision of Colorado water law that he suggested discouraged farmers and ranchers from innovating to conserve water.

      โ€œI feel the interim water committee let us down by not bringing forth anything that advances conservation on what is by far the largest category of use, almost 90%,โ€ he said. โ€œI want to know what is next on that front.โ€ย 

      The San Luis Valley is one of several areas of Colorado where irrigated agriculture must be curbed in order to meet interstate river compacts. Top: Grassy areas along a street in Arvada.ย Photos/Allen Best

      Hansen got strong pushback. Simpson responded that agriculture in the San Luis Valley has already been forced to change. To comply with the Rio Grande Compact, his district is trying to figure out how to take 10,000 to 20,000 acres out of agricultural production. On his own farm, he said, water deliveries that traditionally lasted until mid-July have ended as early as May 20. โ€œI have to figure out a way to grow crops that are less water-consumptive, more efficient and ultimately take irrigated acreage out of production,โ€ Simpson said.

      State Sen. Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, also took the occasion to cite incremental gains in irrigation efficiency and the loss of production in the Republican River basin. There, roughly 25,000 acres need to be taken out of production for Colorado to meet interstate compact requirements.

      As had been the case several days before at the billโ€™s legislative committee hearing, most of the limited opposition in the Senate was against the notion that cutting water used for landscaping is a statewide concern. Itโ€™s a familiar argument โ€” a preference for local control โ€” used in many contexts.

      A representative of the Colorado Municipal League (CML), a consortium of 270 towns and cities, told the Senate committee that the proposal constituted state overreach in a one-size-fits-all approach. 

      Heather Stauffer, CMLโ€™s legislative advocacy manager, cited the regulations of Aurora, Greeley and Aspen as examples of approaches created to meet specific and local needs. โ€œWe would advocate that the state put more money into funds that address turf removal programs that have been very successful among municipalities across the state,โ€ Stauffer said. 

      In 2023, Boulder-based Resource Central completed 604 lawn-replacement projects along the Front Range. With aid of state funding, it plans to expand its turf-removal and popular Garden In A Box programs to the Western Slope this year.

      No representatives from any towns or cities showed up to oppose the bill. But representatives of three local jurisdictions, including Vail-based Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the water provider for unincorporated Pueblo West, testified that the bill filled a need.

      Denver is behind the bill. Denver Water, which provides water to 1.6 million people, including the cityโ€™s 720,000 residents as well as many suburban jurisdictions, has committed to reducing the water devoted to urban turf in coming years by 30%, or roughly the turf covering 6,000 acres. Utility representatives have said they donโ€™t want to become frugal with water devoted to existing landscapes only to see water used lavishly in new development.

      Andrew Hill, government affairs manager for Denver Water, called the bill a โ€œmoderate approachโ€ in creating a new waterwise landscaping standard, one in which imported grasses are not the default.

      โ€œIt makes real changes statewide, but itโ€™s narrow enough to only apply to areas [where] I think a consensus exists,โ€ Hill said at the committee hearing.

      Sod last autumn was removed from this library in Lafayette. Many local jurisdictions in Colorado have participated in sod-removal programs.ย Photo/Allen Best

      Local governments can go further, and many have already. Thirty-eight local governments and water providers in Colorado offer turf-replacement programs. Western Resource Advocates found last fall that 17 of the jurisdictions already limit new turf while another nine plan to do so.

      Aurora and Castle Rock, late-blooming municipalities in the metropolitan area, have adopted among the most muscular regulations in Colorado, taking aim at water devoted to new homesโ€™ front yards. Both expect to continue growing in population, and together they plan to pursue importations of water currently used for farming along the South Platte River in northeastern Colorado. Aurora also still owns water rights in the Eagle River basin that it has been trying to develop for the past 40 years.

      In the full Senate debate, Republican leaders argued for incentives, such as the expanded buy-back program for turf removal, instead of a statewide thou-shalt-not approach. 

      The Colorado River Drought Task Force recommended legislators allocate $5 million annually for turf-removal programs. Key legislators have already indicated they plan to introduce legislation to do just that.

      But is this the answer? Such programs are โ€œinefficient and not cost-effectiveโ€ if water-thirsty grass species continue to be planted in questionable places, the policy manager for municipal conservation at Western Resource Advocates said in the committee hearing last week.

      The policy manager, Lindsay Rogers, said passing the bill would build the momentum to โ€œhelp ensure that Coloradans live within our water means and particularly in the context of a growing state and worsening drought conditions.โ€ 

      The Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, which represents 400 Colorado landscape and supplier companies, testified in support of the bill but hinted at future discussions as the bill goes through legislative sausage-making. Along with sod growers, they quibble over the dichotomous phrasing of nonfunctional versus functional turf. They prefer the words recreational and utility.

      On the flip side of these changes, some home gardeners might find buffalo grass and other indigenous grasses more conserving of water but less appealing. Buffalo grass, for example, greens up a month or so later in spring and browns up a month earlier in fall.

      Water in urban landscapes is also on the agenda for three programs this week at the annual meeting of the Colorado Water Congress, the stateโ€™s preeminent organization for water providers. Included may be a report from a task force appointed by Gov. Jared Polis last February that met repeatedly through 2023 to talk about ways to reduce expansion of water to urban landscapes. 

      For more from Big Pivots and Aspen Journalism, visit their websites at https://bigpivots.com and at https://aspenjournalism.org.

      Ask the Expert: A Q&A on Agricultural Wetlands and Water Quality with Dr. Joseph Prenger — USDA

      Click the link to read the interview on the USDA website (Elizabeth Creech):

      Dr. Joseph (Joe) Prenger is the Wetlands Lead for theย Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), an effort led by USDAโ€™s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to quantify the effects of voluntary conservation across the nationโ€™s working lands. In thisย Ask the Expert, Dr. Prenger answers questions aboutย new CEAP findingsย on the capacity of wetlands to capture and store nutrients from cropland fields, associated water quality benefits, and NRCS resources to support wetlands on private and Tribal lands.

      Dr. Joseph (Joe) Prenger is the Wetlands Lead for USDAโ€™s Conservation Effects Assessment Project, CEAP. Photo Credit: Dr. Prenger

      Letโ€™s start with the basics: What are wetlands, and how do they improve local water quality?

      Wetlands occur where water covers or is present near the soilโ€™s surface, either seasonally or year-round. Wetlands in agricultural settings may capture and store sediment and nutrients from the surrounding environment, reduce flooding, contribute to climate change mitigation by serving as a carbon sink, increase biodiversity, and provide wildlife habitat.

      This nutrient capture and storage component is key for local water quality. We know nutrients, namely nitrogen and phosphorus, support healthy, productive crops. When nutrients are lost from cropland fields and enter local waterbodies, however, they may contribute to harmful algal blooms and hypoxic or low oxygen zones, and compromise water quality.

      A recent CEAP report highlighted an increase in both nitrogen and phosphorus lost from cropland fields over a ten-year period. Based on these findings, NRCS is focusing on efforts to help farmers and other land managers save money and protect water quality with SMART Nutrient Management.

      Supporting farmers in making targeted, site-specific decisions to effectively manage nutrients is critical. Itโ€™s very difficult to achieve 100% crop uptake and 0% nutrient loss, though, even with strong planning. We need SMART Nutrient Management to reduce the amount of nutrients lost from cropland fields, plus a way to capture and store those nutrients that are lost before they reach local waterbodies. Wetlands in agricultural landscapes have the potential to serve this second function, particularly when restored or constructed with this goal in mind.

      You recently published findings on increasing the water quality benefits of agricultural wetlands. What are the key takeaways for farmers?

      Weย published a new Conservation Insight on this topicย in January 2023. Findings pull from a literature review of studies reporting field measurements for prairie-pothole wetlands found throughout parts of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In short:

      • Nitrogen retention by these wetlands ranged from 15% to 100%, and phosphorus retention ranged from 0% to 100%.
      • These are large ranges. An individual wetlandโ€™s effectiveness in capturing and storing nutrients depended largely on upland management practices.
      • Accumulation of sediment from agricultural fields, for instance, may eventually lead to infilling of wetlands and associated reductions in water storage capacity. A buffer between cultivated cropland and the adjacent wetland โ€“ such as a grass filter strip โ€“ may reduce this sedimentation and deliver significant improvements to water storage and nutrient capture.

      Here is the bottom line for farmers: When strategically integrated in operation-wide conservation planning, wetlands can offer a suite of benefits. The key is to plan them as part of an overall strategy that carefully manages the contributing areas to reduce contaminant loading and preserve wetland functions. Wetlands can significantly reduce nutrient loss to waterways, supporting water quality goals both locally and in terminal waterbodies like the Great Lakes or Gulf of Mexico. In addition, wetlands can help reduce flooding and recharge groundwater supplies, serve as a carbon sink, increase biodiversity, and provide wildlife habitat.

      Wetlands, like these in the Prairie-Pothole Region of North Dakota, may capture and store nutrient runoff from cropland fields. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

      Does USDA support farmers and other land managers in wetlands conservation efforts?

      Absolutely, yes. Through NRCS, USDA offers financial assistance and one-on-one technical support for farmers and other land managers interested in wetlands conservation. Specifically:

      • Theย Wetland Reserve Easements (WRE)ย component of theย Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)ย is available to help private and Tribal landowners protect, restore, and enhance wetlands that have been previously degraded due to agricultural uses.
      • NRCS supports land managers in implementing voluntary practices to conserve natural resources and strengthen working lands. This includes practices โ€“ such as filter strips โ€“ that capture nutrients and sediments prior to entering streams and wetlands, thus improving the potential for wetlands to store water and recycle nutrients over the long term. Filter strips are also aย climate-smart mitigation activity, with the potential to increase soil carbon and sequester carbon in perennial biomass while improving water quality.

      I encourage anyone interested in wetlands conservation across their working lands to contact the NRCS office at their local USDA Service Center.

      Where can I learn more about CEAP assessments?

      Through CEAP, USDA quantifies and reports on trends in conservation practices, and associated outcomes, over time. You may learn more about CEAP assessments by visiting our new webpage โ€“ nrcs.usda.gov/ceap. Our Wetlands Assessments webpage provides information on the effects of conservation efforts related to agricultural wetlands, including additional publications.

      Dr. Joseph (Joe) Prenger is the CEAP Wetlands Lead for the NRCS Resource Inventory and Assessment Division. He can be reached at joseph.prenger@usda.gov.

      #NewMexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham unveils 50-year water action plan — Source NM

      New Mexico Lakes, Rivers and Water Resources via Geology.com.

      Click the link to read the article on the Source NM website (Danielle Prokop):

      January 31, 2024

      Even as New Mexico water supplies are predicted to decline by more than 25% over the next five decades, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she always views the glass as half-full, in the Tuesday presentation of a long-awaited report addressing the stateโ€™s water needs for the next 50 years.

      Or really: โ€œ45 years, since it took us five years to write it,โ€ the governor quipped.

      Over the next 50 years, due to human-driven climate change, scientists say New Mexico will be hotter, drier and lead to less water. Hotter weather shrinks the snowbanks, parches the soils and shrivels the rivers. Less available water in rivers puts more pressure on New Mexico aquifers and reduces the chances to refill them. Climate change also turns up the heat on wildfires, which decimate watersheds, and will deepen droughts and worsen flooding.

      Without action, New Mexico will have a shortage of 750,000 acre feet of water in that time period, according to the document.

      The 23-page document proposes using water conservation, new water supplies and protections for watersheds to address the shortfall. It breaks down further into 11 subsections with points to develop public education campaigns, improve infrastructure, modernize wastewater treatment plants and protect and restore watersheds.

      โ€œIt conserves water and it reduces waste,โ€ Lujan Grisham said. โ€œIf itโ€™s leaking, and itโ€™s evaporating, we donโ€™t know where it is, and if weโ€™re not protecting it and if it gets polluted.โ€

      During an hour-long press conference before the document was made public, Lujan Grisham advocated again for a plan to invest half a billion dollars to develop a market in desalination and oil wastewater treatment technology.

      Lujan Grisham described the quantities of brackish water (salty water) in deep underground aquifers to be as vast as an โ€œocean.โ€

      โ€œWe should not be using our fresh drinking water in a number of industries,โ€ she said. โ€œBecause we donโ€™t need to make that choice between your safe drinking water and your business. We have the chance here to do both. And thatโ€™s exactly the path weโ€™re on.โ€

      Lujan Grisham said that treated produced and brackish water would not be used for drinking water or agricultural sources, but only in manufacturing and industrial uses, at this time.

      Itโ€™s unclear how much brackish water would be available to support the governorโ€™s goals, said State Geologist J. Michael Timmons, because the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources has not received full funding for an aquifer mapping project. An executive budget request asked for $9 million dollars for aquifer mapping.

      โ€œThere are probably vast amounts of water, we need to better understand the quantity and quality of that water,โ€ Timmons said. โ€œIt leads to the details of how accessible it is, to draw it through the rock formations. Thereโ€™s a lot of work to be done on our part as a state agency, and others, to better understand those resources.โ€

      At the press conference, Lujan Grisham was joined by the governors from Sandia and Santa Clara Pueblos, the New Mexico Environment Department secretary, the Clovis mayor and several lawmakers.

      Some water advocates celebrated the priorities in the plan upon first review. Allyson Siwik, the executive director of Gila Resources Information Project, said she was pleased to see watershed pollution protections, restoration projects, stormwater management and drinking water infrastructure included.

      Others said the plan did not address the issues facing New Mexicoโ€™s water crisis, including Melissa Troutman, a climate and energy advocate for WildEarth Guardians.

      โ€œThe governorโ€™s water plan ignores critical water threats in New Mexico, such as daily oil and gas spills that go unpenalized,โ€ Troutman said in a written statement. โ€œAnd her Strategic Water Supply incentivizes water-intensive industrial development like hydrogen, manufacturing, and fossil fuels that are inappropriate for any arid bioregion.โ€

      How did we get here?

      Lujan Grisham has been calling for a 50-year water plan since 2019. While lawmakers declined to fund the plan  in prior years, New Mexico In Depth reported lawmakers provided $250,000 annually for the 50-year water plan and granted $500,000 in a one-time appropriation to the Office of the State Engineer in 2023.

      A draft of the 50-year water plan circulated in 2022. What was presented today, โ€œevolvedโ€ from that draft, said the governorโ€™s spokesperson Maddy Hayden.

      โ€œThe Action Plan released today evolved from the draft 50-Year Water Plan shared with the public and Water Task Force members in 2022 and reflects the Governorโ€™s priority actions to provide water security for future New Mexicans,โ€ Hayden wrote.

      Hayden continued to say that the plan  โ€œcomplements many ongoing state agency programsโ€ and that the implementation will have community involvement.

      The 50-year plan is separate from the state water plans, which must be reviewed every five years.

      The action plan is based on input from state agencies, a 29-member task force, two working groups which focused on tribal water and acequias, and a 192-page report analyzing the science of climate change impacts based on peer-reviewed research in New Mexico.

      It bears little resemblance to those other reports.

      The New Mexico Water Policy and Infrastructure Taskforce led by state environmental agencies, but also with lawmakers, conservation nonprofits, local water districts, tribal governments and more, issued a 90-page report that included detailed recommendations for funding more data collection. The group outlined dollar amounts for future legislation and staffing levels to sustain these water plans.

      The 50-year action plan asks for recurring funding of $1.25 million per year for aquifer mapping and any additional funds would provide more than 100 monitoring wells in the next 12 years.

      The other funding request in the plan asks for $500 million in 2024 and 2025 for the Strategic Water Supply Project. The โ€œReturn on Investmentโ€ for that project, according to the document, would be 100,000 acre feet of new water by 2028. By 2035, the report says, 50,000 feet to treat brackish water would be available for โ€œrecharging freshwater aquifers,โ€ or used for โ€œcommunities, farms, aquatic ecosystems and interstate compact compliance.โ€

      The report assigns deadlines for actions in the next few years, but does not indicate how much the goals cost to accomplish.

      In one section, the report says in order to address contaminated groundwater across hundreds of sites โ€“ including legacy uranium sites, petroleum releases and other polluted spots, New Mexico will โ€œdevelop a dashboard of all known contaminated groundwater sites, including the status and estimated cost of cleanup for each site.โ€

      It would then, โ€œlaunch a state program to pay for the remediation of 100 neglected sites with no responsible party,โ€ by 2025.

      Liberal, #Kansas: 2024 Ogallala Aquifer Summit “Building Trust, Mobilizing Collaboration” — Irrigation Innovation Consortium March 18-19, 2024

      The Ogallala aquifer, also referred to as the High Plains aquifer. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration

      Click the link for all the inside skinny and to register on the Irrigation Innovation Consortium website:

      About: This highly interactive event convenes water management leaders and others from across the Ogallala region to learn about and from each otherโ€™s work to slow aquifer decline and support ecosystem and community resilience.

      When? Please plan to attend both days :

      • Monday, March 18 1 pm-5 pm CDT & evening social 6:30-8:30 pm
      • Tuesday, March 19 8 am-4 pm CDT

      Aridity Could Dry Up Southwestern Mine Proposals — @InsideClimate News

      The Bingham Canyon open-pit copper mine in Utah has operated since 1903. David Guthrie/Flickr, CC via Colorado State University

      Click the link to read the article on the Grist website (Wyatt Myskow):

      Critical minerals for the clean energy transition are abundant in the Southwest, but the dozens of mines proposed to access them will require vast sums of water, something in short supply in the desert.

      One by one, leaders from across Arizona gave speeches touting the importance of water conservation at Phoenix City Hall as they celebrated the announcement of voluntary agreements to preserve the declining Colorado River in November.

      When Tao Etpison took the mic, his speech echoed those who went before him. Water is the lifeblood of existence, and users of the Colorado River Basin were one step closer to preserving the system that has helped life in the Southwest flourish. Then he brought up the elephant in the room: Arizonaโ€™s groundwater protection was lacking, and mining companies were looking to take advantage.

      โ€œThe two largest foreign-based multinational mining companies in the world intend to construct the massive Resolution Copper Mine near Superior,โ€ said Etpison, the vice chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. โ€œThis mine will use, at a minimum, 775,000 acre feet of groundwater, and once the groundwater is gone, itโ€™s gone. How can this be in the best interests of Arizona?โ€

      The question is one the state and the Southwest must answer. Mine claims for the elements critical to the clean energy transition are piling up from Arizona to Nevada to Utah. Lithium is needed for the batteries to store wind and solar energy and power electric vehicles. Copper provides the wiring to send electricity where it will be needed to satisfy exploding demand. But water stands in the way of the transition, with drought playing into nearly every proposed renewable energy development, from solar to hydropower, as the Southwest debates what to do with every drop it has left as the region undergoes aridification due to climate change and decades of overconsumption.ย 

      Mining opponents argue the proposals could impact endangered species, tribal rights, air quality and, of course, waterโ€”both its quantity and its quality. Across the Southwest, the story of 2023 was how water users, from farmers in the Colorado River Basin to fast-growing cities in the Phoenix metropolitan area, needed to use less water, forcing changes to residential development and agricultural practices. But left out of that conversation, natural resource experts and environmentalists say, is the water used by mining operations and the amount that would be consumed by new mines.

      The San Carlos Apache Tribe has fought for years to stop Resolutionโ€™s proposed mine. It would be built on top of Oak Flat, a sacred site to the Apache and other Indigenous communities, and a habitat of rare species like the endangered Arizona hedgehog cactus, which lives only in the Tonto National Forest near the town of Superior. The fate of the mine now rests with the U.S. District Court in Arizona after the grassroots group Apache Stronghold filed a lawsuit to stop it, arguing its development would violate Native peopleโ€™s religious rights.

      But for communities located near the mine and across the Phoenix metropolitan area, the water it would consume is just as big of an issue.

      Throughout the mineโ€™s lifespan, Resolution estimates it would use 775,000 acre feet of waterโ€”enough for at least 1.5 million Arizona households over roughly 40 years. And experts say the mine would likely need far more.ย 

      Map of the Salt River watershed, Arizona, USA. By Shannon1 – Shaded relief from DEMIS Mapserver (which is PD), rest by me, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14995781

      โ€œBy pumping billions of gallons of groundwater from the East Salt River Valley, this project would make Arizonaโ€™s goal for stewardship of its scarce groundwater resources unreachable,โ€ one report commissioned by the San Carlos Apache Tribe reads. Inย one hydrologistโ€™s testimony to Congress, water consumption was estimated to be 50,000 acre feet a yearโ€”about 35,000 more than the company has proposed drawing from the aquifer.

      The Resolution copper mine isnโ€™t the only water-intensive mining operation being proposed. Many of what the industry describes as โ€œcritical minerals,โ€ like lithium and copper, are found throughout the Southwest, leading to a flurry of mining claims on the regionโ€™s federally managed public lands. 

      โ€œWater is going to be scarcer in the Southwest but the mining industry is basically immune from all these issues,โ€ said Roger Flynn, director and managing attorney at the Western Mining Action Project, which has represented tribes and environmental groups in mining-related lawsuits, including the case over Oak Flat.

      โ€˜The Lords of Yesterdayโ€™

      To understand mining in the U.S., you have to start with the Mining Law of 1872.

      President Ulysses S. Grant signed the bill into law as a way to continue the countryโ€™s development westward, allowing anyone to mine on federal lands for free. To do this, all one needs to do is plant four stakes into the ground where they think there are minerals and file a claim. Unlike other industries that make use of public landsโ€”such as the oil and gas industryโ€”no royalties are paid for the minerals extracted from the lands owned by American taxpayers. 

      Flynn referred to mining as the last of the โ€œLords of Yesterdayโ€โ€”a term coined by Charles Wilkinson, a long-time environmental law professor at the University of Coloradoย who died earlier this yearโ€”referring to the industries like oil and gas drilling, ranching and logging that were given carte blanche by the federal government to develop the West after the Civil War and push Indigenous populations off the land. All of those industry regulations have changed, Flynn said, except mining.ย 

      Thatโ€™s led mining to be viewed as the top use of public lands by regulators who give it more weight than conservation or recreational activities, he said.

      โ€œYou donโ€™t have to actually demonstrate that there are any minerals in a mining claim, you donโ€™t have to provide any evidence that there is a mineral there at all,โ€ said John Hadder, the executive director of Great Basin Resource Watch, an environmental group based in Nevada that monitors mining claims. โ€œYou can just be suspiciousโ€”and thereโ€™s a lot of suspicion going around.โ€

      Most of Nevada is completely reliant on groundwater, an increasingly scarce resource. Without water, companies hunting critical minerals canโ€™t mine, Hadder said, so they look to acquire water rights from other users, typically by buying up farms and ranches, changing the economics and demographics of a community. When the mines are developed, they can impact local streams, groundwater levels and the quality of the water as toxins seep into aquifers and surface supplies over the years. Now, with the clean energy transition gaining traction, thereโ€™s a new mining boom, prompting increasing concerns over how local ecosystems will be impacted. In Nevada alone,ย there are more than 20,000 mining claims related to lithium, the biggest of which are, of course, drawing controversy.

      A large-scale evaporation pond at the Silver Peak lithium mine on Oct. 6, 2022. The evaporation process can take a year and a half to complete. (David Calvert/The Nevada Independent)

      Waterโ€™s Role in Mine Fights

      In northern Nevada, companies have proposed two massive lithium minesโ€”Thacker Pass and Rhyolite Ridgeโ€”in groundwater basins that are already over appropriated. Both have drawn heavy scrutiny, the former for being proposed on a sacred site for local Indigenous tribes that is also range for area ranchers and endangered sage grouse, and the latter for threatening an endangered wildflower found nowhere else in the world. 

      Now, Canada-based Rover Metals is looking to drill a lithium exploration project near the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, a wetland habitat in Nevada near the California border that supports a dozen endangered and threatened species and is one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, which environmentalists call โ€œthe Galapagos of the desert.โ€

      โ€œNevadans almost more than any other state have had to wrestle with the availability or lack thereof of water for development for its entire history,โ€ said Mason Voehl, the executive director of the Amargosa Conservancy, an environmental group that has helped lead the push to protect the refuge. โ€œThis is sort of compounding that already really complex challenge.โ€

      Mining Monitor: Uranium buzz, buzz, buzz — Jonathan P. Thompson (@Land_Desk) #ActOnClimate

      Graphic credit: Jonathan P. Thompson/The Land Desk

      Click the link to read the article on The Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

      January 26, 2024

      โ›๏ธMining Monitor โ›๏ธ

      The uranium-mining buzz is reaching a fevered pitch lately as uranium prices climb above $100 per pound, the highest since October 2007. I already reported on Energy Fuelsโ€™ intent to begin or resume production at its Pinyon Plain and La Sal complex mines. But nearly every day another press release lands in my inbox touting a big find or big plans somewhere on the Colorado Plateau. 

      Letโ€™s start with the headline that irks me the most: โ€œChurchrock could pump out 31 million lb of US uranium over three decades, Laramide PEA shows.โ€ On its surface, this one looks like just another attempt to drive up share prices. And it probably is. But itโ€™s the location and the name that gets to me: The project is just a couple of miles from the 1979 Church Rock disaster, when a uranium mill tailings dam failed, sending 94 million gallons of acidic liquid raffinate and 1,100 tons of uranium mill tailings rushing down the Puerco River and across the โ€œcheckerboardโ€ area of the Navajo Nation. The slug of material, containing an estimated 1.36 tons of uranium and 46 trillion picocuries of gross-alpha activity, continued past Gallup and down the Puerco for another 50 miles or more, seeping into the sandy earth and the aquifer as it went, and leaving behind stagnant and poisonous pools from which livestock drank.ย 

      The Rio Puerco, an ephemeral tributary of the Rio Grande, west of Albuquerque, crossing the eastern edge of the Tohajiilee Indian Reservation; December 2016. By Dicklyon – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54602926

      It seems like an appropriate site for a memorial, warning about the potential dangers of mining and energy development. But a new mine? Iโ€™m afraid so. For years, Hydro Resources worked to build an in-situ recovery operation there (and at another site closer to Crownpoint). ISR is a form of mining in which a solution is pumped underground to dissolve the uranium ore and then itโ€™s pumped back out and processed. As one might expect, area residents, the Navajo Nation, and environmental advocates pushed back on the proposal. 

      Last year Laramide bought the project from Hydro Resources and is now looking toย jumpstart it.ย I doubt it will come without a fight. In other mining news:

      It seems like an appropriate site for a memorial, warning about the potential dangers of mining and energy development. But a new mine? Iโ€™m afraid so. For years, Hydro Resources worked to build an in-situ recovery operation there (and at another site closer to Crownpoint). ISR is a form of mining in which a solution is pumped underground to dissolve the uranium ore and then itโ€™s pumped back out and processed. As one might expect, area residents, the Navajo Nation, and environmental advocates pushed back on the proposal. 

      Last year Laramide bought the project from Hydro Resources and is now looking toย jumpstart it.ย I doubt it will come without a fight. In other mining news:

      • Laramide is busy these days: They also recently announced the U.S. Forest Service hasย restarted the environmental review and permitting processย for the companyโ€™s proposed La Jara Mesa project north of Grants, New Mexico. During the uranium industryโ€™s last โ€œrenaissanceโ€ (lasting from 2007 to 2011), Laramide looked to open an underground mine on Cibola National Forest land. They made it as far as a draft environmental impact statement, released in 2012, before low uranium prices stalled the project.ย 
      • Nexus Uranium says it willย begin exploratory drillingย on its Wray Mesa claims near La Sal, Utah, on the northern edge of the Lisbon Valley.ย 
      • Anfieldโ€™s subsidiary, Highbury Resources,ย acquiredย another 12 Department of Energy uranium leases fromย Gold Eagle Miningย in the Uravan Mineral Belt in western Colorado. The tracts are near Slickrock, on Monogram Mesa south of the Paradox Valley, and near Uravan. Anfield also says it plans to reopen the Shootaring uranium mill near Ticaboo, Utah, although it appears to have made little progress in that regard.ย 
      • Thor Energy says it hasย found high-grade uranium at its Wedding Bell and Radium Mountain projects on a mesa just east of the Dolores River in western Colorado.ย 
      • Kraken Energy got the Bureau of Land Managementโ€™s go-ahead to drill on Harts Point, right along the northeast border of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. This is the second time the company (or its partners Atomic Minerals and Recoupment Exploration) have purportedlyย received a drilling permitย for the slickrock peninsula adjacent to the Indian Creek climbing area. The first time the company failed to come up with a reclamation bond and the permit was cancelled.ย 
      • Australia-based Okapi Resources is set to begin exploratory drilling near Caรฑon City, Colorado,ย raising concernsย among the locals.
      • And, perhaps the only big buzz in the lithium space right now (lithium prices are in the dumps): American Battery Metals is pushing its Lisbon Valley lithium project. Well, that is to say they areย looking to get exploratory drilling permitted.
      • Explore the above projects and more on theย Land Desk Mining Monitor Map.
      Pictorial representation of the In situ uranium mining process. Graphic credit: (source: Heathgate Resources)

      2024 #COleg: Resilience and Stewardship for #Coloradoโ€™s Waterways, 2024 Legislative Priorities: @Audubon supports proactive water strategies to benefit birds and people — Audubon Rockies

      Colorado River. Photo credit: Abby Burk

      Click the link to read the article on the Audubon Rockies website (Abby Burk):

      A new year brings a new opportunity for Colorado decision-makers to shore up water resource vulnerabilities and accelerate resilience and stewardship practices. Policy is born by addressing a solution to a problem.  Impacts of climate change and unsustainable water demand bring uncertainty to Coloradoโ€™s birds, communities, watersheds, and waterways. Resilience and stewardship are top themes for 2024 legislation on water, our most valuable natural resource. Audubon Rockies is busy working with lawmakers, agencies, and partners to prioritize healthy, functioning, and resilient watersheds and river systems for people and birdsโ€”the natural systems that we all depend upon.

      Below are the two top water priorities for Audubon in the 2024 Colorado legislative session. Please make sure youโ€™re signed up to hear about opportunities to engage with them.

      Healthy mountain meadows and wetlands are characteristic of healthy headwater systems and provide a variety of ecosystem services, or benefits that humans, wildlife, rivers and surrounding ecosystems rely on. The complex of wetlands and connected floodplains found in intact headwater systems can slow runoff and attenuate flood flows, creating better downstream conditions, trapping sediment to improve downstream water quality, and allowing groundwater recharge. These systems can also serve as a fire break and refuge during wildfire, can sequester carbon in the floodplain, and provide essential habitat for wildlife. Graphic by Restoration Design Group, courtesy of American Rivers

      1. Clean Water Stewardship for Colorado

      Speaker of the House McCluskie mentioned the need to restore protections removed from the Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency decision in her opening 2024 legislative session remarks:

      โ€œWater is intrinsic to the Colorado Spirit, and the lifeblood of our agriculture industry and tourism economies. The recent United States Supreme Court decision about the definition of Waters of the United States leaves many of our waterways in Colorado unprotected. In the wake of this difficult decision, we have an opportunity to take action to reestablish these critical protections.โ€

      It is imperative to protect our waterways for all of Colorado to thrive. The United States passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 for water quality and related public health protections, realizing the outsized importance of our rivers, streams, and wetlands to communities and wildlife. At the time when waterways were literally burning with industrial waste, Congress recognized the threat to public health and addressed the widespread problem with bipartisan support and passage of the CWA. The CWA aimed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nationโ€™s waters and took a watershed approach due to the connectivity of waters from headwaters to lowlands. The CWA protects waterways and their many benefits by requiring certain activities such as the construction of highways to minimize or mitigate their impact.

      Despite the CWA’s successes over the last 50 years, there has been a lot of litigation and legal interpretations over the years. Most recently, the United States Supreme Court, through the Sackett case decision, effectively rewrote the CWA by severely narrowing the scope of its protections. Before Sackett, the CWA provided for the protection of the majority of Coloradoโ€™s wetlands and streams at the federal level. 

      So what is the void created by the Sackett decision for Coloradospecifically? In Colorado, we no longer have a federal partner to help protect our waterways. The decision upended a regulatory system that protected water quality for public health. Wetlands and streams are crucial ecosystems, particularly in Colorado, where we are semi-arid to arid. Before Sackett, the CWA would have protected all Colorado waters with a significant affect on downstream water quality and availability. After the Supreme Court decision, protections were sharply reduced. 

      Here are some examples of waterways that now have reduced or no federal protections in Colorado: 

      These wetlands, located on a 150-acre parcel in the Homestake Creek valley that Homestake Partners bought in 2018, would be inundated if Whitney Reservoir is constructed. The Forest Service received more than 500 comments, the majority in opposition to, test drilling associated with the project and the reservoir project itself. Photo credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
      • Wetlands that are not adjacent to a flowing river

      • Playa lakes, which are groundwater-dependent,
      Iron Fen. Photo credit from report “A Preliminary Evaluation of Seasonal Water Levels Necessary to Sustain Mount Emmons Fen: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests,” David J. Cooper, Ph.D, December 2003.
      • Fens, (a type of peat-accumulating wetland fed by mineral-rich ground or surface water)
      Colorado River headwaters tributary in Rocky Mountain National Park photo via Greg Hobbs.
      • Headwater streams that flow only after precipitation events

      In Colorado, 26 percent of streams only flow in response to rainfall, and 59 percent flow seasonally. By some estimates, as much as two thirds of Coloradoโ€™s waterways have lost protections.* Nationwide, approximately 63 percent of all wetlands are now unprotected.

      With the loss of 3 billion birds in the past 50 yearsโ€”in part due to dwindling wetlands and significant development of natural spacesโ€”and Audubon science showing that two-thirds of North American bird species are at risk of extinction from climate change, action is needed at the state and federal levels to protect the water bodies and habitat that birds need to survive. Protecting water quality is a bipartisan stewardship issue and brings broad public support. We look forward to working with the state as it creates a wetlands and streams protection program for water quality protection that works for Coloradoโ€™s unique waterways. If Colorado does this right, it could be a model for other semi-arid Western states to follow suit. 

      Colorado snowpack basin-filled map April 16, 2023 via the NRCS.

      2. Resilient tools to deal with long-term uncertainty in the Colorado River

      Despite near-term optimism (and a momentary sigh of relief) from a heavy 2023 snowpack and recent January storms, climate change and unprecedented drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin for the last 24 years are threatening Colorado’s ability to satisfy water users, ecosystem needs, water-related recreation, and, potentially, interstate obligations. There are real consequences for people, birds, and every other living thing that depends on rivers in this region. 

      In 2023, the Colorado General Assembly determined that it is in the best interest of Colorado to form a task force to provide recommendations for programs to assist Colorado in addressing drought in the Colorado River Basin and the stateโ€™s interstate commitments related to the Colorado River and its tributaries (SB-295, Section 1). From August through December 2023, the Colorado River Drought Task Force and a sub-task force on Tribal matters, met to draft a report on recommendations for further actions. You can learn more about the recommendations here.  

      As Colorado contends with near-certainty of continued warming, severe drought, and declining river flows over the next several years, we need more flexible ways to manage and deliver water to support the Colorado River we love. Colorado needs tools and resources to proactively respond to drought conditions and maximize the benefits to the state, its water users, and river ecosystems from once-in-a-generation competitive federal funds available to address the Colorado River Basin drought. Audubon will be engaging this session for solutions that will provide new and innovative solutions to the water threats we face.

      *The State is waiting for additional guidance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers to determine exactly how many of Colorado waters may lose protection.

      Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

      Fremont County residents face exploratory uranium drilling โ€œright in the front yard of the communityโ€ — The #Denver Post #ArkansasRiver

      Pictorial representation of the In situ uranium mining process. Graphic credit: (source: Heathgate Resources)

      Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:

      [Marijane] Sisson is among many residents of South T Bar Ranch alarmed by an Australian companyโ€™s plans to drill in the subdivision as a way to learn more about the uranium deposits beneath it. An appeal by a homeowner to stop the prospecting failed last week, allowingย Global Uranium and Enrichmentย to proceed. It could drill as many as 20 holes in the area this year. While original homeowners in the community owned some of the mineral rights and knew drilling was a possibility, the plans caught others by surprise, said Skip Blades, who owns three parcels in South T Bar Ranch. He appealed the companyโ€™s plans…

      The drilling by Global Uranium and Enrichment, previously known as Okapi Resources, comes as prices for the radioactive elementย soar. Theyย reached a 16-year highย Monday as global supplies tighten and demand for nuclear power rises โ€” and as alternatives to oil and gas energy become more appealing. The market shift has spurred the opening of new uranium mines in the United Statesย for the first time in eight yearsย โ€” including three in the Mountain West.

      The company plans to drill over a 60-day period between May and December. The goal is to extract samples of the rock and minerals for further study. Crews will work 24/7 to drill 5-inch-diameter holes 700 feet into the ground to collect the samples, according to the companyโ€™s application for aย Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safetypermit. Each hole will require a drill pad area of 6,400 square feet, cleared of grass and rocks, and will remain open for about six days. After the samples are extracted, the company will fill and cover the holes. More than 1,400 such holes have been drilled in the vicinity as different companies have come and gone…

      Blades and Sisson worry the drilling could disrupt wildlife and contaminate their water supply. The drills will push through underground aquifers. Some of the drilling will occur near Tallahassee Creek, which feeds into the Arkansas River. Company representatives and staff from the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety said water contamination was unlikely. Company representatives also said they would comply with wildlife officialsโ€™ recommendations to mitigate harm to wildlife and would try to minimize disturbances to the neighborhood. In a written response to Bladesโ€™ formal complaint, a company representative said the drill areas would quickly revegetate. The company also said it would point lights toward the ground at night to minimize light pollution, adding that noise from the drill to be used โ€œis relatively muted when compared to other drills.โ€

      SB-28 (#Groundwater Compact Compliance Fund) accounting: Almost entire $30M to retire wells is spent — @AlamosaCitizen #RioGrande

      Photo credit: The Alamosa Citizen

      Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website:

      January 21, 2024

      Fund will retire approximately 11,296 acre-feet of water

      When Colorado Senate Bill 28 was adopted during the 2022 legislative session, it created the Groundwater Compact Compliance Fund with $30 million earmarked for irrigators in the Upper Rio Grande Basin.

      The state money derived from Coloradoโ€™s share of federal COVID dollars that came through the American Rescue Plan Act would serve to incentivize local farmers to permanently retire more groundwater wells. Doing so would further reduce groundwater pumping and translate to fewer irrigated acres in the Valley as a whole.ย 

      Seven months after opening applications to the fund, the Rio Grande Water Conservation District has enough contracts to spend nearly the entirety of the $30 million. The contracts represent the full retirement of approximately 34 crop circles and partial restrictions on 28 circles, according to an accounting from the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. 

      When itโ€™s all said and done, the $30 million will have paid for the retirement of approximately 11,296 acre-feet of water. An acre-foot represents around 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land.

      Each application submitted to the Groundwater Compact Compliance Fund was reviewed by the Rio Grande Water Conservation District and Colorado Division of Water Resources. So far six applications representing $4,772,204 have been closed and the RGWCD now owns those water rights, according to deputy general manager Amber Pacheco.

      The remaining applications have to be approved or rejected by March 31.

      Republican River Basin. By Kansas Department of Agriculture – Kansas Department of Agriculture, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7123610

      The senate bill also directed $30 million to sustainability efforts on the Republican River Basin in the eastern plains. Like the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, the Republican River Water Conservation District has been successful in administering the program, Pacheco said.

      โ€œWeโ€™ve been pretty successful,โ€ she said at the Jan. 16 board meeting of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. โ€œItโ€™s pretty shocking that in six months that amount of money was obligated.โ€

      A small amount of funding will likely remain after current applications are all reviewed, Pacheco said.

      The RGWCD received a total of 27 applications. Hereโ€™s a breakdown of applications by subdistrict. The applications represent 11,296 acre-feet of past annual withdrawals that would be retired.

      Applications total approximately $29,000,000

      14 applications in Subdistrict 1* โ€“  $11,700,000
      2 applications in Subdistrict 3* โ€“ $1,200,000
      1 application in Subdistrict 4 โ€“ $500,000
      4 applications in Subdistrict 5 โ€“ $5,100,000
      2 applications in Subdistrict 6 โ€“ $1,300,000
      4 applications in Subdistrict 7 (Trinchera Subdistrict) โ€“ $9,300,000

      *SD1 and SD3 both offered some type of incentive on top of the SB28 program.

      Rio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868

      #Colorado charts new protections for state waters left vulnerable by U.S. Supreme Court ruling: New definition of โ€˜waters of the United Statesโ€™ excludes wetlands, small streams — Colorado Newsline #WOTUS

      Sandhill Cranes Dancing. Photo by: Arrow Myers photo courtesy Monte Vista Crane Festival

      Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Newsline website (Lindsey Toomer):

      JANUARY 4, 2024

      Following the U.S. Supreme Courtโ€™s decisionย narrowing the reach of the Clean Water Act, states including Colorado must now pick up the slack to protect water the federal government no longer will.ย 

      The new definition of โ€œwaters of the United States,โ€ or WOTUS, excludes a large number of wetlands that now require state regulation if they are to be protected. Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the clear impact of the 2023 Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency case is that many small streams and wetlands are no longer protected by the Clean Water Act. 

      Hartl said the sooner Colorado acts to create regulations around wetlands the better, because right now it would be legal if someone wanted to dredge and fill a wetland for development. He said the state should start by simply looking at what used to be protected by the Clean Water Act and create a similar regulation system where people need to apply for a permit and mitigate damage. 

      Millions of acres of wetlands recently lost federal protection under the Clean Water Act after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Some states are attempting to fill the void, but permitting programs โ€” and the staff needed to enforce them โ€” have proven costly. Flickr/USDA NRCS TX

      โ€œMy guess is that the state has a fairly good idea of what areas within the state face the most development pressure at any given time โ€” a wetland high up in the mountains inside a park or wilderness area or state forest or whatever is probably not at as great a threat as something maybe on the outskirts of Boulder or Denver where thereโ€™s intense pressure to develop,โ€ Hartl said. 

      Katherine Jones, a spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, said up to 50% of state waters are at risk of no longer being protected by the Clean Water Act following the Sackett decision. Coloradoโ€™s Department of Public Health and Environmentโ€™s Water Quality Control Division said the Sackett ruling โ€œwill likely result in all ephemeral and many intermittent waters, which constitute the majority of Coloradoโ€™s stream miles, being outside the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction.โ€

      Polisโ€™ proposed 2024 budget included โ€œa placeholder of $600,000โ€ to serve as an initial investment toward a clean water program, Jones said. CDPHE requested supplemental funding from the Colorado Legislature so it can prepare for development of a program to protect vulnerable waters and has engaged with interested stakeholders since the Trump administrationโ€™s efforts to change the Clean Water Act in 2020. 

      โ€œOne of Governor Polisโ€™ top priorities is protecting Coloradoโ€™s environment and our precious, clean water resources for the health and safety of Coloradans, as well as industries like agriculture and recreation,โ€ Jones said in a statement. 

      As the state gets started, Hartl said it could quickly establish an interim standard to maintain the status quo and to prevent anyone from โ€œcynically taking advantage of the situationโ€ as it takes the time to determine the best course of action.

      โ€˜Enforcement actionsโ€™

      The Water Quality Control Division approved an enforcement policy in July so the state can track unpermitted discharges of dredge and fill material into state waters. The new policy encourages entities to notify the state when they plan to dredge and fill in state waters, and it also leaves room for unspecified โ€œenforcement actionsโ€ in cases when an entity pursues dredge and fill activity in waters that would have been protected before the Sackett ruling. It does not apply to larger projects that would require significant mitigation and previously would have required a federal 404 permit.

      Kelly Hunter Foster, senior attorney for Waterkeeper Alliance, said itโ€™s good how quickly CDPHE took action after the Sackett decision, but that action is not a long-term solution. Creating a permanent system can be complex, she said, as the state must develop a permitting system, standards and mitigation requirements.

      โ€œThere is a need to figure out what can be added to existing regulations and what statutory changes are necessary in order for the state to step in,โ€ Foster said. โ€œIn particular, a permitting program will have to be set up for dredging and filling of wetlands and other waters that lost federal protections, and I think that the state agency needs additional resources to fill the major hole in clean water protections that was left as a result of the Sackett decision.โ€

      Colorado Parks and Wildlife has a Wetland Wildlife Conservation Program that offers funding for projects that will protect wetland habitats, with over $1.1 million available. Joey Livingston, spokesperson for Parks and Wildlife, said the program has been around since 1997. 

      โ€œThe level of federal protection for wetlands has fluctuated over the years, so the importance of voluntary, incentive-based wetland conservation programs (like ours) is highlighted during times like these,โ€ Livingston said of the Sackett decision. 

      Hartl said the loss of any one wetland wonโ€™t have drastic consequences, but more cumulative impacts arise as more and more wetlands are destroyed. In particular, he said wetlands help with flood mitigation as they soak up excess water, and floods have continuously gotten worse the more wetlands are lost. Hartl said itโ€™s well documented how the U.S. has seen evidence of this with wetlands being dredged and filled since colonization, and โ€œthe court just ignored it.โ€ 

      โ€œWetlands store pollution, they address flooding and runoff, they are very much part of what helps maintain clean water and drinking water as well as healthy ecosystems that support wildlife,โ€ Hartl said. โ€œIf you get rid of all of those natural functioning systems and you pour concrete over them, when rain happens and when there is a wet year or floods, this is why oftentimes floods get worse, because weโ€™ve eliminated all the natural ability to slow those floods.โ€

      Healthy mountain meadows and wetlands are characteristic of healthy headwater systems and provide a variety of ecosystem services, or benefits that humans, wildlife, rivers and surrounding ecosystems rely on. The complex of wetlands and connected floodplains found in intact headwater systems can slow runoff and attenuate flood flows, creating better downstream conditions, trapping sediment to improve downstream water quality, and allowing groundwater recharge. These systems can also serve as a fire break and refuge during wildfire, can sequester carbon in the floodplain, and provide essential habitat for wildlife. Graphic by Restoration Design Group, courtesy of American Rivers

      Romancing the River: Thinking Like a River: “…careful first to be sure we are working with the river we actually have today, not the river we thought we had a century ago” — George Sibley (Sibley’s Rivers) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

      East River. Photo credit: Sibley’s Rivers

      Click the link to read the article on the Sibley’s Rivers website (George Sibley):

      Greetings in 2024, which promises to be an interesting year, along the Colorado River and beyond it too. May we come out of it affirmed nationally in our commitment to democratic governance, and improved in our execution of it on our river.

      Back in the earlier part of the last century, the great conservationist and ecologist Aldo Leopold advised us to โ€˜think like a mountainโ€™ โ€“ a large entity occupied by many life forms working together, sometimes cooperatively, sometimes competitively, but keeping the whole system in a living, dynamic balance. Remove any part โ€“ the wolves, in his story โ€“ and something else would start to go out of balance (the deer) and a kind of disorder would spread through the whole system. When intruding on an ecosystem, he was saying, tread carefully and move incrementally, stop often to observe your unfolding consequencesโ€ฆ.

      “New plot using the nClimGrid data, which is a better source than PRISM for long-term trends. Of course, the combined reservoir contents increase from last year, but the increase is less than 2011 and looks puny compared to the โ€˜holeโ€™ in the reservoirs. The blue Loess lines subtly change. Last year those lines ended pointing downwards. This year they end flat-ish. 2023 temps were still above the 20th century average, although close. Another interesting aspect is that the 20C Mean and 21C Mean lines on the individual plots really donโ€™t change much. Finally, the 2023 Natural Flows are almost exactly equal to 2019. (17.678 maf vs 17.672 maf). For all the hoopla about how this was record-setting year, the fact is that this year was significantly less than 2011 (20.159 maf) and no different than 2019” — Brad Udall

      Were Leopold here today, as we undertake the sobering Anthropocene task of more effective management strategies for the Colorado River weโ€™ve created from the river we found here, he might advise us to โ€˜think like a riverโ€™ โ€“ being careful first to be sure we are working with the river we actually have today, not the river we thought we had a century ago when we began to develop the management strategies that finally crashed at their century mark in 2022. [ed. emphasis mine]

      Am I suggesting that the river actually โ€˜thinks,โ€™ like we humans (supposedly) think? No. I donโ€™t pretend to know if anything else in the universe thinks like we think (when we choose to). But it ought to be evident, here in the Anthropocene Epoch, when we are altering โ€“ consciously or unconsciously โ€“ a lot of the planetโ€™s systems, that we could be better at thinking things through than we seem to be, and we ought to be able to learn something about thinking things through from looking closely at the systemicย behaviorย of things that have been working much longer at the challenge of surviving, even thriving, with a measure of sustainable graceโ€ฆ. Like our rambunctious river, before we went to work on it.

      Illustration of the Hyporheic Zone, from D. Tonina and J. M. Buffington, 2009, Hyporheic Exchange in Mountain Rivers I: Mechanics and Environmental Effects. Geography Compass 3 (2009): 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00226.x

      Watching a river (one of my favorite occupations), the first superficial observation might be: this is a stream of water that is leaving, flowing away from land that was not able to put it to use, so it is leaving the premises โ€“ usually carrying some of the land with it. This is an accurate perception of one of the riverโ€™s functions (without which, there would be no โ€˜downstreamโ€™), but that is not to say that the flowing stream is nothing but a drainage ditch. The flowing stream actually interacts with the land it is moving through as much as it can, through what hydrologists call โ€˜hyporheic exchangeโ€™ โ€“ either moving some of its water into the land it is flowing through, or picking up groundwater trickling into the stream. And it isnโ€™t just purely water that gets exchanged both ways: the water is full of micro-organisms and dissolved and particulate minerals and gases, nutrients that also move into or out of the land.

      A riverโ€™s boundary does not end at the channel margins. Even when not in flood, the riverโ€™s water reaches out laterally, beneath the riparian forest and floodplain, and vertically, into the substrate beneath the channel.

      This underground world, where water originating in the river channel is percolating, in darkness, through the spaces between grains of gravel and sand, is called the hyporheic zone. The term Hyporheic means, literally, โ€œbeneath the river.โ€ The distinguishing feature of this underground world is that surface water percolates down into it, moves through it for a while, and then reemerges from the streambed, becoming part of the surface water again further downstream.

      This exchange of surface and subsurface water happens all along the river channel, giving the hyporheic water a character distinct from ordinary groundwater. And in the process, the surface water becomes changed as well.

      One of the changes that happens when water enters the hyporheic zone is that it becomes cooler. We have all had the experience of going into the basement of an old house on a hot day, and noticing how cool the air can be down there. Temperatures below ground are cooler in the summer time, and more constant throughout the day. The streambed is no different.

      The water flowing in the hyporheic zone becomes cooled, and when it reemerges, it cools the surface water as it mixes. This is one of the ways that a stream can remain cool in the sunlight, and cool off again in the shade after flowing through blistering sunlight.

      Since the water flowing into the hyporheic zone carries dissolved substances from the surface water, including oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other nutrient substances that nurture growth of plants and fungi, there is life in this underground world. Each grain of gravel and sand becomes coated with a living film of microbes, a โ€œbiofilm,โ€ that is nurtured by this flowing water and thrives in the absence of sunlight. Microscopic creatures, and even larger creatures, big enough to be seen by our eyes, such as copepods, tardigrades, insect larvae, tube worms, roundworms, and even juvenile fish enter, and live in, the hyporheic zone.

      It is this biological activity that leads to another important function of the hyporheic zone: water filtration and purification. The streambed acts as a sand filter, physically straining out tiny particles of silt and organic matter, helping keep the surface water clear. The biofilm absorbs chemicals out of the water. Some of these chemicals nourish the microbes making up the biofilm. Other chemicals, including toxins from human pollution like road runoff, are absorbed by the biofilm, and in some cases broken down into harmless substances by the microbes.

      Hydrologists call a stream picking up water from the land itโ€™s moving through a gaining stream, and a stream that is giving some of its water to the land a losing stream. I think the latter ought to be called a โ€˜giving stream,โ€™ but I guess weโ€™ve got to go with the hydrologist terminology. (Itโ€™s Trumpthink to call the stream a โ€˜loserโ€™ for trying to be generous with its water.) Whether a stream loses or gains water from the land it is passing through depends on the level of the water table in the groundwater in the vicinity of the stream: if the water table near the stream is higher than the surface level of water in the stream, the stream gains from groundwater that trickles in. If the stream level is higher than the water table near the stream, the stream โ€˜losesโ€™ (gives) water to the surrounding land.

      Another observation about how a river behaves comes from looking at the material a stream is carrying, material it has cut, ground or otherwise eroded from its mountains, and realize that a river is both a creative and destructive force creating the landscape like a sculptor. Some sculptor โ€“ maybe Michelangelo? โ€“ said that his task was to remove the excess stone from a block of marble to reveal the beautiful figure within; so does the river create our magnificent vistas of mountains, couloirs, bowlsย ย and valleys by cutting into and moving stone.


      Healthy mountain meadows and wetlands are characteristic of healthy headwater systems and provide a variety of ecosystem services, or benefits that humans, wildlife, rivers and surrounding ecosystems rely on. The complex of wetlands and connected floodplains found in intact headwater systems can slow runoff and attenuate flood flows, creating better downstream conditions, trapping sediment to improve downstream water quality, and allowing groundwater recharge. These systems can also serve as a fire break and refuge during wildfire, can sequester carbon in the floodplain, and provide essential habitat for wildlife. Graphic by Restoration Design Group, courtesy of American Rivers

      This reductively creative, creatively destructive process is enhanced in our river basin by the fact that most of the riverโ€™s water supply comes from a winter snowpack that melts out quickly over a couple months in what passes for spring in the mountains, and most of the riverโ€™s water goes ripping and tearing down the mountains, far too fast for more than a fraction of it to sink in as groundwater. But what does sink in is important to the river after that fast runoff; the groundwater moves at a leisurely pace through the ground โ€“ ranging from days and weeks to as much as a century โ€“ making its way down to the low places where the surface streams flow, and arriving in the post-runoff time, late summer and fall, when the stream needs the gain. The US Geological Survey has determined, through sophisticated studies of isotopes, that roughly half of the water in the Colorado River below its steeper tributaries entered the river as groundwater.

      When the downhill slope gentles, even surface flows slow and the streams begin to drop the debris they have torn out and are carrying, and they move that debris around โ€“ or move around the debris themselves: so doing, they create meadows and floodplains through which they loop and meander, generating a lot of hyporheic exchange. Much of this exchange may be only into immediate riparian areas; but when streams roll into their own created floodplains, they spreads their excess bounty more broadly, raising a water table that might nurture grassy meadows, cottonwood forests โ€“ or lots of agricultural land. A good runoff makes a streamโ€™s floodplains live up to their name, with shallow floods spreading new layers of silt and nutrients over them.

      In trying to โ€˜think like a river,โ€™ we do have to think about land-based life too, and the relationship of land-based life to water โ€“ which of course is existential: without water, there is no life as we know it on the planet. And land-based life depends absolutely on freshwater, which โ€“ remember from the last post here โ€“ is less than one percent of the water on the planet. And two-thirds of that modest percent is bound up in the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.

      All the life on the planet depends on access to the remaining tiny fraction of freshwater โ€“ which, by the time it has accumulated in streams and rivers is on its way back to the salty seas, despite their efforts to slow the process by meandering and offering their waters in hyporheic exchanges. More freshwater will come โ€“ or at least it always has โ€“ as the sun distills it again from the salty seas and precipitates it over the land, but stillโ€ฆ. All that freshwater, essential to life, just running off to the seas where it disappears into the salt water, freshwaterโ€™s equivalent of dyingโ€ฆ.

      If one wanted to let the imagination fly like an untethered kite for a moment โ€“ land-based life itself might be described as a freshwater strategy for confounding gravityโ€™s pull back into the ocean. We โ€“ all of us, plants, animals, fungi, bacteria โ€“ are made up of highly specialized little vessels whose chief component when we are alive, is water. This is true of aquatic life that stays in the water, but it is also true of the rest of the planetโ€™s life project that came out of the water to live on the land, a diversity of stacks and arrays and mobile units of tiny specialized cells full of a mix of minerals and gases dissolved in water. The watery cells that arrange themselves as molecular bucket brigades in trees lift water as much as three hundred feet into the atmosphere, against gravity, profligately venting most of that water back into the atmosphere to maintain that upward flow. We animals carry water everywhere, against gravity, far from the rivers. In this flight of imagination, humans, around 70 percent water, could be described as water that stood up to look around and think and dream.

      Beaver ponds and meadows. Photo Credit: Sarah Marshall via American Rivers

      Reeling that kite in โ€“ land-based life does interact with surface freshwater in many ways, some of which facilitate waterโ€™s willingness to carry out hyporheic exchanges with the land and the water-using organisms on the land, and some of which work against such exchanges. Beavers work to slow the flow of water through the land, pooling it up in ways that slow but donโ€™t stop the flow, and so doing, nurture wetlands and wet-meadow ecosystems. And we humans move water out back out onto the land to irrigate it, again and again with the same water in the arid lands, using it to grow life that would never grow there at all unassisted.

      Many river stretches in Colorado have been impacted by human use. In her book โ€œVirtual Rivers,โ€ Ellen Wohl describes how rivers and headwater systems have been degraded over time. โ€œAs land-use changes have resulted in changes to the water and sediment entering stream channels, these channels may become unsightly, pose a hazard to human life and property because of excessive scouring or sediment filling, or no longer provide some desired function, such as fishing.โ€ Here we see an unhealthy system with an incised stream channel that is disconnected from its floodplain, resulting in reduced water storage, less groundwater recharge, and degraded water quality. Unlike in a wetland system, runoff and flood water flow quickly out of a degraded meadow because they cannot spread out and seep in. Increased flows cause further erosion, cutting deeper and wider channels that are less meandering and sending more sediment downstream. Graphics by Restoration Design Group, courtesy of American Rivers

      We are also guilty of occasionally conspiring with the vagaries of nature to destroy the hyporheic exchange between streams and the land they run through, as when we unconsciously overgraze a wet meadow in a dry year โ€“ then a summer afternoon storm drops an inch or two of cloudburst rain on the meadow, and a raging torrent rushes down through the vulnerable sun-baked meadow, creating in an hour or so a gully that deepens in subsequent years, and draws down the water table of the former meadow, causing an ecosystemic change from a wetland ecology to a dryland ecology. Or a dam is built across the river, drowning the aquatic and riparian ecosystems above the dam and altering the ecosystems below the dam. Some of these kinds of changes are unfortunate; others are just unavoidable as we try consciously to make the planet more โ€˜fittingโ€™ for human survival in ever-increasing numbers.

      There are two further observations about these processes that seem almost confoundingly contradictory: the slower the flow, the more the stream or river gets to interact with the land. But at the same time, the more the water is spread out in those interactions, the more vulnerable the water is to the sunโ€™s power. Among ourselves we say โ€˜use it or lose it.โ€™ But in the bigger picture, it is โ€˜use itย andย lose itโ€™ through increased evaporation and transpiration, as we โ€˜spread it out to dry.โ€™

      So given all of that โ€“ what can we say about โ€˜thinking like a riverโ€™ today, as we start planning for the operation and maintenance of our Colorado River in the hotter and probably drier Anthropocene? Given that it is only two-thirds the river we thought it was a century ago when we started to โ€˜developโ€™ it?

      The most obvious thing from observing the river at its own work is to do what can be done to โ€˜slow the flowโ€™ of water back to the sea โ€“ but to do it in ways that donโ€™t just โ€˜spread it out to dryโ€™ under the sun whose power is enhanced by our atmospheric changes.

      One way to do this is to get more of the water underground but retrievable. Back in the 1930s, there was discussion about how best to bring the on-again off-again firehose of the Colorado River mainstem under a measure of control. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers wanted big bold mainstem dams, like Hooverโ€™s dam (already under construction), but the brand-new Soil Conservation Service favored a lot of small reservoirs and erosion-restoration projects up in the headwaters of the western rivers, followed by better farming, logging and mining methods. The idea was to raise water tables and increase the quantity of groundwater making its slow way downhill underground and out of the sun, before joining the river in its hyporheic games.

      We know who won that discussion. But today, there is a growing movement to restore degraded landscapes by repairing gullied valleys and raising water tables, getting more water underground and out of the increasingly brutal sun. City utilities are cautiously exploring aquifer recharge, where over-pumping hasnโ€™t already collapsed the aquifers. And we are moving toward consent about the fact that bypassing Glen Canyon Dam would increase the amount of water available for use by a third to half a million acre-feet, with no realistic loss of storage (put it all in Mead Reservoir). Had we given fewer resources to the Bureau of Reclamation and more to the Soil Conservation Service in the โ€˜30s, we would probably have more water in the river today.

      Map of the Mississippi River Basin. Made using USGS data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47308146

      I am not one of those who laments the fact that โ€˜the Colorado River no longer flows to the ocean,โ€™ and donโ€™t find that fact inconsistent with โ€˜thinking like a river.โ€™ The amount of active freshwater on the planet is so relatively miniscule in the big picture that I think it would be just fine if land-based life figured out ways to putย allย of it to work on the care and maintenance of land-based life. That will of course never happen with a vast watershed like the Mississippi โ€“ although, given the dead zone its runoff is creating in the Gulf of Mexico, it might be better if itย wasย all used up before New Orleans. I do realize that the lack of Colorado River water flowing into the Gulf of California has impacts on sea life there, but everything seems to involve choices, and in this one, I am inclined by nature to come down on the side of land-based lifeโ€ฆ.

      I think it would be nice if we could dedicate one percent of the riverโ€™s water to restoration of the beautiful old Colorado River delta โ€“ but it would be even better if we could figure out how to make the vast โ€˜desert deltaโ€™ we have created instead (Phoenix on the east through all the Lower Colorado ag lands to Los Angeles on the west) something we could love rather than dislike so much as we seem toโ€ฆ. Can we not build beautiful cities, desert โ€˜arcologiesโ€™ that weโ€™d like to live in rather than โ€˜auto-urbsโ€™ under a carbon-gas smog spreading out like a cow pooping on a flat rock? Or agricultural lands that arenโ€™t rural industrial slums plagued by inequity?

      Thinking like a river โ€“ water driven back to sea level by gravity (โ€˜Itโ€™s the law!โ€™) but doing what it can to slow its flow in places where it can give water back to the land as well as carry water off the landโ€ฆ. The water has systematic processes going on that we can participate in โ€“ have to, being water vessels ourselves needing constant replenishment. Weโ€™ve presumed, both consciously and unconsciously, to take charge of those systems along with a lot of other planetary systems; thatโ€™s what the Anthropocene Epoch is, and either we rise to the challenges there weโ€™ve imposed on ourselves, or we will preside over our own slow and tedious unraveling. And maybe the first big challenge is slowing our own flow enough to begin to really think through the systems weโ€™ve often just overrun in enthusiastic arrogance.