Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District: Colorado Springs city council approves funding IGA

A picture named fountaincreek.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The agreement will use $100,000 each from Colorado Springs and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District to provide staff and administrative support to the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, formed in July by the state Legislature. The district has authority over land-use issues in the Fountain Creek flood plain between Fountain and Pueblo, and its board membership is evenly split between El Paso County and downstream interests. The agreement also provides $200,000 each from Colorado Springs and the Lower Ark to continue the Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan, started under a similar IGA in 2007. Colorado Springs Council unanimously approved the agreement as a consent item after hearing a presentation last week while sitting as the Utility Board. The Lower Ark and Fountain Creek boards have already approved the agreement.

Pueblo County commissioners are expected to make a decision next week on whether the $300,000 contribution by Colorado Springs can be applied to the $50 million Colorado Springs has pledged to the district as a condition of a 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System. Colorado Springs also will pay $300,000 toward the study of a dam or dams to provide flood control on Fountain Creek in the next three years. The first payment has been made.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Interior Secretary Salazar appoints Deanna Archuleta to work ‘full-time’ on Southern Delivery System mitigation requirements

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s a recap of yesterday’s meeting on water issues in Pueblo hosted by Ken Salazar, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Deanna Archuleta, deputy assistant secretary for water and science, will work “full-time” on the issue, Salazar said at a water issues summit in Pueblo…

Salazar called Fountain Creek a “shared resource” that is important to Colorado Springs and Pueblo, as well as the downstream farms and cities. As a U.S. senator, Salazar urged the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force to make the creek a “crown jewel” and he applauded the task force and state lawmakers for making the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District a reality. As secretary of the Interior, Salazar said he now has the authority to make sure the promises made by Colorado Springs to win approval for building the Southern Delivery System from Pueblo Dam are fulfilled. “Deanna Archuleta will help to identify the resources we need to get this done,” Salazar said. “I’m looking forward to working on this project,” Archuleta said after the meeting. “There has been exceptional collaboration and phenomenal work so far on this. It really is precedent-setting.” Salazar said Archuleta will lead a team directly inside the secretary of Interior’s office that includes Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor…

Salazar voiced strong support for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million project authorized by Congress this year that would build a drinking water line from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads. “I am 100 percent behind getting the Arkansas Valley Conduit built,” Salazar said. “I will look at our budget to see if there is any money we can put into it. Unless we get this process moving, we are not going to get it done.”[…]

Secretary Salazar also said the “right kind of limits” on taking water from the Arkansas River basin have to be found before federal legislation is crafted to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project. “It’s not going to happen unless my big brother’s (Rep. Salazar’s) concerns can be satisfied,” he said.

Here’s a look at U.S. Representive John Salazar’s views on legislation that would allow Aurora to benefit from Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

No federal legislation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will pass unless U.S. Rep. John Salazar is part of the discussion on how that legislation is drafted. The Colorado Democrat made that clear Friday in his closing remarks at a water summit he and his brother, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, hosted in Pueblo. “I’ve always been one to seek the middle ground on issues, but I’m adamant on agriculture,” Rep. Salazar said. “I want to make sure we don’t destroy one economy to make another.”[…]

In March, the Lower Ark and Aurora agreed to work for a change in federal legislation that would legitimize Aurora’s use of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. They later obtained a stay in the Lower Ark’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation, which in 2007 issued a 40-year storage and exchange contract for excess capacity in Lake Pueblo. “We believe these issues can be solved and we’re working to solve them,” Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said.

There was no mistaking Rep. Salazar’s parting words, however. “I don’t like to be excluded when legislation is proposed. I want to be part of that discussion,” Salazar said.

More Arkansas Basin coverage here, Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here, Super Ditch coverage here and here, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs Utilities rejects opportunity to buy Morley’s Stonewall Springs reservoir site

A picture named stonewallspringsproject.jpg

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

During a meeting of city council – sitting as the Colorado Springs Utilities Board – Utilities officials said the asking price was too steep for a reservoir they don’t need now.

“We don’t have an immediate need right now, and there is plenty of time for us to develop an appropriate solution for our partners,” Utilities CEO Jerry Forte said. “Based on what we know right now, this is expensive, and I think we can do a better job for our customers.”

Utilities has an agreement with several other cities to build a reservoir near the Arkansas River for treated effluent. The Morleys’ site, known as Stonewall Springs, has been identified as a possible site, and in 2005 Utilities was in talks to buy it.

The deal was deemed too expensive – a Utilities appraisal listed it at $3 million, but the sellers wanted $7.25 million – and Utilities stepped away. In June, Utilities was lukewarm to a proposal to buy the site from the Morleys, who had since bought it, for $38 million, an increase in asking price related to the fact the developers had done some work to get land-use approvals for a reservoir.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System update

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s an update on Colorado Springs Utilities proposed Southern Delivery System, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“The people who are supposed to be in oversight agencies are not looking out for me,” rancher Gary Walker said Monday. “I’m sure Colorado Springs has met one-on-one with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Pueblo County commissioners. I have asked for that, but it hasn’t happened yet. The playing field isn’t level.” Walker’s latest complaint comes after last week’s action by the Army Corps of Engineers to deny requests for a public hearing on SDS. The Corps explained the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental impact statement sufficiently covered most of the issues in the case. Reclamation issued a record of decision approving the SDS use of federal facilities at Lake Pueblo on March 20. It will negotiate contracts with the SDS partners – Colorado Springs, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West – at a later date.

The Bureau of Reclamation has not visited Walker Ranches to discuss his concern about rare native plants that are still being catalogued by the Nature Conservancy and the Colorado Natural Heritage program, Walker said. “With my finding of rare and endangered plants in the SDS’s proposed route and with the ongoing damage that was caused by your last pipeline that crossed my property, I was in hope of having some semblance of equality in this issue,” Walker wrote in an e-mail to the Bureau of Reclamation Monday…

Reclamation ran a five-year public process on the project, and provided other opportunities for Walker to comment, said Kara Lamb, public information officer for the bureau. “All of those environmental mitigations are included in the final EIS,” Lamb said. “And there is another public process on the horizon when contract negotiations start.”[…]

Last month, Colorado Springs City Council voted to move completion of the first phase of the $1 billion-plus pipeline project to 2016, from the announced completion date of 2012. “We believe the 2016 in-service date provides adequate time to address Mr. Walker’s concerns and develop specific mitigation plans for his property. It’s our intent to work closely with Mr. Walker on these plans,” said Keith Riley, SDS planning and permitting manager. “We’ve been working on a rare plant study with the Colorado Natural Heritage program – the group recommended by Mr. Walker,” Riley added. “We’ve also been working to identify some areas to do test plots for revegetation after pipeline construction. This will allow us to test the revegetation process to ensure it will be effective.”

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: No public hearing for Corps permit

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

… the Corps determined there was enough information presented in documents and hearings with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Pueblo County, both of which have approved the pipeline. “With all the information we received and all the prior hearing and public comments, we didn’t think we’d get any new information that would change our decision,” said Van Truan, with the Corps Pueblo office, Friday.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Stonewall Springs Reservoir?

A picture named stonewallspringsproject.jpg

Colorado Springs area residents Mark and Jim Morley are trying to sell their potential gravel pit reservoir at Stonewall Springs to Colorado Springs as terminal storage for reusable water from the proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from J. Adrian Stanley writing for the Colorado Springs Independent. From the article:

Morley, his brother Jim, and their partners own this land. But they’re offering most of it to Colorado Springs Utilities for the apparently bargain-basement price of $38.8 million. The Morleys say Utilities needs this land for the Southern Delivery System water project. And here’s the cherry: If Utilities bites, the Morleys will donate $12 million to the city for use in funding the just-revised U.S. Olympic Committee retention deal. The clock is ticking for Utilities’ decision and, like any proposal involving water, this one’s full of details. Here’s what is certain: The city could use the money. And the Morleys know it. In fact, everyone in City Council chambers knows it…

What the Morleys want to sell is basically a swath of gravel-packed soil. For people in the water business, though, it’s prime. It can be dug up to create storage reservoirs that could hold 34,400 acre feet of water. The gravel that’s removed in the process can be sold, or used for another purpose, like, say, bedding for the SDS pipeline. The Morleys’ project is also fully permitted, which means Utilities could avoid a lengthy, expensive approval process.

And, the Morleys say, the location is ideal. Here’s why: In the SDS system, treated wastewater from Colorado Springs will flow down Fountain Creek to Pueblo, where it meets the Arkansas. Colorado Springs owns this water and wants to be able to sell it to as many people as possible. But right now, that water just flows on by the ditches of many possible buyers, and ends up in a reservoir over 60 miles away. Two things happen in that process. First, a lot of water evaporates. Second, by passing by all those ditches, the Springs loses a lot of customers for its water — unless it wants to pay to pump the water back uphill. With the Morleys’ land, Utilities could store the water much sooner, which minimizes evaporation and gives the Springs more possible downstream buyers. Also, gravity will draw the water into the reservoir, and back out of it as well, eliminating the need for expensive pumps. The Morleys say their reservoirs could replace one of two reservoirs Utilities plans to build, at less than a fifth of the cost. The kicker: Utilities doesn’t need to make a payment to the Morleys for five years…

So the Morleys get a small profit, the city gets $12 million (which the Morleys will get by taking out a loan), and Utilities saves money. Not a bad deal. Only problem is, Utilities wasn’t planning on even thinking about its reservoir issue until 2016, and as good as the Morleys make it sound, Utilities may see drawbacks. Another possible negative: The Morleys paid just $6.275 million for the whole lot of land in 2005, and now they want nearly $40 million for just one part of it. The Morleys say it’s worth the extra cash — and then some — because the land is permitted and the reservoirs are partially engineered. But Utilities may disagree.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Rate payers shoulder the burden of paying for the project

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Colorado Springs Independent (J. Adrian Stanley):

This year, water rates jumped 41 percent. With ratepayers bearing SDS costs, rates should rise another 10 percent in 2010, 12 percent annually from 2011 to 2017, and about 4 percent in both 2018 and 2019. Taking inflation into account, that means the average monthly water bill would go from $34.80 in 2009 to a projected $91 in 2019.

Project director John Fredell notes that Utilities has cut $50 million off a price tag that had ballooned to $930 million for the first phase, which will cover the pipeline and the necessities that go with it, like a water treatment plant, permitting, land, mitigation and pump stations. Phase two, estimated to cost $520 million, will include two reservoirs and system expansion.

Chief planning and finance officer Bill Cherrier says Utilities also spread out costs as much as possible, while still making the progress needed to keep its hard-won permits. That meant water customers didn’t see 26 percent rate hikes two years in a row. And that Utilities maintains its enviable AA bond rating, which keeps interest rates on SDS loans low. If the rating fell two notches, interest could run an extra $15 million to $27 million a year, Cherrier says…

But the financial structuring does lead to uncertainty. The project will start before scores of needed permits are obtained, before land is purchased and before the project is fully engineered — which means costs could rise. As for rate hikes, if the city grows faster, you pay less. And if growth is sluggish, well …

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greeway District: Funding sources clearing up

A picture named fountaincreek.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs Utilities and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District want to extend an agreement to develop a Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan and have invited the new district to join. Colorado Springs and the Lower Ark would each provide $150,000 for the next two years, for a total of $300,000. Of that, they would make $100,000 available to the Fountain Creek district to hire a manager and pay office costs. The other $200,000 would continue to fund consultants working on the corridor master plan. “We’d like to not have the district on the sidelines and see it become a partner,” Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district, told the Fountain Creek board Friday…

Carol Baker, Fountain Creek coordinator for Colorado Springs, said the city is moving ahead on demonstration projects at Clear Springs Ranch, part of its commitment to Pueblo County commissioners for the 1041 permit for Southern Delivery System. Colorado Springs has committed to paying $50 million to the district under the conditions, but the district won’t see most of that money for a long time. The first $300,000 of the payments will come in the next three years, but can’t be used for administrative costs, only for study of flood-control measures, including a dam on Fountain Creek, said Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek. The remaining payments will come in sums of $9.7 million the first year and $10 million each year for four years after SDS is completed. Last month, Colorado Springs City Council moved the completion date of SDS to 2016, rather than the 2012 date used when the conditions were being written…

By entering the agreement, the board would allow Colorado Springs to pay forward a portion of the funds it would eventually receive, but keep efforts to improve the creek moving forward, Baker said. The Fountain Creek district also would have a staff member working with Colorado Springs and the Lower Ark to create the master plan. The Fountain Creek board was generally favorable to the proposal, but Kogovsek and El Paso County Assistant Attorney Cole Emmons wanted to make minor changes in the agreement before it’s voted on. The agreement also would need approval of the Lower Ark board and Colorado Springs City Council. Pueblo County commissioners would also have to approve using funds to administration of the district as a credit against the future payments under the $50 million in the 1041 conditions.

“Our ultimate stream of money is a mill levy, but to get voters to approve it you need a demonstration project,” said Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner. He said the only other ways to gain money now would be to apply for grants through Pueblo and El Paso counties or to “pass the hat” as the Vision Task Force did for two years.

More Coyote Gulch Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: 1041 lawsuit tab $420,000 for Colorado Springs Utilities and $440,000 for Pueblo County

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Each side will pay its own costs in the lawsuit, which was settled by an agreement this week. The suit was dismissed Tuesday in Pueblo District Court and both sides have asked the Colorado Court of Appeals to remand an appeal of District Judge Dennis Maes’ 2007 decision in the case. Colorado Springs released the figure for its costs on Thursday, while Pueblo provided numbers Wednesday…

Colorado Springs filed the lawsuit in El Paso County District Court in 2005, claiming SDS should be exempt from 1041 regulation. The case was heard in Pueblo District Court in 2007 after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled it was the proper venue…

As part of the agreement, Colorado Springs no longer will contest Pueblo County authority over the project.

More Coyote Gulch Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Colorado Springs Utilities drops challenge to Pueblo County’s 1041 permit authority

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

Colorado Springs Utilities sued in November 2005, challenging the right of Pueblo County to require a 1041 land-use permit, named for the legislation that gives counties authority over multi-jurisdictional projects. At the time, there was opposition to the pipeline in Pueblo, and a permit seemed unlikely. The $1.4 billion pipeline is expected to deliver 10 million gallons a day from Pueblo Reservoir starting in 2016 and will eventually bring 78 million gallons a day to a new reservoir southeast of Colorado Springs.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The action ends nearly four years of litigation, after Colorado Springs filed the lawsuit in 2005, centering on Southern Delivery System, a $1 billion-plus pipeline project that will affect Pueblo Dam, land in Pueblo West, Walker Ranches and numerous county roads. Pueblo County spent nearly $440,000 on the lawsuit and an appeal, which will not be recoverable, said Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek. Kogovsek explained the only way to have recovered the payments for lawyers and cost of depositions would be if the lawsuit were determined to be frivolous. “We discussed it, but just because we won the lawsuit does not mean it was frivolous,” Kogovsek explained…

Colorado Springs agreed not to contest Pueblo County’s authority to regulate SDS in the future, said Ray Petros, special counsel on land-use issues for the county…

In 2007, Chief District Judge Dennis Maes ruled in favor of Pueblo County’s position that its land-use regulations written under 1974’s HB1041 were applicable to SDS. Colorado Springs argued that they were not, because the project was not substantially different than other, existing utility corridors in the county. Colorado Springs appealed the decision, but the appellate court has not issued its opinion. The city and county have asked the case be remanded to district court. Colorado Springs applied for a 1041 permit in 2008 anyway, and received the permit in April. Last week, Colorado Springs City Council gave its blessing to the Pueblo County route over an alternative through Fremont County.

More Coyote Gulch Southern Delivery System coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Springs city council approves Pueblo County route

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Cañon City Daily Record (Debbie Bell):

Fremont County District 1 Commissioner Mike Stiehl, who studies water issues in Colorado, was reached Thursday morning at a water workshop in Crested Butte. He said the decision was not a surprise. “I still think there are a bunch of positive things that have come from this [Fremont County permit for SDS],” Stiehl said, “no matter how it turns out. The benefits to our economy were primarily potential employment, but that is still there no matter where they come out. Pueblo is pretty darned close, and people can commute.” Stiehl said Fremont County already has accounted for about $15,000 of the $50,000 deposit from CSU, not including commissioners’ time spent on the project. Unused funds will be returned to the utility. “We have accounted for time, effort, paper, telephones and staff time down to one-tenth of an hour,” Stiehl said.

Both Stiehl and Fredell said CSU had forged strong relationships with Beaver Park Water and the Penrose Water District. Both agencies worked with the utility company to create agreements to partner to obtain or move water through the SDS pipeline, if it was built in Fremont County.

More Coyote Gulch Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West’s share of the Pueblo Arkansas River flow program 20 to 30 acre feet annually, at first

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s a look at what Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner has to say about Pueblo West’s participation in the Pueblo Arkansas River flow program as a condition attached to the 1041 permit for Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from James Amos writing for The Pueblo West View. From the article:

Pueblo West didn’t complain until March, Chostner said, which was years into the negotiations and debate about the pipeline. Saying that Colorado Springs had originally wanted to reroute almost all the water in the river through the pipeline, Chostner said Colorado Springs agreed to the flow program to preserve some of the river as it flows through Pueblo. Pueblo West can’t think that a dry riverbed between Lake Pueblo and the confluence with Fountain Creek can be acceptable to anyone, he said. Even Pueblo West residents use the river and trail beside it for recreation. Pueblo built a kayak park in the river near Downtown, but Chostner said the recreation flows are about more than just kayaking.

The commissioner, one of three who represent Pueblo County, said Pueblo West wouldn’t have to give up much water, about 20 to 30 acre feet annually. The district has about 8,500 shares of water that translates into 8,500 acre feet of water in good years. In dry years, the yield could be about 4,500 acre feet of water – about what Pueblo West citizens use now on a yearly basis.

Chostner wasn’t speaking to any representatives from Pueblo West however, according to Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain.

Other SDS partners, Fountain and Security, voiced support at the meeting [for the Pueblo Arkansas River flow program], but no one from Pueblo West showed up.

The Colorado Springs City Council drove a stake through the hear of the Fremont County route for SDS earlier this week when they approved the Pueblo County route. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:

The route decision takes a Fremont County option out of the picture, at least for now, and the cost reflects updated engineering cost estimates. The timing of the project was delayed because Colorado Springs now thinks it won’t need the project until 2017. It also allows water rates to increase more gradually. Most council members spoke of the decision in historic terms, comparing it to the Homestake Project of the 1950s and ’60s, agreeing with staff that it would be difficult if not impossible to gain the approval of state, federal and local agencies again if it’s not built now. Councilman Jerry Heimlicher called it a “tombstone vote,” meaning he would want it recorded on his tombstone when he dies. He vigorously defended the increase in water rates, saying they would go up even more without SDS.

Vice Mayor Larry Small touted the benefits to Fountain Creek Colorado Springs will pay for as mitigation to Pueblo County.

The council also heard about adding potential partners in El Paso County to the list of partners in SDS, according to Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Vice Mayor Larry Small and Councilman Darryl Glenn also suggested the pipeline could be built sooner and paid for more easily by letting others into the project.

Councilman Tom Gallagher, the lone vote against SDS, spoke against the idea of enlarging the pool of users on the pipeline, saying council’s first obligation is to supply water to its own service area.

“They’re asking us to support their growth,” Gallagher said. “Do we have the supply to support their growth? If we’re not using the proper supply to make our decisions, we are risking our ability to serve our ratepayers.”

More Coyote Gulch Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Colorado Springs: Utilities’ financing plan doubles rates over 10 years

A picture named waterfromtap.jpg

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

Sitting as the Utilities Board, the City Council on Wednesday approved a plan for financing and building the Southern Delivery System water pipeline, which includes a doubling of water rates between 2010 and 2019. The city-owned utility has already received approval from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the reservoir, and Pueblo County. Though each rate increase will have to be approved by the council annually, the plan calls for annual water rate hikes of 10 percent to 12 percent through 2017, and 4 percent a year for two years after that. The increases would be on top of a 41 percent hike in water rates this year. “The rates will double over the next nine years as we go forward in getting this project done, but it’s something that needs to be done for the future of our community,” said Mayor Lionel Rivera. Average monthly water bills would go from about $40 in 2010 to $70 to $100 in 2019.

More Coyote Gulch infrastructure coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner speaks out on Pueblo West and the Pueblo Flow program

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (James Amos):

Chostner told the Pueblo Rotary 43 group on Monday that when the county debated a permit for the pipeline, Colorado Springs was negotiating on behalf of all the pipeline participants. That means the city was speaking for Pueblo West as well as itself, Fountain and Security. “They have a contract that basically established an agency relationship, like a real estate agency,” he said. Pueblo West didn’t complain until March, Chostner said, which was years into the negotiations and debate about the pipeline. Saying that Colorado Springs had originally wanted to reroute almost all the water in the river through the pipeline, Chostner said Colorado Springs agreed to the flow program to preserve some of the river as it flows through Pueblo. Pueblo West can’t think that a dry riverbed between Lake Pueblo and the confluence with Fountain Creek can be acceptable to anyone, he said. Even Pueblo West residents use the river and trail beside it for recreation.

The commissioner, one of three who represent Pueblo County, said Pueblo West wouldn’t have to give up much water. The district has about 4,600 acre-feet of water a year and would have to give up only 20-30 acre-feet most years. That could increase to 100-125 acre-feet a year, he said, under certain conditions. But he said that isn’t much compared with the 1,500 acre-feet being given up by Colorado Springs.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Northern Integrated Supply Project and Windy Gap Firming Project update

A picture named nisp2.jpg

From the Loveland Reporter Herald:

McInnis, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, sent a letter Friday in support of the project to the Larimer and Weld county commissioners and to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District…

Last week, more than 200 people attended a rally in support of the project on a Weld County farm. They said the project would relieve pressure on farmers to sell their water, thereby preserving farmland. McInnis agrees, according to his letter, which says the reservoir project would prevent a “buy and dry” atmosphere that could turn Northern Colorado into a dust bowl.

Meanwhile, here’s an update on the proposed Glade and Chimney Hollow reservoirs from Shari Phiel writing for the Berthoud Recorder. From the article:

Despite the economic downturn, Colorado — and especially the Front Range — will continue to grow, creating greater and greater demand for water. But, of course, there is only so much water available through the C-BT. In response to this demand, the [Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District] has proposed two separate reservoir projects. One being the Windy Gap Firming Project which would create Chimney Hollow Reservoir and the other is the Northern Integrated Supply Project which would create Glade Reservoir through the construction of dams in both valleys.

Jeff Drager, project manager for the proposed Chimney Hollow Reservoir, says the project is needed to provide for more storage during wet years when Lake Granby is often full. “If the Colorado-Big Thompson is full or if the Adams tunnel is full of water … there’s no room to put Windy Gap water in and that’s turned out to be a bit of a constraint over the last 20-some years of operation.” Per the NCWCD, Chimney Hollow would only use the same Colorado River water rights granted in the 1960s and 70s, and is expected to deliver a “firm annual yield” of up to 30,000 acre feet of water by 2010 at a cost of $270 million. The dam would be constructed just west of Carter Lake.

The other, and certainly more controversial project, is the NISP project and construction of 170,000 acre-foot Glade Reservoir. The NISP project is expected to bring 40,000 acre feet of water to 15 communities “without drying up the Poudre River or our agricultural communities,” says the NCWCD. The water district also sees the project as the answer to the question of how to meet the demand for more water without drying up either the Poudre River or agricultural lands in the process. The NISP project plan includes construction of Glade Reservoir, which will require relocating nearly seven miles of U.S. Highway 287, a pumping facility, a pipeline to deliver water for exchange with two irrigation companies, and necessary improvements to an existing canal to fill the reservoir. Water woud be diverted from the Poudre River north into Glade Reservoir. Total cost for the entire NISP project is anticipated to reach $426 million.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek: Master plan requires millions

A picture named fountaincreekwatershed.jpg

The master plan for Fountain Creek includes projects $40 million in projects, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan, which has been in the works for two years, was shared last week with the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District at its inaugural meeting. The projects have been developed by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Colorado Springs Utilities in an effort that began in 2007 as a way to resolve some of the differences in negotiations over a broad range of water issues…

Soon, money may be available from many sources to bring plans into reality, and the new district logically will serve as the conduit to channel money to projects. There are others involved – a newly formed Fountain Creek Foundation, cities in the watershed, Colorado Open Lands – but the district is the first choice of the partners in the corridor plan. And the corridor plan should be the first choice of the district as it looks toward its first major funding source, Jay Winner, Lower Ark general manager, said at last week’s meeting. “With all these grants coming in, you need someone to manage the funds,” Winner said. That could be provided if Colorado Springs and the Lower Ark extend their agreement another year this fall. The two have agreed to make $100,000 of the $300,000 they annually put into Fountain Creek available to hire an employee and set up an office. The district will receive $100,000 from Colorado Springs this year and in each of the following two years to study a dam, series of dams or other means of flood control on Fountain Creek, under conditions agreed to with Pueblo County commissioners for the Southern Delivery System. The bulk of the $50 million committed to Fountain Creek, however, would not be paid until SDS is under construction. The funds are set aside in five annual payments for control of floods, erosion and sedimentation…

Money already is trickling into Fountain Creek: a $75,000 planning grant from Great Outdoors Colorado, a $70,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board for a fish passage design at Clear Springs Ranch and $20,000 for trail development from Colorado State Parks…

The city of Pueblo is pursuing $1 million in funding for an East Side redevelopment project that includes dredging Fountain Creek and fortifying earthen levees. Colorado Springs is looking for another $1.5 million in funds for the immediate future for other projects at Clear Springs Ranch, land owned by Colorado Springs south of Fountain. Long-range projects include up to $8 million for the East Side Project, $20 million for an environmental stewardship center envisioned near Pinon, $2 million to build the fish passage at Clear Springs Ranch, up to $2.5 million for trails and parks, up to $400,000 to help landowners protect wetlands, up to $1 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and $1 million to $5 million for a GOCo legacy grant…

At last week’s meeting, Baker also reviewed the commitments Colorado Springs has made under SDS to improve Fountain Creek. In addition to the $50 million, they include: $75 million for wastewater system improvements by 2025; Sediment control and dredging at Clear Springs Ranch; Continued evaluation and management of Fountain Creek projects; Continued stormwater management; Improvement of wetlands and control of invasive species, like tamarisk.

The district is working on an intergovernmental agreement that would incorporate the corridor plan into the district’s planning. The board meets again at 1 p.m. July 31 at Fountain City Hall.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West hopes to come to consensus with partners

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Despite filing a lawsuit over being required to join the Pueblo flow program if the city connects to the proposed Southern Delivery System Pueblo West officials have hope that they can reach an accord with their partners in the pipeline. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“In terms of the specific point of your letter referencing the Wild Horse Creek Pump Back as a solution, we believe it could be a productive discussion topic at the proposed meeting,” Pueblo West Utilities Director Steve Harrison wrote in the letter. Harrison said there had been difficulty in arranging a meeting because of the schedules of attorneys on both sides, but said a meeting date should be available in the near future. Colorado Springs Utilities Chief of Water Services Bruce McCormick wrote a letter to Harrison on June 19 asserting that as project manager under the 2007 agreement among SDS partners – Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security and Pueblo West – it had authority to negotiate all permits related to the project.

Pueblo West disagrees on the issue of the Pueblo flow management program for the Arkansas River, claiming it never agreed to take part in it and that the program would cost it more than 500 acre-feet per year when its water rights are fully developed. Pueblo West has sued Pueblo County over the condition that it participate in the flow program and filed a letter with the Army Corps of Engineers seeking to block a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for SDS until the matter is resolved. McCormick said the Pueblo West actions “create a distinct problem.”

Pueblo West says its actions are justified because its partners in SDS failed to intervene on its behalf. “Pueblo West’s letter to the Corps of Engineers was not a violation of our contract with Colorado Springs Utilities,” Harrison wrote. “Our lawsuit against Pueblo County is consistent not only with the substance of Pueblo West’s contract with CSU, but is also consistent with the statements made by CSU representatives to the Pueblo County commissioners at their March 18 hearing, statements which clearly abrogated any role of CSU as project manager in regard to condition 9 (the Pueblo flow management program).”

Colorado Springs offered to support Pueblo West’s proposal to pump sewered return flows which are now flowing down Wild Horse Creek into a gulch behind the Pueblo West golf course that empties into Pueblo Reservoir. McCormick reserved the right to comment on water quality issues that are of concern to communities that draw water directly from Lake Pueblo, and to intervene on Pueblo West’s behalf to help settle issues of concern to the Pueblo Board of Water Works. The pumpback plan would reduce the amount of water Pueblo West would lose in exchanges whether or not it participates in the flow management program. If it participates in the program, set up under 2004 intergovernmental agreements, losses would be 180 acre-feet annually Ñ about 20 times greater than it would lose under current decreed conditions.

Ray Petros, Pueblo County’s water counsel, pointed out the study Pueblo West is using to determines its losses does not take into account flows that can be recaptured downstream in the recovery of yield program. It also assumes Pueblo West will fully develop 8,400 acre-feet from water rights it now owns, he said. Pueblo West asserts it is not obligated to participate in the flow management program because the vast majority of its water is imported into the basin, so it would never have reached the river anyway…

Pueblo West agreed to invest $1 million in SDS, which would give it the capacity to add 18 million gallons per day to its current maximum pumping rate of 12 million gallons per day. If Pueblo West were not a part of SDS, the metro district already has a permit for a river intake that would cost $4 million-$6 million, Harrison said. Harrison said Pueblo West might have to spend $15 million to replace the 500 acre-feet it could lose from the flow program, using Twin Lakes share prices and taking legal expenses into account.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Partners want Pueblo West to give up stand on flow program

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Southern Delivery System partners have expressed “significant concern” over Pueblo West’s refusal to accept the Arkansas River flow management program as a condition for the $1.1 billion pipeline project. A letter also proposes ways to support Pueblo West’s pumpback plan, which could reduce the projected losses of water that Pueblo West fears.

A June 19 letter from Colorado Springs Utilities Chief Water Services Officer Bruce McCormick to Pueblo West Utilities Director Steve Harrison raised concerns about Pueblo West’s lawsuit against Pueblo County over the county’s conditions that all SDS participants must participate in the flow program set up in a 2004 intergovernmental agreement. A copy of the June 19 letter was provided to The Pueblo Chieftain. Apparently, Pueblo West has responded to the letter, but no one would make a copy of that response available. “We’re talking through the issues,” McCormick said Monday. “We’re in the process of scheduling a meeting.” “I can’t tell you what’s in the letter. Things are kind of intense on negotiations right now,” Harrison said…

Colorado Springs Utilities is still leaning toward bringing SDS through Pueblo County, rather than along its fall-back route in Fremont County, and expects a decision from Colorado Springs City Council at a July 22 meeting. Utilities also is looking at how large it would size its North Outlet Works to accommodate future users as it advances the engineering for SDS in Pueblo County.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Pueblo West is educating public about potential effects if the city is require to join Pueblo flow program

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Pueblo West View (Mike Spence):

Pueblo West officials are planning to meet with as many local groups as possible in an effort to educate them on the Southern Delivery System and the flow management program. A special public meeting with Pueblo West’s Metropolitan District board of directors was held at the Pueblo West Library three weeks ago. The latest stop on the tour was at the Rotary Club’s meeting last week. Steve Harrison, Pueblo West’s director of utilities, presented Pueblo West’s case against Pueblo West’s participation in the flow management program. The short synopsis is that Pueblo West sought to partner with Colorado Springs Utilities on the SDS project. The pipeline coming out of Pueblo Dam would be expanded from 72 inches to 96 inches to allow Pueblo West to take up to 18 million gallons of water daily from Pueblo Reservoir…

Pueblo West’s role with the SDS would be small – only the first 800 feet of the 43-mile pipeline would be involved. Things were proceeding smoothly until March 5 when the Pueblo County Board of Commissioners released its 1041 permit requirements for the SDS project. Requirement No. 9 was that Pueblo West participate in the flow management program. The purpose of the flow management program is to ensure that a minimal amount of water (100 cubic feet per second) flows through the Arkansas River from Pueblo Dam through Pueblo’s legacy project that includes Pueblo’s kayak course.

County officials insist the impact on Pueblo West would be minimal – from zero to 50 acre feet of water annually. Studies, however, indicate the impact would be around 700 acre feet of water per year. None of the other partners in the flow management program back up the county’s projections. Pueblo West officials estimate the replacement cost of that water would be around $5 million – if the additional water could be found.

County officials have said the 1041 permit requirements are non-negotiable and they have stuck to that stance. That prompted the metro district in May to file suit against the county over the flow management program. Pueblo West followed that suit with a letter opposing the Army Corps of Engineer’s 404 permit dealing with wetlands in connection with the SDS project…

Whatever amount of water is lost is critical because Pueblo West doesn’t have much to spare, according to Harrison. The district has enough water for its customers now (10,600 tapholders, about 33,000 residents), but is working to acquire more to accommodate buildout (60,000 residents). The district has enough water rights to collect about 8,300 acre feet of water in an average year, Harrison said. But Harrison said those water rights, which collect water from mountains on the West side of the Continental Divide above Leadville, collect only about 4,500 acre feet of water in a dry year. That can put Pueblo West in a tight situation because the metro district needs about 4,500 acre feet of water to supply its existing residents and businesses…

Pueblo West officials think they have a strong case because it never agreed to the flow program, despite its participation in the pipeline. And that is reflected in language approved by federal authorities in the environmental impact statement for the pipeline. In addition, Pueblo West’s water has never been used in the portion of the river (between the upper gage near Pueblo Dam and West Fourth Street. Supporters of the flow management program, however, say that Pueblo West’s water usage does have an impact on that section of river. Because Pueblo West water is non-native to the Arkansas River Basin, it can be reused over and over again. Pueblo West takes its water from the reservoir, then sends its wastewater down Wildhorse Creek into the Arkansas River near West Fourth Street. However, it is credited for the amount of water it is putting into the river at that point and is allowed to exchange that credit for water in the reservoir Pueblo West is seeking to build a Pump Back project that will take the wastewater and treat it and send it back into the reservoir, skipping the exchange process. That will increase Pueblo West’s water supply by about two acre feet a day.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act permit a foregone conclusion?

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s an update on Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from R. Scott Rappold writing for The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

The public comment period ended Friday, and 13 people and organizations -12 against, one in favor – submitted comments, a possible sign that people see the once-controversial project as a foregone conclusion, since the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Pueblo County have both approved it. Van Truan, from the Corps of Engineers Pueblo office, said he was surprised by the low number of comments…

Truan said the Corps will not release the comments until a permit is issued or denied. The Corps is expected make a decision on the permit within 120 days, Truan said. He said most of the comments were similar to those voiced earlier in the process, so the agency has not decided if it will hold a hearing on the permit. “A lot them refer to things that are really not in the scope of our permit, but beyond that,” Truan said.

Some who commented released their remarks. The Sierra Club and the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition called on the Corps to hold a public hearing. The Pueblo West Metropolitan District, a partner in the pipeline, asked the Corps to deny a permit because it wants to slow the approval process while the district tries to resolve a conflict with Pueblo County over flow guarantees through a whitewater park on the Arkansas River. Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut, who has sued Colorado Springs over sewage spills and opposed the pipeline, urged the Corps to consider the cumulative impacts of the project and possible alternatives to the pipeline. “The Corps must require CSU to analyze other less environmentally harmful alternatives, such as water conservation strategies, water recycling and reuse and land use restrictions,” Thiebaut wrote in his comments, which his office released.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

While Pueblo West is fighting a Pueblo County condition requiring it to help protect the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam, the metro district has agreed in the past to help maintain flows through Pueblo. In a Nov. 13, 2001, agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Pueblo West agreed to cooperate in a flow management program as a condition for future storage in Lake Pueblo under the Preferred Storage Options Plan. On June 8, a decree in Pueblo West’s 1985 filing for reuse and exchange committed the metro district to forgo exchanges when levels in the Arkansas River fall below 100 cubic feet per second in order to maintain water quality…

Utilities Director Steve Harrison said Tuesday. “Every water provider knows the value of environmental flows, but there is a difference between environmental and recreation flows.”

Pueblo County is taking a hard line on the flow program because the variety of flows it helps to provide are needed for aquatic life as well as recreation, countered Ray Petros, special counsel for water and land-use issues for the county. “The health of the river below the dam is important,” Petros said. “The cost of restoring the river later would be much greater than protecting the river now.”

Pueblo West, currently undergoing political turmoil, still stands by the 2001 agreement, which was associated with the potential enlargement of Pueblo Dam under PSOP, Harrison said. “We didn’t think it would be that large of an issue. It was a voluntary program,” Harrison said. Petros argued it was more than a voluntary program, pointing out the 100 cfs limit was written into Pueblo West’s June 8 water court decree. “This was back in 2001, long before the county permit requirement,” Petros said. “At that point, they looked at this as what would be required as a condition for reservoir enlargement. I don’t agree it’s voluntary. It’s embedded in the contract.”[…]

Pueblo West would stand to lose more as a full participant in the Pueblo flow program, Harrison said. He pointed to a draft report by MWH Engineering, contracted by Colorado Springs, that shows Pueblo West eventually could lose the ability to exchange about 500 acre-feet of the 3,200 acre-feet of exchanges it could theoretically make now. The loss would be about one-third as much if Pueblo West is successful in developing a pump-back option of sewer flows from Wild Horse Creek to a gulch near the golf course. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is considering that request…

Petros said the MWH report fails to consider how the Recovery of Yield program – which returns about 70 percent of forgone flows – would reduce that amount, and assumes that Pueblo West would be able to fully develop 8,400 acre-feet of water. Petros said other factors may pose a greater limit for the metro district’s ability to realize the full amount.

That doesn’t matter to Pueblo West, which doesn’t believe the county has any right to curtail its water supply, which is nearly all transmountain deliveries of water that would otherwise not be in the basin, Harrison said. “Pueblo West doesn’t want to dry up the river,” Harrison said. “I don’t understand why the county is trying to take a large chunk of our water. If we lose that water, we have to replace, and that could be expensive.”

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Army Corps of Engineers has not decided whether a public hearing is needed for its evaluation of the Southern Delivery System. “We’re reviewing the comments we received to see if there would be valid, new information to be gained at a public hearing,” said Van Truan, chief of the Southern Colorado regulatory arm of the Corps. “There has been plenty of opportunity to comment on the project.”

The major impacts that concern the Corps is that 0.23 acres of wetlands would be permanently lost in the project, three outfall structures and numerous stream crossings of pipelines. Those impacts are relatively routine and the Corps considered issuing a permit under a process that requires no public review. “Colorado Springs is insisting we do everything in the open,” Truan said. “Having a public hearing is a big process for us. We may have a public input session.”[…]

Among the comments received:

The Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition and Sierra Club requested a public hearing on the SDS pipeline, as well as additional time to file comments. The coalition said alternatives to SDS have not been adequately studied.

Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut asked the Corps to delay a permit until ongoing problems on Fountain Creek, including sewer spills, flooding and sedimentation, are fixed.

Pueblo West, a participant in SDS, asked the Corps to delay action until its issues with Pueblo County over the Pueblo Arkansas River Flow Program are resolved.

Pueblo County endorsed any Corps action that incorporates pertinent conditions of the county’s 1041 permit. The county also refuted Pueblo West’s comments about the flow program, saying it is necessary to protect the Arkansas River.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Coalition of conservation groups favor more study of alternatives

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Conservation and environmental groups are worried that the proposed Southern Delivery System’s releases into Fountain Creek would negatively impact the waterway, according to Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“The proposed discharge would have profound and pervasive negative impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and the environment within the Arkansas River basin,” said Joseph Santarella, attorney for the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition. The coalition raises 14 points on which a permit for SDS would violate the Clean Water Act in a 44-page letter to the Corps released on Friday…

The letter claims the project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative, as required by federal law. Other alternatives, including one considered by the Bureau of Reclamation to protect wetlands, were not included in the Section 404 permit application, Santarella said. SDS would result in degradation of aquatic habitat; could lead to higher levels of contaminants like selenium, mercury and E. coli; and contribute to violations of state water quality standards, the letter stated. Additionally, the specific steps that would be taken to deal with those problems are not fully explained and the method to evaluate compliance are “skewed” and “biased,” according to Santarella’s letter.

The groups also raise the issue of environmental justice that they say has not been addressed in any evaluation of SDS so far. The project, through its increase of flows on Fountain Creek, would have a disproportionate impact on low-income minorities living on Pueblo’s East Side and in the Lower Arkansas Valley, the letter states…

Colorado Springs City Council should finalize the route in July, which could trigger negotiations with Reclamation for those parts of the project that involve Pueblo Dam and Lake Pueblo.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County D.A. opposes Corps permit over Fountain Creek concerns

A picture named fountaincreek.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“Instead of prioritizing maintenance and repair of its existing infrastructure, Colorado Springs Utilities now wants to build a similar pipeline and infrastructure that will be vulnerable to the same problems that exist with its current infrastructure,” Thiebaut wrote in comments submitted to the Corps on Friday. “CSU should not be able to expand its water system until it has eliminated spills from its current system.”[…]

Thiebaut also is concerned about the additional volume of water that SDS would contribute to Fountain Creek, saying it would exacerbate existing water quality problems both for potential wastewater spills and through increased stormwater runoff. Along with the Sierra Club, Thiebaut sued Colorado Springs over sewer spills into Fountain Creek in 2005. Although a federal judge removed him from the case in 2007, Thiebaut has continued to challenge Colorado Springs during the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental review and Pueblo County’s 1041 permit hearings…

In his statement to the Corps, Thiebaut contends Colorado Springs has not addressed concerns raised by environmental groups, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and the Environmental Protection Agency during Reclamation’s review.

Meanwhile the Colorado Springs Stormwater Utility, Gold Hill Mesa and Department of Transportation are kicking off a $2.7 million effort along Fountain Creek, according to Danielle Leigh writing for the Colorado Connection. From the article:

They hope to reduce flooding and erosion, improve water quality by reducing pollution, and stabilize the overall condition of the creek and surrounding area. Through the mud, water, and plants, these volunteers fished out all the trash they could find during Saturday’s groundbreaking event…

In addition to picking up the junk, the storm water enterprise will be stabilizing the river bank. “There is so much damage through there. There is a lot of flooding and they are trying to minimize that,” Besse said. “We’re using some concrete rubble so we can bury it underneath, and put dirt above it so we can actually grow vegetation on top of it, and stabilize the bank,” Sampley said. The end goal is to give back to the environment…

There are actually 56 drainage basins and waterways you can sign up to adopt. To get involved you can call Jeff Besse at (719) 385-5566, or visit http://www.springsgov.com/stormwater.

Meanwhile, the Pueblo West Metro Board has decided to oppose the Corps permit unless Pueblo County drops the requirement for Pueblo West to join the Pueblo flow program, according to Mike Spence writing for the Pueblo West View. From the article:

Metro board members voted on June 9 to send a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opposing the wetlands permit (known as a 404 permit) needed to build the Southern Delivery System pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs…

In the letter, the metro district says the permit should not be issued until Pueblo County withdraws its flow management program requirements on Pueblo West. The letter outlines why the county’s requirements for Pueblo West’s participation in the flow management program are not in the public interest for several reasons:

– It does not protect, and in fact removes the utility of, Pueblo West’s water rights.
– It destroys the balance between the costs and benefits of SDS for Pueblo West.
– The portion of the project intended for use by Pueblo West is entirely on federal property over which Pueblo County has no authority to impose an exaction of water rights.
– The flow management program discourages investment in water efficiency and reuse. Pueblo West’s reuse and pump-back project are harmed by the county’s open-ended flow requirements in the county’s 1041 permit.
– Pueblo County’s claims that the final environmental impact statement requires Pueblo West to be a part of the flow management program is inaccurate, based on pages 65 and 618 of the report.
– If Pueblo West is unable to participate in the project because of the flow management program, it will still need to construct pipelines of its won to move its water from the foot of Pueblo Reservoir to its water treatment plant causing environmental impacts in addition those of the SDS.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Sierra Club asks for more time to comment along with a public hearing

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“There is no doubt that construction and operation of the proposed Southern Delivery System project, as proposed, will have significant impact on water quality and quantity in Fountain Creek and its tributaries, as well as the Lower Arkansas River,” Ross Vincent, chairman of the Sangre de Cristo group wrote in comments delivered to the Army Corps of Engineers this week.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Colorado Springs Utilities is looking for partners for the north outlet works at Pueblo Dam

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

he North Outlet Works, added to SDS as a primary feature last fall, would give redundancy to those water users who now use the Joint Use Manifold on the south side of Pueblo Dam. Colorado Springs Utilities, the major partner in SDS, is trying to find out who else might be interested in using the new connection in order to design it to the right size now, Dan Higgins, project construction manager, told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board Thursday…

“This is a great opportunity for everyone to get on board,” said Roy Vaughan, manager of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for Reclamation. “There are costs associated with this, but there would be greater costs later on.” The North Outlet Works would back up existing deliveries from the dam at the Joint Use Manifold should it be necessary to shut down the south outlet because of zebra mussels, or any other reason. Repairs for such a shutdown could take months, Vaughan pointed out. The Joint Use Manifold is shared by the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Fountain Valley Authority, Pueblo West and the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a proposed project by the Southeastern district…

The project has several components, including a large concrete platform that would tow into the base of the dam, a pipeline that would connect to two gates within the dam and a junction box that would send water either into the Arkansas River or toward the proposed SDS pumping station north of the river, Higgins said. Tests by Reclamation showed the new equipment would have to be able to meet the full rate of evacuation from the outlet for the dam – 1,100 cubic feet per second – making the engineering specifications critical to the evaluation, Higgins added. The cost for the project, as designed so far by Colorado Springs, would be about $14 million. It would cost about $1 million for others to hook on, Higgins said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Fremont County route on life support

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s an update on Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“I don’t see anything in our analysis that changes our preferred alternative,” SDS Project Director John Fredell said Thursday. “Pueblo County has been our preferred alternative all along, while Fremont County is our secondary alternative. I don’t see any change in that approach.”[…]

County commissioners in both counties have given their blessing to SDS, with conditions attached. One of those conditions, requiring Pueblo West to participate in the Pueblo Arkansas River flow program, has created a snag in the permitting process, however. This week, Pueblo West sent a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers asking them not to issue a permit until the flow program issue is resolved, ratcheting up a fight over the flow program. In April, the Pueblo County commissioners required all SDS partners present and future to participate in the flow program set up under 2004 intergovernmental agreements among Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Fountain and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Pueblo West objected to the requirement at a hearing in March and later filed a lawsuit against Pueblo County claiming exemption because the metro district has never agreed to participate. “We do support SDS and Colorado Springs,” said Steve Harrison, Pueblo West utilities director. “But we can’t give up the water to this extreme demand of Pueblo County. We do not have any water to provide for recreation.”[…]

Fredell said Colorado Springs still considers Pueblo West a full partner in the project, but supports Pueblo County in requiring participation in the flow program. “We signed up a long time ago to protect the flows through Pueblo, and we’re committed to that,” Fredell said. “This issue needs to be worked out. We’re trying to work through this issue and help the other parties work things through.” Fredell said Pueblo West’s action does not change Colorado Springs’ acceptance of Pueblo County conditions. “We believe compliance with this condition is reasonable,” Fredell said. “We hope to continue the partnership with Pueblo West since there are benefits to both of our communities by their participation.”[…]

The current analysis by Colorado Springs Utilities is looking at updating the numbers in the EIS, using value engineering Ñ or adjusting the cost of the project as details are firmed up, Fredell said. The study also is updating scenarios for supply and demand of water in future years and making recommendations to council about financing the project. Once the project route is finalized, Reclamation will schedule contract negotiations for storage, conveyance and exchange at Lake Pueblo, which are needed to complete SDS.

More coverage from the Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

The Pueblo West Metropolitan District board voted Tuesday to send a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers asking them agency not to issue a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the last major pipeline approval needed…

Utilities needs a 404 permit because pipeline construction will impact 14.2 acres of streams and wetlands…

Pueblo West’s opposition is not based on the Clean Water Act, but a desire to slow the pipeline approval process until the flow guarantee dispute with Pueblo County is resolved. “It’s kind of interesting to me and I think unclear in terms of how this would be a 404 issue,” Utilities Project Manager John Fredell said Wednesday of the Pueblo West decision. “We weren’t informed ahead of time because I would have clearly provided the same feedback, in terms of it’s confusing to me and I don’t see how it’s a 404 issue, and I was disappointed they chose that approach.”

Pueblo West is not talking about backing out of the project, but that city’s opposition could complicate what looked to be a quick and uncontroversial Corps of Engineers permitting process for the long-planned pipeline. “This is unfortunately one avenue we feel is necessary to force the issue that we don’t have the water available to lose for recreation when we need it for our people,” said Steve Harrison, Pueblo West director of utilities. “We have not done this to create a problem. We have done this to underscore the fact we don’t have water to participate.”[…]

It is unclear how Pueblo West’s letter will impact the Corps of Engineers permit. As of last week, the agency had received one comment, a request by The Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition, to extend the deadline for public comments. The Corps did so and is accepting feedback through June 19. Pueblo West’s opposition letter will be another public comment. A news release from the agency says, “Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.” The agency can also decide to hold a hearing on the permit based on comments received…

Harrison noted the irony of Pueblo West opposing a permit for a project it is a partner in, but said the city doesn’t want the pipeline approval to go further with the issue unresolved. He also reiterated Pueblo West’s intention of staying with the project.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West Metropolitan District raising ruckus over Corps permit

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (James Amos):

Pueblo West board members voted Tuesday night to send a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opposing a wetlands permit needed for a large water pipeline to Colorado Springs. Pueblo West was set to participate in the pipeline but balked when Pueblo County demanded that it [participate in the Arkansas Flow Program].

More coverage from KOAA.com (David Ortiviz):

Pueblo West says it may take drastic measures, if the county wins a dispute over water. They’re at odds over a stipulation in the Southern Delivery System pipeline, that would cost Pueblo West water. Pueblo West has about 32,000 residents. But if the town is required to return some of its water to Pueblo, leaders say the community may not be able to get any bigger. “We really have a desire to get along with our neighbors but its important people understand that we don’t have water to be able to do this,” said Steve Harrison, Director of Utilities for Pueblo West Metro District.

More coverage from KKTV.com (Jason Aubry):

According to a Bureau of Reclamation study and recommended plan, the first 800 feet of pipeline would be used by Pueblo West to get their share of the water. Pueblo West officials say, it also recommends they should not have to take part in a Pueblo County program to put water back into the Arkansas River for a downtown water park. However, the county is insisting they do participate in the program. “We don’t understand why Pueblo County has imposed this unnecessary burden on us, because we don’t have water to be able to supply for other uses, other than ours. We should be able to have the right to say we can’t participate. And i believe we’ve proven that through some of the science,” says Stephen Harrison, Director of Utilities for the Pueablo West Metropolitan District. Pueblo West also argues their share of the water comes from west of the great divide, and they should not be required to put water into the Arkansas River because their water rights were never part of the rivers original flows.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs Utilities only has eyes for the preferred alternative (Lake Pueblo)

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s an update on Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from Charlotte Burrous writing for the Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:

“We’re going to outline the advantages for the preferred alternative” before the Pueblo Board on July 22, he said. “There are several factors. The first one is the difference in cost. In terms of engineering, it looks like about $209 million difference between the two alternatives.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Donala Water District applies to change ag shares

A picture named irrigation.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Donala Water District in El Paso County has filed an application in Division 2 Water Court that would allow it to use agricultural water it purchased in Lake County. The application leaves open a wide variety of ways to deliver the water, including the proposed Southern Delivery System. It would change the use of water from agricultural to municipal and other uses. Pueblo District Court Chief Judge Dennis Maes is the water judge for Division 2, which covers the entire Arkansas River basin. Donala, which serves about 2,700 homes north of Colorado Springs, bought the Mount Massive Ranch for $4.7 million in November. The district expects the ranch to yield about 300 acre-feet of water, or one-fifth of its annual supply.

The problem is moving the water to the district, Dana Duthie, Donala general manager, told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable earlier this year. The district lies 50 miles north of the Arkansas River and has no way, right now, of bringing the water into its system. The application gives no clue about how that will be done, reflecting the fact that the district has made no final decision for using the water. Storage in reservoirs from Turquoise Lake in Lake County to Holbrook Reservoir in Otero County is included in the application, including a reservoir yet to be built in Pueblo County at Stonewall Springs near the Pueblo Chemical Depot. Clear Creek Reservoir in Chaffee County, owned by the Pueblo Board of Water Works, is also included as a potential storage point. The district wants to use SDS, a water delivery pipeline proposed by Colorado Springs, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West, but would still need to get approval from Colorado Springs Utilities to use the project to move water through the project.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West public meeting tomorrow

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (James Amos):

The Pueblo West Metropolitan District is scheduled to hear public comments Tuesday about the large water pipeline planned between Pueblo Reservoir and Colorado Springs. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the district’s offices at 109 E. Industrial Blvd. Pueblo West plans to receive water from the pipeline, which is known as the Southern Delivery System. However, the district has balked at demands that it supply some replacement water to the Arkansas River to make up for what the pipeline will divert.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Flaming Gorge pipeline: Wyoming Water Development director says many opposed to the project do not understand that it will be Colorado water under the Colorado River Compact

A picture named flaminggorgepipelinemillion.jpg

From the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle (Bill McCarthy):

“There was a lot of hysteria and bad information,” Mike Purcell told a joint meeting of the Water Development Commission and the Legislature’s Select Committee on Water Development…

Purcell told the two boards that there likely will be people at today’s meeting who want to be heard on the issue. The Water Development Commission and the Legislature’s Select Committee on Water Development meet again at 8:30 a.m. today. “We like Colorado water flowing through our state” because it adds to things such as recreational activities and wildlife habitat, he said. But Colorado could call for the water it is entitled to under the seven-state compact.

The Army Corps of Engineers will host a public meeting Tuesday in Rock Springs about the proposal…Army Corps officials also extended the written public comment period for an environmental impact statement through July 27. The environmental study is expected to take at least three years.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Corps of Engineers adds two weeks to comment period

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have extended the public comment period for Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System. Conservation groups asked for the extension and the Corps has added two weeks. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka Writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The request to extend the deadline came from the Rocky Mountain Environ- mental Labor Coalition, which argued that the original June 4 deadline, announced just three weeks earlier, did not allow enough time to prepare comments. The coalition is the only group to submit comments to date, and the official deadline remains June 4, said Van Truan of the Pueblo office of the Corps. “It was kind of shocking, but we haven’t received any other comments,” Truan said Tuesday. “I don’t know if people aren’t concerned or if the Pueblo County conditions have satisfied most people.” Truan said other comments will be accepted through June 19. “We will accept any late comments through that date,” Truan said.

The Corps is evaluating a request by Colorado Springs Utilities for a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Conservation groups ask for Corps of Engineers for extension for comment period

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to extend the deadline for public comment on Colorado Springs’ application for a permit for the Southern Delivery System. The Corps is preparing an environmental review of the $1.1 billion pipeline project that would build a 53-mile pipeline, two new reservoirs and a treatment plant to provide water for Colorado Springs, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West…

The initial time period for comments ends Thursday, just 21 days after the application was announced on May 13. The coalition is asking for a 60-day period ending July 13, said Joe Santarella, the group’s lawyer…

The coalition offered frequent criticism of SDS during Reclamation’s hearings on its EIS, particularly on the potential of the new reservoirs in the project to concentrate levels of mercury on tributaries of Fountain Creek.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Pueblo West Metropolitan District: Sessions on proposed Southern Delivery System

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (James Amos):

Pueblo West Metropolitan District board members will discuss several items in open session before going behind closed doors Tuesday to talk with lawyers about negotiations over Colorado Springs’ water pipeline. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the district’s headquarters, 109 E. Industrial Blvd.

Pueblo West, which wants water from the pipeline, has sued Pueblo County over whether it should have to contribute water to a separate program that allows water to run through Pueblo’s kayak course in the Arkansas River. Other pipeline participants have pledged to supply water, but Pueblo West did not and argues that it can’t be forced to now.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority: Suite of potential water supply options to choose from

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority is discussing their options for a sustainable water supply. They could be customers of any number of projects including, the Super Ditch Companay, a Flaming Gorge Pipeline(either Aaron Million’s or the Colorado-Wyoming Coalition) or Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from Nicole Chillino writing for The Tri-Lakes Tribune. From the article:

The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority continued discussions about its options for a future water source and it appears it will be a while before it can determine what its best course will be…Regardless of which project or projects the authority ultimately chooses, it will need to find a place to store the water. The authority has a few options, including the Pueblo Reservoir, but no storage location has been finalized.

Southern Delivery System: Corps of Engineers accepting comments until June 4

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Utilities needs a permit under the Clean Water Act to build the pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir because stream crossings and building construction would affect the waters of Fountain Creek, Pueblo Reservoir and smaller streams, a total of about 14 acres. Comments will be taken through June 4. They should be sent to Southern Colorado Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District, 200 South Santa Fe Ave., Suite 301, Pueblo, CO 81003-4270.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District: Kickoff event Monday

A picture named fountaincreekwatershed.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District, signed into law last month by Gov. Bill Ritter, has no money yet, and in fact won’t officially come into existence until July 1. Ritter will attend an event to mark the formation of the new district at 5:30 p.m. Monday at Fountain City Hall. In the meantime a governing board created by the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force has been meeting. It will next meet at 10 a.m. May 29 at Fountain City Hall. The interim board has met to provide continuity and many of its members probably will sit on the district board in July. The nine-member board will have equal representation between the two counties. A joint appointment by the Pueblo County commissioners and City Council should be made in the next month. About a dozen people had applied before the deadline for applications closed Friday, [Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner] said.

The district will get $50 million over five years from Colorado Springs if the Southern Delivery System is completed from Pueblo Dam. Colorado Springs Utilities is now doing a business evaluation of the costs of their preferred route or an alternative through Fremont County.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Upper Williams Creek recreation potential

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Colorado Springs Utilities proposed Southern Delivery System includes plans for a terminal reservoir at a site northeast of Colorado Springs known as the Upper Williams Creek Reservoir. Here’s a look at potential recreational opportunities associated with the reservoir, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

Upper Williams Creek Reservoir will be the largest, in surface area, owned by Colorado Springs. Boaters, anglers, swimmers, hikers and picnickers may all be able to use it, in a region that has always been challenged for aquatic recreation. But don’t go buy a speed boat and water skis yet. It will be at least a decade before the reservoir is full, and Colorado Springs Utilities officials have not determined how recreation will be managed, since there are concerns about the impacts motor boating could have on a lake whose primary function is to store drinking water. “We do want to offer some form of boating, but we’ve got to have some internal discussion and agreement on what kind of boating that is,” said Keith Riley, SDS project planning and permitting manager…

Upper Williams Creek Reservoir will be one-seventh the size of Pueblo Reservoir, one-fourth the size of Elevenmile Reservoir, 120 acres smaller than Cherry Creek Reservoir outside of Denver and more than 10 times the size of Prospect Lake in Memorial Park…

…some research has linked gas-powered boats to water-quality problems, including petroleum in the water. Recreational boats also provide the main transportation for invasive zebra mussels, which were found at Pueblo Reservoir last year – and last month hitch-hiking on three boats before they were put in the reservoir. The mussels, which had before not been detected in Colorado, can clog water pipes and drive out native species in a lake. Utilities officials also haven’t decided if they will allow swimming, which can lead to problems of dirt and human waste in water. “We do want to maximize the recreational opportunities at the reservoir site, but we’ve got to balance that with safety and protection of the water supply,” Riley said.

Fishing will be allowed. As a shallow lake, about 120 feet at its deepest, it will be a warm-water fishery, to be stocked by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Riley said, probably with bass, walleye, perch and blue gill. There are also plans for picnic facilities, hiking trails and a playground.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek: New board to get its feet wet overseeing gravel pit operation

A picture named fountaincreekwatershed.jpg

The shiny new Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District is looking at an application by LaFarge to run a gravel mining operation along the creek. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Up until now, the La Farge request would have been handled solely by El Paso County, but the new district has land-use authority within the 100-year flood plain of Fountain Creek between Fountain and Pueblo. That means at least part of the gravel pit decision will be up to the district. The district will have a nine-member board, made up of four representatives each from El Paso and Pueblo counties and a final member selected from a citizens’ advisory group. A “supermajority” of seven votes is needed to make any decisions. The governing board was set up earlier this year as a stop-gap measure between a Vision Task Force, which suggested the new district, and the district, which was signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter last week. The La Farge proposal was, in fact, one of the major concerns of the Vision Task Force in the past. Two years ago, the group heard about the proposal, along with two wastewater treatment plants and a gas-fired power plant, and wondered whether the projects on the ground were outpacing the group’s ability to shape Fountain Creek…

The La Farge proposal is upsetting to neighbors who object to the noise and dust that could be generated by up to 780 trucks per day at the new gravel pit. “It’s across the creek from our conservation easement, and we’ve written several letters to El Paso County Planning Commission,” said Ferris Frost, whose family ranches and farms along the creek. Besides those land-use issues, she worries about the impact on water quality and the flow of Fountain Creek from the proposed operation. The asphalt and batch plant would create a new “hard point” along the creek that could send waters from the near flood across the farm’s fields. Landowners along Fountain Creek know all too well the propensity of the creek to eat away farmland…

Two committees of the governing board will meet Thursday on the La Farge proposal. A technical advisory committee, which is building on the work done for an Army Corps of Engineers study, and a citizens advisory group, which is continuing the Vision Task Force effort, will have separate meetings to discuss it. The governing board is expected to transition into the appointed board after July 1, but legally the two are separate entities, [Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner] explained.

The district has no money, and the governing board is living on resources donated by the two counties or cities within the county. The district, which includes all of El Paso and Pueblo counties, has the power to charge fees and levy taxes with a vote of the people. So far, there is only one source of funding in sight, however. If the Southern Delivery System comes through Pueblo County, and after it is built, the district would receive $50 million over a five-year period. The money is part of conditions applied by Pueblo County commissioners required for a 1041 land-use permit granted to SDS last month.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County or Fremont County route?

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Colorado Springs Utilities is in the process of deciding the best route for their proposed Southern Delivery System. They have that luxury since both Pueblo County and Fremont County have approved permits for the project. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Gary Walker, whose ranch land north of Pueblo West would be crossed by 7 miles of pipeline if SDS goes through Pueblo County, said he is in limbo while Colorado Springs Utilities decides whether to build SDS through his land or further west in Fremont County. “I know no more today than I did after the first meeting I attended before Christmas,” Walker said. “There have been a lot of promises to mitigate, but nothing in writing.”[…]

His major concerns are with rare plant species, still being catalogued by the Nature Conservancy, and the possibility that a break of the proposed 5-foot wide water pipeline could wash out sensitive areas of the ranch. He also worries that the potential of SDS to draw down levels at Lake Pueblo could harm the county’s recreation economy. “Does anyone know where the check valves will be? They’re putting a 5-foot firehose through there that could wash out 20 feet of soil if it breaks,” Walker said. It’s hard for Walker to get information because Colorado Springs has not begun negotiations with him on acquiring an easement through the property…

SDS Project Director John Fredell said specific negotiations aren’t expected to begin until Colorado Springs determines the route. While the Fremont County option is more expensive to build and operate, the Pueblo County route came with more than $125 million in additional regulatory costs, mainly for mandatory sanitary sewer system upgrades and Fountain Creek projects. The county conditions are written to protect landowners who will be affected by the project, and Walker is the largest. Fredell said Colorado Springs has had some preliminary meetings with Walker and his lawyer, John Naylor, and said the city is prepared to address all of Walker’s concerns…

The Colorado Natural Heritage Project, an agency chosen by Walker, will assess the rare plants on the property, and revegetation plots to determine the best way to revegetate that will be set up, Fredell said. The city will also go over construction schedules and the timing of the work on the ranch to avoid the types of problems Walker has dealt with when the Fountain Valley Conduit was constructed under the supervision of the Bureau of Reclamation…

Walker said he is puzzled about why the commissioners did not demand that SDS take water from below the confluence at Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River. He said he believes the Fremont County option has always been a ruse to pressure Pueblo County into approving the Pueblo Dam option. Given Pueblo West concerns about the Pueblo flow program, which were first expressed at a March public hearing, he is not sure why commissioners proceeded immediately with conditions, rather than table them. “Why would Pueblo County want SDS at the dam, if not for the benefit to Pueblo West? I’ve wracked my brain over this, and it seems like Pueblo County threw Pueblo West under the bus,” Walker said…

For now, Walker can only stand on the sidelines and watch as Colorado Springs Utilities decides the fate of a project that will change the face of his 25,000-acre ranch for future growth, mainly in El Paso County. “What’s amazing to me is that Pueblo County signed off on its 1041 permit without knowing where SDS is going,” Walker said. “Everything that’s being done is profit-motivated, but there’s no incentive for us (Pueblo County) to do this, whether you agree or disagree with the growth.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: New customers for CSU’s water?

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Now that Colorado Springs Utilities has essentially gotten the “green light” for their proposed Southern Delivery System the utility has started mapping out their customer base. Here’s a report from R. Scott Rappold writing in the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

“What we’ve got to do – and it’s not an easy project at all – is to try to identify those other entities that are actually going to need the service and make sure they understand their present supply could be lost at any time if those aquifers dry up,” said Tony Elia, chair of the Utilities Policy Advisory Committee, a citizens group that advises City Council on Utilities issues.

There are many questions, the toughest of which may be how Utilities can offer water from SDS when its own projections say the city will need all of it some day. While the housing slowdown means all 78 million gallons a day won’t be needed by 2046, the year originally projected, officials say the day will come when all of it is needed. Said Elia, “You can’t tell them you’ve got to commit to 5 million gallons a day but we can take it back any time we want. If you give it to them, it’s permanent.”

Colorado Springs has always guarded its water jealously, extending water service primarily to annexed developments. While Utilities’ electric power grid serves several communities, 208,737 homes and businesses, it has 132,637 water customers. Just a few hundred customers outside the city get its water, at 1.5 times the normal cost. Utilities has two temporary sharing agreements, one to transport water owned by Manitou Springs to that city and the other to sell up to 500 acre-feet a year to the Cherokee Metropolitan District on the east side of Colorado Springs…

“We have to be able to distinguish between Colorado Springs’ water rights and the water rights owned by other entities outside the city. If you are providing your water rights to another entity, you’re basically giving them up, and we’re not going to do that,” said Mayor Lionel Rivera. He said the focus should be on using SDS to carry water that other users own, not agreeing to sell Colorado Springs’ water over a long period – though he is open to selling it on a short-term basis in wet years…

[The Cherokee Metropolitan District] suffers chronic water shortages, and customers this spring face watering restrictions at a time when supplies are abundant elsewhere. [Kip Petersen, general manager] said there is water available for purchase from Arkansas River Valley farmers, but no way to get it here – and the district would also be interested in buying from the city to augment its supply, if the price is right. “There is definitely interest in participating in the Southern Delivery System. Now we’ve got to figure out how it’s going to get done,” he said…

The Utilities Policy Advisory Council, a committee of residents that advises City Council, will begin discussing regional water-sharing Wednesday. The board meets at 8 a.m. in the Blue River Board Room, Fifth Floor, Plaza of the Rockies South Tower, 121 S. Tejon St. The meeting is open to the public.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Gary Bostrom’s influence

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Project manager John Fredell has gotten most of the press lately as the public face for Colorado Springs Utilities proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s some background on Gary Bostrom the chief water planner for CSU who has had a pivotal role in CSU’s water planning for quite a while now, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Build in Pueblo County or Fremont County?

A picture named sdsfremontcountyalt.jpg

Colorado Springs Utilities has managed to get two permits for their proposed Southern Delivery System, one from Pueblo County, their preferred alternative and one from Fremont County, the backup in case the preferred alternative was denied or too expensive. Pueblo County tacked on $125 million in costs to the project through the county so now CSU is in the process of analyzing their options over which route to use. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“Right now, we’re beginning the business analysis that will give us the costs and information we need for timing of the project,” said Bruce McCormick, chief of water services…

But with an additional $125 million tacked on to the conditions, a slowdown in growth in the Colorado Springs service area and commitments whose costs have not been fully examined, there are tough decisions ahead, McCormick said…

The Fremont County route would be more expensive to build and operate, but comes with fewer strings attached up front. If Fremont County is chosen, the pipeline would still serve Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain, but Pueblo West would be left with a more expensive option, a river intake below Pueblo Dam, to obtain its future water. The Pueblo flow management program also is jeopardized if SDS goes through Fremont County. Colorado Springs is committed to maintaining flows and curtailing exchanges only if a Pueblo Dam option is chosen. Even so, a lawsuit by Pueblo West against Pueblo County has cast a new shadow over the flow program, although the partners in the 2004 agreement that created the program remain committed.

Beyond the two choices, there are other issues Colorado Springs must consider, McCormick said. “There are tremendous variables to consider in financing markets and rates, limits on permits, value engineering and other opportunities,” McCormick said. To date, Colorado Springs has invested more than $80 million in SDS, and it still has work to do before a shovel of dirt can be turned.

In the immediate future, perhaps during the two months when a route will be chosen, Colorado Springs will begin seeking permits in El Paso County for the project. El Paso County does not have 1041 regulations like Pueblo County, but the issues are equally complex. A treatment plant and two reservoirs will be built in El Paso County in addition to the bulk of the length of the pipeline – about 30 miles in addition to the roughly 20 miles in either Pueblo or Fremont counties. “We plan to initiate the El Paso County process in the next few weeks,” McCormick said.

In the meantime, Colorado Springs Utilities is still working on crucial permits with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Wildlife.

Finally, contract negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation won’t begin until a route is chosen. Contracts are needed for each of the partners to store water in Lake Pueblo, to build and use a new pipeline connection at the north outlet and to exchange water between the new pipeline and the existing Fountain Valley Conduit.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Too many Colorado water projects?

A picture named prariewatersaurora.jpg

Does Colorado have too many water projects in the works? Is there enough water left in the rivers to satisfy requirements? Will agriculture survive municipal growth? These are among the questions that some are asking. While water development is largely a bottom-up process — someone files for a decree on a stream and gets a priority or a group buys water from a willing seller — there is little top-down coordination of the cumulative effects of the separate projects. In every sense the race goes to the swiftest and the groups with the deepest pockets. Here’s a report from Mark Jaffe writing for the Denver Post. From the article:

…from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, the projects are moving forward, powered, attorneys and water managers say, by Colorado water law’s first-come-first-served principle. “In water law, it is still the Wild West,” said Sarah Klahn, a water attorney and University of Denver law professor. “You can be a dreamer, and if you make it come true, it’s yours.”

The concentration of projects worries federal officials who are left to sort out the multiple impacts. “It is the combined projects’ effect on water quality that concerns us,” said Larry Svoboda, environmental assessment director in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Denver office…

Among the plans moving forward are:

• Projects by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley on the same reach of the Cache La Poudre River.

Denver Water and Northern Colorado Water both are developing projects on the Colorado River and tributaries in Grand County.

Aurora Water and East Cherry Creek Valley Water and [Sanitation] District both have projects with 30-mile- long water pipelines running to the Brighton area. In some cases the lines are just a few hundred yards apart…

And even with all these projects, by 2030 the region may be short by 29 billion gallons, according to state projections. In this atmosphere everyone is guarding their own interests, said Dave Little, Denver Water’s planning director. “Everyone can agree on the need, but as soon as you try to identify a project, the parochial interests kick in,” Little said.

Still, as opportunities for water projects dwindle and costs rise, communities are cooperating more, said Eric Wilkinson, Northern Colorado Water’s general manager. For example, Denver Water, Aurora Water and South Metro Water Supply Authority are exploring the possibility of a joint project, said South Metro executive director Rod Kuharich.

Rights and projects are decided on a case-by-case basis in the state water courts and seniority rules. Unlike some other states, in Colorado the legislature and the administrative agencies have no role. It is all settled in water court, Klahn said.

“We don’t have a water plan; prior appropriation is our plan and it’s every man for himself,” said Melissa Kassen, a director of Trout Unlimited’s Western Water project.

Since 2005, through the Intrabasin Compact Committee and nine basin roundtables, the state has tried to do more water planning and forge voluntary agreements. “It is an experiment,” said Harris Sherman, director of the state Department of Natural Resources…

Critics argue that this is still a piecemeal approach as the federal agencies do not set priorities on projects or assess overall water needs. “As we get closer to appropriating the water that’s left in Colorado, we really ought to be able to set priorities,” Trout Unlimited’s Kassen said.

Until there is change, prior appropriation rules. “The state has been reluctant to support one project over another,” said the Department of Natural Resources’ Sherman. “As we enter water scarcity, that may change.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West outlines objections to joining Pueblo flow program

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s an update on Pueblo West’s reasoning behind their lawsuit against being required to join the Pueblo flow program as a condition of connecting to Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Pueblo County, under its 1041 land-use regulations, is requiring all SDS participants – Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security and Pueblo West – to participate in the flow program set up under 2004 intergovernmental agreements. Colorado Springs and Fountain already participate.

Pueblo West claims it would lose a minimum of $5.3 million in the value of its water if it participates in the flow program, according to a lawsuit filed in district court by attorneys Tom Mullans and Robert Krassa. The estimate is based on an annual average of 531 acre-feet, about 6 percent of the annual water supply for the metro district. The suit claims, among other things, that this amounts to a taking of private property. The suit also acknowledges that Pueblo West stands to gain $3 million to $7 million by its participation in SDS because it would be able to connect to the SDS pipeline for $1 million rather than build a river intake that could cost up to $8 million. “This cost savings is Pueblo West’s sole benefit from participation in SDS,” the lawsuit states. The metro district attorneys claim the condition of participation in the flow program was not brought up until late in the 1041 process, and that Pueblo West never committed to joining the flow program…

While the county cannot directly enforce the flow program, it can hold participants to a portion of the IGA that requires their support for actions that prevent others from exchanging water against forgone exchanges, [Ray Petros, special counsel for Pueblo County] said.

Pueblo West argues that its Wild Horse Dry Creek exchange occurs above the area covered in the city of Pueblo’s recreational in-channel diversion decree and that its exchange decree from Lake Meredith existed long before the Pueblo flow program. Additionally, Pueblo West signed over the authority to negotiate all permits to Colorado Springs Utilities in a 2007 agreement, Petros said.

More coverage from Mike Spence writing for the Pueblo West View:

The SDS is a 50-mile pipeline that would take water from the north side of Pueblo Dam and pump it north to serve Colorado Springs, Fountain, Widefield and Security. Pueblo West officials had hoped to get a “T” off the pipeline as it comes through Pueblo County. That access would increase Pueblo West’s daily water capacity from 12 million gallons to 30 million gallons, assuring the community adequate water when it reached build-out. It also would give Pueblo West a second access to its water in the reservoir. But the county requirement, made as part of its 1041 permit process, would force Pueblo West to give up a portion of that water. The Flow Manage Program is part of an intergovernmental agreement signed in 2004 by Pueblo, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Fountain and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Pueblo West was not part of the IGA, nor the negotiations on flow management program – and was not a signee to the pact.

At issue is the amount of water Pueblo West would have to contribute to the Flow Management Program. Pueblo officials estimate Pueblo West’s contribution would be about 92 acre feet of water annually. Pueblo West disputes that, saying the loss could be anywhere from 1,400 to 3,200 acre feet of water annually. Colorado Springs Utilities asked MWH Engineering to model Pueblo West’s participation in the flow management program. MWH Engineering came back with an estimate of at least 649 acre feet on average would be lost under the most ideal conditions. “We think that estimate is conservative,” said Steve Harrison, Pueblo West’s director of utilities, noting that it was based on a flow rate of 100 cubic feet per second in the river’s upper gauge and did not include the loss of further re-use. Using a multiplier of 1.8 to factor in that re-usage, the amount of lost water is approximately 1,200 acre feet of water, according to Harrison. Yet, even using the Colorado Springs estimate, which is more than seven times greater than the estimate made by Pueblo officials, the cost to Pueblo West to replace the water would be millions. “Considering a conservative $11,000 per acre foot for water such as Bessemer Ditch, this would be equal to $7.139 million for replacement water,” according to a report Harrison gave to the board of directors…

If Pueblo West were to attempt to replace that water with shares from Twin Lakes, the cost would be much higher – more than double. The last time Pueblo West purchased water shares from Twin Lakes they cost $26,000 per acre foot. That cost would likely be higher now, if the shares were available at all.

Despite the lawsuit, Pueblo West officials said they still are open to a compromise. “We would be willing to be good partners and contribute some of our water to help the kayak course,” said Pueblo West metro board Chairman Stan Hren. “But not the amount the county is calling for.”

Hren said the amount of water Pueblo West is being asked to contribute to the Flow Management Program is disproportionate to the amount of water it is receiving. “What does Colorado Springs contribute to the Flow Management Program, 1,500 acre feet?” Hren asked. “Colorado Springs has 300,000 acre feet of water, that’s less than one half of one percent of their total water. If you used that percentage for Pueblo West, it would be about 50 acre feet of water a year.”[…]

[Steve] Harrison, director of utilities for Pueblo West, said the district takes water from a pipeline at the dam and releases it from a sewage treatment plant on the eastern edge of Pueblo West. The water then flows down Wild Horse Dry Creek to the Arkansas River, giving Pueblo West the right to take a similar amount again from Lake Pueblo. Pueblo West is allowed to reuse the water because it comes from Twin Lakes, which is non-native to the Arkansas basin. Now, though, the county wants some of Pueblo West’s water to flow from the dam through the city of Pueblo, which has not been done in the past…

…the bottom line is that Pueblo West would lose water, perhaps a significant amount of water to the Flow Management Program. Mullans said it would be expensive to replace that lost water, and later may not be possible at all. There are far more water users in the Arkansas Valley that there is water, he said. “It was not easy to build up this portfolio of water rights,” he said. “And we need more.”

One Pueblo West resident wondered why Pueblo West doesn’t walk away from the SDS project and built a reservoir access of its own. The cost of building a pump station would be about $8 million, compared to the cost of $1 million for the “T” off the SDS pipeline, plus about $250,000 as part of Pueblo West’s share of the SDS project. Another reason, Mullans pointed out, was that even if Pueblo West withdrew from the SDS and sought to build its own pump station from the reservoir, the county would again step in with its 1041 permit process and demand that Pueblo West participate in the flow management program. The county’s 1041 process applies to all water or wastewater pipes 12 inches in diameter or bigger.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain:

Pueblo County is not in a position to allow Pueblo West an exemption from the Pueblo County flow management program, its water attorney said Wednesday. The reason is not that the county has any power to enforce the flow program, but because the conditions of past intergovernmental agreements require that all participants in Southern Delivery System adhere to the program, said Ray Petros, special counsel for the county…

“The county permitting process is a way of promoting universal application of the flow program. It would be unconscionable for one member not to participate,” Petros said. The March 2004 IGA among Pueblo, the Pueblo Board of Water Works and Colorado Springs has a provision that requires all parties to prevent others from exchanging against flows that are a result of curtailment of exchanges. “The 2004 agreement says that if the forgone flows are exchanged upon, then it’s King’s X for everyone,” Petros explained. The same provisions are referenced in the May 2004 IGA that brought Aurora, Fountain and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District into the flow program.

A provision of legislation for the Preferred Storage Options Plan, which included Pueblo West, and the Upper Arkansas and Lower Arkansas Valley Water conservancy districts until negotiations were suspended in late 2007, required year-round target flows of 100 cubic feet per second for the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam. Aurora and the Lower Ark, along with most of the other PSOP partners, are supporting similar federal legislation.

Finally, Pueblo West agreed, in its 2007 IGA with Colorado Springs for SDS to support Colorado Springs Utilities as its bargaining agent for all permits required to build SDS.

In addition, Colorado Springs listed the Pueblo flow program as one of the benefits for Pueblo County in information that was distributed at meetings it sponsored in advance of Pueblo County 1041 hearings – including two in Pueblo West. “Pueblo West should have known of the contractual agreements that had been made,” Petros said. “Pueblo West does not have a case against Pueblo County. The remedy would be is not to go forward with SDS.”

Pueblo West stands to lose much more if it pulls out of SDS, Petros said. The largest loss would be a 10,000 acre-foot storage contract with the Bureau of Reclamation in Pueblo Reservoir, which is part of the SDS package, if the pipeline for the project comes from Pueblo Dam.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Fremont county alternative on life support

A picture named sdsfremontcountyalt.jpg

Despite the recent approvals by Pueblo County and the Colorado Springs city council there is still a faint possibility that Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System will run through Fremont County instead. Here’s a report from Debbie Bell writing for the Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:

“This is the goal that we laid out for the project — giving our community multiple options — our preferred option and an alternate plan in Fremont County,” John Fredell, SDS project manager, said Wednesday. “Now, we have permits for both.” Pueblo approved and signed the permit for Colorado Springs Utilities to build the $1.1 billion water pipeline from the Pueblo Dam north. If the project came to Fremont County, water would be drawn from the Arkansas River at Colo. 115 and approximately follow the highway’s contours north.

Fredell said CSU and its partners, Security and Fountain, will define the project delivery plan. “This involves a thorough business analysis that examines supply and demand, value engineering, project cost, financing options and timing of construction,” Fredell said. “Once this plan is updated, we will present a recommendation to our utilities board later this summer.”[…]

“Regardless of which alternative we construct, we will follow through on our commitments to Fremont County,” Fredell said. “We are continuing collaborative conversations with Penrose and Beaver Park Water Districts, as well as the City of Florence.”[…]

Once the final decision is made by the Colorado Springs City Council, CSU hopes to break ground by late summer or early fall.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County commissioners approve Colorado Springs Utilities permit application

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

It’s been a long time coming but the Pueblo County commissioners approved CSU’s permit application for their proposed Southern Delivery System on Tuesday, according to a report from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

Pueblo County commissioners voted 3-0 Tuesday to issue a 1041 land-use permit for the Southern Delivery System, a $1.1 billion pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir…

The Pueblo vote marked the end of hearings on the permit that spanned five months. While Utilities needs numerous other local, state and federal approvals, Pueblo County’s was considered the most crucial, considering the history of contention between the two communities on water issues…

“You’ve got a convert here, somebody who, four or five years ago, had a lot of skepticism about where we were going,” said Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner. To address the county’s concerns, Utilities has agreed to spend $50 million on improvement projects along the waterway by funding the new Fountain Creek Watershed District; spending $75 million to upgrade its own wastewater or water-reuse systems; and dredging the creek at the Pueblo levees at a cost of $2 million…

Last week, the Colorado Springs City Council voted 8-1 to endorse Pueblo County’s conditions for approval, and on Tuesday, Utilities officials praised the Pueblo County process. It’s the first time Utilities has received a 1041 permit. “Your process has been fair. You’ve worked hard to ensure you’ve protected the interests of your community, and you’ve done it in an open process,” Bruce McCormick, Utilities’ chief water-services officer, told commissioners. The permit gives Utilities three years to begin construction…

While there are several other permits and approvals needed, none will involve such a high level of review, said John Fredell, Utilities’ project manager.

More coverage from Peter Roper writing for the Pueblo Chieftain:

After the formalities of reviewing and adopting the agreement, the commissioners and officials from Colorado Springs Utilities and the Pueblo Board of Water Works gathered for a photograph to commemorate the agreement. Not participating in the photo were officials from the Pueblo West Metropolitan District, which has filed a lawsuit in Pueblo District Court over portions of the agreement that require a guaranteed flow in the Arkansas River…

Ray Petros, special counsel to the county, noted that guaranteeing a flow in the Arkansas River had been part of the SDS discussions since 2003. He said the flow program has been part of public hearings and community meetings that Colorado Springs Utilities conducted on behalf of all the SDS partners, including Pueblo West. Petros told the commissioners that if one of the partners, such as Pueblo West, is allowed to opt out of the guaranteed flow program, it would void that requirement for all the partners. Commissioner Jeff Chostner said that guaranteeing the Arkansas River always has a flow through Pueblo has been an important goal of the project negotiations.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here and here.

Pueblo: Arkansas River flow program

A picture named puebloreservoir.jpg

Here’s a background piece on the Arkansas River flow program, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Since the program was set up under a 2004 intergovernmental agreement, nearly 30,000 acre-feet of water has been released through Pueblo that might not have been otherwise. More than half of that came in 2005, when water providers were figuring out how the program would work. About 56 percent of the water released under the flow program came from mandatory curtailment of exchanges – out-of-priority diversions that are accompanied by an equivalent release of water downstream to satisfy other water rights. Those primarily affected Colorado Springs and Aurora. The remainder were releases of water, primarily by the Pueblo Board of Water Works and Colorado Springs, for special events like kayak races. About 71 percent of the water has been recovered downstream and used in later exchanges. In the process of running the program, the water users have learned how to keep water in the river and still make the numbers work, said Alan Ward, water resources administrator for the Pueblo water board…

For the past two years, the partners in the flow program have agreed to keep 100 cfs in the river and rebalance the accounts with paper trades at the end of the winter water storage season after March 15. That has meant less water lost to program participants while preserving the benchmark flows, Ward said.

In recent weeks, the program has surfaced as a core issue in Pueblo County conditions for SDS. Pueblo West filed a lawsuit for exemption for the program, because it could reduce their future water supplies. Pueblo County officials say the Pueblo West claims of losses are exaggerated. Pueblo City Council President Vera Ortegon last week said preservation of the Pueblo flow program was the main reason council voted to reaffirm parts of the 2004 IGA, including Aurora’s right to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a disputed point in a federal lawsuit. The Pueblo water board and Colorado Springs have signed an agreement that would put water into the Arkansas River – something they were never required to do under the 2004 IGA – if flows reach below 50 cfs. The cities would maintain a 3,000 acre-foot pool for that purpose, but would not be required to contribute in the driest of years.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West to file lawsuit over requirements to join Pueblo flow program

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (James Amos): “[Pueblo County] has told the Pueblo West Metropolitan District that it must participate in a program to provide recreation water in the Pueblo kayak course if it wants water from Colorado Springs’ Southern Delivery System pipeline. Under state law, Pueblo County can order some requirements on participants in the pipeline because the pipeline is planned to be built in the county. But the flow program comes from an agreement signed in 2004 by Pueblo, Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Fountain and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District – but not Pueblo West…

“At the board meeting Tuesday night, Pueblo West board members and staff members repeated their belief that the flow program could cost Pueblo West as much as a third of its yearly water. Tom Mullans, the metro district’s attorney, said he’s spent too long helping to create Pueblo West’s portfolio of water rights to watch part of it literally wash down the river.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs City Council approves Pueblo County permit requirements

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Now, Colorado Springs Utilities will spend the next few months evaluating the expense and scheduling of the Pueblo County route versus a fallback option in Fremont County to determine where the pipeline will go. Pueblo County commissioners are expected to give final approval to the 1041 permit next Tuesday. Fremont County commissioners approved permits in February and continue to meet with Colorado Springs Utilities about the possibility of that route. “We need to choose the route before the end of the year,” Mayor Lionel Rivera said. “We’re working on the alignment through El Paso County, so we have to know where we’re coming in.”

Although the decision hasn’t been made, it sure sounded like the pipeline would come through Pueblo, however, with many calling Tuesday’s vote “historic,” including Rivera. “This is a new beginning for Pueblo and El Paso counties to work together for regional economic development,” Rivera said…

Councilman Darryl Glenn voted in favor of Pueblo conditions after staff assured him that northern El Paso County communities would be able to use the pipeline for water supplies. In his remarks at the meeting, Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner said northern El Paso County’s use of the pipeline is fine, so long as water is not taken over the Palmer Divide into the South Platte basin.

Chostner also hailed the agreement as beneficial to Fountain Creek, pointing out that the money for improvements will not go to Pueblo County or Pueblo, but to the newly formed Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District, a joint body that represents interests in both counties. “Fountain Creek will not continue to be a no-man’s land, but can become a true amenity,” Chostner said. He also praised the benefits to the Arkansas River that would come of preserving the Pueblo flow agreement and regional cooperation. “I look to this as an opportunity for our communities to work together. . . . Let’s move forward.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs City Council approves Pueblo County permit requirements

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

From the Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold): “The Council approved the conditions set by Pueblo County to build the $1.1 billion Southern Delivery System water pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir. Officials from both communities then shook hands and spoke of a new spirit of cooperation, where there was once litigation and mistrust, over water issues…

Council members said the conditions are things Colorado Springs should have done long ago. “We have to recognize we have a responsibility to take action, not only for Colorado Springs, but for all of our region, to protect this very valuable resource we have on Fountain Creek,” said Councilman Larry Small. Councilman Darryl Glenn said the regional approach should extend north as well as south, and he voted for approval because the conditions allow Colorado Springs to provide water to northern El Paso County water users. “We have to change the way we view water management. We need to manage water and the impacts of water on a regional basis, and I do believe this is a solid step forward,” Glenn said.

The dissenting vote came from Councilman Tom Gallagher, who said he believes water demand here will outpace the pipeline’s capacity in 20 years, and Colorado Springs will have to find more water…

What isn’t locked in is the route. Utilities officials will return to the council later this year to ask which route the pipeline should take ? though Pueblo has always been the preferred route, and it is $150 million cheaper than the Fremont County route. Colorado Springs officials have said they hope to start building the pipeline this year; the permit allows them up to three years.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here and here.