Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West should not be able opt out of Pueblo flow program

Pueblo County is standing firm on requiring Pueblo West to participate in the Pueblo flow program if the city joins the proposed Southern Delivery System, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The county and Pueblo West have been at odds over the flow program since March. Pueblo West wants to connect to the pipeline. One of the conditions Pueblo County is insisting on requires all SDS participants to participate in the Pueblo flow program. It was set up in 2004 intergovernmental agreements signed by Pueblo, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Fountain and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Colorado Springs City Council is expected to vote today on the conditions, which have the full support of other partners. Colorado Springs and Fountain already participate in the flow program. Security and Pueblo West, as SDS partners, would have to sign on as well if SDS comes through Pueblo County.

There would be little impact on Security, but Pueblo West operates on exchange on Wild Horse Dry Creek, which enters the Arkansas River in the reach controlled by the Pueblo flow management program. The flow program requires participants to stop water exchanges during certain flow conditions. That has led to a difference in interpretation. Pueblo West argues that it could jeopardize all of its potential exchanges, which could amount to the loss of more than 3,000 acre-feet per year.

That’s unrealistic, [Ray Petros, who has counseled the county on the land-use regulations used to grant permits for SDS] said. The actual number is probably only a few hundred acre-feet in a worst-case scenario, Petros said. “They are grossly exaggerating the potential loss,” Petros said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs vote on Pueblo County permit conditions this week

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “Colorado Springs City Council will consider Pueblo County’s terms and conditions for the Southern Delivery System at its meeting this week. The meeting will be at 1 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 107 N. Nevada Ave. Approval of the conditions would give Colorado Springs Utilities a “green light” to build its $1.1 billion pipeline project from Pueblo Dam, Utilities CEO Jerry Forte told council at a public hearing last week.”

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

Ag to urban transfers

Last year a subcommittee of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable presented a report detailing a blueprint for transfers of agricultural water to urban use. Chris Woodka (Pueblo Chieftain) has written a detailed analysis of the model’s application to current projects in the basin, well actually, the non-application of the model to current projects in the basin. From the article:

The model, Considerations for Agriculture to Urban Transfers (pdf), was developed by a committee of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable over two years of meetings…

The roundtable, in its review of the report, was divided on whether it should have “teeth” or remain a voluntary document. Whether the teeth should be the sharp fangs of state enforcement or the grinding molars of county review was also debated. If the document remains voluntary, it could just be a set of quaint dentures on the shelf. At the Colorado Water Congress meeting in January a water project developer – Aaron Million, who wants to bring water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming to the Front Range – asked a water provider who served on the roundtable committee – Wayne Vanderschuere of Colorado Springs Utilities – why the Front Range Water Council had not adopted the document. The council comprises the major importers of Western Slope water, including Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Twin Lakes and the Northern and Southeastern water conservancy districts. Vanderschuere said the report was too preliminary to actually be used…

[Last Wednesday the Arkansas Basin Roundtable]…talked about how to get more water from the Western Slope, how to increase municipal water conservation; how to protect the investment value of ag water rights; how to meet environmental, wildlife and recreation needs; and even why the impacts of SDS on agriculture were not more fully discussed. “We need to put in projects to give alternatives to water rights owners besides a sale,” said Beulah rancher Reeves Brown. All of those questions are addressed in the water transfers document, which was virtually ignored in the discussion…

Gary Barber, chairman of the roundtable and an agent for El Paso County water interests, said the way deals are going forward is like the situation described in the Tragedy of the Commons, a 1968 scientific paper by Garrett Hardin that dealt with population problems. Hardin basically described how unbridled self-interest could destroy a shared resource. “I think what’s happened is that the environmental and recreation communities have entered the conversation, and we have to find an equitable way to satisfy that interest,” Barber said. There are other efforts to incorporate outside interests, even those who may not know they have a stake in the decisions being made today.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County permit requirements meet with little consternation from Springs’ city council

Reflecting the fact that Pueblo County and Colorado Springs Utilities’ planners had been meeting for months to work out and understand concerns over the proposed Southern Delivery System, there was little opposition to the additional $125 million added to the project by Pueblo County. Here’s a report from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

About 90 people showed up. Of 11 who spoke, all but three praised the conditions, and several touted the pipeline as an economic – and even recreational – benefit for the reservoir on Upper Williams Creek…

“We believe they are reasonable and they are appropriate,” said Utilities CEO Jerry Forte. “We believe these conditions give us an opportunity to be responsible to our customers, our environment and our neighbors.”[…]

The City Council will vote on the conditions Tuesday. The Pueblo County commissioners will then vote to issue a permit. Under the conditions, Utilities officials would have to begin construction within three years.

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The permit would be a “green light” to build a pipeline from Pueblo Dam to meet needs up north, Colorado Springs Utilities Chief Executive Officer Jerry Forte told Council. “Your approval would be a green light to come from Pueblo Dam. . . . Coming from the reservoir is like having a giant bucket of water,” Forte said. “It’s the least expensive place for us to build, operate and maintain the pipeline.” Forte asked council to approve the conditions, which he said are acceptable to Utilities…

Pueblo County’s conditions include $75 million for ongoing sewage system upgrades and $50 million for Fountain Creek improvements. They also include agreements that protect flows in the Arkansas River below Pueblo, an agreement with the Pueblo Board of Water Works on a new North Outlet Works at Pueblo Dam and a program to maintain levels at Lake Pueblo. Colorado Springs also has committed to creating new wetlands and erosion control at Clear Springs Ranch, property it owns south of Fountain. The conditions allow future partners to be added to SDS, as long as water is not taken out of the Arkansas River basin. There are also conditions that regulate construction activities, provide for repair of roads damaged during construction and for revegetation of land. Colorado Springs has also committed to using eminent domain only as a last resort to acquire property and easements for the project…

Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo Board of Water Works, asked Council to approve Pueblo County conditions and build the pipeline through Pueblo, rather than Fremont County, because of the superiority of a connection to the dam. Hamel also spoke in favor of the river flow and outlet agreements…

Don Schley, a Colorado Springs development consultant, said the cost of SDS has not been fully revealed. He said the city has spent money on parts of the project that were later changed and criticized how the city has handle its water rights portfolio. “The need alone to pump water uphill 1,700 feet is an unbearable cost for ratepayers,” Schley said. “The community cannot bear this cost when there are other alternatives that are more feasible.”

Dave Miller, of Palmer Lake, told council it should consider his Central Colorado Project, a plan to build a reservoir at Union Park in Gunnison County, and called SDS an “interim project” until his project could be built. Miller has promoted other versions of the project without success for more than 20 years.

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

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West trying to avoid committing water to Pueblo flow management program

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “‘We have high hopes that the county will come to their senses,’ said Steve Harrison, utilities director for the Pueblo West Metro District. ‘We don’t want to slow down SDS, and we understand their concerns. But if we can’t do exchanges, we can’t use all of our water.'”

[More…]

Without the ability to exchange, Pueblo West eventually could lose up to 3,200 acre-feet of water, about one-third of the community’s water supply, Harrison said. Others dispute the number. Pueblo, Colorado Springs and Aurora, the largest participants in the program, were able to recover 71 percent of curtailed or foregone exchanges, according to Alan Ward, water resources administrator for the Pueblo Board of Water Works. Ward estimated only about 92 acre-feet would be lost.

An exchange is a diversion out of priority while an equivalent amount of water is released downstream. Pueblo West last year exchanged 776 acre-feet against its flows in Wild Horse Dry Creek, Harrison said. If the district used all of its exchange capacity, it could eventually exchange 1,500 acre-feet through this method.

Pueblo West relies heavily on transmountain water that can be reused to extinction, but loses about two-thirds of the flows before the water reaches the Arkansas River. The district eventually could operate a pump-back exchange that would increase the yield of its current rights. The district could exchange against return flows from each successive use of water. Pueblo, Colorado Springs and Aurora all have higher priorities for physical exchanges at Pueblo Dam, so there’s no guarantee Pueblo West could make its exchanges down the line, Harrison said. “Up until March 5, we understood we would not be part of the flow program,” Harrison said…

“We have a disagreement with the county and Colorado Springs and nothing is resolved yet,” Harrison said. “We want to solve it without embarrassing the county or losing water.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs council hearing Thursday

The Colorado Springs City Council plans to review Pueblo County’s permitting conditions for the proposed Southern Delivery System on Thursday night, according to a report from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

Utilities officials and city council members will hold a 7 p.m. public hearing at City Hall. In the works for more than a decade, the $1.1 billion pipeline is designed to meet water demands here through 2046 and provide redundancy in the water system, in case of drought or failure in the city’s other lines that carry water across hundreds of miles of mountain terrain…

To view a complete list of the conditions, visit http://www.co.pueblo.co.us. The conditions are designed to minimize the impact of pipeline construction and to mitigate the effect of sending more treated effluent down Fountain Creek. City council will vote on the conditions April 14. Pueblo County commissioners must then vote to issue the permit.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain:

The public hearing will be at 7 p.m. Thursday at Colorado Springs City Hall, 107 N. Nevada Ave.

If the pipeline comes from Pueblo Dam, as the partners propose, Pueblo West would be able to tap into it to increase its water supply by up to 18 million gallons per day.

Council is scheduled to vote on the conditions at its April 14 meeting. Pueblo County Commissioners approved the conditions last month after a public hearing concluded. The hearing actually began in December and was continued over four months because of the complexity of the conditions…

…Colorado Springs Utilities filed for a permit last year. At March’s public hearing, Colorado Springs attorney David Robbins indicated the conditions for the permit were legally acceptable with modifications in language to include all SDS partners rather than just Colorado Springs as applicants. The SDS pipeline would cross 14 miles of Pueblo County and generate increased flows through exchanges, development and wastewater along Fountain Creek. The permit requires Colorado Springs to fund $50 million of projects for Fountain Creek through a newly created district, and to make $75 million in improvements to its sewer system by 2024. A total of $300,000 is set aside for a study of dams on Fountain Creek, and Colorado Springs is committed to several other projects regarding the Fountain under the proposed conditions. It also sets up a 3,000-acre-foot pool of water in Lake Pueblo to augment the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam in extremely dry times. The Pueblo Board of Water Works and Colorado Springs jointly will provide water for that pool. There are numerous other conditions dealing with construction, roads and easement acquisition in the Pueblo County 1041 permit.

Formal acceptance of the terms and conditions by the Colorado Springs City Council is required for final approval of the 1041 permit by Pueblo County. Written comments will be accepted at the Colorado Springs City Clerk’s office until 5 p.m. April 9.

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

Million Pipeline Project: Conflicting views for reservoir at Upper Williams Creek site near Colorado Springs

Here’s an interesting turn of events. Aaron Million and his partners have been looking at siting a terminal reservoir at the same location as Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Upper William Creek site, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. Dueling projects? From the article:

“I was amazed when I found out,” Million said. “We have been focusing on our own project for so long. I didn’t realize it was part of theirs. They’re kind of crowding me in the cattle pen. “Colorado Springs doesn’t own the property for the proposed reservoir. Rancher Bob Norris, an old family friend of Million’s owns the site. Million said he targeted the site for his own project while helping Norris’ son, Steve, run cattle on the property last fall.

Late last year, Colorado Springs chose the Upper Williams Creek site as its terminal storage, rather than the Jimmy Camp Creek further north. Many of the comments in the draft environmental impact statement being prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation protested the Jimmy Camp Creek site. The Upper Williams Creek previously appeared in one alternative, but it was the site of choice in the final EIS. Another 185,000 acre-foot Cactus Hill Reservoir is planned northeast of Fort Collins. Meetings have been planned in areas that could be affected by the project. A meeting in Pueblo has been set for 6:30 to 9 p.m. April 22 at Risley Middle School, 625 N. Monument. Other meetings are: April 14, Green River, Wyo.; April 15, Vernal, Utah; April 16, Laramie, Wyo.; April 20, Fort Collins; April 21, Denver. For locations, visit the Web site…

Million also is pursuing a Bureau of Reclamation contract and Colorado water right to put water in the pipeline. “Specifically, the project is being designed to meet environmental and agricultural needs as well as municipal needs,” Million said. “We would allow some of the water to be used at prices that are reasonable to agriculture.” The project would bring water to the Front Range without the less-desirable alternatives of building a new transmountain project or drying up farms in both the South Platte and Arkansas basins, Million said. “Frankly, we have offered the state of Colorado a significant bank of water for the environment,” Million said. “It is important for me to give benefits to the environment.”

Using the drop in elevation from the Palmer Divide to the proposed T-Cross Reservoir also has the potential to develop 330 megawatts of hydroelectric power, Million said. “This could be combined with wind power to make 100 percent renewable energy,” Million said. While the Corps is the lead agency in the project, it would also need permits from other federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and Forest Service. The EIS is being developed by AECOM, a global engineering firm.

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

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs public hearing April 9th

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “Council has set the hearing for 7 p.m. April 9 at Colorado Springs City Hall, 107 N. Nevada. Council intends to vote on the permit at its April 14 meeting. Pueblo County approved the conditions for the permit, which is issued under 1974’s HB1041 that allows cities and counties to regulate projects of statewide scope, following a March 18 public hearing…Written comments will be accepted at the Colorado Springs City Clerk’s office until 5 p.m. April 9.”

Southern Delivery System: EPA still concerned over Colorado Springs’ Fountain Creek mitigation

The EPA is looking closely at Colorado Springs Utilities’ plans for mitigation of increased flows in Fountain Creek resulting from the proposed Southern Delivery System, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

In a Jan. 29 letter, the EPA said most of its concerns over draft documents were answered in the environmental impact statement for the proposed $1.1 billion SDS pipeline project. However, it continued to raise the question of how Colorado Springs would deal with increased flows in Fountain Creek. The EPA estimates base flows in Fountain Creek would increase 40 percent and new development allowed by SDS would increase the intensity of storm flows. “EPA remains concerned about indirect impacts from induced growth resulting from SDS. EPA believes that the indirect impacts due to the increased flows from the (proposed Williams Creek exchange) reservoir and the additional developed flows from both an increase in impervious surfaces and landscape watering will cause greater water quality impacts than are currently identified in the EIS,” wrote Larry Svoboda, regional director of the National Environmental Policy Act. Reclamation refused to acknowledge the project would cause the impacts envisioned by EPA.

“Reclamation’s view is that growth is not a direct or indirect effect of the proposed SDS project, and effects associated with growth are disclosed with the cumulative effects section of the EIS. …There will be minor increases in peak flows and floodplains for Fountain Creek,” Michael Ryan, Reclamation regional director, replied in the document released this week. Reclamation argues that the increase in Fountain Creek flows is only 2 percent, and that a stormwater enterprise created four years ago would continue regardless of which alternative is chosen.

The internal federal struggle would be mostly a moot point if the proposed route of the pipeline from Pueblo Dam is chosen by Colorado Springs City Council. However, Reclamation’s response indicates it would require less in the way of mitigation if the SDS fall-back route through Fremont County is chosen…

Pueblo County commissioners are requiring $50 million for Fountain Creek projects aimed at reducing the effects of erosion, sedimentation and flooding. They also want to make sure Colorado Springs spends $75 million on planned sewer improvements by 2024. There are also other conditions pertaining to Fountain Creek improvements. If the Fremont County route is chosen, Colorado Springs would have to meet only Reclamation’s requirements. They include an adaptive management program, which the EPA endorses and which also is a part of Pueblo County’s conditions.

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

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs public hearing April 9th

The Colorado Springs City Council is wasting no time acting on Pueblo County’s permit conditions for the city’s proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

Utilities officials and city council will hold a public hearing on the conditions Thursday, April 9 at 7 p.m., at City Hall, 107 N. Nevada Ave. Residents will hear a presentation on the conditions and be able to submit comments.

Comments can also be submitted in writing to the city clerk, at 30 S. Nevada, through 5 p.m. on April 9, and at the public hearing.

City council will vote on accepting the conditions April 14.

Meanwhile Pueblo West officials are voicing concern over SDS, according to a report from Jeff Tucker writing for the Pueblo Chieftain:

With the county’s approval for the Southern Delivery System, Pueblo West could see a second water pipeline brought to the community and a loss of up to a third of its total water supply, the Pueblo West Metropolitan District Board of Directors were told Tuesday. Steve Harrison, public works director for Pueblo West, gave directors a presentation about concerns over a requirement by the Pueblo County Board of Commissioners in their approval of the SDS 1041 regulations. Harrison said the community has asked the county to be exempted from requirements that would make Pueblo West contribute to a flow management program that maintains levels through the Arkansas River and the kayak park through Downtown Pueblo…

Harrison estimated that if the community was required to return flows down the Arkansas, it could cost Pueblo West at least 3,000 acre-feet a year, or a third of the water supply the district currently uses. Harrison told directors and a crowd of nearly 200 people Tuesday that their water supply, for now, wasn’t in danger. “Everyone here has enough water. Today. It’s what we have to plan for at future build-out,” Harrison said. Harrison said he doesn’t believe Pueblo West should be a part of the flow management agreement because its process never has been shown to damage the river. However, he believes participating in the flow management program will damage the community. “I’ve challenged Colorado Springs and the Pueblo Board of Water Works to prove to me that it won’t harm us, and I have yet to see (proof),” he said.

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

Georgetown/Idaho Springs chasing stimulus dough

From the Clear Creek Courant (Ian Neligh): “Georgetown is hoping to receive $5 million from the federal economic stimulus package for local infrastructure projects. The projects include updating the water plant and wastewater facility and building a new roundabout at the entrance to town from Interstate 70. Both water projects could begin construction this September; work on the roundabout is planned to start next year to coincide with the completion of the Argentine Street improvement project…

“Town Administrator Cory Nicholson said that while the town’s water tower is structurally “sound,” the plant’s water filters need to be replaced. In order to make the fixes to the 1.5 million-gallon tank, a second, smaller one would have to be built to continue the supply of water. The cost will be $3 million, $2 million of which the town is hoping will come from the stimulus money. The remaining $1 million will come from a revolving no-interest loan from the state…

“And in an attempt to update its aging wastewater plant, Georgetown is also hoping to get $2 million in stimulus money and another $3 million loan from a state revolving fund.”

From the Clear Creek Courant (Ian Neligh): “The city of Idaho Springs this week submitted a single request for federal stimulus funds for a $750,000 project…

“According to City Administrator Cindy Condon, the project selected would be modification of the dead-end water line that travels east down Miner Street to Colorado Street. The funds would be used to loop the line so there wouldn’t be interruptions on the east end of town during a water-flow problem.”

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs city council review of Pueblo County stipulations

Here’s a look ahead at the Colorado Springs city council review of the required stipulations from Pueblo County for the city’s proposed Southern Delivery System, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

That [the Colorado Springs council] still must decide between a route from Pueblo Dam, the preferred option of Colorado Springs Utilities, or an alternate route through Fremont County that comes with fewer strings attached. “I want to caution that this doesn’t mean construction is imminent. This means we are closer to having two viable options for our management and council to analyze and decide which is in the best interest of our customers,” John Fredell, SDS project director, said this week after Pueblo commissioners approved terms and conditions.

In addition, Colorado Springs is awaiting a record of decision from the Bureau of Reclamation, expected in the near future. That would clear the way for contract talks over storage, exchange and conveyance at Lake Pueblo, to be negotiated by Colorado Springs on behalf of its partners in SDS, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West. Those negotiations won’t likely begin until a route is chosen, said Kara Lamb, Reclamation public affairs officer. If the Fremont County route is chosen, some parts of the environmental impact statement will have to be rewritten because mitigation measures cover the preferred alternative, the route from Pueblo Dam. The negotiations would be open to public comment.

In addition, Colorado Springs is awaiting a record of decision from the Bureau of Reclamation, expected in the near future. That would clear the way for contract talks over storage, exchange and conveyance at Lake Pueblo, to be negotiated by Colorado Springs on behalf of its partners in SDS, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West. Those negotiations won’t likely begin until a route is chosen, said Kara Lamb, Reclamation public affairs officer. If the Fremont County route is chosen, some parts of the environmental impact statement will have to be rewritten because mitigation measures cover the preferred alternative, the route from Pueblo Dam. The negotiations would be open to public comment.

Besides the route decision and the contract is the matter of two agencies which haven’t yet issued permits for the system, said Keith Riley, who is coordinates those permits. The Colorado Division of Wildlife is working with Colorado Springs Utilities on a mitigation plan for wildlife that would be affected during construction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is doing an internal review of a Section 404 permit, which is needed before dams can be built on Williams Creek, but Colorado Springs has not made its application…

Colorado Springs still has to host at least one public hearing on the two proposed routes, as well as sort things out internally with Colorado Springs Utilities staff, Mayor Lionel Rivera said last week. The council will have to weigh the additional cost of coming through Pueblo County, primarily guarantees of $50 million in funding for Fountain Creek and $75 million in planned sewer improvements, against the relative disadvantages of coming from a river outlet in Fremont County…

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Share this:
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
Email
Print
X
Like this:
Like Loading…

Southern Delivery System: Critics say Pueblo County permit conditions don’t do enough to protect the county

Not everyone is happy with the conditions attached to the approval of permits for Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Critics of Pueblo County’s proposed conditions for the Southern Delivery System say they don’t go far enough to protect the county from future ill effects of the $1.1 billion pipeline project…

District Attorney Bill Thiebaut wanted to add eight conditions to the list, primarily aimed at protecting Fountain Creek. Thiebaut filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado Springs in 2005 after repeated sewer line breaks and spills into the Fountain. While his suit was thrown out, a federal judge is still deliberating a parallel suit filed by the Sierra Club. “As district attorney, it is my duty to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Pueblo County and to ensure that laws are being enforced,” Thiebaut said in written testimony to commissioners. Thiebaut said commissioners should require Colorado Springs to build ponds and reservoirs along Fountain Creek; prove the effectiveness of stream crossings of sewer lines against stormwater; prove its sewage treatment plants, collection system and lift stations can handle the additional flows of SDS; provide information about its sewage system to Pueblo; and fully comply with future conditions and rules…

“The terms and conditions do not provide any assurance that sewage collection system stream crossings in the city of Colorado Springs are capable of accommodating the additional stream flows contemplated by SDS,” Thiebaut said. In addition to the $50 million for improvements and $75 million for upgrades to sewers, the county conditions include an adaptive management plan on Fountain Creek, as well as some other specific improvements, such as dredging at Clear Springs Ranch and in the Pueblo levee system as needed. Thiebaut said that isn’t enough. “The terms and conditions do not assure that additional sewage volume into CSU’s sewage collection system will not cause swage pipe failure or overflow from the antiquated vitrified clay sewage pipe which comprises approximately 80 percent of the Colorado Springs sewage collection system,” Thiebaut said…

At Wednesday’s hearing, the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition also asked for eight additional restrictions on Colorado Springs if it builds a pipeline through Pueblo County. The coalition’s first choice would be to deny the permit, but the conditions would be needed for approval, said attorney Joe Santarella. The coalition presented an even longer list at a hearing in December. “Most of these conditions have not been adopted in the mitigation plan, but are needed to protect the welfare and environment of Pueblo County and its residents,” Santarella told commissioners. Conditions included restriction of the amount of water pumped through the pipeline to current needs of applicants; creating a trust fund for compensating property owners in the Fountain Creek watershed; removing vegetation at reservoir sites to prevent mercury contamination of Fountain Creek; implementation of conservation ordinances; land use requirements to minimize runoff; use of conservation techniques during construction; use of renewable energy and recycling wastes during construction; and establishing a trust fund to compensate for nuisances during construction. “Most importantly, the commissioners must limit the amount of water diverted from the Arkansas River basin by the SDS pipeline through clear and enforceable regulations,” Santarella said.

Neal Hall, business manager for the Colorado Building Trades and Construction Council, said there should be requirements to assure that contractors on SDS paid a liveable wage to workers. C. Jacob Hobson, president of the Pueblo County Farm Bureau, said the loss of farmland and impact on downstream water users are not addressed in the conditions.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo West seeks exemption from Pueblo flow program

Pueblo West was hoping to get an exemption from the Pueblo flow program (which they declined to participate in earlier in the program’s history) in conjunction with Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. An exemption is not in the cards according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

On the one hand, [Pueblo West] the community of about 30,000 would bear the brunt of visible impacts from the pipeline through Pueblo County, with disruption of roads, property and schedules looming during the construction phase. The benefit is that Pueblo West would save millions of dollars in meeting its future needs by hooking into the proposed pipeline as it leaves Pueblo Dam. By hooking into the SDS pipeline to deliver up to 18 million gallons per day, it will pay $1 million, compared with up to $8 million if it built its own river intake below Pueblo Dam. So, officials reasoned, it ought to be easy to catch a break on a provision of terms and conditions that requires participants to abide by the rules of the Pueblo flow program, which limits exchanges during certain times in order to meet minimum flow targets for the Arkansas River to meet the needs of fish and kayakers. Not so, Pueblo West learned this week. Pueblo County commissioners were unwilling to budge on a request to exempt Pueblo West from the flow program at a hearing Wednesday…

Two of the partners, Colorado Springs and Fountain, are already signed on with the flow program, and it won’t have any significant impact on the remaining partner, Security. There is no sympathy among the group toward the pleadings made by Pueblo West at the hearing. “We can’t be sponsors of an exception to a program we are complying with,” said Colorado Springs attorney David Robbins. “We are under an obligation to comply with the flow program.”

Pueblo West declined to participate in the flow maintenance program set up under a six-party intergovernmental agreement that includes Pueblo, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado Springs, Fountain, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Aurora, Robbins said. On the other hand, Pueblo West signed an agreement to support all permit activities, under the lead of Colorado Springs, under a 2007 IGA. The 1041 land-use application to Pueblo County is one of those permits. And, as approved by commissioners, it says Pueblo West must commit to the flow program.

“We were never part of the flow management program because it was generally accepted that we never had an effect on the river,” said Steve Harrison, Pueblo West Metro District utilities director. Harrison, supported by attorneys for the metro district, told the commissioners that Lake Pueblo is the terminal storage for Pueblo West’s water supply. The water comes mainly from Twin Lakes, so it was never part of the flow to the Arkansas River. Twin Lakes brings water into the Arkansas River basin from the Colorado River basin. Pueblo West releases water down Wild Horse Dry Creek, which enters the Arkansas River about 5 miles east of the Pueblo Dam. Pueblo West can exchange those flows, which are reusable under state water law, by storing water out of priority in its Lake Pueblo account.

The members of the flow management program say that while Pueblo West is entitled to reuse its transmountain flows, it needs native water to complete the exchange. “We disagree that the exchange doesn’t deplete the river,” said Alan Ward, water resources administrator for the Pueblo Board of Water Works. “The flow management partners all lose water.”

As of last year, the partners in the program let about 30,000 acre-feet of water — a little more than a year’s supply for Pueblo’s potable water system — flow downriver, either through curtailing exchanges or releasing water for special events at Pueblo Whitewater Park. Through a recovery of yield program, about 71 percent has been recovered. The water is captured at Holbrook Reservoir, under a contract, and used for later exchanges. If Pueblo West were participating in the program now, it would lose only about 92 acre-feet per year, Ward estimated, based on information provided by Pueblo West.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County lays out conditions for permit approval

Pueblo County laid out their requirements for Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System yesterday, according to a report from Debbie Bell writing for the Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:

A lengthy list of terms and conditions — some quite costly — received a stamp of approval Wednesday evening from the Pueblo County Commissioners. Even though the preferred route of the Colorado Springs Utilities project is from Pueblo Reservoir north, the decision-making work now begins in earnest. “The heavy lifting really begins now, in terms of our management and our council making a good business decision,” SDS Project Manager John Fredell said this morning. Fredell said the Colorado Springs City Council, which also sits as the board of directors of CSU, will make the final determination after it receives a recommendation from utilities management…

Pueblo slapped on conditions, including a $50 million investment in Fountain Creek over the next five years and another $75 million in sanitary sewer system upgrades…

Fredell said the determination will not be made on final costs alone. Colorado Springs also must consider the project’s time frame and anticipated demand for water. If Colorado Springs Council accepts the conditions from Pueblo County, SDS workers will prepare comparisons for the two alternatives [ed. Fremont County has approved the project route through the county] to present to utilities management and council. “They’ll make a business decision at that point in terms of which alternative they want to pursue,” Fredell said. “That could take two to three months.” Fredell expects a final decision by summer.

More coverage from the Colorado Springs Gazette:

The conditions are meant to mitigate the environmental impacts of taking more water from Pueblo Reservoir and sending more treated effluent down Fountain Creek. Utilities has agreed to pay $50 million for improvements to the creek and $75 million to upgrades its wastewater or water reuse systems. While dozens of permits are required, approval from Pueblo County is the most significant hurdle. At one point in the long history of the pipeline, which would bring 78 million gallons a day to Colorado Springs, opposition in Pueblo seemed so great, Utilities sought approval from Fremont County for a backup plan.

Wednesday night, Colorado Springs officials embraced each other and their Pueblo County counterparts. “(I am) just ecstatic, like everything I’ve done in the last 8 years was worth it,” said Colorado Springs councilwoman Margaret Radford, who leaves office next month after working for years to get the pipeline approved…

The money must be used for erosion, sedimentation, flood control and water quality projects on Fountain Creek. Other Colorado Springs officials heralded the finalizing of conditions as a new direction in relations between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, which have long been divided over water issues, including water quality and flooding on Fountain Creek below Colorado Springs…

[Mayor Lionel Rivera] said the city will hold a public hearing in Colorado Springs to let residents comment on the conditions. No date has been set. Pueblo commissioners set April 2 as a date for a final decision on a 1041 land-use permit, though Rivera doubts a hearing and council vote can take place by then.

While Pueblo County officials allowed Utilities’ attorney to make minor semantic changes to the conditions Wednesday, Commissioner Jeff Chostner said the tenets of the conditions are not negotiable. “This is an unalterable document that you take to your city council,” Chostner said…

To see a complete list of the county’s SDS conditions, visit www.co.pueblo.co.us.

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

It won’t be a straight-up decision for Colorado Springs, since council will need to review both the Pueblo County and Fremont County options for its proposed $1.1 billion pipeline project. “It is partly a business decision and a political decision,” Rivera said, saying the relative costs of coming through either county must be weighed. “Business is a huge factor, but you’ve got to remember it’s a 40-year project. We have to do what’s best for the community.”[…]

The conditions set up new water quality monitoring sites on Fountain Creek, controlling storm water, dredging the creek to preserve the effectiveness of Pueblo levees and places some restrictions on how new water or new users could be added to the pipeline. The conditions include $6 million for repairing roads, $2,000 per acre for revegetation and construction procedures like dust control or road closures…

The strongest objection to approving SDS at the hearing was voiced by Joe Santarella of the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition. He recommended denial or at least adding eight more stringent conditions to limit depletion of the Arkansas River through the pipeline. “Water is too precious of a resource and valuable of a commodity and the impacts on Pueblo County and its residents are far too pervasive and significant to allow CSU to sell the excess water as a water broker to the highest bidders throughout El Paso and Teller counties,” Santarella said. He also said Colorado Springs is “trying to play you with an empty hand” by holding out Fremont County as a realistic option.

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

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo Board of Water Works approves agreements

The Pueblo Board of Water Works has approved two agreements related to Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain:

The remaining local action on SDS will come if Pueblo County commissioners approve conditions. The commissioners will host a public hearing tonight at 6 p.m. at the Pueblo County Courthouse and review conditions proposed by county staff. The conditions are posted on the county’s Web site.

The Colorado Springs City Council still must approve both the water board agreements and county conditions before SDS would begin. The $1.1 billion project would also need other permits and final approval and contracts from the Bureau of Reclamation before work could begin. The water board agreements would guarantee flows through Pueblo and allow the water board to participate in the proposed North Outlet Works, which Colorado Springs proposes to build at the north outlet, also called the river outlet, on Pueblo Dam…

Each agreement takes the form of a memorandum of understanding, which is a contract that implies those who sign it will take a particular action. The Arkansas River low flow program would establish a pool of water in Lake Pueblo jointly maintained by Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Each would contribute, when the supply is available, 1,500 acre-feet of water that could be released when flows in the Arkansas River drop below 50 cubic feet per second. The agreement would go beyond the current Pueblo flow program, set up in 2004, which curtails exchanges when flows drop below 100 cfs, but not require additional water in the river. Aurora, Fountain and the Southeastern District also participate in that program. Commissioners would require Security and Pueblo West to sign on to the program, along with any future SDS users. Water that is either released or voluntarily not exchanged under either program could be recaptured in the recovery of yield program under the existing and new agreements…

The second SDS agreement approved Tuesday addresses the Pueblo water board’s concerns about the Joint Use Manifold, which is the primary water delivery system for the city. Colorado Springs, in its 2008 proposal for SDS, indicated it wanted initially to use excess capacity in the outlet south of the Arkansas River for its water supply, even though the city paid Pueblo $3 million in 2000 to enlarge its line from the outlet works to accommodate its use by tapping into the line east of the Pueblo Dam. Pueblo, Pueblo West and the Fountain Valley Authority currently use the south outlet. In the future, Pueblo and the Arkansas Valley Conduit would get more capacity. Late last year, however, Colorado Springs said it would prefer to build the North Outlet Works, a new outlet that would supply up to 96 million gallons per day for Colorado Springs, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West. The outlet would also continue to supply water to the river and could be adapted to provide hydroelectric power in the future, according to engineers who worked on the concept. The outlet was tested last week to prove its capacity of about 1,100 cfs. A full run under SDS would use about 147 cfs of that capacity. The new agreement requests engineering cost estimates for Pueblo to gain 20 million-40 million gallons per day capacity from the North Outlet Works.

Pueblo pumps an average of about 25 million gallons per day, with peak days of about 60 million gallons per day. In recent years, since the 2002 drought, pumpage has been declining because customers have adjusted their outdoor watering habits. The water board wants the redundancy in case the Joint Use Manifold is inoperable because of invasive mussels, repairs or other unforeseen events.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County Commissioners to hold hearing Wednesday

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The commissioners have scheduled a public hearing at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Pueblo County Courthouse on the proposed SDS permit, which is being issued under the county’s land-use regulations adopted under the 1974 HB1041. Colorado Springs applied for the permit in August and has footed the bill for the $350,000 review…

The major recommendation of the staff report is payment of $50 million for Fountain Creek Projects, disbursed either through a Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District which could be formed by the state Legislature or a new foundation that would be formed by Pueblo County and the SDS partners. The funds would go toward projects that have been identified by the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan, a joint project of Colorado Springs and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District.

The proposed conditions also seek continued funding of sewer improvements and stormwater controls in Colorado Springs, limits on out-of-basin water transfers and new agreements on protecting Arkansas River flows and Lake Pueblo levels. Money would be earmarked for further study of flood control on Fountain Creek.

Bessemer Ditch update

Here’s a look at the Pueblo Board of Water Works plans for the Bessemer Ditch going forward, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Pueblo Board of Water Works will consider today an agreement with the St. Charles Mesa Water District aimed at protecting their respective interests if the water board is successful in purchasing shares of the Bessemer Ditch. The a- greement would help the Pueblo water board move proposed changes in rules that govern how Bessemer Ditch water is used, a move that is being actively opposed by some Bessemer shareholders. “The whole effort with the St. Charles agreement is part of our continuing attempt to address concerns of the shareholders along the Bessemer Ditch,” said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board, which is scheduled to meet at 2 p.m. today…

St. Charles has acquired shares as former farmland has been converted to residential use. The agreement, approved last month by the St. Charles board, would protect the groundwater and surface water interests of the water district. If the Pueblo water board removes water, it could reduce both seepage from the ditch and return flows hat feed St. Charles wells. The agreement also would maintain flows within the ditch and flows on the Arkansas River at Moffat Street, which also are diversion points for St. Charles. The water board also would agree to make certain improvements to the ditch, including installations of three measuring stations, and would not oppose changes by the St. Charles district as to how water is delivered to the district’s reservoirs. The water board also would continue to support the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit and a plan to fund its development that is now in Congress. In return, the St. Charles district would support the water board in its proposed changes to the articles of incorporation and bylaws. It also would support “reasonable” proposals by the water board in Division 2 Water Court or with the Bessemer Ditch to change the use of its shares in the Bessemer Ditch. The Pueblo water board would retain its own control over engineering in change cases. The agreement is based on the assumption that the Pueblo water board would be able to purchase at least 1,500 shares…

The water board is proposing three major changes in the 1894 articles of incorporation that would allow the use of the water outside the ditch, but within Pueblo County; change possible points of diversion and change language relating to how bylaws are amended. The changes in the bylaws deal with how points of diversion would be changed and how other shareholders would be protected. The provisions go beyond the protection already afforded in water court through past decrees, Hamel said.

Not all shareholders in the Bessemer Ditch are in favor of the the board converting agricultural shares to municipal use, according to this report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Pueblo water board’s proposed changes in Bessemer Ditch rules about how water is used are scheduled to be considered at a special meeting of Bessemer Ditch shareholders at 6 p.m. April 20 at the Pueblo Convention Center. Leonard DiTomaso, who along with Mike Klun won election to the Bessemer Ditch board in January on a platform to preserve farming, said there will be plenty of opposition to changing the 1894 articles of incorporation and subsequent bylaws. “They want to change our bylaws before they’ll buy the water and that’s wrong,” DiTomaso said Monday. “You can’t stop them from buying and selling water, but we just want to continue to farm.”

While landowners should be free to sell water rights, allowing the water to move outside traditional irrigation boundaries would open the door for selling water to growing cities in the north, DiTomaso said. If water leaves the ditch, it could make irrigating even harder for those who are left, he added…

DiTomaso estimated that the Pueblo water board would be able to buy about 5,000 shares on the ditch, combined with about 2,000 shares owned by St. Charles Mesa Water District. That would be about 35 percent of the 20,000 shares on the ditch.

“That leaves 65 percent of us who are small or average shareholders,” DiTomaso said. “I think we have them outnumbered, but you never know.”

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County wants Colorado Springs Utilities to spend $50 million on mitigation

Here’s an update on Pueblo County’s 1041 permitting process for Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

Pueblo County gave Colorado Springs Utilities a list of conditions Wednesday under which that county would approve a $1.1 billion water pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir, and a Utilities official said none of them appears to be a deal-killer. Utilities would be required to give $50 million to the new Fountain Creek Watershed, a consortium of local governments and organizations working to improve the creek. The money would be used for erosion, sedimentation, flood control and water quality projects, to compensate for sending increased treated effluent down that creek. Utilities would also have to spend $75 million on wastewater improvements here by the end of 2024, something Utilities officials said they planned to do anyway. “I just see this as another big step forward for the project,” said Utilities project manager John Fredell…

The conditions are the recommendation of the [Pueblo] county staff there; Pueblo commissioners then would approve them as part of approval for a permit for the pipeline. Colorado Springs City Council would also have to endorse them. Fredell said Wednesday he was unsure whether Pueblo County will attach additional conditions. Utilities officials had been waiting for weeks to see what conditions Pueblo County would attach. In the meantime, they have received approval from Fremont County to build a pipeline from the Arkansas River, a backup plan that would cost $150 million more, in case Pueblo County denied a permit or attached unfavorable conditions. There is a long tradition of acrimony over water issues between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and Utilities challenged in court Pueblo County’s right to require a permit. After receiving the list of conditions Wednesday, Fredell said none appeared unacceptable, and even with the expenditures required, the Pueblo route would still be cheaper. “I see this as an investment in infrastructure and an investment in some great improvements in terms of recreational opportunities on Fountain Creek,” Fredell said…

Some of the other conditions would require Utilities to:

• Reduce sediment in lower Fountain Creek prior to SDS construction by dredging and sediment-collection.

• Maintain stormwater controls and other regulations intended to ensure that Fountain Creek peak flows resulting from new development served by the SDS project within the Fountain Creek basin are no greater than existing conditions.

• Continue participation in the Pueblo Flow Management Program to protect Arkansas River flows for recreation and the Arkansas River Corridor Legacy Project.

• Work with the Pueblo Board of Water Works to outline how the two cities would maintain a storage pool in Pueblo Reservoir to permit the release of water into the Arkansas River during times when the flow in the river could fall to low levels – at or below 50 cubic feet per second.

• Wait to begin construction at or near Pueblo Reservoir Dam until after the Bureau of Reclamation performs its dam-safety review and accepts the design construction plans.

• Voluntarily participate in developing a management plan for Pueblo Reservoir to protect reservoir levels and recreational opportunities, when and if the Southeastern Water Conservancy District, Reclamation and other affected parties agree to develop such a plan.

• Treat private property owners fairly, avoid creating financial burdens for property owners, and use power of eminent domain only as a last resort to acquire property and easements.

• Mitigate construction impacts and restore disturbed lands.

• Take “substantial steps” within 36 months to “construct the permitted development.”

The Donala Water and Sanitation District is looking at SDS as a possible means to move water that they’ve recently purchased from the Mount Massive Ranch, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. The pipeline project is just one possible solution for water providers dependent on the Denver Basin Aquifer System. From the article:

Without SDS, Donala could look at other options: Using its new source as augmentation water or making a deal with the Super Ditch. With one study estimating a cost of at least $1 billion to build a pipeline from the Lower Arkansas Valley north, it’s not likely that the district and its neighbors could afford such an option, Duthie said. For a relatively small player like Donala, which serves about 2,700 homes, finding a way to get the water could be costly, but the district is reaching the point where it needs to spend money for water…

The owner of the Mount Massive Ranch approached Donala with the sale, which was completed in November. Donala paid $4.7 million for what it expects will be about 300 acre-feet of water, or more than $15,000 an acre-foot. That amounts to about one-fifth of the annual demand of the Donala district. The change of use of the water still has to be decreed in water court, and then there’s the problem of moving it. The district also owns about 700 acres in Lake County and is working with county commissioners there on how the land will be developed…

Donala sits atop the Denver Basin Aquifer, a deep underground source of water that is not tributary to surface systems. Like other El Paso communities, the district faces increasing costs of extracting the water in what amounts to mining the aquifer. While more wells could be drilled, the expense is prohibitive and Donala and its neighbors, which have banded together to form the Pikes Peak Water Authority, are searching for new solutions…

Other districts in El Paso County face similar challenges and could be in the market for water. Last year, the Pikes Peak authority put out feelers for water on the Bessemer Ditch, a move that ultimately sparked the Pueblo Board of Water Works most recent attempt to buy shares on the ditch. Fountain last year purchased a ranch in Custer County. In Fremont County, Penrose made a similar purchase of ranch water rights in the western end of the county. It’s not likely to stop. “We cannot rely on Denver Basin groundwater to solve our problems,” said Jessie Shaffer, who was recently hired as the engineer for the Woodmoor District, which has 3,300 accounts.

The Cherokee Metropolitan District, which is located near Colorado Springs, lost about 40 percent of its water in a recent court case and is still trying to gain state approval for a plan to recharge part of the Upper Black Squirrel Creek basin — a well area east of Colorado Springs not connected to surface supplies — so it can reuse flows it now flushes down the Fountain. New water could also be a possibility. The district serves more than 7,000 households. “Cherokee will never be off irrigation restrictions,” said Kip Petersen, general manager, adding that the decision has been hard. “People don’t like to hear that your lawn is a secondary concern.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County wants Colorado Springs to spend $50 million on mitigation

Here’s an update on Colorado Springs Utilities’ 1041 permit from Pueblo County for their proposed Southern Delivery System, written by Chris Woodka for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The proposed conditions also seek continued funding of sewer improvements and stormwater controls in Colorado Springs, limits on out-of-basin water transfers, and new agreements on protecting Arkansas River flows and Lake Pueblo levels. Money would be earmarked for further study of flood control on Fountain Creek. Pueblo County commissioners will meet at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Pueblo County Courthouse to hear public comment and consider the recommendations, which were released Wednesday and are posted on the county’s Web site. There is also an appendix that has a more complete list of conditions under the permit…

The $50 million would be paid out over five years after completion of the SDS pipeline. The funding would include a small amount, $300,000, for a study of a dam or dams for flood control on Fountain Creek. The remaining $49.7 million would go to support Fountain Creek upgrades listed in the Army Corps of Engineers 2008 report on the Fountain Creek Watershed, the Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan and future projects not yet identified. If a Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District is created by the state Legislature, it would manage the funds. Otherwise, the county and SDS partners would create a Fountain Creek Restoration Foundation to carry out the projects, according to staff recommendations…

“I’ve only looked at it real quickly, but it looks consistent with what our staff has talked about,” said John Fredell, SDS project director. “I’m hoping these are workable conditions.” Colorado Springs council members and management will take the county’s staff recommendations and compare the cost of complying with them against the cost of coming out of Fremont County to make a “good business decision,” Fredell said…

The recommendations seek a guarantee that Colorado Springs will spend an additional $75 million on sewer improvements by the year 2024, on top of the $114 million it has spent since 2000. Sewer upgrades are also required to meet the conditions of state health department compliance orders that were issued for more than 100 sewer spills by Colorado Springs dating back to 1998. There are other conditions specific to Fountain Creek, which is central to SDS even though the 14-mile route of the pipeline goes to the west of Interstate 25, from Pueblo Dam through Pueblo West and Walker ranches before entering El Paso County. The pipeline is a total 50 miles long, and the project includes a treatment plant and two reservoirs to the north on Fountain Creek. Colorado Springs would commit to sediment control on Clear Springs Ranch, located south of Fountain, and would include Pueblo County in its adaptive management plan for Fountain Creek, as outlined in the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental impact statement. Additional conditions would commit SDS funding for Corps recommendations to dredge in Pueblo to maintain the effectiveness of flood control levees. Colorado Springs would assure that peak flows and volume during flooding would not increase from current levels, primarily through its stormwater enterprise, according to the recommendations…

The recommendations would put constraints on SDS as well. Any increase in water moving through the pipeline beyond the 78 million gallons per day for Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain and 18 million gallons per day with Pueblo West would trigger a permit review. Any water sold or leased must stay within Arkansas River basin. If any other areas of El Paso County contract for water, they must comply with a list of Fountain Creek protections…

Elsewhere, in addition to insisting on compliance with the flow management program on the Arkansas River through Pueblo, the recommendations ask for new agreements between Colorado Springs and the Pueblo Board of Water Works. One pact would create a pool of water in Lake Pueblo to supplement low flows – those below 50 cubic feet per second – in the river. The current agreement simply restricts exchanges when flows drop below 100 cfs and allows for voluntary releases for such things as kayak events in the Downtown Whitewater Park. Security and Pueblo West would be required to sign on to the flow management program, which already includes Colorado Springs and Fountain.

In a separate pact, Colorado Springs Utilities would also be required to execute a sharing agreement for the North Outlet Works. The county also would require a separate review of the North Outlet Works by the Reclamation in order to assure dam safety…

There are also provisions dealing with Lake Pueblo. One is a lake level management program suggested by Ray Petros, a Pueblo County water lawyer, in January. The details of the program are intentionally vague, since Colorado Springs and its SDS partners do not have control of the total volume in Lake Pueblo…

The recommended conditions also would include Pueblo County as a partner in any future discussions about the enlargement of Lake Pueblo. The recommendations would provide three years for Colorado Springs to begin construction, subject to obtaining the necessary state and federal permits.

Here’s a look at the prospect of guaranteed flows in the Arkansas River through Pueblo if an agreement is struck between Colorado Springs Utilities and the Pueblo Board of Water Works as part of the proposed Southern Delivery System, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The agreement is one of two the Pueblo water board and Colorado Springs are looking at as part of Pueblo County mitigation for the Southern Delivery System. The other would clarify which outlets at Pueblo Dam could be used to supply water. Both agreements will be considered Tuesday by the water board at its monthly meeting…

The new flow program would go beyond the provisions of the plan set up under the 2004 intergovernmental agreement between the city of Pueblo, the Pueblo water board and Colorado Springs by creating a pool of water at Lake Pueblo to release into the Arkansas River during extreme low flows, said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. “The Legacy Program has given us more flexibility,” Hamel explained, referring to an effort to improve fish habitat and recreation on the Arkansas River that began in the 1990s. “The fresh water released from the pool will help keep the oxygen levels up for fish.” The 2004 IGA, also joined by Fountain, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Aurora, prevents exchanges during times when the flow of the Arkansas River drops below 100 cubic feet per second. That agreement would remain in place if Pueblo County commissioners and Colorado Springs agree on mitigation for SDS proposed this week by county staff…

The county also would require Security, Pueblo West and any future users of SDS to join the flow program as well, if staff recommendations are accepted. The new program would kick in at flows that are dangerously low for fish, under 50 cfs. Flows approach those levels at times during winter months when there is little water in the river and most of that is being stored under the winter water program. It happened in 2005, and in 2007 was averted by an emergency lease of water from Pueblo by the Division of Wildlife. There is nothing in the 2004 IGA that requires any release of water to make up the deficiency Under the new agreement, Pueblo and Colorado Springs each would store 1,500 acre-feet to hold available for release. The 3,000 acre-foot pool would be enough to provide additional flows of 50 cfs to the river for about one month. However, the full amount would probably not be needed on 30 consecutive days, according to historical records. As under the existing flow program, there would be exceptions for dry years. Under the new agreement, Pueblo would not have to store water if it did not have sufficient water for its annual program of leasing raw water to other users in the Arkansas Valley. Colorado Springs would not be required to provide water to the new pool if its storage supplies were below 70 percent or if river flows were projected to be below average by May 1 federal forecasts…

The second agreement would protect Pueblo’s use of the Joint Use Manifold below Pueblo Dam on the south side of the Arkansas River and proposes sharing the North Outlet Works, which would be constructed on the river outlet on the north side of the dam, Colorado Springs has proposed for SDS. It also would restrict SDS deliveries through the Joint Use Manifold if Pueblo were unable to receive gravity-fed flows at the Whitlock Treatment Plant. Pueblo, the Fountain Valley Authority and Pueblo West all use the south manifold now, but there is excess capacity. In the future, however, Pueblo and the Arkansas Valley Conduit would use that capacity. The agreement sets out ways Colorado Springs and Pueblo could share both the existing manifold and the North Outlet Works, perhaps with an interconnecting pipeline. Pueblo could share in some of the costs if it chose to connect with the north side works.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Pueblo: Council delays vote on Fountain Creek IGA

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “Pueblo City Council on Monday postponed its vote on a proposed Fountain Creek intergovernmental agreement until next week.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Springs City Council will decide route

If Pueblo County ultimately approves a permit for the Southern Delivery System through the county it will be up to the Colorado Springs City Council to decide which route to take for the pipeline, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Fremont County moved ahead in the process this week when commissioners approved a special use permit. During the meeting Tuesday morning, Pueblo County staff made the call to delay a public hearing three more weeks to give themselves more time to work out details for a 1041 permit.

Colorado Springs still views the Pueblo Dam route as most favorable, but has developed the Fremont County option as its fallback plan. The hearing is now scheduled to resume at 6 p.m. March 18 at the Pueblo County Courthouse. “We’re real pleased with the outcome in Fremont County, and the conditions seem reasonable,” said John Fredell, SDS project director. “We are making progress in Pueblo County, but there are still a lot of things we need to work out. In the end, it will come down to a business decision by our board (the Colorado Springs City Council).” Chief among those are the conditions on Fountain Creek, which would be affected under either plan by increased daily flows of treated wastewater into the creek and runoff from the new development that would be served by SDS in Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain. “On the Pueblo County side, everything centers around the conditions on Fountain Creek,” Fredell said. Fountain Creek impacts are addressed in the environmental impact statement by the Bureau of Reclamation, which looked at the recently formed stormwater enterprise as the primary vehicle for dealing with flows…

Pueblo County staff wants even tighter assurances that if more problems pop up on Fountain Creek, they will be addressed by Colorado Springs and its SDS partners. “We’ve had some meetings and discussed some possible language,” Fredell said…

Other than the Fountain Creek issue, which Fredell is optimistic would be addressed with either route, Colorado Springs has taken pains to offer the same sorts of things to both counties, Fredell said. Issues like revegetation, noise control, dust control, roads and easements are treated the same in both counties, with some of the same conditions Pueblo staff wants already included as commitments referenced in Fremont County’s permit.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County wants more study, Fremont County sets conditions

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “negotiations on unresolved issues continue. County staff requested moving a meeting scheduled for tonight to 6 p.m. March 18 at the Pueblo County Courthouse in order to give county staff more time to work on requirements under the county’s 1041 land-use rules. ‘Honestly, we’re still trying to work out mitigation and conditions that the commissioners will accept,’ said Kim Headley, county planning director. ‘Hopefully we can get something finalized in the next three weeks that protects the county, as we should.’ Commissioners intend to meet briefly tonight to continue a public hearing that began in December.”

Meanwhile, here’s an update on Fremont County’s permit for SDS and the conditions they’ll be enforcing against Colorado Springs Utilities is the project is built through the county, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Fremont County attached about 40 conditions and a dozen contingencies to the permit, along with the understanding that Colorado Springs will report back often. The first update will come in two weeks, with another scheduled in three months. Those checkpoints will keep the project moving forward even as Pueblo County continues to attempt to resolve differences over levels at Lake Pueblo, flows on the Arkansas River and improvements on Fountain Creek that are intertwined with SDS. Colorado Springs considers Fremont County a fallback option if its desired route through Pueblo County can’t be negotiated. “The applicant is applying in two counties, and Pueblo is treating it in a different way,” Fremont County Commission Chairman Mike Stiehl said at Tuesday’s meeting. “The Bureau of Reclamation has set conditions that we assume they will be enforcing.” That was part of Pueblo County’s decision to postpone a meeting scheduled Wednesday to March 18.

Pueblo County has not been able to move quickly, in part, because the final conditions Reclamation intends to enforce have not been released, Planning Director Kim Headley said. The record of decision, a document that would be the basis of contract negotiations between Colorado Springs and its SDS partners, has not been finalized more than two months after the environmental impact statement for the project was completed in December.

Fremont County commissioners, who signed an agreement last year to expedite the SDS permit, have chosen to let Reclamation work at its own pace on its own issues. Similarly, issues about water flow are for the most part the primary responsibility of the State Division of Water Resources to administer, not the county. Agreements with other federal, state and local agencies are necessary, but the commissioners do not have the sort of regulations that Pueblo has to make additional requirements in those areas. “Our job has been to identify our own concerns and those expressed at the public hearing,” Stiehl said. That does not mean other concerns will be ignored, however. Stiehl and Norden both took great pains to point out that Fremont County’s blessing hinges on Colorado Springs obtaining the approval it needs from other agencies, a theme that is repeated throughout the conditions and contingency document…

Basically, the approval in Fremont County covers the footprint of the project itself, a 100-foot-wide, 17-mile-long path that includes three pump stations. The 66-inch diameter pipeline would bring up to 78 million gallons of water a day from a river intake near Florence to the El Paso County line through Fremont County. From there, it would go to a reservoir and treatment plant to be added to other sources of water to serve Colorado Springs, Fountain and Security…

In Fremont County, talks have just begun among Colorado Springs, Penrose and the Beaver Park Irrigation Co. to determine if the two Fremont County groups can afford to hook into the pipeline. Things are happening later in Fremont County because up until 2007, the Fremont County route was seen as an unrealistic option. During meetings in late 2005, Reclamation was careful to point out that the route was rejected as too costly, but included solely to satisfy the court of public opinion. Water court filings by Colorado Springs, Fountain and Security in late 2006 made it clear that interest was renewed in a Fremont County route, a forgotten piece that showed up on early maps of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project as the route for the Fountain Valley Conduit. The Fountain Valley line eventually was built from Pueblo Dam…

Some of the deadlines for Colorado Springs under the conditions improved Tuesday by Fremont County included:

– Notification within 20 days of every other SDS permit as they are issued.

– Two weeks progress report on negotiations with Penrose and Beaver Park.

– Three-month deadline to reach a deal with Penrose and Beaver Park.

– Work on the project cannot stop for any six-month period.

– One year to obtain easements or parcels needed for the pipeline, provide final engineering reports and install a river gauge below the Eastern Fremont County Sanitation District. Also included in that time-frame are written agreements from the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding easements on Colorado 115, Florence on development of an Arkansas River Park, Penrose, Beaver Park and the Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding flood protection structures for Penrose.

More coverage from Debbie Bell writing for the Cañon City Daily Record:

Almost 50 conditions and contingencies surround the Southern Delivery System permit approved Tuesday by the Fremont County Commissioners. Colorado Springs Utilities, the lead partner in the project, expressed its acceptance of the conditions. “They appear to be consistent with the conditions we reviewed before,” said SDS Project Manager John Fredell. “They appear reasonable to us.”

Among the conditions CSU must meet are:

— Limit construction hours to Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The county may grant exceptions when warranted.

— Install fire protection and cooperate with requirements of the Florence Fire Protection District.

— Post bonds for reclamation.

— Commit in writing to its proposed improvements of Florence River Park.

— Forward Payment in Lieu of Taxes to Fremont County annually equal to any reduction in private property taxes.

— Use Fremont County contractors, businesses, workers, materials and supplies to the extent feasible.

In addition to the conditions surrounding the operation of the facility once built, CSU has 12 months to meet certain conditions, including:

— Obtain all rights for property use and easements.

— Negotiate in good faith with Penrose Water District and Beaver Park Water to form partnerships.

— Obtain proof from Colorado Department of Transportation the project will not impede future widening of Colo. 115.

— Install a USGS-compatible river monitoring gauge immediately below the Arkansas River intake to monitor water flow.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs Utilities snags a permit from Fremont County commissioners

From KOAA.com (David Ortiviz): ”
the Fremont County route is the utility’s alternate choice. Colorado Springs Utilities says it would cost up to $100 million less to build the pipeline from the Pueblo reservoir. ‘We think there’s some real benefits from coming out of the reservoir, but again we plan, if we can’t work out permit conditions that work for Colorado Springs we’re going to build a project in Fremont County off the river,’ said John Fredell, project manager for the Southern Delivery System.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Colorado Springs Utilities snags a permit from Fremont County commissioners

The Fremont County commissioners approved Colorado Springs Utilities’ permit application for the Southern Delivery System through the county today, according to a report from Debbie Bell writing for the Cañon City Daily Record. From the article:

The permit will allow CSU to build a water intake and pump station north of the Arkansas River near Colo. 115, two additional pump stations, 17 miles of 66-inch diameter pipeline and an electric substation and transmission facilities to transport up to 78 million gallons of water a day to Colorado Springs. CSU and its partners, Security and Fountain, already own the water rights and are seeking a long-term method of transportation.

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

Colorado Springs Utilities received approval from Fremont County commissioners Tuesday to build a water pipeline from the Arkansas River, the backup plan for the Southern Delivery System. Commissioners voted 3-0 to approve a special review use permit.

While Utilities officials still hope to build a pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir, they were thrilled to finally receive a county approval after more than a decade of planning on the controversial project. “It just makes sure this is the viable alternative we’ve always said it was,” said Utilities’ project manager John Fredell.

The approval was timely. Utilities officials are seeking a permit from Pueblo County, and were supposed to have been in Pueblo tonight for the fifth part of a hearing to find out what conditions that county will attach to approval for a pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir. But Pueblo County on Tuesday postponed it to March 18, the second time it had been pushed back, to give its staff more time to review the project.

Update: Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain:

The approval came with lots of strings attached, as well as some unfinished, frantic bargaining with local water users. The Fremont County route, ranked as a backup plan to SDS through Pueblo County both by Colorado Springs Utilities and the Bureau of Reclamation, would cross 17 miles of mostly uninhabited land on its way to serve Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain water needs…

Fremont County commissioners struggled during a 2-hour meeting Tuesday to develop conditions that would cover unknown conditions centered on the Penrose area. Finally, they gave approval. “It still comes with the expectation that Colorado Springs will negotiate in good faith,” Commissioner Ed Norden said.

The Beaver Park Irrigation Co. and Penrose Water both would like to connect to the pipeline if it is built in Fremont County, but don’t know if they can afford to become partners or how the timing of SDS would affect other water projects already in the works.

The Natural Resources Conservancy Agency has a plan to build flood control detention ponds in Penrose, and is concerned about whether some of the same rights of way needed for the proposed pipeline would interfere.

Florence has been assured that its Arkansas River park would be better protected from floods, and its council supports SDS, but there’s nothing in writing. Colorado Springs has only just begun discussions with the major shareholders on the Lester & Attebery ditch, whose headgate it proposes to rebuild for its river intake.

Beaver Park and Penrose asked for more time to see if deals could be worked out. “One of our major concerns is the environmental impact statement,” said Lissa Pinello, president of the Penrose District. “Without a good estimate, we don’t know if the cost would be too high for us.”[…]

The dilemma for Penrose is that it already is making plans for a $9.7 million project to develop a delivery system for water rights it purchased in the western end of the county. There is an opportunity to save more than $2 million by joining SDS, but state loans and grants already are in place for the existing project. Colorado Springs would bend its own rules and allow Penrose to share rights of way for pipelines if it could not afford SDS, Fredell added. Beaver Park finds itself in similar straits. “There is an awful lot of financial burden that we cannot afford,” said Beaver Park Superintendent Tom Sanders. “We would like to be able to afford getting into this.” Norden, in particular, pushed Beaver Park and Penrose officials on determining what sort of requirement the commissioners could put into the lengthy list of conditions…

In the end, it was Colorado Springs that suggested a plan to resolve the conflict. Fredell laid out a 90-day timetable for negotiations with the two districts, promising to provide more complete cost figures. Colorado Springs also headed off the issue of flood control detention ponds by offering to provide fill for the project from the hole it would be digging for the pipeline. Fredell also assured commissioners that Colorado Springs will reach a written agreement for the park at Florence and has been talking to the Grisenti family on the Lester & Attebery Ditch.

Commission Chairman Mike Stiehl voiced a concern about maintaining both existing flow requirements and potentially more restrictive requirements in the future to maintain water quality for the Eastern Fremont County Sanitation District. Those rights are attached to court decrees, said Colorado Springs Utilities water rights specialist Keith Riley. Earlier in the meeting, the commissioners indicated their concerns would be limited to the portions of the project they permit, leaving water rights and environmental compliance issues to the agencies that are charged to enforce them.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo and Fremont counties continue hearings

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “Deliberations in two counties over a pipeline that primarily would serve a third continue this week.”

[More…]

Fremont County commissioners are scheduled to meet at 9:30 a.m. today at the Fremont County Courthouse on the Southern Delivery System to consider a proposal by El Paso County communities Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain to build a pipeline through 17 miles of the Fremont County north of Florence. The route is Plan B for Colorado Springs, which actually wants to start the pipeline at the Pueblo Dam.

Pueblo County commissioners have scheduled a hearing for 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Pueblo County Courthouse to review a staff proposal for conditions on the $1.1 billion pipeline, which would pass through seven miles of Pueblo West and seven miles of Walker Ranches.

Pueblo West would tap into the pipeline if it comes from Pueblo Dam. Neither commission board plans to accept public comment as part of the hearings this week, but the public would have an opportunity to comment on the Pueblo County plan, once it is finalized. Fremont County closed comments at the Feb. 10 hearing and are required by their own regulations to make a decision within 45 days, Chairman Mike Stiehl said. The Bureau of Reclamation still has not issued a record of decision that would allow contract negotiations to begin.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Fremont County alternative

Here’s a look at the discussion prompted by Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System route through Fremont County, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

If the westerly route is chosen over the proposed action at Pueblo Dam, water providers in Fremont County could benefit, said Bruce McCormick, Colorado Springs water services chief. How, exactly, they can benefit is still a matter of negotiations that were occurring on the eve of the Fremont County hearing and will continue over at least the next two weeks. “We feel it’s best to meet with stakeholders and get down to their concerns,” said John Fredell, SDS project director. Colorado Springs verbally committed to adding hydrants for fire protection and improving Florence’s river park as benefits to Fremont County at the public hearing last week. Holcim Cement concerns were mollified. Minimum flows in the Arkansas River for a regional sanitation plant and for rafters seem to be assured.

Some tougher questions loomed. The toughest dealt with the possibility of adding the Penrose Water District to the SDS line. Colorado Springs amended its plan in Pueblo County in 2007 to include a tap for Pueblo West if the project comes from Pueblo Dam. That change allowed full evaluation of Pueblo West as an SDS partner under the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental impact statement. It also provided a tangible benefit for ‘Pueblo County that is missing in Fremont County. Pueblo West is contributing just $1 million toward SDS under its 2007 agreement with Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain to participate in the project. The cost of building a river intake if the pipeline goes to Fremont County could be as much as $8 million.

The Penrose Water District could realize a similar savings. In 2006, the district bought water rights from Denzel Goodwin, a western Fremont County rancher. It applied for, and received, an $8.9 million loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board toward a $9.7 million project to develop a well field, pipeline and storage for the water that it would gain. SDS would be a much more attractive option. It would be relatively simple and less costly for the Penrose Water District to tap into the pipeline or share the intake at the Lester-Atterbury Ditch. The Penrose district has little money to put toward SDS or the revised EIS that would be needed should it become a partner, said Lissa Pinello, president of the district. Additionally, the district’s board had not formally met on a course of action.

The Beaver Park Water District, which has 530 shareholders and sells water for Penrose is further along in negotiations, said Gary Ratkovich, president. The district and Colorado Springs are talking about ways to bring water into Penrose from the Arkansas River as well as the Beaver Park drainage. One sticking point has been money, since Beaver Park also would have to pay to play in the SDS project. Beaver Park has a history of dealing with Colorado Springs, purchasing the Golden Cycle water rights it now owns from Colorado Springs in 1976. Ratkovich asked commissioners for a two-week delay to give the district time to negotiate a contract with Colorado Springs that would include both supply options and conditions for future water district projects.

Commissioners also had a late request from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a federal agency, to coordinate proposed flood protection projects in the Penrose area that in some cases share a footprint with the pipeline.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Fremont County alternative

Here’s an update on the deliberations over Colorado Springs’ proposal to run the Southern Delivery System through Fremont County, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

That left commissioners in Fremont County – the fallback option for Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain – wondering when the mitigation for impacts in their county would be developed. “How do these mitigations transfer to Fremont County?” asked Mike Stiehl, chairman of the Fremont County commissioners. “Many would stay the same,” explained Keith Riley, a Colorado Springs Utilities staffer working on SDS. Riley said parts of the EIS might have to be written if Colorado Springs chooses to run the pipeline through Fremont County, an alternative it is considering if it becomes too difficult to obtain a 1041 land-use permit in Pueblo County…

Stiehl closed public comment on the application for the project after Tuesday’s hearing and noted commissioners have 45 days to make a decision under their own guidelines. Commissioners will meet again on the issue on Feb. 24. Pueblo County commissioners will next take up deliberations on the 1041 permit at 6 p.m. Feb. 25 at the Pueblo County Courthouse.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.