#Colorado Springs pays first $10M to Fountain Creek district — The Pueblo Chieftain

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs Utilities presented the first of five $10 million payments to the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District this week.

The check was actually for $9,578,817, in order to reflect prepayment of $600,000 and interest payments.

The payment of $50 million to the district is a condition of the Pueblo County 1041 agreement with Pueblo County, reached in 2009 for the construction of the Southern Delivery System.

The district has plans to spend about $2.5 million this year, as it continues studies of where the best sites for dams or detention ponds are located. The money could be used to leverage funds for large projects such as a dam.

The second $10 million payment is due Jan. 15.

The money is to be used for Fountain Creek flood control projects, including a possible dam, that have a primary, not incidental benefit to Pueblo.

The release of the money was made possible by the settlement of stormwater control issues that arose after Colorado Springs abolished its stormwater enterprise in 2009. That agreement requires Colorado Springs to spend an additional $460 million to control stormwater in the city.

The enterprise was in place when Pueblo County issued its 1041 permit in 2009, which allowed Colorado Springs Utilities to construct the 17-mile portion of the pipeline in Pueblo County.

SDS is a 50-mile pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West all benefit from the $825 million project.

Meanwhile, Fountain Creek keeps knocking out Colorado Springs’ stormwater control projects. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:

Two projects meant to improve Fountain Creek through Pueblo have not held up well, but the city is not in a position to simply walk away from them.

Both were kicked off with a great deal of fanfare in 2011 as part of a $1.5 million demonstration project, but neither was able to withstand high water that came in single events in 2011 and 2013 or in a prolonged deluge in 2015.

Jeff Bailey, Pueblo’s stormwater director, gave a bleak assessment to the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District Friday of the side detention pond that was built behind the North Side Walmart and the sediment collector located just north of the confluence with the Arkansas River.

He inherited both projects two years ago, and didn’t sound thrilled with either. But because of the investment put into the collector and the environmental implications of the detention pond, he is obligated to try to make them work.

The pond was designed to collect water as it backs up from a full channel, then slowly release it as the water recedes.

But the detention pond flooded in September 2011 before the project was completely finished. That scoured the ground too deeply, causing the pond to intercept groundwater. There wasn’t enough money to fill the pond, so the city — through an arrangement with the Pueblo Board of Water Works — must repay the evaporation costs each year.

The floods in 2013 and 2015 damaged the east retaining wall of the pond and took out most of the service road to the north bank. Disaster funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency can be applied to repairing the embankment, but the money is slow in coming, Bailey explained.

The Army Corps of Engineers won’t allow the city to disturb the wetlands that were created as part of the project. Finally, sediment has clogged the inlet/outlet pipe.

“Because of all this stuff, it’s difficult to maintain,” Bailey said.

The sediment collector was put in by Streamside Systems, and billed as a way to continuously dredge Fountain Creek by removing sediment as water washed over the large concrete structure. But differing opinions about where it should be placed and how it should be operating led to failure after it initially collected a pile of sand.

The device relies on pumps to remove sediment laden water, then return the water to the exact point where it was taken out. But when it is turned off, sediment continues to fall into it.

“It’s very labor intensive to clean out the collector and the pipes,” Bailey said.

No sediment has been collected since July 2013, and the collector is buried under 3-4 feet of sand.
“Since I came into stormwater, I’ve decided to give it one more college try and attempt to make it operational at low flows,” Bailey said. “We’re hoping to do it this winter. But we have to get it set up before we can turn it back on.”

Bailey said collectors work in other places, and there’s still a chance Pueblo’s could be functional. He plans to install a concrete “forebay” that could be easily cleaned, and then perhaps it could begin collecting large amounts of sediment.

During the initial installation, there were discussions about what to do with the sediment.

“That’s a problem I’d love to have,” Bailey said.

Some of the funding for the project could come from $3 million that Colorado Springs Utilities made available through its recent settlement with Pueblo County and $2.2 million that it paid earlier to settle dredging issues under the 1041 permit for Southern Delivery System. Already, $350,000 has been spent on the sediment collector.

Pueblo County Commissioner Terry Hart, chairman of the Fountain Creek board, said that money also has to be used for such things as debris removal as well.

“But some of the money could go for (the collector),” Hart said, “We’ve invested a lot of money in it already.”

#Colorado Springs lists 71 stormwater projects to be built in region — The Colorado Springs Gazette

The confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River in Pueblo County -- photo via the Colorado Springs Business Journal — The confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River in Pueblo County — photo via the Colorado Springs Business Journal

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Billie Stanton Anleu):

New detention ponds and detention basins dominate the list of 71 stormwater projects that will be built throughout Colorado Springs over the next 20 years as part of a $460 million intergovernmental agreement.

Topping the list released by the city Wednesday are $2 million worth of projects through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to maintain and repair city stormwater fixtures; a $250,000 King Street detention pond; a $2.5 million detention basin at America the Beautiful Park, and a $3 million detention basin on Sand Creek, surrounded by Forest Meadows housing developments near Woodmen and Black Forest roads.

The projects are intended to stanch the flow of flood waters into Pueblo County, and cut back on sediments and other pollutants entering drainages and going downstream.

Asked why the developers aren’t providing the Sand Creek pond, Public Works Director Travis Easton said he couldn’t recall for certain but thought one of the developers was providing other stormwater work.

The America the Beautiful project calls for a consultant to be hired and to coordinate the work with Kiowa Engineering, designer for the adjacent Olympic Museum, one of three City for Champions projects that all are privately funded.

The city money isn’t being spent to benefit the museum; rather, it’s needed for that entire downtown area, Easton said.

“What we realized is we have open space in that park, with a low-lying area, and needed to route water from downtown into the pond to treat it before it enters Fountain Creek. They didn’t have detention ponds back when that was built, and it just goes straight into Fountain Creek,” he said.

Many of the detention ponds and basins got the nod from Wright Water Engineers Inc., which is representing Pueblo County in its three-way pact with the city and Colorado Springs Utilities.

Other projects throughout Colorado Springs, including many listed by the Pikes Peak Stormwater Task Force in 2013, are lower on the city’s new list.

But, Easton said, “I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the order of things farther down the list because these will change. We’re starting the top nine projects this year. We’re meeting with Pueblo County’s engineers soon to go over the list, which we’ll do every year, and plan the projects for the next five years.”

Big concessions to Pueblo County had to be made in the agreement, or Utilities could have been blocked from launching its $825 million Southern Delivery System last month. The county held a critical permit for the massive water project, and its commissioners demanded extensive stormwater work on Fountain Creek and its tributaries.

The county’s needs were heavy on flood control, sediment loading and channel stabilization, Easton said, “but we agree those are needed.”

The city’s Stormwater Division is spending $7.1 million next year on operating costs alone, primarily personnel and equipment, he said. Three new employees have been brought on board, and five more will be hired over the next three months.

“We need to make sure we have processes in place so these people can hit the ground running and do the job.”

The city has launched a new website to highlight the location of all 71 stormwater projects on an interactive map. Easton said he also plans to combine the city’s new interactive maps so stormwater and roads projects all will be in one place.

“It will be a one-stop shop for citizens to go and see where their money is being spent. This is a tool meant for the citizens, a communication tool.”

The Grand Valley Drainage district fights back in court

Bicycling the Colorado National Monument, Grand Valley in the distance via Colorado.com

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

The Grand Valley Drainage District has been able since 1983 to charge fees for services such as handling stormwater runoff, the district says in a Mesa County District Court filing.

The district responded to a lawsuit filed by the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce and Mesa County that asked the court to nullify the bills sent out to more than 40,000 property owners aimed at generating $2.5 million annually for stormwater improvements. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction that would stop the fee.

Mesa County owes $25,000 and the chamber $600, the drainage district said in its response that asks Judge David Bottger to uphold the fee and require the plaintiffs to pay the bills.

A hearing date is to be scheduled.

The district’s due date for payment is May 31. It is negotiating with the state to collect any unpaid fees.

The original lawsuit said the fees violated the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights section of the state constitution because it amounted to a tax that was imposed without a vote of the residents of the district.

The fees “are not a tax of any kind,” the district said in its response, but “service fees” needed to defray the cost of managing and controlling stormwater flowing off impervious surfaces.

The district’s existing mill levy brings in enough money to operate the networks of ditches and conduits needed to carry irrigation waters and seep toward the Colorado River.

The levy, however, “is not sufficient to address either the quality of water, or the increase in the quantity of water, generated by urban development and the impervious surfaces that are created as part of urbanization, such as roofs, sidewalks, driveways and parking lots,” the district said.

The district is charging residents within its 90-square-mile area north of the Colorado River $36 per year. Businesses, local governments, churches and other nonprofits are charged $36 per year for each 2,500-square-foot area of impervious surface they occupy.

The district also charges an impact fee on new development.

School District 51 is receiving a credit for its payments in recognition of teaching children about water and runoff.

“Fountain Creek is not a dead stream…It’s rich in biota” — Scott Herrmann

Fountain Creek photo via the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Two researchers say Fountain Creek has a rich aquatic environment that would benefit from flood control structures such as a dam.

“This is an extremely diverse biological stream and needs to be continuously studied,” said Scott Herrmann, a retired biology professor from Colorado State University-Pueblo.

“A large dam could provide better understanding of what’s happening in the watershed, and be a good recreational benefit to the entire watershed of Fountain Creek,” said Del Nimmo, who has worked with Herrmann on Fountain Creek projects for the past decade.

The pair presented a suite of studies to Pueblo County commissioners, who have funded their recent work, last week.

Those studies began in 2007 and continued for five years, providing a baseline of conditions before the Waldo Canyon and Black Forest fires, and the growth impact of the Southern Delivery System. They track selenium and mercury concentrations moving through the food chain in plants, insects and fish.

“A large dam on Fountain Creek would give us the flood control capability that we need, but also provide recreational opportunities that are primary, with a pool of water as well as a tailwater. So we would have a fishery and fishing benefits from such a structure,” Her- rmann said.

The studies began in 2007 when the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District purchased equipment for CSU-Pueblo that allowed measurement of minute concentrations of contaminants in tissues.

Herrmann led a team that identified how bryophytes (moss) absorbed selenium.

“What it told us was that selenium is there and available (to life forms), and there is more of it as you go downstream,” Nimmo said. “But not too many people care about bryophytes, so we began to look at fish.”

Further studies looked at the impact on fish and insects, particularly chironomid midges.

Some of the studies have only been published in the last six months.

“One of the surprises was that we also found mercury in all but one of the 111 fish we tested,” Nimmo said.

Selenium may act as a protection against harmful effects of mercury for the fish, because it reduces toxicity, Herrmann said. But the presence of both elements points to the need to monitor levels in species to measure how development in El Paso County is affecting the creek.

The main reason Nimmo supports a dam on Fountain Creek is to reduce erosion, which is the primary reason for selenium making its way into the water. The Pierre shale that underlies Fountain Creek is known to contribute selenium when it comes into contact with water.

“We’re on a selenium dome,” Nimmo said.

“Nobody has tied selenium to erosion, but every time it floods there is not only damage by erosion, but to water quality.”

The studies found that Fountain Creek exceeded EPA selenium levels at all measuring points.

The insects, which provide food for the fish, are the subject of the most recent study, and the most fascinating for Herrmann.

“Fountain Creek is not a dead stream,” Herrmann said. “It’s rich in biota.”

Scientists found at least 150 species of insects on Fountain Creek, including 24 new species. The same methodology — pupal exuvia, or identifying casts left behind by adult males as they hatch — was used in an earlier study of the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, and found just 38 species, Herrmann said.

“The question is what effects will increased SDS return flows and runoff have on the species diversity of midges?” he said.

Check out the new floodplain maps for Pueblo County May 24

Pueblo 1921 photo via http://http://www.telcomhistory.org/

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Preliminary flood maps for the city of Pueblo and Pueblo County will be available for public review at a meeting from 1:30-3:30 p.m. May 24 at the city’s human resources conference room, 301 West B St.

Representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be on hand to discuss the maps, which will be used to determine flood insurance rates for Pueblo County property owners.

The meetings will look at changes in flood maps, explain flood hazards and review ordinances regarding the flood plains.

The preliminary maps reflect revised engineering in the last 10 years and are still subject to appeal. The Arkansas River, Fountain Creek, Lake Minnequa and several larger tributaries were included in the mapping.

The maps are available for public viewing on the city and county websites: http://pueblo.us/458/Stormwater-Utility and http://county.pueblo.org.

EPA awards $1.9 million to #Colorado School of Mines for water infrastructure research

Here’s the release from the Environmental Protection Agency (Lisa McClain-Vanderpool, Cathy Milbourn, Karen Gilbert):

[On May 4, 2016] the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced $3.9 million in funding to two institutions to research innovative, cost-effective technologies to manage stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows. Colorado School of Mines received $1.95M to develop a decision support tool to help communities evaluate alternative stormwater treatment technologies that consider diverse climates, regional practices and policies across the country. The tool will evaluate options and risks as well as life cycle costs associated with improving stormwater runoff management using green, gray and hybrid infrastructure. Colorado School of Mines will also create resources and hold workshops to conduct training sessions for these tools.

“EPA has done extensive research on green infrastructure to ensure the availability and quality of water in the United States,” said Thomas A. Burke, EPA Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “These grants will take this work a step further by developing green infrastructure technologies and providing an understanding of the full costs of using these new technologies over time.”

As water flows through storm drains, it carries many pollutants that end up in streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and oceans. Additionally, combined sewers carry sewage and stormwater runoff in the same pipe and when these exceed capacity, untreated water can be released into nearby waterways. Using the funding provided through these grants, researchers will produce tools and models to help communities evaluate the optimal mix of technologies that will treat stormwater with less energy, less expense and less burden on the environment. They will also research the possibility of reusing the cleaner water to help meet communities’ needs.

“Our decision support tool will help advance urban water management across the U.S. through integration of new green infrastructure technologies and by allowing decision makers to have access to state-of-the art tools, data sources and life cycle information” said Professor Terri Hogue, lead investigator at Colorado School of Mines.

Due to aging water infrastructure systems and regulatory requirements, stormwater management is an expensive challenge for many communities. The awardees will focus on the most cost-effective options like green infrastructure, practices that enhance natural ecological functions, such as growing gardens on roofs or building artificial ponds, to help manage stormwater and combined sewer overflows. Green infrastructure can replenish groundwater, provide flood control, add green spaces and parks, and revitalize neighborhoods.

The Water Environment Research Foundation in Alexandria, Virginia Also received $1.9 million to develop a life cycle cost and analysis framework, a publically accessible tool and database and a guide for decision makers that includes case studies.

To learn more about these awards recipients, visit http://www.epa.gov/research-grants/water-research-grants.

Denver: Big bump in storm and sanitary sewer rates in the works

From The Denver Post (Jon Murray):

Denver homeowners on average would pay $116 more in storm drainage and sewer fees over the next five years under a rate increase proposal that city officials will unveil this week.

The proposed rates, which would accelerate already scheduled automatic increases based on inflation, would bolster city plans for upgrades and projects through 2021 for the storm and sanitary sewer systems. Those aim to improve storm drainage, reduce flood risk and improve the quality of water discharged into the South Platte River. For the sanitary system that connects to homes and buildings, plans call for more maintenance and expansion of aging sewer pipes in several areas.

Storm drain and open channel improvements between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and the South Platte River (Globeville Landing Outfall), Stormwater detention/conveyance between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and Colorado Blvd, (Montclair Basin)
Stormwater detention/ conveyance immediately east of Colorado Blvd. (Park Hill Basin).

A big controversial project also is in the mix. About a quarter of the rate increases would help cover costs for northeast Denver’s “Platte to Park Hill” stormwater drainage projects, which have drawn opposition in part because of links to the planned Interstate 70 expansion and plans to regrade City Park Golf Course for stormwater detention.

Overall, storm drainage rates, which are billed annually by the city, would increase nearly 66 percent through 2020 — or 45 percent after annual inflation adjustments are taken into account.

The sanitary sewer rates that Denver Water customers pay monthly would increase 24 percent in that period. On top of the inflation adjustments, the new increase would amount to 8.6 percent.

Though Denver Public Works’ increase proposal was expected, the details were revealed this week for the first time in advance of a planned Wednesday presentation to the City Council’s Infrastructure and Culture Committee.

The proposal could advance to a final vote by the full council as early as May 23.

With the city facing an estimated $1.5 billion backlog in upgrades to stormwater pipes and an aging sewer system, Denver city officials portray the increases as necessary to step up progress.

“Just like so many other things in our city, we have huge infrastructure needs that are incredibly expensive,” said Councilman Jolon Clark, who chairs the infrastructure committee. “And we don’t have a way to pay for them,” requiring balanced plans.

If the rate increases win council approval, the money available each year for storm drainage system improvement and water quality projects would grow from $20 million to $30 million. For sanitary sewers, the city says the rate increase would boost annual spending for maintenance and new projects from $2.5 million to $8 million.

Public Works spokeswoman Nancy Kuhn said the sanitary increase also would help the city “keep pace with increasing water treatment costs, update aging infrastructure and prepare the system for the city’s future expected population growth.”

Among the proposal’s major upshots:

• Sanitary sewer fee proceeds would grow from $86 million a year to $104 million in 2020.

• The total annual storm drainage fees generated would grow from $41 million before the increase to nearly $69 million by 2020.

• The fee increases would enable borrowing of up to $206 million for the Platte to Park Hill projects, completing a funding puzzle estimated at $267 million to $298 million in scope.

But the proposal would hit homeowners and businesses in the wallet as the city ratchets up both the storm drainage and sanitary sewer rates each year through 2020, starting in July. Subsequent increases would hit each January, starting in 2017.

The annual increase for an average single-family home, which paid $320.28 last year, would range from $21.56 this year to $25 in 2020, city estimates show.

A study provided by the city says that current average combined bill is about $100 less than the average for a selection of other Front Range systems and large cities around the state. Denver’s estimated combined bill in 2020 would rate slightly above today’s average.

Clark said he probed planned water-quality improvements during a briefing he received on the proposal. In 17 years of working for The Greenway Foundation, he focused heavily on the Platte, which at times has measured E. coli bacteria levels exceeding safety standards. Other contaminants, including trash, also have been a problem.

“I think this plan will have marked improvements on water quality in our streams and rivers,” Clark said. “And it’s a really good start, but this isn’t the end of the conversation on water quality.”

Besides the automatic inflation adjustments, the city most recently increased sanitary sewer rates a cumulative 83 percent from 2011 through 2013. The storm drainage rate was increased 20 percent in 2011.

A presentation prepared for the council committee says the city could aid ratepayers by asking Denver Water to add the storm drainage fee — now billed annually — to water customers’ bills, on a monthly or quarterly basis. The storm fee factors in a lot’s size and the amount of impermeable surface area.

Officials also are exploring “potential affordability program options” to aid low-income households.

#AnimasRiver: Communities, state agencies await #EPA reimbursement from #GoldKingMine spill — The Durango Herald

From The Durango Herald (Jessica Pace):

Since Aug. 5, state and local entities estimate they’ve spent hundreds of thousands on expenses associated with the Gold King Mine spill. While the Environmental Protection Agency has footed the bill for some expenses, communities don’t know if and how much more they’ll be reimbursed.

The EPA, which triggered the spill that polluted regional watersheds with 3 million gallons of heavy-metal mine water, has reimbursed partial sums to state, tribal and local governments, and pledges to provide more. But on Wednesday, an EPA official told La Plata County commissioners and staff that reimbursement in full isn’t feasible.

And others are facing the same uncertainties.

In the spill’s aftermath, government, health and environment officials scrambled to understand the impacts, coordinate efforts, communicate with the public, seek money from the EPA and plan for the future. These efforts continue almost nine months later. Figures provided by the La Plata County finance department reflect expenditures of $472,714, for personnel, travel, water monitoring and other costs. For that, the county has received $197,792 reimbursement through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and $6,170 through the state of Colorado, which leaves $258,966 unpaid.

In Silverton and San Juan County, the story is much the same.

The town and county were reimbursed $220,000 for costs associated with the spill from August to October, but are seeking an additional $110,000.

“We haven’t been promised anything at all from that amount,” said San Juan County Commissioner Ernie Kuhlman. “And that bothers me.”

Bill Gardner, the town administrator, said the costs to pursue a Superfund listing extended through February. The issue of reimbursement was a roadblock for the community in deciding to pursue the listing.

Ultimately, the town and county agreed to pursue the EPA’s hazardous cleanup program.

“Now the EPA is saying we can’t reimburse you for costs, but the costs are directly related to achieving a Superfund status, which everyone – the EPA, La Plata County and Silverton – agreed they wanted,” Gardner said.

“So it is frustrating.”

Kuhlman said in a public meeting with the EPA this week, representatives said the agency could not commit to paying any further reimbursements.

That, Kuhlman said, may have the adverse effect of Silverton and San Juan County not making any commitments themselves.

“We’re the smallest county in the state, and probably the smallest budget, so it was our expectation we would be paid back for this,” he said. “The EPA saturates you with paperwork, and it costs money to have people to process that paperwork, and I don’t recommend we spend anymore unless we get paid back.”

The city of Durango spent $444,032 in the wake of the Gold King spill, which includes revenue the city lost when irrigation was shut down for nine days. The sum also included helping close the Animas River, keeping the public informed and research and meetings on how to address the spill, among other costs, according to city documents. So far, the EPA has agreed to pay the city $2,471, but the city has not received a check.

The city has asked for about $5.7 million in compensation over the next 15 years, which would include the amount spent on the immediate response and ongoing monitoring of river health, said City Manager Ron LeBlanc.

“We just want the city to be made whole,” he said.

The EPA keeps changing the rules about reimbursement requirements and the Oct. 31 deadline seems arbitrary, he said. “The EPA, quite frankly, has not made anything clear to us,” LeBlanc said.

The EPA has encouraged communities to draft cooperative agreements outlining goals and anticipated costs related to the spill. But last week, an EPA official told La Plata County that the federal agency could not accommodate all requests. County staff considered that a reversal of what the EPA had told them.

“The intent is not that this co-op agreement would cover future activities,” EPA Superfund remedial program director Bill Murray told the county on Wednesday. “For Superfund sites, we don’t often have future costs included.” Murray also pointed out that the EPA will incur its own costs with Superfund remediation at the Bonita Peak Mining District.

Calls to legal staff for the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes were not returned, but the Southern Ute tribe said in September that response costs totaled about $200,000, with more expenses expected. The EPA reported it has reimbursed the Southern Ute tribe $116,372 to date…

Gov. John Hickenlooper said he spoke with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday and she said the EPA intends to stick with its commitments.

“I think the right way to do this is to sit down with the local county officials and municipal officials and some people from the state and some people from the EPA in an aggressive, but thoughtful, way, and make sure that what compensation should be taken care of, that gets paid and we hold the EPA’s feet to the fire and not budge an inch,” Hickenlooper said. “They made certain commitments that I think we should hold them to.”

From The Durango Herald (Jessica Pace):

La Plata County recently received $9,700 from the Environmental Protection Agency for costs related to the Gold King Mine spill, which county officials say is a fraction of what it is owed.

Earlier this year, the county received about $200,000 from the EPA for costs incurred immediately after the Aug. 5 EPA-triggered spill of 3 million gallons of contaminated mine drainage into the Animas and San Juan rivers.

But county staff calculated the federal agency should cover an additional $249,224 in expenses related to the spill, and $9,817 to cover costs related to a tour of Superfund sites officials attended last fall to determine the feasibility of Superfund designation for the Bonita Peak Mining District.

“Last week, we received an award of $9,786 to reimburse for the majority of the costs incurred on the feasibility of the Superfund designation,” County Finance Director Diane Sorensen said. “The $249,224 is still unpaid.”

The county applied to establish a cooperative agreement with the EPA, asking for a total of $2.4 million, which includes the $249,224, over a 10-year period for remediation efforts directed toward water quality and mine cleanup. The federal agency is reviewing that agreement.

County commissioners were dismayed with receiving only $9,786 and the lengthy process.

“This has been an expensive education,” Commissioner Brad Blake said.

County officials plan to meet next week with the EPA’s Superfund remedial program director, Bill Murray, to discuss the proposed cooperative agreement.

The call for reimbursement is regional. Last month, the New Mexico Environment Department called for the EPA to issue $1.5 million for costs related to short-term emergency response efforts. The collective request came from 14 New Mexico state agencies, university organizations and communities.

The city of Durango recently received about $2,471 of a initial $444,000 request. The city applied for its own cooperative agreement for $5.6 million to be paid over a 15-year period for incurred and ongoing remedial expenses.

“The initial ($9,786) award to La Plata County was solely to reimburse them for some verifiable costs toward activities they participated in, referring to the Superfund tour to evaluate eligibility for the National Priorities List,” said Cinna Vallejos, who leads the regional Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Support Program for the EPA. “It’s not uncommon for these agreements to be funded incrementally.”

Vallejos said the EPA will continue to evaluate cooperative agreement applications from the county, city and other entities and determine what is allowable. She said they stand to receive more in the future but could not say if the requested amounts will be awarded in full.

She could not disclose details about the Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s application for reimbursement or amounts awarded.

The EPA’s recommendation to designate the Bonita Peak Mining District as a Superfund site was added to the Federal Register on April 7.

Gold King Mine entrance after blowout August 2015

Arkansas River Basin Water Forum recap: “There is no such thing as an average year” — Nolan Doesken

Upper Colorado River Basin May 2015 precipitation as a percent of normal

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Many of those who attended the Arkansas River Basin Water Forum showed up wearing short sleeves and enjoyed rafting or fishing adventures on the first day of the event.

Thursday, it was spitting snow.

Nothing better could illustrate the “trend” of climate in Southern Colorado.

State Climatologist Nolan Doesken illustrated this by flashing up a series of graphs that showed historical temperatures, precipitation and snowpack moving up and down seemingly at random. One graph showing multiple years with brightly colored lines looked more like an Op Art poster from the 1960s than weather data.

“It could be a hot summer. Rain? Who knows?” Doesken shrugged. “When in doubt, put out your rain gauge. There is no such thing as an average year.”

Still, scientists and engineers are determined to put numbers to this chaotic system.

Doesken described last year’s Miracle May, which boosted water supply, but got hoots from some water managers because of the flooding problems it caused. On a graph, it produced a fat bulge seldom equaled in many parts of the state.

And the effects of that month of moisture are still felt one year later.

Garrett Marcus, engineer for the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, outlined the current reservoir storage for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

Release of water stored in Lake Pueblo this year seemed likely because of high storage levels coupled with a revision of capacity because of sedimentation. But cooperative efforts in March, coupled with a lack of precipitation, allowed levels to reach the mark deemed necessary for flood control by mid-April.

New snow now is improving the outlook for water supply.

“The last couple storms gave us the jump we needed,” Marcus said.

Bill Tyner, assistant division engineer for the state Division of Water Resources, talked about storage. The basin has 118 reservoirs, which can store up to 1.7 million acre-feet of decreed water rights.

The five largest reservoirs (John Martin, Pueblo, Twin Lakes, Turquoise and Nee Noshe) could hold 1 million acre-feet. Of those, John Martin and Nee Noshe are typically largely empty, but fuller than usual because of the 2015 rains.

The others are small, and in some cases restricted.

“To maintain the storage we think we have, we’ll have to spend a lot of money,” Tyner said.

Tammy Ivanenko, of the U.S. Geological Survey, outlined water use in Colorado and the Arkansas River basin based on the agency’s five-year reports from 1985-2015.

Surprisingly, state municipal water use has plateaued during that time, despite a growth in population to 5 million people from 3.5 million in 1985.

She speculated that conservation efforts, including water smart appliances, have caused the decreasing per capita use.

In the Arkansas River basin, about 68 percent of the water is used for irrigation, an amount lower than is often cited. Power generation uses about 15 percent; public supply, 8 percent; and industrial, 5 percent, according to the USGS data.

Nee Noshee Reservoir photo Charlie Meyers, The Denver Post, July 2008

John Martin Reservoir back in the day

Pueblo Dam

Twin Lakes via Wikipedia

Turrquoise Reservoir, which stores water brought under the Continental Divide from the Eagle, Fryingpan and Roaring Fork river headwaters. Photo credit: Aspen Journalism

FEMA open house draws large crowd in Buena Vista — The Chaffee County Times

From The Chaffee County Times (Mason Miller):

Representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Chaffee County and the town of Buena Vista were in attendance April 27 for an open house meeting and presentation on the recently completed preliminary Flood Insurance Study and its accompanying Draft Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

The maps includes base flood information and areas subject to significant flood hazards along Cottonwood Creek within Chaffee County and the town of Buena Vista.

Before the presentation, representatives from FEMA and CWCB met with residents to go over impacts the FIRM and FIS will have on property owners.

During the presentation, Thuy Patton with CWCB said the map updates had been ongoing for 7 years and said the primary focus of the updates was to digitize the maps and provide information on flood risks.

She said the map updates were currently in the post-preliminary processing phase and said the town and county’s 90-day appeal period had begun March 10, noting it would be around another year before the FIRM and FIS became effective, following a 6-month compliance period after the 90-day appeal window. Town administrator Brandy Reitter said the compliance period was required for the Buena Vista board of trustees to pass and adopt an ordinance approving the FIRM.

During the appeal period, Patton said residents will need scientific evidence proving FEMA’s original flood hazard determinations were technically or scientifically incorrect.

“With our new studies and hydrology, we’ve been able to put that on a map so you can know what the (flood) risks are,” Patton said about the map updates and said the FIRM and FIS allows for current and future residents to assess flood risks on their property.

During the question and answer portion of the meeting, residents expressed frustration over the amount of time left in the 90-day appeal period and the fact that town and county administration were not more proactive in informing residents sooner about the potential impacts the studies will have on their properties.

“Our 90 days is halfway over and we’re just getting good information,” one resident said.

While there were several questions submitted throughout the meeting, organizers did not ask residents to state their name or write their name on question cards, so question askers remained anonymous.

“This is probably a lesson for us,” Diana Herrera with FEMA said. “We need to look at the timing of our community meetings and (consider) moving those up.”

While going over information on flood insurance rates through the National Flood Insurance Program residents asked why property owners in the high risk flood areas would be paying the same rates as residents in places like New Orleans and Houston, some of which are below sea level. Herrera said it was a national rate and said the potential for flooding was the same.

“This area is nothing like Houston, yet we’ll be paying the same rate?” one resident asked, noting places like Houston and New Orleans flood more frequently and more significantly than Buena Vista. Herrera said depending on the FIS and FIRM, residents may pay the same rates as those areas.

In regards to if residents would be able to rebuild or build on a floodway or floodplain, Jamie Prochno with CWCB said residents would be able to rebuild on the same footprint as the previous structure if flooding was to happen, but said if residents want to expand or build within a floodplain or floodway, they would need to work with local government to obtain a permit.

“There’s nothing that says you can’t build in a floodplain. However, you have to get a permit from your local government, meet all those standards, meet any local standards that could be higher than our state standards,” Prochno said. “Generally in a floodplain that’s going to be much simpler because you just have to build your structure high enough … if it’s in a floodway, it’s a little more difficult because that’s a hazardous area, you have to show that there’s no rise to the base flood elevation. Keep in mind, these aren’t just lines on a map, that water has to go somewhere.”

Doering said in March that according to the maps, there are 276 residents inside of Buena Vista town limits affected by the floodways or floodplains. He said the majority of those residents are on the east side of the railroad, along Cottonwood Creek.

History in the Making: SDS Starts Water Delivery [April 28]

Here’s the release from Colorado Springs Utilities:

One of the largest water infrastructure projects completed in the U.S. this century started delivering water today to homes and businesses in Colorado Springs, Colo. The commencement of the Southern Delivery System (SDS) culminates decades of planning and nearly six years of construction.

See video.

“The Southern Delivery System is a critical water project that will enable the continued quality of life southern Coloradans enjoy. The water provided through SDS means future economic growth for our community,” said Jerry Forte, Chief Executive Officer of Colorado Springs Utilities.

Not only does SDS meet the immediate and future water needs of Colorado Springs and its project partners Fountain, Security and Pueblo West through 2040, it also increases system reliability should other parts of the water system need maintenance or repairs. The project will also help provide drought protection, a significant benefit in the arid west.

Construction started in 2010 and concluded in 2016. Originally forecast to cost just under $1 billion, SDS is started on time and more than $160 million under budget costing $825 million.

“On time and under budget are words rarely used to describe large infrastructure projects,” said John Fredell, SDS Program Director. “We adopted a philosophy that ‘these are ratepayer dollars’ and managed the project with exceptional rigor. It was the responsible approach to spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public money.”

Components of SDS
SDS is a regional project that includes 50 miles of pipeline, three raw water pump stations, a water treatment plant (pictured above), and a finished water pump station. It will be capable, in its first phase, of delivering 50 million gallons of water per day and serving residents and businesses through 2040.

Key permits and approvals for SDS required $50 million in mitigation payments to the Fountain Creek Watershed District, funding for sediment control, habitat improvements and other environmental mitigation measures. Additionally, Colorado Springs and Pueblo County, just this week, both approved an intergovernmental agreement requiring Colorado Springs to invest $460 million over 20 years to improve the management of stormwater that makes its way into Fountain Creek.

Early on in the project, SDS program leaders agreed to spend at least 30 percent of construction dollars on local contractors. More than $585 million, or about 70 percent of the SDS budget, went to Colorado businesses.

“SDS is one of the most important projects many of us will ever work on,” said Forte. “This is a legacy project – one that benefits so many people today, tomorrow and for generations to come. This is an amazing day for our organization and for southern Colorado.”

The new north outlet works at Pueblo Dam -- Photo/MWH Global — The new north outlet works at Pueblo Dam — Photo/MWH Global

From the Associated Press via The Aurora Sentinel:

Water has begun flowing into Colorado Springs through a new 50-mile pipeline from the Arkansas River.

The city says the $825 million Southern Delivery System started operating Thursday.

The system is designed to handle growth in the state’s second-largest city until 2040 and provide a backup for its current aging system.

Pueblo West, Fountain and Security also get water from the pipeline.

The project includes modifications to Pueblo Dam on the Arkansas River, three pumping stations and a treatment plant.

Separately, Colorado Springs had to commit $460 million to reduce sediment in Fountain Creek. The sediment harms downstream communities in Pueblo County, and the county threatened to revoke a required permit for the pipeline if the issue wasn’t addressed.

Southern Delivery System to be turned on today after decades — The Pueblo Chieftain

Southern Delivery System map via Colorado Springs Utilities

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs Utilities plans to begin using the Southern Delivery System today, more than seven years after getting the green light from Pueblo County and the Bureau of Reclamation to build it. “We plan on 5 million gallons a day initially, but we may go less. It depends on how we use it,” said John Fredell, SDS project director. “On Thursday, the water we pump will be turned into our system.”

SDS will be able to operate after an agreement was reached on Fountain Creek stormwater control on issues not explicitly covered in Pueblo County’s 1041 permit. The new agreement contains funding benchmarks that were not originally in place.

Over the next 40 years, the amount of water pumped through SDS could increase to as much as 75 million gallons a day. Another 18 million gallons a day could be pumped to Pueblo West, which through a special agreement already is using SDS for its water supply.

The treatment plant as built can treat up to 50 million gallons per day, but eventually could be expanded to treat up to 100 million gallons per day.

As part of SDS, the city of Fountain can receive more of its water through the Fountain Valley Conduit, a line built from Pueblo Dam in the early 1980s as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

The other partner in SDS is Security Water and Sanitation, which serves an unincorporated area south of Colorado Springs and has an immediate need for a new water source because of well contamination.

Construction on the $825 million project began in 2011, one year after the Bureau of Reclamation approved the final contract for the use of Lake Pueblo as part of the project. In 2009, Reclamation issued a record of decision that allowed the project to be built.

Also in 2009, Pueblo County commissioners approved a land-use permit under the 1974 HB1041, which lets cities or counties regulate projects that cross their boundaries.

SDS includes a new connection built at Pueblo Dam, three pump stations, a water treatment plant and a treated water pump station. The North Outlet Works, Juniper Pump Station just northeast of Pueblo Dam and about 17 miles of buried 66inch diameter pipeline are the features of SDS in Pueblo County.

The project grew out of water resources plans that began in the late 1980s, when Colorado Springs purchased controlling interest in the Colorado Canal system in Crowley County.

In order to use the water, as well as provide redundancy for its other sources of water, Colorado Springs developed a Water Resource Plan in 1996. That plan identified other alternatives to bring water to Colorado Springs, including a route from a new reservoir at Buena Vista, a Fremont County pipeline and a line from Crowley County.

By the early 2000s, the Buena Vista reservoir was eliminated by environmental protests, and Utilities ruled out Crowley County because of the expense of overcoming water quality issues. By 2008, Fremont County and Pueblo Dam were being seriously considered.

The Pueblo Dam option was chosen in Reclamation’s record of decision as the route.

In the second phase of SDS, which is anticipated to begin between 2020-25, two reservoirs would be built on Williams Creek east of Fountain. The upper reservoir would be terminal storage for the pipeline from Pueblo Dam, while the lower one would regulate return flows from Colorado Springs’ wastewater treatment plant into Fountain Creek.

SDS is designed to serve a population of 900,000, about twice the current number living in Colorado Springs.

The 1996 water resources plan came at a time when Colorado Springs’ population had increased from 70,000 in 1960 to 330,000 in 1996. Utilities already is working on a 50-year plan to meet its future water resource needs.

More Coyote Gulch Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

#AnimasRiver: “…shift here from skepticism toward energetic stewardship” — The Denver Post #GoldKingMine

Confluence of Cement Creek and the Animas River from the Coyote Gulch archives (11/21/2010)

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

Animas River headwaters contamination exceeds state standards for cadmium, copper, lead and other toxic acid metals draining from inactive mines, officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and Sunnyside Gold Corp. revealed Tuesday.

Until now, federal pronouncements after the EPA-triggered Aug. 5 Gold King blowout touted a return to pre-disaster conditions along the river.

But the move toward an ambitious Superfund cleanup of 48 mine sites in southwestern Colorado has catalyzed cooperation and a far more aggressive, comprehensive and precise approach toward acid mine drainage.

At Tuesday’s Animas River Stakeholders Group forum, locals along with EPA and Sunnyside officials all said they now find those “pre-spill conditions” intolerable. Fish haven’t been able to reproduce in the Animas for a decade, even 50 miles to the south through Durango.

Beyond the Gold King and other Cement Creek mines, “there are elevated levels (of heavy metals) in all three drainages” flowing into the Animas, said Rebecca Thomas, the EPA’s project manager. “It is a much broader look now.”

[…]

EPA officials this week are holding forums in tribal communities, Durango and Silverton to discuss their Superfund process, which usually drags out for more than a decade. An official listing of the Animas area as a National Priority List disaster, a step toward funding for cleanup, isn’t expected until fall.

The shift here from skepticism toward energetic stewardship is reflected in more community groups demanding, and in some cases conducting, increased testing of river water and sediment to monitor contamination.

The Mountain Studies Institute, a Durango-based research group, did an investigation of aquatic insects that live in sediment on river banks and found that copper levels increased between 2014 and 2015.

Sunnyside Gold Corp. manager Larry Perino presented data from tests of mining wastewater launched last fall on the day of the Gold King disaster. Contractors sampled on Sunnyside properties a couple of miles east of Silverton — a different drainage from Cement Creek — where mining waste tailings sit along the main stem of the upper Animas.

Those tailings as water rushes over them apparently are leaking the cadmium, copper and six other metals at levels exceeding Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment standards. The cadmium and copper had dissolved into Animas headwaters.

Sunnyside shared the data at Tuesday’s meeting in Silverton.

Dan Wall of the EPA then presented federal data showing lead contamination of soils along Cement Creek and in water near the tailings heaps containing elevated cadmium, zinc, manganese and copper.

EPA crews have done tests around Animas basin for decades and increasingly are trying to pinpoint mine site sources of contamination.

“We have to do more high-resolution work before we start talking smoking guns,” Wall told the locals at the forum.

A broadening cooperation is happening despite EPA efforts to target Sunnyside, owned by the global mining giant Kinross, as a responsible party obligated to pay a share of Superfund cleanup costs.

“Just because you are a potentially responsible party doesn’t mean it has to be adversarial,” Perino said.

Conservation groups such as Trout Unlimited have raised concerns about possible re-churn of heavy metals from the 3 million-gallon Gold King deluge as snow melts, increasing runoff into the upper Animas. But biologists also point to benefits of dilution to reduce concentrations of dissolved heavy metals.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife aquatic biologist Jim White confirmed that, since the shutoff of a water treatment plant on Cement Creek in 2005 when Sunnyside’s American Tunnel was plugged, fish populations deteriorated along a 30-mile stretch of the Animas south of Silverton.

There are few rainbow and brown trout today, and brook trout decreased by 80 percent after 2004, White said.

“It is not healthy. Things have gotten worse in the Animas River since 2004 or 2005,” he said. “We’ve seen this consistent dropoff — the primary thing is the dissolved metals” including zinc, cadmium and aluminum.

Even 50 miles south in Durango, the fish put into the river in stocking programs have not been able to reproduce, he said.

“We’re just not seeing young fish surviving, in Durango as well,” White said.

Other forces, such as sediment from urban development and fertilizer runoff, also play a role downriver in addition to acid metals drainage from inactive mines.

Hundreds of inactive mines continue to drain more than 1,000 gallons a minute of toxic acid heavy metals into Animas headwaters. It is one of the West’s worst concentrations of toxic mines.

For at least a decade before the Gold King disaster, the mine drainage reaching Animas canyon waters along a 30-mile stretch south of Silverton “had a hideous impact,” Trout Unlimited chapter president Buck Skillen said.

“We’ve lost almost all of the trout and a number of bugs,” Skillen said. “We’ve had the equivalent of the Gold King spill every four to seven days over the last 10 years. But the water didn’t turn orange. So it wasn’t on everyone’s radar.”

Location map for abandoned mine near Silverton. The Silver Wing is in the upper right corner of the aerial.

Pueblo County OKs stormwater deal with Colorado Springs — The Pueblo Chieftain

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Anthony A. Mestas):

It was called a historic day for Pueblo County and Colorado Springs.

Pueblo County commissioners approved an agreement over the Southern Delivery System with its Front Range neighbors to the north during a meeting at the courthouse.

The agreement is a clarification of the rules and responsibilities with regards of one of the issues with a 1041 permit dealing with the SDS project, mainly how to control stormwater, flooding and sediment transports along Fountain Creek.

“We think it is historic,” Commissioner Terry Hart said. “This has been a growing process. It’s been a learning process as the growth of Colorado Springs has impacted more and more our downstream community.”

In the agreement, Colorado Springs would pay more than $605 million to cover environmental damage for SDS should the intergovernmental agreement with Pueblo County be approved.

The proposed deal includes a guarantee to spend at least $460 million over the next 20 years to repair and build storm water structures in Colorado Springs in a way that benefits downstream communities, particularly the city of Pueblo.

Colorado Springs approved the agreement last week.

“We are thrilled that we reached this point,” Hart said.

“A lot of folks see this as an ending to a process and it’s just the opposite. It’s just the beginning. It’s a more cooperative approach between the two communities.”

Fall River Hydroplant And Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project — Estes Park News

Stabilization Project – Before photo of Fall River. This photo was taken in 2015 prior to the project. Photo the Town of Estes Park.

Stabilization Project – After photo was taken in 2016 after completion of Phase I. Photo the Town of Estes Park.

From the Town of Estes Park (Tina Kurtz) via The Estes Park News:

The Town is currently working with Otak and Flywater on a streambank stabilization and channel restoration project on Fall River from the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary to approximately 550 feet downstream of the western Fish Hatchery Road Bridge.

The September 2013 flood caused significant erosion of the streambanks and channel scour in this reach, which resulted in the loss of aquatic habitat and posed safety concerns for visitors to the Town’s historic Hydroplant museum. In addition, the mobilized sediment during the flood event and subsequent runoff events resulted in significant deposition downstream.

The project is being conducted in two phases. Phase I, which was completed on March 1, 2016, consists of streambank stabilization, channel restoration and aquatic habitat improvement for the reach between the RMNP boundary and the pedestrian bridge at the Hydroplant. Phase II will occur during the summer of 2016 and will continue the Phase I work downstream of the pedestrian bridge to the downstream project boundary and include revegetation of the entire project reach.

Phase I of the project was funded through a Community Block Development Grant – Disaster Recovery Round 1 Infrastructure grant administered by the Colorado Office of Emergency Management through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Phase II is anticipated to be funded through Senate Bill 14-179 funds administered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

If you would like more information on this project, please contact Tina Kurtz, Town of Estes Park Environmental Planner at tkurtz@estes.org or 970-577-3732.

#Colorado Springs, three other cities one vote away from [improved] water-supply security — The Colorado Springs Gazette

Here’s an in depth look at the new Southern Delivery System which is about to go online from Billie Stanton Anleu writing in The Colorado Springs Gazette. Click through and read the whole article and to check out the photos. Here’s an excerpt:

The launch of the long-awaited SDS hinges on a vote by Pueblo County commissioners Monday to approve a stormwater deal with Colorado Springs, thus freeing the SDS 1041 permit the commissioners granted in 2009.

The start of the SDS will culminate 20 years of planning, years of quarreling between Pueblo County and Colorado Springs, and six years of building 53 miles of huge pipelines, three pump stations and a 100-acre water treatment plant.

The $825 million project will pump 5 million gallons of water a day – and up to 50 million when needed – to Colorado Springs, Pueblo West, Fountain and Security.

The project was a figment in 1996, when the Colorado Springs City Council approved a Water Resource Plan to explore how best to sate the thirst of a rapidly growing population.

In July 2009, the council approved the SDS as the best of seven alternatives – just as the recession struck. So the project was used as “our own stimulus,” says SDS Program Director John Fredell.

Workshops in Pueblo, El Paso and Fremont counties showed contractors how to work with Colorado Springs Utilities.

The only Colorado company that could build the huge pipes, of 66- and 90-inch diameter, competed against out-of-state bidders but got more than $100 million in business with the SDS.

And that firm wasn’t alone. A contract goal said 30 percent of business should go to Colorado firms. Contractors who failed to meet that threshold were penalized. And the goal was exceeded, Fredell said.

More than 430 Colorado companies have worked on the SDS. Of the $711 million spent through December, $585 million worth of work has stayed in Colorado – about $287 million in El Paso County, $75 million in Pueblo County and $222 million elsewhere in the state.

Meanwhile, what Fredell calls the toughest part of the whole project ensued.

His team spent five years creating a 3,000-page Environmental Impact Statement and obtaining the 1041 permit from Pueblo County. It also had to get about 350 other permits, 200 of them major. Even the Federal Aviation Administration had to OK the plan, as the water treatment plant off of Colorado 94 is in the Colorado Springs Airport flight line.

When construction commenced in 2010, the first challenge was connecting to the Pueblo Dam.

Water flowing from the dam’s North Outlet Works into the Arkansas River was rechanneled so the square outlet channel could get a round pipe fitting to connect to the liner pipe through the dam to the river outlet, said Dan Higgins, chief water services officer for Utilities.

A 0.3-mile pipe segment also was installed from the valve house to the Juniper Pump Station, to link Pueblo West to the SDS and carry water for the other users. Juniper is the first of three pump stations needed to move the water 53 miles uphill. El Paso County became home to the Williams Creek and Bradley pump stations.

The water is being moved through massive pipes buried 85 feet beneath Interstate 25, Fountain Creek and two sets of railroad tracks. One mile of that stretch is a tunnel about 20 miles south of downtown Colorado Springs.

The destination? The Edward W. Bailey Water Treatment Plant, named for “one of the real geniuses of the 1996 water master plan,” said City Council President Merv Bennett.

That 100-acre plant can purify 50 million gallons of water a day, which then goes through a pump station for treated water and more pipelines to reach customers.

The Bailey plant’s developed area could contain 77 football fields, said Kim Mutchler, of Utilities government and corporate affairs.

Utilities water customers are paying for this project. But they’re paying a lot less than projected, as cost-cutting measures shaved the project’s predicted $985 million price tag.

In 2009, Utilities predicted seven consecutive years of 12 percent water rate increases, followed by two years of 4 percent hikes. Instead, rates rose 12 percent in 2011 and 2012 and 10 percent in 2013 and 2014.

The project is needed for many reasons, community leaders agree.

Because Colorado’s second-biggest city isn’t near a major river, it has relied on water brought over the Continental Divide. But those pipelines are nearly 50 years old.

With another 350,000 residents expected to move to El Paso County over the next 30 years – while industry and businesses need water, too – the Southern Delivery System is seen as a move to secure the city’s future.

If water demand increases, SDS will add two reservoirs, increase the raw water delivery capacity, and expand the water treatment plant and pump stations to deliver more than 100 million gallons a day – double the maximum available starting Wednesday.

Pueblo County’s stormwater control agreement with Colorado Springs fine-tuned — The Pueblo Chieftain

Last section of pipe for Southern Delivery System photo via The Colorado Springs Gazette

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The final agreement between Pueblo County and Colorado Springs on Fountain Creek is fine-tuned to reflect some of the concerns expressed earlier this week in public hearings.

“After we got feedback, there were a few minor adjustments,” Pueblo County Commissioner Terry Hart told the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District Friday. “In general, citizens have liked the agreement. It gives both communities the chance to work together. The second thing we heard was: ‘Let’s work together and start doing projects.’ ”

Pueblo County commissioners are scheduled to vote on the agreement Monday, capping a year of negotiations with Colorado Springs over the issue of stormwater control and the 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System pipeline to deliver water from Lake Pueblo to Springs.

Colorado Springs City Council approved the deal on Wednesday, with the promise to spend at least $460 million on stormwater control in the city over the next 20 years.

The agreement also triggers the $50 million in payments over the next five years for the Fountain Creek district, provides $125,000 in funds for the district’s general fund this year and adds $3 million for dredging and debris removal in Pueblo over the next three years.

“We have two projects underway right now,” Colorado Springs Councilman Andy Pico told the Fountain Creek board.

The agreement now recognizes that Colorado Springs’ obligations on Fountain Creek will continue for the lifetime of the project. Hart explained that the agreement now under consideration simply defines specific actions that will occur in the next 20 years. The 1041 agreement includes stormwater language that will continue to apply.

Two other tweaks in the language clarified that the $20 million provided to the Fountain Creek district by Jan. 15 would be used to fund dams on Fountain Creek and that vegetation as well as sediment could be removed from Fountain Creek.

The district board also learned that an additional $10 million in federal funds over the next five years could be available, although the grant from the Natural Resources Conservation Service is only in the exploratory stages.

It also pondered ways to permanently fund the district — a new commitment shared by Pueblo County and Colorado Springs in the proposed agreement. The members generally agreed a straight pro rata method based on population would be the fairest way. A formal vote could come in May.

Until the district decides to use its statutory power for a mill levy, it will rely on voluntary contributions from member governments, which include Pueblo and El Paso counties, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Fountain and other incorporated cities in El Paso County.

SDS: #Colorado Springs councillors OK stormwater agreement with Pueblo County

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Billie Stanton Anleu):

The City Council committed Colorado Springs on Wednesday to spend more than $460 million over 20 years on a stormwater projects pact with Pueblo County.

The intergovernmental agreement, negotiated chiefly by Mayor John Suthers, is expected to resolve Fountain Creek stormwater problems for downstream residents and avert lawsuits threatened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Department of Justice and by Pueblo County.

Further, the accord would allow Colorado Springs Utilities’ Southern Delivery System to start pumping water as scheduled on April 27.

Pueblo County officials threatened to rescind that $825 million project’s 1041 permit, which they issued in April 2009, if the city didn’t ante up enough guaranteed funding for stormwater projects.

The deal now hinges on a vote by Pueblo County’s three commissioners, set for 9 a.m. Monday.

Any delay of the SDS would reduce the worth of warrants on equipment and work while leaving four partner communities – Colorado Springs, Pueblo West, Fountain and Security – without the water deliveries they expect.

The council, meeting in special session Wednesday, didn’t hesitate to approve the pact. Only Councilwoman Helen Collins, a steadfast foe of government spending, dissented in the 8-1 vote.

The agreement calls for 71 stormwater projects to be completed by 2035. Engineers for Pueblo County and Colorado Springs chose the projects and will review them each year to allow for fluctuating priorities.

The money will be spent in five-year increments, at a rate of $100 million the first five years followed by $110 million, $120 million and $130 million. Any private developers’ projects or other efforts would be in addition to the promised amounts.

If the projects aren’t completed in time, the accord will be extended five years. And if Colorado Springs can’t come up with the money required, the city-owned Utilities will have to do so.

The agreement was tweaked slightly Wednesday, on request of the Pueblo County commissioners, to increase one miscalculated payment to a water district by $332, to add the word “dam” to references to a study of water-control options, and to add “and vegetation” to a clause about removing debris from Pueblo’s city levees. A clause was added to note that after the agreement expires, both sides agree to coordinate and cooperate with one another, as they always will be upstream-downstream neighbors.

“This is basically an investment in this city,” said water attorney David Robbins, a consulting lawyer for the council. “The stormwater facilities would have ultimately had to be built anyway. They benefit your citizens, not just the people downstream.”

Asked about the option for a dam, Robbins said, “It has been studied, studied again, and another study may add to our knowledge, but doesn’t require this city to contribute any more money. The dam would require moving two railroads and an interstate highway. Just the facility relocation costs make it quite expensive.”

Colorado Springs has failed to properly enforce drainage regulations, conduct adequate inspections, require enough infrastructure from developers or properly maintain and operate its stormwater controls, the EPA found during inspections in August.

The downstream victim has been Pueblo County, which saw Fountain Creek sediment increase at least 278-fold since the Waldo Canyon fire in 2012, degrading water quality and pushing water levels higher, Wright Water Engineers Inc. found during a study for the county last year.

Sediment increased from 90 to 25,075 tons a year, while water yields rose from 2,500 to 4,822 acre-feet, the engineers found.

As Colorado Springs development sprawls, the amount of impermeable pavement grows. So the city also is beefing up its long-underfunded Stormwater Division, increasing the staff of 28 to 58 full-time employees, mostly inspectors, and more than doubling the $3 million budget for compliance to about $7.1 million.

The city and Utilities negotiated for nearly a year with Pueblo County, as Colorado Springs has beefed up its stormwater program to fix the problems and fend off the threats of lawsuits.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Pueblo Board of Water Works would like to see up-front bonding and longer term for an intergovernmental agreement between Pueblo County and Colorado Springs.

Still, it’s probably the best deal possible, the board agreed during comments on the proposed deal at Tuesday’s monthly meeting.

In February, the board provided its input with a resolution recommending certain actions to Pueblo County commissioners.

Colorado Springs City Council approved the deal Wednesday, while Pueblo County commissioners will meet on it Monday. It provides $460 million for stormwater projects over the next 20 years, triggers $50 million in payments over five years for Fountain Creek dams and adds $3 million to help dredge and maintain levees in Pueblo.

“One of the things we encouraged Colorado Springs to do was bond the projects up front,” said Nick Gradisar, president of the water board. “It would be to everyone’s advantage to do the projects sooner rather than later.”

Board member Tom Autobee said the agreement is comprehensive, but was uncertain about the 20-year timeline for improvements.

“What I’d like to see is to extend it beyond 20 years for the life of the project,” Autobee said. “We need to look at that.”

Board member Jim Gardner was assured by Gradisar that Pueblo County is guaranteed a voice in which projects are completed.

“They have a priority list and can’t switch unless both sides agree, as I understand it,” Gradisar said.

“This is a great opportunity to correct the issues,” said Mike Cafasso.

“What we said got listened to,” added Kevin McCarthy. “I think this is the best deal we’re going to get.”

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs won’t need the full use of the Southern Delivery System for years, but some can’t wait for the $825 million water pipeline to be turned on.

Pueblo County commissioners heard testimony supporting a proposed agreement with Colorado Springs designed to settle issues surrounding the City Council’s decision to abolish its stormwater enterprise after the county had incorporated it into conditions for a 1041 permit in 2009.

“One in five people in Pueblo County live in Pueblo West and are impacted by SDS,” said Jerry Martin, chairman of the Pueblo West metro board. “With the newest break, we will depend on SDS for a very long time.”

Pueblo West joined the SDS project as a costsaving alternative to a direct intake on the Arkansas River downstream of Pueblo Dam. It shared in the cost of permitting and building the pipeline.
Last summer, it used SDS when its own pipeline broke.

Pueblo West’s main supply comes from the South Outlet Works and crosses under the river. The new break is more severe, Martin explained.

An agreement reached last summer allows Pueblo West to use SDS before it is fully operational, and settled some lingering legal issues related to Pueblo West’s partnership in SDS.

Security Water and Sanitation District, located south of Colorado Springs, also needs SDS to go online before summer, said Roy Heald, general manager of the district.

“Security has an immediate need for water because there are emerging contaminant in our wells,” Heald said.

Seven of the district’s 25 wells into the Fountain Creek aquifer were found to be contaminated earlier this year. The solution is to blend water from the Arkansas River with the well water to dilute contaminants. Right now, Security gets enough water from the Fountain Valley Conduit to make its supply safe. But in summer, water demands will increase, Heald explained.

Larry Small, the executive director of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, said the agreement paves the way for flood control projects seven years after the district was formed.

Small was on City Council when the stormwater enterprise was abolished on a 5-4 vote. He voted against eliminating the fee that was then in place. He was hired to run the Fountain Creek district two years later. The district has representatives from both Pueblo and El Paso counties.
The district was formed by the state Legislature out of concerns about the effect of El Paso County’s growth on Fountain Creek and the danger that is posed to Pueblo.

The $460 million for Colorado Springs stormwater projects over the next 20 years is needed to slow down Fountain Creek, but that doesn’t mean Pueblo would be protected. There are at least 18 projects south of Colorado Springs involving either detention ponds or dams that the district wants to get started on.

That process would get a kick start with $20 million in the next nine months if the agreement is approved by commissioners and Colorado Springs City Council in the next week. Three more payments of $10 million over the next three years would follow under terms of the 1041 agreement.

“This agreement says that we’re not just going to put something in place, but that we’re going to monitor it,” Small told commissioners. “It’s a cooperative, collaborative process. We don’t have to rely on rumors and innuendo.”

The city of Pueblo also would benefit from a potential $6 million in Fountain Creek dredging or levee maintenance projects that would cost the city only $1.2 million over the next three years. Pueblo Stormwater Director Jeff Bailey last week told The Pueblo Chieftain that the city has projects lined up, depending on how the funds are structured.

A separate $255,000 project to dredge between Colorado 47 and the Eighth Street bridge already is in the works. It would be funded by Pueblo County, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, the Fountain Creek district and the state.

For Colorado Springs, SDS is a 40-year solution to provide water both for future growth and redundancy for the major water infrastructure it already has in place. Earlier comments to commissioners from Colorado Springs officials indicated only about 5 million gallons per day initially would flow through the SDS pipeline to El Paso County. It has a capacity of 75 million gallons per day.

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said warranties on the project kick in when testing on SDS is completed at the end of this month, however, so Colorado Springs also would like to see the pipeline up and running by next week.

Fountain Creek

Fountain Creek erosion via The Pueblo Chieftain

Fountain Creek swollen by stormwater November 2011 via The Pueblo Chieftain

Fountain Creek flooding 1999 via the CWCB

Fountain Creek Watershed

The confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River in Pueblo County — photo via the Colorado Springs Business Journal

The new north outlet works at Pueblo Dam — Photo/MWH Global

Pueblo Dam

Pueblo is not waiting on improvements to Fountain Creek

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo County’s agreement on stormwater control with Colorado Springs comes at an ideal time for the city of Pueblo.

The city is looking at steps it must take to clear the Fountain Creek channel in order to obtain flood plain certification from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The agreement would provide an additional $3 million to the city of Pueblo, which could be matched by about $1.8 million in Colorado Springs money now held by the county and $1.2 million from other sources.

So, if it can find another $400,000 annually over three years, Pueblo would be able to complete $6 million in projects. Money could start arriving by the end of May if the agreement is approved.

“It’s not enough to get all the silt out,” said Jeff Bailey, Pueblo’s stormwater director. “We think it would take two or three times that to do all the work. But we could select areas and get the bulk of vegetation and silt out.”

Such critical areas would include the Eighth Street bridge, where Fountain Creek now flows through only two of the five archways because the other three are so badly silted over.

Another spot would be the north end of Fountain Creek, which is still littered with big cottonwood trees that washed down last spring.

“If we can open that up, it would provide more of an area to spread the water,” Bailey said.

A project approved by the Arkansas Basin Roundtable Wednesday would use $250,000 from the local sources and $5,000 in state money to remove debris and sediment between Colorado 47 and Eighth Street in Fountain Creek. The project would be funded by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Pueblo County — each providing $100,000 — along with the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District ($50,000 from Aurora funds through the Lower Ark).

The Lower Ark district would coordinate the project, which is patterned after a similar dredging effort at North La Junta on the Arkansas River.

Beyond the immediate cleanup, the city has hired a consultant to make recommendations for long-term fixes. It is also in the process of meeting with FEMA to determine current flood plain boundaries.

Fountain Creek is a moving target. The largest recorded flood in 1965 would be considered greater than a 100-year flood today. In addition, the increase in impervious surfaces in Colorado Springs to the north would make that same flood more intense by passing a larger volume of water more quickly. The new study will look at the new levels for a 100-year flood.

Another $6 million would help, Bailey said.

“First I would have to find out what kind of restrictions are on the money,” Bailey said. “Then, how soon can I have the money?”

SDS: Pueblo County Commissioner’s public meeting recap #Colorado

Riding high: A baby alligator rests on its mother's head to keep away from the water and attract some sun.The magical image was taken by was taken in St. Augustine Alligator Farm, Florida, in by John Moran via @MailOnline. — Riding high: A baby alligator rests on its mother’s head to keep away from the water and attract some sun.The magical image was taken by was taken in St. Augustine Alligator Farm, Florida, in by John Moran via @MailOnline.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

It was like putting a dog collar on an alligator.

Everyone in the room agreed it needed to be done, but some were nervous about getting bitten or how you’d take the darned thing for a walk. Yet, even the alligator celebrated the partnership.

That was the tone for Monday’s work session of the Pueblo County commissioners to hear comments on a proposed stormwater agreement with Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs City Council and commissioners are anticipating finalizing the agreement next week.

The deal would require Colorado Springs to spend $460 million over 20 years to slow down water in the city, pay the first $20 million in $50 million for Fountain Creek dams south of the city in nine months and pay $3 million to Pueblo for Fountain Creek dredging, among other provisions meant to protect Pueblo.

Those payments are on top of 1041 permit conditions that must be met in order for the Southern Delivery System (a pipeline between Lake Pueblo and Springs) to be operated. The new agreement is needed because Colorado Springs City Council abolished the city’s stormwater enterprise in 2009.

“(Colorado Springs) leadership has the best intentions, but how vulnerable are the funds?” asked Bill Alt, a Fountain Creek landowner. “It’s going to take years to have an effect on the Lower Fountain.”

Alt, who lives just north of Pueblo, explained that Fountain Creek last year carved three new “canyons” on his property — as much as 60 feet wide, 25 feet deep and 1,800 feet long.

“In the words of Yogi Berra, it’s deja vu over and over and over,” he said.

Others joined his concerns, including Hector Arambulo and Frank Childress, who said Colorado Springs growth has made Fountain Creek’s problems more severe and voters have not supported past stormwater control efforts.

Ray Petros, Pueblo County’s water attorney, said the county has multiple options for enforcing the agreement. The funding is guaranteed through Colorado Springs Utilities payments to the city, the contractual arrangement could be battled in Pueblo District Court, the 1041 permit is still enforceable and the federal government also is taking action to make sure Colorado Springs cleans up its act.

“Could you stop SDS from flowing?” Alt asked.

“The remedies under the 1041 are complicated,” Petros answered. “But suspension of deliveries is one of the remedies.”

Several current and former public officials addressed the issue:

John Singletary, former chairman of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, said the agreement could trigger the type of cooperation the district has sought for years.

“Did we get everything we wanted? Probably not,” Singletary said. “But finally, we’ve found a way Pueblo County and El Paso County can work together.”

Mark Carmel, a member of the Pueblo West Metro District board speaking for himself, was less optimistic and said the deal should be made permanent, not just for the 20-year time span it covers.

“What happens after 20 years?” Carmel said. “It’s not right that developers get profits while our people lose their property.”

Larry Atencio, a Pueblo City member speaking for himself, said the deal should also include support for a dam on Fountain Creek if studies show it would be the best protection for Pueblo.

Aurelio Sisneros, former Pueblo County treasurer and a past member of the Arkansas River Compact Administration, said a dam on Fountain Creek is the ultimate solution.

Charles Garascia, who has lived in Pueblo for eight years, said the county needs to look into flood plains and flood insurance alternatives.

Urging approval of the agreement were Jerry Martin, chairman of the Pueblo West board; Larry Small, executive director of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District; and Roy Heald, general manager of the Security Water and Sanitation.

Martin and Heald said their communities need SDS now. Small said the funding provided in the agreement is crucial for its success.

Tom Strand, a Colorado Springs City Council member, said the agreement would ensure cooperation on stormwater projects and eliminate further stormwater challenges as SDS moves ahead.

“It’s a partnership I’m excited to be moving forward on,” Strand said.

Commissioners avoided saying much about the comments made Monday and agreed to consider approval at their regular meeting next Monday.

“We’re going to take careful consideration of all the comments and questions, as well as any others who want to weigh in,” Commissioner Terry Hart said.

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

Pueblo County leaders on Monday heard from residents who mostly favored a deal that would commit Colorado Springs to spend $460 million cleaning Fountain Creek.

That deal, if finalized, would clear the way for Colorado Springs to turn on its $825 million Southern Delivery System to siphon up to 50 million gallons a day of Arkansas River water northward 50 miles from Pueblo’s reservoir.

The deal also would give Pueblo $125,000 for an engineering study for a water supply project of its own: a possible dam along the creek to create another reservoir.

Pueblo has threatened legal action against Colorado Springs’ fouling of Fountain Creek with sediment-laden stormwater runoff.

The 27 or so Pueblo residents at Monday’s forum included nine who spoke in favor of a draft deal reached with Colorado Springs leaders this month. Two opposed it.

Pueblo County commissioners decided to seek legal advice on the deal Wednesday before voting April 25 — two days before Colorado Springs engineers plan to switch on their new siphoning system.

“Getting to this agreement has been an arduous journey,” Commissioner Buffie McFadyen said.

Failure to filter sediment and contaminants out of stormwater runoff that ruined the creek “has been a decades-long problem,” McFadyen said. “It appears the city of Colorado Springs is actually recognizing its issues. I believe it is sincere.”

Building a dam along a cleaner Fountain Creek “has been a suggestion by community members,” she said, adding that no location has been set and that opponents argue a dam would be a massive sediment trap.

“Could it work? That’s what is so important about doing the engineering study.”

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Billie Stanton Anleu):

A tainted aquifer and busted water pipe are two more reasons the Southern Delivery System needs to be turned on April 27 as planned, water officials told Pueblo County commissioners Monday.

Security has had to close seven of its more than 25 wells because of contamination in the Widefield aquifer, said Roy E. Heald, general manager of the Security Water District.

Perfluorinated compounds, PFCs that could harm human health, were found in the aquifer in February by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Security has resorted to dilution, but the dilution must be stepped up as summer approaches, Heald said.

“So it’s critical to have the Southern Delivery System turned on this month as scheduled,” he said.

Pueblo West is relying on SDS water. Colorado Springs Utilities sprang to the rescue when a major Pueblo West water pipeline burst in February. Utilities bailed the town out last July, too, after a smaller water line broke.

“This (break) may require us to stay on that (SDS) line for a very long time,” warned Jerry Martin, president of the Pueblo West Water Board.

He, too, urged commissioners to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Colorado Springs so the $825 million water project can start pumping 5 million gallons of water a day from the Pueblo Reservoir to Pueblo West, Security, Fountain and Colorado Springs.

The county threatened last year to revoke the project’s 1041 permit, which it issued to Utilities in April 2009.

Back then, Colorado Springs still was using a stormwater enterprise fund to ameliorate problems on Fountain Creek that wreak havoc on downstream users. The then-City Council eradicated the fund that November, though, infuriating Pueblo County officials who had relied on those stormwater efforts when they signed over the permit.

That permit wasn’t the only worry facing newly seated Mayor John Suthers last year, though.

In October, the U.S. Department of Justice warned Colorado Springs that the EPA might file a lawsuit because of the city’s failure to properly provide, maintain and inspect stormwater controls. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment then echoed that threat.

The city and Utilities have been negotiating for 10 months with Pueblo County, as the city has beefed up its stormwater program to fix the problems and fend off the threats of lawsuits.

Colorado Springs proposed a pact last week that would provide $460 million in stormwater projects, maintenance and operations through the year 2035, money that would be spent over and above grants or other funds.

So the county commissioners’ public hearing Monday was set to hear residents’ opinions on the agreement.

Also urging approval was Larry Small, director of the Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway District.

Calling it the best stormwater management plan he’s seen in 43 years, Small said: “This is better than efforts we were taking as a community to incrementally deal with (stormwater). This is better because it has measurable objectives. It has clearly defined projects, clearly defined funding and a clear funding source.”

And the key element is a requirement that the city and county jointly reassess the projects and process every year, ensuring communication, collaboration and cooperation, he said.

But some Pueblo residents remained skeptical.

“What choices do you have if Colorado Springs reneges? You can go to court. They have more lawyers than they can use,” said resident Bill Alt.

“The stormwater agreement manual says people with detention ponds must abide by these rules. They’ve had rules for years, and they haven’t been abided by. Are there any penalties for someone who violates it?”

Commission water attorney Ray Petros cited four conditions that ensure compliance: Utilities’ guarantee to provide the money if the city fails to do so, contractural enforcement that can be upheld by Pueblo County District Court, potential permit suspension if obligations aren’t met, and the EPA and state health lawsuit threats that underscore the city’s need to comply.

“So we think it’s enforceable,” Petros said.

John Singletary said he’s comfortable with the pact.

“Did we get everything we want? Probably not. But finally we can find a way that Colorado Springs, El Paso County and Pueblo County can work together,” Singletary said. “When I was on the Lower Arkansas (Water Conservancy District), it meant a lot to me to protect people downstream. I feel very comfortable with how this is drawn up.”

The Colorado Springs City Council is expected to sign the accord during a special meeting Wednesday, and Pueblo County’s Board of County Commissioners is to vote Monday – two days before the SDS is scheduled to start operating.

#Colorado Springs hoping to flip the switch on SDS, Pueblo County public meeting today

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

As water pressures mount, Colorado Springs engineers are about to switch on one of the West’s boldest new water projects: an $825 million pipeline to siphon up to 50 million gallons a day of Arkansas River water from Pueblo, 50 miles away.

This highly contentious Southern Delivery System has been 27 years in the making. It resolves a core quandary for Colorado Springs (pop. 350,000), built on a high-and-dry, flood-prone plain away from rivers, with only two creeks to sustain people.

The project will pull from [the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Pueblo Reservoir] — pumping water northward, uphill 1,500 feet — to support growth.

But there’s a hitch. Pueblo is demanding that Colorado Springs first commit to pay another $460 million before turning on the system as scheduled April 27 to clean up the dirty runoff Colorado Springs sends to Pueblo in Fountain Creek.

Colorado Springs leaders told The Denver Post last week they will agree, to avoid a legal war. Pueblo County officials, still reviewing a draft agreement, said they want to hear from residents Monday.

“If Fountain and Monument creeks were our only sources of water, we would only be a town of 25,000 people,” Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said in an interview after a treatment plant for the siphoned water was dedicated.

The SDS system “is an amazing engineering feat,” Suthers said. “It will take care of the future water needs of Colorado Springs for up to 50 years of growth.”

Pueblo and Colorado Springs officials agreed to vote on the deal April 26, the day before water engineers click a computer mouse to fire up the system.

For decades, Pueblo has been fighting Colorado Springs over the fouling of Fountain Creek, which flows from the Springs to Pueblo. The problem is stormwater runoff — chemical contaminants and sediment washing into the creek…

Under a draft deal, Colorado Springs would spend $460 million over 20 years to complete 71 stormwater cleanup projects. These include creation of ponds that slow and filter runoff and planting vegetation along drainage channels to stabilize sediment.

Colorado Springs will rely on general fund revenues from sales taxes to cover the $460 million, Suthers said. “If we have a downturn, we may have to look at something else.”

City Council president Merv Bennett said, “We’ve got to fix the stormwater problem. If we don’t do this, the EPA could require us to do it. This is a good deal.”

[…]

Eleven 2,000-plus horsepower pumps will propel the water from the reservoir through a 66-inch-diameter underground pipeline for 50 miles with an overall elevation gain of 1,500 feet.

The water must be used within the Arkansas River Basin, ruling out sales to south Denver suburbs. And wastewater, after treatment, must be returned via Fountain Creek to Pueblo.

Colorado Springs residents have paid for the system through water bills, which increased by 52 percent over four years.

City officials have been working since 1989 to install the system. “You have to handle all the legal, the permits, the right of way …,” said Edward Bailey, 80, who has led the efforts and whose name now appears on the treatment plant.

Moving water to people around the West entails altering the natural environment, Bailey said. “We have to do it right. We shouldn’t leave a big footprint. … I understand Pueblo and their concerns. We need to be very environmentally sensitive, but we cannot be preservationists.”

[…]

“Water drives our economic viability, our economic prosperity,” SDS program director John Fredell said.

“Now we’ve got it. Now we’re ready to go in Colorado Springs.”

From The Pueblo Chieftain editorial board:

Although we appreciate and commend the work of Pueblo County commissioners, the county planning department, county attorneys and Wright Water Engineers, we implore county officials to take more time before approving the 1041 permit that would allow water to flow from Lake Pueblo to Colorado Springs via the Southern Delivery System.

Lakewood’s increase in #stormwater fees hits nonprofits, churches — The Denver Post

Lakewood, Hogback View From Green Mountain, via MountainHomesOfDenver.com

From The Denver Post (Austin Briggs):

Schools, nonprofits and church buildings are among the properties hardest hit by the hikes, because the new rates assess the fee on commercial, retail or business properties based on the amount of impervious space on an area: the more roof and parking lot square footage, the higher the fee.

Owners of single-family homes pay a flat rate.

“Our mind was spinning when we got the bill,” said Lori Schreiner, business manager for St. Bernadette’s Church. “We budgeted for a 2 percent increase, which would have been about $40.”

Instead, the rate jumped from $1,493 to $2,790…

Residents and property owners started receiving bills reflecting the rate hikes in January. Residential homeowners are seeing their bill increase from $23.76 to $44.40 per year.

City officials have said the fee model is fairly standard across municipalities, and it makes sense that properties that push more water into the system should shoulder their share in the responsibility of maintaining it…

The city has 18 major drainages in need of 110 improvements, and another 70 improvements needed in localized neighborhoods. The city faces a $155 million maintenance backlog and hasn’t had a rate hike since the fee was instituted in 2000.

Many of the flooding issues are more prevalent in the older neighborhoods on the city’s east side, which were developed long before strict zoning guidelines were in place and the complexities of urban drainage were understood.

Jay Hutchison, the city’s public works director, said the city is in the design and planning stage for the first set of projects. Next year, construction is slated to begin on the installation of storm sewer systems at 20th Avenue and Nelson Street and 17th Avenue and Lee Street.

“We’ll have some followup projects that will start moving around town and continue for a number of years,” Hutchison said.

Point/Counterpoint: Mesa County Commissioners and the Grand Valley Drainage District

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

POINT: Change needed to deal with storm water in county

By Mesa County Commissioners

Mesa County has received multiple calls and letters from constituents about the bills they’ve received from the Grand Valley Drainage District.

The Mesa County Commissioners want to be clear: Mesa County does not have authority over the Drainage District. It stands alone as a separate governmental entity.

That said, we have been attempting to work with the Drainage District for years to create a Greater Grand Valley Drainage Organization. We have the support of the 5-2-1 Drainage Authority, which includes the City of Grand Junction, the City of Fruita and the Town of Palisade, to move in that direction. As pointed out in a previous letter to the editor, the Drainage District was identified as a possible solution in 2003. However, the 5-2-1 Drainage Authority was pursued at that time due to the limits of the Drainage District boundaries. It was identified in 2003 that we need a valley-wide solution. Our most recent efforts started again in February 2015.

Unfortunately, our attempts have failed. The Drainage District is not willing to discuss amending its governance or boundaries to create one greater Grand Valley Drainage Organization. It’s truly a shame.

If a Greater Grand Valley Drainage Organization was ever to be formed, its board would be tasked with assessing the needs of the greater Grand Valley and then determining the appropriate storm water fees. Raising fees now is putting the cart before the horse.

That doesn’t mean we aren’t aware of the significant storm water challenges we face in the Grand Valley. It simply means we do not support the recent actions of the Drainage District. The district has ignored feedback from stakeholders, who had asked for a re-evaluation of the potential impact on businesses (that already pay a majority of the Drainage District’s mill levy). The district also ignored requests from local government partners to re-evaluate its governance structure.

A bit more history we want our constituents to know: The Grand Valley Drainage District is a separate governmental entity formed by the Colorado State Legislature pursuant to CRS § 37-31-100, et seq. Only the three-member “elected” board has control over the district’s operations. Yet, the district has not held an election for a number of years due to lack of public interest and uncontested positions. Essentially, this has led to a self-appointed board. The only other oversight of the district lies with the Colorado Legislature and our local representatives, Sen. Ray Scott and Reps. Yeulin Willett and Dan Thurlow.

It’s disheartening to us. We have a solution sitting right in front of us. Let’s combine the operational experience of the Drainage District, expand the district boundaries to include the entire Grand Valley, and operate the Drainage District under a fair governance system.

The rate-payers deserve a voice at the table.

Sincerely,
Commissioners Rose Pugliese,  Scott McInnis and John Justman

COUNTERPOINT: Only one entity is doing something about the problem

By the Grand Valley Drainage District

For 13 years the five appointed representatives to the 5-2-1 Drainage Authority have had the power and authority to address Grand Valley-wide drainage and storm water issues.

There has not been, nor is there now, any question as to the importance of the issue, the need to take productive action toward mitigating the problems, and the need for additional revenue to take such actions. For 13 years various interests have resisted plans that would make progress toward these objectives a reality. For 13 years nothing but talk has been created. It is interesting, and sadly ironic, to note that this dysfunctional and counterproductive 5-2-1 governance model is exactly the one being proposed by certain parties to replace the current legislatively-adopted governance of the Grand Valley Drainage District (GVDD).

And during all this time, the expectation that the GVDD would continue to accept new and expanded responsibilities, obligations, and liabilities to deal with an urbanizing area continued to be taken for granted. The GVDD board realized that this approach to using the system we own, operate, and are financially responsible for was not sustainable. To continue its current operations, in and out of the growing urbanized area, and to accommodate the growing demand for a 21st century storm water system that would promote and sustain continued residential and commercial development, GVDD must make real progress toward addressing the drainage and storm issues within its boundaries.

If the 5-2-1 is not ready to assume responsibility for the larger valley-wide drainage and storm water obligation, the GVDD certainly understands. The creation of drainage and storm water systems on the Redlands and Orchard Mesa is going to be a complicated and very expensive undertaking. It will be a much different prospect than expanding and improving the GVDD conveyance system that exists on the north side of the river.

In 2013 the GVDD, under the legal authorities of Taxypayer Bill of Rights passed in 1992, created a Storm Water Enterprise to create a means by which to address the growing storm water and flooding concerns of an urbanizing area and to implement a fee to create revenue to begin that process. This TABOR enterprise mechanism has been used extensively and legally tested in Colorado. The bills that GVDD property owners have recently received are a result of these decisions on the part of the GVDD board in accordance with TABOR rules.

After listening to considerable public comment the GVDD board has adopted a fee structure that attempts to address the interests of existing business and new development, but at the same time the board must advocate for and protect the needs and concerns of the thousands of individual residents of the GVDD. Most often they are the ones in the GVDD office asking why something cannot be done to protect their lives and their properties. We know that any fee structure will be considered less than perfect by some of those affected and we take seriously the concerns that have been brought to our attention.

We thank the thousands of businesses and individuals who have sent in their payments to date and look forward to the improvements those payments will make to the best interests of the Grand Valley.

Board of Directors,
Grand Valley Drainage District

Fountain Creek: Waldo Canyon burn scar still a hazard

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Matt Steiner):

The threat of flash floods continues to linger in the minds of western El Paso County residents.

That worry loomed large for a group that met last week in Green Mountain Falls. They were focused on what might happen if torrential rains pound the Waldo Canyon burn scar and strike areas further upstream this summer.

Their concern has precedent. Thunderstorms on the barren, burned out slopes northeast of U.S. Highway 24 and in Woodland Park have filled Fountain Creek to its edges the last few years, leaving residents of Cascade, Manitou Springs and Green Mountain Falls spending each spring stacking sandbags and cleaning up after a series of floods.

Residents of those towns find themselves repeatedly asking the same question:

“What are they doing upstream?”

[…]

Those downstream remember a brief but powerful storm that hit Woodland Park in August 2013 and sent “a wall of water” pouring down Fountain Creek.

In an interview with The Gazette, Bill Alspach outlined years of planning and channel reconstruction that he said the Teller County city at the headwaters of Fountain Creek have been doing.

“We understand the creek,” Alspach said. “We’ve committed ourselves to being good stewards of the headwaters and good stewards to our neighbors. We’re doing this because it’s the right thing to do.”

Mayor-elect Jane Newberry said there is a “general feeling” in Green Mountain Falls that growth in Woodland Park has led to more storm runoff and a greater threat that Fountain Creek could pour over its banks and threaten bridges, homes and businesses in the communities below.

During the Aug. 22, 2013 storm, two bridges were damaged in Green Mountain Falls and several homes flooded in Green Mountain Falls and Cascade.

Newberry said she has “seen the city leaders in Woodland Park” focus on updating their development requirements to include a priority on drainage mitigation.

Alspach echoed that, saying that Woodland Park began its foundation of “stormwater stewardship” when the city council passed a resolution in 1994 requiring strict criteria for runoff retention.

In 2011 Alspach updated city code to require developers to include designs that slow runoff and reduce effect on Fountain Creek. He said that entails using landscaping, ponds and other features to force water into the ground before it flows toward the channel.

Alspach said businesses with large impervious parking lots and homeowners need to be aware of runoff on their property.

“Everybody contributes to impervious areas,” he said.

In 2014 Woodland Park partnered with Colorado Springs and El Paso County officials to have consistency within the watershed, Alspach said. Woodland Park has since rebuilt the west and east forks of Fountain Creek through town with help from CDOT and the Federal Emergency Management Administration. Alspach said the water now flows through culverts that include several features to help slow the flow.

Now, the city is focused on the next phase, which runs from the convergence of those forks to Aspen Garden Way just east of the Safeway store. Alspach said the city will begin taking bids from contractors on Wednesday to rebuild that portion of the creek. The work will include clearing the channel of debris and installing cutoff walls, boulders and other elements to control flow speeds.

The creek further east is beyond Woodland Park city limits and the responsibility falls to Teller County and private landowners.

Bryan Kincaid, who manages floodplain concerns for Teller County, said consultants who have worked with Woodland Park are in the midst of a stream bed stability assessment from the edge of Woodland Park to the El Paso County line.

“Everybody knows about the feud that has started between everybody downstream and Woodland Park,” Kincaid said. “We’re stuck right in the middle.”

Roads for private landowners along Crystola Road and near Crystola Canyon Road have been closed during heavy rains that send water churning down the usually dry creek bed.

Kincaid said Teller County maintains creek crossings at County Road 21, Creekside Drive and Crystola Canyon Road. The rest of the creek is on private land, he said. Alspach added that while Woodland Park and Teller County seek federal and state aid to help pay for channel maintenance, it’s a challenge for private residents to find money to maintain the creek on their property.

“They own the creek,” Alspach said, noting that landowners can partner with volunteer agencies like the Coalition for the Upper South Platte and the Rocky Mountain Field Institute to help keep the channel safe.

CUSP and RMFI have worked with residents all along Fountain Creek and other drainages plagued by flash flooding since the June 2012 Waldo Canyon fire. The more than 18,000-acre blaze left mountain slopes west of Colorado Springs without vegetation needed to help slow runoff flows during heavy rains. Continued concerns four years later prompted the Green Mountain Falls preparedness meeting.

From TheDenverChannel.com (Anne McNamara):

Flooding is a threat to historic buildings across the country, and most communities are not prepared to protect their valuable resources.

Those are the findings of a new study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, and co-authored by professors at the University of Colorado Denver and the University of Kentucky.

“Historic resources are a big part of the local economy,” said Andrew Rumbach, Assistant Professor of Planning and Design at the University of Colorado Denver. “So losing those resources is not only bad for the character and identity of the place, but it’s also bad for the local economy.”

Rumbach says Manitou Springs in Colorado is a classic example of an historic tourist town that has done a good job at preservation.

With help from the state, the town has put millions of dollars into improvements to direct water away from historic structures.

The town, named for its mineral water springs, has experience significant flooding in recent years. The flood waters caused more than $100,000 in damage to one of Manitou’s oldest buildings, an inn named The Cliff House at Pikes Peak.

“The Cliff House was here before the flood maps were developed,” said Paul York, the general manager. “You can’t exactly move The Cliff House’s location, it’s right here!”

The hotel has built flood walls to protect its parking structure. They say the wall can be deployed by a single person in less than 30 seconds, in case there is little warning about an oncoming flood.

“It’s come to this,” said York, as he demonstrated how to seal off the flood wall.

Fountain Creek: “It’s the right thing to do. And it’s something we should do” — #Colorado Springs Mayor Suthers

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Bllie Stanton Anleu):

After nearly a year of negotiations, a stormwater deal has been reached between the city of Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs Utilities and Pueblo County commissioners.

The tentative intergovernmental agreement, which Mayor John Suthers outlined Monday to the City Council, will benefit not only Pueblo and Pueblo County, but also local residents, by providing $460 million in stormwater projects by 2035.

Those improvements are sorely needed, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noted in dismal audits of the city stormwater program in 2013 and last August. Unless the situation improves dramatically, the EPA likely would sue Colorado Springs and restrict the MS4 permit that allows the city to send stormwater into the interstate water system.

The more immediate concern was Pueblo County’s threat to withhold the 1041 permit it granted to Utilities for the $825 million Southern Delivery System. That massive water system is scheduled to start delivering water April 27, and the intergovernmental agreement would be signed just in the nick of time…

Suthers started negotiating almost immediately after he was sworn in as mayor last June, and the mayor, Council President Merv Bennett and key leaders from Utilities made repeated trips to Pueblo to smooth the frayed relations and ensure that stormwater improvements would be forthcoming.

The talks proved tricky, as Pueblo’s city and county leaders felt increasing pressure to play hardball with Colorado Springs.

Suthers squeezed the city budget hard to produce millions of dollars. When the city’s southern neighbors balked because they had no guarantee, he placed the burden on Utilities to come up with future funding if and when the city fell short.

Along with that assurance, Pueblo County won a promise that if 71 critical stormwater projects aren’t completed by 2035, the pact will be renewed for five years with continued, commensurate funding increases.

The City Council and Pueblo County commissioners are set to vote on the pact in two weeks.

Provided they enact the agreement, it will mark a hard-fought resolution to Suthers’ most vexing challenge during his 10 months as mayor.

“I personally don’t think we could come up with any better result by litigating on two fronts,” he hold the council. “We could litigate with Pueblo at risk of jeopardizing the SDS being turned on … But I have a certain level of confidence the stormwater program we’re funding here will go a long way toward resolving our (legal) issues with the EPA.”

Besides, he noted: “I mean this very sincerely. It’s the right thing to do. And it’s something we should do.”

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs would pay more than $605 million to cover environmental damage for the Southern Delivery System if a draft intergovernmental agreement with Pueblo County is approved.

The proposed deal includes a guarantee to spend at least $460 million over the next 20 years to repair and build stormwater structures in Colorado Springs in a way that benefits downstream communities, particularly the city of Pueblo.

“This has been a tough, arduous negotiation that has taken months,” said Commissioner Liane “Buffie” McFadyen. “After years of Colorado Springs’ failure to honor that commitment we finally have a deal the citizens of Pueblo County can rely upon. We now have guaranteed projects, guaranteed funding and a mechanism for enforceability to back up the guarantees.”

A public hearing on the agreement will be at 1:30 p.m. April 18 in commissioners chambers at the Pueblo County Courthouse. The soonest the board is expected to act on the IGA would be April 25, which gives Colorado Springs time to consider it as well.

Mayor John Suthers is presenting the deal to Colorado Springs City Council today. That group, sitting as the Utilities Board, could pass it on April 20 at the soonest.

Colorado Springs Utilities wants to turn on SDS on April 27.

“I want to make it clear we have not voted on this,” said Commissioner Sal Pace. “I intend to listen to the public next week.” [ed. emphasis mine]

In addition to the stormwater projects, the deal includes nearly $20 million for flood control projects on Fountain Creek within the next nine months, $125,000 to keep the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District afloat and $3 million to the city of Pueblo to dredge Fountain Creek.

The $20 million is part of Colorado Springs’ commitment to pay $50 million over five years to the Fountain Creek district under Pueblo County’s 1041 permit for SDS. Within 30 days of signing the IGA, about $9.6 million will be paid, which takes into account credit for $600,000 already provided by Colorado Springs Utilities to the district. Another $10 million would be paid on Jan. 15, 2017, ending a dispute about timing of this year’s payment.

“These immediate payments to the District are desperately needed to study the possibility of, and to potentially construct, a dam on Fountain Creek – this is our opportunity to comprehensively evaluate all options to protect the citizens of Pueblo,” said Commissioner Terry Hart.

The $125,000 would fund operating costs of the district, which now has few financial resources to draw upon.

“The $125,000 was a line in the sand for us,” McFadyen said.

The $3 million to the city of Pueblo for Fountain Creek dredging would require an equal match, part of which could come from $1.8 million held by Pueblo County from an earlier agreement.

The stormwater agreement requires a continued working relationship between Pueblo County and Colorado Springs. Engineers representing both areas have rated 71 current projects for benefits to Colorado Springs and to downstream communities. All but 10 of the projects benefit both.

The list will be reviewed and adjusted over the next 20-25 years to assure compliance and reflect changes in the drainage area.

The accounting includes only money provided by Colorado Springs and Utilities toward projects on the list and require expenditures of $20 million annually the first five years, expanding to $26 million per year in 2031-35. If the list is not complete by 2036, spending of $26 million annually would be required for another five years.

The payments would be guaranteed by transfer funds already paid to the Colorado Springs by Utilities.

Ray Petros, Pueblo County’s water attorney explained the agreement to the board today. Colorado Springs would agree to pay Pueblo County’s engineering costs for drawing up the list and to resolve any IGA disputes in Pueblo District Court.

In addition to the $460 million for stormwater, $50 million for Fountain Creek flood control and $5.2 million for dredging, Colorado Springs previously agreed to spend $75 million by 2024 for sanitary sewer upgrades and $15 million for damage to roads related to SDS.

The total cost for construction of SDS is about $825 million.

From KOAA.com (Andy Koen):

Seven years ago, the Pueblo County Board of County Commissioners gave Colorado Springs Utilities permission to build the Southern Delivery System Pipeline through what’s known as a 1041 Permit. That agreement required the City of Colorado Springs to keep water from flowing faster down Fountain Creek.

But a few short months after the SDS agreement was signed, Colorado Springs voters passed ballot issue 300 and the City Council promptly ended the Stormwater Enterprise.

The backlog of storm water improvement languished for a time and it looked like things were headed to court. Commissioner McFadyen expressed relief that things didn’t reach that point.

“Hopefully it saves taxpayers dollars on both sides and actually has an agreement that’s worthwhile and get to the point, it solves the problem.”

In November, Colorado Springs received notice of violation by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for noncompliance with its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit under the federal Clean Water Act. That complaint was referred to the US Justice Department for legal action.

The basis of the violation was for failure to provide adequate resources to develop and enforce the MS4 Program…

All of the money committed by Colorado Springs in the proposed agreement comes from the city’s general fund. However Mayor Suthers said the IGA is a flexible agreement.

“If at some point in time Colorado Springs decides to join the rest of the world and have a storm water enterprise, they’re free to do so and that funding source can be utilized, but the voters have turned that down as recently as November of 2014.”

Both the Colorado Springs City Council and Pueblo County Board of County Commissioners must vote to approve the agreement. Pueblo will hold its first public hearing on the issue at their next regularly scheduled board meeting April 18.

Fountain Creek photo via the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District

Fountain Creek flood debris May 2014 via The Pueblo Chieftain

Fountain Creek swollen by stormwater November 2011 via The Pueblo Chieftain

Fountain Creek erosion via The Pueblo Chieftain

Fountain Creek during monsoon July 2012 via The Pueblo Chieftain

Fountain Creek swollen by stormwater in 2011 — photo via The Pueblo Chieftain

Fountain Creek through Colorado Springs.

Fountain Creek flooding 1999 via the CWCB

Old railroad bridge over Fountain Creek near Pueblo

Fountain Creek Watershed

The confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River in Pueblo County — photo via the Colorado Springs Business Journal

Fountain Creek

Denver: Platte to Park Hill Project stirring the waters of neighborhood discontent

Storm drain and open channel improvements between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and the South Platte River (Globeville Landing Outfall), Stormwater detention/conveyance between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and Colorado Blvd, (Montclair Basin) Stormwater detention/ conveyance immediately east of Colorado Blvd. (Park Hill Basin). — Storm drain and open channel improvements between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and the South Platte River (Globeville Landing Outfall), Stormwater detention/conveyance between the East Rail Line (38th & Blake Station) and Colorado Blvd, (Montclair Basin)
Stormwater detention/ conveyance immediately east of Colorado Blvd. (Park Hill Basin).

From The Denver Post (Jon Murray):

Lawyers for opponents of a huge northeast Denver flood-control project raised legal objections and notified the city about the possibility of lawsuits this week over two major components.

The “Platte to Park Hill” project is aimed at improving the flow of storm runoff toward the South Platte River. The city says it would provide heightened flood protection for some neighborhoods. And it also would divert water away from the planned state project to expand Interstate 70 and lower a portion below ground level, a source of controversy among opponents of the I-70 project.

The letters to City Attorney Scott Martinez, who says he is confident the project follows the law, cite potential legal violations and allege city officials have misled residents.

They target plans to regrade the western portion of City Park Golf Course to create a detention area and a mile-long open drainage channel along 39th Avenue, from Franklin to Steele streets, in and near the Cole neighborhood.

On Wednesday, Denver Public Works officials announced that the golf course option had been selected for the detention area over an alternative. They also disclosed that the overall project is now estimated to cost $267 million to $298 million, up at least 54 percent since the previous estimate last summer, because of an expansion in project scope.

Attorney Jerome M. Reinan sent one letter Tuesday. He says he represents a group of Cole residents, including Ed Armijo and Heidi Sue Harris.

He alleges city officials and contractors have misinformed neighborhoods about the project’s intent, which he characterizes as protecting I-70 and development in River North closer to the river. He also argues that the city has misused money raised by the wastewater rate over the years and violating the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. His final contention is that the drainage channel would take advantage of a low-income and minority neighborhood while disturbing contaminated soil.

Though the Cole neighborhood “is a generally underserved, low-income, minority neighborhood,” Reinan writes, “it has the organization and legal assistance it needs to prevent itself from being victimized by its elected officials.”

The allegations in the letter have been widely discussed among residents and examined by local media in recent weeks. City officials have pushed back against such assertions, saying the project would increase flood protection the most substantially for neighborhoods closer to I-70 while providing a basis for future projects that would provide relief further south.

“We are confident any city project, including this one, goes forward well within the bounds of the law,” Martinez said Friday. “As the process progresses, we strive to provide any clarity and certainty around any legal questions that may arise.”

The other letter raising the possibility of legal action was sent to Martinez on Monday, before the golf course’s selection was announced, by attorney Aaron D. Goldhamer. He says he represents former Colorado Attorney General J.D. MacFarlane, who served from 1975 to 1982.

Goldhamer’s letter cites past court decisions, the city charter and more recent documents involving Denver Parks and Recreation to argue the City Park Golf Course detention area would “remove city park land from current uses and would appear to violate applicable law,” which allows only parks and recreation uses on park land.

Goldhamer’s letter said MacFarlane hoped to avoid seeking legal intervention.

In a two-page response Martinez sent to Goldhamer on Friday, the city attorney disputed that argument.

“I want to assure Mr. MacFarlane that the recreational and open space values of the City Park Golf Course will be maintained,” Martinez wrote. “Dual use of parks facilities and compatible storm water management purposes are used nationally and have historically been lawfully used in Denver at many parks.”

He cited other golf courses and parks in the city and metro area that are graded to detain water during heavy storms while allowing golfing and recreation during dry weather.

There’s an interesting political wrinkle to Goldhamer’s involvement.

He’s currently running to represent the open Colorado House District 8 seat, which includes City Park. He is locked in a tight Democratic primary June 28 with Leslie Herod

Goldhamer said in an interview that his concern in drafting the letter was for good government, and “that speaks to me both as a candidate and as an attorney.”

He said city officials seemed determined to move forward with the drainage project, despite opponents’ objections.

“I think they’re going to proceed apace,” he said, “unless and until they have an injunction stopping them.”

Grand Valley: Drainage fees collection update

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The Grand Valley Drainage District has collected $10,000 so far in stormwater collection fees, even before most district residents have opened their invoices, the drainage district said.

The bills mark the beginning of the district’s effort to collect about $2.5 million this year for stormwater management projects.

A significant chunk of that money will come from outside Colorado, district General Manager Tim Ryan said.

The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, raised questions about whether the fees are legal under the Colorado Constitution.

“We want you to know there are still numerous questions about the GVDD’s process, in particular whether the bills are even legal: rather than a ‘fee,’ this may actually be a ‘tax’ that must be voted on by those affected before the money may be collected,” the chamber wrote this week to its members.

The district has maintained the fee is indeed that and points on its web page to a 2015 decision in which an Adams County judge upheld a stormwater fee after finding that the county’s stormwater utility was a government-owned business that receives less than 10 percent of its funds from state and local authorities combined and is consequently exempt from the requirements of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

In the ruling, the court also found that the fee was “reasonably related to the overall cost of providing services related to water drainage and water-related activities in the service area.”

The chamber is considering withholding payment on its drainage district bill until it’s clear the district has the authority to demand the fees on top of the property taxes they pay to the district.

The state constitution requires that businesses pay higher property tax rates than residences.

“We encourage all of our members to review the information provided so that they may make an informed decision on how to proceed with the invoices,” the chamber wrote to its members.

The district also maintains that the legislation that established it more than 100 years ago allows it to charge a fee.

The district is billing residents and businesses $3 a month for every 2,500 square feet of impervious surface for stormwater improvements. Those improvements are needed because rain and snowmelt runs off surfaces such as roofs and parking lots, potentially exposing government agencies to fines for failing to control pollutants contained in the runoff.

Most — 78 percent — of the bills sent out to commercial and industrial landowners went to addresses in the Grand Valley, but the 22 percent of bills sent outside the state account for about 50 percent of the revenue anticipated from that sector, Ryan said.

That breaks down to about $500,000 coming from outside Mesa County and an equal amount from within the county, Ryan said.

In many other places, stormwater improvement fees are a “part of the cost of doing business,” Ryan said.

Drainage district employees, meanwhile, are already dealing with questions as bills arrive.

One person complained to The Daily Sentinel that payments are to be sent to Denver.

The address is to the ANB Bank processing center — the same one used by Mesa County to process property-tax payments, Ryan said.

Most callers were cordial on Thursday and Friday, Ryan said, with many just wanting to be sure that the bill wasn’t a scam.

The Fountain Creek District is short on operating cash

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Fountain Creek district is running on fumes.

It’s like being in a car where none of the passengers can leave, so they take up a voluntary collection to refuel, but make sure that everyone can afford dinner at the next roadside grill. It’s not like you have to pay.

Time to pass the hat again.

“We will have to fund it this way until the time we can go to voters and ask for a mill levy,” said Pueblo County commissioner Terry Hart, who chairs the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District.

The board looked at several options of how to distribute funding among its members, which include Pueblo and El Paso counties, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Fountain, Monument, Manitou Springs, Palmer Lake and Green Mountain Falls — the incorporated areas within the Fountain Creek watershed.

This year, the district needs $125,000 or it will run out of money in August.

“And the number is likely to grow in future years,” Hart said.

Executive Director Larry Small showed the board several alternatives based on population, the size of general fund budgets or a subjective determination based on relative sizes of the communities.

Pueblo County could pay anywhere from 6.517 percent under the various formulas, while the city of Pueblo’s share would be 7.7-15 percent. The smaller numbers occur when only population is considered.

Also included was formula for the 2013 collection of $50,000, which simply charged both counties, Colorado Springs and Pueblo $10,000 each, Fountain $5,000 and the smaller communities $1,250 each. That only partially worked, since Monument didn’t pay and Green Mountain Falls, with just 669 people, only was able to afford $150.

“If they don’t have the money, we can’t compel them to pay,” Small said. “I want to emphasize we do need the money this year.”

The district coasted for several years on a joint payment from Colorado Springs Utilities and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. It also uses management fees from grants to pay costs, including Small’s monthly salary, which has always been half of the authorized amount.

Fountain Creek: “…we can’t do anything in the creek under it’s under control” — Larry Atencio

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

After a decade, the vision for Fountain Creek is beginning to come into focus.

It will require multiple projects up and down a waterway that can quickly turn from a placid, meandering stream to a raging muddy river in one cloudburst.

They’ll need to be coordinated.

They’ll need to be maintained.

And in the most extreme of storms, there will have to be something to hold back the water before it hits Pueblo.

The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District Friday tackled a few of those challenges and Pueblo’s representatives on the board were vocal about the next phases for flood control projects.

“Show me the detention ponds that will stop a flood,” said Pueblo City Councilman Larry Atencio. “It’s no secret that I advocate a dam. With economic and commercial development, we can’t do anything in the creek under it’s under control.”

Dennis Maroney, Pueblo’s former stormwater chief, recently surveyed Fountain Creek from the confluence with the Arkansas River to the northern city limits, and said it has radically changed over the last 10 years.

A demonstration flood control pond near the Northside Walmart will probably wash out before it can be repaired and the creek itself looks like a bomb hit it, he said.

“Fountain Creek has changed a lot,” said Maroney, who chairs the technical advisory committee and is a member of another committee looking at prioritizing projects. “If we do a project on Fountain Creek, we have to maintain it.”

“It will continue to get worse as long as we get more water,” said Jane Rhodes, who represents Fountain Creek property owners on the board. “And just wait until SDS (Southern Delivery System) if you don’t think it will change.”

The district will work with Colorado Springs and Pueblo County in coordinating stormwater projects within Colorado Springs that could impact Pueblo downstream. Right now, as part of 1041 permit negotiations, about 73 projects beneficial to both Colorado Springs and Pueblo County have been identified.

The district needs to determine how those efforts would impact its own work between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, as well as projects within Pueblo such as the detention pond that is washing out. Projects within Colorado Springs could reduce flows into Fountain Creek, but also might have the potential to move more water into the creek.

The Fountain Creek district includes a technical advisory committee with members from El Paso and Pueblo counties, cities within those counties and conservancy districts. It also is receiving input from a citizens advisory committee and a monetary mitigation committee that will prioritize projects to be funded with Colorado Springs’ $50 million payment over five years under the 1041 permit.

Pueblo County Commissioner Terry Hart could not say when the $50 million will begin arriving.

“We’re really at an impasse until we have an idea when the first $10 million will be made available to the district,” Hart said.

#AnimasRiver: States, tribes release preparedness plan — The Farmington Daily Times

The orange plume flows through the Animas across the Colorado/New Mexico state line the afternoon of Aug. 7, 2015. (Photo by Melissa May, San Juan Soil and Conservation District)

From the Farmington Daily Times (Hannah Grover):

New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, the Navajo Nation and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe released a plan Thursday to prepare for increased water flow in the Animas and San Juan rivers.

The plan addresses the monitoring of sediments left behind after the Gold King Mine spill in August. The spill released more than 3 million gallons of toxic mine waste into the Animas River. As the plume of mine waste floated down the river, it left behind heavy metals in the sediment.

Officials are concerned that the increased water flow in the rivers caused by the snow melt will stir up the sediment.

“The San Juan and Animas rivers are still contaminated from last year’s toxic waste spill, and we expect it to get worse as the snow melts and the water level rises,” New Mexico Environment Department Cabinet Secretary Ryan Flynn said in a press release. “Already, some of our cities are experiencing the effects. In Farmington, for example, there has been a substantial increase in lead found in the Animas River at times of high flows and turbidity. At those times, the city draws its drinking water from reserves instead.”

The preparedness plan calls for New Mexico and the city of Farmington to continue monitoring the river’s turbidity and examining how it relates to the levels of heavy metal. That will help the water users make decisions on use and treatment of the river water, according to the plan.

San Juan County Executive Officer Kim Carpenter said the county is working with the environment department and Farmington officials on monitoring the river. He said the county has taken samples of river water from upstream.

SDS: Pueblo County and #Colorado Springs are still talking 1041 permit requirements

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo County and Colorado Springs continue to negotiate over the 1041 permit for Southern Delivery System, but there has been no resolution of issues regarding stormwater control.

“We’re still engaged in negotiations,” Pueblo County Commissioner Terry Hart told The Pueblo Chieftain this week. “We have made it clear that if we are able to pound out an agreement, it will be tentative and open to public review.”

Meanwhile, Pueblo West, an SDS partner, won’t jump into the fray.

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers earlier this month laid out a plan to apply $450 million to stormwater projects on Fountain Creek and its tributaries over the next 20 years.

Many of those projects would benefit Pueblo County as well as Colorado Springs, and Pueblo County would have a say in prioritizing the projects, Suthers said.

The proposal is an attempt to make up for Colorado Springs’ decision to abolish its stormwater enterprise in 2009, and its failure to comply with state and federal stormwater permits.

Pueblo County officials publicly were cool to Suthers’ suggestion, pointing out that negotiations on several points have been underway for nearly a year. Meanwhile, Pueblo City Council and the Pueblo Board of Water Works adopted resolutions supporting Pueblo County in negotiations.

This week, Pueblo West Metropolitan District board member Mark Carmel attempted to get the board to weigh in on the negotiations, but other members of the board declined.

Carmel said the 20-year timeline proposed by Colorado Springs is too short and Pueblo could still be at risk from flooding on Fountain Creek caused by growth to the north. His proposal was not considered by the board.

As a result, Carmel is exploring his own candidacy for Pueblo County commissioner for the principle purpose to “influence a true agreement on SDS.”

“We need leaders who will not roll over and play dead to Colorado Springs; leaders who must remain vigilant to achieve a permanent solution to flooding before new SDS water magnifies the problem,” Carmel said.

Jerry Martin, president of the Pueblo West board, said he is generally satisfied with how Colorado Springs has treated Pueblo West in SDS.

Pueblo West became part of the SDS project in 2007, agreeing to take water from it rather than directly from the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam as a backup to its own pipeline from the dam and as a way to increase capacity of its water system. The agreement also designated Colorado Springs as the lead negotiator for SDS.

Pueblo West has used its connection to SDS twice, once last summer and the other beginning last month, as a way to get water. Agreements signed in relation to that settled issues among Pueblo West, Pueblo County and the city of Pueblo related to water issues, but not the 1041 permit with Colorado Springs.

“Colorado Springs has performed well during the disaster last summer and now,” said Martin. “We remain silent, because we’re not involved with Fountain Creek flooding. This current resolution is between Pueblo County and Colorado Springs.”

#AnimasRiver: Whither runoff and pollutants?

Location map for abandoned mine near Silverton. The Silver Wing is in the upper right corner of the aerial.

From the Associated Press (Dan Elliott) via WRAL.com:

More than two dozen state, tribal and local agencies said they will monitor the Animas and San Juan rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah at about 18 sites.

It isn’t clear yet what effect the spring and summer runoff will have on any metals that settled to the bottom of the rivers after the spill.

Snowpack in the Colorado mountains that feed the Animas — which joins the San Juan in New Mexico — was 81 percent of the long-term average Thursday. Kevin Houck of the Colorado Water Conservation Board said he didn’t expect a higher-than-normal runoff.

That could change if spring snows are heavy, Houck said, adding that the outlook will become clearer next month.

A crew led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inadvertently triggered the 3 million-gallon spill at the inactive Gold King Mine Aug. 5 during preliminary cleanup work.

The EPA estimates the spill sent 880,000 pounds of metals into the rivers, and some settled into the sediment on the bottom.

The metals included arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc. Water utilities briefly shut down their intake valves and farmers stopped drawing from the rivers. The EPA says the water quality quickly returned to pre-spill levels.

Colorado, New Mexico and Utah joined with the Navajo, Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes — whose land is crossed by the rivers — to compile a plan to monitor the waterways and some wells. They will also test the sediment in the delta where the San Juan empties into Lake Powell, the massive reservoir in southern Utah and northern Arizona.

They said they will share their data and will train first-responders and water users about what to do in the event of a flood or other emergency.

Cities, counties, health departments and water districts along the rivers are also participating in the preparations.

Separately, the EPA released an updated plan Thursday for its own water-quality monitoring to last at least through August.

The agency said it planned to monitor 30 river locations in the three states. At least some of those sites appeared to be the same ones the states will monitor.

Meanwhile the Democrats in Congress are pushing for reform of the General Mining Act of 1872. Here’s a report from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. Here’s an excerpt:

“While voluntary and philanthropic efforts may provide relief in certain instances, they cannot come close to truly addressing the vast scale of the problem,” said a letter from the lawmakers, including Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Colorado Rep. Jared Polis and four others.

They sent the letter to committee chairman Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Energy and Mineral Resources subcommittee chairman Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) and are requesting a hearing on two bills aimed at tackling the inactive mines problems.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are 500,000 inactive mines around the West and that tens of thousands are leaking, contaminating water with acidic, metals-laced drainage from mines.

The Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act would create a fund from fees on industry to clean up abandoned hardrock mines…

Lawmakers also are considering legislation to encourage voluntary cleanups by reducing liability under the Clean Water Act when well-intentioned work causes more harm…

And the EPA aims to stabilize the first 60 feet of the collapsed Gold King Mine portal and install a structure to control drainage, Grantham said.

“Operations at the Gold King Mine will resume as early as possible in the late spring, early summer, depending upon road conditions and any remaining avalanche hazards around the mine,” she said.

Finally, the EPA has released their final monitoring plan in the aftermath of the Gold Kind Mine spill. Here’s a report from Peter Marcus writing for The Durango Herald. Here’s an excerpt:

The Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to examine water and sediment quality, biological communities and fish tissue at 30 locations under a variety of flow and seasonal river conditions along the Animas and San Juan rivers.

After the first year, “the need for additional monitoring and assessment and the entities best suited to undertake further monitoring will be determined,” according to the plan…

The EPA on Thursday also announced that it would make $2 million available for additional monitoring needs designed to complement the yearlong effort.

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and the Navajo Nation will monitor the spring runoff.

Spring 2016 is the first snowmelt season in the Animas and San Juan watershed since the spill. There is concern that heavy metal concentrations in the river may rise as flows increase, posing a risk to downstream communities and aquatic life. A large spring snowpack has increased those concerns.

The preparedness plan includes sensors providing real-time data, including turbidity and flow levels. The plan also calls for water quality sampling at regular intervals to track river conditions.

The San Juan Basin Health Department will rely on the real-time data, beyond the periodic sampling performed by the EPA.

“Based on currently available data, San Juan Basin Health believes that use of the river this year poses no additional health risks as compared to previous years, but as conditions change over the course of the monitoring program, we will assess data from all sources in order to improve our decision-making and keep the public safe,” said Liane Jollon, executive director of the San Juan Basin Health Department.

“EPA’s comparison of current and historic data at long-term monitoring sites will be essential for determining if the August incident has changed river conditions,” she added.

Durango Mayor Dean Brookie questioned whether the EPA should commit to more than a year of sampling, suggesting that a more permanent monitoring plan could come as part of Superfund efforts.

Local communities and the state have expressed support for a Superfund designation, which would inject large amounts of dollars into treatment.

“To me, that’s not long term, that’s a start, and sets up the basis for long-term monitoring,” Brookie said.

San Juan County Administrator William Tookey pointed out that monitoring is not as critical to his community because it does not use the Animas for drinking or agriculture.

“Our concern is that there’s adequate monitoring in there so that our downstream partners get the protection and notice they need so it doesn’t put them in a bind,” Tookey said.

La Plata County Commissioner Gwen Lachelt added: “I’m pleased with the cooperation amongst the downstream entities to monitor the spring runoff in the wake of the Gold King Mine spill. With the winter snowpack and ongoing acid mine drainage in the Animas watershed, it’s critical we have this level of cooperation not only this year but throughout the Superfund cleanup process.”

Fall data, also released on Thursday, showed that sampling from 27 locations were below “risk-based recreational screening levels,” according to the EPA. Officials added that the data were consistent with pre-event conditions.

Data are compared to recreational screening levels for long-term exposure. The analysis takes into account such things as how a person would contact the river and for how long.

An EPA spring sampling event is underway, which will be followed by additional sampling in June and again in the fall.

After collecting data for a year, the EPA will assess it, consult with partners and decide what further monitoring or other actions are needed.

The goal is to consistently evaluate river conditions over time to assess impacts to public health and the environment. Researchers will examine fluctuations over time and location based on seasonal factors, such as precipitation and snowmelt.

The sampling locations will span Cement Creek, the Animas and San Juan rivers, and the upper section of the San Juan arm of Lake Powell.

Here’s a photo gallery about the spill from The Durango Herald.

2016 #coleg: HB16-1005 (Rain barrels) just might get to Gov. Hickenlooper’s desk this session

From The Denver Post (Samantha Fox):

The sponsors of this bill hope to encourage water-wise practices. Water-rights holders are acutely aware of the value of water and understand the importance of conservation, but they are looking for assurance that their water availability and their long-fought-for rights won’t be harmed.

After amendments added recently to address data collection on impacts, provide for a review and objection period, and expressly stipulate that rain water-harvesting does not constitute a water right, it looks like the bill may pass this time.

Take a closer look at the issue and you’ll realize it isn’t as simple as conservationists versus farming. Water rights are an important component in our state’s laws, and affect flows that underpin a broad spectrum of critical water uses, stream conservation, farming, and municipal supply, among others. They are inherently tied to our economy and ability to grow sustainably.

Denver: Montclair and Park Hill basins stormwater design fueling conflict

Here’s a deep-dive into stormwater planning in the Montclair and Park Hill basins from Alan Predergast writing in Westword. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

The modest proposal, known initially as the Two Basin Drainage Project (TBDP) but now being touted as the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems, is intended to help control storm runoff in the northeast part of the city — water that flows north and west from Fairmount Cemetery through the Montclair, Park Hill, Cole and Whittier neighborhoods to Elyria, Swansea, Globeville and ultimately the South Platte River. The $134 million undertaking is being overseen by Denver’s Department of Public Works, with some financial and technical assistance from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District.

Although many details of the project are still officially “under study” and have not been finalized, certain basic features have been presented in public meetings in recent months — and have raised hackles among neighborhood groups. One essential component is an open channel, fifteen blocks long and up to a hundred feet wide, to be dug along East 39th Avenue between Franklin and Steele streets, that would slow down heavy storm runoff headed to the river. Another key piece of infrastructure is a detention “pond,” around thirty acres in size, to be situated either in the Cole neighborhood or on the golf course. The pond would remain dry except in the most extreme storm conditions, yet building it could require demolishing several houses in Cole — an early configuration, since rejected, would have taken out more than forty homes — or removing up to 280 of the 872 trees on the golf course. And that’s just for the first phase of the project, addressing drainage needs in the Montclair Basin; another detention pond is planned for the Park Hill Golf Course as part of drainage improvements for the Park Hill Basin, the second basin in the TBDP.

City officials say the project is urgently needed to fix long-festering drainage problems in some of Denver’s poorest neighborhoods — and curtail hazardous street flooding, such as one event last June 24 after heavy rains in the area. “It is my fervent belief that in this project the city is acting as an advocate for neighborhoods, to deliver the project as fast as we can to provide stormwater relief,” Gretchen Hollrah, the city’s deputy chief financial officer, told one gathering of neighborhood organizations last month.

From The Denver Post (Jon Murray):

A growing chorus of residents and activists across several neighborhoods portray I-70 as the motivating force: the largest factor driving what they see as a set of invasive projects that could scar the City Park and Park Hill golf courses, disturb potentially toxic soils, and sacrifice neighborhoods and parkland to make the highway project viable.

City officials dispute those characterizations. For months, at dozens of public and neighborhood meetings, they have underlined city experts’ assessment of the threat posed by giant storms that, even if very rare, would wreak havoc across a wide swath of the area.

Plenty agree with the plans. But even as officials honed their message, critics who sometimes discount the level of flooding threat have been emboldened.

That’s in part because some areas that would host projects wouldn’t benefit as much as the highway and other neighborhoods to the north — or, initially, at all. Those that would gain protection include parts of the city that are about to see an influx of redevelopment, including some of River North, industrial areas near I-70 and the National Western Center site, only feeding skepticism.

Fountain Creek: Can Bear Creek Dam in Jeff. County be a model for flood control?

Following heavy rains which fell mid-Septembe 2013 r in Colorado, the pool elevation at the Bear Creek reservoir rose several feet. At 4 a.m., Sept. 15, the reservoir pool elevation surpassed its previous record elevation of 5587.1 feet, and peaked at a pool elevation of 5607.9 ft on Sept. 22, shown here. Bear Creek Dam did what it was designed to do by catching the runoff and reducing flooding risks to the hundreds of homes located downstream. — Following heavy rains which fell mid-Septembet 2013 in Colorado, the pool elevation at the Bear Creek reservoir rose several feet. At 4 a.m., Sept. 15, the reservoir pool elevation surpassed its previous record elevation of 5587.1 feet, and peaked at a pool elevation of 5607.9 ft on Sept. 22, shown here. Bear Creek Dam did what it was designed to do by catching the runoff and reducing flooding risks to the hundreds of homes located downstream.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

To see how a dam on Fountain Creek might function, it isn’t necessary to look far.

For more than 30 years, three flood control dams have protected downtown Denver from flooding. The first was built on Cherry Creek in 1950, but when waters from the 1965 flood inundated Denver, two other dams, Chatfield and Bear Creek were also built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Of the three, Bear Creek Lake is the most similar to the type that would be built on Fountain Creek.

The earthen dam, 1 mile long, was completed in 1982 and usually stores a relatively small amount of water, about 2,000 acre-feet. Most of the remaining area behind and around the dam is a city of Lakewood park, which offers camping, fishing, picnic areas, trails, archery ranges and golf courses. Other recreational lakes and wetlands are behind the dam.

But twice in the past three years, the dam has prevented millions of dollars of damage by holding back water in a 236-square-mile drainage area — its primary function.

“It reached a record level in 2013 and close to that level in 2015,” said Joe Maxwell, operations manager for the Corps. “There were no abnormalities found as we monitored and it performed as it should.”

Wall of water

In the September 2013 flood, the largest in Colorado’s recorded history, damage to numerous communities, highways and water structures was recorded. But Bear Creek, Chatfield and Cherry Creek kept it from being worse.

Bear Creek Lake stored 28,500 acre-feet of the wall of water that descended during the 2013 event, well within its capacity. The lake level reached an elevation of 5,607 feet, higher than ever before and 50 feet above normal. Water releases began even as other areas still registered high water, because of the Corps’ protocols for operating all three reservoirs in tandem. It took three to four weeks to empty the floodwater.

“The goal is to release the water as soon as possible, but you don’t want to release it too fast,” Maxwell said.

Repairs to trails, roads and structures in the park cost $372,000 and were newly complete last May, when sustained rains pounded the Front Range. Like other areas, Bear Creek Canyon had weeks of sustained rain, which surprised the Corps by filling Bear Creek Reservoir again. The level of the lake rose 50 feet, and didn’t drop to normal until the end of July.

Repairs the second time around in 2015 were less extensive, because there was more warning, a different type of flooding and lessons learned from 2013, said Drew Sprafke, Lakewood regional parks supervisor.

“It was a different character without the high flow in the creek,” he said. “It re-impacted some of the same area, but we had more notice and knew how to respond.”

The city of Lakewood didn’t have to foot the whole bill, but matched county, state and federal funds to make the repairs. But the inundation of water has changed the character of the park, Sprafke said.

“We were able to make repairs,” he said. “But we lost 300 trees that will have to be clear cut. It’s a massive change to the park. The trees were under water for 11-12 weeks in both events, and invasive weeds came in. It will take at least five to 10 years to recover.”

Fountain Creek outlook

A dam, or multiple dams, on Fountain Creek would function in much the same way and has been talked about for years as a way to protect Pueblo from flooding.

The first idea for a dam on Fountain Creek came as part of an Army Corps of Engineers study in 1970 following the flood of 1965. The dam was never funded, and levees on Fountain Creek were completed through the city of Pueblo instead.

A multipurpose dam was brought up again by Pueblo County’s water attorney, Ray Petros, in 2005 as a potential alternative for Southern Delivery System.

As sedimentation has diminished the effectiveness of the levees, the dam idea has been revived in recent years.

A study last year by Wright Water Engineers for Pueblo County showed that 370,000 tons of sediment are deposited south of Colorado Springs each year as flows into Fountain Creek increase. Much of that winds up in Pueblo, raising the level of Fountain Creek and decreasing the effectiveness of the levees.

A payment of $50 million toward flood control on Fountain Creek was written into Pueblo County’s 1041 permit for SDS, and a dam is central to studies.

The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, formed in 2009 as an outgrowth of the Vision Task Force, funded a U.S. Geological Survey study of hypothetical dam sites in 2013. That study showed the most effective way to reduce peak discharge and capture sediment would be a large dam about 10 miles upstream from the confluence of Fountain Creek at the Arkansas River.

Another alternative would involve several detention ponds north of Pueblo, which would be nearly as effective in reducing peak flows, but would capture less sediment.

A study for the district last year by engineer Duane Helton showed negligible impact on downstream water rights if flood control structures maintained a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second through Pueblo during all but the largest flood events.

The district is now preparing for more detailed feasibility studies that would show where structures could be located and how much they would cost.

That’s a long way from the parks and trails that Lakewood residents enjoy near their flood control dam, but the Fountain Creek district is committed to protecting the creek and topping it with increased recreational opportunities only as the areas along the creek are stabilized.

The district has spearheaded both flood control and recreation demonstration projects so far.

#Colorado Springs’ 1st Stormwater Project of 2016 — KKTV.com

Flooding in Colorado Springs June 6, 2012

From KKTV.com (Jessica Leicht):

Wednesday marked this year’s first stormwater project, a detention pond at Woodmen Road and Sand Creek.

Unlike a retention pond, detention ponds temporarily store excess storm water. This project should help prevent flooding — and stop sediment from going downstream and ending up in places like Pueblo.

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said this is just the beginning of the city’s stormwater commitment.

Suthers said since the city did away with the stormwater enterprise six years ago, the city hasn’t been spending the amount of money it should be spending on stormwater projects.

The city said it plans to commit $445 million over the next 20 years to projects that will benefit the city and our downstream neighbors in Pueblo County.

“We have a responsibility as the city grows and creates more impervious surfaces that drain into our creek basins; we have a responsibility to make sure that doesn’t damage property here, or downstream,” Suthers said.

The detention pond project costs $3 million and is expected to be completed by June.

The city said it plans to spend $19 million this year on stormwater projects.

Fountain Creek: “I think the mayor (John Suthers) is being more realistic” … Steve Nawrocki

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Other agencies concerned with the impact of the Southern Delivery System on Fountain Creek are awaiting their chance to provide input in the face of new offers by Colorado Springs.

“I think the mayor (John Suthers) is being more realistic about how to address the problem,” said Steve Nawrocki, president of the Pueblo City Council. “What they first came to us with was $19 million for one year, so this is an improvement. I’m not sure it will be enough. We haven’t had a chance to talk about it as a council.”

In January, council unanimously approved a resolution asking that a $500 million backlog in Colorado Springs stormwater projects be addressed within 10 years, and Suthers came close to that over 20 years. Suthers indicated the number was reached during negotiations with Pueblo County, led by Commissioner Terry Hart.

Hart Tuesday said he was surprised at how Suthers had broken the news to media, but said many of the figures he presented are close to what has been discussed.

“There are also things we want in the agreement, but have not made public,” Hart said.

Nawrocki argued that the city of Pueblo should have a seat at the table in the current negotiations between Pueblo County and Utilities.

“I think the county has been pretty secretive in the way they’ve gone about it,” Nawrocki said.

Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, agrees that there should be more openness in writing and enforcing any agreement.

He would like an outside agency, such as the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, to review the list of 73 critical projects as well as the county in order to determine benefit to Pueblo and other downstream communities.

Pueblo County has hired Wright Water Engineers to evaluate the benefits, but as the Environmental Protection Agency’s audit of Colorado Springs’ stormwater permit showed, one set of eyes might not be enough, Winner said.

“I have more faith in John Suthers than I did in Steve Bach,” Winner said, referring to the current and previous mayors of Colorado Springs. Bach opposed a regional drainage district that voters rejected, while Suthers has actively worked to find solutions. “But everyone is term-limited. There needs to be a third party with technical expertise.”

Larry Small, executive director of the Fountain Creek district, says it’s in a chicken-and-egg situation, awaiting funding for both flood control projects and the day-to-day operation of the district.

The district is continuing its studies of what kind of flood control structures would be built and the location, but needs funding to move that work along. Small, who was vice president of Colorado Springs City Council when Pueblo County’s 1041 permit for SDS was issued, contends the first of five $10 million payments to the district is past due.

“The longer it takes them to reach an agreement, the longer it takes for us to begin work,” Small said.

SDS: No agreement with Pueblo County yet, April start-up uncertain

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

It’s not clear whether the Southern Delivery System will be up and running by the end of April as Colorado Springs desires.

“We’ve seen significant movement, and the commissioners understand the sense of urgency,” said Pueblo County Attorney Greg Styduhar. “But that does not mean we will not continue to apply the same critical eye and comprehensive analysis we have used so far.”

Pueblo County, through its 1041 permit, might not have filled in all the boxes associated with turning on the water by that time, and has been working with Colorado Springs Utilities to complete the checklist. But it has taken time to work through issues, particularly the question of stormwater.
“Both sides have been working diligently and there have been some concessions, but no meeting of the minds,” Styduhar said. He said a final version of an agreement should emerge in the next few weeks, and the commissioners would like to give the public the opportunity to comment.

Once a deal is reached, the public process could add another month for more review.

For almost a year, the county and Utilities have been negotiating an IGA that would allow SDS to start up. The meetings started as an alternative to a “show-cause” hearing on whether Colorado Springs Utilities was meeting all of its commitments under the 1041 agreement. Few details of the talks have emerged up until this week.

Meanwhile, the pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs already has been pressed into service, twice, to supply Pueblo West, which along with Security and Fountain is an SDS partner. Testing continues and Colorado Springs wants to fire up SDS by the end of April, when testing ends and warranties kick in.

Anxious to get things moving, Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers this week revealed a proposal to Pueblo County that puts more than $450 million into play over 20 years to fix drainage problems on Fountain Creek. It also would pave the way to release $50 million over five years to build flood control structures on Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and Pueblo.

The offer increases the amount of money on the table, the range of projects and the time frame, all of which Pueblo County has continued to fight for in negotiations. Styduhar agrees with Suthers that it would be an enforceable contract, citing Supreme Court decisions that back that viewpoint.

The question is timing.

“Certainly, there is a time crunch,” Styduhar said. “But it’s still important to look at it with
a critical eye.”

#AnimasRiver: New Mexico delegation wants EPA to move on compensation — Artesia News #GoldKingMine

From the Associated Press via the Artesia News:

New Mexico’s congressional delegation has concerns with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over delays in compensation for expenses and damages caused by the Gold King Mine spill.

The delegation announced Monday that it sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. It asks her agency to process millions of dollars in reimbursement claims submitted by the state and the Navajo Nation and to set up a claims office to begin processing compensation for victims.

The lawmakers also want EPA to adopt a robust, long-term plan for the independent monitoring of the area’s water quality.

“We are deeply troubled that these two issues are still far from resolved six months after the spill,” the lawmakers wrote.

The delegation also warned that the spring snowmelt will increase water flow in the Animas and San Juan rivers and that could stir up lead, arsenic and other contaminants deposited in the wake of August 2015 spill.

The EPA recently announced that it plans to return to the Gold King Mine in southwestern Colorado this spring or early summer to resume preliminary cleanup work after it triggered the 3-million-gallon spill of wastewater that fouled rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah…

The EPA is considering Superfund status for the Gold King and 47 other mining sites in the Bonita Peak Mining District north of Silverton, which would free up millions of dollars in federal funds for an extensive cleanup.

The EPA estimates that about 5.4 million gallons of acidic mine waste flows from those sites each day, eventually reaching the Animas River.

Location map for abandoned mine near Silverton. The Silver Wing is in the upper right corner of the aerial.

#Colorado Springs stormwater plans now total $445 million over 20 years, 73 critical projects

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs is upping the ante for what it would pay for stormwater control on Fountain Creek after getting a cold shoulder by Pueblo officials from presentations in January.

“I’ve dug and dug and dug,” Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers told The Pueblo Chieftain editorial board Monday. “This is an enforceable contract.”

Colorado Springs is offering to spend at least $445 million over 20 years on 73 critical projects that have benefit both to the city and Pueblo County. That is more than double than the $190 million over 10 years If the projects are not done by that time, Colorado Springs would spend another $24 million annually until they are complete.

The offer was made Friday to Pueblo County commissioners as part of negotiations over the 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System.

In addition, the city is offering to make EPA requirements enforceable by Pueblo County, to pay for $125,000 in administrative costs of the Fountain Creek district, offer more help with dredging and provide $3 million more for dredging Fountain Creek in Pueblo.

Finally, it would release the first $10 million for Fountain Creek dams to the district as part of the condition to provide $50 million over a 5-year period.

Colorado Springs wants to tie up all of the loose ends with the 1041 permit by the end of April, when testing of SDS will be complete.

“The city is not going to delay operating the system and let warranties expire on a $900 million project,” Suthers said, adding that litigation would be the next step if an agreement with Pueblo County cannot be reached.

Pueblo County commissioners must decide whether commitments made in the 1041 permit have been met before SDS is turned on. There is no timetable for when that would happen.

In January, Suthers and other Colorado Springs officials met with the commissioners, Pueblo City Council and the Pueblo Board of Water Works on the stormwater issue. Commissioners asked for more long-term assurances and more commitment to resolving Fountain Creek concerns. City Council asked for $500 million over 10 years, along with other conditions. Even the water board, which works cooperatively with Colorado Springs Utilities, backed the county.

Suthers outlined how the $445 million would be spent over the 20year period, escalating from about $20 million annually to $25 million per year. It would not include any outside grants. Payments would be guaranteed by excess revenue payments from Colorado Springs Utilities that total about $32 million a year.

Pueblo County engineers, at Colorado Springs’ expense, would be able to jointly review projects in order to ascertain benefits.

“CSU is an enterprise, and will guarantee the expenditures if we fall short,” Suthers said. [ed. emphasis mine]

There would be fines of up to $1 million annually if the required amounts were not spent, he added. Provisions for dispute resolution are included, and Colorado Springs would pick up the legal tab if Pueblo County prevailed in a court case.

Initially, the money would come from city cutbacks, refinancing and Utilities. That would not preclude Colorado Springs from identifying a permanent source of funding.

“Also, whatever we resolve with the EPA by court order or consent decree would be incorporated in the IGA, so is enforceable by Pueblo County,” Suthers said, referring to the city’s current violation of its stormwater permit under the Clean Water Act.

Fountain Creek: Suthers ‘frustrated’ by impasse on stormwater projects — The Colorado Springs Gazette

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Billie Stanton Anleu):

Mayor John Suthers is discouraged, frustrated and more than a tad disgruntled by Pueblo County’s failure to accept Colorado Springs’ offers of hundreds of millions of dollars for stormwater projects.

Friday, the county was to receive an offer to beat all previous propositions, one that also trumps the $15 million to $16 million annual expenditures under the city’s Stormwater Enterprise, a tax-funded program that ran from 2005 to 2009.

The new proposal calls for $445 million to be spent over the next 20 years through an enforceable intergovernmental agreement that carries $1 million penalties if the promised amounts aren’t spent.

In the first five years, at least $100 million would be spent, followed by $110 million over the next five years, $115 million over the ensuing five years and $120 million over what could be the final five years.

Why “could be”? Because if 73 targeted projects aren’t done by then, $24 million would continue to be spent each year until those fixes are finished.

The county’s consulting Wright Water Engineers and the city’s consulting MWH Global engineers mutually chose those projects to benefit Pueblo and Colorado Springs.

Since he took office in June, Suthers has stressed the importance of meeting the city’s obligation to Pueblo, vowing to spend $19 million a year, including $3 million from Colorado Springs Utilities, to improve conditions along Fountain Creek and its tributaries.

The mayor, City Council and Utilities have upped the ante considerably, though, since Pueblo County threatened to withhold the 1041 permit that would allow Utilities to launch the Southern Delivery System, or SDS, on April 27…

Pueblo County isn’t the sole source of consternation, however. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found during an August inspection that Colorado Springs falls short on water quality and stormwater infrastructure. The EPA warned the city and the U.S. Department of Justice that it might sue to restrict the city’s MS4 water permit.

City officials have been busy since, hiring engineer Richard Mulledy to head a reorganized Stormwater Division, scurrying to clean weed-crowded culverts, scattered riprap in channels and sediment-laden pipelines.

Mulledy, who previously worked for Pueblo, is optimistic about Colorado Springs’ new program.

“The improvement plan is very good – detailed, actionable, realistic,” he said Thursday. “The city has incredibly talented, motivated professionals. That, with the plan, I think we have a great opportunity.”

But the challenges are immense, Mulledy acknowledged.

“Fountain Creek is one of the most unstable, flashy creeks in all the nation. It’s a unique animal.”

Flows can vary from a base flow of 120 cubic feet per second to 20,000 cubic feet per second during a 25-year event, swelling the creek to 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep, he said.

“On top of that, the material along that creek is an alluvial field; it’s a sand. So it’s kind of the perfect storm.”

Pueblo knows that all too well. Colorado Springs’ growth has resulted in more impermeable pavement. But with the Waldo Canyon fire in 2012 denuding mountainsides, sediment in Fountain Creek increased at least 278-fold, pushing water levels far higher, Wright Water Engineers found in a 2015 study.

Plenty of federal and state grants helped Colorado Springs address that damage, and now the city is embarking on 73 projects designed to control flooding, reduce sedimentation and improve water quality.

Three-step process a beginning

First comes a $3 million detention pond along Sand Creek – “named appropriately,” Mulledy notes – to stop the sediment flow before it hits Fountain Creek.

Next is $2 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency projects from the presidential disaster declaration after the 2013 flooding, work that will rehabilitate wash-out areas, remedy sediment transport issues and improve water quality.

Then comes a $250,000 King Street detention pond off Fountain Creek, a retrofit to ensure full detention and address channel-forming flows.

“Instead of having just a flood-control facility, it manages that flow to more closely mimic natural discharge,” Mulledy explained. “And that’s a great thing, because what transports the most sediment is the everyday flow.

“Of course, sediment is the issue, because that’s what affects their levee levels” in Pueblo.

That’s only the start of the $445 million worth of work Colorado Springs promises to provide over the next two decades.

“Man, we put everything on the table,” Suthers said Thursday. “To the extent they’ve long cited that we did away with the Stormwater Enterprise, and we’ve offered far more than that. We’ve made offers to help with sediment issues and to push forward to fund the Fountain Creek (Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway) District.”

Colorado Springs Utilities is to pay that district $10 million a year for five years to perform more flood-control measures starting in December. But the district could get its first $10 million earlier if the SDS gets to start delivering water April 27.

“The other thing we’ve done, we’ve offered that any provisions in the EPA agreement to benefit them would also be put in the IGA,” Suthers said.

“We still don’t have an agreement despite the fact that we’ve stepped up,” the mayor said. “I’m very frustrated that we’re still so far apart. If we go to court, we’re going to say we’re in for far greater amounts. Litigation would simply not be a constructive way to resolve this.”

Pueblo County commissioners are set to meet at 9 a.m. Monday and Wednesday in the Pueblo County Courthouse, 215 W. 10th St.

Drainage district slashes planned fee on new construction — The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

The Grand Valley Drainage District has slashed a fee it planned to levy on new construction to pay for storm-water improvements.

The district approved the reduction of the fee from $500 to $125 per equivalent-residential unit but also left open a way to increase the fee as economic times improve.

Some businesses in the district already have paid fees based on the $500-per-equivalent-residential unit, and any fees over $125 per unit will be repaid by the end of April, General Manager Tim Ryan said.

The development-impact fees were a sticking point between the district and critics of the fees. The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce said they would be burdensome during an economic downturn.

“I appreciate the district’s recognition of the fragility of the economy, but this isn’t doing away with the impact fee, which is what the chamber originally asked for,” said Diane Schwenke, president and chief executive officer of the chamber.

Under the framework approved by the Drainage District board, the fee will remain at $125 per unit — or 2,500 square feet of impervious surface — until the pace of development picks up.

For every 10 percent increase in the value of building permits, the development fee will increase 25 percent, Ryan said.

“There’s a direct correlation between building permits and demand for drainage services,” Ryan said.

The district in the meantime is proceeding with plans to bill property owners within its boundaries for storm-water improvements.

Most homeowners will receive bills for $36 a year. Businesses, government buildings, nonprofits and others will be charged $36 a year, per 2,500 feet of impervious surface.

The bills are expected to go out at the end of March.

Springs hires stormwater chief — The Pueblo Chieftain

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A licensed professional engineer, [Richard Mulledy] has 12 years of civil engineering experience, most recently as deputy director of water resources for Matrix Design Group in Colorado Springs.

Mulledy will manage the city’s stormwater infrastructure and administer municipal stormwater programs and procedures as required for compliance with the city’s MS4 permit.

The stormwater manager will oversee a $19 million annual budget and a division anticipated to grow to approximately 60 employees. Mulledy’s annual salary will be $120,000.

Colorado Springs: New stormwater chief jumps into the issues of Fountain Creek

From the Colorado Springs Independent (Pam Zebeck):

In a news release, the city of Colorado Springs announces the hiring of Richard Mulledy, a former city of Pueblo employee, as its Engineering Stormwater Division Manager.

Colorado Springs is in a bind after the EPA found multiple violations of its stormwater discharge permits, not to mention lax oversight of developers’ drainage projects.

Pueblo is seizing on this in efforts to force the city to comply, and stop the flooding and erosion down Fountain Creek. “On the line,” Jan. 27, 2016.

So now, Mulledy joins Colorado Springs government, having worked for the city of Pueblo as well as a consultant after that.

Here’s the city’s news release:

“We are excited to bring Richard on board – his expertise in managing major water resource-related projects will lend itself well to overseeing our stormwater programs,” said Public Works Director Travis Easton. “His experience in municipal government, managerial skills and familiarity with Colorado Springs stormwater systems will be great assets to the City as we begin to take on a significant increase in stormwater projects over the coming years.”

Richard is a licensed Professional Engineer and brings to the City twelve years of civil engineering experience, most recently as Deputy Director of Water Resources for Matrix Design Group in Colorado Springs. He also previously served as the Drainage Engineer for the City of Pueblo.

The Engineering Stormwater Division Manager is responsible for the management of the city’s stormwater infrastructure and for administering municipal stormwater programs and procedures as required for compliance with the City’s MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) permit. The Stormwater Manager will oversee a $19 million annual budget and a division anticipated to grow to approximately 60 employees. The Stormwater Manager reports to the Public Works Director with an annual salary of $120,000.

Mulledy’s first day of employment with the City will be February 22.

Fountain Creek: “Colorado Springs has offered $19 million a year, which is inadequate” — Ray Kogovsek

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo City Council wants the federal government to crack down on Colorado Springs for violating its stormwater permit in order to reduce the risk of damage from Fountain Creek flooding.

Two weeks after approving a resolution with a list of recommended conditions for Pueblo County commissioners to apply in an anticipated intergovernmental agreement, council voted to send the same list to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Among the conditions would be the expenditure by Colorado Springs of $50 million annually to address a $534 million backlog of stormwater control projects, adequate staffing to maintain structures already in place, a reliable source of future stormwater funding and additional help to dredge Fountain Creek in Pueblo in order to maintain levees.

The action was requested by City Council President Steve Nawrocki because Colorado Springs is on two tracks of negotiations over its lack of stormwater control, City Attorney Dan Kogovsek explained.

“Colorado Springs has offered $19 million a year, which is inadequate,” Kogovsek said.

Pueblo County is looking at assurances of future stormwater control in relation to its 1041 permit for Southern Delivery System. The U.S. Attorney’s office is working with the Environmental Protection Agency on prosecuting Colorado Springs violations of its stormwater permit.

The city’s resolution refers to the 2009 demise of the Colorado Springs stormwater enterprise as a contributing factor to continued sedimentation in Fountain Creek that increases the risk of flooding in Pueblo.

A Wright Water Engineers report for Pueblo County revealed that 370,000 tons of sediment annually is deposited in Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. A root cause for the increased load is the increase in impervious surfaces in Colorado Springs since 1980.

Colorado Springs had a stormwater enterprise in March 2009 when Pueblo County issued the 1041 permit for SDS. The Bureau of Reclamation considered it to be in place when it issued a record of decision for SDS.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs has not confronted its stormwater problem on Fountain Creek for years, and there’s no reason to believe they will after the current crisis blows over, in Jay Winner’s opinion.

“Every elected official from the Springs knows how to feed this crap to Pueblo in order to keep sending it down Fountain Creek,” said Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “Every city council comes to us with the same message. I want our elected officials in Pueblo to understand what has happened.”

Colorado Springs last month sent emissaries to the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Pueblo City Council and Pueblo County commissioners to convince them that the city has seen the light after facing legal action from the federal Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency.

That didn’t stop council from passing a resolution recommending that commissioners push for $50 million annual funding for stormwater in Colorado Springs, more help with dredging Fountain Creek and other measures to mitigate damage from increased flows. Commissioners maintained a hard stance that the 1041 conditions require stormwater control, and might not be enough if just followed to the letter.

Do the right thing

In short, both wanted Colorado Springs to do the right thing when it comes to Fountain Creek.

The Lower Ark district has been trying to do that since 2005, shortly after Winner stepped into his job — first through negotiations and then through the threat of a federal lawsuit. They worked cooperatively on a $1.2 million Fountain Creek corridor plan that was crucial to early funding of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District. The relationship has soured.

Winner was at some of the meetings last month where Colorado Springs pleaded for time and understanding, but is far from convinced Colorado Springs will follow through on promises this time. He heard Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers’ pitch that it’s better to spend money on solutions than lawyers — even though lawyers were in the mayor’s entourage.

“Put your money where your mouth is. There are a couple of ways to do this. Maybe it’s time the legal system goes through the process, to make sure Colorado Springs spends the money on the solution,” Winner said. “I believe they could be fined up to $38,000 a day, so that might get their attention. Maybe the EPA could talk to its sister agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, and not let them turn on SDS until this gets taken care of.”

2013: Shortfalls found

Winner is concerned that last year’s EPA audit said Colorado Springs had taken little action to correct deficiencies identified in a February 2013 audit.

A look at the audit reveals the Colorado Springs stormwater department had been gutted in late 2012 and personnel reassigned to other areas.

Testing of water quality samples in the Fountain Creek watershed was farmed out to the U.S. Geological Survey, the results were ignored and staff was poorly trained to do the work itself.

Waivers of regulations meant to assure developers would properly install drainage structures and ponds were granted routinely without inspection, resulting in siltedup, overgrown ditches and basins.

City staff failed to follow through on cleaning up a gasoline spill that occurred during the inspection while the EPA waited on site. Snow was forecast for the next day.

The solution promised to federal inspectors was a regional stormwater task force that would eventually try to form the Pikes Peak Regional Drainage District, which would have generated $40 million annually to address a $700 million backlog of needs in El Paso County.

When voters rejected that idea in November 2014, Colorado Springs apparently did nothing to correct the problems by the time EPA inspectors returned.

2015: Nothing fixed

The 2015 EPA audit revealed interviews with city stormwater staff who said they did not have the funding or personnel to fix the problems identified by the EPA.

It revealed other things too.

For instance, a 2010 Colorado Springs Utilities stabilization project for a 66-inch-diameter sanitary sewer line on Shooks Run was not properly installed, never inspected by city stormwater staff and never maintained.

Colorado Springs staff told inspectors $11 million in high priority projects could be undertaken when Federal Emergency Management Agency funds came through. The EPA noted that some of the projects were routine maintenance, not flood damage.

The audits are far from exhaustive. In 2013, a team of four inspectors spent four days poking through records and visiting some sites. In 2015, five inspectors spent two days.

But the offenses were judged serious enough that EPA threatened legal action last year.

Chess game

So what was the Lower Ark district doing during the two-year gap?

Trying to move stormwater into the limelight.

Unsuccessfully, it turned out, as Colorado Springs made flanking maneuvers in a political game of chess.

Colorado Springs was, in 2013, trying to deal with the aftermath of the Waldo Canyon Fire, which destroyed 346 homes in 2012 and badly damaged the mountains west of the city. The challenges included building storm detention ponds that were quickly filled in with silt and overrun by summer rains.
Winner tried to raise the issue with the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, which had shelved its own plans to secure a funding source — state law allows it to collect a mill levy — while the stormwater task force worked in El Paso County.

In July 2013, Winner raised questions about Fountain Creek water quality as it relates to downstream farming, but was told by Colorado Springs Mayor Steve Bach and Council President Keith King that the city was not obligated to do projects that benefit Pueblo or downstream communities in the Arkansas Valley.

Bach presented a list that purported to show $46 million in stormwater projects, although many of those used federal grants, were aimed at fire mitigation or would not be completed by the end of the year. Many dealt with new damage that occurred after the 2009 demise of the stormwater enterprise.

In September 2013, during one of the most intense floods on Fountain Creek since 1999, Lower Ark attorney Peter Nichols explained the connection between high water levels on Fountain Creek and the presence of E. coli in the water at a Pueblo County commissioners hearing.

Nichols pointed out the 2012 report card of the American Society of Civil Engineers that gave Colorado Springs mostly Ds and Fs when it came to stormwater control. The city’s per capita funding was the lowest for any large city in Colorado.

At the same meeting, Pueblo County commissioners heard assurances from Colorado Springs Utilities officials and Councilwoman Jan Martin, who voted to repeal the stormwater enterprise in 2009, that stormwater needs would be met.

Colorado Springs also was successful in 2013 in fending off a legal challenge in the state Supreme Court and an appellate court by the Pueblo district attorney — Bill Thiebaut started it; Jeff Chostner finished it — over water quality in Fountain Creek.

A lawsuit is born

A week after the commissioners’ hearing, the Lower Ark board instructed Nichols to begin preparing a federal lawsuit alleging violations of the Clean Water Act. That lawsuit was put on hold last year until the EPA action plays out, but federal attorneys are plowing some of the same ground.

Originally, the Lower Ark sought to sue Reclamation because stormwater control is tied into the federal contract for Southern Delivery System. It’s also a part of Pueblo County’s 1041 permit for SDS, which must be met under federal guidelines.

After the 2014 vote against the regional stormwater authority, the focus of the lawsuit shifted to Colorado Springs.

“We’d heard enough by that point,” Winner said.

Winner has pushed for setting up stormwater as a standalone utility that would be isolated from political whims of Colorado Springs City Council. The current promise of $19 million annually doesn’t necessarily bind future councils to spend money in a way to improve conditions on Fountain Creek, he said.

“I’m glad the EPA is doing something, because Colorado Springs has been thumbing their noses at us for a long time,” Winner said. “They came down here and tried to tell the water board that street sweeping in Colorado Springs will somehow benefit Pueblo. I’d recommend we delay SDS until the EPA gives Colorado Springs a clean bill of health.”

Plans to rebuild U.S. 34 still a work in progress — Estes Park Trail-Gazette

Flood damage Big Thompson Canyon September 2013 -- photo via Northern Water — Flood damage Big Thompson Canyon September 2013 — photo via Northern Water

From the Estes Park Trail-Gazette (David Persons):

In spite of what has been reported recently about the work which will likely start in late spring or early summer and last for two years or more, CDOT officials say there are just too many moving parts to say with any certainty just how long the $129 million project will take and how it will impact area residents and businesses.

“We honestly do not know a lot of these answers as the team is working to determine a lot of these variables,” said Jared Fiel, CDOT’s Communication Manager for Region 4. “The big thing to realize is that we have extensive outreach planned for the entire corridor in advance of any of the work starting.

“We will be having public meetings with both residents and businesses as well as a telephone town hall format for users of the corridor such as part-time residents, commuters, etc.”

When asked about the two-year construction time frame, Fiel said it will probably be two years.

“We are working at determining the actual scope and extent of the work to be done,” Fiel said. “Some of our early estimates for some aspects of the job proved to be too low, mainly based on logistics, meaning (as an example) if we are blasting rock in one place, we need to have a location on the corridor that needs that aggregate so we don’t have to pay more to have it shipped out, only to be brought back in later.”

Some have reported that the project will be done in stages.

“Again, probably,” Fiel said. “With the size and extent of this work, we will probably need to do different stages. How those stages (or construction packages) work, when they will happen, and if there will be overlap, are all to be determined.”

[…]

One thing that will almost definitely occur is the rerouting of Front Range (Fort Collins and Loveland) traffic to U.S. Highway 36 in Lyons as the major route to Estes Park, adding an extra half-hour of driving time.

“When construction begins in earnest, that is probably going to be a good idea,” Fiel said. “We will have detours available when (and if) we need to do any road or lane closures. We will also communicate this far in advance of any work going on.”

The section of U.S. 34 from Loveland to Estes Park, that winds through the narrows of the Big Thompson Canyon and past several smaller communities like Drake, was heavily damaged by the September 2013 flood event.

During the flooding, watershed runoff combined with flows released from Lake Estes Dam, and surges from debris dam breaches, produced huge flow surges that exceeded a 500-year flood event. As a result, the canyon section sustained widespread, massive damage.

Major sections of roadway were washed away completely, along with access bridges and retaining walls. In the narrows, much of the roadway and grade were undermined, washing out the pavement from below and exposing the wall support structures.

Temporary repairs were completed and the highway was reopened to traffic in both directions on Thursday, November 11, 2013. CDOT and its contractors worked from both the east and west ends of the canyon to assess and repair the damage and restore local access as quickly as possible. Emergency repairs were extensive and included removing debris, re-establishing shoulders and embankments, replacing damaged asphalt, filling washed out sections with concrete fill, repairing local access structures, and repairing damaged drainage structures.

After a couple years of doing research and design work, CDOT is ramping up for the permanent repair and/or rebuilt of U.S. 34. CDOT has named Kiewit Infrastructure Co. to serve as the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) for this project.

Permanent repairs will include removing and replacing much of the temporary asphalt, embankment fill, and temporary channel protection; as well as re-vegetating, replacing guardrails, and repairing fencing. Some of the roadway sections that were not destroyed, but experienced flood water overtopping the roadway, will be analyzed and possibly replaced, according to information on CDOT’s website.

For more information about the project and updates, go online to http://www.codot.gov/projects/floodrelatedprojects/us-34-big-thompson-canyon-1.

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

Is Springs’ offer voter-proof? — The Pueblo Chieftain

Channel erosion Colorado Springs July 2012 via The Pueblo Chieftain

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

History shows massive projects take willpower

Here’s a little-mentioned fact: 97 percent of Colorado Springs residents and businesses paid their stormwater bills in 2009. It generated about $15.8 million.

City Council decided Ballot Issue 300 — Doug Bruce’s “Rain Tax” — called for the elimination of the stormwater enterprise. Against legal opinion, council voted to end it twice: Once to phase it out over two years and again to end it immediately.

At the same time, council decided without a vote of the public to build an $825 million water delivery line that has the potential to increase already damaging flows on Fountain Creek — a project where the full potential will not be needed for years, according to statements recently made in Pueblo by Colorado Springs Utilities officials.

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers came to Pueblo this week, shaking his head over the short-sightedness of past politicians, and assuring Pueblo City Council and county commissioners that this would not happen again.

“We’re going to solve this problem and not kick the can down the road,” Suthers told the Pueblo City Council. “This is a long-term, sustainable solution.”

Suthers and the Colorado Springs City Council are offering at least $19 million annually, including a $3 million contribution from Utilities. He said that could be cemented in place with a new agreement with Pueblo County. If the economy doesn’t tank again, it could be more.

“What’s different?”

Suthers said. “Let’s set up a program that cannot be ripped away by voters.”

Pledged against that figure are “excess revenues” paid by Colorado Springs Utilities to the city each year.

The type of payments labeled as “gifts and subsidies” in the actual wording of Ballot Issue 300 in 2009.
The stormwater enterprise established in 2005 was created like most, if not all, of the stormwater enterprises in Colorado, by a vote of the City Council. Pueblo’s had been created in 2003 in the same manner and was the first in the Arkansas River watershed.

Considered under state law to be a fee, not a tax, stormwater charges in Denver and Littleton had survived Supreme Court challenges.

“Council and I agreed we have to be better neighbors than in the past,” Suthers told Pueblo County commissioners.

As proof, he offered that a new police substation and fire station were delayed so that $8 million could be added to another $8 million in retiring bond payments to fund stormwater.

Suthers indicated it would not be possible to raise the $50 million demanded in a Pueblo City Council resolution.

However, by contrast, Colorado Springs Utilities raised $825 million in five years through selling bonds to build the Southern Delivery System water pipeline.

The recently revised figure represents a savings of $156 million over the initial cost projections in 2010. Water customers pay off the bill through monthly fees.

Colorado Springs Councilman Andy Pico, who chairs the Utilities board, told commissioners the savings can’t be used to pay for stormwater because the money was never actually collected.

As Pueblo Board of Water Works President Nick Gradisar pointed out last week, SDS was not put up to a vote of the people, but approved by the same City Council that rejected stormwater. When it was first considered, it would have meant 12 percent rate increases for five years. Later, those were reduced by managing gas and electric rates as well as lower costs.

Additionally, SDS Project Director John Fredell assured Pueblo County commissioners the full impact of SDS would not be felt for years, as only about 5 million gallons per day would run through it after it is first turned on, compared with 50 million gallons per day at full capacity.

SDS: Mayor Suthers tries to calm Pueblo councilor/commissioner complaints

From KOAA.com (Jessi Mitchell):

A Colorado Springs delegation, headed by Mayor John Suthers, took a trip to Pueblo Monday, and stormwater was the topic of discussion with both Pueblo County commissioners and city councilors.

Commissioners talked with the Springs leaders at length about a new inter-governmental agreement that will make sure stormwater management is a priority for years to come. They are working quickly to finalize the details before turning on the Southern Delivery System…

So Colorado Springs and Pueblo County are talking it out. On Monday, Suthers showed off all his city’s progress towards stormwater management since he was elected last year, with a new $19 million a year mitigation plan. He says unlike broken promises in the past, an additional inter-governmental agreement will ensure those measures continue beyond his tenure, with assurances to spend more than $200 million on stormwater in the first decade.

Suthers says, “Rather than having the voters say, ‘no we don’t want to pay this,’ we will be contractually, and by court order, obligated to have a sustainable, appropriately funded stormwater system.”

Pueblo County commissioners still want more input in which stormwater mitigation projects come first, namely the ones that directly impact their constituents, but the governments say they are working together better now than ever before. “Hopefully reasonable people can find reasonable solutions without having to go to court,” says McFadyen, “and likely that will be an inter-governmental agreement with enforceability clauses that both parties can agree on.”

“These are tough problems,” admits Suthers, “but they need to be resolved and I think both sides definitely want to resolve them.”

The Colorado Springs group also presented to Pueblo city councilors Monday evening, talking specifically about Fountain Creek and the funds they have given to help dredge the sediment built up over the past year.

From the Colorado Springs Independent (Pam Zebeck):

Mayor John Suthers got an earful from Pueblo County commissioners Monday after laying out the city’s plan to deal with its stormwater problem.

The city is in a tiz, because Pueblo County now has leverage to force the city of Colorado Springs to make good on past promises to control storm runoff, which empties into Fountain Creek and brings sediment rushing down to Pueblo. The creek, overwhelmed by flood waters, already has claimed hundreds of acres of farmland.

Now, as Colorado Springs gets ready to activate the Southern Delivery System pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir, it must meet requirements of a construction permit, commonly called a 1041 permit, granted by Pueblo County in 2009.

On top of that, the city is facing a federal consent degree or court order to comply with federal Clean Water Act requirements for its stormwater system due to years of noncompliance.

“We’re going to solve this problem and not kick the can down the road,” Suthers told commissioners Monday afternoon at a meeting in Pueblo. “A federal consent decree or judgment cannot be ignored, and neither can an IGA [intergovernmental agreement] with Pueblo.”

Pueblo County Commissioner Terry Hart noted the Springs has “breached” promises to deal with stormwater in the past, most notably by doing away with the Stormwater Enterprise in late 2009. Suthers noted that came after a ballot measure was approved by voters, which essentially required the city deep-six the enterprise. He said the city’s new scheme, to carve out $16 million a year from the general fund with another $3 million a year contributed by Colorado Springs Utilities for 10 years, doesn’t rely on voter approval.

But Hart wants the IGA to extend well beyond 10 years. In fact, he proposed the IGA last for the life of the SDS project, which could be 30 to 40 years.

He also asked if Colorado Springs was willing to suspend activation of the SDS pipeline until the IGA is worked out. Not likely, Suthers said, due to warranties on the components of SDS.

Hart also suggested the city pump more money into Fountain Creek restoration beyond $50 million agreed to as part of the 1041 permit.

Suthers said he’s “nervous” committing the city “into perpetuity” but said an IGA could be hammered out that allowed for additional terms beyond 10 years if certain triggers are met.

Pueblo County Commissioner Sal Pace asked if Colorado Springs could commit a substantially greater amount per year than the $19 million now identified under the IGA, to which Suthers said the amount could go up to $25 million per year based on inflation. But he noted that huge increases, such as up to $50 million a year, aren’t likely.

On one thing everyone seemed to agree: The solution doesn’t lie in another court battle. Hart noted Colorado Springs could outspend Pueblo in court, and Suthers later told media that a lawsuit isn’t the answer. That said, Hart said he wants an “enforcement mechanism,” should Colorado Springs yet again fail to meet its promises, such as the authority of Pueblo to stop flows through SDS for noncompliance. That idea seemed to be a non-starter, although Suthers was willing to discuss another demand by Hart — to allow Pueblo County officials to participate in negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department regarding its noncompliance with stormwater discharges.

Suthers said he hopes to iron out an IGA within the next 30 days.

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Billie Stanton Anleu):

Pueblo County commissioners were gracious but appeared unappeased Monday by Colorado Springs leaders’ promises to resolve stormwater issues that have hit downstream communities hard.

And the Pueblo City Council, in a symbolic gesture, unanimously passed a resolution Monday night to support county efforts to hold Colorado Springs accountable for stormwater problems along Fountain Creek and recommend a 10-year plan in exchange for allowing Colorado Springs Utilities to keep its 1041 permit and commence with the Southern Delivery System…

Work on the first priority project, a detention pond on Sand Creek, starts next week. Colorado Springs has hired Richard Mulledy, a professional engineer who previously worked for the City of Pueblo and most recently has been deputy director of water resources for Matrix Design Group in Colorado Springs, as Stormwater Division manager. He starts work Feb. 22.

While Colorado Springs leaders outlined a long list of measures being undertaken to address the stormwater issue, officials with Colorado Springs Utilities and the city remained baffled by the intertwining of what they see as two separate measures.

Utilities has met every condition of its 1041 project, said SDS Director John Fredell. On April 27, the project is to start pumping 5 million gallons of Arkansas River water a day initially from Pueblo Reservoir to Pueblo West, Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain.

Colorado Springs, meanwhile, is negotiating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which accused the city in October of neglecting stormwater needs for years. A two-day EPA inspection turned up deteriorating infrastructure, inadequate inspections and excessive sedimentation, among other problems.

At stake is the city’s own water permit.

The effort to hold Utilities’ 1041 permit ransom because of municipal stormwater failures by Colorado Springs is mixing apples and oranges, Suthers and Fredell noted. But Pueblo city and county leaders see the permit for the $825 million SDS as the best bargaining chip to get what they want.

When Suthers assured Pueblo city leaders that more than $250 million worth of stormwater work would be done in 10 years, newly elected Pueblo City Councilwoman Lori Winner cited a CH2M Hill engineering study from 2013 saying the stormwater needs amounted to more than $500 million.

“It’s really a wish list,” Suthers said. “The voters are not going to give me $50 million a year. I don’t want to make any agreement contingent on whether (local anti-tax activist) Doug Bruce likes it or not.”

Because Colorado Springs voters repeatedly voted down stormwater measures in recent years, as Bruce exhorted them to oppose the “rain tax” in 2014, Suthers and the council decided to pay for that need directly from the city budget. The fire and police departments were squeezed and raises frozen in the 2016 budget to find the money.

“I’ll never come up with $500 million,” Suthers said in a rare show of exasperation. “There’s just no way in hell.”

The Pueblo commissioners repeatedly intoned the need for solid enforcement measures in any intergovernmental agreement.

“We as a community have heard a lot of promises from your community for a very long time,” Commissioner Terry A. Hart said. ” . Whatever we do going forward, we can’t base it on mere promises.”

The only “silver lining” in the city’s problems with the EPA is that any resulting federal decree will serve as a mandate, ensuring that the pact with Pueblo County is enforced, Suthers said.

Another enforceable provision would be to designate Utilities, as a long-time city enterprise, to meet the financial requirements through its annual “excess revenue” returns to the city if Colorado Springs failed to meet its stormwater obligation.

Hart questioned whether a fifth branch of Utilities couldn’t be created to handle stormwater. But that would require a change in the City Charter, approval by Colorado Springs voters, who have opposed all recent stormwater measures, and other complex machinations involving ratepayers who don’t live in the city, said Andres Pico, chairman of the Utilities board.

Commissioner Sal Pace questioned whether the SDS couldn’t be turned off if sufficient stormwater work isn’t done, or whether the project could be delayed while a new agreement is drafted.

Neither idea is feasible, however. The SDS is a sprawling system with water treatment plants, pumping stations and precise chemical requirements that cannot be stopped once it gets started. And the notion of delaying it would cause Utilities to lose time on its warranties, some on millions of dollars worth of work and equipment, Suthers said.

Asked what would happen after a 10-year agreement, the mayor said language could be added to renegotiate the pact every 10 years, with a clause for inflationary increases.

“We’re going to continue our negotiations with the county and everybody else involved and try to resolve this issue,” Suthers said Monday evening.

As for the commissioners’ questions earlier in the day, he said, “I thought they brought up good points that can be the basis for more negotiations.”

Stormwater control ‘lumped in’ with SDS — The Pueblo Chieftain

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

John Fredell, project director for Southern Delivery System, last week tried to build a case that the EPA’s enforcement action on the failure of Colorado Springs to maintain stormwater control is unrelated to SDS.

He told the Pueblo Board of Water Works that Pueblo County’s 1041 permit for SDS only applies to ensuring new development won’t increase Fountain Creek flows.

“It’s not all lumped into SDS,” Fredell said, trying to convince the water board of his position.

But a review of the history leading up to the county’s 1041 permit shows he is wrong.

The first sentence of condition No. 23 in the 1041 permit indeed mimics the incremental approach taken by the Bureau of Reclamation, holding Colorado Springs liable for new development as a result of SDS. That’s exactly the point Fredell made.

Further on in the condition, however, it states:

“Regulations shall comprehensively address peak flow conditions, runoff volumes, and flood hazards, incorporating at a minimum all relevant components of existing regulations of Colorado Springs.”

It also calls for maintaining all structures and complying with stormwater permits, things the EPA says Colorado Springs has not done.

Presumably, those regulations would not apply only to new growth, but to the entire city of 186 square miles that already exists — 20 percent of the Fountain Creek watershed.

Beyond that, Fountain Creek was always a big part of SDS.

Stormwater permits and the need to control flows into Fountain Creek are mentioned in the 2004 intergovernmental agreement that was used to get support for SDS from the city of Pueblo and the Pueblo Board of Water Works. On its face, Colorado Springs’ lapsed performance appears to put it in violation of the IGA.

When the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force began meeting in 2006, many conversations mentioned the increased flows that would occur when SDS was in operation. Planning for more flows was added to an ongoing effort to deal with flows that already had increased as Colorado Springs grew from the 1970s on.

The demise of Colorado Springs’ stormwater enterprise was foreseen by Pueblo County’s attorney in comments in 2008 as the environmental impact statement for SDS was being prepared by Reclamation.

Reclamation did not consider the possibility, saying comments about stormwater were unrelated to the federal permit in its responses. The record of decision that approved SDS made the assumption the stormwater enterprise would stay in place before and after the project was built.

So Pueblo County put additional assurances that Colorado Springs would be responsible for controlling water going into Fountain Creek. It also required the city to pay $50 million to a district that had not yet been created.

The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District was formed by the state Legislature in 2009 to improve Fountain Creek and administer those funds, and has taken Utilities to task over the timing of payments.

The county’s 1041 regulations also were written and adopted when a stormwater enterprise that generated $15.8 million in revenue annually already was in place.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:

Who said this?

“The City of Colorado Springs is moving forward to address long-term stormwater management.”

No, it wasn’t Colorado Springs City Council President Merv Bennett talking to the Pueblo Board of Water Works last week. The above quote came from Mayor Lionel Rivera during a presentation by Colorado Springs Utilities officials to the Pueblo City Council on July 11, 2005.

They were there to assure Pueblo that Colorado Springs was dead serious when it came to living up to the conditions of an Intergovernmental Agreement signed a year earlier. An agreement that would eventually pave the way for the construction of the Southern Delivery System.

More than a decade later, Colorado Springs Utilities and political leaders are back in town trying to head off a rising tide of outrage in Pueblo County that has been bubbling up the last two months. In November, Colorado Springs learned it faces Environmental Protection Agency enforcement action for failing to meet the minimum requirements of its state stormwater discharge permit.

“They come down here and tell us what they think we want to hear, and then they do nothing,” said Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District General Manager Jay Winner. “How many times are we going to let that happen?”

Last week, the Pueblo Board of Water Works and Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District heard what Colorado Springs had to say for itself. This week, Pueblo County commissioners and Pueblo City Council will get more of the same.

On Monday, Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers and others is scheduled to meet with commissioners at 1:30 p.m. and with City Council at 7 p.m.

What Colorado Springs is offering involves more than lip service. There are real dollars on the table.

The city will double the size of its stormwater staff by the end of 2017, and a new stormwater director will be on board within a month. About $12 million a year will be spent on capital projects to begin to address a $535 million backlog, and $7 million for maintenance. There is another $1.5 million from other city departments directed toward maintenance.

There will be 70 actions to meet the deficiencies outlined in the EPA audit, Utilities reported.

Several slides in the Colorado Springs presentation show before and after photos of neglected drainage ditches that were highlighted in the EPA audit.

Not everyone’s convinced this is a step forward.

“Those trees in the drainage ditches must have been growing for two years to reach that size,” Winner said. “When you look at the numbers they’re throwing around, you have to wonder what happened during the seven years they didn’t have a stormwater enterprise. Are they just playing catch-up, or is this a real improvement?”

That’s been a common pattern, a review of documents about stormwater collected over the past 11 years reveals.

For instance, the progress report of stormwater improvements given to Pueblo City Council in 2007 are identical to a list of unfinished business presented to Colorado Springs City Council in 2009 as it was demolishing the stormwater enterprise after it had been operating for two years on a $15.8 million annual budget. The list of most critical projects then totaled about $40 million and none of them had been touched.

The total backlog was about $500 million.

Although the Lower Ark district, then-Rep. Sal Pace, county commissioners and other local officials pressured Colorado Springs on stormwater, there was little action for two years. The city adopted a new strong-mayor form of government and its council membership completely turned over in a four-year period. At one point, the city failed to send an elected representative to meetings of Fountain Creek district for six months in 2011.

Finally, in 2012, the city’s attorney advised then-Mayor Steve Bach that, in his legal opinion, Colorado Springs ought to be spending at least $13 million annually to control stormwater. Colorado Springs City Council and El Paso County commissioners answered by forming a regional stormwater task force, which Bach opposed on the grounds that Colorado Springs should manage its own storm systems, ultimately dooming regional stormwater control.

By 2014, the $500 million project list was scrapped after a stormwater task force decided it was old and outdated — largely because of new damage from the Waldo Canyon Fire in 2012 and to a smaller degree, the Black Forest Fire in 2013.

In a new study, CH2MHill came up with 239 projects totaling almost $535 million in Colorado Springs, carefully weeding out obsolete and duplicated projects. Of those, 44 totaling $160 million were called high priority, which indicated there are public health or safety issues evident, according to the engineers’ report.

The regional cost, which included all needed work on Fountain Creek and its tributaries in El Paso County, was $723 million.

Later in 2014, El Paso County voters rejected a proposal by the task force to raise $40 million annually with a regional drainage district to address all those issues.

The huge backlog was mentioned at both the water board and Lower Ark meetings, with some trying to do the math at how long it would take to address the problems if the $12 million annual capital expenditure stays in place — say 40 or 50 years.

But Colorado Springs backs away from saying those lists will ever be completed or that they even mean anything.

At the Lower Ark meeting last week, Colorado Springs Utilities consultant Mark Pifher called the $534 million figure a “wish list,” insisting that projects with the highest priority would be tackled first. Utilities board Chairman Andy Pico told the water board that work will start soon on the highest priority projects.

Meanwhile, Colorado Springs has found the $841 million needed to build SDS, a project that will supply the city with the water it needs for the next 40 years, completing all major construction in just five years.

“They’ve done what they wanted to do, while doing the minimum to comply with their obligations to Pueblo,” Winner said. “How much longer are we going to put up with that?”

Pueblo West official tells Pueblo County to renegotiate the SDS 1041 permit

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A Pueblo West Metropolitan District board member wants Pueblo County commissioners to renegotiate the 1041 agreement for the Southern Delivery System.

“There are numerous, fatal flaws in the present 1041 agreement; too many to mention,” Pueblo West board member Mark Carmel told the Pueblo Board of Water Works this week. “I respectfully suggest that the 1041 permit must be renegotiated to create a true agreement.”

It’s a significant development because Pueblo West is a partner in the SDS water pipeline project, and has already benefited from an emergency use of SDS last summer.

The metro board took a position on Jan. 12 that its water should not be held hostage during the current SDS discussions, but Carmel made it clear that he was speaking as an individual at Tuesday’s water board meeting. The metro board will meet with Colorado Springs Utilities at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to address Carmel’s concerns.

Both the water board and Pueblo City Council are pondering resolutions requiring more action on stormwater in relation to SDS. Pueblo County commissioners are in the process of determining 1041 compliance on stormwater and other issues in the permit.

The Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District has requested action by the Bureau of Reclamation under the federal SDS contract and by the Pueblo County commissioners under the 1041 permit to delay SDS until a stable source of stormwater funding is found.

Carmel, a former Pueblo County engineer, said he has seen firsthand the damage Fountain Creek causes in Pueblo. He wants to make sure Colorado Springs has adequate stormwater control measures in place.

“As Colorado Springs’ partner in the SDS project, I believe perhaps Pueblo West bears the most local responsibility to ensure SDS is implemented in such a way that the city of Pueblo does not get wiped out by floodwaters, in our name, if we stand by and do nothing,” Carmel said.

He said politicians’ current assurance of $19 million in annual funding for stormwater improvements in Colorado Springs is not adequate because future councils could easily reverse the action.

“A 10-year intergovernmental agreement is not worth the paper it is written on under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, because it may be canceled at any budget cycle,” he said.

Carmel said the 1041 agreement should be renegotiated to avoid future misunderstandings.

“Now is the time to ask Colorado Springs to cooperatively renegotiate the terms of the SDS 1041 permit to ensure that it is a win-win deal for both communities,” Carmel said. “Any deal that fails to prevent flooding in Pueblo — through a permanent funding mechanism that cannot change with each election — is not a win for Pueblo.”