Study: Climate change will endanger trout

http://www.jhguide.com/article.php?art_id=2500 By Cory Hatch December 6, 2007 A survey of scientific studies on climate change and fish shows that Western populations of trout could diminish by as much as 60 percent as water warms, bugs disappear and droughts become more prevalent.

The report, compiled by Trout Unlimited, looks at the effects of climate change on trout and salmon habitat across the country. The report also suggests ways to make habitat more resilient to threats associated with a predicted 2 to 10 degree global temperature increase during the next 100 years.

Jack Williams, chief scientist for Trout Unlimited, said trout and salmon are good indicators of ecosystem health because they require cold, clean water for spawning, egg survival and rearing of young.

"We're already seeing the effects of climate change," said Williams, who pointed out that mayflies, an important food source for trout, are starting to emerge at an earlier time of year. "We've got a lot of trout populations that are poised to lose about half of their range."

In addition to warmer water and impacts on insects, Williams said, climate change could mean greater floods, reduced snowpack, earlier runoffs, more wildfires and increased insect infestations in forests, all of which can hurt trout populations.

Bob Gresswell, a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey's Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, studies cutthroat trout in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, including one project below Jackson Lake Dam. Gresswell says trout across the West are so susceptible to climate change because development and irrigation pressures have already pushed populations into more isolated, high-elevation streams.

Further, humans have introduced non-native fish such as rainbow trout, brook trout, lake trout and brown trout into cutthroat trout ecosystems, increasing the risk of hybridization and predation. Climate change could amplify the negative effects non-native fish have on trout, Gresswell said.

For instance, reproduction times for rainbow trout and cutthroat trout are somewhat isolated by the spring runoff. Cutthroat trout spawn just after the peak runoff and rainbow trout spawn just before. But with spring runoff coming earlier each year, Gresswell said, rainbow trout could eventually come to a point when they can't spawn any earlier, and the chance of hybridization could increase.

Gresswell pointed to fish die-offs and fishing closures in Yellowstone and Montana as a probable sign that global warming is already affecting trout populations.

"I worked in the park for 17 years and we never closed the fishery even once [because of warm water]," he said.

Both Gresswell and Williams said that while it could be too late to stop climate change, it isn't too late to make trout habitat more resilient to its effects.

"Let's start working right now on things that we can do to our local stream systems to prepare for the kinds of impacts that we know are coming," Williams said.

Restoration efforts include trying to reconnect larger low-elevation waterways to the smaller upper-elevation streams native trout now inhabit.

"That allows the fish to basically move around and find better habitat conditions," Williams said. Other ways to protect trout include removing old culverts, planting native trees and shrubs along streams to provide shade and protect stream banks, and placing logs and boulders in the stream to provide sections with deeper, cooler water.

Salmon, trout populations will be hurt by global warming, but it's not too late to act, report states

http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20071205/NEWS/71205008 December 5, 2007

Climate change will hurt trout and salmon populations, but there is still time to act before it's too late, a report released today from Trout Unlimited states.

"Healing Troubled Waters" highlights how global warming will affect the nation's game fish populations, stating that they are likely to decline by 50 percent or more, and some populations, such as the bull trout found in high-mountain areas in the West could be cut by as much as 90 percent.

But Congress could appropriate money in the future to find ways to help make coldwater fish populations sustainable despite the climate change, and in fact Congress is making some progress on that very issue even today, the report stated.

The complete report is available at www.tu.org/climatechange.

COOL, CLEAR WATER

Letters - SundayTHE [Colorado Springs] GAZETTE December 2, 2007 - 1:22AM

Bill would shield Samaritans from pollution liability

The Gazette’s Nov. 27 story about the Pennsylvania Mine made clear why Congress should pass a liability-shield law for “Good Samaritans” seeking to clean up toxic drainages polluting Colorado’s waters (“Water act discourages any would-be helpers”).

But I think the prospects for that happening are brighter than the story suggested.

Last month, with Rep. Steve Pearce, R.-N.M., I introduced H.R. 4011, the “Good Samaritan Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act.” Based on bills I have introduced before, it would authorize the EPA to issue permits to shield Good Samaritans from Clean Water Act liability as they work on abandoned mines such as the Pennsylvania.

On Nov. 12, our bill was endorsed by the Western Governors Association. A letter signed by the governors of Arizona, New Mexico and South Dakota, as well as Gov. Bill Ritter, said the bill “will provide States and other possible Good Samaritans important Clean Water Act liability protections necessary to conduct voluntary cleanups.” I am hopeful the bill will be supported by the Bush administration and environmental groups as well.

This kind of Good Samaritan legislation has been one of my longstanding top priorities, and I intend to do all I can to win its enactment as soon as possible.

Rep. Mark Udall Colorado District 2 U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

A modern approach to old water disputes

By The Denver PostArticle Last Updated: 12/01/2007 06:57:32 PM MST

The Colorado Water Conservation Board — the last redoubt of the state's traditional "water buffaloes" — may be moving to embrace 21st century economic and environmental values.

Gov. Bill Ritter named Jennifer Gimbel as the board's new director Tuesday. She served 10 years in the water and natural resources sections of the Colorado Attorney General's office before joining the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 2001. Gimbel is expected to be more open to recreational water uses than the man she replaces, recently retired director Rod Kuharich, who often led the board in opposing proposals for recreational uses such as kayak parks. Another board member who scoffed at recreational uses, rancher Tom Sharp, has been replaced by Geoff Blakeslee, the Yampa River project director for The Nature Conservancy.

Water use in Colorado rests on the rule, "First in time, first in right."

Essentially, the first person to put river water to "beneficial use" gains the perpetual right to use that water before later claimants. In times of shortage, such "senior" water users are allowed to use all their allotments while "junior" users get none.

That rule won't change — but the definition of "beneficial use" has been evolving. Originally, it meant to use the water up by irrigating an alfalfa field or a suburban lawn. When environmentalists began saying that minimum stream flows that protected fish and wildlife were themselves a beneficial use, the water buffaloes only harrumphed. Then tourist towns learned they could prosper by luring fishermen, rafters, and other recreational users to vibrant streams. That discovery pitted new economic interests against traditional users and recreational and environmental values are now recognized by law.

Kayakers and anglers don't consume the water they enjoy, so the conflict between uses can sometimes be resolved by regulating when and how water is released before its final consumption. The fact that the Water Conservation Board may make more sophisticated tradeoffs of our liquid gold's uses bodes well for our economy and environment alike.

Eagle River deal secures water for growing Vail area

Settlement called 'first step in a larger process'

Environmentalists said the settlement is an important victory for the rivers and the West Slope. Drew Peternell, an attorney for Trout Unlimited, said the agreement comes after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled this fall that cities must begin to limit how much water they can claim for future growth. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/30/eagle-river-deal-secures-water-for-growing-vail/  

By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News Friday, November 30, 2007

Vail and other communities in the fast-growing Eagle River Basin won a key victory this week in a deal that protects streamflows and effectively guarantees that no more water from the scenic stream will be transferred to the Front Range.

The agreement was reached as a settlement in a bitter year-long court battle between the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and Denver Water, the state's largest water utility.

The deal allows Denver to hold onto a valued reservoir site north of Wolcott and to preserve some of its water rights for use in trades on the West Slope.

In exchange, Denver gave up the rights to thousands of acre-feet of Eagle River water it had once planned to bring across the Continental Divide. "Now we have certainty that there is no longer a threat of a large transmountain diversion yet to be developed," said Chris Treese, director of external affairs for the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District, a party to the case.

"With confidence, the Eagle Basin can look to the future and know that nobody with a large water right is going to come in," Treese said.

The settlement comes as Denver and other Front Range and West Slope entities, such as Grand and Summit counties, remain deadlocked over how to protect supplies in the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River, which includes the Blue and Fraser rivers, as well as the Eagle.

All the rivers serve high-profile resort areas, such as Keystone and Winter Park, as well as Vail and Beaver Creek, and all need water for their own growth, for recreation and for the health of the rivers themselves.

Grand County Commissioner James Newberry, a critic of Denver Water in the past, said this time the giant utility deserves some credit for agreeing to give up the Eagle River water. "We're fighting for all the water we can get up here," Newberry said. "For Denver to do that, they're stepping up to the plate."

Treese and others said this week's Eagle River Settlement may help break the stalemate in the Upper Colorado because it provides certainty about demands on the Eagle River and restores some good will between Denver and its longtime adversaries. "The most important thing about all of this is that this is a first step in a larger process," Treese said.

Environmentalists said the settlement is an important victory for the rivers and the West Slope. Drew Peternell, an attorney for Trout Unlimited, said the agreement comes after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled this fall that cities must begin to limit how much water they can claim for future growth.

"I think, after that decision this fall, that Denver knew it would have lost either at the trial or Supreme Court level if it continued (the court battle)," Peternell said.

Tom Gougeon, president of Denver Water, disagrees with the notion that the West Slope prevailed in this dispute. "The point here isn't about keeping score," he said. "There are a lot of people here trying to figure things out. This settlement was the right thing to do."

Water rights may get clearer for kayak parks

By: Steve Lipsher, The Denver Post11/29/2007

DENVER

Kayak parks and other recreational water uses will be considered "more fairly" after political changes on the Colorado Water Conservation Board, state water officials said Wednesday.

The appointment this week of a new agency director and the replacement of a board member known for his antipathy toward "non-consumptive uses" marks a turning point in how those proposals will be viewed under Gov. Bill Ritter, according to water officials and advocates.

"We're looking to dramatically change our position," Alexandra Davis, assistant water director for the Division of Natural Resources, told the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' influential Water Quality and Quantity Committee.

The recreational water rights — first created by state water courts in 1992 and established in law a decade later — are part of the state's seniority-based priority system and require that upstream users allow sufficient amounts of water to flow past.

Under recently retired director Rod Kuharich, the 11-member appointed board often opposed proposals for attractions such as kayak parks sought by more than a dozen towns, ranging from Steamboat Springs to Pueblo.

"Our sense is the last director burned a lot of bridges on the Western Slope, with the environmental community and with the conservation community," Davis said.

Charged with "building those bridges back," Davis said, is Jennifer Gimbel, a water-law expert who was named as the board's new director Tuesday.

Geoff Blakeslee, the Yampa River project director for the Nature Conservancy, took the seat formerly held by rancher Tom Sharp, an outspoken critic of setting aside water for recreation rather than traditional uses, such as agriculture and municipal supplies.

"I think the board lost a lot of credibility in its almost obstinate opposition to the idea that recreational use is a legitimate use of water," said board chairman John Redifer.

Drew Peternell, director of the Colorado Water Project for Trout Unlimited, said the water-conservation board has appeared philosophically reluctant to approve recreational rights in a state where demand exceeds supply.

"The CWCB guards very jealously that authority and historically has gone to great lengths to prevent those from being recognized," he said. "My impression is that things are going to be more friendly."

Summit County Commissioner Tom Long, a water rights authority and fourth-generation rancher, brushed off the suggestion that recreational uses have gotten short shrift from the old guard, noting that procuring any new water right is difficult.

"It does represent a change. I won't deny that," Long said. "But most of the communities over here got (recreational water rights) in spite of the CWCB."

Steve Lipsher: 970-513-9495 or slipsher@denverpost.com

Law prevents work to clear pollution

http://www.gazette.com/articles/water_30226___article.html/mine_law.html By R. SCOTT RAPPOLD

THE GAZETTE

November 27, 2007

In the mountains above the Keystone ski resort, a legacy of the past continues to pollute the future.

From the 1880s through the 1940s, the Pennsylvania Mine was one of Summit County's most profitable. Today, all it produces is acidic and metal-laden drainage water that poisons creeks, kills fish and confounds local officials.

For nearly 15 years, the federal law meant to clean sources of water pollution such as the Pennsylvania Mine has actually prevented work to improve the water.

A 1993 court ruling said that, under the Clean Water Act, anyone who tries to remediate water at an abandoned mine becomes legally liable for discharges there forever. The ruling halted efforts by the state to clean drainage from the Pennsylvania Mine and ensured that little water cleanup was done at any of Colorado's other 23,000 abandoned mines.

A decade of efforts to pass a socalled "good Samaritan" law, legal protection for groups and government agencies who want to clean up mines, has failed, mainly because of resistance from environmental groups. Both of Colorado's U.S. senators backed such a measure last year.

"The Clean Water Act was written and designed to clean up problems like this, and it's the only thing stopping us from doing it, and it's so unfortunate," said Elizabeth Russell, mine restoration coordinator for Trout Unlimited, which wants to be a good Samaritan at the Pennsylvania Mine.

A recent report on Colorado water quality pointed to abandoned mines as a major cause of heavy metal contamination in creeks running down from the high country. Most of the mining companies no longer exist, so there is nobody to hold responsible.

There are a host of nonprofit organizations, local governments and state agencies that would like to get involved in cleanup efforts, particularly in areas such as Summit County where dead, brown waterways like Peru Creek at the Pennsylvania Mine could be bad for tourism. But assuming the legal liability for all future discharges - in today's litigious society - is a risk none will take.

While it may seem a good Samaritan law may be a nobrainer, like most issues of environmental law, it is not.

When Colorado's U.S. senators, Republican Wayne Allard and Democrat Ken Salazar, backed a bill in 2006 to remove parts of the law that discourage cleanup, it drew opposition from environmental groups.

The groups worried changes could allow mining companies to come back into the mines and renew operations and not be responsible for discharges. The opposition was enough to kill the legislation, and it looks unlikely any will advance in 2007.

It's an issue dividing environmentalists.

Russell said she recognizes the concern other environmental groups have about weakening the law. But, she said, "We're the only ones out there trying to do the darn cleanup."

At the Pennsylvania Mine, the lack of legislation has forced cleanup advocates to get creative.

Plans are in the works to create a nonprofit organization, the Snake River Water Foundation, that will take over ownership of a water treatment facility outside the mine. The foundation will have little cash or assets, so it is hoped no one would bother to sue it under the Clean Water Act.

"Nobody's going to sue them because they don't have anything to be sued for. There's no money," Russell said.

Numerous groups, government agencies and ski resorts are involved in the effort, though not Denver Water, because there are no human health issues for Lake Dillon reservoir downstream of the mine, which serves the water supplier.

It's not the ideal way of doing cleanups - it's taken 15 years to reach this point, and plans for the treatment facility still haven't been drawn up. It will cost from $500,000 to $1.5 million, Russell said.

But, for now, it's the only way of cleaning up the polluted water rolling down from the mines of yesteryear.

Western & Colorado Water Project Staff Notes

November 2007

This was a month of submitting reports & proposals, meetings w/ and letters to donors, and setting up more meetings w/ funders. This was also a month where we spent lots of time on year-end reviews and workplans. We did get a visit from TU's new lobbyist, and we talked about all the federal legislative issues that might come up out of work being done in Colorado and through the Western Water Project.

We presented on a Western Governors' Association meeting plenary panel on water and growth and participated in the rest of the meeting during which the group made recommendations for the WGA to adopt positions on sustainable water management. We also made a small presentation to the water group at CH2MHill, a big infrastructure contractor, about the possibility of their collaborating with TU on restoration and moving the CPR (conserve/protect/restore) agenda forward when they're working with western water suppliers.

We attended another IBCC meeting, where we worked to move the state forward on mapping and quantifying its non-consumptive (i.e., environmental and recreational river flow) water uses. We also worked on amendments to the guidelines and criteria for the state to pass out money for new water activities. We met, along with TNC staff, with the mediator of a large effort among Colorado River Basin water users and Front Range water diverters about future headwaters transbasin projects.

We obtained a favorable ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court in our appeal of the trial court decision in the Dry Gulch case. The ruling establishes a more stringent standard to be met by public utilities claiming water rights for future growth.

TU and the other parties to the Colorado water court proceedings to quantify the Black Canyon reserved water right are engaged in mediation. The court has stayed proceedings until middle of January to allow negotiations to continue.

Small stream cause of big fuss in state

The Upper Ark district protested the expansion of the Badger Creek water right at a March meeting of the CWCB in Canon City. In the months since, Assistant Attorney General Amy Stengel and Trout Unlimited attorney Drew Peternell have argued that no augmentation water rights are at risk by increasing the in-stream flow rate to 5.5 cubic feet per second (about 3.5 million gallons a day) from the current 3 cfs (about 1.9 million gallons a day). http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1194623125/8

By CHRIS WOODKA THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

A small stream in western Fremont County is causing a big ruckus as the state ponders expansion of a water right to protect its flows.

Expanding the water right on Badger Creek, a 30-mile-long stream near Howard, to include higher flows is supported by the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Department of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited and other environmental groups.

The move is opposed by the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, which says increasing protected flows for Badger Creek could impede augmentation plans for future wells in unspecified locations.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board, the agency which approves in-stream flows, will consider the Badger Creek issue again at its meeting next week. A three-hour block for a hearing is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. Nov. 14, at the Golden Hotel, 800 11th St., Golden.

The Upper Ark district protested the expansion of the Badger Creek water right at a March meeting of the CWCB in Canon City. In the months since, Assistant Attorney General Amy Stengel and Trout Unlimited attorney Drew Peternell have argued that no augmentation water rights are at risk by increasing the in-stream flow rate to 5.5 cubic feet per second (about 3.5 million gallons a day) from the current 3 cfs (about 1.9 million gallons a day).

"We don't think there is that much water there every year," said Terry Scanga, general manager of the Upper Ark district. "All we're asking for is that they provide a number that won't take the whole flow."

Upper Ark said its augmentation plan incorporates a flow of 0.25 cfs (about 160,000 gallons a day) and suggested a "variable decree" that would account for that amount, Scanga said.

"I guess it's a matter of when is enough, enough, to maintain a good habitat?" Scanga said.

Stengel, in her brief to the CWCB, says the state's calculations of the flow of the creek show that the flow of Badger Creek exceeds the Upper Ark's potential domestic water supply requirements more than half of the time, with roughly enough water to sustain 117-900 homes, depending on lawn irrigation.

Beyond the simple water availability, however, the state said the water would preserve a natural environment in a 17-mile reach of the stream below a perennial spring. The Upper Ark also has not demonstrated how the proposed state water right would injure its right, Stengel said.

"The subject reach of Badger Creek is an exceptionally pristine section of stream supporting a thriving brown trout population," Stengel wrote, adding that 90 percent of the stream is on public land.

In its statement, Trout Unlimited pointed out the expansion of the in-stream flow would be junior to existing rights held by the Upper Ark.

"It's speculative. What they're really doing is protecting future growth in the upper reaches of Badger Creek," Peternell said. "The Upper Ark is protecting hypothetical future users, but this does nothing to injure their water right."

The Upper Ark is arguing the stream is intermittent in stretches, even below the spring, which is disputed by the Division of Wildlife and Trout Unlimited.

Reed Dils of the Collegiate Peaks Chapter of Trout Unlimited said there are occasions when flash floods move debris to some sections of the stream and temporarily "bury" them, but the flows of Badger Creek soon cut the channel again. A big flood in 2004 disrupted part of the stream, but Dils was able to find fish above and below the point before and after it reopened.

"It's an extraordinary place, and an in-stream flow is needed," Dils said.

The BLM has worked for years with Fremont County residents to protect the public lands on Badger Creek by cleaning up the area and restricting motor vehicle access.

Colo. SC rules water district overdid growth estimates

From Legal Newsline.com by Rob Luke

DENVER -- The Colorado Supreme Court has denied water rights for a reservoir to serve a southwestern county by ruling the local water authority over-estimated the area's future growth.

In Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District et. al. v. Trout Unlimited (docket# 06SA338) the Supreme Court overturned a 2004 water court ruling allowing the Pagosa Water District conditional water rights from the San Juan River. It would have allowed total annual storage of 64,000 acre-feet of water through 2100.

Opponents Trout Unlimited, a fishing advocacy group, argued that the rights were based on unrealistic population-growth estimates for Archuleta County. The Pagosa Water District served 9,500 people with 2,000 acre-feet in 2005; based on 2005 use, capacity of 64,000 acre-feet would serve over 300,000 residents.

The Supreme Court agreed, arguing that water rights cannot be claimed speculatively in Colorado. "The water court must...make factual findings concerning whether the districts can and will place the claimed amount of unappropriated water to beneficial use within a reasonable time," wrote Justice Gregory J. Hobbs.

The San Juan Water Conservancy District, which fought the suit with the Pagosa Water District, still holds conditional rights to 6,300 acre-feet of water for the Dry Gulch reservoir.