Colorado Court: Coal Bed Methane Producers Need Water Permits

  DENVER, Colorado, April 20, 2009 (ENS) - The Colorado Supreme Court today ruled that coal bed methane producers must adhere to the same water rules and regulations as other state water users.

 In 2005, two ranch families who own water rights in Archuleta and La Plata counties sued the State Engineer, arguing that he was acting illegally by failing to require BP America Production Company to get permits and water court approvals to pump tributary groundwater as part of the company's coal bed methane production.

"This is a victory for both ranchers and our streams," said Mely Whiting, an attorney with the conservation group Trout Unlimited, which participated in the appeal in support of the ranchers.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2009/2009-04-20-093.asp

Pipe dream: Water plan has a lot of hurdles

April 4, 2009 - 3:40 PM

R. SCOTT RAPPOLD

THE GAZETTE

Depending on whom you ask, Aaron Million's idea is either the solution to Colorado's water problems or a quixotic scheme with no anchor in reality.

The Fort Collins entrepreneur wants to build a pipeline from western Wyoming to Colorado's Front Range, a 560-mile journey that would terminate at a new reservoir in eastern El Paso County. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold a series of public meetings this month on the proposal.

Water suppliers here aren't banking on the $2 billion to $3 billion pipeline being built.

"Physically, it's feasible. Politically, that is a whole different question," said Kip Petersen, general manager of Cherokee Metropolitan District.

"It's going to foreclose other water users," said Drew Peternell, with Trout Unlimited. The group is also worried how taking the water would impact endangered fish in the Green River.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/water_51221___article.html/million_colorado.html

Colorado & Western Water Project Staff Notes

March 2009

We attended the Ex Loco Carpe Diem "convening" in Las Vegas w/ a number of NGOs, water providers, gov't agency personnel and funders to discuss the Federal Role in Western Water Issues in the Face of Climate Change. We also worked w/ TU staff and other NGOs to put together a memo with suggestions to the new administration on water adaptation strategies to include in a climate change cap and trade bill.

We worked on a couple of letters to the editor that were published, including one in the Denver Post explaining TU’s (qualified) support for rainwater catchment bill (we support a version that guarantees return flows to streams):

http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/02/19/harvesting-rainwater-has-an-effect-downstream/

And another in Pueblo Chieftain raising questions about Aaron Million’s pipeline project and calling instead for more comprehensive, collaborative water planning:

http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/03/01/editorial/doc49aa0307a89c2958757598.txt

The Colorado Water Project (CWP) staff submitted recommendations for instream flow water rights to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) at the CWCB’s February 2009 Instream Flow Workshop. CWP used TU’s Conservation Success Index to identify two greenback cutthroat trout streams in the Poudre River watershed that were not currently protected by state-held instream flow water rights. Field data was collected in October 2008 and it was used to quantify the instream flow needs of these creeks. Recommendations were presented at the Workshop which then initiates a one-year public review process by the CWCB. The recommendations will be presented to the CWCB in 2010 for appropriation. Once decreed, these instream flow water rights should provide a reasonable level of flow protection for stream segments that support healthy populations of greenback cutthroat trout.

The CWP is also continuing to evaluate and or monitor the progress of several Environmental Impact Statements for various water development projects around the state such as the Windy Gap Firming, Denver Moffat Expansion, and Northern Integrated Supply Project.

 CWP staff is continuing to provide environmental perspective on several large cooperative endeavors including the Halligan Seaman Shared Vision Plan and the Colorado River Wild and Scenic Management Plan Alternative.

CWP staff is cooperating with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and United States Forest Service staffs to identify and prioritize stream reaches for instream flow water right protection and to find opportunities to restore and reconnect trout habitat. For example, CWP and USFS staffs are currently working with a landowner on the western slope to discuss opportunities for reconstructing a headgate on USFS land which diverts native cutthroat trout as well as water onto irrigated lands. This headgate also serves as an upstream migration barrier and diverts the majority of the streamflow during certain seasons of the year. CWP staff will continue to work with state and federal government staffs and local landowners to protect, reconnect and restore aquatic habitat.

We are supporting a bill this legislative session that would create a state income tax credit for parties who donate water rights to the CWCB for instream flow use. The bill has passed the House Agriculture and House Finance Committees. It will next go to the House Appropriations Committee.

PAWSD Conjures $357 Million Project in Dry Gulch, Part Five

Pagosa Daily Post

Bill Hudson | 3/3/09

When District 7 Water Court Judge Greg Lyman approved the water rights for a proposed 35,000 acre-foot reservoir in Dry Gulch in 2004, that decision was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, by national fishing organization Trout Unlimited.  The Supreme Court objected to Lyman’s decision and remanded the case back to him for additional “findings of fact.”  The Supreme Court’s objections were based on three main issues.

In 2003, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District engineer Steve Harris had designed the Dry Gulch Reservoir at 35,000 acre-feet for one simple reason: that was the largest reservoir that would fit in Dry Gulch.  Harris admitted this in court, and at public PAWSD meetings.  In order to justify such a large reservoir — almost 18 times current Archuleta County use — Harris had used estimates of 100 years of astronomical community growth. 

http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/11429/PAWSD_Conjures_$357_Million_Project_in_Dry_Gulch,_Part_Five/

Pipeline scheme hijacks credible water planning

Pueblo Chieftain, March 01, 2009

By DREW PETERNELL TROUT UNLIMITED

Regarding "Pipeline developer says project being hijacked by water group" in the Feb. 5 Pueblo Chieftain: What's really in danger of being hijacked in this competitive rush to build a pipeline is a credible, consensus-based plan for meeting Front Range water needs.

The idea of pumping water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir to the Front Range sounds simple and attractive. The reality is much more complicated and uncertain.

The push by developer Aaron Million, the Parker Water and Sanitation District and other Front Range (often conflicting) water interests to build a wildly expensive pipeline project raises a flood of questions that haven't yet been adequately addressed:

How would this water diversion affect the ecological attributes of the Green and Colorado Rivers, including their invaluable sport fisheries and federally listed endangered species? What are the realistic costs - both monetary and in terms of energy use - of transporting water 400 miles from Flaming Gorge to the Front Range?

And what about the impact of the pipeline on other Colorado water users who would like to make use of our state's remaining share of the Colorado River?

A pipeline scheme of this magnitude could decimate important natural resources, become a costly boondoggle and exhaust Colorado's entitlement to the Colorado River. Front Range water users should proceed with caution.

Before endorsing any pipeline scheme, Front Range communities need to engage in comprehensive, regional water planning that evaluates how we can best meet water needs.

Drew Peternell of Boulder is director of Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project Trout Unlimited.

http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/03/01/editorial/doc49aa0307a89c2958757598.txt

Harvesting rainwater has an effect downstream

by DP Opinion on February 19, 2009

Re: “Water bills back saving on rainy days,” Feb. 10 news story.

The Colorado General Assembly is considering two pieces of legislation that would allow homeowners to install systems to capture rainwater for residential uses. Harvesting rainwater off the roof can be an eco-friendly practice, reducing the need to deliver water to the home from other sources, a process which can damage streams and aquifers and require use of significant energy.

But Coloradans should recognize that, in some cases, precipitation captured in a cistern would otherwise seep through the ground to a nearby stream for the benefit of fish and wildlife habitat and senior water rights. A large residential development with home rainwater cisterns might appear “green,” but could actually further stress an already depleted stream.

Recognizing the impact rainwater cisterns can have on streams, House Bill 1129 requires the proponents of rainwater harvesting projects to replace the water they remove from the system. In this respect, the bill provides a measure of protection to other water users and the state’s streams. The bill also favors cistern projects that include other water conservation measures, a smart provision in a semi-arid state with growing water demands.

Drew Peternell, Boulder

The writer is director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/02/19/harvesting-rainwater-has-an-effect-downstream/

A Dry Look at Dry Gulch

Pagosa Daily Post

Bill Hudson | 2/9/09

The SJWCD asked Archuleta County voters in 2004 to approve a bond to help fund the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir, but the voters turned down the offer.  Nevertheless, SJWCD and PAWSD continued to study and plan for the new reservoir — including making an application for significant new water rights out of the nearby San Juan River for the purpose of filling the future reservoir, since Dry Gulch — as one might expect from its name — has very little water of its own.  Those water rights were granted in 2006, but the case was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to Durango Water Court Judge Greg Lyman for additional study.

http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/11234/A_Dry_Look_at_Dry_Gulch/

Ouray Council Approves

The Watch

by Beverly Corbell

Feb 04, 2009

OURAY – A decades old water fight with the federal government came to an end for the Ouray City Council Monday when it voted to remove objections to a settlement for reserved water rights at Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.

The fight to protect those rights has been going on “for years and years,” City Manager Patrick Rondinelli said.

“The federal government tried to wipe out all water rights.”

A tentative agreement was reached in June of last year on the amount of water that should flow through the national park and was formally decreed by the Gunnison Water Court on Dec. 31.

The city previously withdrew its opposition to the proposed decree and effectively consented to the settlement, according to Rondinelli, but with the settlement adopted, the action by Ouray City Council Monday night was to ratify withdrawing that opposition, which passed unanimously.

The water fight involved many entities, including the Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Western Area Power Administration, Trout Unlimited, High Country Citizens’ Alliance, and more.

http://www.telluridewatch.com/pages/full_story?page_label=news&id=1893014-Ouray-Council-Approves-br-Water-Deal&article-Ouray-Council-Approves-br-Water-Deal%20=&widget=push&instance=secondary_stories_left_column&open=&

Colorado Water Congress 51st Annual Meeting

January 30, 10:51 AM

by John Orr, Colorado Water Examiner

The Colorado Water Congress' 51st Annual Meeting -- that will wind up today at the Hyatt Regency Tech Center -- is titled, "Water Buffaloes in the Mist: On Solid Ground in an Uncertain Time." The breakout sessions run from environmental issues through water law to the economy and infrastructure. 

Here are some highlights from yesterday:

Transition to Green

Panel members for this session were: Drew Peternell, Colorado Trout Unlimited; Becky Long, Colorado Environmental Coalition; Amy Beatie, Colorado Water Trust; and Tom Iseman, The Nature Conservancy.

During the Q&A the panelists were asked about the effects of climate change on their relationship with water providers, industry and consumptive use in general. Long said, "We don't have matching tattoos but we're hanging out a lot more now."

When asked about storage projects Peternell told attendees that TU is not against all storage projects but each has to stand on its own and weigh environmental requirements fairly.

A recent example was the filing by the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District for their proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir. Colorado Trout Unlimited filed an objection in water court claiming that the size of the reservoir was not in line with projected growth and that the planning horizon of 100 years was too long.

PAWSD got their decree but the Colorado Supreme Court said no, agreeing with TU.

The BLM and Forest Service are currently reviewing several Colorado stream segments for Wild and Scenic designation. The Colorado River District and others are trying to get support for a program that would manage those river segments as Wild and Scenic without pursuing actual designation.

Peternell said that that type of arrangement is acceptable to TU.

http://www.examiner.com/x-395-Colorado-Water-Examiner~y2009m1d30-Colorado-Water-Congress-51st-Annual-Meeting

Colorado & Western Water Project Staff Notes

January 2009

Denver Post ran a story on aging dam infrastructure upgrades and on win-win partnership projects that improve both dam safety and fish habitat, with TU and Western Water Project state directors prominently featured. As Laura Ziemer, TU’s Montana Water Project Director, said in the piece, “We’re trying to get out of the fish vs. farmer box.”

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11424920

The water court signed the decree for the reserved water right for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. This brings to an end one of the longest running water fights in Colorado history. The Park Service now owns a recognized and enforceable water right for peak, shoulder and base flows for the Black Canyon.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/01/11/011209_1a_Black_Canyon_water.html

Colorado Water Project (CWP) has been reviewing and commenting on a bill to be introduced in the 2009 Colorado General Assembly legislative session that would allow small-scale precipitation harvesting on a pilot basis.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/7EBE1FD8BEB4A0088725753C0061EF02?Open&file=1129_01.pdf

We are supporting a bill this legislative session that would create a state income tax credit for parties who donate water rights to the CWCB for instream flow use.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/42FD0147CD5E7D6E87257537001A2E85?Open&file=1067_01.pdf

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) will hold a hearing in January to establish rules implementing the Instream Flow Rules legislation we passed last legislative session. We have submitted pre-hearing comments.

CWP submitted comments on the Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also reviewed the DEIS and gave the project a rating of “Environmental Objections – Insufficient Information (EO-2)”. This rating signifies that EPA has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to adequately protect the environment.

http://www.cotrout.org/Conservation/WindyGapCommentExt/tabid/310/Default.aspx

CWP has been working with the Colorado Division of Wildlife throughout 2008 to develop instream flow recommendations on several stream segments that support populations of either Colorado River or greenback cutthroat trout. These recommendations will be submitted to the CWCB for their consideration. This action will initiate a state process that should result in the CWCB’s appropriation of instream flow water rights on these streams. The CWCB is the only entity in the state of Colorado that can hold an instream flow water right.

CWP and Colorado Trout Unlimited continue to participate in a “Shared Vision Planning” (SVP) process on the North Fork Cache la Poudre River near Ft. Collins, Colorado. The SVP process is intended to facilitate a common understanding of a natural resource system and provide a consensus-based forum for stakeholders to identify tradeoffs and new management options. Our objective is to work within the context of the Halligan-Seaman Water Management Plan to improve environmental stream flows in the North Fork and mainstem Poudre River. http://halligan-seaman.org/page.asp?pgID=48