Neighboring states face irrigation well problems

“…which also included an overview of problems in other western states by Melinda Kassen, Western Water Project director for Trout Unlimited.”

http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20070605/NEWS/106050077

June 5, 2007 ESTES PARK -- Colorado is not the only state dealing with the shutdown or curtailment of irrigation wells.

But neighboring states are addressing the problem at the state level and finding ways to mitigate present and future problems for the advantage of both surface and ground water users.

That was the emphasis Monday at the summer conference of the Groundwater Management Districts Association at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park. About 125 water users from Colorado as well as Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming and Idaho registered for the three-day conference, which concludes today.

Monday's sessions concentrated on irrigation well shutdowns or curtailment of irrigation wells in Nebraska, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado, which also included an overview of problems in other western states by Melinda Kassen, Western Water Project director for Trout Unlimited.

Kassen said ground water in the 1950s was seen as a new source of water, but only recently have Western states come to the realization that ground and surface water are connected and that pumping of wells has an effect on river flows. In Colorado, only 22 percent of the state's population depends on ground water for domestic needs, but in New Mexico, 90 percent of the population depends on that source while 96 percent of Idaho's residents use ground water.

That, combined with a drought that signaled the start of the 21st century, has led to the shutdown of wells, such as those along the South Platte River last year.

"Colorado's regulatory system should have prevented that catastrophe, but it did not," Kassen said. "That was an extraordinary wake-up call."

The over-use of ground water supplies is creating problems for many states west of the Mississippi River. Kassen said one river in Arizona has lost all but two of 13 native fish species, while in northern Montana, a developer was denied a permit for a golf resort along the Gallatin River until it could come up with a water replacement plan for the wells it wanted. That led to the Montana legislature passing a new ground water measure this year.

In Nebraska, where the number of high capacity wells increased from about 6,000 in 1975, to more than 103,000 by this year, many areas are facing moratoriums, said Jim Goecke with the University of Nebraska.

"Nobody wants moratoriums," he said, but as water levels continue to decline in major aquifers, that may happen.

In southern New Mexico, along the Rio Grande, the state legislature is helping to developing surface water treatment plants for use by municipalities and industry to ensure the continued use of wells in a highly productive agricultural area, said Gary Esslinger, manager of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District of Las Cruces.

While no wells have been shut down in Nebraska, Goecke summed the problem.

"Droughts become teachable moments," he said.

'He was one of a kind'

Leo Gomolchak’s conservation efforts are still being felt today

It was Gomolchak, along with the late Jim Belsey and Steve Lundy, who really gave Colorado Trout Unlimited its boost toward its present standing of being a major player in the state’s conservation scene.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2007/06/03/6_3_OUT_sunday_column_WWW.html

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Every time an angler catches a healthy trout from Colorado’s rivers and streams, a small voice of thanks ought to go to Leo Gomolchak, the ardent coldwater conservationist who died on May 23.

A career military man who was proud but not prideful about his service to his country, Gomolchak, 81, rarely mentioned those times. Instead, he preferred to focus on whatever conservation battle was at hand, which more often than not was protecting this state’s coldwater fisheries for the future.

And some of the battles, notably about the state’s decision to stock whirling disease-infected trout, were memorable, indeed.

David Nickum, executive director for Colorado Trout Unlimited, recalls a wildlife commission meeting in 1994 when the panel was discussing whether or not to continue stocking whirling-disease infected fish in certain closed-basin waters.

Gomolchak ardently was opposed to stocking more WD-positive fish, particularly on the Western Slope, but the commission went ahead and approved a limited stocking plan that left Gomolchak red-faced.

“He always was frustrated that they didn’t come around faster on whirling disease and didn’t get a handle on it before it affected so many rivers,” said Nickum.

Rebecca Frank of Grand Junction was on the wildlife commission at the time and remembers that particular vote as one of the most-difficult she faced during her 12-year tenure.

“Leo was a key person in leading the charge” to do something about whirling disease, Frank remembers. “Early on, he wanted nothing to do with whirling disease and we should have listened to him.

“The good thing that came out it is we finally got a (whirling disease) policy adopted and the money (around $8 million) to clean up our hatcheries and get them ready for this century.”

That day was only one of the times the commission and state biologists were on the receiving end of Gomolchak’s pro-conservation scoldings.

Former state fisheries manager Eddie Kochman, one of those who felt the sting from Gomolchak’s arguments, called Gomolchak’s persistence “truly exceptional” while never showing a lack of respect for his opponents.

“Some of our greatest, more bitter arguments were about whirling disease,” Kochman remembered. “And in the end, we have to say Leo was right. He was one of a kind. I have never seen anyone so dedicated and persistent.”

Frank said Gomolchak remained receptive even during the most-heated discussions.

“He was so tenacious but he also was so gentlemanly,” Frank said. “At the end of the day, no matter how heated things got, you wanted to sit down with him and drink a beer and mull over the day.”

That tenacity earned Gomolchak the nickname “Pit Bull,” and his adversaries, nearly all of who became his friends, too, said he never let go of his main cause, conserving coldwater fisheries.

“You always knew that when Leo got up in front of the wildlife commission, he always was speaking on behalf of the resource,” Frank said. “There was no other agenda.”

It was Gomolchak, along with the late Jim Belsey and Steve Lundy, who really gave Colorado Trout Unlimited its boost toward its present standing of being a major player in the state’s conservation scene.

As a continuation of Gomolchak’s legacy, CTU recently established the “Gomo Grant” program to provide seed money grants for chapter conservation projects.

“He was one of the few folks who understood that to have a presence, you need to be present,” Nickum said. “We still miss having someone who has that fire and drive.”

Kochman agrees.

“I don’t see that today as much,” he said. “Between Leo and Belsey and Lundy, there was a level of accomplishment I had never seen before and probably never will see again.”

Among Gomolchak’s triumphs, including the state’s reversal on its whirling disease policy, are the roles he played in defeating Two Forks Dam, obtaining miles of public fishing waters in South Park and easing the “Row vs. Wade” controversy on the Arkansas River, when it was being debated whether water flows should be managed for anglers or recreational boaters.

“He would always ask us, ‘You guys sure you’re doing the right thing?’ ” recalled Doug Krieger, senior fisheries biologist for the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s Southeast Region. “He was one of the few guys eager to find out the details and go over the data and he really kept an open mind that way.”

While Gomolchak was a skillful negotiator, “There were some areas he felt there was no room for compromise,” Krieger said.

That including whirling disease, but he wasn’t hesitant to applaud the DOW when it adopted what Gomolchak thought was the right policies.

“He told me, ‘Kochman, you’re a slow learner but at least you learned,’ ” Kochman said.

It’s rare that a single voice can have such an impact, particularly one that rarely grabbed the spotlight and in fact purposely avoided being the center of attention.

Government agencies at all levels have much inertia to overcome, but like a small tugboat guiding a battleship into harbor, one persistent voice can help an entire agency change direction.

“His greatest attribute was his persistence,” Kochman said. “When it’s all over, if you look back and can say you made a difference, that’s all that matters. In Leo’s case, it was a big one.”

At 45, Fry-Ark not so golden

Drew Peternell, director of the Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project, called for a programmatic environmental impact statement on the Fry-Ark Project to look at how it has changed over the years.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1180771084/1

Concerns for the future of the project are weighed down by the need for water for growth.

By CHRIS WOODKA THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

A congressional hearing Friday began with a film of President John F. Kennedy at Dutch Clark Stadium on a hot August day in 1962, heralding the cooperative spirit of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

The hearing ended in a less cooperative spirit after a morning that proved the testimony of one witness who said Colorado water is a geographic, rather than political concern.

“To make life better for some of the people is to make life better for all of the people,” Kennedy said, outlining the benefits of the project for the farms and cities of the Arkansas Valley in his riveting speech.

The words drew applause from a crowd 45 years later as a field hearing of the water and power subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee opened at Pueblo Community College.

“This is our future,” said committee chairwoman Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif. “It was just as evident and true then as it is today.”

Napolitano said the hearing in Pueblo is the second she has held - the first was last year in Pomona, Calif. - to assess the water needs of Western states. About 150 people attended the 3-hour event.

People from Leadville, the Lower Arkansas Valley, Colorado Springs, Aurora and Pueblo came to hear public statements on rating the success of the Fry-Ark Project.

The hearing took on shades of partisanship, more from a geographic standpoint than by political parties, as described by Wally Stealey, former president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, who told the committee water is a geographic issue.

Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., promoted his version of a Fryingpan-Arkansas bill through his statements and questions of witnesses throughout the hearing, making no bones about his defense of agriculture and small communities.

“I believe it is immoral for large cities to rob small towns for the sake of growth,” said Salazar, who represents Pueblo, the San Luis Valley and the Western Slope. “To add insult to injury, the Bureau of Reclamation has not made the case that it can contract with entities outside the basin.”

Holding a golden frying pan, he told the story of John Singletary, chairman of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, who helped his parents sell the pans to promote the project in the 1950s.

“John Singletary didn’t help his parents sell golden frying pans so the water could be sold out of the Arkansas Valley,” Salazar said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Doug Lamborn, the lone Republican on the committee, was equally vigorous in promoting the interests of Colorado Springs, which he represents. He is sponsoring competing legislation that adheres to past intergovernmental agreements for the Preferred Storage Options Plan.

At one point Lamborn labeled the negotiations over PSOP as being stalled by “a few obstructionists” and promoted the view that the Fry-Ark Project should focus on future growth.

“The old adage of build it and they will come no longer applies to Colorado. They’ll come anyway,” Lamborn said.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Salazar’s Democratic colleague, disagreed with Salazar’s view that the Fry-Ark Project originally was intended primarily to benefit agriculture. Perlmutter, who represents Aurora and other growing areas in the Denver suburbs, focused on Kennedy’s statement that Fry-Ark was an “investment in the growth of the West.”

“I believe there is a real opportunity to find a compromise. I would love to see a solution,” Perlmutter said.

Finally, Democratic Senate Candidate Mark Udall gave a nod to Western Slope interests in the Fry-Ark Project, but generally took the high road in his comments and questions.

“Nothing is more important to us in the West - it is our lifeblood - than water,” Udall said.

Testimony followed lines of self-interest as well, as most of the 11 witnesses struggled to conform to guidelines that allowed only five minutes of testimony.

Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district, drew spontaneous applause for his testimony lamenting the decline of agriculture and the increasing burden of small communities in dealing with water quality as the Fry-Ark Project has aged.

Colorado Springs has worked for its own benefit, rather than with Fry-Ark partners and Aurora has “bullied its way into the valley,” Winner said.

The exchanges of the cities have hurt water quality, he said.

“When we talk about water quality, here’s a good example of what has happened,” Winner said, holding up jars of muddy water from the Lower Arkansas Valley and clean water from mountain lakes. “They bought this (the dirty) water and took this (the clean water). . . . I’m told over and over (by the cities) it’s too expensive to clean up the water, so the burden falls on the Lower Arkansas Valley.”

Mayors Lionel Rivera of Colorado Springs and Ed Tauer of Aurora urged the congressional delegation to look to the future and needs of growth, rather than dwelling on the past. Both emphasized their significant financial contribution to repayment of the project - Colorado Springs through taxes, Aurora through contracts.

“For all the rhetoric and misinformation that has been spread about our city, the truth is that Colorado Springs has historically sought to avoid relying on the transfer of agricultural water rights to provide a water supply for the city,” Rivera said.

Napolitano took Rivera to task, asking why the city has not dedicated more effort to reusing its supply.

Rivera responded that the city reuses 13 percent of its water supply for public landscapes and power plants and touted the city’s conservation efforts, sewage and stormwater control.

Tauer described the Fry-Ark Project as a “series of pipes, pumps and buckets that allow people to move water and defended Aurora’s right to contract with Reclamation for excess-capacity space. He praised intergovernmental agreements Aurora has made in the valley to attempt to address ill effects of water transfers.

“Aurora will continue to cooperate with all involved entities to promote the Bureau’s goals of maximum utilization of existing infrastructure,” Tauer said.

Napolitano asked Tauer if Aurora isn’t creating a situation in the Arkansas basin similar to the Owens Valley in California, which was dried up by Los Angeles. Tauer said the IGAs prevent Aurora from taking more water from the valley.

Bill Long, president of the Southeastern District, said the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit is the most important piece of the Fry-Ark Project that has yet to be developed.

The conduit was part of the 1962 legislation, but never built because communities could never afford it.

“If we don’t get the conduit, the project will ultimately be used to move water out of the valley,” Long said.

Terry Scanga, executive director of the Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, said the project has changed over the years, providing water for the growth of a recreation industry and new growth in the upper end of the river.

Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut said the major new challenge of the project is water quality.

“The quality can change as fast as the use,” Thiebaut said.

Drew Peternell, director of the Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project, called for a programmatic environmental impact statement on the Fry-Ark Project to look at how it has changed over the years.

Chris Treese, manager of external affairs for the Colorado River Conservation District, said the original Fry-Ark Project was intended to market water to an oil shale industry that has not materialized. He asked Congress to look at the repayment plan for Ruedi Reservoir to avoid higher lease rates in the future as interest piles up.

Sandy White, a lawyer representing The Pueblo Chieftain and other valley water interests, challenged Reclamation’s authority to enter contracts with Aurora, saying Aurora circumvents state law with federal contracts.

“The Bureau essentially is on an adventure of its own,” White said.

Mike Ryan, Great Plains regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation, defended contract policies, saying the Fry-Ark Project is not harmed by the bureau’s actions.

Stealey, however, disagreed.

“The biggest danger we’ve got is diminishing the taxpayers’ role in the Fry-Ark Project by diluting the stock,” Stealey said. “When does it quit becoming the Bureau of Urban Development? Some of us are very angry.”

Hearing to look at Fry-Ark impacts

Congressional subcommittee meets today at Pueblo Community College.

Scheduled to testify at the hearing are: Drew Peternell, Boulder, director of the Colorado Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1180683495/2

A congressional subcommittee will meet today in Pueblo to review the 45-year history of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

The water and power subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., will meet at 9 a.m. today in the Pueblo Community College Ballroom to look at the project that brought water from the Colorado River basin into the Arkansas River basin.

Two members of the subcommittee, Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., will attend today’s hearing. Reps. John Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, both Colorado Democrats, also plan to be at the hearing.

The hearing is not intended to debate current legislation regarding the Fry-Ark Project, although most of the speakers intend to discuss projects of concern to them, such as the need for more storage, the Arkansas Valley Conduit and the Southern Delivery System.

In Congress, there are competing water storage bills.

Salazar’s Fryingpan-Arkansas legislation would authorize a $10 million state study of the impacts of Arkansas basin water transfers, as well as a $4 million feasibility study that would include looking at enlargement of Lake Pueblo.

Lamborn is sponsoring a different version of the bill, nearly identical to former Rep. Joel Hefley’s failed version of a PSOP bill in 2004. It would authorize the $4 million study along the lines of PSOP.

A fundamental difference in the two bills is the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to enter contracts with out-of-basin entities such as Aurora. Salazar’s bill specifically prohibits such contracts, while Lamborn’s specifically allows them.

The public will not be given an opportunity to testify, but may observe.

Scheduled to testify at the hearing are:

Bill Long, president, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

Mike Ryan, Great Plains regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation.

Harris Sherman, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.

Lionel Rivera, mayor of Colorado Springs.

Terry Scanga, general manager, Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District.

Bill Thiebaut, Pueblo district attorney.

Jay Winner, general manager, Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District.

Sandy White, La Veta water lawyer.

Ed Tauer, mayor of Aurora.

Drew Peternell, Boulder, director of the Colorado Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project.

Chris Treese, external affairs manager of the Colorado River Conservation District.

Wally Stealey, rancher and former president, Southeastern district.

Snake River cleanup plan eyed; possible treatment

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070530/NEWS/105300061

SUMMIT COUNTY - State and federal water quality experts will take a close look at the polluted water leaking from the abandoned Pennsylvania Mine into Peru Creek this summer, eying designs for a treatment plant that could remove some of the toxic heavy metals.

Zinc and cadmium oozing from the mine taint the creek all the way to its confluence with the Snake River and beyond - creating a dead zone, where trout don't survive for long. The collaborative Snake River Task Force has been working for years to develop a cleanup plan for the drainage, and will meet today for an update.

The biggest question marks include what sort of technology is best suited for the remote site, how to fund construction and operation, and how to deal with potential Clean Water Act liability of taking action, said Summit County environmental planner Brian Lorch.

Along with treating the water coming out of the mine, state experts will also try to determine other ways of improving water quality in Peru Creek and the Snake River, maybe by moving some of mine waste material or re-routing surface flows away from the polluted tailings piles.

Similar tactics were used at the Shoe Basin Mine last summer, where the county completed a remediation project that will reduce the amount of zinc reaching the water.

Snake River cleanup plans have started to look more promising since Trout Unlimited, a cold-water fisheries conservation group, took a lead role in the process. Fresh from a model mine cleanup in Utah, the organization hopes to bring a similar approach to table for Peru Creek.

Along with site-specific projects, the task force will also get an update on a watershed approach to stream health in the Snake River Basin, as well as the potential for re-evaluating water quality standards in the basin.

The task force meetings are the best way for citizens in the Snake River Basin to find out the latest on the status of the cleanup plans.

Information is also available at http://instaar.colorado.edu/SRWTF/.

STATE WATER BOARD DIRECTOR ANNOUNCES INTENT TO RETIRE

May 24, 2007 Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Director, Rod Kuharich, announced his intent to retire from state service on June 30, 2007.  The announcement was made on the first day of the Board’s bi-monthly meeting, which was held in Montrose, CO.  The CWCB is the State agency responsible for developing, conserving and managing Colorado’s water resources.  It is run by a 15-member Board.

Rod Kuharich was appointed as director to the Colorado Water Conservation Board in November 2000.  Among a myriad of important state projects, during his tenure, Kuharich worked hard to protect the CWCB Construction Fund, which provides low interest loans to water users throughout the State and to promote the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) Study.  He devoted considerable time to interstate compact issues, which included forming a Colorado River Compact unit to help ensure Colorado is prepared to protect its interests in the Colorado River.  Mr. Kuharich also worked to protect Colorado’s interests in the Arkansas River.  In addition, he also presided over the evolution of instream flow water rights, including recreational in-channel diversions (RICDs).  Prior to taking this position, he spent 24 years working for the Colorado Springs Utilities in Resource Planning and Development.

Department of Natural Resources Director, Harris Sherman, an ex-officio member of the Board, thanked Mr. Kuharich for his years of service and his many accomplishments.  Sherman noted: “The state government is in a period of significant transition and we look forward to the opportunity to identify new leaders to help guide us into the future.” 

Mr. Sherman then discussed his intent to appoint CWCB Deputy Director, Dan McAuliffe, as acting Director until a new director is appointed.  Dan McAuliffe has been the Deputy Director since 1999, and prior to that he served as DNR Assistant Director under Governor Romer.

Aspinall Operation Meeting

I attended the Aspinall Operations Meeting held here in Grand Junction on April 26^th.  The purpose of operation meetings-- held in January, April, and August-- is to gather input for determining upcoming operations for Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal Reservoirs. This input is used in Reclamation’s development of specific operations for the Aspinall Unit.  Operation of the Aspinall Unit considers projected inflows to its reservoirs, hydropower needs, flood control needs, existing water rights, minimum instream flows, target elevations for reservoirs, flow needs for endangered fish and other resources, recreation, and other factors. In addition, the meetings are used to coordinate activities and exchange information among agencies, water users, and other interested parties concerning the Gunnison River.  Dan Kowalski of the CDOW had a flow request to conduct his annual fish survey in the Gorge the first week of April.  The Gunnison Basin snow pack is only 57% of average and dropping so the runoff could be minimal.  Flows through the Black Canyon will continue to be around 500 cfs until later in June unless the basin receives significant moisture.  No peak flow will occur under the current forecast. 

~ Pat Oglesby

TROUT UNLIMITED AND PUBLIC ACCESS

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion – and unfortunately, a fair bit of misinformation – about the issue of access and questions of Trout Unlimited’s role. Some have feared that the organization was bowing to wealthy donors and “selling out” the average angler by supporting (or at least accepting) efforts to lock up more and more water in private hands. Others have feared that local chapters and Councils are seeking to override existing private property rights to open up currently private water to public fishing access. The reality is that neither fear reflects the ongoing discussion within TU.

While the focus of CTU and TU has always been on our mission to conserve, protect and restore coldwater fisheries and their watersheds, there has also been ongoing engagement on public access in a variety of ways.

• CTU was a leading advocate for the recently-adopted “Habitat Stamp” with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW), which provides funding for habitat and access. Indeed, the first project approved for funding from Habitat Stamp dollars was acquiring a permanent easement for public access to one mile of the Arkansas River – and the Collegiate Peaks Anglers Chapter helped provide part of the matching funds for that project, as well.
• Over the years, CTU has helped with DOW acquisitions – for example, purchasing an option on a ranch in South Park that was then acquired by DOW, and helping secure title to a parcel on the Roaring Fork River that was transferred through CTU to DOW.
• Last year, TU nationwide was among the leading voices opposing proposals to sell off National Forest lands into private hands as a funding mechanism for U.S. Forest Service programs – helping keep those lands public, for conservation and for the hunting and fishing access they provide.

There has been more debate and discussion about TU’s appropriate role in advocating for public access rights. In the case of CTU, this issue most recently came up in 2002 when legislation was proposed to criminalize the act of fishing while (legally) floating by private lands. After significant discussion, and with recognition that members of CTU had widely differing opinions, CTU’s board adopted a position statement that respects the current rights of private landowners and the public. In brief, the position indicated that CTU would not support measures that diminish existing rights of public access, nor would CTU support measures that reduce existing private property rights. Under that policy, CTU opposed the proposed criminalization of currently-legal float fishing. In contrast, we would not support measures like the “Fair Fishing Initiative” that would transfer existing private rights into public access.

More recently, TU nationally adopted a new access policy that established a working group to review access issues or conflicts that may arise and determine whether involvement by TU or its affiliates was in the best interests of the organization.  A CTU Past-President, Tom Krol, is part of that working group.  The national policy was built on a foundation very similar to CTU’s position – respect for private property rights, coupled with a recognition that TU could sometimes have an appropriate role in defending existing public rights.

The greatest challenges have arisen with the thorny and complex issue of what does or does not constitute “trespass” on private lands – something that varies with different state access laws.  What should TU’s role be in such disputes, if any?  It is the specific question of public access to rivers flowing through private lands, not the broader question of promoting public access, which has triggered renewed debate and discussion.  Initially, some members of the Board of Trustees proposed an immediate amendment to TU policies that would preclude all TU involvement in such access disputes.  After hearing significant concern from grassroots leaders about both the substance and process of the proposed change, those Trustees withdrew their amendment.  In other words, no policy change has been made.  However, a working group of TU grassroots leaders and Board of Trustees members will now examine the issue and offer recommendations later this year.

So while the recent discussions about access issues have triggered a great deal of concern and consternation, the reality is that TU is neither proposing to abandon public access and encourage the “locking up” of more and more public water in private hands – nor are grassroots leaders of TU storming the Bastille in efforts to seize private property for public access.  The real debate is focused on the narrower question of what is or should be allowed in terms of public access to rivers along private lands.  We’re all in the same “ballpark”, but the exact place different people would draw the line varies – and of course, the issue varies from state to state.  This is an important issue, and if you have recommendations that you would like to see considered as part of the grassroots/Trustees review, you should put your thoughts in writing and direct them to Steve Moyer, TU Vice President for Volunteer Operations, 1300 N. 17^th Street, Suite 500, Arlington, VA  22209.  We’d also like to get your thoughts at CTU – 1320 Pearl Street, Suite 320, Boulder, CO 80302.

Legislative Report

Highlights Range from Instream Flow to Oil and Gas Development

 HB1298 PROTECT WILDLIFE FROM OIL/GAS DEVELOPMENT  (Gibbs, Tochtrop) Position: Support                                                                                    Status: Pending Senate action

HB1298 requires the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to consult with the Colorado DOW to promulgate rules protecting wildlife from the ramifications of oil and gas exploration. As introduced, it included a list of minimum protections to be included in the rulemaking, which unfortunately were removed in the House.  However, the heart of the bill, giving the DOW a voice in oil/gas decision-making, remains intact.

HB1012 ISF ABANDONMENT  (McNulty, Schwartz) Position: Support                                                                                    Status: Signed by Governor

HB1012 clarifies that a water right is not injured or abandoned by temporarily loaning it to the CWCB for instream flow purposes. The value of a water right is based on the amount actually used, the consumptive use, calculated using a thirty year historic average. Several water rights owners have expressed interest in loaning water for instream flow purposes, but were concerned that calculating a “zero” for consumptive use during the time of the loan significantly reduces the value of their water right.  This new law remedies that problem.

 SB122 CWCB PROJECTS BILL  (Isgar, Curry) Position: Support as amended                                                                 Status: Pending House action

There were several problems with the annual funding bill for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The first was a proposed $150,000 study on the impact of instream flows and Recreational In-Channel Diversions on potential future water development – a study apparently designed to create a basis for weakening those programs.  That study has been removed.  The second problem was a $500,000 study of water availability in the Colorado River basin. As proposed, the study did not involve basin roundtables and focused on large new transbasin projects; we have successfully amended the study to ensure basin involvement and to redirect the study so that it will address ongoing issues around water availability and not focus only on large new transbasin projects.  Third, the bill proposed giving the CWCB authority to make loans of $25 million without legislative approval (the current cap is $5 million).  The proposed increase in loan authority was scaled back to $10 million.  Finally, the bill allocated $100,000 to study mitigation and moving of fens; efforts to remove that study from the bill failed.

HB1281 DOUBLE RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD  (Pommer, Schwartz) Position: Support                                                                                    Status: Signed by Governor

We enthusiastically support the doubling of the renewable energy standard created by Amendment 37. We remain concerned, however, by the treatment of hydropower.  The current size cap (10 megawatts) on hydropower carried forth from amendment 37 is not the best way to address impacts of hydropower. Small projects can be very harmful, totally dewatering streams – and some large projects may have minimal adverse effects.  We would much prefer “green” energy standards to focus on a hydropower project’s impacts, not its size. 

HB1341 MODIFY COGCC MEMBERSHIP  (Curry, Isgar) Position: Support                                                                        Status: Passed, awaiting House concurrence

HB1341 modifies the makeup of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which currently has seven members of whom five are industry representatives. Under HB1341 there will be nine members of the commission. Three shall be experts in oil and gas production, one shall have expertise in wildlife or the environment, one shall be a landowner in agricultural production who owns royalties, one shall represent local governments, one shall be an expert in health care, and the directors of DNR and CDPHE or their designees shall also be voting members.  The proposal should ensure that a broader range of interests are represented on decisions surrounding Colorado’s oil and gas development.

What can we do before the well runs dry?

Shawn Yoxey, a lawyer in Pueblo, is a member of the Pueblo City Schools Board of Education and serves on the board of directors the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

---

Benjamin Franklin said, "Only when the well runs dry, do we learn the wealth of water." An Arabic Proverb stated, "Into the well from which you drink, do not throw stones," meaning care for the water upon which you depend.

"Dry Times-Growing Water Crises Seen in West," "Cities Hunt Water to Feed Growth," "Groundwater Overuse Tied to Fisheries" - titles of three April 15 articles by Chieftain reporter Chris Woodka -dealt with different events, but the message was clearly the same: The West is drying up due in huge part to overdevelopment of our water resources.

In the "Dry Times" article, Woodka reported climate changes are projected to reduce the amount of water available in the future. The ultimate price might be the quality of life in the West, not just the sustainability of the water supply.

In "Cities Hunt," he reported that water managers from Colorado Springs and Las Vegas, Nev., see their jobs as providing more supply to meet the demand, rather than looking at policies to limit growth.

Finally in "Groundwater Overuse," Woodka reported most fish don’t live underground, but the water underground is as important as the rivers, streams and lakes that fish do live in. In fact, a significant amount of base flows in rivers is made up of ground water, according to Melinda Kassen of Trout Unlimited.

Woodka noted Trout Unlimited's report, "Gone to the Well Once Too Often," on the importance of ground water in the West. The report details how well-pumping, if not regulated, can create economic and ecological disasters. Over-reliance on groundwater impairs water quality and in some areas has led to land subsidence.

Why am I bringing all this up?

Recently, good friends of mine brought me concerns about a development in Beulah that was in the planning stages and would soon be going before the Pueblo county commissioners for approval. This development includes drilling wells to provide domestic water for approximately 95 new homes.

Get something straight: I am not anti-development, nor am I against any person wanting to move to Beulah. I grew up there and, having experienced its beauty first hand, understand why many people love living in or want to move to Beulah.

I don’t necessarily consider myself to be an environmentalist or tree hugger. However, I do care about our environment. I care about how overdevelopment of the Pueblo area's precious water resources is going to impact water availability for our children and grandchildren.

So, I went in front of the county commissioners and expressed my concerns about how the cumulative effect of drilling all of these new residential wells was going to affect the surrounding wells, as well as water quality and quantity in the St. Charles River drainage.

The Chieftain reported the response of a developer of the proposed Beulah cluster development. His response basically was to assuage any fears those in Beulah or the St. Charles drainage may have.

He said an existing well on the property was producing steadily and other wells in the area that have no problems at present. One well appearing to produce steadily is not enough evidence.

I have no personal beef against the developer. In fact, under current Rural Land Use Plan regulations, he is probably doing everything the "right" way. He proposes to preserve another 1,100 acres of open space through a perpetual conservation easement.

But what about the water?

Of the 800-plus pages of water law on the books in Colorado, none protects aquifer integrity or tributary groundwater from the type of development likely to be realized in Beulah.

At a recent Arkansas River Basin Water Forum in Rocky Ford, I asked a panel of water conservancy district directors about when do we need to be concerned about cluster development affecting already-scarce water resources in the Arkansas Basin. The only panelist who attempted to reply was Terry Scanga of the Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, for which I give him credit.

Despite the fact that Colorado courts have ruled that all ground water is presumed to be tributary to a natural stream, little attention is paid to the lack of real integration with surface water supplies. Some facts for consideration:

In the 1965 Groundwater Management Act, Colorado integrated the administration of tributary ground water and surface water rights because "if a well causes the level of underground water to be lower than that of the surface stream, the latter will drain into the former with consequent losses to the surface flow." - Fellhauer v. People, 447 P.2d 986, 989 (Colo. 1969).

Yet most private domestic wells, such as the ones that will be drilled as part of the Beulah development, are exempt from administration in the priority system and do not require an augmentation plan. - Private Wells for Home Use, Marx, Waskom & Wolfe, CSU Cooperative Extension, June 2006.

Ground water aquifers are recharged naturally through precipitation (which this area lacks) that filters through a recharge area, but the process is typically very slow, taking from decades to centuries.

If the withdrawal or pumping rate matches the recharge rate, the aquifer is a renewable resource; if the withdrawal rate exceeds recharge, the aquifer becomes a non-renewable resource. - Groundwater Law Sourcebook of the Western United States, Bryner and Purcell, University of Colorado School of Law, September 2003.

In 2002, this area experienced the worst drought in over 200 years. Beulah residents had no water despite never previously having problems pumping enough water from their wells for domestic use. They had to haul tanks of water to Beulah for residential use.

So, I ask again: At what point should we be concerned about development taking place in our own backyard which will, and does affect, the integrity not only of our ground water, but of our surface rivers and streams as well? Are we going to be proactive or reactive?