We've moved Coyote Gulch to http://coyotegulch.wordpress.com/. The URL http://coyotegulch.net/ works also. We intend to keep the old weblog and categories up as long as our hosting service is in business.

We apologize for taking so long to get this post up notifying you readers of the change. We couldn't get a post up because we were trying to repair our old blogging software. We were finally successful doing a reinstallation this weekend.

Thanks to the gang at Userland software for getting my Radio installation running again.

From the Summit Daily News: "The Colorado River District and the Blue River Watershed Group are holding an informal water workshop from 6:30-830 p.m. Feb.12 at the Breckenridge Campus of Colorado Mountain College. This workshop is intended for people who want to learn more about western water issues in a nonintimidating workshop setting where no question is too elementary to ask. For more information, contact Pokrandt at jpokrandt@crwcd.org or at (970) 945-8522 x 236; or Cora McCold at (970) 485-5581 or cora@blueriverwatershed.org."

Here's a recap of yesterday's Fremont County Commissioner's meeting, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

"I lean toward favoring the application, but without identifying the conditions, it's difficult," said Commission Chairman Mike Stiehl following a four-hour public hearing Tuesday. Stiehl said the conditions have to be realistic, fair and enforceable.

Stiehl's colleagues, Ed Norden and Larry Lasha, also said they are leaning toward approval, but want more assurances in areas that not only would protect the county, but benefit it. They are looking for possible cooperative efforts with the Beaver Park Water District, Penrose, Florence and the Natural Resources Conservation Service if SDS comes through Fremont County. More than 125 people attended Tuesday's meeting, which spilled out of the commissioners meeting room into the basement lobby of the Fremont County Courthouse. Commissioners hosted the public hearing on the $1.1 billion pipeline proposal after the Fremont County Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend denial last month. Several people, including two former county commissioners, spoke against approving the application, saying Fremont County is only a second choice and that it would be better to know whether Colorado Springs actually intends to build the pipeline there or in the preferred location from Pueblo Dam...

[Dennis Jones, a former commissioner] said Colorado Springs "shouldn't have it both ways" and said at the very least, Fremont County should require the city to resubmit its application only if Pueblo County denies its application. Jones also listed Fremont County regulations that would allow commissioners to deny approval outright, saying Colorado Springs had not proved its project is compatible and harmonious, would not have a detrimental effect on property value, would not impair public welfare and would not adversely affect other property...

The pawn in a chess game theme was picked up by Rick Allen of the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition, which chastised Fremont County for considering an alternative rated second-best by the sponsors and in the Bureau of Reclamation's environmental impact statement. "The SDS application before Fremont County appears to be nothing more than a hedge by the project proponents to leverage Pueblo County," Allen said...

Colorado Springs says it needs easements on about 50 properties along a 17-mile route through Fremont County. It also would need to acquire three sites for pump stations: One on federal, one on state and one on private land, said John Fredell, SDS project director...

Jason Morin, plant manager at Holcim Cement at Portland, east of Florence, said he is convinced Colorado Springs' junior water right won't interfere with the company's existing river intake, based on one of the oldest rights on the river dating to 1861...

Florence would gain improvements to its river park from the project, said Kevin Shanks of THK Associates, which has been contracted by Colorado Springs to assist in planning for the park. Colorado Springs would commit to putting hydrants along the route of the pipeline to assist Penrose volunteer firefighters, said Dan Higgins, SDS construction and delivery manager. The Arkansas River Outfitters Association supports SDS as long as it leaves water in the river, as provided for in all versions of the project, said Tony Keenan, speaking for the outfitters...

Penrose Water has a more problematic situation, said Lissa Pinello, president. The district is working on its own $9.7 million project to deliver water purchased in 2006 from Fremont County Rancher Denzel Goodwin. The plan is to build a well field and enlarge Brush Hollow Reservoir. SDS could provide a simpler way to deliver the water, but that could put an $8.9 million Colorado Water Conservation Board loan at risk and would require an environmental impact statement Penrose can't afford. There are also concerns that the two projects would be using some of the same rights of way.

Meanwhile the Grisenti family, which owns most of the water in the Lester-Atterbury Ditch Colorado Springs proposes to use for the SDS diversion, say they were never contacted by Colorado Springs. Fredell explained the major issue with the ditch has been Bureau of Land Management concerns about wetlands, and assured the commissioners SDS improve the headgate and overall operation of the ditch.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Here's a look at Tri-State's settlement with Environment Colorado over the change of use for shares of the Amity Canal, from Katharhynn Heidelberg writing for the Montrose Daily Press. From the article:

One more legal challenge to power supplier Tri-State's attempt to change water right usage near Lamar was ended by a settlement last week. The result is a study of Tri-State's energy efficiency -- one an environmental group hopes will show Tri-State can meet customer needs without a change in use of 20,000 acre-feet of John Martin Reservoir water.

Environment Colorado sued Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association 18 months ago, after the company, which supplies wholesale power to Delta-Montrose Electrical Association and other cooperatives, filed for a change of water use, from agricultural to industrial, on the reservoir.

Tri-State still hopes to acquire the use-change right, which it says is needed for a proposed new power plant to offset the growth the generation company is seeing among member usage. It has settled with a total of 19 plaintiffs, most recently EC. One challenger remains.

Environment Colorado spokesman Keith Hay said EC wanted to Tri-State to look at the least costly alternative for their power customers first and, "that will always be energy efficiency."[...]

Hay said both parties realized there was no basis to establish where Tri-State was in terms of energy efficiency, so the first logical step was a study. Tri-State and EC signed a settlement Feb. 4 that requires Tri-State to hire a third-party contractor to conduct a demand side management-energy efficiency study and to prepare annual reports on those activities. In return, EC withdrew its statement of opposition and agreed "not to raise water injury issues or the issues raised in EC's motion for summary judgment specific to the Colorado Power Project...We feel this study will show Tri-State doesn't need the plant they have currently proposed," Hay said. "This meets our goal of protecting the water right, or at a minimum, doing it carefully and responsibly if we're going to make that change."[...]

Under the agreement, Tri-State will spend between $500,000 and $1 million on the study, to be completed by 2010. The study is to assess technical, economic and practical potential for efficient energy use and peak load reduction in its service areas through 2020. Environment Colorado has the right to review and comment on the methodology as well as to provide input. The first draft of three reports on testing activities is to be completed in the first quarter of 2010.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

From the Conejos County Citizen: "The Conejos Water Conservancy District is the latest County organization to name a representative to become a part of State Water Engineer Dick Wolfe's proposed well water rules committee. Michael Willett, president of the CWCD has been nominated to the position, but the State has not announced a final list of members of the water advisory committee."

[More...]

The Conejos Water Conservancy District, with offices at the corner of Fourth and Main, in Manassa, includes more than 100 large volume irrigation wells, dozens of irrigation ditch companies, and more than 100,000 acres of farm land using wells and/or surface water rights for irrigation. The District contains the Conejos and San Antonio Rivers.

District Manager Bob Robins said a major reason the district wants to participate is to control the cost of litigation. Robins echoed the comments of John Shawcroft, an official with the Alamosa and La Jara Creek Water Conservancy District who stated recently that Valley water users spend large amounts of money every year on court battles over water use.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

From the Mineral County Miner (Mary Johnson): "Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust (RiGHT) Executive Director Nancy Butler spoke and gave an update on the Rio Grande Initiative. Conservation efforts in Mineral County began in 2003 when Dorothy Steele granted an easement to protect Wright's Ranch. In 2008, Butler said, the initiative and its partners helped conserve Rio Oxbow Ranch, phase 1. According to Butler, an easement does not ensure public access.

"A grant application for a conservation easement along the Silver Thread is currently in process, Butler explained. There are different easement programs and she handed out a page to everyone describing the Rio Grande Initiative and the many issues involved. After consideration, the commissioners voted to donate $300 toward this project."

A while back Pat Mulroy the General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority was out in Washington D.C. pitching the use of Mississippi River high flows to recharge the Ogallala aquifer.

The idea seems to be catching on. Here's a report about a recent meeting of the Rio Grande Basin Roudtable where hay farmer Gary Hausler was talking about moving water from the Mississippi to the Front Range, from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:

Hausler proposed that Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska form a new interstate compact, the Central Plains Compact, that would run 1,200 miles of 22-inch diameter pipe from the Mississippi River at a point near Hickman, Kentucky, to Colorado at a point between Denver and Colorado Springs on Monument Hill. The pipeline would include laterals along the way to provide water to all of the states between the river and the Rockies. Hausler estimated the cost of the project at $22.5 billion including permits, rights of way (possibly through eminent domain), engineering and construction. He also estimated the project would span 30 years from idea to construction with about 10 years spent on forming the compact, another 10 years on permits and 10 years on the construction itself.

Hausler has a mining and heavy construction background in addition to a stint in corporate finance before becoming a hay farmer and rancher near Gunnison. He said his idea for a water pipeline was sparked by an Exxon presentation years ago, and he has been working on the idea in earnest for the last several years.

More coverage from the Gunnison Times (Michelle Burkhart):

While [Gary Hausler's] idea didn't originally pass many straight face tests, that has begun to change. Gunnison water expert John McClow, longtime attorney for the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (UGRWCD), believes the idea has merit. "It's a long range plan that has a lot of moving parts and many obstacles to overcome, but Colorado needs to find some long-range solutions to our water supply," he said. "The state demographer is predicting a large increase in population and our water resources are finite."[...]

Around 70 percent of the state's farms and ranches would need to be dried up to meet population demands by 2050 -- according to a Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) staff analysis -- unless new water is introduced to the state, McClow said. Rep. Kathleen Curry, from Gunnison, agrees the idea is legitimate. "I think it's gaining ground," she said. "I'm willing to look at it as a long-term solution, because I really think it would relieve pressure on our side of the divide." She said that people are realizing the water issues on Colorado's eastern slope are not solvable unless new water is introduced.

Hausler conceived the Mississippi diversion idea about eight years ago while at Union Park, northeast of Almont, he said. He was pondering a trans-mountain diversion that was proposed to take water from that area to the Front Range...

The state's projected gap between water supply and demand by 2050 has widened to approximately 700,000 acre-feet (af) per year, Hausler said, referencing a CWCB study. To fulfill this gap, the CWCB has looked at conservation, trans-mountain diversions and drying up a large portion of agriculture in the state. "But they have not looked outside the state," Hausler said. The Mississippi River, in the area of Hickman, Ky., has average annual flows that exceed 240 million af, he said. Colorado River's annual flow, in comparison, is approximately 15 million af. Hausler wants to divert 1 million af per year, which equates to less than .5 percent of the average flow in the Mississippi, he said...

Hausler's proposed route for the pipeline is 1,200 miles long with 7,000 feet of "total lift." Pumping the water would require an additional 1,600 megawatts of power, which is essentially the equivalent to the power generated at the Hoover Dam, Hausler said. Right-of-way issues would need to be accomplished through eminent domain and purchased at market rates, he advised. Hausler estimates that the total tab for the project would tally up to $22.5 billion, including permitting, land purchases, engineering and construction costs. That equates to $22,500 per af for water delivery...

"I think the beauty of (Hausler's) idea is that it brings in new water, but I don't know about its feasibility with its basin of origin -- how they would feel about it," Curry said. "I think they would have to get something out of it for them to consider it."

Hausler estimates it would take at least 30 years to complete the grand plan. During that time, the project could be financed by those who would benefit from the pipeline. For example, he said there are approximately 3 million active water customers on the eastern slope of Colorado. "If you charged an additional $8 a month to everyone's water bill, that's 300 million dollars," he said, explaining that that money could go towards debt service to borrow money...

Water guru and environmentalist Steve Glazer -- who "adamantly" opposes the idea because of its potential "severe environmental degradation and societal and economic impacts" -- said he believes the idea would take too long to complete. "It would take decades to accomplish, by then other alternatives will have been executed," he said -- surmising that water rationing or drying up agriculture would likely be implemented in the meantime.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

From the Steamboat Pilot & Today (Tom Ross): "'Colorado lost a legend on Friday -- a lover of life, a caretaker of our precious land and water, a tireless worker, a pioneer in the ski industry, a rancher, a devoted public servant, a loving father and grandfather, and one of the finest men I have ever met," Salazar said.

"Salazar, a San Luis Valley Democrat who represents Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, described Fetcher as a personal mentor who epitomized the phrase "the stuff that legends are made of.'"

"Jim Hall with the Colorado Division of Water Resources in Greeley will discuss administration of the South Platte in 2007 and 2008. He also will discuss the water supply from those years and current water supplies in the basin. Hall also will discuss future issues within the basin that may impact water. Several other speakers and topics will be covered throughout the day.

"The symposium will begin at 8 a.m. at Northeastern Junior College in Sterling. Cost is $20 prior to Feb. 27 and $40 after that date. Lunch is included."

Here's a look at the current stimulus package the the money picture for Colorado, from Peter Roper writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Udall and Bennet itemized the federal program money intended for Colorado in the Senate bill, which includes: $775 million to help with increasing Medicaid health insurance coverage; $426 million for highway construction; $487 million in state government "stabilization" aid; $126 million for public transportation; $66 million for water projects; $120 million for Title 1 low-income program funds for public schools; $48 million for weatherizing homes and businesses; and $24 million in Child Care and Development grants.