[synthesized notes from contemporary print media articles \u2013 living document]*<\/p>\n
Color Code Legend:<\/p>\n
BLUE = Water Authorities<\/span><\/span> * all notes are either verbatim quotes or close reductions of reporters original articles. Quotations are only used in reference to subjects interviewed by reporters or white paper \u201csound bytes\u201d that we intend to use in our research publications<\/p>\n \u201cWater plan recycles new idea (Bruce Finley), The <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post, <\/strong>October 5, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n (the cooperative deal maximizes resources and eases aquifer use)<\/p>\n Front Range water authorities have \u201cfloated\u201d a deal to wean the south metro suburbs (SMS) off dwindling aquifers with billions of gallons of \u201cpainstaking purified surface water.\u201d The first of its kind in the nation, the deal would pay Denver and Aurora Water utilities $17.4mm per year and allow water agencies to share resources without merging and sustain more water users without diverting more water from \u201cover-subscribed\u201d Western Slope rivers. Praised by environmentalists and state leaders, this type of water-sharing agreement is a critical first step towards a sustainable water management policy in the state. (Plan is not without critics \u2013 see sum<\/span>mary<\/span> of article entitled \u201cColorado Rivers are big losers at the end of this sum<\/span>mary<\/span> of contemporary articles) <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Denver and Aurora would funnel as much as 1.6bn gallons of \u201cpurified (treated)\u201d water to the SMS by 2013, increasing to as much as 3.2bn gallons by 2020. Engineers say improved infrastructure (pipelines & hook-ups) could eventually supply as much as 19.5bn gallons (60,000 acre-feet) to the SMS.<\/span><\/p>\n Denver and Aurora Water and 13 participating suburbs would have to \u201creplumb\u201d before the first \u201cpurified\u201d water could be delivered, which could lead to increased costs for residents of Castle Rock, Parker, and other communities who already need more than the maximum amount of water deliverable under current agreements (Peak Water). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n For about five (5) years Denver, Aurora Water, and the South Metro Water Supply Authority<\/span> have been hashing out the proposed agreement, and the SMS must now decide whether to approve the agreement, which was submitted on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. We\u2019re talking about an \u201cincremental step\u201d according to Aurora Water<\/span> director Mark Pifher<\/span>, this could evolve further. Money from the SMS would help to pay down the $532mn Aurora owes for building \u201cstate-of-the-art\u201d water treatment system. Denver Water planning director Dave Little said his utility\u2019s 1.3mn customers would gain anew source of purified water from Aurora \u2013 extra protection from emergencies and droughts \u2013 and make it easier to comply with the new agreement with Western Slope communities (Colorado River Cooperative Agreement) that limits Denver\u2019s ability to divert more water from Colorado rivers.<\/span><\/p>\n The proposed \u201cWater Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency (WISE)\u201d agreement would use water drawn from the South Platte River just downstream from where Denver\u2019s treated wastewater flows back into the Platte. That water would be piped 34 miles through Aurora\u2019s $653mn Prairie Water Systems. To a purification plant north of Aurora Reservoir. The replumbing would include a $412K hookup between Aurora and a East Cherry Creek Valley (ECCV) pipeline and storage of water at Parker\u2019s new Rueter-Hess Reservoir. To receive water, SMS would have to install additional pipelines to \u201chook-up\u201d at a cost of $80mn and would have to agree to stop diverting water from Colorado\u2019s Western Slope.<\/span><\/p>\n (<\/span>TEAM<\/span> \u2013 SMS are still looking into Million\u2019s pipeline project, but said if the WISE project help them to meet their demand that Million\u2019s RWSP may not make sense)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cElbert Freezes Water-District Plans (Karen E. Crummy),\u201d <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post <\/strong>September 15, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Elbert County commissioners (3 member board) approved a one-year moratorium (2 to 1)<\/span><\/p>\n on reviewing any new or amended plans from districts seeking to provide water services in response to the Elbert County Water District (ECWD) seeking to expand its power statewide – The ECWD suddenly withdrew its request for expanded powers. The Elbert Highway 86 Commercial Metropolitan District and a private company has proposed a 150 mile pipeline from Lamar to Elbert. The plan included exporting water from the County (Elbert) from the County\u2019s underground aquifers to other counties and angered County residents.<\/p>\n \u201cWater Pipeline Under Review (Bruce Finley),\u201d <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post <\/strong>September 15, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Colorado water authorities (?) trying to prevent projected shortages have resolved to look further into a proposed multi-billion dollar \u201cFlaming Gorge Pipeline Concept (FGPC)\u201d to import water from Wyoming. A private developer (Aaron Million of Ft. Collins) has proposed the 570 mile pipeline to move water from the Upper Colorado River Basin to expanding Front Range suburbs has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to build the pipeline. A new poll shows that Wyoming residents heavily oppose (79%) the pipeline.<\/span><\/p>\n The <\/span>Colorado<\/span> Water Conservation Board (CWCB) \u2013<\/span> charged with protecting and developing water resources for the state – voted unanimously to fund a $72K (6 month) study to explore legal, cost, and environmental aspects of the FGPC plan plus an additional $100K more if the first study finds the project to be promising. A previous CWCB commissioned study estimated that the pipeline would cost $9bn and would make the delivered water the most expensive in Colorado history. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cA new water supply is needed to alleviate environmental issues on our rivers and protect our agricultural base, and, otherwise, we would be letting California and Arizona benefit because the Colorado River System has always been over-delivering to those lower basin states. This isn\u2019t about the upper basin states \u2013 Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico \u2013 versus California and Arizona. We need to use the water resources we\u2019ve been allocated under the \u201cInterstate Compact.\u201d — Aaron Million, Ft Collins entrepreneur and developer of the \u201cFlaming Gorge Reservoir on Green River.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Water to vote on rate hikes (Karen E. Crummy),\u201d <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post, <\/strong>September 15, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Denver Water is looking to vote on a 5.5% rate hike in October to pay for infrastructure repairs and improvements. If approved, rates will increase for the 21st year in a row. Last year the rate went up 5%. Mark Wagge (DW) said that Suburban customers pay more \u2013 WHY?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (RT \u2013 graph DW\u2019s rate hikes over last 25\/50 years to correlate to metropolitan growth) <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cGreen with envy over brown (Juan Carlos Lioerea),\u201d Associated Press), August 8, 2011<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cEl Paso<\/strong> (<\/strong>Texas<\/strong>) decades of water saving gives it a lush future amid drought.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n For decades El Paso (West Texas) defined the look of most desert communities with neighborhoods with lush green lawns and residents freely running sprinklers. A 1979 study showed how close the city was to a crisis (Peak Water Event \u2013 Project Team)<\/span> at its then present rate of consumption. The city would run out of water in 36 years. The city took drastic action over the next couple of decades to stabilize its water supply, undergoing a philosophical (Cultural \u2013 Project Team) <\/span>and physical face-lift that involved ripping up grass from many public places, installing rock and cacti, and offering financial incentives for residents to do the same. <\/span><\/p>\n Today, El Paso is among the few cities in the drought-stricken state not worrying about water \u2013 civic leaders attribute this to a conservation plan. But even in El Paso, the changes have been a tough sell. In school, when they told us to draw a house, you would draw a house that had grass said Fred Fierro (75) who wakes up early to water his turf. The Fierros moved into their home in the Cielo Vista neighborhood and fell in love with the grass, but now its (neighborhood) is all rocks said Fred\u2019s wife Soledad. <\/span><\/p>\n Over the past 20 years El Paso has paid its residents a combined $11 million – $1\/Square Foot \u2013 to remove their grass and replace it with gravel, concrete, or desert plants (DS \u2013 ask Martha to help us identify a Colorado landscape architect that we can interview as an SME about desert plant options in Colorado)<\/span>. The city has permanent restrictions on watering days and reduced water consumption by offering special showerheads and rebates for water-efficient toilets. The conservation plan helped the city avoid a water crisis that other towns across West Texas now face. The city averages less than 10 inches of rain annually (What\u2019s average rainfall for Front Range Cities?)<\/span>. The city\u2019s \u201cHueco Bolso\u201d aquifer (city\u2019s main water source) has stabilized since the plan was implemented in 1991 and according to the El Paso water utility, the city will have a steady water source for the next century. The city\u2019s annual consumption has dropped by 1.6% since 1990 while its population has increased by 36%. The El Paso utility claims that the city saved more than $460 million that would have been needed for more pumping and treatment plants to accommodate higher water useage.<\/span><\/p>\n Team \u2013 Western States (horizontal growth patterns) versus Easterm\/Coastal metropolises (vertical growth pattern). Do Western cities have unique, higher water distribution costs over their higher-density urban counter-parts in that water needs to be distributed over greater distances while higher-density cities distribute vertically requiring higher pressures. That is , is there a cost differential between the two city profiles (Check with hydrologist Rick Hirsch).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>Israel<\/strong>\u2019s water plan creates a stir (Ben Edwards),\u201d Bloomberg News, <\/strong>August, 16, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n (Big name investors get behind developments aimed to save energy and treat sewage)<\/p>\n Israel\u2019s water industry is attracting funds from GE and Conoco Phillips (Conoco Phillips is developing or has developed it\u2019s international R&D and training facility in Louisville, and we should make some effort to contact them given their Colorado presence and find out what they are doing relative to energy saving technology, water purification research, etc.) <\/span>to develop energy saving technology to treat sewage as part of a $5bn program to clean up water supplies by 2016. Emefcy, Ltd. is building a \u201cfuel cell\u201d that uses bacteria to break-down waste in water, and has raised more than $10mm from investors including GE, NRG Energy, and Conoco Phillips. Emercy CEO Eytan Levy<\/span> thinks the industry will grow to $100mm by 2017. <\/span><\/p>\n The bacteria project is a small part of Israel\u2019s effort to alleviate a water shortage (Peak-Water Event) <\/span>without straining limited energy supplies. The Country\u2019s dry climate and lack of desalinization capacity has put it at the forefront of a global increase in water scarcity, which the UN says will extend to 30 countries by 2025, a gain of more than 50% from 1990.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWater Power added to plan (Bruce Finely),\u201d <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post <\/strong>June 27, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n (Colorado<\/strong> officials review a 560 mile pipeline that has both kinks and rivals)<\/strong><\/p>\n The architect (Aaron Million) of a plan to pipe water 560 miles from southwest Wyoming to Colorado\u2019s booming Front Range is expanding his vision to encompass hydo-power ($3bn project). (We need to pin down cost. Is this just for the power or does it include pipeline too? CWCB study estimated total project cost (?) at $9bn). <\/span>Skepticism, environmental issues, and uncertainty surround the project. A south-metro group is simultaneously pursuing a rival effort to sustain future growth through a proposed diversion project from the Green River fed Flaming Gorger in Wyoming before the water flows into the heavily subscribed Colorado River Basin. This effort is being led by the South Metro Water Supply Authority led by <\/span>Frank Jaeger<\/span> (SMWSA board member) who heads the Parker Water & Sanitation District<\/span> . (Team – We see a trend whereby the individual municipal and county water authorities join forces to pursue water supply acquisition efforts \u2013 strength in numbers\/jockeying for control. Also, what are the legal differences in obtaining approvals between piping water from the Flaming Gorge (Million\u2019s plan) and diverting water flows before they enter the Colorado River Basin (Jaeger\u2019s Plan)?)<\/span> <\/span>Colorado government officials have called for a \u201cstakeholder dialogue\u201d to explore the overall concept more carefully. \u201cNew supply is certainly one of the legs of the stool\u201d for meeting the state\u2019s water needs said John Stulp, Governor Hickenlooper\u2019s senior water advisor. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Aaron Miller<\/span> said, \u201cwhen we started the project nobody had ever considered the Flaming Gorge options \u2026 we\u2019ll do everything we can to facilitate discussions. Million Conservation Resources Group (MCRG), <\/span>founded by Aaron Million says he has received offers of several 100 millions of dollars of equity capital in support of the project, and that he wants to assist state municipalities and the agricultural industry sector by generating new sources of water for Colorado. He also believes that by moving water he could help to generate electricity for the nation\u2019s power grid. He has asked the Army Corp of Engineers to \u201csuspend\u201d their work on environmental review (which they have agreed to do until July 5, 2011) of the project initiated by the agency (Rena Brand, Army Corp of Engineers) <\/span>. He wants to pursue \u201cpermitting\u201d of the project through the Federal Regulatory Commission instead because it\u2019s (FRC) is more \u201cstructured.\u201d (<\/span>TEAM<\/span> – Is this true? If so, why? So he could meet the 2.5 year permitting time table? Seems that one recommendation in our paper could be to find ways to \u201cstreamline approval process that involve multiple levels of government and bureaucratic regulatory agencies \u2013 can we find a graphic flow chart that explains process for reservoir and pipeline approval process and timeline?).<\/span> <\/span>Million said that elevation changes between Wyoming and Colorado enable generation of 70 megawatts of power that could be increased to 500 to 1,000 megwatts. (Cadillac Desert \u2013 elevation changes worked for LA allowing them to build a 250 aqueduct from the Otis River Basin in the 1940\u2019s?). <\/span>Opponents, (Boulder<\/span> based Western Resource Advocates – WRA)<\/span> to Million\u2019s plan have raised concerns that proposals to divert 250K acre-feet (by comparison, Cherry Creek Reservoir is about 900 acre-feet)<\/span> would hurt fish and other aquatic life in the upper river basin (we need to contact Trout Unlimited and Colorado Division of Wildlife for specific SME input). <\/span>As an entire pipeline, the project would be a \u201cnet\u201d consumer of energy because diverted water would have to be pumped across the Continental Divide, said Stacy Tellinghuisen of the WRA. <\/span>(we need to check back with Rich Hirsh \u2013 SME Hydrologist to confirm this assumption). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Million said further that \u201ccollaboration on a project like this is critical\u201d (<\/span>TEAM<\/span> – because political power struggles to control water and the amount of money involved in these projects is overwhelming) <\/span>And both the Parker Water & Sanitation District and the South Metro Water Group has been meeting with municipal authorities in Wyoming and Colorado in their competitive effort to get their diversion concept plan approved. Among major water providers, Northern Water Conservation District Mangers (<\/span>TEAM<\/span> – I\u2019ve noticed that all these special interest stakeholder groups pick really attractive names for their organizations like \u201cConservation,\u201d but that\u2019s not really what they are about \u2013 it\u2019s always about their own agenda and serving their constituency. How can politics be overcome for the \u201cgreater and balanced good?\u201d What is the greater and balanced good when it comes to <\/span>Colorado<\/span> and <\/span>Front Range<\/span> water Management? \u201cYou can\u2019t always get what you want, but if you try some time, you get what you need\u201d)<\/span> <\/span>A delayed state study intended to find out how much water may be available for diversion (from where?) <\/span>under the \u201cInterstate Compact\u201d that governs use of the Colorado River, California, Utah, and Nevada count on it. Strikingly, current estimates for Colorado\u2019s unused allocation range from zero to 800,000 acre-feet. (<\/span>TEAM<\/span> – how much you want to bet that the zero estimate comes from the environmental stakeholder analysis and the 800K estimate comes from Million\u2019s group analysis?) <\/span>Million\u2019s closing quote in the article is, \u201cthe reality is that we\u2019ve over-delivered to the lower basin since 1922 (what\u2019s <\/span>Cadillac<\/span>Desert<\/span> have to say about this \u2013 \u201cInterstate Compact\u201d agreement?) <\/span>Those surplus waters that actually belong to the upper basin have been used to generate economic development in the lower-basin states.\u201d (<\/span>TEAM<\/span> \u2013 as a side note to economic development, all high-tech chip development and telcom hotels require massive \u201ccooling\u201d and water is a significant component of cooling. Therefore, without water, it would seem that significant high-tech production and data facilities cannot be \u201cgrown\u201d in <\/span>Colorado<\/span> (<\/span>Boulder<\/span> corridor and Ft Collins) without more water. What are the economic development implications if we can\u2019t source or recycle more water?) <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (<\/span>TEAM<\/span>– as much as I\u2019m loath to say it, but should the Governor\u2019s office and state legislature create a single authority with legal powers to consolidate these individual water authorities and sort out concept plans as one single voice at state levels or allow the free market to competitively negotiate solutions on their own? What does history tell us about this via <\/span>Cadillac<\/span>Desert<\/span>?). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Briefs (<\/strong>Washington<\/strong>), No Source Quoted (WH Press Release?), <\/strong>June 29, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Obama administration officials defended their plan for studying how drinking water may be affected by the hydraulic fracturing process used to extract natural gas from underground rock formations. The EPA\u2019s congressionally mandated probe is set to conclude with a final report in 2014 and an interim one at the end of 2012. John Deutch (MIT Professor) heading the Energy Dept. Task Force studying natural gas drilling <\/span>said that the EPA is taking too long. EPA officials said they were examining ways to speed up the process, but insist it would be impossible to move more quickly to wrap up such a study. (RT \u2013 in engineering there is a concept known as \u201cDesign-build or Build Design,\u201d Kewit Construction used it in the I-25 highway expansion under former Governor Bill Owens to accelerate the construction project \u2013 they actually designed the project as they were building it. Could this concept play into paper recommendation to streamline and compress these approval and development timeline hurdles. Water solutions simply appear to take too long and be thwarted by fragmented political stakeholder disputes and may cause solutions to be developed too late \u2013 Peak Water)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPlanes, cold clouds can trigger rain, snow (<\/strong>Randolph<\/strong> <\/strong>E. Schmid<\/strong>),\u201d Associated Press, <\/strong>July 1, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Airiplanes flying through super-cooled clouds around airports can cause condensation that results in more snow and rain nearby, according to a new study. The current conditions for this study occur about 5% of the time \u2013 but 10% to 15% of the time in winter according to Andrew Heymsfield of the <\/span>National<\/span>Center<\/span> for Atmospheric Research in <\/span>Boulder<\/span>, <\/span>the lead author of the story, which appeared in a recent edition of the Journal of Science. (<\/span>TEAM<\/span> \u2013 implications for improving \u201ccloud seeding\u201d to increase rainfalls?)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWater Pipeline still on tap (Karen E. Crummy),\u201d <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post, <\/strong>July 28, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Elbert County plan put off to allow public meetings. County resident\u2019s concern focuses on lack of info on project and \u201cfear\u201d that the district intends to use water for oil & gas companies that use millions of gallons of water for exploration.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWater Rights ruling upheld (Bruce Finely),\u201d <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post, <\/strong>June 1, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n (State Supreme Court sets limits on transfer of water use from farmers to suburbs)<\/p>\n Colorado\u2019s Supreme Court upheld a state water court\u2019s ruling limiting the amount of water that the East Cherry Creek Valley Water Authority & Sanitation District (ECCVWA) can deliver from the South Platte River Drainage to the southeast Denver suburbs. The case reflects increasing scrutiny \u2013 driven by scarcity and increasing water prices \u2013 given to deals that transfer ownership of water rights from farmers to the expanding suburbs. The ruling (Judge Gregory J. Hobbs) emphasized that agricultural water rights purchased by suburban water providers must be limited to the \u201c200 feet\/second\u201d historically diverted from the South Platte River and used for irrigation above Barr Lake. The suburbs are applying in water court (<\/span>Colorado<\/span> has a specific water court? Research further; identify water SME at Sturm) <\/span>to \u201cconvert\u201d agricultural water to \u201cmunicipal use designation\u201d must show that their use of water will not hurt other users\u2019 water rights.<\/span><\/p>\n Once a water provider acquires water from farmers, the utility \u201cruns a real risk of re-quantification of water right based on historic use (Hobbs).\u201d Hobbs case arose from a 2003 deal between ECCV, the <\/span>Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Company<\/span>, Henrylynn Irrigation District<\/span>under a deal where United was to acquire agricultural water from Burlington and Frisco and then petition the court to convert it for municipal use by the ECCV\u2019s suburban clients. The ECCV planned to move as much as 6,000 acre feet\/year through a 31 mile pipeline it built to move the water. The decision limited its use of 6,000 acre feet by 800 acre feet\/year. Sources at the ECCV would have liked to have seen a better (more favorable decision).<\/span><\/p>\n The case consolidated several disputes and resolved an appeal that followed the trial in 2008. The \u201cstate water court\u201d sharply reduced the \u201chistorical consumptive use\u201d used to calculate the amount of previously agricultural water that the municipalities can use (this appears to be a landmark ruling that will significantly impact such agriculture conversions of water use moving forward, and we need to identify an SME at Sturm for a better understanding of this legal precedent). <\/span>Transfers of agricultural water rights \u2013 dating back 150 years \u2013 are the \u201cprimary way\u201d growing cities acquire water, said University of Colorado (CU) Law School professor David Getches, \u201cold decrees were imprecise; measurement was imprecise . As the value of water increases, the challenge of finding just how much a person\u2019s or districts water right in the past may have been is more difficult. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWater Project Backed,\u201d The <\/strong>Denver<\/strong> Post (Bruce Finely), <\/strong>August 13, 2011<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n (The plan to divert treated wastewater from <\/strong>
\nPINK = Subject Matter Experts (SME)<\/span>
\nORANGE = Water Agreements<\/span>
\nGREEN = Special Interests<\/span>
\nRED = Team Notes<\/span>
\nPURPLE = Team Key Paper Concepts<\/span><\/p>\n