Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-01-2009   #11
caspermike's Avatar
Bozeman, Montana
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,507

check out section 1953 page 207 not good for the colorado river.

caspermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2009   #12
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2004
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
Originally Posted by RDNEK View Post
SO how is 195 MILLION more to take water out of the ark at Otero (above the numbers) a good thing???

This bill will = less water in the ark and roaring fork rivers and more water for the front range... At least read these things!!!

Maybe all the money Denver water's is putting into its great marketing effort gets the rangers believe there is more water in the ark... When this bill will = more water taken out of not only the Ark but will also = less water in the roaring fork...

Funny how twisted these bills get and how little most people put into understanding them...
Just took a look at the bill and did some digging. Christian, you didn't read all 1248 pages? Did you REDNEK? I doubt it. I didn't read it all either, but the did some selective searching.

As for NEK's assertion that there will be more water taken out at Otero, I could not find Otero listed once in the entire document. I'm gonna call bullshit on that one, unless NEK can provide a reference. The PDF has a search function, to facilitate looking things up. Otero was constructed in 1967 and has 161 cfs of pump capacity, and there is no mention in the entire bill of changing anything at otero, and the bill doesn't have the jurisdiction to change water law and allocations.

What the bill does call for is federal help constucting the arkansas valley conduit. This feature would tap into pueblo res, and transport water from pueblo res to downstream rural communities along the ark (ie Lamar). The $195 MM NEK quotes sounds like the feds committment to fund 65% of a $300 MM ark valley conduit project.

A quick search on the ark valley conduit reveals that the project was approved in the original fry-ark project way back when, but never constructed. It was not constructed becuase the rural communities it would serve could not afford to build it, or the pay back terms in the original legislation.

It should be noted that downstream communities already have water rights to a small portion of the water in pueblo res, they just haven't been exercising their rights to it, mainly due to cost. Federal safe drinking water laws have apparently made it hard for rural towns to comply with the new requirements since the wells that they get their water from have higher than allowed concentrations of impurities. The ark valley conduit would be a way to transport clean water to rural communities, which total 68,000 people along the ark river downstream of pueblo.

Even through NEK takes every chance he gets to take a pot shot at Denver or Denver water, this legislation has no connection to Denver water. Sorry NEK, start another thread to whine about Denver.

As I looked through the bill I saw A LOT of good stuff. This bill is the largest increase in wilderness protection and wild and scenic river protection in a long time. It gives wilderness protection to RMNP and also protects land in the escalante / dominguez area, which is of course a favorite of colorado boaters... very cool. This list of good stuff goes on an on, hundreds of pages of it.

I read through the section of the bill of the arkansas valley conduit, and its a bunch of mumbo jumbo that seems to relate to how the project will get funded. Since there is nothing about otero in it, I don't see how it could relate to any less water in the ark in any fashion.

Also, capermikes comment about the grand ditch section being bad for the colorado is misleading. All that section does is allow water supply CO to continue to operate the grand ditch even though they made a bunch of RMNP wilderness. The grand ditch feeds long draw reservior, which is the key to late season big south runs. This is one of those instances where boaters have some benefit from water systems. I'll gladly take the late season big south runs, when lots of other stuff is starting to run dry. This doesn't change the colorado, but just keeps things the same from that perspective.

All in all, I think its a good thing.

Here is a link to a brief summary of some colorado impacts...

President Obama signs public lands bill which includes Arkansas Valley Conduit authorization Coyote Gulch

deepsouthpaddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2009   #13
The next zone, .
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,200
Originally Posted by xkayaker13 View Post
Legislation was passed yesterday that will increase protection to wilderness areas and rivers, parts of which pertain directly to areas in Colorado such as the Arkansas River. It's doesn't incorporate the most drastic changes in protection, but I thought I would pass along the good news. (please don't turn this into a whining political thread)
Ok I just back from ridin a couple of feet of blower so I am in a better mood ... I will never claim to know all the goings on of the water in the ditch but here is my take..

Xyacker since you brought up how good this was for directly the ark I just thought I would throw out one random person's opinion... I would have liked to see them not fund the fry ark project and make browns a wilderness area but guess that is just my opinion... This bill is good for many areas and rivers in the nation but I am not sure that it helps the Arkansas river in any way.. That is why I responed to your thead about how good this is for the Arkansas or Fryingpan drainages..

South you are right it is not the otero project it is called the fryingpan Arkansas project (fry-ark project).. Otero is part of the fry ark project.. Below links will explain how it was supposed to work... Now none or almost no "program water" goes down the ark all is moved over the hill with the help of the otero pump station. Read up stream and down stream transfers below.. It is good for us creekers that love high flows on Lake Creek but the "program water" does not increase flows anywhere but up on lake.. At one time they said flows on the ark would go up but then again they say plenty.........

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project (Under Construction) is the govt site..

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is another..

The denver post article = easiest to explain how the 195 million is going to fund the frying pan arkansas project link.... Look at the the colorado works projects funded....

Bill saves 2 million U.S. acres as wild - The Denver Post

Now they have been workin on the otero station and pipes that carry water over to the front range over the past 4-6 years... It is a fact that this increased the capacity of the Otero pump station in the past 4-6 years... So they can take more water out now than say 5 years ago.. I dont have the #'s in front of me but some where close to double the capacity of before or 5-6 years ago... It is fair to say that there is more water goin through that tunnel (entire fry-ark project) than ever.. Just look at what they moved last year and what they plan to move this year!!! It is also fair to say that more water than ever will be goin through the tunnels and you are kiddin yourself if you dont think the extra 195 million helps make sure more and more and more water is gettin moved.

Then came what no one asked about... Up stream or depending on how you look at it down stream transfers.. Or for example (real names have been changed to protect the guilty) if aruroa makes a deal with pubelo to buy some good old h20 out of pubelo res.. Well with no pipeline from pubelo res to aurora all the water they just purchased comes out at Otero (does not go down the river)... This is real - it happens every year on the ark and = less water in the ditch.. It is also true that some front range water intrests push to have more of thes transfers approved each year..

Also you are right south I do not trust denver or I should say front ranger water and I never will... Seen too many lies come out of front range water intrests to think any other way.. Or I should say any front range water intrests that are continually lookin for ways to get more flowin river water in pipes and over to the front range.. You are also right it would take another thread to even start to explain how the front range water (Denver to pubelo) has used any means at their disposal to gain the water it needs from the west slope..

This will not change.. Just IMO but if you are a boater that likes to boat on water in the Arkansas river it is hard to defend the front range water interests. Falt me if you like for it but I would rather see the water in the river (Ark or fryingpan) than in pipes goin over to any town on the front range..

So from where I sit the 195 million does exist and will no doubt in the real world = less water in the Ark...

Jahve is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
best dust protection - DUCKBILL lowwilliam Kayaking | Gear Talk 0 06-09-2006 02:36 AM
Overthruster as implosion Protection PARKER Kayaking | Gear Talk 0 05-31-2005 05:11 AM
Confluence and Eye Protection waterboy Whitewater Kayaking 10 05-06-2005 10:39 AM
eye protection? tboner Kayaking | Gear Talk 2 04-27-2005 11:32 AM
Eye protection rasdoggy Whitewater Kayaking 1 04-25-2005 01:28 PM

» Classified Ads
Fiberglass Slalom boat

posted by Krynn

Glass Slalom Boat. Great edges. Fast boat. Snapdragon...

Demo Jackson Karma L

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Karma LG whitewater kayak - lightly used...

Wave Sport Ethos 10

posted by davidwsilver

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.