Pblo WW park and Proposed AVC - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2012   #1
 
Loveland, Colorado
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Pblo WW park and Proposed AVC

Hey all,

We're doing a series of public hearings this week on the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit that would take drinking water from Pueblo Reservoir all the way out to Lamar, Colo. and surrounding communities. I thought this forum might be interested because one of the alternatives for the pipeline could be a river intake just downstream of the white water park in Pueblo.

We've released a draft Environmental Impact Statement and have a public comment period open until October 30, 2012. Everything is up on our website if you're interested in learning more:

Reclamation: Arkansas Valley Conduit Long-Term Excess Capacity Master Contract Environmental Impact Statement

Contact information for submitting public comments is included there, too.

Best,
Kara

__________________
Kara Lamb
Public Information
Eastern Colorado Office
Bureau of Reclamation
klamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-27-2012   #2
 
GoodTimes's Avatar
 
Eagle, Idaho
Paddling Since: '78
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 795
Hi Kara, thanks for posting this...very interesting.

As a Pueblo native I'm always interested in CO. water "issues". I'm wondering why water needs to be taken from the Pueblo Res. to serve Lamar communities?? Doesn't it already serve Lamar via the Arkansas flowing directly through town and John Martin Res. just west???

Why wouldn't a system be set up to either 1. Release more water from Pueblo to flow down stream to Lamar....2. Set up a system to draw from John Martin?

Is John Martin drying up???

Just seems strange to me considering the river flows directly through Lamar.

Edit: Okay, I read the executive summary...they're on wells....understandably want cleaner water. But still, could John Martin not satisfy this need? The water from the Pueblo res. flows our there anyway...why a new conduit?
GoodTimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012   #3
SarahofTheWaves
 
FoCo,NoCo, Colorado
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 325
GT,
Sounds like Lamar wants household water, not ag water. By the time the water gets to Lamar, it is probably full of some unhealthy and expensive to remove ag runoff/return. That probably also means more ag land going to houses. Dunno, just guessing.
S
sarahkonamojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-27-2012   #4
don't bogart that
 
rpludwig's Avatar
 
Frosted Flakes N of Baytuckey, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2005
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 185
Bigger issue

More water is always better, but when will Colorado Springs do the improvements to their combined waste water plants and quit polluting the Fountain river that then in turns pollutes the Arkansas. Front range growth without proper sewers has polluted most of the rivers that flow from our state. The larger the municipality the more weight to get away with breaching effluent limits back to our rivers. Smaller communities down stream have no choice but to find some way to get around the Fountain's noxious stream of pharmaceuticals and human waste.
rpludwig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012   #5
don't bogart that
 
rpludwig's Avatar
 
Frosted Flakes N of Baytuckey, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2005
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 185
Water pollution

Lawsuits pushed Colorado Springs to take action - Pueblo Chieftain: Ideas
rpludwig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012   #6
 
Evergreen, Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpludwig View Post
Front range growth without proper sewers has polluted most of the rivers that flow from our state.
In the case of the Arkansas, while I'd agree Colorado Springs Utilities contributes some, I think ag is a more likely cause for things like salts and selenium, which is the major issue that this EIS is trying to address. According to several pro environmental groups
Quote:
Excess irrigation and canal seepage in the basin dissolves native salts and selenium in the soils and transports these to the Arkansas River in significant quantities.
and
Quote:
Between 2002 and 2005, annual salt loading to the Arkansas River in Colorado from subsurface return flows averaged about 396 pounds per acre per mile along the river upstream of John Martin Reservoir in the vicinity of Rocky Ford and La Junta. Both quotes from http://www.westernresourceadvocates....RK-AgUrban.pdf

This would explain why these entities are seeking water from a source higher up in the basin, before it has been effected by agricultural return flows. After reading the Executive summary, they don't mention any positive recreational impacts for the diversion below the play park option. In fact they believe that
Quote:
The River South Alternative would slightly increase target flow occurrences. The predicted change in number of days streamflow would be at the preferred volume for boating and fishing for all alternatives would
be unlikely to measurably change amount of recreation use or experience quality.
That seems reasonable to me because they are only moving 10,000 ac-ft per year or ~14 cfs more water in the river. Well, that was a good way to waste an hour at work. Thanks Guys!
gwheyduke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012   #7
 
Loveland, Colorado
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
proposed AVC

Hi all,
Most of what I was going to say has already been covered. So, I'll be quick in my response:

Yes, the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project does deliver water diverted from the West Slope and stored in Pueblo Reservoir on downstream via the Arkansas River, just as has been described. As has also been described by previous posters, there are several water quality concerns. And, Sara was right that this water will be for municipal use.

What you might not know is that the Arkansas Valley Conduit is an original feature of the Fry-Ark Project that was never built.

So, we'll see what happens with this process. There were two articles in the Pueblo Chieftain this morning about it, too, if you're looking for additional information to the website.

Best,
Kara
__________________
Kara Lamb
Public Information
Eastern Colorado Office
Bureau of Reclamation
klamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
ark

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
Another whitewater park proposed for Iowa? hannah Whitewater Kayaking 47 06-09-2011 02:48 PM
Calling on all buzzards..Need your help! Proposed WWP rainman29 Whitewater Kayaking 2 02-07-2011 09:36 PM
AVC and the Arkansas klamb Whitewater Kayaking 0 12-20-2010 02:53 PM
Proposed Remodling of the Eagle River WhiteLightning Whitewater Kayaking 1 05-02-2006 12:29 PM
Avon Proposed WW Park Update WhiteLightning Whitewater Kayaking 0 12-27-2005 09:41 AM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.