Arizona is sinking. The combination of groundwater pumping and warmer temperatures is shrinking aquifers and lowering water tables. And as the land subsides, fissures open, 2-mile wounds that devour infrastructure and swallow livestock. Four of Arizona’s five economic pillars — cattle, cotton, citrus and copper — use huge amounts of water, while the fifth, the state’s climate, is changing, making water scarcer. Development and growth are intensifying the problem, despite relief from state laws and the existence of the Central Arizona Project, which began delivering Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson in the 1980s.
Today, where subsidence is worst, groundwater pumping isn’t even monitored, and big agricultural and anti-regulatory ideologues try to stymie any efforts to keep tabs on how much water is being pumped. Big corporate farms are sprouting in areas without CAP water and virtually no regulation on groundwater pumping. More and more farms produce alfalfa, one of the thirstiest crops on Earth; the number of acres in hay production more than doubled between 1987 and 2017, and tonnage nearly tripled. Meanwhile, Arizona is getting even hotter.
That kind of heat, according to a recent study published in Nature Communications, strains groundwater reserves, too. The study “Evapotranspiration depletes groundwater under warming over the contiguous United States” found that warming also stresses plants, forcing them to suck up more groundwater and further lowering water tables. “These changes show that even the most moderate warming projection can shift groundwater surface water exchanges and lead to substantial and persistent storage losses,” the study notes, adding that with just 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) warming, the nation’s groundwater reservoirs collectively will lose about four times the total volume of Lake Powell over four years.
“Humans are short-circuiting the natural system.”
Warming stresses plants in the same way in the arid West, Laura Condon, an assistant professor of hydrology at the University of Arizona and one of the study’s authors, said. Since the water tables here are deeper, however, the effect on groundwater is less pronounced — at least under natural conditions. But when crops are stressed by warming, more groundwater pumping is needed. “Humans are short-circuiting the natural system,” Condon said.
In other words, Arizona is sinking, getting hotter and getting thirstier. Groundwater pumping is increasing, water tables are plummeting, and many rural residents are watching their wells go dry, according to a recent investigation by Rob O’Dell and Ian James for the Arizona Republic. Not long ago, the football field at western Arizona’s Salome High School was reduced to dust thanks to water restrictions at the groundwater-dependent town, which has a number of large corporate alfalfa farms nearby.
What does all this look like on the ground? The graphic shows one farming area and its subsidence zone, southwest of Salome.
Jonathan Thompson is a contributing editor at High Country News. He is the author of River of Lost Souls: The Science, Politics and Greed Behind the Gold King Mine Disaster. Email him at jonathan@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor.
Even before COVID-19 swept across Colorado and other states, concern over the cost of water had begun to rise.
Nearly 12 percent of American households lack access to affordable water, a number that is expected to triple in the next five years, according to a 2018 study from Michigan State University (MSU).
The good news: Western states are still able to provide relatively affordable water, but that could change as utilities try to recoup losses associated with the pandemic and begin to pay for the massive repairs and upgrades to their systems that were on the drawing board before COVID-19 struck.
Measuring affordability
In Colorado, newer infrastructure and conscious rate-setting has kept water largely affordable, as in most Western states. The MSU study found that less than 8 percent of Colorado’s census tracts were at “high risk” of an affordability crisis based on income, better than all but 12 other states. (“High risk” tracts were defined with a median income of less than $32,000, where rate increases would disproportionately affect ratepayers’ budgets.) Among the regions identified in the study as at risk were Denver, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Alamosa in the San Luis Valley.
Water systems built in the mid-century infrastructure boom or to comply with the Clean Water Act requirements of the 1970s are reaching the end of their useful life. That’s on top of the massive programs to replace lead and copper lines, the need to procure more water in drought-prone areas, and the cost of adapting infrastructure to cope with extreme weather from climate change.
According to the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), water rates have risen faster than inflation since 2002.
And for customers on fixed incomes, even small increases can make a huge difference for their budgets.
“When we think about affordability, we’re not concerned about whether it’s expensive for someone to water their lawn. We want to know that people can cook, shower, clean, flush their toilets…the basic necessities,” says Manny Teodoro, an associate professor in the political science department at Texas A&M University.
States are grouped by EPA region. Colorado is in EPA Region 8, where the average annual wastewater charge in 2018 was $289—less than other regions.
States are grouped by EPA region. Colorado is in EPA Region 8, where the average annual wastewater charge in 2018 was $289—less than other regions.
According to Denver Water spokesman Todd Hartman, most households the utility serves pay less than 1 percent of their income for water. Denver Water does not have specific numbers on how many households pay more than 1 percent for drinking water, Hartman says, but added that, “Socioeconomic conditions in the Denver Water service area compare favorably to U.S. averages and have continued to improve in recent years.”
But with costly repairs coming due, it will take a concerted effort to maintain high-quality infrastructure and deliver quality water, while keeping rates from ballooning in a way that disproportionately affects lower-income families.
In Colorado, drinking water infrastructure needs are estimated at more than $10 billion, according to the 2020 Colorado Infrastructure Report Card from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with a chunk of that cost going back to ratepayers. That’s prompted discussions about how to best fund those repairs—and how to make sure that no customer feels an unfair burden when utilities need more capital.
“The question of the [utility] bill has always been there, but it’s becoming more and more significant,” says Andrew Rheem, a senior manager with the Colorado-based consulting firm Raftelis, which has worked with utilities in Boulder, Greeley and Denver. “How it gets addressed is going to continue to evolve, but right now a lot of communities are just wondering how to find any solution.”
The cost of water
When water affordability enters the national conversation, it’s usually because of a crisis.
In 2014, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department took an extraordinary step: In order to recoup unpaid bills, it shut off running water to more than 30,000 low-income households who were behind on payments. As the utility worked to put customers on a payment plan and restore service, the action drew a rebuke from around the world; even the United Nations sent a delegation to the city and deemed it “contrary to human rights.”
Traditionally, governments and utilities, including Denver Water, determine affordability with the EPA calculation that compares water and wastewater bills to a region’s median household income (MHI). If drinking water doesn’t exceed 2.5 percent of MHI and wastewater doesn’t exceed 2 percent, they are considered affordable.
According to Texas A&M’s Teodoro, the working poor are paying roughly 10 percent of their income on water nationally. That number could rise if economic trends continue.
“In a lot of communities, things like rent and energy are going up faster than incomes are,” Teodoro says. “Both the numerator and the denominator are going in the wrong direction.”
Most of the pain, however, is likely to be felt in the American South, where incomes are lower and infrastructure is in more desperate need of repair. Cities in the Northeast, where pipes can date back to the early 1900s and the income gap is wider, are also in greater danger.
Elizabeth Mack, who authored the MSU study, says affordability is posed to be a “burgeoning crisis.” It already weighs on households that are struggling with high rents, energy bills and food costs, but could soon rise even more.
“You can start seeing problems affecting households we consider lower-middle income,” Mack says. “These households are already squeezed from a variety of perspectives. If incomes were going up a lot, this might not be an issue, but they’re just not.”
The crisis also breaks along color lines. In a 2019 report, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People found “a clear connection between racial residential segregation and black access to water systems,” including rising rates that disproportionately affected black neighborhoods.
The West, however, has largely avoided those problems. In Teodoro’s national analysis, he found that Western states had, on balance, more affordable rates than the rest of the country. NACWA’s annual Cost of Clean Water Index found that EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota) had the lowest average wastewater charge of any region, with a $289 annual average compared to the $504 national figure.
That’s in part because of less urgent infrastructure needs. Although much of Colorado’s water infrastructure dates back to at least the 1960s, it’s still in better shape than pipes and treatment plants in other parts of the country. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that Colorado needs $10.19 billion in drinking water infrastructure improvements over the next two decades, a huge bill but less than other states like Pennsylvania ($16.77 billion), Alabama ($11.26 billion), and Ohio ($13.41 billion).
Even areas where income levels could signal affordability challenges have kept water rates low. The San Luis Valley was a high-risk tract in Mack’s study, based on median income, but rates in the City of Alamosa are not a serious burden for residents. Heather Brooks, city manager for Alamosa, said the city has, if anything, kept rates too low to cover capital costs. A half-cent sales tax dedicated to water infrastructure has helped defray those costs.
Pueblo Water spokesman Joe Cervi likewise said that the utility has lowered costs by keeping a lean staff and planning ahead for major repairs. According to city data, the average bill for 11,000 gallons is $53.15, well below the Front Range average of $62.82.
A helping hand
Often, affordability can butt up against one of the biggest priorities for Colorado utilities: conservation. In 2014, Longmont Water decided to encourage conservation by charging customers based on use, rather than the lifeline rate that charged everyone the same amount for their first 2,000 gallons. There was concern, however, that the change could punish families who need lots of water to shower and cook, says Becky Doyle, a rate analyst and manager for the City of Longmont’s Department of Public Works and Natural Resources.
“A grandma who lives by herself can keep the water bill low, but that’s not the only kind of low-income household composition we need to be worrying about,” Doyle says. “Low-income households aren’t all low water users.”
Longmont already had a rebate program for fixed-income seniors, but extended that benefit to any household eligible for the Low-income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP). But, in a sign that water isn’t top of mind for many households, only two additional applicants signed up in the first year. Expanded outreach has garnered about 130 participants, but Doyle acknowledged that’s still not everyone.
Facing much-needed infrastructure repairs, other utilities across the state have sought to blunt the impact to customers with their own expanded assistance programs. Denver Water, for example, has some 140 projects planned for the next five years, which call for higher customer bills. After a rate increase in 2019 that added roughly 55 cents per month for urban customers (the increase was between $1.90 and $3.40 per month for suburban households), the board has approved another increase for 2020 that will add about a dollar more per month. (For suburban households, the increase will be between $1.15 and $1.36.)
The increases to the fixed monthly charge, which is associated with the meter size, are being done slowly to even out revenues year to year, and to limit the impact on the community, the utility says. Denver also uses a three-tiered charge and assesses indoor use, such as flushing toilets, cooking and bathing, at the lowest rate to reduce the burden on low-income families that, say, won’t pay for watering a lawn. The lowest rate is also measured during the winter, reflecting “essential, nondiscretionary usage,” Denver Water says.
Denver Water also offers assistance, like a one-time courtesy cancellation and payment extension for water shutoffs after delinquent payments and a pilot partnership with Mile High United Way to provide one-time bill relief and like other utilities has pledged to suspend shutoffs to help protect those who’ve lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic.
Elsewhere, utilities are exploring income-based structures that would ensure that the poorest families face the lowest cost burden. Philadelphia in 2017 rolled out a first-in-the-nation structure that charged lower rates for households at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty line, which some experts predicted would actually increase revenues by reducing missed or late payments. Baltimore, where some poor black residents have complained of triple-digit bills, has also debated a similar structure, and advocates are watching closely to see if the model could be expanded to more cities that are facing payment crises.
Is there a fix?
For utilities, providing service without raising rates would be easiest with an influx of federal funding. Washington has been talking about water infrastructure assistance, including through the proposed LIFT Act (Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s America Act), and under some of the COVID-19 relief measures, money may be provided to help utilities offset their infrastructure costs.
And all the while, drinking water standards and infrastructure costs will only pile up. That, says MSU’s Mack, means utilities need to start planning to avoid the worst impacts.
“We can’t say what’s going to happen, but there could be some big spikes in bills if all this deferred investment comes up at one time. The risk is when that gets to households that are already being squeezed,” she says.
An earlier version of this article appeared in the Spring 2020 issue of Headwaters magazine. This story was published by Fresh Water News on April 15, 2020.
Jason Plautz is a journalist based in Denver specializing in environmental policy. His writing has appeared in High Country News, Reveal, HuffPost, National Journal and Undark, among other outlets.
Fresh Water News is an independent, non-partisan news initiative of Water Education Colorado. WEco is funded by multiple donors. Our editorial policy and donor list can be viewed at wateredco.org.
Stagecoach Reservoir on the Yampa River, was part of a temporary water loan under the CWCB instream flow program. House Bill 20-1157, which aims to expand the program, is making its way through the legislature with broad support. Photo by Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
By Heather Sackett
A bill aimed at expanding Colorado’s instream-flow loan program is moving through the state legislature and has support from agricultural water users, Front Range water providers and environmental organizations, in contrast to last year when the bill ran into opposition.
House Bill 1157, which last week passed the House in a unanimous 60-0 vote, would allow water-rights holders to temporarily loan their water to the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s instream-flow program with the goal of improving the natural environment.
The bill expands the number of years from three to five (but for no more than three consecutive years) that a loan may be exercised within a 10-year period. The loan also may be renewed for two additional 10-year periods, meaning that holders of agricultural water rights could theoretically loan their water for the benefit of the environment for 15 of 30 years.
Environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Sierra Club and Conservation Colorado, support the legislation, and so do water-user organizations, including the Colorado Water Congress, Denver Water, Northern Water, and the Grand Valley Water Users Association.
HB 1157 is sponsored by Sen. Kerry Donovan (D-Vail) and District 26 Rep. Dylan Roberts (D-Avon), both of whom floated a similar bill last year. This year’s iteration gained the sponsorship of District 57 Rep. Perry Will (R-New Castle).
After the bill faltered in last year’s legislative session, Roberts knew he had some work to do before he brought it back to lawmakers, so he spent the summer and fall talking with the many interested parties about how to improve it.
“I represent Eagle and Routt counties, which are home to four major river systems, and I know how vital it is to the Roaring Fork Valley, the Eagle River Valley and the Yampa River Valley to have a really strong flowing river,” he said.
The Eagle, Colorado and Roaring Fork rivers flow through Eagle County, and the Yampa River flows through Routt County.
“Instream-flow loans allow people to loan the water back and help the river, while not losing their water rights,” Roberts said.
In the new bill, lawmakers added more protections for water-rights holders by increasing the window for people to appeal a loan. The legislation quadruples the comment period from 15 to 60 days so that those who feel they could be harmed by a loan of water have sufficient time to raise their concerns with the state engineer.
State Sen. Kerry Donovan, middle, speaks at the legislative session at Colorado Water Congress in January. Donovan and Rep. Dylan Roberts, right, along with Rep. Perry Will (not pictured) are sponsors of House Bill 20-1157, which would expand the state’s instream flow water loan program and allow agricultural water users to leave more water in the river to the benefit of the environment. Photo by Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Instream flow program
Colorado’s instream-flow program gives the CWCB the ability to hold water rights specifically for preserving the natural environment “to a reasonable degree” by keeping water flowing in the river. Since 1973, the CWCB has appropriated instream-flow rights on nearly 1,700 stream segments, covering more than 9,700 stream miles.
Instream water rights are administered under Colorado’s prior appropriation system. And, given that none of the instream rights were in place before 1973, most of them are junior to senior agricultural water rights. Those rights, which can date to the 1860s in Colorado, have a higher priority under the “first in time, first in right” doctrine.
Senior ag rights divert significant amounts of water from the state’s rivers and streams and can even dry up some reaches in drought years. However, the state’s instream-flow program does allow owners of such senior water rights not to use their rights for irrigation and instead leave their irrigation water in the river, on a temporary basis, to bolster low flows. And the new legislation expands that option.
The temporary loan program — where water-rights owners offer, in exchange for payment, to contribute their water to one of these segments with an existing instream-flow right — has only been used seven times since its creation in 2003. In Division 5, temporary water loans have occurred on Deep Creek, the Fraser River and the Colorado River.
CWCB officials estimate an additional two to four loans under the program over the next few years.
In past deals, irrigators have been paid for the loan of their water by the state, Trout Unlimited or the Colorado Water Trust.
According to CWCB Stream and Lake Protection section chief Linda Bassi, the loan program can help boost streams in late summer when flows are low, temperatures are high and fish are stressed.
“It’s a really helpful tool for instream flows that fall short,” she said. “It’s always good to have more tools to help preserve the environment.”
River District support
The bill has garnered the support of the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District, which helped shape the revamped 2020 bill with its input. The River District board voted unanimously to support the measure, according to Zane Kessler, director of government relations.
“Rep. Roberts went above and beyond to make sure the bill addressed the River District’s needs and provides meaningful protections to our constituents on the West Slope and agricultural water users across the state,” Kessler said.
Also, the legislation requires the CWCB to give preference to loans of water stored in reservoirs, when available, over agricultural and other water rights diverted directly from rivers and streams. This provision was included at the request of the River District.
Kirsten Kurath, attorney for the Grand Valley Water Users Association, said lawmakers worked with the association over the past year to improve the bill from 2019.
“I think, in general, that the bill is much more protective now of other water-rights users on the stream,” Kurath said.
The bill is now under consideration by the state Senate.
Aspen Journalism collaborates with The Aspen Times and other Swift Communications newspapers on coverage of water and rivers. This story ran in the Feb. 29 issue of The Aspen Times and the March 1 edition of Aspen Journalism.
Lake Powell would become home to a special 500,000 acre foot drought pool if Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico agree to save enough water to fill it. Credit: Creative Commons
If Colorado decides to join in an historic Colorado River drought protection effort, one that would require setting aside as much as 500,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Powell, can it find a fair way to get the work done? A way that won’t cripple farm economies and one which ensures Front Range cities bear their share of the burden?
That was one of the key questions more than 100 people, citizen volunteers and water managers, addressed last week as part of a two-day meeting in Denver to continue exploring whether the state should participate in the effort. The Lake Powell drought pool, authorized by Congress last year as part of the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, would help protect Coloradans if the Colorado River, at some point in the future, hits a crisis point, triggering mandatory cutbacks.
But finding ways to set aside that much water, the equivalent of what roughly 1 million people use in a year at home, is a complex proposition. The voluntary program, if created, would pay water users who agree to participate. And it would mean farmers fallowing fields in order to send their water downstream and cities convincing their customers to do with less water in order to do the same. The concept has been dubbed “demand management.”
Among the key issues discussed at the joint Interbasin Compact Committee and demand management work group confab last week is whether there is a truly equitable way to fill the drought pool that doesn’t disproportionately impact one region or sector in the state.
In addition, a majority of participants reported that they wanted any drought plan to include environmental analyses to ensure whichever methods are selected don’t harm streams and river habitat.
Some pointed to the need to identify “tipping points” when reduced water use would create harmful economic effects in any given community, and suggested that demand management be viewed as a shared responsibility.
Flipping the narrative of shared responsibility, participants said sharing benefits equally was important as well. They want to ensure that people selected to participate would do so on a time-limited basis, so that a wide variety of entities have the opportunity to benefit from the payments coming from what is likely to be a multi-million-dollar program.
“People are starting to get it,” said Russell George. George is a former lawmaker who helped create the 15-year-old public collaborative program which facilitates and helps negotiate issues that arise among Colorado’s eight major river basins and metro area via basin roundtables. He chairs the Interbasin Compact Committee, composed of delegates from those roundtables.
“It’s understood that we have to be fair about this and we have to share [the burden] or it won’t work. I think we’re making great progress,” George said.
The Colorado River is a major source of the state’s water, with all Western Slope and roughly half of Front Range water supplies derived from its flows.
But growing populations, chronic drought and climate change pose sharp risks to the river’s ability to sustain all who depend on it. The concept behind the drought pool is to help reduce the threat of future mandatory cutbacks to Colorado water users under the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact.
The public demand management study process, facilitated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, has caused concern among different user groups, including farmers. Because growers consume so much of the state’s water, they worry that they are the biggest target for water use reductions, which could directly harm their livelihoods if the program isn’t implemented carefully and on a temporary basis.
In early 2019 the seven states that comprise the Colorado River Basin—Arizona, California and Nevada in the Lower Basin, and Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming in the Upper Basin—agreed for the first time to a series of steps, known as the Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plan, to help stave off a crisis on the river.
Colorado River Basin. Credit: Chas Chamberlin
And while Lower Basin states have already begun cutting back water use in order to store more in Lake Mead, the four Upper Basin states are still studying how best to participate to shore up Lake Powell. For the drought pool program to move forward, all four states would need to agree and contribute to the pool. George pointed to Colorado as a leader among the four states, saying it would likely be responsible for contributing as much as 250,000 acre-feet to the pool.
“We appreciate the focus, dedication and collaboration of our work group members,” said CWCB Director Rebecca Mitchell in a statement. “This workshop was the next step in sharing ideas for Colorado’s water future, and positioning our state as a national leader for cooperative problem solving.”
The eight major volunteer work groups, addressing such topics as the law, the environment, agriculture and water administration, will continue meeting throughout the year, with a mid-point report based on their findings to date due out sometime this summer.
Travis Smith, a former CWCB board member from Del Norte who is now participating on the agriculture work group, said he is hopeful that the work groups will be able to come up with a plan the public will endorse. Any final plan will likely have to be approved by Colorado lawmakers.
“Coming together to address Colorado’s water future is something we’ve been practicing through the [nine river basin roundtables] for years. Will we get there? Absolutely,” Smith said.
Jerd Smith is editor of Fresh Water News. She can be reached at 720-398-6474, via email at jerd@wateredco.org or @jerd_smith.
Fresh Water News is an independent, non-partisan news initiative of Water Education Colorado. WEco is funded by multiple donors. Our editorial policy and donor list can be viewed at wateredco.org
The Pride of America Mine, long known as the Yule Quarry, as seen from the air in January. The marble quarry’s operators, Colorado Stone Quarries, are facing scrutiny related to a diesel spill and the temporary diversion of Yule Creek. Photo by Mike Stevens/Ecoflight
By Heather Sackett
MARBLE — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the operators of a local marble quarry violated the Clean Water Act when they diverted a tributary of the Crystal River to make way for a mining road.
In the fall of 2018, Colorado Stone Quarries, which operates the famed Yule Quarry just outside the town of Marble, diverted Yule Creek from its natural channel — located on the west side of Franklin Ridge, a rock outcropping — to the east side of the ridge. Operators piled the original streambed with fill material, including marble blocks.
Although this move probably spared Yule Creek the impacts of a diesel spill last October, it was done without the proper permits or oversight, according to the Army Corps.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a project requires a permit from the Army Corps if it includes the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters such as rivers, streams and wetlands. CSQ did not obtain a permit for the project because company officials thought the work was exempt, citing the temporary nature of the access road and creek diversion.
Army Corps officials disagreed.
“The work performed does not qualify for an exemption,” states a March 5 letter from Army Corps Colorado West Section chief Susan Nall, as the work “is being utilized for purposes other than moving mining equipment (e.g., hauling mined marble, accessing other portions of the mine, fuel staging area, and performing spill cleanup and monitoring activities) as required by the applicable exemption.”
Nall’s letter then declares: “Therefore, the work is a violation of the Clean Water Act.”
In order to remedy the situation, the Army Corps wants Yule Creek returned to its original alignment.
“Our preference is always to preserve the physical waterway if possible,” Nall said.
CSQ is considering a few different alignments for Yule Creek.
“The current alignment does accomplish the goal of creating separation between the creek and mining activities, which benefits the watershed,” CSQ general manager Daniele Treves said in a prepared statement.
The company plans to apply for an “individual permit,” which will require a 30-day public notice, public review and comments. The final decision on the Yule Creek alignment rests with the Army Corps.
The diversion of Yule Creek came to the attention of Army Corps staff after October’s diesel spill, which released roughly 5,500 gallons of fuel from storage tanks onto the ground.
Although CSQ notified the Army Corps in 2018 that they were planning to divert about 1,500 feet of the creek, the company didn’t follow the proper procedure and the Army Corps didn’t realize the scope of the work it was planning, according to Nall.
“We did not realize it was a formal request for concurrence of an exemption. That might have been an error on our part,” Nall said. “We didn’t object, and they took it as a concurrence. Nothing is exempt until we say it is. They really should have obtained it from us in writing.”
Marble blocks line the banks of the Crystal River where County Road 3C, known as the Quarry Road, crosses the river. Marble quarry operators Colorado Stone Quarries was fined $18,600 by the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety for an October diesel spill. Photo by Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
DRMS penalty
On Wednesday, the board of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety levied a $18,600 penalty for the October spill. The accident resulted in the quarry’s violation of three state statutes: unauthorized release of pollutants into groundwater, failure to minimize disturbance to water quality and failure to comply with the conditions of the permit.
DRMS determined September’s relocation of generators and the diesel-fuel tanks that supplied them was not approved and was a violation of CSQ’s permit. The diesel tanks were not put in secondary containment structures.
CSQ has agreed to pay the fine.
“We are always more interested in gaining compliance than the monetary aspect of it,” said Russell Means, minerals program director for DRMS.
According to an agreement between quarry operators and state regulators, CSQ also will continue to clean up the site, including bioremediation treatments to remove hydrocarbons from the soil and long-term water-quality monitoring.
Means and Nall said CSQ has been cooperative throughout the process.
“I think everybody’s interest is the same — we would all like to see the spill area cleaned up and the best thing for Yule Creek,” Nall said.
The quarry, now known as The Pride of America Mine, is owned by Italian company Red Graniti and employs about 30 to 40 people. According to CSQ, there are enough marble reserves contained in its six galleries to continue mining at the current rate for more than 100 years.
Vehicles and machinery were parked outside the entrances to the marble galleries of the Pride of America Mine in January. The quarry operators Colorado Stone Quarries are facing scrutiny from federal and state agencies after an October diesel spill. Photo by Mike Stevens/EcoFlight
By Heather Sackett
MARBLE — Colorado Stone Quarries, the operator of Marble’s famed Yule quarry, is facing scrutiny and possible penalties from federal and state regulators after an October diesel spill that shut down operations for nearly two months.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is looking into whether a special permit is needed for the diversion of Yule Creek, which was done to make way for a temporary mining road. In addition, the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety says it believes the quarry violated state statutes by releasing pollutants into groundwater.
Representatives from state DRMS and the Army Corps visited the site, which is located 3 miles up County Road 3C from the town of Marble, on Feb. 11, four months after 5,500 gallons of diesel fuel leaked from a tank on the property.
Nearby Yule Creek, which flows into the Crystal River, was spared from the Oct. 11 spill because the waterway had been diverted from its natural channel to the east of Franklin Ridge so operators could construct a temporary access road to the quarry.
Because the access road and creek diversion was supposed to be temporary, officials at Colorado Stone Quarries, or CSQ, claimed the project did not need a permit from the Army Corps. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a project requires a permit from the Army Corps if it includes the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters, such as rivers, streams and wetlands.
To qualify for a 404 exemption for the construction of temporary roads for moving mine equipment, CSQ is required to meet 15 best-management practices. CSQ says its activities comply with those practices.
The temporary diversion was approved by DRMS in September 2018 in what’s known as a technical revision to the quarry’s permit.
But because of ongoing cleanup and water-quality monitoring as a result of the spill, the temporary road and creek diversion will be in place longer than intended — until at least the fall of 2022, according to a report from the company. Until then, the old Yule Creek channel also will remain full of fill material, including marble blocks. That means the project might need a permit from the Army Corps after all.
“Given that the subject haul road will be in place for the foreseeable future (i.e., not temporary), the exemption under which the road was constructed may not be applicable,” reads a letter from the Army Corps requesting more information from CSQ.
Army Corps officials were alerted to the quarry’s plans for a temporary road and creek diversion when the quarry applied for the technical revision in 2018, but the agency did not raise concerns about the quarry needing a 404 permit at that time.
CSQ and its consultant Greg Lewicki and Associates are offering the Army Corps three potential options for remedying the situation: Take no action, meaning the quarry would follow the plan for a temporary road and creek diversion laid out in its technical revision and the quarry would not get a permit from the Army Corps; leave the creek in its current alignment to the east side of Franklin Ridge, which would require an Army Corps permit; or return Yule Creek to its alignment on the west side of the ridge but at a higher elevation than the pre-diversion alignment.
The Army Corps has asked CSQ to provide more information on these three scenarios. The affected stream reach is about 1,500 feet long.
The Pride of America Mine, long known as the Yule Quarry, as seen from the air in January. The marble quarry’s operators, Colorado Stone Quarries, are facing scrutiny related to a diesel spill and the temporary diversion of Yule Creek. Photo by Mike Stevens/EcoFlight
State enforcement
CSQ also may face fines and other punishment from DRMS, which regulates mining in Colorado. According to a Feb. 7 letter from DRMS director Virginia Brannon, the agency believes the quarry is in violation of three state statutes: unauthorized release of pollutants into groundwater, failure to minimize disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance with regard to water quality, and failure to comply with the conditions of the permit.
The diesel spill occurred during the relocation process for the generator and associated fuel tanks. The new location was not approved by DRMS.
“Therefore, the Division has reason to believe that a violation exists to the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials … and (has) scheduled this matter to appear before the Mined Land Reclamation Board,” the letter reads.
CSQ is scheduled to appear before the board March 25 in Denver. The board could issue a cease-and-desist order or impose a fine between $100 and $1,000 for each day of violation.
The spill at the quarry, which is now known as The Pride of America Mine, was marked by delays in reporting and cleanup.
Red Graniti, a company in Cararra, Italy, owns the quarry, which employs about 30 to 40 people and out of whose pure-white stone has been carved the Lincoln Memorial, the Colorado Capitol building and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
In 2016, the quarry was granted a permit for a 114-acre expansion, for a total of 124 permitted acres. According to CSQ, there are enough marble reserves contained in its six galleries to continue mining at the current rate for more than 100 years.
Aspen Journalism collaborates with The Aspen Times and other Swift Communications newspapers on coverage of rivers and water. This story ran in the Feb. 22 edition of Aspen Journalism and The Aspen Times.
A small pool of water along the Walker Ditch is kept free of ice and snow all winter long in order to provide water for cattle on the Monger Ranch near Hayden. A bill recently passed the Colorado legislature that allows ranchers’ historical stock watering rights to stay first in line, ahead of instream flow rights for the environment. Lauren Blair/Aspen Journalism
By Lauren Blair
CRAIG — A bill that cleared the Colorado legislature with bipartisan support March 4 seeks to resolve an eight-year debate over how ranchers and other water users can maintain their historical water use when dry conditions trigger cutbacks to protect streamflows.
House Bill 1159, which passed the House with a unanimous 63-0 vote and the Senate with a 31-1 vote, authorizes state water officials to confirm historical usages, such as water used for livestock, whether or not it’s held in an official water right. This allows ranchers’ uses to stay first in line for water ahead of the stream protections, known as instream-flow rights.
“It’s really a belt-and-suspenders clarification of existing authority,” said Zane Kessler, director of government relations for the Colorado River Water Conservation District, which drafted the language for the bill. “I think it’s a good example of when we sit down and pore over these issues, it’s not hard to come up with a fix that protects West Slope water users and provides the state engineer the authority he needs to continue administering them.”
Instream-flow rights, which are held exclusively by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, exist for the sole purpose of preserving the natural environment of streams and lakes “to a reasonable degree.” Most of these date to the 1970s and are junior to most agricultural-water rights under Colorado’s prior appropriation system of “first in time, first in right.” To date, instream-flow rights protect roughly 9,700 miles of stream in Colorado.
Mud and manure line an access point for cattle to drink from a ditch on Doug Monger’s ranch near Hayden as winter nears its end. A bill recently passed the Colorado legislature that will protect ranchers’ historical uses without requiring them to go to water court. Lauren Blair/Aspen Journalism
Historical uses
The debate over historical uses has turned on whether a water user must go to water court to make their pre-existing use official in a decree.
A 2012 drought brought the question to a head when state officials cut off water users on the Elk River in northwestern Colorado in favor of instream-flow rights. Although many ranchers in the area have water rights for irrigation that are senior to the 1977 instream-flow rights and have historically used that water also for their cattle, the state Division of Water Resources determined that livestock watering wasn’t implicit in irrigation rights.
Those without specific rights for stockwatering were left high and dry once the summer irrigation season was deemed over, even though they had used the water for livestock for generations.
“My grandparents bought this piece of land in 1946,” said Krista Monger, a cattle rancher on the Elk River. “We have the records to show we’ve been using (our water) for livestock.”
Stockwatering and irrigation often go hand in hand. During the irrigation season, if a rancher’s livestock drink from the ditches used to irrigate their fields, the use is considered incidental to irrigation. But once the growing season is over and a rancher keeps the water flowing through the ditch for the exclusive purpose of watering their livestock, the use is not covered under irrigation-water rights.
The amount of water typically used for exclusive stockwatering is a fraction of what is used for irrigating, around 80% to 90% less. Some ranchers also use stock ponds, which require a water-storage right.
More than 90,000 irrigation-water rights are held across the state, of which 29,000 specifically name both irrigation and livestock uses. That means the new law could potentially apply to 61,000 water rights, although not all of these are held by ranchers raising livestock. An additional nearly 32,000 water rights are held exclusively for livestock purposes but not irrigation.
The Monger family holds both irrigation- and livestock-water rights to grow hay and to water their 300 cattle. Her family’s rights and diligent record-keeping meant their ditches kept flowing while their neighbors’ ditches were shut down in 2012, highlighting the need for better record-keeping among the region’s irrigators.
But the incident prompted a statewide debate over the meaning of Colorado statute C.R.S. 37-92-102(3)(b), which states that instream-flow rights are subject to pre-existing uses of water, “whether or not previously confirmed by court order or decree.”
The state Department of Natural Resources, home to both the Division of Water Resources and CWCB, argued that when the instream-flow protections were created, lawmakers intended for water users to make their existing use official in a decree. The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and the Colorado River Water Conservation District argued that the statute clearly precludes the need for a court decree and sought to protect ranchers’ historical usage without requiring them to go to water court.
“The statute says… prior uses would be honored. But they’re saying the statute doesn’t say what the statute says,” said Mike Hogue, former president of the cattlemen’s group.
After years of negotiations, stakeholders agreed on a simple piece of legislation to clarify the state water engineer’s authority “to confirm a claim of an existing use (if it) has not been previously confirmed by court order or decree,” according to the bill summary. The bill had bipartisan sponsorship from Reps. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose, and Dylan Roberts, D-Avon, and Sens. Don Coram, R-Montrose, and Kerry Donovan, D-Vail.
“I do think this is very helpful legislation,” said State Engineer Kevin Rein, who is with the Division of Water Resources. “We had what I’d call an honest disagreement about what the statute meant. My position is if they change the law and give me a place to hang my hat on, that solves the problem.”
Ditch water trickles back under the cover of snow and ice from a watering hole for cattle on the Monger ranch near Hayden. New legislation prevents ranchers’ water for stock from being shut off by an instream flow right for the environment. Lauren Blair/Aspen Journalism
Wakeup call
However, what the legislation doesn’t resolve — and what is perhaps a bigger Pandora’s box opened by the 2012 incident — is the decision that state water officials made that irrigation rights do not include stockwatering rights. In practice, irrigators around the state, many of whom hold water rights dating to the late 1800s and early 1900s, have used irrigation- or agricultural-water rights not to just irrigate their hayfields, but also to water their livestock.
The new distinction means that ranchers with irrigation rights must apply for livestock water rights if they want to protect their usage into the future. Although the new legislation protects a rancher’s stockwatering use from being shut off specifically by an instream-flow right , their stockwater use could still be cut off if another water user makes a call on the river to fulfill a formal water right.
“We all thought that was part of our ag water rights,” said Doug Monger, a Routt County commissioner and a cattle rancher on the Yampa River in northwest Colorado, and also uncle to Krista Monger. “It’s a wakeup call for all of us.”
Aspen Journalism collaborates with The Craig Daily Press, Steamboat Pilot and Today and other Swift Communications newspapers on coverage of water and rivers. This story ran in the March 16 edition of the Craig Pressand the March 23 edition of Aspen Journalism.
This story was supported by The Water Desk using funding from the Walton Family Foundation.
An ambitious plan would use carbon credits as incentives to convert Delta islands to wetlands or rice to halt subsidence and potentially raise island elevations
The islands of the western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are sinking as the rich peat soil that attracted generations of farmers dries out and decays. As the peat decomposes, it releases tons of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere. As the islands sink, the levees that protect them are at increasing risk of failure, which could imperil California’s vital water conveyance system.
An ambitious plan now in the works could halt the decay, sequester the carbon and potentially reverse the sinking.
The plan would provide a carrot for farmers in the western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to convert their island acreage to rice fields or managed wetlands in order to cut carbon emissions from the decaying peat and protect their lands and communities as well as California’s water hub. The Delta is the “switching yard” for moving water to the massive pumps for the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project.
Shepherded by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, the Delta Carbon Program is near completion of the first-ever third-party verification of wetlands that quantifies the carbon emission reduction estimates from 1,600 acres of managed wetlands on Sherman and Twitchell islands operated by the California Department of Water Resources.
The aim is to use that example to encourage Delta landowners to ultimately access the state’s cap and trade market for carbon credits. About 2 million metric tons of carbon are emitted annually from the entire Delta, the equivalent of about 500,000 motor vehicle emissions.
Campbell Ingram, executive director of the Delta Conservancy, the state agency charged with fostering actions to support the Delta’s ecosystem and economy, said the land conversion idea targets about 200,000 acres of islands in the western Delta that are the most subsided and of marginal value. That amounts to more than a quarter of the Delta. About 50,000 acres of this region are under public ownership, providing an opportunity to demonstrate the viability of carbon farming to surrounding landowners.
“It’s a unique little patch of land, the subsidence of which really threatens California’s water supply,” he said. “Also, it’s a chimney that’s just rocketing carbon into the atmosphere.”
Delta islands are seen increasingly at risk of flooding and levee failures from subsidence and sea level rise due to climate change, which could pull salty water deeper into the Delta and foul exported water.
“If you can convert these soils to anaerobic conditions, you reduce the carbon emissions and you have a tendency to stop or slow way down the subsidence factor.” ~Tom Zuckerman, Delta farmer
The answer to reversing subsidence and carbon emissions lies in reverting that part of the Delta to its former marshy legacy. Instead of cultivating crops that dry the soil and exacerbate the problem, the idea is to keep the land perpetually wet, even during the hot summer months. That can be done through converting land to rice or managed wetlands. Either way, it will be a transition for Delta agriculture, Ingram said.
“With managed wetlands, you get more carbon revenue and more accretion, but it does take ag land out of production, which is not a comfortable space,” he said. “On the other hand, if the agricultural practice continues to increase the risk of levee failure, continues the huge carbon emissions and it’s not economically viable … it makes it a tough argument for people to say you’ve got to stop taking ag land out of production.”
Launching pilot projects that demonstrate the potential of reducing carbon emissions from land alterations is challenging because landowners are reluctant to pay the upfront costs when the expected revenue isn’t known, Ingram said,
Tom Zuckerman, a Delta farmer who has been working with the Delta Carbon Program on getting more rice into production, said he has seen a growth in rice production and that the benefits are evident. According to the Delta Protection Commission, Delta rice production increased by about 53 percent, from 4,874 acres in 2009 to 7,468 acres in 2016.
“It’s a double-winner situation,” Zuckerman said. “If you can convert these soils to anaerobic conditions, you reduce the carbon emissions and you have a tendency to stop or slow way down the subsidence factor.”
Zuckerman, who co-owns 1,000 acres, said he is planning to convert a portion of that acreage to rice and has heard the same from other farmers. Rice, he said, is a profitable commodity though upfront work is needed.
“The barrier is that land has to be worked on quite a bit for leveling and re-ditching so there is a capital barrier to entry on the conversion,” he said. “Once that happens, every indication is that farmers will be better off with the rice crop, both from what they get from the crop plus what they might get from carbon credits.”
The Delta’s rich, organic peat soil is wonderful for farming, but decades of cultivation have altered the natural hydrology. The peat soil is fragile and susceptible to subsidence. Decades of farming have carved out large bowls in the Delta, some of which are 25 feet below the adjacent river channels.
Crops such as corn and alfalfa require a drained root zone that exposes the peat soil to oxygen and breakdown and releases stored carbon into the atmosphere.
The Delta’s peat slows seepage from the surrounding rivers that are perched 20 to 30 feet above the land surface. When the peat gets thin, water seeps through the underlying sand, leaving areas too wet to farm. Ingram pointed to a recent study showing that in the 1980s about 500 acres were too wet to farm; now that’s about 5,000 acres.
More than 20 years ago DWR began research at Twitchell Island, near the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, on how to stop subsidence. By altering the landscape and getting water back on the land, they created a tule marsh that halted subsidence and slowly rebuilt surface elevation. In the process, the state realized a carbon benefit from stopping the breakdown of the peat soils. That has become the test bed for the carbon capture protocol.
Each acre converted to marsh keeps from six to more than 20 metric tons of carbon emissions out of the atmosphere each year. Quantifying those reductions and the associated carbon credits is the key.
The first third-party verification of carbon reduction credits is expected to be completed anytime now. The final product, Ingram said, will go to the American Carbon Registry, a private, voluntary greenhouse gas registry that validates the environmental and scientific integrity of carbon offsets, where credits can be sold to realize a revenue stream.
Ultimately, the aim is for the California Air Resources Board to adopt the Delta Conservancy’s protocol into its compliance program under AB 32, the state’s landmark 2006 greenhouse gas law. Adoption is expected to raise the value of carbon emission reduction credits to as much as $180 per acre.
Each acre converted to marsh keeps from six to more than 20 metric tons of carbon emissions out of the atmosphere each year. ~Delta Conservancy
“Our expectation is that the incentive will continue to grow and can compete with the current commodities that are grown in the Delta and be a real viable option for landowners, public and private,” Ingram said.
Chris Scheuring, managing counsel with the California Farm Bureau Federation, said the Farm Bureau isn’t opposed to voluntary transactions that convert Delta farmland to other uses, but worries about the loss of good soil for farming and the impact on farmers. Ultimately, he said, it’s up to individual landowners to decide whether participating in the cap and trade carbon market makes sense for them.
“The compensation has to be there,” Scheuring said, “and it’s got to make economic sense to the farmer.”
Michelle Passero, director of The Nature Conservancy’s California Climate Program, said marketing Delta carbon aligns well with her organization’s mission of keeping the region a haven for birds.
“We are interested in exploring different practices that can help address climate change while also maintaining habitat for cranes,” she said.
Building a market for carbon credits
The Delta is an agricultural powerhouse, growing whatever commodities the market demands – corn, alfalfa, tomatoes, rice, grapes and orchard crops. However, there is concern that factors external and internal could create a quandary for future land management.
At the Delta Stewardship Council’s November meeting, Delta Watermaster Michael George expressed concern about what could happen to areas that are no longer a good investment for agriculture.
“There is a substantial risk that some of those areas [that] will not be able to be farmed profitably may be abandoned” and end up in the state’s lap, he said.
If land does default to the state, it will have to be managed, perhaps for wetlands or rice and reaping carbon benefits. AB 32 requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by this year. Carbon offsets allow businesses to fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the kind advocated by the Delta Conservancy.
In January, the state’s draft Water Resilience Portfolio said among its aims is to provide incentives and technical advice to Delta landowners for creating managed wetlands or cultivating rice and to “eliminate subsidence-inducing practices on state-owned lands and pursue alternative sources of revenue to support long-term land management.”
The current voluntary market for carbon emission reduction credits is about $60 per acre annually. That figure exceeds most annual per-acre leases in the deeply subsided western Delta, Ingram said, but does not fully compete with commodity prices. Furthermore, there are costs associated with converting land to managed wetlands or rice.
“It’s really hard to get farmers to say, ‘I am going to pay those upfront costs and then make less money than I make now,’” Ingram said.
Erik Vink, executive director of the Delta Protection Commission, said it’s important to prove the concept of carbon emission reduction credits in a way that sends the right economic signal to landowners.
“If you want them to farm tules, they’ll be the best tule farmers you’ve ever seen,” he told the Delta Stewardship Council in November.
A carbon credit value of between $15 and $20 per metric ton would help the economics of farming rice, said Zuckerman, the Delta farmer, adding that depending on the circumstances, revenue from carbon credits could begin look like “serious money.”
About 50,000 acres in the western Delta are publicly owned or publicly financed, raising the question of whether marketing carbon credits is a viable alternative for public agencies that need a reliable revenue stream for operations and maintenance.
Ingram said he believes once the program gets rolling, landowners — including public agencies — will see the benefit. And with a carbon credit market providing incentives to convert land to wetlands or rice, Ingram said the potential exists for increasing land elevation to help levee stability under an aggressive approach that could yield results in as few as 40 years.
While a key goal is to reduce carbon emissions, he said, the larger objectives are to stop land subsidence that ”continues to threaten the economic vitality of the region” and poses a “huge risk” to the state’s water supply.
Workers put finishing touches on Denver Water’s new super-sustainable administrative complex last summer. As COVID-19 cases spread,Denver and other utilities have enacted emergency operation protocols to protect workers and to keep water treatment and delivery systems operating. Credit: Jerd Smith
As COVID-19 cases spread across Colorado, water utilities initiated emergency action plans, asking hundreds of employees to work from home to limit the virus’ spread and to help protect the workers needed to operate water treatment and delivery systems.
COVID-19 isn’t typically found in treated water systems, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, because it is easily susceptible to the disinfectants used in standard water treatment systems.
“This virus is fragile,” said Jim Lochhead, CEO and manager of Denver Water, Colorado’s largest municipal water supplier. “The EPA and CDC and WHO [World Health Organization] have all put out guidance that drinking water systems that are treating water properly are perfectly safe. Our treatment protocols exceed federal and state standards and so we are doing better than we are required to do.”
Though water safety isn’t an issue in this pandemic, at least not yet, worker safety is.
In the heart of Colorado’s ski country, where COVID-19 cases have spread quickly, the Vail-based Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, as well as its sister agency the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, issued an emergency declaration March 13, a move that will allow them to apply for state and federal funds and extra equipment should they be needed.
The primary worry, said Eagle River District general manager Linn Brooks, is to prevent a rapid onset of COVID-19 among operations staff, something that could hamper the districts’ ability to ensure consistent water treatment and delivery.
“My biggest concern is that if it spreads quickly through our staff and we have a lot of people out, straining our capacity to do our work. Still, we could absorb a fair amount [of employee absences] before it impacts the service we provide,” Brooks said.
To date no Eagle River or Upper Eagle River District employees have tested positive for the virus nor is her district seeing high rates of absenteeism, Brooks said.
But the Eagle River District has imposed new sanitation and cleaning protocols at its plants and is requiring workers to stay home, with or without testing, if they exhibit any cold or flu-like symptoms. They can return to work only after they’ve been symptom free for at least 72 hours.
On the Front Range, Berthoud-based Northern Water, which serves more than 1 million agricultural and municipal customers, has also instituted emergency action plans, asking non-essential personnel to work from home and keeping operators on the job. Northern serves cities across the northern Front Range, including Fort Collins, Greeley, Boulder and Longmont, among others.
Northern offers workers unlimited sick leave as a matter course, while other utilities, such as Denver Water, are offering special administrative leave to employees who become ill to encourage them to remain home, allowing them to protect their personal vacation and sick time.
The pandemic has arrived just as the spring water delivery season begins. At least three regularly scheduled major water planning meetings across the state, used to inform the public and collect input on how much water should be made available for the year, have been cancelled.
“The hard part is getting the word out,” said Northern Water spokesman Jeff Stahla.
Northern’s board will make a decision April 9 on how much water will be delivered to users this year, based on final snowpack numbers and reservoir storage. But that meeting, like many others, may end up being conducted online or via conference call, Stahla said.
Colorado State of the River meetings, typically hosted by the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River District, have also been postponed until further notice.
Back in Denver, Lochhead said his agency will remain in emergency mode “indefinitely.”
“We have calls every morning to assess. It’s a dynamic situation that changes daily if not hourly,” Lochhead said. “But in the uncertain world we’re in right now, the safety and reliability of the supply is the surest thing we have going.”
Jerd Smith is editor of Fresh Water News. She can be reached at 720-398-6474, via email at jerd@wateredco.org or @jerd_smith.
Fresh Water News is an independent, non-partisan news initiative of Water Education Colorado. WEco is funded by multiple donors. Our editorial policy and donor list can be viewed at wateredco.org. This story originally appeared on Fresh Water News on March 18, 2020.
Scenes from the Seeded and Natural Orographic Wintertime Clouds: The Idaho Experiment (SNOWIE) project, which was undertaken in Idaho’s Payette Basin in winter 2017. Photo credit: Joshua Aikins
By David O. Williams
VAIL — An innovative new study conducted in Idaho and published in February seems to confirm what Vail and other Colorado ski resorts have believed for decades — that “cloud seeding can boost snowfall across a wide area if the atmospheric conditions are favorable.”
“This is a revelation. We can definitely say that cloud seeding enhances snowfall under the right conditions,” said Sarah Tessendorf, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and co-author of a new paper on the research conducted by scientists from the University of Colorado Boulder and University of Wyoming, among others.
Cloud seeding uses ground-based generators to disperse dust-sized silver iodide particles into clouds so that ice crystals can form on those particles and fall to the ground in the form of snow. Scientists, water managers and ski industry executives say it’s precipitation that would otherwise stay in the clouds, so cloud seeding is an environmentally safe way to enhance snowfall.
But the efficiency of cloud seeding has so far been hard to prove. Tessendorf said previous cloud seeding studies were unable to achieve statistically significant results because the natural variability of the weather was too great and demanded a larger sample size than could be reasonably obtained, for financial reasons.
In winter 2017, the National Science Foundation, which sponsors NCAR, teamed up with the Idaho Power Company to conduct a field study called SNOWIE (Seeded and Natural Orographic Wintertime Clouds — the Idaho Experiment).
SNOWIE used supercomputing technology to develop a new computer model to simulate cloud seeding, as well as new measurement capabilities, such as a high-resolution cloud radar on a Wyoming research aircraft that can see previously invisible cloud features. Researchers also located mobile radars on mountain ridges north of Boise to see clouds not visible to stationary National Weather Service radars that are blocked by the mountains themselves.
The scientists then used airborne seeding instead of ground-based generators because the silver iodide dispersed downwind from the aircraft in a zig-zag pattern, which is a very unnatural pattern for precipitation to form.
That allowed the scientists “to unambiguously detect the impact of cloud seeding in these clouds using the mobile and airborne radars,” Tessendorf said. “This had never been done before. In the three cases we report on, there was negligible natural snow falling, so the zig-zag pattern was able to be detected very clearly and tracked to the ground to quantify the snow reaching the ground due to seeding.”
One of the examples cited in a press release accompanying the study was a cloud-seeding flight on Jan. 19, 2017, that generated snow for 67 minutes, dusting about 900 square miles with a tenth of a millimeter of snow beyond what was falling naturally.
“This was barely enough snow to cling to the researchers’ eyelashes,” the release reads, ‘but it would have stayed in the air if not for cloud seeding.”
“We tracked the seeding plume from the time we put it into the cloud until it generated snow that actually fell onto the ground,” said Katja Friedrich, a University of Colorado Boulder professor and lead author of the new study.
Scenes from the Seeded and Natural Orographic Wintertime Clouds: The Idaho Experiment (SNOWIE) project, which was undertaken in Idaho’s Payette Basin in winter 2017. Photo credit: Joshua Aikins
Finding the ideal storms
Dave Kanzer, deputy chief engineer for the Colorado River District, helps oversee a system of 25 ground-based cloud-seeding generators in the central Colorado region that includes Grand, Summit, Eagle and parts of Pitkin County. Nearby generators include one atop Arrowhead and another above Camp Hale.
Kanzer said storms from the north and northwest, which tend to be colder, are ideal for cloud seeding, with temperatures in the clouds no higher than 21 degrees Fahrenheit and no lower than 5 degrees Fahrenheit. If the clouds have the right temperature range and the right moisture levels but lack sufficient particles for ice crystals to form, that’s where cloud seeding comes in.
“We take advantage of the first two and we add the proper amount of particulate matter to enhance the snowfall and precipitation … and that accumulates in the snowpack somewhere in the range of between 5 and 15% on a per storm basis when those conditions are met,” Kanzer said. “And that helps to increase the water yield of the snow sheds in the range of 1 to, 4% of water on a seasonal basis.”
In winter 2017, the National Science Foundation, which sponsors NCAR, teamed up with the Idaho Power Company to conduct a field study called SNOWIE (Seeded and Natural Orographic Wintertime Clouds — the Idaho Experiment). Photo credit: Joshua Aikins
A tool to maintain snowpack
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources regulates cloud seeding, permitting operations in nine different parts of the state. The operations in the central zone, at the headwaters of the Colorado River, are funded by a wide range of groups, including Front Range utilities and water districts that divert Western Slope water, including Denver Water and Northern Water.
The Colorado River District spends around a $150,000 a year contracting with Western Weather Group to run the program, which Kanzer said is about the same amount Vail Resorts spends on the program for its four Colorado ski areas – Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone.
Vail Resorts declined to comment for this story.
Kanzer presented on cloud seeding at a November Eagle River Watershed Council meeting in Avon, where a few of the 50 or so participants got heated in their questioning of the environmental safety of the process.
Kanzer said cloud seeding is safe, using inert silver iodide that cannot be detected in the environment after it’s released into clouds. He added the process could become increasingly critical to maintaining mountain snowpack as the climate changes.
“It’s one tool that we can use to mitigate or adapt to the changes that we have not only predicted but are starting to experience with shorter snow-covered seasons,” Kanzer said. “And so (cloud seeding) helps us extend that time or at least forestall the reduction.”
Aspen Journalism collaborates with The Vail Daily and other Swift Communications newspapers on coverage of water and rivers. This story ran in the Feb. 25 edition of Aspen Journalism and The Vail Daily.
This story was supported by The Water Desk using funding from the Walton Family Foundation.
