# flaming gorge



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

For those of you who don't know, Mr Aaronn Million has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee(FERC) to apply for the permits to build the Flamming Gorge Pipline. There is a public comment period going on right now and now is the time for fishermen to act.

Here's the instructions:
Go tohttp://www.ferc.gov
Go to Documents and Fillings menu(on the homepage)
Click on eComments
Fill in the required info and you will receive the form to file your comment from ferc.gov
The docket # for the Flamming Gorge Pipeline is P-14263
The deadline to file your comment is Dec. 16, 2011

Join the fight at http://www.ourdamwater.org


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

*Re: flamming gorge*

I love Flaming Gorge as much as anyone. But I don't understand the issues here.

81 billion gallons sounds like a lot of water but it doesn't say what the impact on the water level will be at Flaming Gorge.

Honestly, the "facts" listed on the website don't seem, to me at least, to be that negative. Yes, when you take water out of any body of water, it will be shallower and overall salinity will increase. Yes, that would be bad for kokanee. Yes, shallower water would be bad for lake trout. But only to a point. For example, the water feeding the green is making Flaming Gorge shallower, and possibly more saline but that's not hurting the fishery there.

Part of the permits that Mr. Miller will have to get from the feds include environmental impact studies. If the studies find that the environmental impacts will be too detrimental, then Mr. Miller won't get the permit.

Can you better explain the issues here?


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

*Re: flamming gorge*

Besides the fact that the pipeline could potentially ruin a world class kokanee salmon & lake trout population by increasing water temps and salinity levels, destroy a blue ribbon trout fishery, de-water wetlands in the basin and a host of other environmental impacts, the pipeline would have a significant adverse impact to the value of recreation at Flamming Gorge Dam and along the Green River. Studies show an 80% probability that economical impacts are $21.14 million per year due to reservoir elevation impacting recreation. There would be damage to the regional economy due to reduced recreational visitor spending. Every million dollars of direct output translates to 30 jobs in the region. The loss in money would equate to 2 to 3 percent of the regional workforce.

Bottom line is the pipeline doesn't only effect us as fisherman(which should be enough) and recreationalists, It effects the whole region in already shakey economic times.

T.B


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

*Re: flamming gorge*

But by your own website's admission, the pipeline will require $123 million a year in maintenance, bringing money to a region that is in shaky economic times.

I guess what I'm asking for is an explanation of how the pipeline can have the effects that you suggest are possible. How much water would the Gorge have to lose before the increased water temperatures were outside the range of viability for the salmon and lake trout? Is the amount of water requested by the pipeline more or less than that amount?

Why would lower water levels negatively affect recreation at the Gorge?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here. I don't want the Gorge hurt. I just want to understand the issues better while recognizing that reservoirs are built to store water and not to provide me fishing and recreation. I mean, we already built a dam there to affect the environment. The 91 miles there that I love used to just be a dirty river filled with the colorado pikeminnow. We can't really claim now that environmental impacts to the region would be better or worse than those economic impacts we've already made on the region by building a dam.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

*Re: flamming gorge*

I don't fully understand the results of the study but what I have read I don't like. Im not affiliated with the web site in any way, im just passing on some info for those who are interested. All I know is that I dont want to see the green river changed. For selfish reasons or not. This is a link to one of the studies. Maybe it might help answer your questions better than I can. Some of it is a little confusing to a simple flyfisherman like myself.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/pipeline


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: flamming gorge*

The project would take 200,000 acre feet of water per year out of Flaming Gorge. Flaming Gorge sees an inflow on average of 3,000,000 acre feet per year. So the proposed pipeline would take around 7% of Flaming Gorge's water.

The 500-mile long pipeline would follow existing pipeline right-of-ways, paralleling Interstate 80 and then down I25.

There has always been talk of sending water from the Great Lakes to the Colorado Front. Permitting, right-of-way cost per mile, and horse power needs at pumping stations hindered that proposal. I worked for a pipeline company for nearly 30 years. We had a 1930-ish cross-country natural gas pipeline that needed millions in repairs to meet new DOT standards. We proposed turning the gas line into a water line and running water from Lake Michigan to Eastern Colorado. Crazy idea for 1988; the water would just cost too much. Note that the Great Lakes hold about 10% of the planet's fresh water and that water is virtually un-tapped.

The huge underground Ogallala Aquifer, running thru 8 states east and south of the Colorado Front, is another source of water

Running water from the Gorge to Denver also is a crazy idea...for 2011 anyway. In another 25 years the idea won't be so crazy and I admire Mr Million for his forward thinking. But given the estimated price of the delivered water to Denver, the water line won't be built anytime soon.

Smart people 100 years ago predicted the planet would run on oil for awhile, and then water. I'd like to be around to see the switch. Whether I (we) like it or not, sooner or later fresh water will be piped all over America. It's called progress.

This is a great post, but it should be in the Outdoor News section. I'll leave it alone for now though.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

My previous post got deleted. Thanks for the info Trout Bum. I'll spend some time reading about this. 

Initial impressions are that it isn't feasible at this point and they have some major legal hurdles that are not going to be easily overcome.


----------



## fishingfan57 (Nov 25, 2011)

Here is a link ,that has lots of great information. As to what Mr million and his water theft project is all about. 
http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-t ... P-EIS.html

As seen from the maps, very little of this project will run close to the interstate. The water project will go as far south as Pueblo Colorado.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

fishingfan57 said:


> Here is a link ,that has lots of great information. As to what Mr million and his water theft project is all about.
> http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-t ... P-EIS.html
> 
> As seen from the maps, very little of this project will run close to the interstate. The water project will go as far south as Pueblo Colorado.


What map are you looking at?

The map clearly shows the water line (geen line) following I80 from Green River Wyoming to Laramie Wyoming and then it goes south of Laramie around the mountain. The proposed line follows an existing natural gas pipeline right of way that basically parallels. The line will follow another pipeline ROW from the WY/CO border down to the Front.

http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-t ... 7Mar09.pdf


----------



## fishingfan57 (Nov 25, 2011)

Ok I stand corrected,i was looking at the wrong map,when I posted that it didn't go close to the interstate.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

The gas pipelines that flow from the mountain west to the eastern prairies have an advantage; they can use the drop in elevation to minimize pressure loss. So when they built the lines from the rich Wyoming and Utah gas patch they avoided major mountains and ridges. They built I80 the same way. And they would prefer to build the new water line on the same path. It is so much cheaper and so much easier that trying to get permitting for a new route (if there was a better one. The Southern leg on the map follows the big cross-country pipeline that crosses the Gorge just above Lucerne. That pipeline ends up on the same right-of-way as all the others going east.

The pipelines that went south off of I80 at the Nebraska/Wyoming?Colorada corner kinda paralleled HWY85 (before I25 was built). So they, and the new water line maybe, are out away from I25 and all the growth.

Note that the terminus of the proposed line is Pueblo CO. Pueblo sits close to a very large coal deposit. They just built a huge coal-fired power plant there and have big plans for more. But these boilers take huge amounts of water to operate. If not, they are stuck with cost-prohibitive air-cooled condensers.


blah, blah, blah, sorry


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

yay for my home to of Pueblo to represent!!! now i feel like an a%@hole


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

I researched the provided links, and others, over the weekend. I thought I'd share what I found here.

Basically, I do not believe the pipeline could possibly get either the funding or the permits to be built.

Mr. Million needs 8 billion dollars of capital to build the pipeline from Flaming Gorge and the Green River area to Pueblo Colorado. He has nowhere near that amount of money to build it. He has asked the Colorado legislature to provide funding but 8 billion dollars exceeds the entire yearly operating budget for the state. They have also looked into bonds from local water companies but the entire debt of all of the water companies that could benefit from the pipeline is only 1 billion dollars. In short, no one has the money to make this happen any time soon. If I were a citizen of Colorado, I would be against government funding of the pipeline because the burden that it would place on the state's budget would be oppressive. Of all the available technologies to provide the Front Range with water, the pipeline would cost almost 10x more per gallon than the cheapest current satisfactory alternative.

The next issue is with the permits required to build the pipeline. The current plan would reduce Flaming Gorge's water level by about 8 feet with a 10% possibility that the lake could be lowered by 30 feet by 2050. However, the water decreases would reduce the flows in the Green River by 24% as soon as the pipeline was turned on. However, these reductions in water flows in the Green River would impact 4 endangered fish species that live below the dam on the green river. The Endangered Species Act would compel the federal government to prevent such a loss in the seasonal flows of the green river. 

Other permits would be required though getting those would not be as difficult as getting the Feds to sign off on 24% reduction in water flows on the Green. Some would not be easy to get but with enough money to congressional campaigns, it could happen. The Endangered Species Act, however, would be nearly insurmountable. 

This is something to definitely watch in the future but at this point, I don't see the money or the permission to build the pipeline as a feasible reality.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks Dodger, interesting stuff. If they take the water out of the Green River north of I80 it will have a dramatic impact. If they take it out of the lake it won't be so noticeable.

There's a large water out-take on the Green north of I80 already. It feeds a pipeline going to the huge coal-fired Jim Bridger Power Plant 35 miles to the east.

I think the line will be built, not in my lifetime maybe, but it will be built.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

On Wyoming's I80 between Little America and the Green River Bridge there's numerous industrial plants. They are trona mining and processing facilities. All that "smoke" coming from them is water vapor, steam. They use large amounts of water, all pipelined in from the Green River.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

My pleasure Goob. Just to clarify, their current plan is to take water from the Green River and the Gorge simultaneously. I don't know if it is the same one that already exists north of I-80.

Another thing that I think would be an issue is that the interstate River Water Compact that Colorado has signed on to could get in the way. Nine western states use water from the Colorado drainage and share the rights to the water. If Colorado starts pumping that much water, Arizona, Nevada, and California are going to get pretty mad, to the point where they may actually be able to prevent the pipeline from being installed. Even if they were able to make some sort of deal, Congress would have to allow the states to amend their deal which, with public pressure, could break the deal. 

This whole thing is a regulatory boondoggle that will need a fleet of lawyers to navigate. It could happen still in the future but there are some major hurdles, not the least of which is the Endangered Species Bludgeon, I mean "Act." Legally, this is going to be a rough-go.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> My pleasure Goob. Just to clarify, their current plan is to take water from the Green River and the Gorge simultaneously. I don't know if it is the same one that already exists north of I-80. That is both good and bad.
> 
> Another thing that I think would be an issue is that the interstate River Water Compact that Colorado has signed on to could get in the way. Nine western states use water from the Colorado drainage and share the rights to the water. If Colorado starts pumping that much water, Arizona, Nevada, and California are going to get pretty mad, to the point where they may actually be able to prevent the pipeline from being installed. Even if they were able to make some sort of deal, Congress would have to allow the states to amend their deal which, with public pressure, could break the deal.
> 
> This whole thing is a regulatory boondoggle that will need a fleet of lawyers to navigate. It could happen still in the future but there are some major hurdles, not the least of which is the Endangered Species Bludgeon, I mean "Act." Legally, this is going to be a rough-go.


I agree, and have said, that the economics won't allow this thing to go any time soon. But I still admire the guy for his forward-thinking and tenacity. uh, And I think Mr Million has the money to be forward-thinking and tenacious.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

We are in the same boat.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

Dodger, thanks for your research on the topic. You sound like a really smart guy. I didnt know all of the details on the project but the details i did know of through TU has me opposed to it. Will it happen? Maybe so. Down the road but i personally hope it doesnt. Thanks for your input too goob.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

The Federal Energy Reglatory Commission (FERC) will soon rule on the Flaming Gorge water pipeline project. FERC is trying to get as much public input as possible. The open comment period for th epublic ends Dec 16!!!!!

Here are the comment instructions:

> Go to http://www.ferc.gov
> Go to Documents and Filings menu (it's on the homepage)
> Click on eComments tab
> Fill in the required info and you will receive the form to file your comment from ferc.gov
> The docket # for the Flaming Gorge Pipeline is P-14263
> The Deadline to file a comment is December 16, 2011

It only takes a few minutes to comment. This is an important water issue for Utah outdoor enthusiasts.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Done.

I am strongly against the pipeline project which intends to draw up to thirty feet of water out of Flaming Gorge Reservoir by 2050 and reduce flows in the Green River by up to 24%. 

1. The water must be pumped over the continental divide.
The fact that this water must be pumped over the continental divide to reach the Front Range of Colorado shows that this project is ill conceived. Not only will tremendous amounts of energy be required to accomplish this feat, but also the production of the energy necessary to pump the water will itself require local power plants to use more water. Such a system is highly inefficient and impractical.


2. The funds to complete the project aren't available.
Projections for this project are that it will reasonably cost around 8 billion dollars. The funding is not assured and it is unlikely going to become available. I am aware of efforts to have the state of Colorado fund the project, at least in part. However, 8 billion dollars is more than than Colorado's entire yearly budget. Colorado surely cannot devote more than an entire year's budget to the pipeline project. Even amortized over 30 or 50 years, should other funding become available, the pipeline project would be an oppressive burden to the citizens of Colorado.

3. Flows reduced in the Green River by up to 24% would be catastrophic to the river system.
While the Green River provides a significant amount of recreational opportunities that will adversely be affected by the reduced water flows in the Green River, my comments are directed more toward the river system itself. During many times of the year, the river is so low that rafts cannot float without hitting the bottom. Further reducing the water level will, in certain spots, turn the Green River into the "Green Trickle."

Additionally, there are several endangered species such as the Colorado Pikeminnow and others in the Green River that would be adversely affected by the loss of 24% of their water. On the basis of the Endangered Species Act alone, this permit should be denied.

4. Flaming Gorge Reservoir would be negatively affected by the loss of 30 feet of water by 2050. 
Any effort to supplement the loss of water in the Green River would be borne by Flaming Gorge Reservoir. While the reservoir was created to store water for human needs, pumping the water to the Front Range of Colorado is beyond any human need that could have been forseen at the time the reservoir was built. 

The strain on the reservoir itself would ruin a world class lake trout fishery and the best in-shore salmon fishing in the western United States as the surface area of the reservoir shrinks. If Flaming Gorge was required the offset the water which would be lost by the Green River, the 24% of its flows, while providing water to the pipeline, the reservoir would cease to be a reservoir in my life time. It would become the Green River again, only with a dam near Dutch John. 

Flaming Gorge simply does not have enough water to supply the Front Range of Colorado.

5. This is the most expensive water that could supply the Front Range of Colorado with water.
Studies of alternative methods of supplying water to Colorado have indicated that each gallon of water from Flaming Gorge that got to the Front Range would cost around $10 per gallon. The next most expensive water supply method for the Front Range would cost $6 per gallon. And, I would like to point out that these are comparisons of the MOST EXPENSIVE methods of water supply not the least expensive methods. At even $6 a gallon, people on the Front Range would not be able to afford to boil vegetables for dinner every night.

Thus, not only is the project impractical to build, the results of the completed project are just as impractical.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Come'on folks, get on the web and comment on this proposal! 

For or against, do it.


----------



## fishingfan57 (Nov 25, 2011)

Seen this on another site,thought someone might be interested. 

Green groups oppose plan for water pipeline from Wyoming to Colorado
Posted: 12/16/2011 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/16/2011 05:19:13 AM MST 
By Bruce Finley 
The Denver Post 
Environmental groups from across the West filed objections Thursday to a proposed multi billion-dollar pipeline project to import water to Colorado from Wyoming — calling it a bad idea with more unanswered questions than a presidential debate.
Federal authorities deciding whether to grant a preliminary permit for the project proposed by Fort Collins entrepreneur Aaron Million have received more than 170 mostly negative comments on the proposal.
But Million said he's undaunted. He said he's talking with energy-industry representatives about using the water for oil and gas production.
The pipeline to move up to 200,000 acre-feet of water a year could sustain water-intensive hydraulic-fracturing operations in Wyoming and Colorado, Million said.
"We've heard rough figures of 15,000 to 20,000 acre-feet annually for fracking needs," Million said. "If this new water supply helps with the fracking issues, then, without question, we would consider delivering water for the industry."
Otherwise, oil and gas companies likely will continue to compete with towns, cities and farmers to use existing water supplies, he said. 
"New water will help increase flows in the system, which will help agriculture," he said.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission next week is scheduled to close a period for public comment on the proposed Flaming Gorge project and move toward an initial decision.
Million's Regional Watershed Supply Project calls for a 570-mile pipeline to move water from the upper Colorado River Basin in southwestern Wyoming to expanding suburbs along Colorado's Front Range. He estimates the cost at $3 billion. It would divert water from near the Flaming Gorge Reservoir, which traps the Green River, across the Continental Divide to the Front Range — generating hydroelectric power along the way.
A coalition of south-metro water providers also is pursuing a diversion of water from Wyoming, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board has supported an effort to explore the idea.
"A preliminary permit does not authorize construction or operation of a project," federal regulatory commission spokeswoman Celeste Miller said. "All it does is give you priority over a site for three years to study feasibility."
The Colorado Environmental Coalition, National Parks Conservation Association and Western Resource Advocates on Thursday were filing formal objections to the project. Another coalition of 11 environmental groups, including Sierra Club, Wyoming Outdoor Council and Save the Poudre, also objected.
They contend that the project cost could reach as much as $9 billion and that Million has failed to demonstrate need for the water with customers committed to paying for the water if it could be delivered.
And they say preventing that much water from flowing into the Green River would hurt wetlands, birds, fish and the recreation economies of surrounding communities.
"The real shame of this entire process is that it is a distraction from discussions of much more reasonable and cost-effective water supply projects," said Stacy Tellinghuisen, an energy and water policy analyst for Western Resource Advocates, a Boulder law and policy firm.
"If (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) takes on this application, they will be using taxpayer dollars and resources to look into the project," Tellinghuisen said. "This is a totally unrealistic project."


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

The preliminary permit has been denied, for now. FERC says the idea is still pie in the sky, basically.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=1933817 ... id=queue-2


----------

