|
Pipeline will not include hydropower |
|
|
|
|
Written by Tony Rayl
|
|
Thursday, 24 April 2008 |
The Republican
River Compact Compliance Pipeline will not include
the capability of generating hydroelectricity.
The Republican River Water Conservation District
Board of Directors voted not to include the
hydropower capabilities, at the end of last Friday's
rescheduled quarterly meeting in Yuma.
RRWCD had formed a committee to research the
idea. The committee met the previous week to go over
a report from GEI Consultants, the firm doing the
feasibility study and design for the pipeline.
GEI representatives Dick Westmore and Steve
Townsley gave a report before the whole board at the
quarterly meeting, held April 18 in the Nazarene
Church gymnasium. It originally was set for April 10
but was postponed due to the snowstorm.
GEI's report stated that it would cost an
additional $3.5 million to include hydropower
generation. The total included $1.1 million for pipe
upgrade as all of it would be 36-inch pipe, rather
than 30-inch pipe that is planned for the final 5.5
miles — which is the downslope end of the pipeline.
Adding the hydropower capabilities would put the
pipeline portion of the project slightly above its
budget. The report put annual operation and
maintenance at an additonal $25,000.
Y-W Electric provided potential selling costs of
the generated power. One projection was at 5.5 cents
per kilowatt hour (kWh), while another was at 8
cents per kWh. The GEI people told the board that
the project does not make much sense from an
economic standpoint at 5.5 cents per kWh, and made a
little more sence at 8 cents per kWh, but it still
would be a marginal economic benefit.
The Engineering Committee recommended not doing
hydro power, and GEI concurred.
However, RRWCD Board Member Greg Terrell pushed
the case a little further. He said he felt the
committee members were more positive toward the
project during the previous week's meeting. Terrell
noted he wasn't thrilled with having to build a
pipeline, but added that since it needs to be done,
including hydropower generation at least would “make
lemonade out of lemon.”
Terry Hall of Y-W Electric was at the meeting.
Terrell quizzed him on potential future costs of
electricity. Hall said it was impossible to predict
with carbon dioxide costs being the big variable,
requiring him to foresee what lawmakers will do in
regards to carbon legislation.
Terrell eventually asked if it was safe to say
electricity will sell for at least 12 cents per kWh
in 30 years, to which Hall agreed. At that cost the
hydropower revenue generated by the pipeline would
be $500,000.
Terrell said there probably are grants that
could cover a significant portion of the $3.5
million to include hydropower in the project.
GEI's representatives said the pipeline could be
built with hydropower in mind, then come back and do
that portion later because it adds a considerable
amount of time to the project.
Terrell started asking why the project needs a
one-million gallon tank for $500,000, when Board
Chairman Dennis Coryell stated the board would come
back to the issue later but it was time to move on
to the next agenda items.
(Westmore and Townsley later stated that the
one-million gallon tank was in the preliminary
plans. However, that has been modified and it is
likely a smaller, less-expensive tank can serve the
necessary purpose.)
Local farmer Byron Weathers, also president of
the Colorado Corn Growers Association, addressed
hydropower later in the meeting during public
comment. He said he also remembered the attitude
being more positive during the previous week's
meeting before he had to leave. He said power is not
going to get any cheaper, and neither are the costs
adding in hydropower components to the pipeline, so
if it was to be done, the sooner the better. He said
he felt $500,000 should not be attributed to the
hydropower proposal because that particular work is
part of the pipeline anyway, so the hydropower
construction costs should be $3 million, not $3.5
million. Weathers also agreed with Terrell that
grants could cover a portion of the costs.
Coryell said the board was under a tight
timetable to make a decision. Weathers said he felt
a decision could be made that day but just wanted to
see more discussion first.
The board finally made a decision at the end of
the long day, following an executive session.
More pipeline
Westmore and Townsley told the board that
land-use hearings before the Yuma County Planning
Commission, and then the Yuma County Commissioners,
are being planned for June. They said the only other
needed permit is from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
The pipeline project schedule calls for bid
openings in October, followed by the signing of a
construction contract in November. The project is
expected to last through June 2009 with it going
online by mid-summer of 2009.
The life expectancy was put at at least 50
years, but probably actually being closer to 100.
Phil Kittelson asked the board if it has considered
using a polypipe instead of PVC, saying it was more
durable and the joints are welded to help avoid
leakage. Coryell referred him to the engineers for
more discussion.
Limit annual use from pipeline wells
The RRWCD board unanimously approved a
resolution limiting the amount of water from each of
the eight main wells for the pipeline to 2,500 acre
feet per year.
The resolution came about after the district met
with neighbors of the pipeline wells to discuss
protecting their water rights.
South Fork rights
RRWCD Manager Stan Murphy went over several
offers coming in from surface water owners along the
South Fork willing to sell their rights, along with
some wells.
The board voted to give preliminary approval
subject to the deals subject to approval from the
district's legal counsel, engineer and executive
committee, along with giving those same people
authority to go through with any other such deals
that might arise in the future. Board member Kim
Killin abstained from the vote.
Murphy said most of the ditches on the South
Fork will be retired due to the deals.
Keeping emails
The board engaged in a long discussion on open
records before voting to main district emails for a
minimum of 24 months. The vote was unanimous.
Pipeline coordinator
RRWCD will be looking to hire a pipeline
coordinator, which will be a full-time position
before and during the construction of the pipeline.
Engineer Jim Slattery said the person should start
in June to be part of the design process.
Murphy said the person will need training to
know what to look for and also be an on-site problem
solver. He said legal and accounting told him they
felt it should be a full-time position instead of a
contract job, and that the person would be let go
when there was no more work available.
Murphy made the case the pipeline coordinator
should not make any more than Administrative
Assistant Dana Barnett. Board members said they
understood her importance to the district, and
Murphy's desire to keep her equally compensated to a
new position. It was noted, though, more might have
to be paid to get an experienced person.
The board unanimously approved the motion to
offer the job for $30,000 to $40,000 based on
experience.
Public comment
Sue Jarrett addressed the board during public
comment. She said the pipeline will pump out water
that never will come back, and placed the blame on
the board for being behind the 8-ball now. She
predicted that in 10 years everyone will be back
looking for another solution.
Jarrett said it has been discovered through the
years that water pumped from the Ogallala Aquifer
for corn seeps back into the aquifer in 25 years, so
it is not farming that is driving down the water
table. She said no one has tackeled that issue, no
one has studied what kind of impact commercial use
has had on the aquifer.
Killin asked her what other solutions the board
should have tackled. Jarrett mentioned the
commercial use, and also said negotiations with
surface water users should have been followed
through on long ago. She said she expected faster
action to attack this problem and it did not happen.
Jarrett also said she agreed with Bud Mekelburg
in his argument that the district's fees, without a
chance for residents to vote on who sits on the
board, was taxation without representation. |
|
|
|
|
