Get the Facts

Why we need SDS now

A factsheet with the reasons why now is the right time to build SDS. PDF Document

————

SDS General Factsheet

A general factsheet on the Southern Delivery System. PDF Document

————

Colorado Springs Utilities Responds to Representative Sal Pace Study Request

Colorado Spring Utilities responded to a letter from Representative Sal Pace requesting additional study on SDS after the phase out of the City's Stormwater Enterprise. Springs Utilities responded that adequate controls and measures are in place to evaluate stream flows from SDS in the Pueblo County 1041 permit and the Record of Decision. Additional study would be duplicative and slow down the ability of Colorado Springs and its partners to deliver water in time to meet their communities' needs. Read more.... PDF

————

Clarification on Fountain Creek water quality rules

Important facts about results of water quality studies performed during extensive analysis of SDS:

• For numerous parameters, including E. coli and selenium, the treated wastewater discharged into Fountain Creek is generally cleaner than the natural creek water.
• SDS impacts to water quality and quantity on Fountain Creek were thoroughly evaluated as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
• Water quality was analyzed a second time in Reclamation’s Supplemental Information Report (SIR) using a method approved by CDPHE and the EPA. The SIR concluded the concentration of E. coli in the creek will not increase as a result of SDS, and in fact, the concentrations could even be slightly less during the operation of SDS due to additional water in the creek.
• Additionally, the study found SDS won’t increase concentrations of selenium, a naturally occurring metal, in Fountain Creek.
• These findings are significant because the water quality impact of SDS was analyzed using two different scientific methods, and each drew similar conclusions.

Important clarifications on misleading assertions made in the Chieftain article:
“The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission will hear arguments for and against a state proposal to list Fountain Creek from Colorado Springs to Pueblo as only seasonally impaired for E. coli and to delist it for selenium impairment.  If approved, that would remove some limits on effluent put into Fountain Creek and further harm water quality, say groups opposing the move.”

Clarification: This assertion is incorrect. Dischargers are required to comply with their discharge permit limits, and the state proposal would not cause discharge permit limits to be revised.
____________

“Their position is that the waterway will always accept more effluent,”said Joe Santarella, attorney for the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition and Sierra Club. “There is no incentive for dischargers to meet TMDL limits.” The state’s action would relax the need for sewer dischargers to meet such levels, Santarella said.

Clarification: Again, these assertions are incorrect. Dischargers are required to meet discharge permit limits that are based upon TMDLs. The state proposal would not change the state’s priorities for setting TMDLs or relax the need for dischargers to meet TMDLs.
____________

“There needs to be more strenuous limits on the dischargers, and then it’s up to them to ratchet the pollutants down,” Vincent said. “The ultimate impact will be the increased discharge into Fountain Creek over the next few years.”

Clarification: Mr. Vincent’s assertions are inaccurate. Again, dischargers are required to meet discharge permit limits and the state proposal will not relax limits.  If the segment is not impaired, there is no need for more strenuous limits on dischargers. If the segment is impaired, the sources of the impairment must be determined.  Point source dischargers may not be the source of the impairment.  Non-point sources may be the source of the impairment. Control of non-point sources may be necessary to eliminate impairment.

Note:  Gazette article, Sept. 5, 2009: Mystery solved for Fountain Creek contamination 
____________

The environmental groups say the exemption of the winter months would give Colorado Springs a window of opportunity to discharge effluent above standards during the winter months.     “The seasonal listing . . . for E. coli may allow CSU to impound effluent from increased loads caused by the proposed SDS project during the summer months and then discharge the impounded effluent outside of the seasonal limitation period,” said Susan Eckert in the groups’ comments.

Clarification: This assertion is also incorrect. Our wastewater treatment plants are not designed to impound effluent for later release.  Our wastewater treatment plants are continuous flow through systems or processes. Nor could Williams Creek Reservoir be used as an impoundment, because effluent would first need to be discharged to Fountain Creek and flow downstream for several miles before diverting it to Williams Creek Reservoir. We must meet compliance before it's ever put into the reservoir.  
____________

“If Colorado Springs Utilities were truly interested in cleaning up Fountain Creek, they would argue for TMDL’s now so they know what they face,” Vincent said. “Right now nobody seems to care.”
Clarification: Colorado Springs Utilities does care and it demonstrates that with significant financial and environmental commitments including:

• Contributing $50 million for the Fountain Creek Watershed District to invest in priority creek improvement projects, staffing and studies;
• Dredging planned for this year on Fountain Creek in Pueblo to help restore the 100-year flood capacity of the levees;
• Building 12 acres of wetlands and realigning the creek on Clear Spring Ranch – about halfway between Colorado Springs and Pueblo – to improve water quality;
• Investing $75 million in our wastewater collection system rehabilitation programs or wastewater reuse systems through 2024. As reported in the Chieftain, we’ve already spent nearly $9 million of the $75 million on wastewater improvements in 2009 as part of our 1041 permit commitments; and, in 2007, we spent $10 million on a wastewater spill-recovery project on Fountain Creek;
• Numerous construction and environmental mitigation measures agreed to under the 1041 permit and Record of Decision – including ongoing monitoring of water quality and flows on the creek;
• Co-funding the Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan from Colorado Springs to Pueblo in partnership with the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District (LAVWCD); and
• Strongly supporting the creation of the Fountain Creek Watershed District and helping to fund its operation in cooperation with the LAVWCD.

————

TV Documentaries Focus on Drought and Infrastructure

Besides providing the water we need for our future, SDS will provide drought protection and increased reliability for Colorado Springs’ water supply. Two recent TV documentaries focus on these issues. And, while neither documentary mentions SDS, they both reinforce the need for this important project. The documentaries:

How does this relate to SDS? SDS is our water “savings account” for protection against drought. The additional water storage provided by SDS will let us collect more water in wet years to use in dry ones. Instead of saving for a rainy day, we’re saving water during rainy days for long stretches of sunny days.

How does this relate to SDS? SDS will ensure uninterrupted water for our homes and businesses. Our water system’s aging. Having another pipeline will help ensure we have enough water when existing pipelines need maintenance or repair.

————

Section 404 Permit Next Major Review For SDS

Colorado Springs Utilities is developing an application for a Section 404 permit (404 Permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The 404 Permit is required by the Clean Water Act when a project involves the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, including wetlands, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation. The 404 Permit process requires a detailed review of the project by the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and includes an opportunity for public review and comment.

A recent story in the Pueblo Chieftain suggested that a separate environmental study for the SDS may be required by the Corps. Reclamation decided not to include the separate environmental review requirements for a 404 Permit in its DEIS because there’s no requirement for combining the two, and there is a possibility that Reclamation could approve an alternative that would not require a 404 Permit. The decision was made at that time to keep the NEPA and 404 Permit processes separate, in the event that the selected SDS alternative did not require a 404 Permit. As part of their consideration of the 404 Permit application, the Corps will review the DEIS and may produce an Environmental Assessment that highlights considerations applicable to the Clean Water Act .. . . (more)

Kansas Not Impacted By SDS

The Chief Engineer for Kansas has been quoted in the media as expressing concerns about the potential impact of SDS on his state’s water supplies. Reclamation does not anticipate changes in flows in the Arkansas River below John Martin Reservoir as a result of SDS.

Firm Yield Not Best Measure of Cost for SDS

Some critics of the Southern Delivery System (SDS) are using incorrect assumptions to suggest the most expensive of the seven alternatives being considered is the best option for SDS. . . . (more)

Recycling Treated Wastewater for Drinking Water is Not a Good Alternative to SDS

Some opponents of the Southern Delivery System want Colorado Springs turn wastewater into drinking water instead of building the SDS pipeline to makes use of rights we already own to water storied in Pueblo Reservoir - an idea rejected by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation when it prepared the Draft Environment for SDS. Recycled drinking water is not a good alternative to SDS. . . . (more)