3. Groundwater
Goal: To protect the availability, sustainability and quality of our groundwater.
Objectives:
A. Improve information availability, comprehensiveness, and accuracy on groundwater availability and sustainability, particularly in areas subject to continued development or changes in land use.
B. Improve information availability, comprehensiveness, and accuracy on the susceptibility of the flows in our rivers and streams to pumping of groundwater.
C. Provide and improve opportunities for groundwater recharge, through such methods as maintaining and restoring wetlands and, where possible, restoring overbanking flows.
D. Keep our groundwater free of pollutants, such as discharges from poorly maintained or failed septic systems.
E. Improve our information on the susceptibility of our groundwater resources to contamination, particularly in areas where groundwater is, or will be, utilized as a drinking water supply.
F. Improve our water quality monitoring of groundwater.
G. Improve our community’s understanding and enforcement of federal, state and local regulations designed to protect groundwater availability, sustainability and quality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments from 9/10/09 Public Meeting:
ReplyDelete1. Objectives A and B were grouped together and considered the most important Objectives. Improving our information on groundwater and disseminating that information was considered key.
2. Objectives D, E and F were grouped together and identified as the second most important group of Objectives. All of these Objectives address groundwater pollution/contamination.
3. The impact of oil and gas development in the Thompson Creek area was identified as a groundwater concern.
4. The proliferation of exempt wells (which are exempt from water rights administration) pose potential problems for water availability and sustainability. There is also an issue with property owners using these wells for unpermitted uses.
5. A series of issues related to onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic systems) were identified:
a. Cross contamination of wells by septic systems is an issue. The public lacks a good understanding of the public health issues and the need for proper maintenance and siting of these systems.
b. Better education of both homeowners and Homeowners Associations with respect to proper maintenance and siting of onsite wastewater treatment systems is required.
c. Better regulation of onsite wastewater treatment systems (with respect to proper sizing, adequate maintenance, and spacing/clustering issues) is required.
Comments from 9/24/09 Public meeting in Woody Creek:
ReplyDelete1. Objectives D and E are highest priority.
2. It was discussed that wells are dependent on ditches for groundwater.
3. Ground water in older subdivisions is a big issue due to the cost of retrofitting existing infrastructure.
4. Concerns about enforcement of regulations was discussed. One of the biggest concerns is the absence of the Water Commissioner in the lower Roaring Fork Watershed. This will stretch the upper RFW commissioner’s time too thin with the current state hiring freeze.
5. There is a need to promote the reuse of water especially for those operating over capacity in Brush Creek.
Comments from 10/1/09 public meeting in Glenwood Springs:
ReplyDelete1. Pitkin County has completed a GIS tool to access groundwater -quantity and quality for a large part of the county.
2. Chemical contamination is bigger issue in lower basin.
3. C: Use more wetlands as recharge and wastewater treatment
4. E. Create Endeavour to determine ??
5. Data becomes key to all functions – need to know
Comments from a 10/15/09 Public Meeting in Aspen:
ReplyDelete1. Groundwater recharge in Northstar is not commonly understood. Water flows down the slopes in the Northstar area and feeds the local springs. Flood events are infrequent, with the last regional flooding occurring in 1998. Improving water quality and groundwater recharge in the Northstar area should be a priority.
2. Improving groundwater data acquisition and analysis is important. We need to look at our data gaps and prioritize areas for study – commencing with those areas in the watershed where our water is coming from (i.e., source areas, as opposed to use areas).
3. Understanding groundwater quality is important. In doing so, we need to be sure to differentiate between natural conditions and man-induced problems (e.g., mines, onsite wastewater treatment systems). Mine drainage is not as big an issue here as it is in other parts of Colorado. However, the impacts of Ruby Mine (in Lincoln Gulch) should be evaluated (notwithstanding the fact that this water goes to Grizzly Reservoir and over to the Front Range).
Comments from Dec 3, 2009 meeting with
ReplyDeleteGlenwood Springs City Council, River Commission, and Planning and Zoning Board.
Groundwater quality-need more information. (Need to look at construction and maintenance of ISDS).
Need more information on groundwater.