As a warming climate brings bigger and more frequent wildfires, burn scars left behind at high mountain altitudes are seeing snowpack melt much faster than non-burned areas, according to new research by Colorado State University.

Wyatt Reis, lead author of the study while a graduate student, said snowpacks act as massive water reservoirs during winter months. Until now, they have melted slowly in the spring sending water used for drinking, agriculture and other uses to millions in Colorado and across the West.

"Those snowpacks melting at a quicker rate puts more stress on the infrastructure that we have in place, that will need to be managed differently so that there is enough water for those downstream uses," Reis explained.

Rising temperatures have already changed the timing of when snow melts and the state's water managers are working to capture earlier flows. Reis pointed out the trend is likely to accelerate as more fires create conditions for even faster melts. Researchers found snowpacks on south-facing slopes scorched by the Cameron Peak Fire reached their maximum level 22 days earlier than north facing slopes and the snow melted completely a full 11 days earlier.

Snowpacks in burned areas stay colder in winter, due to a lack of thermal energy normally produced by trees, but the energy balance flips during warmer months when there is no shade from the sun. Reis added earlier snow melts in burn areas are also making it more challenging for forests and other vegetation to recover.

"Currently there is nearly no canopy in these burned areas," Reis observed. "That canopy is going to take decades, if it ever regrows, just due to climate change and changing environments."

Wildfires are increasingly burning at high elevations where deep snowpacks accumulate and Reis expects it will present persistent challenges for water managers in Colorado and across the Mountain West.

"That's just going to continue to have major impacts on our water resources for decades to come," Reis projected. "The impact of that, as more fires are continuing, is going to be cumulative."

Running your kitchen faucet and suspecting the water is contaminated can be a scary thought.

A number of Wisconsinites are familiar with this, and there are calls to bolster a program that helps with well replacements.

Tom Van Loh and his wife live in a farming community in Marathon County. They do not farm, but their property is surrounded by cropland. Van Loh said over time, they had a buildup of nitrates in their well, with test results eventually showing excessive levels. County officials helped them apply for aid through the State Well Compensation Grant Program, which funded a reverse osmosis system. It was a lifesaver for the couple.

"We knew for years that we were drinking contaminated water," Van Loh noted. "It gave us a lot of peace of mind."

Van Loh pointed out they likely would not have been able to afford the roughly $12,000 cost and they no longer have to stock up on bottled water. Agencies and assistance groups report waiting lists for the grants, saying eligibility is pretty restrictive when nitrates are involved. Federal pandemic aid extended the program temporarily but the funds eventually ran out.

Chase Cummings, county conservationist for the Dunn County Environmental Services Department, said agencies like his are monitoring increases in nitrate contamination in certain areas. He agreed existing eligibility requirements for the well compensation program make it hard for people to clean up their drinking water, especially when you focus on farm runoff.

"Nitrate concentrations must exceed 40 parts per million," Cummings explained. "The health standard is 10 parts per million. So, you'd have to have a very high nitrate concentration in your private well. And if you were to use the current well comp program eligibility, we would have one individual eligible."

It puts many other property owners in a bind because they do not qualify. Beyond fostering more conversations about expanding access to grants, Cummings stressed county governments are being more intentional about careful land use, including working with farmers to adopt conservation practices so lower levels of nitrates find their way to surrounding water sources.


get more stories like this via email

Some Latinos in Arkansas were among 400 residents across 10 states polled about the health of the Mississippi River.

Both registered Republicans and Democrats were polled and all participants live close to the river.

Dave Metz, president of the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, said overall Latinos are concerned about pollution in the Mississippi, with 83% of them describing it as a national treasure and more than 50% of those polled said they feel it is threatened and it is their responsibility to care for it.

"We also see among Latino voters -- regularly -- stronger support for conservation proposals," Metz reported. "Stronger support for policy proposals designed to promote public health by reducing pollution."

The Mississippi River passes through all the states where the study was conducted. Among those surveyed, 74% said they are very or extremely concerned with the presence of pollution in all the country's rivers, lakes and streams.

The survey also found Latinos feel Congress should do more to protect and clean up the Mississippi River, ensuring the protection of water, air and wildlife, instead of producing more domestic energy through oil and gas drilling or mining.

Metz said 87% of those surveyed support the 30-by-30 goal of conserving 30% of America's lands, freshwater and oceans by 2030.

"Latinos express higher degrees of concern about air and water pollution -- and pollution on land as well -- than what we see among the rest of the population," Metz pointed out. "One reason for this obviously are environmental justice concerns. Many Latinos within the United States live in communities that are disproportionally burdened by sources of pollution."

Those polled said they would back legislation to provide funding to prevent the worst impacts of flooding, incentives for farmers to use sustainable practices and improve soil health and potential policies to create new national parks, monuments or wildlife refuges to protect areas for outdoor recreation.


get more stories like this via email

A federal agency is requiring Wyoming to update cost estimates for a large proposed dam in Carbon County, which has been under feasibility studies since 2008.

The West Fork Battle Creek Dam, proposed in the Medicine Bow National Forest, would be 700 feet long, about 25 stories tall and would create a 130-acre reservoir. The dam would provide late-season irrigation water to Wyoming and Colorado landowners at a projected cost of $80 million, according to a 2017 estimate.

Gary Wockner, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Save the Colorado, thinks it will cost about four times the estimate, partly due to its remote location.

"It'll be hard to get to, it'll be extremely difficult to engineer and build," Wockner contended. "In fact, it's so large and controversial, we believe that permitting and potential court challenges could cost $20 million to $30 million, alone."

The proposal requires a land swap between the U.S. Forest Service and the state, a trade state lawmakers in 2018 allocated nearly $5 million to investigate. The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, the federal agency responsible for granting permits, told the State of Wyoming Water Development Office to update the cost estimate for the dam. So far, the analysis itself has cost $1.5 million.

The estimate is a vital part of the cost-benefit analysis and determines who will fund the dam. The National Environmental Policy Act requires both an analysis of the proposed plan and several alternative plans, Wockner pointed out.

"Then, you pick what's called the 'least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,'" Wockner added. "You have to have a reasonable cost estimate in order to do the entire NEPA analysis correctly."

In 2023 scoping comments on the project, Wockner argued the analysis should include an estimate of greenhouse gases the project would emit, and effects on the already over-allocated Colorado River.


get more stories like this via email