The Arkansas Valley Conduit scores and extra $4 million from Reclamation funds

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Arkansas Valley Conduit will receive an additional $4 million in federal funds this year thanks to reallocation of unused or leftover funds within the Bureau of Reclamation. “It will allow us to start working on engineering and the drafting of a design,” said Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, sponsors of the project.

Broderick learned of $3.79 million in additional funds being steered to the conduit during a visit with Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor in Washington, D.C., earlier this week. The money comes at a time when the district anticipated getting far less than it needed to keep the project moving. Last month, the district’s board received the grim news that under sequestration, only $1 million would be included in the 2014 budget. The district had sought $14 million.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit update: Federal budget slashes funding to $1 million

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., is asking the Senate energy appropriations subcommittee to provide additional funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The conduit’s funding stream hit a snag in the 2014 budget request by President Barack Obama, which allocates $1 million. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District had asked the Bureau of Reclamation for $15 million to keep the project moving forward.

At April’s meeting, the Southeastern board learned that Reclamation projects across the board had been slashed, including some already under construction. “I don’t know what will happen,” said Southeastern Executive Director Jim Broderick. “We are going to Washington in a couple of weeks to try to learn more.”

In a letter to committee chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Bennet pointed out other long-term projects in California and Idaho that had received additional funding. “As the subcommittee prepares for the coming fiscal year, we must ensure that states and local communities have the resources to continue work on large-scale, multiyear projects,” Bennet said.

The conduit’s environmental impact statement is being prepared by Reclamation, and the conduit already has a built-in repayment mechanism through 2009 legislation that devotes Fryingpan-Arkansas contract revenue to conduit costs.

The cost of the project is estimated at $500 million. It would deliver fresh drinking water from Pueblo Dam to 40 communities as far east as Lamar. Many of those communities could face even higher treatment costs if the conduit is not completed.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit funding at risk

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The funding pipeline for the Arkansas Valley Conduit has sprung a leak. Federal funding pressures could reduce conduit funding to one-third of its current levels and far less than Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District officials had hoped for in next year’s budget. “The conduit is not the only project affected. There are projects under construction that got cut,” Southeastern lobbyist Christine Arbogast told the board Thursday. “Delays cost money, so it’s going to make it more difficult as we move forward.”

The district discussed a figure of $14 million to begin design and construction of the conduit in 2014. However, the budget President Barack Obama submitted to Congress last week included only $1 million for the conduit. The Bureau of Reclamation is on pace to complete an environmental impact statement for the conduit by the end of this year. But several other water projects already being built saw cuts of 75 percent or more in the president’s budget.

If Congress adopts another continuing resolution, rather than a budget, the conduit might retain its current level of funding, $3 million, in 2014, said Executive Director Jim Broderick. Otherwise, the district appears to be out of options to increase funding. “It’s clear the game is different than it used to be,” Broderick said, recounting last week’s visit to Washington, D.C. “This doesn’t stop the project, but it will move at a different pace.”

A federal law in 2009 provided a way to repay the federal government for conduit costs through storage contract payments to Reclamation for use of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. But payments would not start until after the project is completed.

The conduit could cost up to $500 million to build and would deliver fresh drinking water from Pueblo Dam to 50,000 people in 40 communities along the Arkansas River. “We’re concerned about the drop in funding, but we’re still in the pre-construction phase,” Broderick said.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas River Valley well users may end up owing water to the river from 2012 #codrought

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

More bad news for farmers. Earlier this year, groundwater associations determined that there would be limited or no replacement water for wells in the Arkansas Valley. Upon reviewing plans submitted March 1, the state is working with the well groups to determine if more water still is owed from 2012. “Depletions have occurred that have not been paid back,” Division 2 Engineer Steve Witte told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Thursday.

Witte’s staff is reviewing wellpumping plans from the three large well groups to determine how much water might be owed under Rule 14 of the 1996 Arkansas Valley groundwater rules. It could mean a ban on pumping or allowing minimum pumping to occur this year. The state also is looking at domestic and municipal users who may need to implement restrictions in order to keep wells operating this summer. “We are encouraging conservation measures to meet critical needs,” Witte said.

One well association, the Arkansas Groundwater Users Association, factored the 2012 depletions into its 2013 Rule 14 plan, said manager Scott Lorenz after the meeting. He said farmers should be able to pump at 30 percent on the mainstem of the Arkansas River and 48 percent on Fountain Creek. The Colorado Water Protective and Development Association informed its members who did not have their own sources of replacement water that no water would be available. The Lower Arkansas Water Management Association plan called for 30 percent pumping.

The Southeastern board received more gloomy news about snowpack and stream flow conditions. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Flows could be as low as last year — the second-lowest on record — while storage and soil moisture conditions are even worse.

Meanwhile the Southeastern board also heard an update for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:

A route for the Arkansas Valley Conduit will be recommended when the final environmental impact statement is released later this year. It could be a hybrid of alternatives being studied by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which can match components of various alternatives. “The Pueblo routes have raised concerns about what’s already in the ground, so the goal is to find a route that alleviates concerns without additional costs,” Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Executive Director Jim Broderick told the district board Thursday.

Reclamation still is working on cost-benefit ratios for the project, which includes storage in Lake Pueblo for the conduit and other needs.

The estimated cost of the conduit, which will provide clean drinking water to 50,000 people in 40 communities east of Pueblo, is $500 million. But that could be high because of standard contingency rates added to early stages of construction projects. Benefits are likely to be in the $500 million range as well, said Broderick, who traveled to Washington, D.C., last month to discuss the project with federal officials.

No route for the pipeline was recommended in the draft environmental impact statement last year, but routes through Pueblo and south of the city are being considered. But the routes generated concern with the city of Pueblo. On Oct. 29, Pueblo interim City Manager Jim Munch, in a comment to Reclamation saying that any of the routes for the underground pipeline through the Pueblo area have the potential to interfere with infrastructure. Pueblo’s letter also detailed concerns about how water quality could be affected by reduced flows in the Arkansas River through Pueblo.

The city’s comments were among 25 received by Reclamation. Most dealt with mapping errors or water quality concerns.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: ‘Water resources are not a priority with this Congress’ — Christine Arbogast

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar’s upcoming resignation and the political climate in Washington could have consequences for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. “We need to double our effort at Interior to secure funding for the conduit,” lobbyist Christine Arbogast told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Thursday.

Salazar, who battled for the conduit when he served in the U.S. Senate, understood the project, which is being studied by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of Interior, she said. “If funding slips, the schedule slips and the costs go up,” she said.

The environmental impact study for the $500 million conduit should be complete before the end of this year. Reclamation will decide the best route for the pipeline which would supply water to 50,000 people in 40 communities east of Pueblo. While funding for the study has remained in place through shaky fiscal times in Washington, the funding for the conduit itself never has been guaranteed. If everything stays in place, the conduit could be built by 2022. That implies annual appropriations would be made by Congress.

“Water resources are not a priority with this Congress,” Arbogast said. “Water is a back-burner issue. It has a low profile and a low priority.”

The conduit was part of the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, but was not built because of the expense. A 2009 bill passed by Congress provided funding through excess-capacity contract revenues to repay the costs of building the conduit.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit update: Cost estimates drop to $400 million

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

As the Arkansas Valley Conduit moves closer to reality, there has been some “nervousness” among participants.

“We have been meeting with some (smaller) communities to answer questions,” said Jim Broderick, executive
director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Thursday. “We have new people coming into
the discussion.”

While the cost of the conduit is estimated at $500 million in a draft environmental impact statement by the Bureau
of Reclamation, nearly half of that represents contingency costs that reflect a low level of engineering, Broderick
said.

“We think these numbers will drop,” Broderick said.

The district’s own engineering is further along, and indicates costs will be in line with earlier estimates in the $300
million to $400 million range.

Public meetings on the conduit were conducted last month and produced about seven comments, mostly in favor
of the conduit. A final EIS should be released sometime next year. The next step is to review the cost­benefit
analysis. “We are putting time into it in order to make sure the right details are in it when benefits are calculated,”
Broderick said.

The project has been seriously discussed for the past decade and would not be built for another decade, if federal
funding is in place. In the meantime, water providers large and small are dealing with increased water quality
requirements, particularly for radionuclides and salinity.

Communities may be uncertain of the process and actions they need to take in the meantime, Broderick said.
More frequent updates of the conduit’s progress are planned to keep them informed, he added.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit update: Source water quality problems would be improved by the conduit

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Besides providing a reliable amount of water, the Arkansas Valley Conduit would improve water quality for the 40 communities that have indicated an interest in the project.

Salinity and radiation in local water supplies exceed federal drinking standards. The levels have created regulatory pressure from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to find sources of better water, said Signe Snortland, who heads the Bureau of Reclamation team evaluating the conduit.

Meetings were held last week in Salida, Pueblo, La Junta and Lamar on the draft environmental impact statement.

Of the conduit participants, 14 are in violation of radiation standards.

Meanwhile, Reclamation has cut a contract with Vine Laboratories in Denver to do the geological work. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain:

The Bureau of Reclamation has awarded a $715,000 contract to Vine Laboratories of Denver to conduct geologic investigations, including drilling, testing and sampling of unconsolidated material and bedrock necessary for design of the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit project. The contract will provide some preliminary data describing geological conditions and other variables.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Reclamation Awards Contract for Arkansas Valley Conduit Investigations

Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

The Bureau of Reclamation has awarded a $715,477.50 contract to Vine Laboratories of Denver, Colo., to conduct geologic investigations, including drilling, testing, and sampling of unconsolidated material and bedrock necessary for design of the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit project.

Vine Laboratories is a woman-owned small business in Colorado.

“Reclamation is pleased to award this contract to one of Colorado’s small businesses,” said Michael J. Ryan, Great Plains Regional Director.

The contract will provide some preliminary data describing geological conditions and other variables.

If constructed, the AVC would convey water from Pueblo Reservoir to communities in southeastern Colorado.

For more information, please visit www.usbr.gov/avceis.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Construction costs come in at $500 million

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The costs of building the Arkansas Valley Conduit would be about $500 million no matter which alternative is chosen, according to a preliminary analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation. Four routes from Pueblo Dam are being considered and the costs of annual maintenance range from $3.4 million-$4.6 million. More detailed cost estimates are being prepared and will be released in a report later this year, said Signe Snortland, who is heading a Reclamation team evaluating the conduit, master storage contract for Lake Pueblo and an interconnection at Pueblo Dam. The projects have been requested by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

While the Arkansas Valley Conduit would meet water supply and quality needs of 40 communities east of Pueblo, it first has to make it out of the city. “The conduit must go through or around Pueblo,” said Signe Snortland, head of a Bureau of Reclamation team evaluating the environmental impacts of the conduit and two other projects. Reclamation hosted two hearings in Pueblo on Tuesday on the conduit, a $500 million project that would bring clean drinking water to the Lower Arkansas Valley. Few comments were received, but the public has until Oct. 30 to provide input. Other hearings have been at Salida and La Junta. The hearings end today in Lamar.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Reclamation Hosts Public Hearings on AVC Draft EIS

Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

The Bureau of Reclamation announces five public hearings to be held as part of the public comment period for the Arkansas Valley Conduit and Long-Term Excess Capacity Master Contract Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Comments will be accepted through October 30, 2012.

Meetings will be held September 24-28 in Salida, Pueblo, La Junta and Lamar, Colo. There will be an afternoon and an evening meeting in Pueblo. For dates and locations, please visit the website at http://www.usbr.gov/avceis.

The hearings will include an open house, presentation, question and answer forum, and an opportunity for oral comments from the public. The schedule for evening meetings is 6:30 pm open house and exhibits, 7:00 pm presentation with questions and answers, and 7:30 pm hearing. The afternoon meeting starts at 1 pm with the open house and exhibits, 1:30 pm presentation with questions and answers, and 2 pm hearing.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Reclamation is analyzing three proposed federal actions for the AVC and Master Contract that would tie into its Fryingpan- Arkansas water project. The Draft EIS summarizes the analyses to date and can be accessed via the aforementioned website.

“Public comments are a key component to our environmental compliance process,” said Mike Ryan, Regional Director for Reclamation’s Great Plains Region.

Comments outside of the hearings must be sent to the attention of J. Signe Snortland, Reclamation Environmental Specialist, via mail or e-mail at Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, PO Box 1017, Bismarck ND 58502; or jsnortland@usbr.gov.
For more information please contact Kara Lamb at (970) 962-4326 or klamb@usbr.gov.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

A series of meetings this week will give area residents the opportunity to review a draft environmental impact statement for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The meetings will be hosted by the Bureau of Reclamation, which prepared the draft EIS on the conduit and a master storage contract requested by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Comments on the draft EIS will be accepted through Oct. 30. The draft EIS does not list a preferred alternative for the conduit.

From The Prowers Journal (Russ Baldwin):

Residents along the Arkansas River will be given an opportunity to comment on an environmental impact statement regarding the Arkansas River Conduit project, running between Pueblo and Lamar.

The Bureau of Reclamation has set up a series of public hearings between September 24 and 27 in various locations. One will be held in La Junta on Wednesday, September 26 at Otero Junior College from 6:30pm to 8pm and one will be held in Lamar, Thursday, September 27 in the multi-purpose room at the Lamar Community Building, also between 6:30 and 8pm. Each of the public hearings will be preceded by an Open House. The Reclamation Bureau will accept written comments on the EIS until October 30, 2012.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Reclamation releases draft Arkansas Valley Conduit environmental impact statement

Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

The Bureau of Reclamation announces the public comment period for the Arkansas Valley Conduit and Long-Term Excess Capacity Master Contract Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Comments will be accepted through October 30, 2012.
“Public comments are a key component to our environmental compliance process,” said Mike Ryan, Regional Director for Reclamation’s Great Plains Region.

As part of the National Environmental Policy Act, Reclamation is analyzing three proposed federal actions for the AVC and Master Contract that would tie into its Fryingpan-Arkansas water project. The Draft EIS summarizes the analyses to date.

To access the Draft EIS, Executive Summary, and supporting technical reports please visit http://www.usbr.gov/avceis. A list of libraries where the Draft EIS is available is also included on the website.

In late September, Reclamation will host five public hearings to present the Draft EIS to the public, answer questions, and accept both written and oral comments. The hearings will include an open house, presentation, question and answer forum, and an opportunity for oral comments from the public. Meetings will be held in Salida, Pueblo, La Junta and Lamar, Colo. For dates, times and locations, please visit the website at http://www.usbr.gov/avceis.

Comments outside of the hearings must be sent to the attention of J. Signe Snortland, Reclamation Environmental Specialist, via mail or e-mail at Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, PO Box 1017, Bismarck ND 58502; or jsnortland@usbr.gov.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Bureau of Reclamation Wednesday released a draft environmental impact statement for the conduit and a master storage contract proposed by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District…

The 40 communities that would receive clean drinking water from the conduit would pay some of the costs, but many face more costly alternatives to remove salts and radionuclides.

The master contract would provide more certainty for long-term storage of nonproject water in Lake Pueblo both for use by the conduit participants and other users within the Southeastern district. The 400-page report does not recommend an alignment for the conduit, but instead lists a no-action alternative, five possible alternatives for the conduit and an alternative that includes only the master contract.

Meetings are planned next month to discuss the report in Salida, Pueblo, La Junta and Lamar.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: The one last big piece of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project yet to be constructed

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

As water is used and reused along the Arkansas River, it picks up and releases salt. By the time the Arkansas River reaches the state line, it can be up to 10 times more saline than at Pueblo. In addition, many of the wells used to supply water to the cities and towns of the Arkansas Valley have radionuclide (a class of atom that exhibits radioactivity) contamination. As state restrictions tighten, they will be forced to either clean the water or turn to a new supply through the conduit. Building the conduit always has been a chicken-or-egg proposition. The population of the valley has never been large enough to afford the conduit, but it is vital for its future growth…

The Bureau of Reclamation is doing an environmental impact study for the conduit — along with associated long-term storage contracts — that should be completed next year.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“It is still a struggle to provide good water to newcomers,” said Bill Long, the conduit’s most tireless advocate…

Long is a Las Animas businessman, Bent County commissioner and president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. His view of the Fry-Ark Project is one in which future generations will enjoy the work going on today.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Pueblo Dam: Key infrastructure for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

…despite the prominent presence of fun at Lake Pueblo, its primary purpose is to store water for the farms and cities of the Arkansas River basin, as well as provide flood protection.

Built as terminal storage for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Lake Pueblo has taken on other uses over the years. Because it is not always full, excess-capacity contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation allow others to use it. The most controversial contracts have been awarded to Aurora, which uses the Fry-Ark Project to take water out of the Arkansas River basin — a purpose not included in the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Act. The Southeastern Colorado and Lower Arkansas Valley water conservancy districts waged protests against that practice, but settled differences through additional payments and conditions placed on Aurora.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The winter water storage program began voluntarily in 1975, after the completion of Pueblo Dam, but had been a part of project planning since the 1930s.

“We had dirt ditches and deep canals that would fill with weeds and snow. You would spend days cleaning them out, and they’d fill again when you got your next run,” [John Schweizer] said, recalling freezing winter days.

“As far as I’m concerned, the Pueblo Reservoir was the greatest improvement to the valley. It has been a real boon to agriculture.”

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

50th anniversary celebration of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Saturday at Lake Pueblo

The project got its start with a visit to Pueblo from President Kennedy back in 1962. Here’s the first installment from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. Click through and read the whole article, Woodka is a terrific writer. Here’s an excerpt:

But on that day [August 17, 1962], work began to address the problem. Kennedy came to Pueblo to celebrate the signing of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Act the previous day. Local water leaders will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Fry-Ark Project Saturday at Lake Pueblo…

The Twin Lakes Tunnel was constructed by the Colorado Canal Co. during the Great Depression, while the old Carlton railroad tunnel was used by the High Line Canal Co. to bring in water. In addition, Colorado Springs and Aurora were already building the Homestake Project, which would be intertwined with the Fry-Ark Project as both were built.

But the government project, a scaled-down version of an earlier, larger plan to bring water from the Gunnison River basin, represented a larger cooperative effort between farmers and municipal leaders in nine counties.

Since the first water was brought over in 1972, about 2.1 million acre-feet of water has been brought into the Arkansas River basin for irrigation and municipal use. The project also generates electric power at the Mount Elbert Power Plant.

Woodka details some of the early water history along the Arkansas River mainstem in this report running in today’s Chieftain. Here’s an excerpt:

The Water Development Association of Southeastern Colorado was incorporated in 1946. Pueblo business leaders worked with valley water interests to investigate a Gunnison-Arkansas Project. By 1953, the project was scaled back to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, and the first hearings began in Congress.

During the congressional hearings in subsequent years, the project evolved from one primarily serving agriculture to one that included municipal, hydroelectric power, flood control and recreation as well.

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District formed in 1958.

The U.S. House passed the Fry-Ark Act on June 13, 1962; the U.S. Senate, Aug. 6, 1962. President John F. Kennedy signed it into law on Aug. 16, 1962.

Here’s a short look at Jay Winner, current general manager of the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District, from Chris Woodka Writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Back in the 1960s, his father Ralph Winner was the construction superintendent for Ruedi Reservoir, the first part of the Fry-Ark Project to be constructed and his family lived on the job site. His father came back in the late 1970s to supervise construction of one of the last parts of the collection system to be built, the Carter-Norman siphon. The siphon draws water across a steep canyon.

For three summers, Winner, then a college student, worked on the latter project. “It was the most fun I ever had,” he laughed. “I got to play with dynamite.”

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A retired outfitter, [Reed Dils] is now a Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board member and a former representative from the Arkansas River basin on the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “Initially, the flows got worse,” Dils said. “They (the Southeastern district and the Bureau of Reclamation) had chosen to run water in the winter…

“It became apparent to everyone there was another way to run the river,” Dils said. “Why the Fry-Ark act was passed, recreation mainly meant flatwater recreation. Over time, they learned there are other types of recreation.”

Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Reclamation and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District invite the public to celebrate the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project’s 50th Anniversary at Lake Pueblo State Park on Sat., Aug. 18. The event is located at Lake Pueblo State Park Visitor’s Center from 9 a.m.to 2 p.m.

Reclamation, the District and Colorado State Parks and Wildlife are offering free pontoon boat tours around Pueblo Reservoir and free tours of the fish hatchery located below Pueblo Dam. There will also be historical displays and several guest speakers.

Signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is a multipurpose trans-basin water diversion and delivery project serving southeastern Colorado.

The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project provides:

- Water for more than 720,000 people
- Irrigation for 265,000 acres
- The largest hydro-electric power plant in the state
- World renowned recreation opportunities from the Fryingpan River to the Arkansas River.

For more information the 50th Anniversary Celebration – and to see a teaser of the upcoming film! – visit our website at www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

Meanwhile, Alan Hamel is retiring from the Pueblo Board of Water Works this month:

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“Little did I know how important the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project would be as I was watching the president’s car traveling down Abriendo Avenue that day,” Hamel said. “Look at all that it has done for our basin and what it will do in the future.”

Hamel became executive director of the water board in 1982, and was president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the local agency that oversees the Fry-Ark Project, from 2002-04. He is currently serving on the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

More Pueblo Board of Water Works coverage here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Reclamation public open houses July 17 and 18

Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Who: Neighboring communities, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District need your help.

Why: Access to private land is needed in order to conduct geology and environmental studies for the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit. The AVC would bring clean and safe drinking water to Arkansas River valley communities.

What: The proposed AVC is a feature of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project that was never built, but its possibilities are now being investigated. Pipeline routes are being analyzed and engineering details are being designed. Collection of soil and geotechnical data from land parcels in eastern Colorado as well as environmental resource investigations will help with this planning process. The Bureau of Reclamation is preparing an environmental impact statement to evaluate the effects of this proposed project.

By allowing access to your land, Reclamation engineers and their contractors might dig or drill for soil samples, or record environmental data, which includes cultural or biological resources. Residents in the area might also see drill rigs or survey crews on adjacent properties.

Where: If constructed, the pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir would bring drinking water to communities east of Pueblo to Lamar in the Arkansas Valley.

When: This summer through 2013, the Bureau of Reclamation is conducting its geotechnical study,
drill sampling program, and cultural and biological resource studies to analyze possible pipeline routes and design project features. Public hearings for the environmental impact statement will be held in September 2012.

To obtain more information regarding right of entry on private lands for the AVC Project:

1. Attend local public open houses hosted by City of Las Animas, McClave Water Association, and Hasty Water Company. Each meeting will run from 6-8 p.m.

• Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Hasty Fire House, South Main Street, Hasty, CO
• Wednesday, July 18, 2012, Las Animas City Hall, 532 Carson St., Las Animas, CO

2. Visit our website at www.usbr.gov/avceis.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Reclamation to collect soil and rock samples along proposed pipeline routes

Update: Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Bureau of Reclamation will be taking samples of rock and earth as part of an Environmental Impact Study for the Arkansas Valley Conduit and a master storage contract for the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District….

A Reclamation crew will use a truck-mounted, heavy duty drill rig to sample ground on about 1,600 parcels up to 120 feet deep. While most are on public rights of way, some are on private property, and Reclamation will contact landowners and provide a right-of-entry form, said Kara Lamb, spokeswoman for Reclamation.

Here’s the release from the Bureau of Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Reclamation drill crews will begin geotechnical investigations from Pueblo to Lamar, Colo. in early May. The drill crews will be collecting soil and rock samples along the possible routes of the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit, a water project being evaluated by Reclamation.

The investigations are part of the surveying research Reclamation is conducting for its preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. This environmental document will evaluate three proposed federal actions: the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit; an interconnection between the north and south outlets works of Pueblo Reservoir; and a possible long-term excess capacity Master Contract with Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to store water in Pueblo Reservoir.

Drilling for geotechnical surveying is performed by Reclamation’s Great Plains Regional Geology and Exploration crew. The crew operates a truck mounted CME-85 rig for drilling up to 120 feet below the ground surface to collect samples of rock and earth. The samples are then tested for standard physical properties that will help determine design requirements for the Arkansas Valley Conduit.

While most of the 1600 parcels to be surveyed are in public right-of-ways, some may be on private land. In those cases, Reclamation will contact property owners and provide them with an explanatory letter and a Right of Entry form.

To learn more about the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit, proposed Master Contract, and the related environmental review process, please visit: www.usbr.gov/avceis. Media is invited to contact Kara Lamb, Reclamation Public Information Officer, for follow-up questions at (970) 062-4326 or klamb@usbr.gov.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Reclamation to use aerial photography for Arkansas Valley Conduit

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Bureau of Reclamation announced Monday that planes will be taking aerial photographs along the proposed route of the conduit from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads as part of its Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The EIS also is looking at a long-term master storage project requested by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The draft EIS is expected to be completed late this year. Reclamation has identified five possible pipeline routes from Pueblo to Lamar that will be surveyed.

From Thursday until March 17, survey crews will place white panels shaped like giant plus signs in conjunction with aerial photography to map the potential routes, said Kara Lamb, spokeswoman for Reclamation.

The 11-foot panels are constructed flat on the ground and the locations are calculated using global positioning equipment. Once placed, they will remain on the ground for up to three weeks. The panels are used with aerial photography from an airplane flying at 5,000 feet to obtain topographic information.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Reclamation to use aerial photography for Arkansas Valley Conduit

Here’s the release from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Kara Lamb):

Reclamation employees will perform aerial panel placement for surveying along the Lower Arkansas River Valley corridor March 7-17. The panel placement is part of Reclamation’s National Environmental Policy Act research on the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit and Long Term Excess Capacity Master Contract.
Reclamation has identified five possible pipeline routes from Pueblo to Lamar that will be surveyed. The survey crews will use large white panels shaped like giant plus signs in conjunction with aerial photography to map the potential routes.

The panels are constructed flat on the ground and the locations are calculated using global positioning equipment. Once placed, they need to remain on the ground for up to three weeks. The panels are used with aerial photography from an airplane flying at 5000 feet to obtain topographic information. The topographical data will be used to design the water pipeline.

During the survey process, some private land may need to be accessed by Reclamation surveyors. In those cases, most property owners will be contacted in person by Reclamation staff.

To learn more about the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit, proposed Master Contract, and the related NEPA process, please visit: www.usbr.gov/avceis. Media is invited to contact Kara Lamb at (970) 062-4326 or klamb@usbr.gov.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here.

President Obama’s budget request includes dough for the Arkansas Valley Conduit

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

About $3 million is included in the president’s budget to complete the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. “We’re very, very pleased. This allows us to finish the process and play with some of the technical pieces,” [Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Executive Director Jim Broderick] said.

The draft EIS is expected to be completed by the end of this year. The project would be built by 2022 at the soonest.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

The Arkansas Valley Super Ditch engineering report forecasts the need for an additional 50,000 acre-feet in the valley by 2050

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The conclusion is reached in an engineering report by Heath Kuntz prepared as part of the Super Ditch exchange case filed by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District in 2010.

The exchanges involve up to 58,000 acre-feet of water, 30,000 acres of ground, 82 exchange sites and seven ditch companies. So far, there has been no filing for a change of use of the water. Without a water leasing program like Super Ditch in place, there is the potential to permanently sell more farm water and take away flexibility to use the best farmland to grow crops, said Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district.

“Without the Super Ditch, I can see the day when the Ark Valley turns the clock back to the 1950s and we’re reduced to furrow irrigation,” Winner said. “In fact, I think the demand for water might be even higher than this report indicates.”

With the advent of surface-irrigation improvement rules in 2009, more replacement water will be needed as more systems in the valley are converted…

Well plans administered by three major groups now use about 24,500 acre-feet of leased water, and the engineering report projects that would increase to 30,500 acre-feet of water by 2050. In addition, the Arkansas Valley Conduit is expected to be constructed in the next decade, and its water demands will include 3,100 acre-feet from new sources to serve about 40 communities east of Pueblo. “The total projected demands associated with these operations are approximately 53,300 acre-feet per year in 2050,” Kuntz said in the report…

At its January meeting, the Lower Ark board heard from well associations that its lease of water from the Pueblo Board of Water Works, to help surface irrigators fill replacement needs, is raising the price others have to pay for augmentation water. The Pueblo water board typically sells water to bidders each year when the water is available. The price has been creeping up, as witnessed by the Fort Lyon Canal’s bid of $40 per acre-foot — twice its typical offer — in 2011. But the well groups argue that the $200 per acre-foot in the Lower Ark’s five-year contract takes water out of the pool available to them.

More Arkansas River basin coverage here.

Southeastern Board Meeting recap: Reclamation stands to get $3 million for Arkansas Valley Conduit EIS

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Bureau of Reclamation is working on an environmental impact statement for the conduit that will identify the preferred option for the conduit. It will be allocated nearly $3 million to complete the study in the next year, said Christine Arbogast, a lobbyist for the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District…

In the 2013 fiscal year, relatively little funding would be needed as the EIS is completed, but in the following year the district will have to push for federal funds to begin building the conduit.

More coverage from Chris Woodka Writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Colorado has accrued 44,000 acre-feet of credits under an accounting system of deliveries of Arkansas River water to Kansas. There are two reasons for the surplus, Witte explained:

- The Lower Arkansas Water Management Association has been delivering about 8,000 acre-feet annually for six years from the Kessee Ditch below John Martin Reservoir.

- The state has been using a presumptive depletion factor of 39 percent, rather than 30 percent as required by the compact lawsuit.

The Division of Water Resources will re-evaluate the depletion factor in June, and it likely will be lowered to some midpoint between the two extremes, Witte said. That means well owners would be required to replace less water on an annual basis, but the change would not go into effect until April 2013 at the earliest.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“The Arkansas Basin Roundtable is overseeing this pilot program [for the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch] as well as the Lower district,” Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board Thursday. “We’re trying to be as transparent as we can.”

Winner and engineer Heath Kuntz reviewed Super Ditch plans at the board’s monthly meeting. The information was the same as longer presentations to a group of about 200 people earlier this month in Rocky Ford. That meeting was held at the suggestion of State Engineer Dick Wolfe to give those who could be affected by Super Ditch the opportunity to look at the potential impacts of a pilot program. The Rocky Ford meeting led to a technical meeting in Colorado Springs Thursday to work out issues raised at the first meeting. The Lower Ark district will file its substitute water supply plan for the pilot program after attempting to settle those issues, Winner said.

More Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District coverage here.

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board approves a $17.2 million budget for 2012

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The major portion of the budget, $11.8 million, goes to repay federal costs of constructing the Fry-Ark Project, which includes the Fountain pipeline. Another $270,000 is revenue from state and federal grants.

The operating budget for the district is $5.1 million, with about 60 percent in the general fund, and 40 percent in the enterprise fund.

Of the $3 million district fund, $1.36 million goes toward personnel.

The budget also includes a capital expenditure of $850,000 as the district’s share for purchase of the Red Top Ranch near Lake Granby. That cost will total $1.7 million over two years. The ranch purchase is part of a plan by Front Range water users, including Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, Pueblo and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, to provide flows for endangered fish species in the Colorado River. Participation in the program is a condition for importing Fry-Ark water each year.

The major project in the $2.1 million enterprise fund will be the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing an environmental impact statement for the conduit.

More Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District coverage here.

The Bureau of Reclamation is evaluating alternatives for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, the draft EIS should be out in 2012

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“This is a big step, and I’m thankful we’ve made it to this point,” said Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, sponsors of the conduit. “I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to meet the timelines.” Those timelines include completion of the draft EIS by next fall and construction of the 235-mile pipeline within a decade…

Wednesday’s session dug down into how the EIS will be developed and explained over the next year. Reclamation is attempting to make the process more understandable to the general public. “We’re trying to make it a much more readable document for the general public,” said Jerry Gibbens, a consultant for MWH Engineering.

The conduit will move about 10,000 acre-feet of water annually, and will be associated with a master contract for about 26,900 acre-feet of storage in Lake Pueblo. Together the projects involve about 20 percent of the municipal water supply, and 7 percent of the total water supply, Gibbens said. The impact throughout the Arkansas River basin, and particularly downstream from Pueblo Dam, will be studied. To help the public get a better idea, photographs of how the river looks at various stages along different reaches of the rivers will be included along with the traditional hygrograph in the online version of the draft EIS, once it is completed, Gibbens said.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project update: Reclamation is on board with compromise for the spending of project revenues

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The plan pays off the South Outlet Works connection to Pueblo Dam, about $2 million, using revenues from 2010-11 this year, and begin paying down federal debt on the Fountain Valley Conduit and Ruedi Reservoir next year. During that time, the groups will work on a mutually acceptable plan for future years…

The new plan backs off the Southeastern’s insistence that Arkansas River basin parts of the project be paid down before Ruedi, a compensatory storage reservoir for the Western Slope above Basalt near Aspen…

The South Outlet Works delivers water from the Pueblo Dam to the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Fountain Valley Authority, Pueblo West and the future Arkansas Valley Conduit. Payment of the debt on the South Outlet Works benefits Pueblo water customers, who otherwise would have to pay about $169,000 a year over the next 12 years. More than $52 million is owed on the Fountain Valley Conduit, which serves Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security, Widefield and Stratmoor Hills. Payments for those users total $5.6 million a year, through property tax assessment. More than $32 million is owed on Ruedi, and interest payments increase the amount by $2 million annually. The reservoir was built larger than necessary at the request of Western Slope interests, and the large debt is a result of unused accounts at the reservoir.

More Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here.

Lamar pipeline: Arkansas River basin roundtable members had many questions for Karl Nyquist yesterday

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Questions about cost, economic impact, water quality and whether the project is speculative greeted Karl Nyquist, a partner in GP Water, which is proposing a 150-mile, $350 million pipeline from the Lamar Canal to northern El Paso County and other points along the Front Range. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of water annually could be delivered…

“You’ve said the water template [ed. ag water transfers template developed by the Arkansas basin roundtable] would be used as a guide, how does it get enforced?” asked Dave Taussig, an attorney from Lincoln County.

Nyquist responded that a change case in Water Court, when it is filed, would protect other water rights in the Arkansas Valley. The socioeconomic concerns identified in the roundtable report could be addressed in the Prowers County 1041 land-use process, he added…

Others wanted to know if GP Water was merely a water speculator. “We own the water and won’t go to court until we have end users in mind,” Nyquist said.

During his presentation, he said GP has bid for water service to Cherokee, Castle Rock, Bennett, the district it controls in Elbert County and others. Nyquist said the plan had come to light through media reports before it was fully formed…

The project includes a reservoir, underground storage and treatment plant near Lamar in Prowers County, which Nyquist said would more than offset the loss of agricultural jobs…

GP submitted a proposal to the Cherokee Metropolitan District in Colorado Springs to provide up to 4,000 acre-feet annually for $7 per 1,000 gallons. That works out to about $9 million per year for about one-third of the projected supply…

GP plans to reduce its storage costs by using underground reservoirs, which will cut down on water losses from evaporation. Water quality is better during high flows when GP would store the water, Nyquist explained…

About 40,000 acre-feet of underground storage is available under the ground GP owns. GP estimates its water rights would yield an average of 8,000-10,000 acre-feet annually to move from the Arkansas River basin.

Brine from the treatment plant — which Nyquist said would be about 3-5 percent of the total water supply — would be injected 4,000-8,000 feet underground into formations that are already watered, Nyquist added.

More Lamar pipeline coverage here.