Arkansas Valley Conduit: Kickoff celebration recap
November 14, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“This is our future,” Southeastern Colorado Conservancy District President Bill Long said Friday at a celebration marking the beginning of the conduit’s construction. “Sometimes I worry that we don’t think about the future the way they did in 1962 or 1942.”[...]
Members of Colorado’s congressional delegation evoked the words of President John F. Kennedy and the continued support of valley leaders such as Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings, Long and others in moving the project toward reality. “I think Jack Kennedy would be enormously proud of the Southeastern district and Southern Colorado for hanging in there all these years,” Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., said. “This is a touchstone for what we should be doing when our politics becomes crazier and crazier.” Bennet quoted Kennedy’s speech in Pueblo in 1962 that praised the public benefits of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project as he signed it into law. The conduit was a crucial part of that project, and would benefit those with the poorest quality drinking water, the Lower Arkansas Valley. It was ballyhooed as a primary benefit when golden frying pans were sold to raise money to support the project. Enthusiasm grew in the 1960s – Lamar joined the Southeastern district in 1968 to partake of the conduit – and continued well into the 1970s…
It wasn’t until this year, when a concept that would use excess-capacity revenues from the Fry-Ark Project to repay federal costs of the conduit and other unfunded portions of the project, that the project took off…
“You’ve seen what happens when water moves away from communities,” Rep. Salazar said. “What we are here today to assure is that every community in the Arkansas Valley gets good, clean drinking water.”[...]
Both Bennet and Salazar mentioned [Bob] Rawlings’ role in promoting the conduit for decades, but Rawlings went even further in history to praise the efforts of others in the history of the Fry-Ark Project. “I think this is a wonderful day,” The Chieftain publisher said. “It’s been a long time coming. The efforts of Frank Hoag, Damian Ducy, Charles Beise, Charles Boustead and many others are looking down on us and grateful that this finally is getting done.”
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District hatches plan to accelerate the Arkansas Valley Conduit
November 13, 2009
Hoping to alleviate building delays due to the vagaries of federal funding the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is shortening the timeline for the environmental (NEPA) reports. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Thursday approved a plan to wrap up major parts of an Environmental Protection Agency grant by next March, allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to begin work on an environmental impact statement by April. “The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) piece of this needs to get started,” said Phil Reynolds, project manager. In order to do that, an EPA grant that was going to take 27 months to complete will be pushed ahead of schedule. The work also includes identifying the route of the pipeline and looking at rights of way. The parts affecting the EIS, however, need to be completed so Reclamation can begin work.
At a meeting this week with the Bureau of Reclamation officials in Billings, Mont., the district received assurances that the $5 million appropriated by Congress for 2010 will be spent in this fiscal year, Executive Director Jim Broderick told the board. “Between now and March 31, we will enter into a third-party agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation,” Broderick said. “If we had not done that, the intent was to spend $2 million this year, and encumber $3 million for the following year.” That would make it difficult for the district to ask for more money in the following year, Broderick said.
Meanwhile, here’s the SECWCD budget news, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“We are not looking at a huge shortfall,” said Kathie Fanning, chief financial officer. “So many things are coming to fruition.” Most of the district’s revenues – $12 million – go toward repayment of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, including $5.3 million for the Fountain Valley Conduit. The district began repaying $132 million on the Fry-Ark Project in 1982, and still owes $68 million on the 50-year loan. This year’s payments toward the project are about 6.5 million. Other payments toward operation of the winter water program, operation and maintenance. The largest expenses in the operating fund go toward employees, $1 million, and legal work, $515,000. Both figures are essentially unchanged from 2009. The district also has budgeted nearly $3 million for its enterprise fund, which includes an accelerated payment schedule for an Environmental Protection Agency grant for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The budget includes property tax collections of 0.944 mills for parts of nine counties. El Paso County contributes 72 percent, while Pueblo County contributes almost 16 percent. Counties west of Pueblo contribute almost 9 percent, while those east of Pueblo make up the remainder.
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to host celebration for $5 million in funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit Friday November 13
November 12, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
A dedication for the Arkansas Valley Conduit will be at 11 a.m. Friday at the base of the Pueblo Dam. The $300 million conduit received $5 million in funding from Congress in October as part of an energy and water appropriations bill signed by President Barack Obama last week. U.S. Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey and U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, all Colorado Democrats, have been asked to speak at the event. The public is invited to attend, and may enter through the south entrance to Lake Pueblo State Park, and follow signs indicating where the ceremony will be.
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District to host celebration for $5 million in funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit Friday November 13
November 9, 2009
From the La Junta Tribune-Democrat:
It will be on the south bank of the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam. People are asked to arrive by 10:45 a.m. by traveling west on Colorado Highway 96, turning right on Juniper Road and following directions to the park and event site. The public is invited to participate in the event.
Pueblo West: Looking at options to enable reuse of effluent
October 29, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Pueblo West indicated it would still submit a site application to the state for a $6.5 million project to discharge sewer flows into a wash two miles above Lake Pueblo near the golf course, even after the Pueblo Area Council of Governments rejected the proposal on an 11-1 vote earlier this month. “We don’t know what’s going to transpire with the lawsuit against the county,” said Steve Harrison, Pueblo West utilities director. “In case we can’t come to some sort of agreement, we are applying for the site application.”
PACOG rejected the proposal because it goes against county regulations on Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1993. Pueblo West would pursue the plan because it offers the best solution for future water needs. The 208 regulations are being applied to the metro district selectively and are out of date, Harrison said.
Most of Pueblo West water comes from the Colorado River Basin, which means the community can reuse the non-native flows to extinction. Currently, Pueblo West reuses the water by exchange, sending its treated sewer flows down Wild Horse Dry Creek, and recapturing about 30 percent of them after transit losses. Pueblo West estimates it could recapture 98 percent of flows with a direct exchange into Lake Pueblo.
But other water users like the Pueblo Board of Water Works and the Fountain Valley Authority are concerned that nutrient loading from the proposed pumpback could upset the biological balance of the reservoir and create new water quality issues. There is also growing pressure to regulate traces of compounds from pharmaceuticals, detergents and fertilizers that would be more likely to make their way into the water supply. “We have serious concerns for the health of the reservoir, not only in terms of water quality, but taste and odor issues as well,” said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. “Pueblo Reservoir is also the most-used recreational facility in the state.”[...]
Wild Horse Dry Creek discharges into the Arkansas River about six miles downstream of a river gauge critical to the flow program, and about one mile above the river intake for the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo and Black Hills Energy. It is a significant source of selenium loading, probably because of the geology of the area – water running over shale formations.
Among the alternatives that have surfaced are:
-Building a discharge pipeline to discharge just below Pueblo Dam above the river gauge.
-Building a discharge pipeline to carry effluent to the Wild Horse confluence at the Arkansas River.
-Creating a trade with the Pueblo water board to use Pueblo West effluent to supply the Comanche Power Plant, with the water board providing water to Pueblo West. The water would still get payments from outside water sales.
-Possibly developing a cooperative arrangement among Pueblo West, Colorado Springs and the Pueblo water board to recapture flows downstream.
-Maintaining the status quo, which could leave Pueblo West in the position of having to buy new water rights if its other plans fail or with a pumpback plan in place despite the local objections…
The State Department of Public Health and Environment would have to buck the PACOG recommendation if it approves the site application…
Pueblo County also has notified Pueblo West that it would require a 1041 permit for the pumpback plan, since Pueblo West identified it as a water supply issue, Headley said.
More Pueblo West coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District will have a hearing next month on its proposed 2010 budget, which totals $14.5 million. The hearing will be at 1 p.m. Nov. 12 at the district’s offices, 31717 United Ave., Pueblo, in the Airport Industrial Park…
About $5.3 million would repay the Fountain Valley Pipeline and is assessed only in El Paso County. The pipeline, built in the 1980s, serves Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security, Stratmoor Hills and Widefield. About $6.5 million would repay the costs of building the Fry-Ark Project itself. Personnel costs are about $1 million, while legal fees are a little more than $500,000. The overall amounts would not change significantly from the 2009 budget.
More Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District coverage here.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: U.S. Senate approves $5 million in funding
October 16, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The prospect of an infusion of federal funds is also a call to action for the district. “Our planning processes will be accelerated when we take a strong look at our cash flow,” said Jim Broderick, executive director. Broderick developed an idea that would use revenues from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to repay federal costs for the conduit. The bill includes a 65 percent federal match, which makes the project more affordable for Arkansas Valley communities.
On Thursday, the Senate approved a funding bill that includes the $5 million for the conduit. It will be added to a $1 million project already under way, which is funded in part by an Environmental Protection Agency grant. That work was scheduled to take more than two years, but would be completed much sooner in order to begin work on new phases of the project, Broderick said.
Other sources of money also must be lined up, including a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation board and commitments from local sponsors – the Southeastern district, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and up to 42 communities from St. Charles Mesa to Lamar that would benefit from the conduit. “We need to tell communities we’ll need money sooner rather than later,” Long said.
The money from this round of appropriations will go for planning and to begin work on the environmental impact statement the conduit will require. The Bureau of Reclamation already is putting a team together to complete the EIS, Broderick said.
More coverage from the La Junta Tribune Democrat. From the article:
“The people of southeastern Colorado have fought long and hard to make the vision of the Arkansas Valley Conduit a reality. Today, we are closer than ever to honoring a promise made to them nearly half-a-century ago,” [Colorado U.S. Senator Michael] Bennet said. “Forty-seven years ago, President Kennedy proclaimed this project ‘an investment in the future of this country.’ Finally, we can begin making that investment in earnest.” “Thanks to the strong support and leadership of Representatives John Salazar, Betsy Markey and Senator Mark Udall, we can begin work on the Arkansas Valley Conduit,” Bennet continued. “This is a significant step forward but we also remain committed to making sure funding for the conduit continues to flow in the years to come.” Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation authorizing the construction of the conduit that was signed into law by President Barack Obama. Bennet, Markey, Salazar and Udall requested funding for the project earlier this year.
More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: U.S. Representative John Salazar named to conference committee for the 2010 energy and water appropriations committee
September 26, 2009
Representative Salazar should be able to help funding for the Arkansas Valley Conduit move out of committe. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
He was named to the conference committee for the 2010 energy and water appropriations committee. The committee will meet Tuesday to iron out differences between House and Senate versions of the appropriations bill. The Colorado Democrat represents many of the communities that would benefit from the $300 million project to bring fresh drinking water to the Lower Arkansas Valley, and has staunchly supported the conduit. “I’m going to keep fighting to keep the conduit funding in there,” Salazar said Friday. “If we’re successful, this will be the realization of a project that people in the Arkansas Valley have been waiting to see for the last 47 years.” Salazar, along with Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., made the argument that the conduit is a project that has long been on the federal waiting list in securing $5 million in appropriations in the House version of the bill.
Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both Colorado Democrats, supported that position. The Senate appropriations committee, however, took the stance that the conduit was a new project, so eliminated its funding.
More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: Will congress fork over the dough to get it built?
September 18, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“We’re working with the whole delegation, and they understand how important this is to Southern Colorado,” lobbyist Ray Kogovsek told the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Thursday. “I think we will be successful coming out of conference committee.”[...]
The district will attempt to get up to $14 million in the 2011 budget, as it attempts to make progress on the $300 million conduit after finally winning authorization. Federal contributions to the conduit and other parts of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project would be repaid using excess-capacity revenues under the legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this year. Meanwhile, the Colorado Water Conservation Board still has funds available – about half of the $60.6 million loan approved three years ago – for its loan to cover local up-front spending for the conduit, said CWCB board member Reed Dils. At its meeting this week in Steamboat Springs, the board struggled with financial issues including a reduction in mineral lease revenues and the absence of new mineral severance taxes to support CWCB loans, he said…
The board also approved a contract of up to $118,000 with CDM Engineers for a water resource study related to the conduit. The money comes through local contributions and an EPA grant.
Interior Secretary Salazar appoints Deanna Archuleta to work ‘full-time’ on Southern Delivery System mitigation requirements
August 29, 2009
Here’s a recap of yesterday’s meeting on water issues in Pueblo hosted by Ken Salazar, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Deanna Archuleta, deputy assistant secretary for water and science, will work “full-time” on the issue, Salazar said at a water issues summit in Pueblo…
Salazar called Fountain Creek a “shared resource” that is important to Colorado Springs and Pueblo, as well as the downstream farms and cities. As a U.S. senator, Salazar urged the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force to make the creek a “crown jewel” and he applauded the task force and state lawmakers for making the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District a reality. As secretary of the Interior, Salazar said he now has the authority to make sure the promises made by Colorado Springs to win approval for building the Southern Delivery System from Pueblo Dam are fulfilled. “Deanna Archuleta will help to identify the resources we need to get this done,” Salazar said. “I’m looking forward to working on this project,” Archuleta said after the meeting. “There has been exceptional collaboration and phenomenal work so far on this. It really is precedent-setting.” Salazar said Archuleta will lead a team directly inside the secretary of Interior’s office that includes Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor…
Salazar voiced strong support for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million project authorized by Congress this year that would build a drinking water line from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads. “I am 100 percent behind getting the Arkansas Valley Conduit built,” Salazar said. “I will look at our budget to see if there is any money we can put into it. Unless we get this process moving, we are not going to get it done.”[...]
Secretary Salazar also said the “right kind of limits” on taking water from the Arkansas River basin have to be found before federal legislation is crafted to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project. “It’s not going to happen unless my big brother’s (Rep. Salazar’s) concerns can be satisfied,” he said.
Here’s a look at U.S. Representive John Salazar’s views on legislation that would allow Aurora to benefit from Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
No federal legislation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will pass unless U.S. Rep. John Salazar is part of the discussion on how that legislation is drafted. The Colorado Democrat made that clear Friday in his closing remarks at a water summit he and his brother, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, hosted in Pueblo. “I’ve always been one to seek the middle ground on issues, but I’m adamant on agriculture,” Rep. Salazar said. “I want to make sure we don’t destroy one economy to make another.”[...]
In March, the Lower Ark and Aurora agreed to work for a change in federal legislation that would legitimize Aurora’s use of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. They later obtained a stay in the Lower Ark’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation, which in 2007 issued a 40-year storage and exchange contract for excess capacity in Lake Pueblo. “We believe these issues can be solved and we’re working to solve them,” Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said.
There was no mistaking Rep. Salazar’s parting words, however. “I don’t like to be excluded when legislation is proposed. I want to be part of that discussion,” Salazar said.
More Arkansas Basin coverage here, Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here, Super Ditch coverage here and here, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: Valley officials psyched that Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar is talking water issues
August 28, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“This is a big deal. Very rarely have we seen a Secretary of Interior walk into a community to talk about water issues,” Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Executive Director Jim Broderick said Thursday…
The Southeastern district is the primary sponsor of the conduit, which would deliver water from Pueblo Dam to 42 communities as far east as Lamar and Eads. “When I visited Bureau of Reclamation officials in Washington, there were a lot of encouraging words on the conduit,” Broderick said. “I think they’re starting to get an indication this is a highly visible project.” Under legislation passed earlier this year, the conduit will receive funding, which the district has sought since 2003. Part of the reason the bill passed this year is a concept first suggested by Broderick to use excess-capacity revenues to pay off unfunded parts of the Fry-Ark Project, including the conduit. The House approved funding of $5 million for next year, at the request of Reps. Salazar and Betsy Markey, D-Colo., but the appropriation still must survive a conference committee. The Senate made no recommendation for funding…
Broderick also is encouraged because Jennifer Gimbel, executive director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, last week at Colorado Water Congress confirmed the state’s loan for the conduit is still active. The loan was among items potentially on the chopping block to balance the state budget…
The Southeastern board approved $300,000 in contracts Thursday under an Environmental Protection Agency grant to begin work on environmental, engineering and mapping tasks associated with the conduit. The contracts are the first steps toward building the conduit. In a related move, the board agreed to work with Colorado Springs in exploring ways to use a proposed North Outlet Works at Pueblo Dam to provide system redundancy for the South Outlet Works, the conduit’s connection to water in Lake Pueblo.
U.S. Representatives Markey and Salazar announce $5 million for Arkansas Valley Conduit
June 30, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
U.S. Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey, both Democrats, made the joint announcement of a $5 million appropriation by the energy and water subcommittee Monday.
“We’re extremely pleased and hopeful things continue to go this well in the Senate,” said Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, sponsors of the conduit project. Long and other Southeastern officials are in Washington today to further discuss with members of the Colorado delegation how a plan to use Bureau of Reclamation contracts to help repay the cost of building the conduit will work. The concept was approved in an authorization bill signed into law earlier this year by President Barack Obama…
Salazar is a member of the appropriations committee and has made several public statements in the past few months about the need for the conduit, even assuring valley residents last month that construction will begin before he leaves office…
Markey stressed that the funding will save the communities of the Lower Arkansas Valley millions of dollars in expenditures they could face in meeting water quality standards. Radium and uranium are contaminating some of the wells in the area, and smaller water systems would be hard-pressed to cover the costs projected by preliminary estimates by the state Water Quality Control Division…
The Southeastern District had sought $9 million in funding, but the $5 million will be enough to advance the project significantly, said Phil Reynolds, project manager. The money will go toward finalizing the route, determining property ownership, identifying geologic or technical obstacles, begin work on an environmental impact statement and begin the pre-design of the pipeline. The pipeline would be gravity-fed along about 140 miles and spurs would serve Crowley County and Eads along the way.
Water authority for the lower Arkansas Valley?
June 18, 2009
Small water districts are feeling the crush of dealing with tighter federal and state standards along with the cost to replace or rehabilitate older systems. Regional water authorities where they can pool their infrastructure resources are one answer. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District voted unanimously Wednesday to provide up to $14,000 to look at the possibility of forming a water authority for small districts in the valley. There are 26 small water companies or districts in Otero County, some that serve only a few families, and a preliminary meeting last week with some of the water providers indicated some interest in an umbrella organization. Half of the districts serve less than 200 people. “These are run by people who have full-time jobs who are struggling just to keep the leaks fixed and generating enough money to pay the electric bill to keep water coming out of the tap,” said Bill Hancock, conservation director for the Lower Ark. Hancock’s family runs one of the small districts as well. An authority was brought up following a meeting with the Colorado Water Quality Division two months ago, where many of the water companies experienced sticker shock over the cost of recommended upgrades to their systems…
The water providers are facing new water quality regulations on radionuclides in well water that could require millions of dollars to meet. At the same time, they are working with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District on the $300 million Arkansas Valley Conduit, a water supply line that would solve many of their problems. However, since many are private companies, they are not eligible for public funding, and connecting to a public source can be expensive.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The $8 million study of storage in the Arkansas Valley is actually the primary stated purpose of suggested legislation by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Aurora that is meant to settle a federal lawsuit the Lower Ark has filed against the Bureau of Reclamation. “The additional storage space is crucial to Pueblo and the future of this valley,” said Bud O’Hara, division manager for water resources for the Pueblo Board of Water Works at Thursday’s town hall. O’Hara said the proposed legislation also provides water quality monitoring and fosters cooperation among all water users in the valley…
The legislation being proposed now also would allow other users in the Arkansas Valley outside Southeastern’s boundaries – which take in most cities, towns and farmland in tightly defined parts of nine counties – to enter excess-capacity contracts. Those types of contracts also have been issued for years by Reclamation as well. The Southeastern district presently has no beef with either type of contract, said Jim Broderick, executive director. “Those contracts are allowed, at a higher rate than for users within the district,” Broderick explained. The legislation guards against the increase of diversions from the Colorado River basin, but it does not explicitly limit future diversions from the Arkansas River basin. Aurora is limited in how much water it can take in the next 37 years by the 2003-04 agreements. An agreement with the Lower Ark district extend those limits beyond 2046. The proposed federal legislation does not speak to whether other water users could tap into the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley – neither authorizing nor expressly prohibiting others outside the basin who may seek excess-capacity contracts. That could leave the issue of where water is moved open to the interpretation by Reclamation, as it has interpreted past acts of Congress in making its rules.
Here’s a recap of this week’s town hall meeting with U.S. Representatives John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter in Rocky Ford, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
“Listening to everything that’s been said . . . Aurora is the brother-in-law you wish your sister had never married,” said Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority. “But he does the dishes at Thanksgiving, so you learn to live with him.” Barber was speaking to Reps. John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter, both Colorado Democrats, at a town hall meeting on the possibility of changing federal legislation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the Arkansas Valley…
The meeting brought out arguments on both sides centering on the basic question of whether Aurora is needed in the Arkansas Valley to make big projects like the Arkansas Valley Conduit and Super Ditch work. Some contended that Aurora has been a valuable partner, while others objected to removal of water from a high desert valley…
“I was not part of the negotiations, but we’ve been asked to move legislation,” Salazar said. “It’s no secret; I’ve always been a strong opponent of moving any water out of a basin.”[...]
[Pete Moore, chairman of the Lower Ark board] argued that the only way farmers in the valley will realize the full value of their water rights is to bring in outside money by leasing to Aurora. [Bob Rawlings, publisher of The Pueblo Chieftain], both as a party in the lawsuit and through newspaper editorials, has opposed using the Fry-Ark Project to move water to Aurora. Rawlings also argued with Moore over the nature of so-called leases because they are actually sales of water.
Another Lower Ark board member, Pueblo County Commissioner Anthony Nunez, also supported allowing Aurora into the Super Ditch. “If we do not support the idea of the Super Ditch, the farmers will have no choice but to sell to the highest bidder,” Nunez said…
[Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority], however, noted El Paso County communities that are in the Arkansas River basin would also like to lease water and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Lower Ark district nearly three years ago agreeing to lease from the Super Ditch. In fact, analysis by the district during formation of the Super Ditch showed El Paso County users were willing to pay a higher price for temporary sales of water, or leases, from the Super Ditch…
Rocky Ford Mayor Matt Holder said his family’s sale of water rights on the Rocky Ford Ditch to Aurora provided the money to save a lumber and supply company that was in danger of closing. Brian Burney said the $1.5 million Aurora paid to help Rocky Ford schools offset ill effects of the sales has been invaluable. High Line Canal Superintendent Dan Henrichs said at least 13 irrigators would have lost their farms were it not for a 2004-05 lease of water from the canal by Colorado Springs and Aurora…
Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said the agreement would prevent Aurora from acquiring water rights beyond the 37 years left on a previous agreement with other water users. He characterized Aurora’s ability to participate in valley activities like water storage contracts and Super Ditch is a “way forward,” while continued court cases will produce winners and losers. “Let’s go down a different path and see how we can do things together,” Tauer said…
“I do not like to see water separated from the land,” said Betsy Brown, a Beulah rancher. “I would like to see future growth on the Front Range thwarted by not moving water from this basin.”
More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The Arkansas Valley Conduit will be built with or without Aurora, U.S. Rep. John Salazar said Thursday. The Colorado 3rd District Democrat said his position on the House Appropriations Committee puts him in good position to shepherd funding for the conduit through Congress. Along with Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., Salazar is backing a $9 million appropriation for the 2010 fiscal year to advance work on the conduit. “That will begin the work that needs to be done,” Salazar said. “These communities after 40 years will finally get built. It’s my No. 1 priority.”[...]
Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, said the city of Aurora’s ability to obtain long-term leases for water storage and exchange at Lake Pueblo will help greatly in meeting the local cost of the conduit, which is 35 percent under legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama. That amounts to $105 million under current estimates, or $212 million when interest is applied over 50 years. Aurora’s contracts over that period would contribute $75 million toward that cost and other costs of the Fry-Ark Project…
Without the conduit, communities are facing higher costs to treat salinity, radium and uranium that are commonly found in the valley’s wells. May Valley, for instance, serves 500 people and would have to pay $26 million for upgrades suggested by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in a recent study, Long said. The conduit is the most affordable option for the 42 valley water systems that could benefit, even though its expense is a burden to low-income communities.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here, here and here.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: Lamar town hall meeting
May 28, 2009
U.S. Representatives John Salazar and Betsy Markey were howling with the locals in Lamar yesterday. The primary focus was how to get the Arkansas Valley Conduit funded and built and legislation that would allow Aurora to move water out of basin using the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
U.S. Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey, both Democrats, said they would continue to work for farmers and the Arkansas Valley Conduit, but were noncommittal on how they would proceed with proposed legislation to allow Aurora to continue to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley.
“Why do we need this legislation?” Salazar asked at one point, saying that the Bureau of Reclamation already acts as if it has authority to enter a 40-year contract to provide space in Lake Pueblo for Aurora to store water and to exchange it upstream. Colorado water law should protect existing water rights and should not be circumvented by federal legislation, Salazar said. “I’m here because I care and love agriculture. I’m here to keep farmers on the land,” Salazar said. “It will be a sad day in America if we ever depend on another country for our food and fiber.”
Markey said her priority is making sure the Arkansas Valley Conduit is funded. “We’re very close to getting this issue off the ground,” Markey said.
Salazar emphatically agreed. “I can assure you that before I leave office we will build the conduit. We have made it our No. 1 priority,” Salazar said.
Congress has been asked by Aurora and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District to pass legislation that would authorize Reclamation to enter contracts with Aurora as part of a settlement in a federal lawsuit. The Lower Ark district sued Reclamation in 2007 over the Aurora contract…
Mark Pifher, director of Aurora Water, showed Salazar and Markey a copy of the 1965 contract that linked the Homestake Project, a separate transmountain diversion, with the Fry-Ark Project. Homestake, a project Aurora and Colorado Springs jointly operate, was already in motion when Congress approved the Fry-Ark Project in 1962. “At that time, the federal government saw a need for cooperation,” Pifher said.
Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said legislation is needed to quell arguments over Aurora’s place in the Arkansas Valley. “We do believe when a federal project is built, it can have other uses so long as you don’t injure the designated users,” Tauer said.
Rawlings said the agreement between Lower Ark and Aurora needlessly ties the conduit to federal approval of legislation to let Aurora use the Fry-Ark Project. “The conduit has already been approved by Congress and should not in any way be tied to Aurora,” Rawlings said.
After the meeting, Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, said Aurora’s participation in excess-capacity leases would reduce the burden of local costs for the conduit. Earlier, when federal legislation sought an 80-20 federal cost share, Aurora’s participation was not critical, he said. But the final legislation changed the cost share to 65-35, meaning that Aurora revenues could be key to keeping local costs manageable.
Several area farmers said the potential to lease water to Aurora would be critical to obtaining maximum value for water under the newly formed Super Ditch. “We market our water to the highest beneficial use, whether through crop production, livestock production, vegetable production or leasing to municipalities,” said McClave farmer Fred Heckman. He said the valley would not be dried up through leases, and said leasing the water to cities in the north is preferable to urbanizing rural Colorado…
Prowers County Commissioner Henry Schnabel said water rights owners have the right to sell or lease water, but urged his neighbors to use caution. “The impact to other water users in the valley is very important,” Schnabel said. “There is the possibility of less and less water in the river. I would like to see the system for transfer of water out of the valley, but it has to be done in a cautious and thoughtful manner.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here, here and here.
U.S. Representatives Betsy Markey, John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter all plan to be in the Arkansas Valley next week hosting town hall meetings to discuss potential legislation to allow Aurora to continue using the Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
U.S. Reps. Betsy Markey and John Salazar will host a town hall meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday in Room 139 of the Bowman Building at Lamar Community College. Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter will host a second town hall meeting at 10 a.m. Thursday at the Gobin Community Center in Rocky Ford. All three are Democrats…
Aurora has used the Fry-Ark Project to move water out of the valley with one-year contracts since 1986. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District protested the practice as illegal up until 2003, when it signed an agreement with Aurora that paid the district $25 million. Southeastern unsuccessfully tried to convince federal lawmakers for the next four years to change federal law to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project and remains committed to support federal legislation allowing the contract. In March, Salazar said he was caught off-guard by the Lower Ark-Aurora agreement and wanted to hear opinions about any potential legislation from Arkansas Valley residents at town meetings. He indicated he did not support legislation at that time. Markey and Perlmutter have not publicly said where they stand. In April, the Lower Ark and Aurora sent proposed legislation to members of the Colorado congressional delegation that attached the authorization for Aurora to a proposal to study the feasibility of enlarging Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake as well as studying other water storage sites in the Arkansas Valley. The legislation also would allow excess-capacity storage contracts to water users in the Arkansas Valley that are not within the boundaries of the Southeastern district. Pueblo City Council voted to support the legislation at an April meeting, saying it preserves flows in Pueblo through 2004 intergovernmental agreements. The excess-capacity contracts are included in separate federal legislation, already signed by President Barack Obama, that would allow the Arkansas Valley Conduit to be built. The agreement also pledges Aurora’s cooperation in the Super Ditch, either as a buyer or seller of water through the land fallowing-lease management program. It also allows the Lower Ark district to buy into future Aurora water storage projects in the Arkansas Valley. Aurora also is committed to pay $2 million for Super Ditch and Fountain Creek studies under the March agreement.
Arkansas Valley hopes that Arkansas Valley Conduit will lower costs to comply with water standards
May 21, 2009
Several municipalities in the Arkansas Valley are having trouble meeting state and federal water quality standards due to the high cost of installation of new treatment infrastructure to remove natural contaminants, including radium. They would look at reverse osmosis plants but then they have the problem of disposing of radioactive brine. The Arkansas Valley Conduit is their best choice for supplies going forward. Here’s a report from KOAA.com (Susan Davies):
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has studied the problem for several years and is working with roughly forty different systems struggling with radium and uranium levels above federal and state guidelines…
Many private, not-for-profit water associations are looking at joining with other groups to finance a solution. There is increasing support for a $300 million dollar conduit carrying Pueblo reservoir water into the Lower Arkansas Valley and connecting to Lamar. Reservoir water would be mixed with well water to bring it into compliance with federal drinking water standards. Operators say the conduit is their most economical solution for providing safe drinking water to the members they serve.
Here’s an update on the state of financing for the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit, From Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A timeline for the $300 million conduit indicating that it could be up and running in 10 years was presented Thursday at a workshop of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The conduit would run from the Pueblo Dam serving communities all the way from St. Charles Mesa to Lamar and Eads. President Barack Obama signed legislation approving a plan to use revenues from Fryingpan-Arkansas Project contracts to help pay for the local share of the conduit as well as reimbursing other federal project costs. That cleared the way for appropriations. The district is asking Congress to appropriate $9 million in 2010, lobbyist Christine Arbogast told the Southeastern board. The district is asking for letters of support from Gov. Bill Ritter and the 42 communities that would benefit from the conduit, as well as continuing to seek the support of all Colorado members of Congress, she added…
Meanwhile, the district is using a $573,000 Environmental Protection Agency grant, matched with $473,000 in local funds to do engineering and financial studies related to the conduit, said Project Manager Phil Reynolds. Some of the work done in the studies by Black & Veatch engineering consultants will be applicable to later environmental studies. The studies will look at the route and land acquisition for the conduit. Of the local share, the Colorado Water Conservation Board has approved $200,000, Southeastern and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District have each put in $100,000 and the water providers $73,000. The CWCB also has approved a $60.6 million loan that is still in place, despite a state budget crisis that reduced water projects funding…
Reynolds presented a timeline that calls for completion of the environmental impact study by 2011; final design, permitting, land acquisition and contracts by 2014; and construction from 2015-19. The timeline could be moved up if more federal funding becomes available sooner than anticipated.
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Robert Boczkiewicz):
U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer put on hold for two years a lawsuit challenging the contract. He said a landowners group opposed to it could ask him during the two years to reinstate his consideration of the group’s lawsuit. The judge’s decision was a victory for Aurora, the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation…
The two-year stay of Native’s challenge is to give time for Congress to consider approving legislation authorizing the contract. The legislation also would include a plan for funding the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit municipal water supply project. “If it (the contract) is lawful, they don’t have to go get the legislation,” Native’s attorney, Sarah Klahn, told the judge…
Brimmer, at the end of an hourlong hearing, listed three reasons for granting the stay that the Lower Arkansas District, Aurora and Reclamation had asked for. He said the Native group “has not identified any concrete harm its members will likely suffer.” He also said the public interest is served because the legislation, if approved, would result in “various improvements” that would benefit water users in the valley. The judge’s third reason was that it is more likely Congress will pass the legislation because the district supports it. The district’s attorney, Peter Nichols, told Brimmer, “We believe it’s likely to have the support of (the state’s) entire congressional delegation.”
Native’s attorney, Sarah Klahn, challenged Nichols’ assertion. She told the judge there is no indication Rep. John Salazar, D-5th District, has changed his opposition to part of the legislation. Salazar, whose congressional district includes part of the valley, is a key figure in whether Congress will approve the legislation. Lower Arkansas’ attorney said Salazar, Rep. Betsy Markey, D-4th District, and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-7th District, will conduct a hearing in the valley about the proposed legislation. Markey’s congressional district includes the eastern part of the valley. Perlmutter’s district includes Aurora.
Somach, in answer to a question from the judge, said the contract does not result in more water being exported during the two years. He said the amount of water exported will be the same as it has been for the past 23 years under the authority of annual contracts between Aurora and Reclamation. Klahn challenged Somach’s assertion, citing Reclamation records that she said show there will be “a decrease in the amount of water in the river. There will be less water for my clients to divert.”[...]
Brimmer granted the district’s request to drop one of its claims, that the contract violates the federal Water Supply Act of 1958. Klahn said she and her clients “are evaluating our options.” She said they “are disappointed in the decision mostly because the stay will allow Aurora to continue stealing water from the Arkansas Valley.” When Klahn used the term “stealing” during the hearing, Somach objected, saying Aurora is importing valley water only as allowed by state water courts. Klahn, after the hearing, replied, “The contract is going to allow Aurora to take additional water from the valley and we believe the contract is illegal, so we think the term ’stealing’ is appropriate.”
Arkansas River Basin: Proponents claim that Aurora long-term contract with Reclamation benefits everyone in the basin
May 13, 2009
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Robert Boczkeiwicz):
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Aurora made that argument Tuesday in a new filing in U.S. District Court in Denver. The argument is meant to persuade Judge Philip Brimmer to put on hold for two years a lawsuit that seeks to block the plan. The judge will hear arguments Thursday on a joint request of the district and Aurora to stay the case…
Arkansas Valley Native LLC, a group of four landowners who own water rights in the valley, has asked Brimmer to nullify the contract. The group contends the contract violates federal laws governing the Fry-Ark project and contends implementation of the contract would dry up large amounts of farmland east of Pueblo. Aurora and the district told the judge in Tuesday’s filing the landowners group seeks “to defeat a settlement that benefits virtually everyone in the Arkansas River basin . . . with the alleged exception of their four members and their limited water rights.” Partners in the landowners group are former Southeastern Water Conservancy District President Wally Stealey, former state Rep. Bob Shoemaker of Canon City, Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings and Wiley banker Frederick Esgar. They oppose putting the case on hold, claiming they will be injured by implementation of the contract. Some other, but not all, proponents of protecting valley water for use in the basin also oppose the contract, but are not litigants in the case to nullify the contract.
The landowners’ group told Brimmer last week the settlement allows the contract to be in effect during the two-year stay and allows the exporting of more water from the Fry-Ark service area than is currently exported. “That will reduce the water supply for water users in the Arkansas Valley . . . and result in injury to vested rights,” including those of the Native group, the four landowners also told the judge in last week’s filing…
The city and district told Brimmer on Tuesday that even if he does not put the case on hold and ultimately decides the contract is null and void, Aurora and the district “will both have an incentive to seek legislation.” They said the district’s incentive will be to seek funding for Arkansas Valley Conduit, which was authorized by the Fry-Ark Act in 1962, but never built, to provide drinking water to municipalities from Pueblo to the Colorado-Kansas stateline. Aurora and the district, told Brimmer the city’s incentive to seek legislation will be “to secure its water supplies.”
Reclamation, in a separate new filing asking the judge to grant the stay, asserts that it “is not illegal, does not attempt to change existing law and is not barred by any existing case law related to approvals of settlement. “Contrary to Arkansas Native’s unsupported assertions . . . the contract is neither against public interests nor on its face” violates either Congress’ Fry-Ark authorizing legislation of the 1960s or the Water Supply Act of 1958, Reclamation contends.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: Financing elusive
May 10, 2009
Here’s an update on the process to raise capital to fund the Arkansas Valley Conduit, from David Vickers writing for the La Junta Tribune Democrat. From the article:
Bent County Commissioner Bill Long from Las Animas, who chairs the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and both the SECWCD’s Arkansas Valley Conduit Committee and the area’s conduit advisory committee, said Thursday that $25 million remains in the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s loan program for the conduit. When the General Assembly faced a budget shortfall of more than $700 million to balance its budget for the coming year, it tapped the CWCB’s loan program for extra funds, including $35 million intended to help finance the conduit project…
A meeting scheduled on April 21 in La Junta was abruptly cancelled when Long and Jim Broderick, the conservancy district’s general manager, were called to Washington, D.C., to speak to congressional representatives about potential federal funding through the Obama Administration’s stimulus package. “That was the real reason we cancelled the meeting,” Long said. “We had to be in Washington that day.” It coincided, however, with the announcement that state legislators would be tapping into the CWCB’s loan program to help balance the budget. Long said the meeting cancellation and the news from the statehouse left some people with the impression that state funding for the project had dried up. “The $25 million is still there and there’s a commitment to replace the balance ($35 million),” Long said…
In the coming week, Long said he expects to meet with members of the SECWCD board of directors who also serve on the district’s conduit committee. His goals for the meeting will be two-fold: to discuss myriad possibilities for federal funding and to re-start the processes needed to access the remaining $25 million in the CWCB loan program. “One thing we have to do before we gain access to the $25 million from the CWCB is put together a memorandum of understanding or an intergovernmental agreement that binds us together in the project and makes sure we know how we will repay the loan,” Long said. Long said the conservation district has been reluctant to ask any of the water users to sign documents until the district can quantify the amount of water each entity will receive from the conduit and the costs per capita they will be charged to pay for its construction. “The Arkansas Valley Conduit Committee itself has spent a year determining how the water east of Pueblo will be divided,” Long said. “The committee has submitted a request to the Southeastern District, which is in the early stages of reviewing it, but that request would pretty much set up the project.” Many of the entities expecting to receive water from the conduit have already begun collecting fees on a per capita basis.
Gaining access to a $25 million loan would give the conduit committee a big jump toward financing the costs for engineering the pipeline and conducting environmental studies that federal agencies will demand before permits will be issued to construct it…
The Southeastern District and Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District have continued to help pay for costs associated with the project, including detailed feasibility reports and cost analyses. The Lower Arkansas District committed $50,000 this year and similar amounts in previous years. The SECWCD also secured a State and Tribal Assistance Grant for $600,000, which when matched with about $500,000 from the conservancy districts will give the conduit committee enough to continue work like finalizing the route for the conduit.
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
John Singletary, 64, turned in his resignation last week. “The main reason is that the board is moving in a direction that I cannot comfortably support,” Singletary said Thursday. The district will advertise for a replacement, who will be appointed by Pueblo District Judge Dennis Maes.
Singletary, who helped circulate the petitions to form the district in 2002, said he was torn by the decision. He praised the current board members and staff of the district and said the Lower Ark has accomplished many good things while he served on the board. But the board’s approval in March of a settlement agreement with Aurora in the 2007 court case against the Bureau of Reclamation for issuing a 40-year contract for storage and exchange was premature, in Singletary’s estimation.
Authorization for the Arkansas Valley Conduit (supply water pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Lamar) has been a moving target for decades and now funding is drying up before anyone starts turning dirt. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District learned Thursday that federal economic stimulus money for the project is unlikely and that a loan for the conduit has become a playing piece in efforts to balance the state budget. The Bureau of Reclamation had $1 billion in stimulus funds available, but chose to fund projects that are close to being finished rather than new projects, said Christine Arbogast, a lobbyist for the Southeastern district.
The district had requested $5 million to advance planning on the route and rights of way for the $300 million conduit from Pueblo Dam to Lamar. The conduit would provide fresh drinking water to about 50,000 people in 42 water districts, many of which are facing water issues such as salinity and radium or uranium in wells. The conduit was part of 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas legislation, but was never built because of the local expense. A bill signed into law last month by President Barack Obama authorizes the conduit to be built using excess-capacity lease revenues from the Fry-Ark Project to repay federal costs. The federal share is 65 percent under the legislation…
Meanwhile, the state House is considering using $35 million of a $60 million Colorado Water Conservation Board loan the district obtained to finance the local share. Executive Director Jim Broderick said using the loan, which is really funding capacity, has been discussed as one source of finding state funds to patch budget deficits for several weeks. The problem with tampering with it at this time is that this Legislature cannot make financial commitments for future bodies. As recently as last Friday, the entire $60 million appeared to be secure in the Senate’s budget, but only $25 million is in the most recent House budget. Broderick has been organizing pressure from several directions to attempt to secure the whole amount. The conduit has not used any money from the loan to date.
Arkansas Valley Conduit: Meeting set for April 21
April 17, 2009
From the La Junta Tribune (Alicia Gossman-Steeves):
An important meeting for potential recipients of water from the The Arkansas Valley Conduit Project is scheduled at 10 a.m. April 21 at La Junta Municipal Building.
Bill Long, chairman of the Arkansas Valley Conduit Committee, said the water companies that expect to receive water from the pipeline, will begin working on memorandums of understanding that prescribe how much water each entity will expect to receive and how much per capita they will be charged to pay back the cost of constructing the project, estimated at close to $300 million. Federal legislation offered by U.S. Rep. John Salazar recently was approved to bring the federal government’s share of the project costs up to 65 percent. The conduit project also is the recipient of a STAG grant to help with initial costs of getting the project under way.
