Arkansas Valley Conduit: U.S. Senate approves $5 million in funding

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

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?

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.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Interior Secretary Salazar appoints Deanna Archuleta to work ‘full-time’ on Southern Delivery System mitigation requirements

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

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.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

U.S. Representatives Markey and Salazar announce $5 million for Arkansas Valley Conduit

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Water authority for the lower Arkansas Valley?

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.

Legislation that would authorize Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin would also fund study of expansion for Turquoise Lake and Lake Pueblo

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Gary Barber: Aurora is the brother-in-law you wish your sister had never married

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

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.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project: Colorado congressional reps to hold town hall meeting over Aurora’s long-term contract with Reclamation

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley hopes that Arkansas Valley Conduit will lower costs to comply with water standards

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Financing picture taking shape

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lawsuit over Aurora long-term contract with Reclamation put on hold for two years

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.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas River Basin: Proponents claim that Aurora long-term contract with Reclamation benefits everyone in the basin

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Financing elusive

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District: John Singletary resigns from board

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.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: No federal stimulus dough for project

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Meeting set for April 21

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.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Ag to urban transfers

Last year a subcommittee of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable presented a report detailing a blueprint for transfers of agricultural water to urban use. Chris Woodka (Pueblo Chieftain) has written a detailed analysis of the model’s application to current projects in the basin, well actually, the non-application of the model to current projects in the basin. From the article:

The model, Considerations for Agriculture to Urban Transfers (pdf), was developed by a committee of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable over two years of meetings…

The roundtable, in its review of the report, was divided on whether it should have “teeth” or remain a voluntary document. Whether the teeth should be the sharp fangs of state enforcement or the grinding molars of county review was also debated. If the document remains voluntary, it could just be a set of quaint dentures on the shelf. At the Colorado Water Congress meeting in January a water project developer – Aaron Million, who wants to bring water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming to the Front Range – asked a water provider who served on the roundtable committee – Wayne Vanderschuere of Colorado Springs Utilities – why the Front Range Water Council had not adopted the document. The council comprises the major importers of Western Slope water, including Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Twin Lakes and the Northern and Southeastern water conservancy districts. Vanderschuere said the report was too preliminary to actually be used…

[Last Wednesday the Arkansas Basin Roundtable]…talked about how to get more water from the Western Slope, how to increase municipal water conservation; how to protect the investment value of ag water rights; how to meet environmental, wildlife and recreation needs; and even why the impacts of SDS on agriculture were not more fully discussed. “We need to put in projects to give alternatives to water rights owners besides a sale,” said Beulah rancher Reeves Brown. All of those questions are addressed in the water transfers document, which was virtually ignored in the discussion…

Gary Barber, chairman of the roundtable and an agent for El Paso County water interests, said the way deals are going forward is like the situation described in the Tragedy of the Commons, a 1968 scientific paper by Garrett Hardin that dealt with population problems. Hardin basically described how unbridled self-interest could destroy a shared resource. “I think what’s happened is that the environmental and recreation communities have entered the conversation, and we have to find an equitable way to satisfy that interest,” Barber said. There are other efforts to incorporate outside interests, even those who may not know they have a stake in the decisions being made today.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Closer to turning dirt

Communities hoping to build the Arkansas Valley Conduit project is closer to turning dirt with President Obama signing the authorizing legislation last week. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Sponsors hope that contracts will be in place within five years to build the $300 million conduit from Pueblo Dam to Lamar…

…water quality issues made the conduit more attractive. Las Animas and La Junta added reverse osmosis systems to deal with hard water. The drought of 2002 emphasized the weaknesses of existing water systems. This year, communities learned it could cost millions of dollars to deal with radionuclides in their well systems. “Based on what these communities have been told by the Colorado Department of Health, we’re certainly trying to get this started within the next four to five years,” said Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The tone of meetings since 2002 has changed from a lot of “what if?” to a big dose of “how?”[…]

The funding solution wasn’t found until recently, when Southeastern Executive Director Jim Broderick proposed using revenues from excess-capacity contracts in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to repay the costs of the project over time. This week, President Barack Obama signed the public lands bill that included approval of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, with a 65 percent federal share and the Southeastern plan to use project revenues for repayment. Over the next two years, the district will be looking at the route of the pipeline and determining rights of way. The pipeline will begin at the South Outlet Works at Pueblo Dam, also called the Joint Use Manifold, where Pueblo, Pueblo West and the Fountain Valley Conduit all connect now…

The district will be spending $600,000 obtained from an Environmental Protection Agency grant last year, matched by a like amount from project sponsors, to pay for the studies, Long said. “At the same time, we have to begin working on a memorandum of understanding with the participants to pay for the project,” Long said. “We have to get the repayment costs closer, so everyone will have an idea of what their costs will be.”

The conduit has always been a one for all and all for one approach. It would be sized to the projected needs of the communities along the way, which have varying estimates of what percentage of their water would come through the pipeline. There are estimates now about how much water would be needed in the pipeline, but determining that engineering question most closely will lead to what size the pipes should be. There would be spurs along the line, as well. After the route is identified, an environment impact statement would be likely. Southern Delivery System and Aurora’s exchange contract took 4 to 5 years to complete, but Long is hoping the information gleaned from those reports could cut down the time. Southeastern is looking for up to $10 million in stimulus funds to begin some of the environmental and engineering studies that will be needed. “We’re cautiously optimistic that ours will happen more quickly,” Long said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

President Obama signs public lands bill which includes Arkansas Valley Conduit authorization

Here’s an update on authorizing legislation for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

At a White House ceremony, Obama signed the bill, which has attracted national attention because it incorporates 170 separate bills and creates 2 million acres of wilderness designation on federal lands. Obama called the new law among the most important in decades “to protect, preserve and pass down our nation’s most treasured landscapes to future generations.” The bill represents one of the largest expansions of wilderness protection in a quarter-century by giving the government’s highest level of protection on land in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia…

Wilderness areas at Rocky Mountain National Park and Dominguez Canyon near Grand Junction are set up and wildlife areas in the San Luis Valley are further protected under the omnibus bill. The bill also includes funds for rehabilitation of irrigation canals in Montezuma County. For Southeastern Colorado, however, the $300 million conduit would be the lasting legacy of the legislation. The conduit was a part of 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, but never was built because the communities of the Lower Arkansas Valley could not shoulder the entire cost. About 50,000 people live in the area to be served by the conduit, but many are on low or fixed incomes. The new legislation provides for a 65 percent federal cost share and a plan to repay the entire cost of the project using revenues from Bureau of Reclamation excess-capacity contracts.

“On behalf of the beneficiaries of the conduit, we’re happy that it was signed so quickly,” said Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and a resident of Las Animas, one of the 42 communities that could be served by the conduit. “Hopefully the rest of the project will move as fast.” Long, who also is a Bent County commissioner, has worked on the Southeastern committee trying to secure funding for the conduit for nearly a decade. He thinks the political climate to obtain funding is good since the federal government is looking for shovel-ready infrastructure projects as part of the economic stimulus plan. “This is a good infrastructure project, one that’s been well vetted,” Long said. “We are ready to start the next phase.”

Here’s a summary of the public lands bill proposals for Colorado, from the Associated Press via the Denver Post:

• Rocky Mountain National Park: Designates nearly 250,000 acres of the park as wilderness but allows the National Park Service to battle a bark beetle infestation and fight fires.

• Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area: Designates approximately 210,000 acres of federal land on the Uncompahgre Plateau as a conservation area, including 65,000 as a wilderness area.

• Arkansas Valley Conduit: Obligates the federal government to pay 65 percent of the cost of building the 130-mile water-delivery system from Pueblo Dam to communities throughout the Arkansas River Valley.

• Jackson Gulch: Authorizes $8.25 million to rehabilitate the Jackson Gulch irrigation canal, which delivers water from Jackson Gulch Dam to residents, farms and businesses in Montezuma County.

• Baca Wildlife Refuge: Amends the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act to establish the purpose of the nearby Baca National Wildlife Refuge as “to restore, enhance, and maintain wetland, upland, riparian and other habitats for native wildlife, plant, and fish species in the San Luis Valley.” The law establishing the park lacked a statement of purpose for the refuge.

• Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area: Designates a heritage area in Conejos, Costilla and Alamosa counties in the San Luis Valley. Authorizes up to $10 million in matching funds to protect historic, cultural, natural and recreational resources.

• Colorado Northern Front Range Study: Directs the U.S. Forest Service to study ownership patterns in the lands in the Front Range mountain backdrop, identify areas that may be at risk of development and recommend ways to protect them.

More coverage from Fort Collins Now:

“Folks in communities around this park know they don’t have to choose between economic and environmental concerns; the tourism that drives their local economy depends on good stewardship of their local environment,” Obama said. “Year after year, these communities have worked together with members of Congress in an attempt to ensure that Rocky Mountain National Park will forever remain as breathtaking as it is today. And that is what this bill does from coast to coast.”[…]

Water projects had been a concern for the bill’s detractors, who feared the wilderness designation would impact water infrastructure that predates Rocky, especially the Grand Ditch, which helps irrigate thousands of acres of farmland in Weld County. Larimer County Commissioner Steve Johnson said he supported the measure after hearing from water groups that it wouldn’t harm existing water infrastructure in the park. “Rocky Mountain National Park is the No. 1 environmental gem in our state, in my opinion,” he said. “Preserving that for future generations, I think, is a very, very wise investment.”[…]

Obama quoted Theodore Roosevelt, whom he called “our greatest conservationist president”: “I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”

“This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted; but, rather, we will set them aside and guard their sanctity for everyone to share,” Obama said. “That’s something all Americans can support.”

Update: From the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

The law designates as wilderness about 250,000 acres of the park’s backcountry — 95 percent of the park. It also adjusts the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness by adding 1,000 acres from the adjacent Arapaho National Recreation Area. The park has been managed as wilderness, even though it lacked the formal designation. The designation won’t affect developed facilities inside the park, including roads and structures used to bring water from the Western Slope to the Front Range. Past efforts to get wilderness designation for the park were hung up by liability issues surrounding the Grand Ditch, which is owned and operated by the Fort Collins-based Water Storage and Supply Co. The designation won’t hamper the park’s efforts in firefighting or fighting the mountain pine beetle. It also won’t block maintenance on 350 miles of trails in the park’s backcountry.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Authorization legislation included in public lands bill

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “Legislation authorizing the Arkansas Valley Conduit, along with other area water projects, cleared the U.S. House Wednesday by a 285-140 vote.”

[More…]

The Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized in 1962 as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, but was never built because the communities east of Pueblo it would benefit could not afford the cost. It is estimated that the conduit would cost more than $300 million to build and would benefit about 50,000 people. The current legislation would provide for 65 percent federal funding, with the entire cost being repaid from excess-capacity contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation in the Fry-Ark Project. “This project has been on hold for over four decades,” Salazar said. “Generations of people in Southeastern Colorado have waited long enough for clean and safe drinking water. We all know that water equals life in the West and the people of these communities deserve a clean, reliable water delivery system to ensure their health and prosperity for future generations.”[…]

Salazar said an allocation of about $1.8 million for design work is in the works for next year. Once the design work is complete, the door is open for permits. The biggest unknown would be the studies needed under the National Environmental Policy Act, which have taken years to complete on recent contracts with Reclamation. Long said the Southeastern district hopes to build on studies already done for Colorado Springs Southern Delivery System and Aurora’s 40-year storage and exchange contract to streamline that process.

Aurora’s contract with Reclamation, the subject of a federal lawsuit that could be settled, would provide additional revenue for funding the conduit, but is not needed, Long said. “The agreement between Aurora and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, provides more revenue for repayment,” Long said. “Will it work without Aurora? Yes. But it will work better with Aurora because it has the potential to lower the participants’ share.” Most of the 42 water systems that could be included in the conduit are facing even greater expenses in order to comply with federal drinking water standards. Most rely on wells, which are out of compliance with radionuclides. It would cost small districts millions of dollars each to fix the problem…

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 passed the U.S. House on a 285-140 vote Wednesday and now goes to President Barack Obama. Colorado bills supported by U.S. Rep. John Salazar include:

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Establishes 65 percent federal share for construction of the 130-mile conduit, with repayment from federal leases.

Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area: Designates 210,000 acres of federal land on the Uncompahgre Plateau as a conservation area, with 65,000 acres of wilderness.

Baca Wildlife Refuge Management: Defines the purpose of the refuge “to restore, enhance and maintain wetland, upland, riparian and other habitats for native wildlife, plant and fish species in the San Luis Valley.”

Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area: Designates an area of Costilla, Conejos and Alamosa for a National Heritage Area because of its significance as a cultural confluence of American Indians, Hispanics and whites. Up to $10 million in federal matching funds over 15 years for cultural, historic, natural and recreation projects is authorized.

Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation: Authorizes $8.25 million to rehabilitate the Jackson Gulch Irrigation Canal in Montezuma County. The canal provides water to 8,650 irrigated acres, homes and businesses in the Mancos area.

Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lower Ark settles with Reclamation over Aurora long-term storage contract

Colorado’s two U.S. Senators are looking closely at the deal struck between the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and the Bureau of Reclamation over Reclamation’s long-term storage contract with Aurora. Part of the deal is pegged to federal legislation that would authorize Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities to move water out of basin — via exchanges enabled by storage in Lake Pueblo — something that Arkansas Valley irrigators and water providers have opposed on the grounds that such movement was not part of the original authorizing legislation for the project. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Other members of the delegation were asked if they would look at such legislation. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, both Democrats, responded to the question Monday. “Senator Bennet looks forward to speaking with the parties to the settlement to learn more details and to determine what next steps may be necessary,” said Deirdre Murphy, spokeswoman for Bennet. “Understanding that the two parties have spent the past several years negotiating this process, (Bennet) will work with them and with members of the congressional delegation to ensure that the needs of the water users in the Arkansas River Valley are addressed.

“(Udall) appreciates that the two sides have reached a settlement. He understands that an element of that settlement may involve federal legislation,” said Tara Trujillo, spokeswoman for Senator Mark Udall. “(Udall) plans to work with all parties – including the Bureau of Reclamation – to review the settlement and make sure that the farmers and other water users in the Arkansas River Valley are protected.”[…]

Should a federal water project intended to help farms and cities in the Arkansas Valley be used to wheel water? If legislation were adopted, what kind of limits would you put on it? If legislation were adopted, what kind of mitigation should be made to the Arkansas Valley?

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

John Salazar: I’m not sure I’m happy about this stuff

Part of the settlement announced last week by the Lower Arkansas Valley Conservancy District and Reclamation hinges on authorizing legislation that would allow Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin. The Lower Ark and Reclamation should have talked to Colorado’s congressional delegation before they struck the deal. Congressman John Salazar is opposed to Aurora moving the water out of basin. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

At least one lawmaker was caught off-guard by the proposal, and raised doubts about whether he could support such legislation in any form. “It upsets me and maybe gives me just cause to not support any legislation,” U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said Friday. Other lawmakers in the area’s congressional delegation have not yet weighed in on the deal.

Salazar acknowledged that he had not seen the agreement, but he made it clear that Aurora has little say in whether the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million water supply pipeline for the lower valley, is approved in Congress. Support for the conduit is one piece of the new agreement, but Salazar said it appears the conduit is being “held hostage” by the two groups.

Legislation which should move to the house floor next week has been suggested by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and would use excess-capacity revenues – including Aurora’s lease, but with many more leases within the Arkansas Valley – to repay construction costs of the conduit. Salazar said if legislation is introduced, it should be written so that Aurora is not able to take any more water from the valley. “If we continue bleeding the Arkansas basin, it will just be Pueblo and Colorado Springs left,” Salazar said. While the agreement would provide opportunity for the Super Ditch, a corporation formed by farmers with the help of the Lower Ark district to lease water, Salazar said he is concerned about the impact of taking more water out of the river and what that will do to local economies. “I still have concerns with the Super Ditch concept,” Salazar said. “I’m not sure I’m happy about this stuff.”

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The authorization, which would be only for Aurora and no other out-of-basin water user, has not been introduced in Congress, but Lower Ark and Aurora officials plan to talk to members of Congress about it later this month. The authorization would remove the two key elements of a 2007 federal lawsuit filed against Reclamation by the Lower Ark district that challenges Aurora’s ability to use the Fry-Ark Project because it was not authorized in either the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Act or the 1958 Water Supply Act. “We have not been asked to, and I’m not sure we’d be willing to support that agreement,” Salazar said Thursday. “We were caught off-guard that it was even in the works.”

The agreement is the culmination of four years of on-again, off-again negotiations related to the Preferred Storage Options Plan between Aurora and the Lower Ark that Salazar and his brother, former U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, helped launch in 2005. Lower Ark attorney Peter Nichols explained Wednesday that talks had broken several times over the four-year period, most recently last June. Talks restarted in January, leading to the agreement approved this week. Any new legislation should not be used to give Aurora more water and the conditions in the agreement unnecessarily link the Arkansas Valley Conduit’s future to Aurora’s ability to move water. “I believe at the very least, there would not be a single drop of more water going to Aurora through this proposed legislation,” Salazar said. “I have serious concerns that there are no conditions in this agreement to stop any more water from leaving the Arkansas Valley.”

Salazar said the Arkansas Valley Conduit would continue to move through Congress as part of the Public Lands Bill that won Senate approval for the second time Thursday. The bill will go back to the House, where it failed for lack of a two-thirds vote last week, and will only need a simple majority to pass…

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, sponsors of the Fry-Ark project, the conduit and PSOP, was supportive of the Aurora-Lower Ark agreement during a brief presentation Thursday, and some expressed hope that PSOP might be resurrected as a result. Aurora could pay more than $50 million over 40 years under excess-capacity contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation signed in 2007. The conduit legislation proposes using those revenues, along with other excess-capacity contracts, to repay construction costs of the conduit and other underfunded parts of the Fry-Ark project. District officials have said Aurora’s participation is helpful, but not necessary to make the plan work. The agreement between Aurora and the Lower Ark would put the federal lawsuit on hold for up to two years until legislation could be adopted, at which time, the Lower Ark would move to dismiss the case with prejudice, Nichols said. That means the Lower Ark could not file another lawsuit over the contract.

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Peter Roper):

The $300 million pipeline project [Arkansas Valley Conduit] that Colorado lawmakers have been prodding through Congress is just one item in a lengthy public lands bill that the Senate approved on a 77-20 vote Thursday. It was the second time since January that the Senate approved the legislation, but the public lands package was rejected in the House just a week ago. That’s not expected to happen a second time. Hoping for fast action, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had brought the bill to a vote on “special consideration” – a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority – and House Republicans, plus some Democrats, stopped the bill by keeping the final tally two votes short of two-thirds. Pelosi has said she will bring the measure back for another vote soon and a simple majority will be all that’s needed. It passing is very likely given the Democratic majority in the House.

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Last week’s potential settlement of a federal lawsuit about using a project intended to provide more water to the Arkansas River basin to move water from the basin stirs long-standing issues with yet another agreement…

In late 2004, and often since then, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District ook a hard line opposing the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley…

In 2007, after Reclamation approved a 40-year deal for Aurora to store and move water upstream, the Lower Ark dug its heels in and filed a federal lawsuit against Reclamation. The suit was joined by Aurora and Arkansas Valley Native, a group of four influential men who own water rights and also opposed the contract. It was the most rigorous challenge to the deals with Aurora since 1986, when Reclamation began leasing excess-capacity space in Lake Pueblo to the city of 300,000 east of Denver…

With the federal court challenge, however, it became evident there was never clear authority for Aurora’s involvement in the Fry-Ark Project. While Reclamation claimed the authority has always been implicit in federal statutes, the Lower Ark challenged the leases under specific legislation by Congress in 1958 and 1962. The [Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District] was never comfortable with Aurora’s participation in the Fry-Ark Project – which dates back to the beginnings of the Homestake Project in the 1950s – and sought to incorporate formal authority as part of its suggested Preferred Storage Options Plan legislation, which continually failed in Congress.

However, Aurora is able, under the agreement, to buy new water rights in the valley if a new pipeline that would take water out of the valley is built. The Southern Delivery System, still in the permit process, is not counted as a new pipeline under the agreement. The agreement reads: “Should additional delivery systems, which are neither promoted, financed nor used by Aurora, become operational that allow for the delivery of additional agricultural water rights from the mainstem of the Arkansas River for use in other locations, the parties recognize that the competition for agricultural water rights will increase significantly and that it is in the best interests of the owners of such rights to maximize the market for such water.”[…]

While the Lower Ark has spent much of the last five years fighting Aurora, Lower Ark officials believe they may have enlisted an ally in keeping other water interests outside the valley at bay. “We continuously worry about Aurora, but what about Denver and the South Metro District?” asked Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district. “This agreement with Aurora will help keep other pipelines out of the basin.” Provisions requiring Aurora’s support for studies of past water transfers, water quality in the Arkansas River basin and regional water management are also important to preserving water for the basin, Winner said. Aurora’s support on the conduit legislation is needed to assure the project will continue to move smoothly through Congress and into reality, he added…

Beyond the old fight with Aurora, there are numerous opportunities for partnerships built into the agreement. Besides the water leasing and studies, there are provisions that allow the Lower Ark, primarily on behalf of the Super Ditch, to gain storage space in existing reservoirs like Lake Henry and Lake Meredith in Crowley County, and in future projects like Box Creek Reservoir in Lake County. Aurora will also share the expertise it has gained in its farming programs under the Rocky Ford Ditch – where it worked with farmers to study drip irrigation and alternative cropping – with the rest of the valley. Aurora also committed to working with Crowley County on revegetation. The city revegetated lands under its court decree for shares of the Colorado Canal it purchased in the 1980s. However, over time and especially following the 2002 drought, weeds overcame the dried-up farmland, creating conditions for a tragic brush fire last year. While the negotiations for the current deal occurred out of the public eye – they’ve been going on with staff and lawyers since January, but were not discussed in an open meeting until last week – it’s no secret that Aurora and the Lower Ark have had on-again, off-again talks since 2005…

“We are confident that our agreement with Aurora Water mitigates our concerns and we are pleased to have their financial and technical support for future projects that benefit the Lower Arkansas Valley,” said Pete Moore of Crowley County, who was elected chairman of the Lower Ark board in January.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Lower Ark and Reclamation reach settlement over Aurora long-term contract

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and the Bureau of Reclamation have reached a settlement over the long-term “if and when” contract awarded to Aurora for storage in Lake Pueblo. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board of directors, which filed the lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation and its Aurora contract, approved the settlement on a 7-0 vote. Aurora’s City Council was expected to approve the deal later in the day.

Under the settlement, the Lower Ark agreed to “park” its federal lawsuit for up to two years to allow Congress time to pass legislation authorizing both the Aurora water contract and an Arkansas Valley Conduit funding mechanism, Lower Ark attorney Peter Nichols said. If the legislation passes, Aurora agrees to then pay $2 million over several years toward additional Lower Ark projects such as Super Ditch and Fountain Creek upgrades, cooperate in Arkansas River basin water quality studies and support regional planning efforts.

Elsewhere, the agreement restricts Aurora from obtaining new water rights in the valley as long as the Super Ditch is viable and no new pipelines out of the valley are constructed – a move that goes a step beyond a 2003 agreement in which Aurora pledges not to buy additional water rights for 40 years. The Lower Ark for its part agreed not to contest Aurora’s ongoing lease agreements with the High Line Canal and the Pueblo Board of Water Works, in exchange for Aurora’s pledge of cooperation with the Super Ditch. The Lower Ark also would settle several state water court cases in which the agency is an objector, Nichols said.

The Lower Ark also can choose to participate in future Aurora storage projects like Box Creek in Lake County, as well as gain space not being used by Aurora in Lake Henry and Lake Meredith in Crowley County. That storage could benefit Super Ditch, a corporation formed to market farm water that keeps water rights in the hands of irrigators…

The Lower Ark’s lawsuit was filed in 2007 after the Bureau of Reclamation awarded a 40-year contract to Aurora to store water in Lake Pueblo and make a paper trade of water it owns to move the water to Twin Lakes. Aurora takes water from the Arkansas Valley through the Otero Pumping Station at Twin Lakes and moves it into its system at Spinney Lake through the Homestake Pipeline. The suit remains active on two points: the legality of the contract under both the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act and the 1958 Water Supply Act.

The suit was joined by Aurora on Reclamation’s side and on the other side by the Arkansas Valley Native, made up of Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings, former lawmaker Bob Shoemaker of Canon City, former Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District President Wally Stealey and Wiley banker Fred Esgar. Arkansas Valley Native was not a party to the agreement approved Wednesday, has not seen any details and is reviewing its role in the case, a group spokesman said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Update

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Peter Roper): “A major public lands bill that includes authorization for the Arkansas Valley Conduit water project is being dusted off and readied for another try in the Senate this week. It passed the Senate in January with little opposition. But last week, the measure crashed into a core group of gun-rights lawmakers in the House, where it fell short of the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass.”

CPDHE: The costs of (radionuclides treatment) compliance are high

The Colorado Department of Health and Environment met with water providers in the Lower Arkansas Valley on Thursday. The topic of discussion was treatment processes to remove radionuclides from groundwater to comply with stricter state standards, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmental met with area water providers Thursday to share the results of a study begun in 2006 of 33 Colorado water systems that operate on wells potentially contaminated with either radium or uranium. About 50 people attended. About 16 of those systems are in the Arkansas Valley below Pueblo, but nearly any community that depends on wells could be subject to new standards that could cost millions of dollars for compliance. Shallow wells are more susceptible to radium contamination, while deeper wells have encountered uranium. Some districts have created problems by drilling deeper wells, while others have long-standing problems that now are tolerated. “We focused our efforts on developing a solid treatment option that you know would work,” said Jon Erickson, who coordinated the state study. “The costs are high. I was foolishly optimistic that when we got into this, we would find a way to lower costs. The costs of compliance are high. This will create a hardship.”

Of the 16 Lower Ark communities in the study, 15 would be served by the Arkansas Valley Conduit, if it is built. Holly, which was part of the study, is located outside the boundaries that would be served by the conduit. The $300 million conduit would be a much more effective solution, since it would bring non-contaminated surface water into most of the systems now served by wells between Pueblo County and Lamar. There are about 42 communities, which would pay for 35 percent of the project, if current legislation passes in Congress. While that cost also is high, it would be far less than the numbers systems are looking at under the suggested remedies of the state study, said Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and a Bent County commissioner. “This is why the conduit is absolutely necessary, to meet both the drinking water standards and future demand,” Long said. “I hope the state is patient and gives us time to work with our congressional delegation to get the conduit passed.”[…]

The conduit was part of original Fryingpan-Arkansas legislation passed in 1962, but was never built because of the cost to local communities. A public lands bill that includes authorization for using excess-capacity lease revenue to repay the federal government has passed the Senate, but is facing some opposition in the House, for other provisions in the legislation. The bill also would create a 65 percent federal match. A standalone bill with the same provisions has been introduced in the House by Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey, both Colorado Democrats. The conduit also has received an Environmental Protection Agency planning grant and a loan of $60.6 million from the Colorado Water Conservation Board that is up for renewal in this year’s state water projects bill.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Chasing federal dough

Proponents of water projects all over the western U.S. are chasing dough from the federal government. Southeastern Colorado is no different. Here’s a report about the Arkansas Valley Conduit from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

A committee of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District working to make the conduit a reality met Thursday at Otero Junior College to discuss the $300 million project’s prospects and what would lie ahead…

A new proposal in Congress, included as part of a public lands bill, would use revenues from the Fry-Ark Project – primarily leases of excess capacity space at Lake Pueblo. Those revenues would repay a 65 percent federal match. The Senate has approved the bill, S22, but it has become entangled in controversy in the House.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: New legislation may be helpful

Here’s a recap of yesterday’s Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District meeting, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Legislation that could accelerate work on the Arkansas Valley Conduit is moving ahead, and new leadership at the Department of Interior could help the project’s chances. Those assessments were shared Thursday at the monthly meeting of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District by Christine Arbogast, a lobbyist for the district, which is sponsoring the project.

A new plan is moving forward that would include a 65 percent federal cost share, using revenues from excess capacity leases to repay the entire amount over time. Other parts of the project that have been underfunded, such as Ruedi Reservoir above Aspen, would be repaid as well under a proposal put together by the Southeastern District. The local share of the funding would be covered by a $60.6 million low-interest loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board.s Authorization, but not funding, for the new plan is included in a public lands bill, which has passed the U.S. Senate but stalled last week in the House. The House is expected to take up the bill when it reconvenes next week, Arbogast said…

The chances for the bill to pass are good, since more than 150 separate projects in many states are included in the bill.

The district is pursuing a parallel path for stand-alone legislation that has failed to advance in previous sessions of Congress. At recent meetings with the Colorado delegation, Southeastern Executive Director Jim Broderick, President Bill Long and lobbyist Ray Kogovsek asked for identical bills in the House and Senate to prevent the sorts of challenges that occur when different versions of the same bill work their way through both houses, Kogovsek said…

Meanwhile, the district is hoping for up to $1 million in stimulus funding to advance planning activities on the conduit. The money would come from $1 billion allocation to the Bureau of Reclamation, specifically a $60 million fund for rural water supply projects. However, there will be additional rules and regulations to follow, as the district learned last year when it received a federal grant for $600,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency…

The district also is excited about changes in Reclamation, which is a bureau under the Department of Interior. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was a strong supporter of the conduit during his tenure as U.S. Senator from Colorado. Top officials at Reclamation are aware of the district’s concerns and were more receptive during the recent visit, Broderick said. Reclamation has, over the past few years, actively opposed federal funding shares for the conduit. “Our relations with the bureau will strengthen with Ken Salazar in that position,” Broderick said.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: