BOARD00061 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Arkansas Valley Conduit November 13-15, 2006 Agenda Item10a an immediate and long-term solution for many smaller communities that are currently out of compliance with Health Department and Clean Drinking Water requirements. Sixteen water providers are currently in violation of Safe Drinking Water Act requirements and are under compliance orders from the State Health Department. The conduit will provide water that will help bring these communities into compliance. The alternative to the conduit is for the water providers to continue service as they have. All of these sources have significant problems with water quality. This alternative would require each individual water provider to upgrade their treatment facilities or to find alternative cleaner sources of water. Water Demand - The current (2005) water demand of all Conduit participants is 10,500 AF. Taking into account water supplies from other sources, the total Conduit delivery requested by participants based on 2005 needs is about 6,600 AF per year. The total future year demand (2050) of all conduit participants is projected to be 19,000 AF, with the amount of Conduit delivery requested at approximately 11,700 AF per year. Proposed Proiect Overview -The conduit will begin at Pueblo Reservoir Dam, where a municipal outlet is already in place and reserved for the specific use of the conduit. The conduit will gravity flow approximately 138 miles down the Arkansas River Valley to Lamar. The conduit will first flow by the St. Charles Mesa Water District where it will enter a water filtration plant. As the conduit moves down the valley, spurs will take off the main line to deliver water to local and regional water providers. The water will be provided strictly for municipal and industrial purposes, but would not be considered finished drinking water. Final chlorination or treatment will be left up to each water provider. The pipeline will be designed for the Maximum Month 2050 scenario. Federal Leqislation Status: Stand-alone Authorization - In May 2005, Senator Wayne Allard, along with co-sponsor Sen. Ken Salazar, introduced S. 1106 that would provide a federal cost share of approximately 80% paid by the Federal Government, and 20% paid locally. A similar bill H.R. 2555 was introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave in May 2005. This legislation is working its way through Congress and it is hoped to be passed before the end of 2006. On September 21,2006 a hearing on S. 1106 was held by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. The bill was opposed by the USSR as having a Federal cost share inconsistent with Fry-Ark legislation and general USSR law and current policy. No action was taken before the election adjournment. Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) - The WRDA bill includes $69 million in authorization earmarks for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which would be directed to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. No action was taken before the election adjournment. If this funding is authorized, a cooperative agreement between the Corps of Engineers, and the USSR and the Enterprise will be required for construction to proceed. State Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) - No further action has taken place on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2007. The bill cleared the House with a $675,000 earmark under EPA's StatefTribal Assistance Grants, and the Senate bill which has been approved by the full Appropriations Committee includes $600,000. The final number will be dealt with in conference, most likely after the November election. It is likely that this funding would be used for: Local Cost Share Funding Evaluations, Financial Planning/Evaluations, Institutional Issues/Assessments, Water Supply Evaluations, Planning Efforts, Technical Design Evaluations, and Project Management\Coordination. Page 3 of 12