Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Broderick maintained the O&M costs of the project need to be more carefully studied, including <br />replacement costs, during a meeting of the Southeastern district's resource and engineering planning <br />committee Jan. 8. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Broderick told the committee the district could benefit by almost $45 million in the Aurora payments <br />under terms negotiated with the Bureau of Reclamation in December. The contract, which would allow <br />Aurora to store 10,000 acre-feet in Lake Pueblo annually and exchange 10,000 acre-feet of its water in <br />Lake Pueblo to lakes upstream, won't be signed until an environmental review is complete. <br /> <br />Aurora uses the storage and exchange to move water out of the basin into its South Platte River water <br />supply system. <br /> <br />The district also will benefit from about $24 million in other payments outlined in a 2003 <br />intergovernmental agreement. The district already has received a portion of that money. <br /> <br />Broderick explained the district delegated the other uses of the Fry-Ark project - recreation, wildlife, <br />environment and flood control to other agencies, so does not control all of its aspects. <br />Southeastern does have an obligation to make sure the project operates efficiently for those it serves. <br />Broderick said the district can ask Reclamation to put more money into improving Fry-Ark facilities. <br /> <br />The major improvements since the major components of the project were completed have been to install <br />fiber-optic cable and to automate gates in the Western Slope collection system. Broderick said the district <br />needs to be more proactive in the future, rather than rely solely on Reclamation for advice on the <br />improvements. <br /> <br />Bureau Insists Aurora Contract Legal, Questions Still Exist: On Dec 4 the Bureau of Reclamation <br />responded, in part, to questions of whether it has the authority to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to . <br />move water out of the Arkansas Valley. Questions of Reclamation's authority have surfaced again in <br />recent months as talks progress on a proposed storage and exchange contract with Aurora. <br /> <br />"Aurora is not being provided project water. This proposed contract will provide storage and exchange of <br />Aurora's non-project water when there is excess capacity available," said Fred Ore, Eastern Colorado area <br />manager for Reclamation. <br /> <br />Ore said the authority of Reclamation to deal with Aurora comes from the Reclamation Act of 1902; the <br />Reclamation Projects Act of 1939, which broadened its authority to include hydroelectric, municipal and <br />other projects as well as agriculture; and the 1962 Fryingpan Arkansas Act. <br /> <br />Ore cited one-year contracts dating back to 1986 that allow Aurora to store water in Lake Pueblo and a <br />contract with the Southeastern District that spells out how Aurora's water would be the first to spill if <br />Lake Pueblo is full. <br /> <br />But the issue of Reclamation's authority for entering contracts with entities outside project boundaries has <br />continued to vex officials in the Arkansas Valley over the 20-year course of those contracts. <br /> <br />John Singletary, President of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, raised the question <br />again nearly a year ago, claiming Reclamation has never fully answered concerns. <br />Singletary bantered briefly with Ore over the issues, including authority, the Lower Ark board raised last <br />month in a letter to Reclamation, but Ore refused to become engaged in public debate. <br /> <br />In October, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., also raised the issue. "I have serious concern that the <br />Bureau proposes to grant such rights to Aurora and question the Bureau's authority to do so," Salazar said. . <br /> <br />26 <br />