Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado Springs City Councilman Tom Gallagher is also questioning the authority of the U.S. Bureau of <br />Reclamation's authority to contract with Aurora for water storage and has asked for a full environmental <br />impact study of the contract at the very least. <br /> <br />Singletary and Salazar have both cited testimony in Congress dating back to 1953 that shows the <br />Fryingpan-Arkansas Project never envisioned using the Fry-Ark Project for anything except providing <br />drinking water to cities in the valley and supplemental water for agriculture. <br /> <br />Salazar also wants to remove Aurora from a proposed Preferred Storage Options Plan bill that has stalled <br />in Congress for five years. In previous drafts, the PSOP bill has contained specific sections that would <br />formalize Reclamation Authority to contract with Aurora. <br /> <br />Salazar Presents Outline For Storage Bill: A study of the cumulative impacts of water transfers, <br />limiting any further involvement of Aurora in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and cleaning up Fountain <br />Creek, should all be studied along with the potential enlargement of Lake Pueblo, U.S. Rep. John Salazar <br />said in late November. <br /> <br />The Colorado Democrat previewed his proposed revision of the Preferred Storage Options Plan during a <br />visit with The Pueblo Chieftain editorial board. <br /> <br />Salazar is incorporating some of the ideas he shared with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District during committee meetings on PSOP earlier.this year, as well as his comments to the Bureau of <br />Reclamation about the validity of using the Fry-Ark Project to move water from the valley. <br /> <br />The Southeastern District failed to come up with a PSOP bill this year after months of committee <br />meetings because of lingering dissatisfaction with the bill by Colorado Springs, negotiation breakdowns <br />between Colorado Springs and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and requests by <br />Lake County and the Colorado River Conservation District to be included in a study of impact mitigation. <br /> <br />Earlier in December, Salazar said he would be better able to shepherd PSOP legislation through Congress <br />as a member of the majority party. <br /> <br />Salazar outlined his proposed changes for the bill. His main point is to require a cumulative study of <br />socioeconomic and environmental impacts of water transfers, performed by state agencies using federal <br />funds, prior to using federal funds to study enlargement. A copy of the draft proposed legislation can be <br />found in the attachment section of this report. <br /> <br />Salazar would remove a section of legislation that authorizes Reclamation to enter into contracts with <br />Aurora for use of Fry-Ark facilities, a move that could have fiscal impacts for the Southeastern district. <br />The district gets $25 million from a 2003 intergovernmental agreement. The agreement assumes PSOP <br />would move forward, and some of the payments have already been made. <br /> <br />Salazar has formally questioned Reclamation's authority in its environmental assessment of a request by <br />Aurora for a 40-year water storage and exchange contract. <br /> <br />A new PSOP bill, as envisioned by Salazar, would re-emphasize 1962 Fry-Ark legislation, affirming that <br />Fry-Ark facilities could only be to benefit the Arkansas basin. Aurora would be prohibited from using <br />Fry-Ark facilities any further. Salazar also wants to see flows on Fountain Creek addressed. <br /> <br />Salazar also wants to remove the list of PSOP participants, making it a project of the Southeastern District <br />as a whole, and authorize the study of enlargement of Lake Pueblo for the benefit of the Arkansas basin. <br /> <br />27 <br />