BOARD00176 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pueblo Reservoirs during the peak tourism s~ason. The improved use, and possible expansion, of existing facilities comprise the PSOP. Improved use could be achieved through allowing long-term storage of non-prqject water in unused capacity at Pueblo Reservoir. As participants took advantage of this space there could eventually be a need for increased storage capacity at the two East Slope Fry-Ark reservoirs, Pueblo and Turquoise. The CWCB contributed $125,000 to the Assessment and PSOP studies, and was briefed on those studies during the period, expressing its satisfaction with both the process and outcomes of the project. Three other outcomes of the Needs Assessment that did not become parts of PSOP, but have been advanced separately by the SECWCD were the reactivation of the Arkansas Valley Conduit as an element of the original Fry-Ark authorization, the creation of the Arkansas Basin! Water Bank, and a study with Lake County regarding recreational opportunities and concerns at Fry-Ark facilities in the upper Arkansas Basin. I I After the PSOP was accepted by the SECWCP an effort to secure authorization for the necessary additional federal studies (feasibility, NEPA, etc_) as well as to clarify or ratify the ability of Reclamation to enter into long-term exc~ss capacity storage contracts was initiated. In 2001, Rep. Joel Hefley introduced the first bill,IH.R. 1714, which was opposed by the City of Aurora. SECWCD and Aurora negotiated tWo intergovernmental agreements, the first which expired by its own terms at the 'end of th~ Congressional session in December 2001 and a second agreement in October 2003. As a, result of the 2001 agreement, Rep. Hefley introduced H.R. 3881 in 2002. ! I By 2003 several new interested parties became active in Arkansas Basin water issues, notably the City of Pueblo with its interest in recre~tional flows through the city and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District (LAVWCD) created at least in part to provide alternatives to agricultural to urban water transfer~. City public works employees participated in meetings on the Needs Assessment process; nowever, the city was primarily represented through its water provider, the Pueblo Board of "Yater Works. The city's kayak course was not in anyone's contemplation at the time of the Needs Assessment. While the LA VWCD did not participate in the Needs Assessment process: since it did not exist at that time, many of the agricultural interests now represented by the ~AVWCD, notably participants in the Winter Water Storage Program, were at the table throughout the Needs Assessment and PSOP processes. None-the-Iess, as Rep. Hefley was introducing his bill, controversy in what had been a broad based collaborative process was ,rising in some areas. Without unanimous support in the Basin and in Colorado's Congressional delegation it became impossible to advance the federal legislation. A series of negotiating efforts among Basin interests ensued, but full consensus has not been reached yet. In May 2004, the City of Pueblo ("Pueblo"), the Ci~y of Aurora ("Aurora"), SECWCD; the City of Fountain, the City of Colorado Springs and the Board of Water Works of Pueblo entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement to resolve 'issues in dispute among them. Following this agreement, Rep. Hefley introduced H.R. 4691. In addition, Rep. Bob Beauprez introduced a similar version, H.R. 5373, during the lame-duck session of Congress in November 2004. It was during consideration lof HR. 5373 that LAVWCD voiced its objections. i , During the 2001 to 2004 time-period, periodic disc~ssions were held between SECWCD and the Colorado River Water Conservation Distrid (River District) to address developing concerns of the west slope. In November 2004, S~CWCD and the River District entered into an agreement to settle various matters in dispute between the parties, including an ~ ..', " . . '.