25d (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-26- statement is needed, that Reclamation failed to follow its own guidelines by failing to analyze the need and that Reclamation failed to look at cumulative impacts or alternatives. The suit calls Reclamation's actions "arbitrary and capricious." Finally, the Lower Ark charges Reclamation failed to meet federal standards for ``environmental justice," because of the high percentage of minority and low-income residents in the five-county area served by the Lower Ar-k district. The Lower Ark has protested the contract for more than a year, following a draft environmental assessment in September 2006. Singletary attended contract negotiations and voiced his concerns. Since a finding of significant impact on the contract in March, the Lower Ark board has been mulling the lawsuit. TIME RUNNING OUT FOR ~~'ATER DEAL: A water-tight plan to study storage options in the Arkansas River basin -while holding back a flood of side agreements -has suddenly sprung a bunch of leaks. U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., came up with an idea in June that would strip regional agreements from a study of enlargement of Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake while incorporating a study of a dam on Fountain Creek. Now, regional consensus has become more important in order to avoid a "parade of horrible realities" if negotiations over- storage fail, Salazar said. He gave negotiating parties until Dec. 1 to work things out. Even as Salazar was trying to bring the group together, things were happening to poke holes in his plan. Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Chairman John Singletary was angered that six parties in a 2004 intergovernmental agreement drafted new language Friday to insert into Salazar's proposed bill. The Lower Ark board voted in July to support Salazar's original bill, which did not include any of the IGAs. Salazar's suggested bill said the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation could choose to consider previous IGAs, but would not be bound by them or allowed to alter them. New language presented by Southeastern Colorado Conservancy District Chairman Jim Broderick would specifically require consideration of the May 27, 2004, IGA among the City of Pueblo, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Fountain, Pueblo Board of Water Works and Southeastern. The Southeastern board voted last month to pursue legislation similar to six earlier failed attempts. That group leaves out the Colorado River Water Conserti~ation District, Lower Ark, the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, Pueblo West and Lake County, groups that have met in the past. In addition, Pitkin County sent representatives to Saturday's meeting, and Lower Ark General Manager Jay Winner said Pueblo County should also be represented at the table. The six parties also are suggesting specific authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to issue excess- capacity contracts to Aurora, as well as any entity within the Arkansas River basin as a part of the new legislation. They also want to include specific language about the Pueblo flow program, a part of the 2004 IGA. Colorado Springs Mayor Lionel Rivera suggested splitting the study of a dam, or other flood control project, on Fountain Creek into a separate bill. While study of enlargement of Turquoise Lake and Lake Flood Protection • Water Project Planning and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection • Conservation Plarming