|
<br />(TRA VEST}" C']'~::'",e..i,i-:;,,, p"gi: 1,
<br />need ,,'ater storage capacity as a
<br />tool to meet these challenges.
<br />For the last fiye years
<br />communities from throughout the
<br />Southeastern District, including
<br />Pueblo, as represented by the
<br />elected board or the Board of Water
<br />\\'orks of Pueblo, has studied ".ater
<br />needs throughout the Arkansas
<br />Riyer basin, analyzed many
<br />different alternatiyes for proYiding
<br />future ,,-ater supplies, ".orked with
<br />agricultural and municipal water
<br />proYiders, recreation interests, local
<br />endronmental groups, and state
<br />and federal resource agencies, to
<br />deyise a plan to prepare us to meet
<br />water needs in the basin into the
<br />year 2040.
<br />The plan is called the Preferred
<br />Storage Options Plan (PSOP) and it
<br />has h,-o main goals. First, it's
<br />designed to better utilize capacity in
<br />the existing Fry-Ark Project by
<br />allo,,-ing communities ,dthin the
<br />District the option to store their o".n
<br />water in storage capacity not used
<br />by the Project at the time. That
<br />concept (called "reoperations") can
<br />proyide as much as 48,000 acre-feet
<br />of storage each year ,dthout
<br />impacting the original purposes of
<br />the Project.
<br />The second goal of the PSOP is
<br />to consider the enlargement of
<br />Pueblo and Turquoise reseryoirs.
<br />The enlargements ,,'ould proYide
<br />firm storage capacity while the re-
<br />operations contracts proYide as-
<br />ayailable storage (storage that is
<br />subject to spill and subordinate to
<br />the need to store Fry-Ark Project
<br />water). The first step in the process
<br />of enlarging these reseryoirs is to ask
<br />that a federal-Ieyel study be
<br />conducted to consider all the issues
<br />surrounding such a project. That's
<br />oyer and aboye the studies ,,"e'Ye
<br />done on a localleyel oyer the last
<br />fiye Years.
<br />Throughout our study process
<br />we'ye spent a considerable amount
<br />of time looking at not only
<br />
<br />southeastern Colorado's need
<br />for storage, but also at the
<br />enyironmental and recreation
<br />issues that must be considered,
<br />including detailed consideration
<br />of flo".s below Pueblo Dam
<br />through the city of Pueblo. In
<br />fact, we traded information ,dth
<br />the city of Pueblo (the City) staff
<br />as they ,,"ere ,,"orking on the
<br />riyer restoration project ,dth the
<br />Corps of Engineers. We
<br />suggested a 100 cfs target t10w
<br />belm," Pueblo Dam and the
<br />deyelopment of a cooperatiye
<br />
<br />t1m," management program. A
<br />commitment to this type of
<br />approach to manage riyer flo".s
<br />and support the City's Legacy
<br />Project was made the fall of 2000
<br />and again the spring of 2001 in
<br />the District's Preferred Storage
<br />Options Plan Report and the
<br />PSOP Implementation
<br />Committee Report. At that time
<br />the Cih- staff belieyed that to be a
<br />workable solution - one that
<br />,,-ould balance the needs for
<br />".ater storage and recreation
<br />(Continued on page 51
<br />
<br />PAYlVIE~T CL<\PACITY STUDY
<br />FI~.A.LIZED - PROJECT\YATERRA.TES 'VILL
<br />~OT I~CREASE THIS YEAR
<br />
<br />The Bureau of Reclamation
<br />(Reclamation) has completed the
<br />Payment Capacity Analysis as
<br />required by our contract. The
<br />results of the study indicate there
<br />is no capacity to pay at the family
<br />farm leyel.
<br />The analysis looked at a
<br />representatiye farm ,,-ithin the
<br />District - 440 acres \yith 220
<br />acres of alfalfa hay, 160 acres of
<br />com. 20 acres of dry beans. and
<br />40 acres of fannstead. roads, and
<br />waste. The study reyie\yed crop
<br />yields. prices receiyed, and farm
<br />expenses. The expenses
<br />included: \,-ages, hired labor,
<br />,,- 0 r k e r . s com pen sat ion,
<br />machinery costs, custom \york.
<br />fertilizer, taxes, ,,-ater costs,
<br />Insurance. interest and utility
<br />costs.
<br />The study states, "The farm
<br />operator and farm family are
<br />entitled to income from the farnl
<br />as a result of their inyestment,
<br />management and labor," The
<br />study allmys a return to equity of
<br />three percent, a return to
<br />management of ten percent of net
<br />income, and a return to labor.
<br />Return to labor IS wages to the
<br />
<br />operator, \yhich in the study
<br />\yere S 1 7.20 per hour for
<br />operator \yages. and 58.01 per
<br />hour for the family wages.
<br />After applying all these
<br />factors. the study showed that
<br />net farnl income actually earned
<br />is less then the allo\wd return to
<br />the family farm. Thus leaying
<br />no capacity to pay.
<br />The draft of the tour-year
<br />reYle"- was receiyed in the
<br />Southeastern Colorado \\"ater
<br />C onseryancy District office in
<br />early February. \\.e distributed
<br />copies to the farmers and board
<br />members \yho helped \yith the
<br />data collection and analysis tor
<br />their comments. After our
<br />r e \- i e "" . \ye not i fi e d
<br />Reclamation that we concurred
<br />\dth the report. its
<br />methodologies and results.
<br />Based upon this report. the
<br />District holds the position that
<br />rates paid tor Project \'-ater
<br />should not increase.
<br />Reclamation has agreed that
<br />there will be no increase to the
<br />,,"ater rates for 2002.
<br />\\"rinen by: Phil Re}TIolds,
<br />CFO, SEC\VCD
<br />
<br />4
<br />
|