WSP13006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(CU,;;",.".i...u', .!J;ig~~, interests. The Corps of Engineers even included the 100 cis target How as proposed in our PSOP Report in their draft and final Em.-ironmental Impact Study (EIS) for the restoration project. Again, it appeared to be a workable solution. Over the last few months the 'whole idea of cooperation has gotten more difficult to achieve. The Cin- of Pueblo presented the District with ne,,,- concerns- additional 1:1O\\-S to protect the City's ability to comply with its wastewater discharge permits, and to add a kavak course demanding flows of 300 cfs much of the vear. The parties involved also changed. Instead of working ,yith staff of the City Planning Department, the City Attorney's office tooK the lead. Xow, that's understandable given the fact that the Cin- needed to file for a water right for the kayak course, but the whole tone of discussions ben\-een the Cin- and the communities participating in deyeloping the PSOP changed. Throughout the last few months the Cin- and the District ha,-e continued discussions. We'ye offered proposals to the City and they've countered. And, we'ye countered their counter proposal. ObYiously, since the City opposed our federal legislation, we haven't reached a resolution. So, here we are - over 20 communities in southeastern Colorado haye documented their need for additional water storage, including Pueblo, and have committed to the District to pay their share of the development costs of the PSOP. They haye also committed to participate in a How management program to protect flO\\"s below Pueblo Dam (and yes I agree with the City that there should be more guarantees in the District's proposed flow management program-- so long as it doesn't injure senior water rights on the riyer). Additionally, H.R. 3881 is supported by the Board of Water 'Yorks of Pueblo, Pueblo County, Pueblo West, St. Charles :ytesa Water District counties and cities in the Arkansas Valley, communities in the Cpper Arkansas that also need storage, Action 22, Colorado Springs (some in Pueblo may not want to support a project benefiting Colorado Springs, however, they are in the southeastern District and support the Fry-Ark Project with their tax dollars), the Colorado Water COnSeIyation Board, State Parks Board, the Department of ="Jatural Resources, Friends of the Arkansas, and even the Arkansas River Outfitters Association, v,,"ho has worked with the District and the Bureau of Reclamation on the Cpper Arkansas Flow Management Program for nearly ten years. The real" travesty in the making" is that the Cin- of Pueblo and the publisher of The Pueblo Chieftain don't appear to value the regional nature of the Fry-Ark Project and the proposed Preferred Storage Options Plan, or the fact that we have to work together in order to accomplish community-specific goals and our shared goals that 'would serve the entire nine-counn' service area of the District. The rest of southeastern Colorado needs the City of Pueblo to rejoin the Arkansas Valley community; we need to be united in our efforts. Otherwise, our constituents lose because we ,von't be prepared to meet the water needs of the next generation, or provide additional recreation opportunities. None of us will succeed if anyone of us has a "my way or the highway" approach, that includes the PSOP participants, the City of Pueblo, and the Bureau of Reclamation. T \VO other things for the record: the communitv of Pueblo will benefit from the passage of H.R 3881. The Board of Water Works of Pueblo, who serves the same Pueblo citizens as the City Council, has asked for 5,000 acre- feet of firm storage space to better manage existing supplies as a part of the proposed enlargement of Pueblo Reservoir. And, an enlarged Pueblo Reservoir means even more unique benefits from the Fry-Ark Project for Pueblo- great recreation opportunity in our backyard. Additionally, Pueblo already has a long-term storage Creoperations") contract, supported by the District, to store their water in excess capacity in Pueblo Reservoir. Other communities in the District want and deserve the same option that Pueblo already benefits from. Lastly, in response to the publisher of the Chieftain's continued criticism of the District, Aurora has an as-available type contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to store their Arkansas basin water rights in Pueblo Reservoir. That has been the case since 1986, despite the objections of the District. H.R. 3881 would allow that practice to continue, and avoids a costly court battle that would benefit no one. But, at all times, Aurora's use of excess capacity is subordinate to Project needs and all in-District needs, and Aurora pays a higher rate for their use of this storage. They store water rights bought from farmers in the Valley on a willing-seller to willing-buyer basis. Enough said. The Fry-Ark Project has given us a legacy that demonstrates what cooperation can achieve. Let's all (PSOP participants and the City of Pueblo) refocus our efforts to uphold that legacy. Signed, Steve Arveschoug, Citizen of Pueblo, General Manager, SECWCD 5