Laserfiche WebLink
Water lawyer says Pueblo not protected by Fry -Ark Legislation Page 2 of 2 <br /> 1 <br /> z <br /> Petros said the reoperation of Pueblo Dam, by giving Colorado Springs and the Fountain Valley greater storage flexibility, carries the threat <br /> of "substantial reduction of flows in the Arkansas below Pueblo, and the introduction of more water of poorer quality from the Fountain <br /> into the Arkansas. This combination will l kely degrade the water quality in the Arkansas below Pueblo, resulting in higher water and <br /> waste -water treatment costs for Pueblo and other downstream towns." <br /> He recommends strengthening HR 3881 with a requirement that "reoperations and enlargement will not significantly impair water quality <br /> downstream of Pueblo Reservoir - or in the alternative, water quality impacts will be mitigated by appropriate compensation and other <br /> measures to the affected parties." <br /> As for transfers of water outside the district Petros noted the bill gives the conservancy district discretion to contract with Aurora and to <br /> approve transfers through a water bank. Southeastern is going to operate an experimental water bank which is in the formative stages under <br /> a state law passed last year. But Petros said he thinks the language of HR 3881 could permit transfers by some other arrangement that <br /> called itself a water bank. <br /> "For example, Douglas County could lease water from the Fort Lyon Canal and call it the Douglas County water bank and move thatwater <br /> out of the basin," he said <br /> To avoid such possibilities, "HR 3881 could be amended to flatly prohibit any further use of district facilities for storing nonproject water <br /> for use outside the project boundaries and outside the Arkansas Basin," Petros said. <br /> 01996 -2002 The pueblo Chieftain Online <br /> file: / /C:\ unzipped\ McInnisNodamwithoutcity \waterlawyer pueblonotprotected.hlm 05/06/2002 <br />