Laserfiche WebLink
Lawsuits, not more water, predicted in Fry -Ark fight Page 2 of 2 <br /> "So we added the Arkansas River to that language to protect our water," he said "Say Colorado Springs wanted to store water in the project <br /> and lease it to an out -of -basin entity. They couldn't do it without a contract with the district." <br /> Arveschoug and Hamel both view the legislation's language about Aurora as a protection for the Arkansas rather than athreat. It underpins <br /> an intergovernmental agreement the district reached with Aurora last year, in which Aurora gets its storage space in exchange for a promise <br /> not to buy'any more water in the Arkansas basin. <br /> lithe legislation doesn't pass this year, the agreement unravels, costing $7.9 million in Aurora's payments over the next 20 years to the <br /> Bureau of Reclamation and the district; plus Aurora's contribution of 750 acre -feet to the water bank pilot and $1 million to development <br /> costs of the conduit to Lamar, Arveschoug said <br /> The conduit, whose cost is estimated at about $160 million, would take its water out above Pueblo, raising some additional questions about <br /> the river flow through Pueblo. <br /> Hamel said the 9,000 acre-feet of Fry-Ark water that the conduit would need amounts to only 12 cfs. <br /> Even mare critical to theconduit piuyec 1, Arveschoug is the political supprrrt it 'enjoys from coronae Sptio: <br /> "If they don't get the storage they need under 3881, it's going to be every man for himself," Arveschoug said "The conduit will lose the <br /> political support from the region. If you're looking at the future viability of the economy in the lower valley, this conduit should be at the <br /> top of the list. In my opinion, their future absolutely depends on that pipeline." <br /> ©1996 -2002 The pueblo Chieftain Online <br /> • <br /> http://www.chieftain.com/print/archive/2002/may/2/ni2.htm 05/06/2002 <br />