Water Conservancy Board, City Dispute

Home Browse Search

Water conservancy board, city dispute Page 1 of 2 The Pueblo Chieftain Online Select file then print to print this article. Publish Date: April , 2002 At odds Water conservancy board, city dispute By MARGIE WOOD The Pueblo c1iiefta3n The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and city of Pueblo remain at odds over the city's request for guaranteed minimum flows through the city, conservancy board members heard Thursday. Hanging in the balance is the district's federal legislation that would reauthorize its operation of the Fryingpan - Arkansas Project. The city testified against the legislation, HR3881, at its first appearance before a congressional subcommittee last month, causing U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R- Colo., to say he won't support the bill until the locals reach an agreement. Conservancy district manager Steve Arveschoug said little progress was made in a 30 -hour meeting on Wednesday with the city. The city wants guaranteed flow of 100 cubic feet per second year -round and 500 cfs in May through September to support a fish ladder and kayak course in Downt Pueblo. The plan is part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Arkansas River Legacy program for which contracts were signed on Thursday. Arveschoug said the participants in the district's preferred storage options plan generally have agreed that they are willing to curtail their operations when necessary to support the 100 cfs flow at a gauge below Pueblo Dam. The city wants a similar agreement for the 500 cfs flow during the summer, and also wants a guaranteed flow of 90 cfs at the Moffat Street gauge near Runyon Lake. And Arveschoug said the city has not given a commitment to support HR3881 even if the flow guarantees can be worked out. Tom Florczak, an assistant city attorney, said the city is concerned that the planned "reoperation" of the Fry -Ark project would reduce the river's flow through Pueblo. The PSOP calls for Colorado Springs and other Fountain Valley entities to get increased storage of non- project water at Pueblo Reservoir. "We run the risk of having no river running through the urban core," he said. He asked the board to "express support for working things out and ask Colorado Springs Utilities to cooperate." "Attempts to stearnroll over our request will only result in an impasse situation," Florczak said. Board member Harold Miskel of Colorado Springs, who is retired from the utilities department, said "We believe the City of Pueblo is the only entity opposing the PSOP. We need to make sure our members of Congress are aware of that." The board authorized Arveschoug to keep negotiating with the city, but also to keep the district's options open to oppose the city's action in water court and before the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Another aspect of the fight is to "follow up with the Army Engineers regarding our concerns with the inadequacies of the Arkansas River restoration project's environmental impact statement." And the discussion was not much more cordial after lunch, when Arveschoug relayed a suggestion that a smaller group might be more effective at the next negotiating session with the city on May 14. A smaller group met for one session last month, but this week's session drew a bigger crowd. Philip Saletta of Colorado Springs Utilities said his department is working on the information about the effects of Pueblo's request, but there's still a lot of work to be done. "You may have thought the smaller group was more effective," he told Arveschoug, but at that meeting "the city came back with some issues we can't live with. Their request for 1,000 cfs on five weekends in the summer - that's not acceptable." And the district's lawyer, Lee Miller, added that the only movement he's seen from the city is "backsliding." httpi /www. chieftain. com /print /archive /2002/apr /19 /ni4.htm 04/19/2002