Laserfiche WebLink
http: / /www. denverpost. com/ cda/ arti... 57E473770 %257E36 %257E %257E,00.html <br /> Colo. water proposal alarms Kansas <br /> By Mike Soraohan <br /> Denver Post Washington Bureau <br /> Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - WASHINGTON - When it comes to water, Colorado and Kansas <br /> don't speak the same language. They don't even pronounce the name of the Arkansas River, the <br /> one they're always fighting about, the same way. <br /> To Coloradans, it's ar -kan -SAW, like the state. Kansas changes the pronunciation to match its <br /> name - the Ar- KAN -sas. <br /> But no matter what you call it, a new water project is launching yet another water war between the <br /> two states, who have been fighting over water almost as long as they've been states. <br /> The Southwestern Water Conservancy District wants to expand the Pueblo Dam and Reservoir to <br /> keep up with the rampant growth in southern Colorado, especially Colorado Springs. It also wants <br /> to expand Turquoise Reservoir and the Sugarloaf Dam, and wants to use its unused capacity to <br /> store water that's not from the Arkansas. <br /> So U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley, R- Colorado Springs, has put together a bill to study that proposal, with an <br /> eye toward the expansion. The bill got a hearing Tuesday before the House Water and Power <br /> Subcommittee. Reps. Scott McInnis, Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer all have signed on to the plan. <br /> The facilities are all part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Frying Pan - Arkansas water project, so <br /> federal legislation is required to make any changes. <br /> Supporters say the district's plan is the best way to handle growth in southwest Colorado, which is <br /> expected to swell from 680,000 people to 1.5 million by 2040, without building a new dam. <br /> "We've grown 18 percent in five years," said James Null, a councilman in Colorado Springs, which <br /> would get 28,500 acre -feet of water from the project, enough to serve more than 50,000 families of <br /> four for a year. "We didn't estimate growth as fast as it's happened. Without more water, we will <br /> begin to feel the pinch in 2008." <br /> But any time people in upstream Colorado start talking about expanding anything to do with water, <br /> Kansas officials downstream get wary. The two states have fought in court for more than 16 years <br /> in a lawsuit about Colorado shorting Kansas of its fair share of water. <br /> Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall says Colorado is still sending Kansas less than it's supposed <br /> to get under an interstate agreement. So, she says, any expansion would make Kansas' water <br /> deficit even bigger. <br /> "Storage of new water in any enlarged reservoir space has the certain potential to intercept water <br /> that would otherwise flow downstream for use in Kansas," Stovall told the committee. No Colorado <br /> state officials testified Tuesday. <br /> Kansas isn't the only opponent of the plan. There are environmental groups, the city of Pueblo and <br /> the Bush administration. <br /> Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner John W. Keys told the committee that the federal government <br /> needs more control over the study. The water district has offered to pay the full cost of the study, <br /> but opponents fear that would tilt it in favor of the district. Keys said the federal government <br /> should pay at least half the cost to retain control. <br /> Trout Unlimited, a conservation group dedicated to preserving fisheries, says the outcome of the <br /> study appears pre- ordained and ignores how the expansions would affect fish in the river. <br /> 1 of 2 3/20/02 8:42 AM <br />