Bush Administration Opposes Fry-Ark Bill

Home Browse Search

Bush administration opposes Fry-Ark bill http:/ /www.chieftain.com/print/archive /2002 /mar /20 /nil.htm The Pueblo Chieftain Online Select file then print to print this article. Publish Date: March 20, 2002 T•d, ,,�,� �4� r n�� - ��+ .r +� Chieftain photo /file The low water level at Lake Pueblo State Park may drop even further when water is released in March to meet irrigation obligations. Bush administration opposes Fry-Ark bill By DAVID PHINNEY Chieftain Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and Kansas state officials joined the City of Pueblo on Tuesday in testifying against the proposed legislation to study the expansion of Lake Pueblo and reauthorize the Fryingpan- Arkansas federal water project. At a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power, Pueblo's water lawyer Anne Castle said that City Council fears that enlarging the reservoir - without guaranteeing a minimum river flow through the city - could seriously disrupt ongoing efforts to develop the Arkansas River as a recreational resource for the town. "The legislation has the potential to substantially decrease flows in part of the river," she said. "Water won't be flowing through the city anymore. It will be stopped at Pueblo Dam and taken in a pipeline to Colorado Springs, or as this legislation allows, to Aurora - a city over 100 miles away that is in an entirely different river basin and not even in the Southeastern district." Pueblo had expected to be a lonely voice of opposition to House Resolution 3881, but it got support from the Bush administration, which said it would oppose the plans because they fail to address how the project may affect all concerned parties and interstate water compacts. John Keys, commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, said the legislation only reflects the interests of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the nine- county association that was created in 1962 to administer the Fryingpan - Arkansas Project. Keys said the bureau needs to conduct a thorough study of the proposal, which could take several years. Among the issues that need to be addressed would be how any expansion of water capacity would impact fish and wildlife, flood control, recreation, conservation of scenery, as well as historic and archaeological objects. - Kansas officials also testified against the measure Tuesday. Attorney General Carla Stovall told • 1 of 3 3/20/02 10:09 AM