House Panel to Hear Water Dispute

Home Browse Search

House panel to hear water dispute Page 1 of 2 The Pueblo Chieftain Online Select file then print to print this article. Publish Date Sunday March 17th, 2002 House panel to hear water dispute By PETER ROPER The Pueblo Chieftain There's an old saying that, here in the West, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. Little wonder then that the legislation pending in Congress to study the expansion of Lake Pueblo and reauthorize the Fryingpan- Arkansas water project has caused a fight between Pueblo city officials and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The Fry-Ark project was authorized in 1962 to serve nine Southeastern counties, including Pueblo. The conservancy district, which oversees the federal water project, wants to expand the reservoir to provide more water storage space. The plan has broad regional support - except for the Pueblo city government. City officials are planning to testify against the legislation Tuesday during a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power. They want the legislation amended to guarantee that Pueblo will have a minimum flow of the Arkansas River through the city in the future to support a kayaking course and other recreational uses, as well an adequate flow for the city's sewage treatment plant. Conservancy district officials believe they can provide that water, but acknowledge that the details still need to be worked out. They are troubled, however, that city officials would oppose the legislation in Congress when they believe the future expansion of the Fry-Ark project offers broader benefits to the region. "My feeling is the House committee is going to look at this issue and tell us to go home and settle it," said Steve Arveschoug, general manager of the conservancy district. In a letter to the Colorado congressional delegation last week, City Council said it would oppose HR 3881 unless the minimum flow issue is resolved. Council President Mike Occhiato intends to testify at Tuesday's hearing, as will Arveschoug. Also scheduled to testify are representatives from Aurora and Colorado Springs, which support the expansion project. Arveschoug said the legislation - House Resolution 3881 - takes a large step toward protecting Pueblo's river flow by calling for all participants in the water project to agree to a voluntary program to provide a flow of at least 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) below the Pueblo Dam. "We have been working with the city for several years and have tried to incorporate minimum flow protections into the legislation," Arveschoug said last week. "We understand the city wants a guarantee that is stronger than a voluntary program and we are working on a proposal to do that." The city has filed a claim in Division 2 Water Court for a recreational water right of a minimum flow of 500 cfs between the months of March and November and 100 cfs during the winter. Arveschoug and city officials agree that there is often more than 500 cfs in the river through Pueblo during the summer. So the amount isn't the issue so much as the city's desire for a guarantee. "A voluntary flow- management program doesn't assure the city of anything," said Tom Florczak, assistant city attorney. "There are times in the winter when the river has less than 50 cfs in it, when there's not much water in it." The minimum flow issue surfaced several years ago when the city began applying for federal money for the $6 million Arkansas River Corridor Legacy Project, since approved. As part of that project, the Army Corps of Engineers will rehabilitate the river channel through Pueblo, improving wildlife and fish habitat. Arveschoug said the Army did not guarantee any minimum flow through the river, but conservancy district officials were willing to incorporate the goal of 100 cfs in their overall Preferred Storage Option Plan for the lake expansion. That plan was adopted by the Southeastern board in September 2000. "We want to provide an adequate flow of water through Pueblo for the Legacy project," he said. What was unexpected was the city's http://www.chieftain.com/print/sunday/news/articles/nil.htm 03/17/2002