Laserfiche WebLink
costly improvement to the City's wastewater treatment facilities will be required, even <br /> though the improvements will not result in corresponding environmental or health <br /> benefits. A reasonable quantity of water must be present in the River to allow fish . and <br /> other aquatic life to thrive, before an advanced level of wastewater treatment becomes <br /> the limiting factor. <br /> Pueblo would be able to support this legislation if it provided enforceable <br /> mechanisms to protect minimum flows of 100 cubic feet per second ( "cfs ") through <br /> Pueblo during the winter months (November 15 through March 15), and 500 cfs in the <br /> summer release months (March 16 through November 14). Without this protection, <br /> depletions to the River through the City can only increase with the reoperation and <br /> enlargement of Pueblo Reservoir, and the "voluntary" minimum flow level that is <br /> cur -r-entl- y— specified-- in- the -- bill -as - -a d eslrable " target'° - flow - is- unenforceable -- and <br /> - -- <br /> insufficient. <br /> We acknowledge that an enlarged Pueblo Reservoir would also somewhat <br /> enhance the existing reservoir as a recreational amenity. Notwithstanding this, we <br /> believe that the harm which would come from the present bill far outweighs its benefits <br /> to Pueblo. We also feel it is important to ensure that sufficient quality water is <br /> available to our neighboring communities downstream. <br /> Pueblo remains committed to pursuing an appropriate, cooperative resolution of <br /> the issues that will allow for increased water storage opportunities in Pueblo Reservoir <br /> to improve water supply reliability, while protecting the interest of Pueblo and its <br /> residents in preserving appropriate minimum flow levels in the Arkansas River through <br /> Pueblo. We sincerely ask for this Subcommittee's cooperation in either amending the <br /> bill to resolve our concerns or to delay the measure for a reasonable time to allow the <br /> affected state interests to develop an appropriate solution. <br /> II. TESTIMONY OF ANNE J. CASTLE <br /> The reoperation and physical enlargement of the storage capacity in Pueblo <br /> Reservoir that is the subject of H.R. 3881, has been proposed and developed by the <br /> Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (the "Southeastern District "), and a <br /> group of some of its constituents dominated by municipal water providers, including the <br /> cities of Colorado Springs and Aurora (respectively located more than 40 and 100 miles <br /> from Pueblo Reservoir and the Arkansas River). These entities will reap the greatest <br /> benefits of the increased water storage capacity, while the lion's share of the negative <br /> impacts of the project will be borne by Pueblo. Pueblo's concerns and fears that H.R. <br /> 3881 and the proposed reservoir reoperation and enlargement project will materially <br /> harm Arkansas River flows and Pueblo's interests are confirmed by the studies and <br /> reports prepared for the Southeastern District and referenced in the bill. See, e.g., <br /> "Preferred Storage Options Plan Report," Sept. 21, 2000 (the "PSOP Report "), p. 31 <br /> (stating "[de-operation storage will facilitate additional river exchanges that could <br /> impact stream flows below Pueblo Dam," and confirming that flows from a reoperated <br /> Pueblo Reservoir as low as 49 cfs will occur). <br /> 4 <br />