Laserfiche WebLink
<br />River feud forces city to oppose dam study <br /> <br />Page 2 of lZ. <br /> <br />through the Downtown is included in any future legislation to expand the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />project. <br /> <br />That demand puts Pueblo at odds with a long list of water users that are pushing to have the . <br />lake expanded. That list includes the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the <br />cities of Colorado Springs, Fountain and Aurora and others. <br /> <br />The two sides will make their arguments Tuesday when U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley convenes the <br />House Subcommittee on Water and Power to conduct a hearing on HR 3881. Hefley, a <br />Republican who represents Colorado Springs and tne 5th Congressional District, is the prime <br />sponsor of the study legislation. <br /> <br />City Manager Lee Evett said council members will tlilstify at the hearing as well. <br /> <br />Pueblo officials set the stage for the collision last year when the city filed a claim for in-channel <br />recreational water rights through the Downtown. Th~ claim calls for a minimum flow of 500 <br />cubic feet per second from March to November and a guaranteed flow of 100 cfs during the <br />winter. <br /> <br />Recreational water rights are relatively new and are broadly opposed by more traditional users, <br />including the Colorado Water Conservation Board. in fact, a lawsuit that established the city of <br />Golden's recreational rights to river water is pendin~ before the Colorado Supreme Court. <br /> <br />Pueblo's claim has already attracted more than a dQzen "objectors" in the Division 2 Water <br />Court. All of them essentially argue that they have senior rights to water that could be stored in <br />an expanded Lake Pueblo and their rights would be damaged if the instream claim is granted. <br /> <br />The collision is forcing regional water interests to take sides and few are backing Pueblo at the <br />moment. The city's own lobbyist, former Congr~ssman Ray Kogovsek, also represents the <br />Southeastern district and he informed city officials last week that he would no longer be <br />representing Pueblo, but would keep lobbying for the conservancy district. <br /> <br />"I hope it's a temporary situation, but most of my other clients are water interests, so I feel <br />more comfortable continuing to represent Southeastern," Kogovsek said Tuesday. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In the city's letter to the delegation, Council PresidE1nt Mike Occhiato said, "Pueblo is very <br />concerned that while much of the benefit of the indeased storage capacity of the reservoir will <br />accrue to entities other than Pueblo, the city and it~ residents will bear a disproportionate <br />share of the burdens of the proposed project." ' <br /> <br />Specifically, the letter warned that enlarging the storage capacity of the lake will diminish the <br />amount of water that flows through Pueblo unless that flow is guaranteed. <br /> <br />One reason the city made its claim for recreational!water rights was the Army Corps of <br />Engineers' decision to rehabilitate the river channe.1 through the Downtown, a $6 million project <br />that will include improving fish habitat and allow th~ construction of a kayaking course. <br /> <br />City officials met with many of the objectors a week ago, hoping to work out a compromise <br />agreement. That meeting did not go very well, according to Assistant City Attorney Tom . <br />Florczak. Although the city did offer some concessions, the other water interests were unwilling <br />at the time to make any concessions about their oWn water rights, Florczak said. <br /> <br />3/13/02 <br />