Water Lawyer Says Pueblo Not Protected by Fry-Ark Legislation

Home Browse Search

Water lawyer says Pueblo not protected by Fry -Ark Legislation Page 1 of 2 o-J The Pueblo Chieftain Online Select file then print to print this article. Publish Date Friday May 3rd, 2002 Water lawyer says Pueblo not protected by Fry -Ark Legislation ti $ ' Ray Petros By MARGIE WOOD The Pueblo Ckiejtabb The legislation reauthorizing the Fryingpan - Arkansas Project should be amended not only to guarantee the stream flow through Pueblo for recreational purposes, but to protect water quality through Pueblo and downstream, according to Denver water lawyer Ray Petros. Petros, who advises The Pueblo Chieftain's publisher Bob Rawlings on water issues, said the Fry Ark legislation, House Resolution 3881, would benefit Colorado Springs and Aurora's interests at the expense of Pueblo and the Lower Arkansas Valley. The bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives and is being marked up after its first hearing in late March before the Water and Power Subcommittee. Key elements of the bill would allow "reoperation" of the Fry-Ark to make more reservoir storage available for nonproject water; and authorize a study of enlarging Pueblo and Turquoise reservoirs. One controversial element is permission for Aurora to use Fry-Ark facilities to store water it has purchased from the Arkansas basin. The Bureau of Reclamation has been issuing year-by-year contracts to Aurora for several years, but HR 3881 would permit longterm storage contracts with Aurora as well as cities within the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Aurora is not a member of that district. The City of Pueblo is negotiating with the conservancy district to guarantee a flow of 100 cubic feet per second in winter and 500 cf.s in summer, with prescribed "step -up" flows from March to May and "step -down" flows from Labor Day to Nov. 15 each year. Petros said those figures "appear to be a shield for Pueblo, but they may actually be a sword against you, because by setting such a relatively low target flow, it actually authorizes severe reductions in flow through Pueblo." Also, he noted that if the flow is measured just below Pueblo Dam, as the bill specifies, it doesn't guarantee the same flow through Downtown Pueblo, because about half the 100 -cfs minimum flow is diverted to other users. Some of the water used within the city returns near Runyon Lake, and the flow builds again with Colorado Springs' return flows down Fountain Creek. Petros said one alternative would be to omit from the legislation a "numerical standard" for the flow, pending further studies. "A qualitative requirement could be added instead, to the effect that reasonable flows be maintained through the city of Pueblo for fish, wildlife habitat, boating, recreation and waste water dilution," he suggested. file:// C: lunzipped \MclnnisNodamwithoutcity\ waterlawyer- pueblonotprotected.htm 05/06/2002