Springs Defends Conduit Route at SE Meeting
By Chris Woodka, The Pueblo Chieftain, Colo.
Apr. 18–A member of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board Thursday asked a top Southern Delivery System official why a route from Pueblo Dam was chosen for a pipeline, rather than a more direct route downstream.
“It would appear that a downstream intake is simpler,” Shawn Yoxey, a Pueblo County director of the board, told John Fredell, SDS project director for Colorado Springs Utilities.
Fredell gave a presentation to the Southeastern District, claiming the connection to Pueblo Dam would best serve the water supply needs of Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security and Pueblo West for the next 40 years.
The downstream alternative, which would be a river intake east of the confluence of Fountain Creek, cost $700 million more, according to a comparative analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is accepting comments on a draft environmental impact statement on SDS through June 13. Additionally, it would require more energy for pumps to force water through membranes in a reverse osmosis treatment, and create solid waste for brine disposal, Fredell said. “The devil is in the details,” he said.
Yoxey remained unconvinced.
“It looks to be the simpler alternative,” she said.
Yoxey also took issue with previous statements by Fredell and other Colorado Springs officials that suggest Colorado Springs is entitled to connect at the dam because it has paid the majority of property taxes for repayment of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
“So often, in reading about, or at presentations, Colorado Springs talks about its tax base and the contributions to the project,” Yoxey said. “I think Pueblo knows that, and it seems you’re rubbing it in our face.”
Fredell apologized for the perception, but later said Colorado Springs, like all users in the Southeastern district, should be given consideration for use of the dam because it has made contributions.
Fredell fielded other questions from the Southeastern board as well.
Lissa Pinello, Fremont County director, asked whether military bases — a factor in growth in the Colorado Springs area — have been asked to contribute water or money to Southern Delivery System.
“Utilities have to ensure we have the capacity to serve,” Fredell responded, saying rates are structured for near-term planning. “A lot of times, we don’t get warning about expansions.”
Reed Dils, Chaffee County director, asked whether Colorado Springs would need more storage and asked whether the Twin Lakes Reservoir & Ditch Co. would push for a 20,000 acre-foot storage option that was part of an agreement when Twin Lakes was expanded as part of the Fry-Ark Project.
Gary Bostrom, Colorado Springs water supply manager, stepped in and explained the Twin Lakes company operates separately of SDS, although Colorado Springs holds the majority of shares.
In other news about SDS, Colorado Springs City Council Wednesday approved an agreement with Fremont County that covers $50,000 in engineering costs related to permits if the pipeline is routed through Fremont County, as proposed in two alternatives in the draft EIS.
The Fremont County routes would be longer — 53 miles, compared with 43 miles from the dam — and in Reclamation’s report is estimated to cost $140 million to $230 million more to build than the $1.1 billion route from the dam. They would yield about the same amount of water as from the dam.
Fredell said Fremont County remains a real option, rather than just a lever to obtain more cooperation from Pueblo County.
However, Colorado Springs has not identified where, specifically, a river pumping station would be or what size holding pond for water would be needed.
“We’re not that far along,” Fredell said.
Pueblo County is still the preferred route for SDS, because it is the most scientifically and environmentally sound, Fredell said. He acknowledged there are problems with land use regulations Pueblo County revised in 2005 under 1974′s HB1041.
Colorado Springs is fighting Pueblo County in court over whether it is subject to those regulations, or whether its project is similar to others that have been allowed.
Nevertheless, Colorado Springs has started pre-application meetings with Pueblo County, and has asked for a finding of no significant impact. Colorado Springs has not yet applied for a 1041 permit and the timing depends on how the current round of meetings go, Fredell said.
“We don’t have to wait for the courts,” Fredell said.
Asked whether Colorado Springs would be willing to spend more on mitigation in Pueblo County to avoid paying more for a project in Fremont County, Fredell was candid.
“From a gross perspective, if you spend less on the project, you have more money to spend on other things,” Fredell said. “The possibility definitely exists.”
SDS COMMENTS
The draft environmental impact statement describes and analyzes the potential effects of seven Southern Delivery System project alternatives, including a no-action alternative, on environmental and human resources. The draft EIS tentatively identifies the construction of a pipeline from Pueblo Dam as the preferred alternative.
ON THE NET
Southern Delivery System: www.sdseis.com
– To provide a comment, mail, fax or e-mail to the attention of Kara Lamb at: Bureau of Reclamation 11056 W. County Road 18E Loveland, CO 80537 (fax) 970-663-3212 (e-mail) klamb@gp.usbr.gov
– Comments must be provided in writing no later than June 13. n For more information, contact Kara Lamb at 970-962-4326.
—–
To see more of The Pueblo Chieftain, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.chieftain.com.
Copyright (c) 2008, The Pueblo Chieftain, Colo.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.