Troubles Bubble Up at Arkansas Valley Conduit Meeting

By Chris Woodka, The Pueblo Chieftain, Colo.

Jan. 11–LA JUNTA – Tension and frustration over a proposed $330 million drinking water pipeline surfaced Wednesday as a committee reviewed the slow progress of the project.

Carl McClure, who has tried to push additional water allocations toward the Arkansas Valley Conduit, claimed his efforts have been short-circuited by other members of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board and staff members. McClure is the Southeastern director from Crowley County.

Meanwhile, Joe Petramala of the South Swink water district, told the advisory committee that small water users with limited budgets are becoming frustrated with the time and money being thrown at a conduit that still has no guarantee of being constructed.

Finally, lobbyist Ray Kogovsek’s forecast for additional funding for the project in the next year was cloudy, given uncertainty over most parts of the federal budget. There are three bills in Congress to authorize 80 percent federal funding of the conduit, and Southeastern officials will travel to Washington later this month to assess their chances for passage.

One bright ray in the day was a decision later by the Arkansas Valley Roundtable to recommend approval of a $200,000 planning grant for the conduit to the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

McClure in November pulled back a decision by the allocations committee, which he chairs, that would have provided an average of 1,200 acre-feet to the conduit, when it is eventually built. Even though he, along with other committee members, voted for the plan at an October meeting, McClure said he still believes nearly all of the water once set aside for former irrigated lands in Crowley County should go into the conduit. The plan was to allocate the water to the conduit, but pay back some water owed to Colorado Springs first, since conduit construction won’t start for at least 10 years.

“My question is how in the hell did you guys get in debt to Colorado Springs when you don’t even have a conduit,” McClure said.

McClure said the water should be allocated to the conduit, or to the cities east of Pueblo in case the conduit is never built. He said his earlier proposals to allocate 1,660-1,880 acre-feet to the conduit need to be reconsidered.

The compromise approved in October by the allocations committee was drafted by district staff at the direction of President Bill Long, but reviewed by only two of the six committee members prior to the meeting, McClure added.

“We had zero input,” McClure said. “The committee hadn’t seen it until we walked in the door.”

Long defended the compromise, and was clearly agitated by McClure’s statements. Long has spearheaded the district’s efforts to move the conduit forward.

“There was a wide array of requests and the district staff came up with four or five scenarios,” Long said. “Those white papers addressed all those needs in an equitable way that we could defend in court. I was surprised the committee passed it that day. It didn’t have to.”

The Southeastern district has not passed the proposal, and the allocations committee will meet today to reconsider its October action, Long noted.

“Carl, if you want to take this up with your committee, you have that prerogative,” Long said. He also told the conduit advisory committee it could write a letter requesting more or less water.

La Junta Water Superintendent Joe Kelley, a member of the committee, said he made the suggestion to repay Colorado Springs first. The water, a negotiated amount that is less than requested, is owed to Colorado Springs for releases or transfers it made during the safety of dams program in 1998.

Petramala stood up several times during the meeting to demand a detailed projection of costs for the project and a timetable of what will be accomplished in 2007.

“I want someone to write a track we’re going to fly on in 2007,” said Petramala, who represents small rural water districts. “Until that time, I’m going to vote no. And if I’m the only one who votes no, it’s not a done deal.”

Kelley said the group needs to hang together and offered to ask La Junta to pay the costs of the smaller districts – which are mainly clustered around the city in Otero County – to keep the project on course.

Kelley said La Junta is facing costs of $4.5 million to $11 million for brine disposal from its reverse osmosis plant.

Kogovsek said it is important to continue advocating for the conduit. In 2006, a bill to authorize the conduit got a Senate committee hearing, but foundered during the power shift from Republicans to Democrats. Also lost in the shuffle was a $675,000 State and Tribal Assistance Grant that will provide for the next step in the planning process.

HOW MUCH WATER?

Minimum water needs for the Arkansas Valley Conduit could be provided through Fryingpan-Arkansas Project allocations, if certain changes in allocations are approved, according to a proposal under consideration by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

– A minimum of 9,367 acre-feet of water would be needed in the conduit by 2050, based on population increases projected by the state demographer. Current demand is 6,555 acre-feet.

– The 1979 allocation principles set aside 12 percent of allocations to communities east of Pueblo. An average of 55,000 acre-feet of imports and floodwater would yield and average 6,600 acre-feet annually.

– The Southeastern allocation committee in October approved a proposal to put 2.18 percent of annual allocations to the conduit. The board has not considered the proposal which would average 1,200 acre-feet.

– Reusable return flows, about 20 percent of the imported water, would average 1,560 acre-feet, bringing total water available near the desired 2050 goal.

An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons.

Source: Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District

—–

Copyright (c) 2007, The Pueblo Chieftain, Colo.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.

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.