Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

and that is the delivery of quality drinking water to the lower Arkansas Valley.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit would take from behind the dam water and via pipeline deliver it to communities and rural water providers east of Pueblo. In fact, an outlet exists on the dam specifically for the conduit. Today there are competing bills in Congress of course we have discussed that today-attempting to discuss this conduit issue, as well as addressing the Preferred Storage Options Plan, that is, an enlargement of the dam and increased storage.

The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission is the body responsible for establishing surface water quality policy in the state. The Water Quality Control Division is the state agency charged with protecting the quality of the state's water. Despite the perceived fact that many water right holders may see a threat from water quality regulations, the protection of good quality waters benefits all users. Thus, good quality waters need protection from degradation.

Generally, effluent is the liquid that flows out of a waste treatment plant. For wastewater, the Federal Clean Water Act, Federal legislation that regulates surface water quality, and the Colorado Water Quality Control Act prohibit the discharge of pollutants from a point source to surface waters without a permit.

On October 12, 2005, I filed a lawsuit against the City of Colorado Springs, a Fry-Ark participant, for the unlawful discharges of raw materials, raw sewage, non-potable water, and chlorine from the City's collection and treatment system into the Fountain Creek and its tributaries. The plaintiffs are downstream victims of the pollution. Instead of being an amenity for downstream communities, Fountain Creek is more like an open sewer running through Pueblo.

Return flow is another issue that was mentioned earlier. In essence what's going on there is that basically the so-called Southern Delivery System, which is advocated for by Colorado Springs, would take additional high quality water through a pipeline out of Lake Pueblo in exchange for effluent or at least contaminated urban flows running back down the Fountain Creek. In other words, exchanging good water for bad.

In summary, we must recognize the value of preserving highquality waters, stop gutting the power of water quality administrators and provide adequate funding and teeth for enforcement. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project must be managed and evolved to support these goals, not to defeat them. Thank you.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thiebaut follows:]

Statement of Bill Thiebaut, District Attorney,
Office of the District Attorney, Tenth Judicial District, Colorado
Water Quality: Our New Challenge

"In the whole region (the West), mere land is not of value. What is really valuable is the water privilege.”—John Wesley Powell, 1877.

Water quality and water quantity can no longer be treated as separate issues. Water quality is rapidly evolving to become a matter of equal importance in water transfers as water quantity. Water quality can change as fast as its use. Just as Coloradans want water available in sufficient quantity and location, they also want and need to be assured that water is the right quality for its intended use. This

[ocr errors]

a

past legislative session a bill was enacted into Colorado law to address the effects of a water right adjudication on water quality. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project needs to be managed in a manner that recognizes this growing concern with water quality and assists, but does not hamper, this need. Colorado Surface Water

Surface water laws were written in the Colorado Constitution at the time of statehood in 1876 and became known as the “Doctrine of Prior Appropriation." Water is considered a separate property right in Colorado-rights can be sold or inherited, and prices may fluctuate according to supply and demand. The increasing demand for water by urban areas has prompted many sales of agricultural water to cities. Notably, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District was formed to “keep every drop of water in

the Arkansas Valley.” A water right is based on putting the water to a beneficial use. The Colorado Constitution recognizes a preference of water uses in the following order: domestic, agricultural, and industrial. The Pueblo Dam

Lake Pueblo is one of the components of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project-a project which moved water from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other. It is a multipurpose project which built the Pueblo Dam and the system of pipelines dedicated to bringing Western Slope water to the southeast corner of Colorado. But foremost on the minds of farmers and ranchers at the time the Project was conceived was winter water storage and flood protection. In other words, the legislation was designed to provide supplemental water to the Arkansas River Basin. It was not designed to export that transmountain water, nor native water, out of the Basin. Apparently, there were no references in the legislation to Arkansas Valley water quality. However, water quality is clearly implied in the act. As an example of that implication, one component of the Project, which has not yet been implemented, is to deliver quality drinking water to the lower Arkansas Valley. The Arkansas Valley Conduit would take water from behind the Dam and via pipeline deliver it to communities and rural water providers east of Pueblo (an outlet exists on the Dam specifically for the conduit). Today there are competing bills in Congress attempting to address this conduit issue as well as addressing a “Preferred Storage Options Plan”—that is, an enlargement of the Dam and increased storage. Colorado Water Quality Regulation

The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission is the body responsible for establishing surface water quality policy in the state. For example, the Commission has the authority to maintain and enhance the quality of the state's waters for public water supplies, for protection and propagation of wildlife and aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural and recreational and other beneficial uses. The Water Quality Control Division is the state agency charged with protecting the quality of the state's water by implementing federal and state water quality control and regulatory programs.

Despite the fact that water rights holders may perceive a threat from water quality regulations, the protection of good quality waters benefits all users. Thus, good quality waters need protection from degradation. Effluent

Generally, effluent is the liquid that flows out of a waste treatment plant. For wastewater, the federal Clean Water Act, federal legislation that regulates surface water quality, and the Colorado Water Quality Control Act prohibit the discharge of pollutants from a point source (a discrete source of discharge of a contaminant) to surface waters without a permit. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has delegated authority to the Division to issue discharge permits to municipalities and industries. The permits specify the levels of contaminants, such as bacteria, metals, and chemicals that can be discharge by the permitted entity.

On October 12, 2005, I filed a lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs, a Fryingpan-Arkansas Project participant, for the unlawful discharges of raw sewage, non-potable water, and chlorine from that city's sewage collection and treatment system into Fountain Creek and its tributaries. The Plaintiffs are downstream victims of this pollution. Instead of being an amenity for downstream communities, Fountain Creek is more like an open sewer running through Pueblo.

[ocr errors]

Return Flow

Return flow is unconsumed water that returns to its source or surface after use. Generally, the wastewater and return flow water at the new point of discharge should not exceed pollution limits established at the original place.

Use of existing or enlarged Pueblo Dam storage capacity by development hungry cities creates the probability of more Fountain Creek downstream victims. For example, the so-called Southern Delivery System, advocated for by Colorado Springs, would take additional high-quality water through a pipeline out of Lake Pueblo in exchange for effluent, or at least contaminated urban flows, running back down the Fountain Creek-in other words, exchanging good water for bad. Some have suggested that any diversion be piped below the confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River to assure that Colorado Springs has an incentive to send quality water downstream. Summary

We must recognize the value of preserving high-quality waters, stop gutting the power of water quality administrators and provide adequate funding and teeth for enforcement. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project must be managed and evolved to support these goals not work to defeat them.

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr. Thiebaut follows:]

On June 1, 2007, my written and oral testimony stated, in part:

"On October 12, 2005, I filed a lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs, a Fryingpan-Arkansas Project participant, for the unlawful discharges of raw sewage, non-potable water, and chlorine from that city's sewage collection and treatment system into Fountain Creek and its tributaries. The Plaintiffs are downstream victims of this pollution. Instead of being an amenity for downstream communities, Fountain Creek is more like an open sewer running through Pueblo.” Question by Representative John Salazar, Guest Member of the Committee

What are the numbers of spills since the lawsuit was filed?
Response
Sewage Spills

Since October 12, 2005, there have been 20 sewage spills. This number includes only spills that reached receiving waters. Colorado Springs has had many additional sewage spills from their system that did not reach receiving waters. Non-potable Water Spills

Since October 12, 2005, there have been 6 non-potable water spills. This number includes only spills that have reached receiving waters. Colorado Springs has had many additional non-potable water spills that did not reach receiving waters. Chlorine Violations

Since October 12, 2005, there have been 4 chlorine violations at the treatment plant discharge point.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Next we have Mr. Jay Winner, General Manager of Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District. STATEMENT OF JAY WINNER, GENERAL MANAGER, LOWER ARKANSAS WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, ROCKY FORD, COLORADO Mr. WINNER. Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee,

thank you.

The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project promised a golden future for the Arkansas Valley in the sweltering years of the 1950s. Already ravaged by the drought of the 1930s, the valley's residents embraced the prospect of additional water with unprecedented enthusiasm. Now there would be a new supply of water and insurance against the droughts of the future.

Now 45 years after the inception of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, the golden future has turned into a last stand for the communities east of Pueblo, the apparent losers so far in a race to develop increasingly scarce water resources in the Arkansas Valley.

Has the project met its purposes? For the major population centers of the valley, Colorado Springs and Pueblo, the project has done an admirable job. It has provided the storage that allows these cities to continue to grow.

The Western Slope has benefited as well, with compensatory storage that has allowed for stable flows to aid the environment and a new source of water for its people.

For the farms east of Pueblo, it has provided a temporary source of water that merely replaced other more difficult to maintain sources of water. In fact, the conversion of Twin Lakes from an agricultural buffer to a municipal reservoir was hastened by the promise of Fry-Ark water.

But farms have not prospered as intended by the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas authorization. Irrigated acreage has decreased since the project began. Despite its significant imports, transfers have permanently removed 65,000 acres of farmland irrigation since 1955. Canals continue to be short in supply and the ditches are the target of unceasing raids on the water supply for municipal and industrial use.

Approximately 121,000 acre-feet were sold for use outside the main stem of the Arkansas River through 2002. This is one-fifth of the historic average native Arkansas River flow.

For the communities east of Pueblo, the Fry-Ark Project has so far been a disaster. An economy once bolstered by thriving farms and the demand for goods and services by rural families has become a string of economically depressed communities struggling to survive. In 1976, Rocky Ford had a graduating class of 129. In 2006, a graduating class of 40. Lake County in 1973 had a graduating class of 131, and in 2006, a graduating class of 61.

The poor water quality of the valley was recognized in the earliest Congressional testimony on the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The remedy was to develop water resources as a primary supply for cities like Rocky Ford, La Junta, Las Animas and Lamar.

Today the Arkansas Valley Conduit remains only a dream for those cities, while the Federal government is taking steps toward projects that will only worsen the water quality in incremental, but deadly, steps. Those communities have been through a series of last stands: The decline of the family farm, the collapse of the regional sugar beet industry and the endless water raids.

In contrast, the city of Colorado Springs has thrived beyond all expectations of the hopeful people who were forming the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 50 years ago. At that time, Pueblo was larger than Colorado Springs, a quaint mountain city seemingly in the league with its partners in the Arkansas Valley.

Through its partnership with Colorado Springs, Aurora has bullied its way into the Arkansas Valley. Without the Homestake Project, Aurora never would have gained a toehold in the Arkansas Valley and developed an absurd premise of moving one-third of its annual water supply 300 miles from what were once productive

[ocr errors]

farms. The Bureau of Reclamation has compounded that technical and moral error through its annual contracts with Aurora. In just three days, the Bureau of Reclamation is planning to finalize a contract that will tie up part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for the next 40 years.

One issue of significance is exchanges. Aurora and others trade pristine mountain water for poor quality water from the lower Arkansas Valley through exchanges, exchanges made possible by the reservoirs of the Fry-Ark Project.

Here is a good example of an exchange. This is what is purchased. This is what people get.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Will you hold it up, please.

Mr. WINNER. This water has a purchased cost right around $1,700 per share. The water that they get, if they were to purchase it, is about $25,000 per share.

When we talk about water quality, I believe this is a very good example of what has happened in the Arkansas Basin. In the Arkansas Basin, we currently have two RO plans, one in La Junta and one in Las Animas. I have asked over and over and over to municipal providers, why don't you take what you purchased? The answer is always the same. Jay, it's too expensive for us to clean it up. It's the burden of that cleanup that falls on the people of the Arkansas Valley. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Winner follows:)

Statement of Jay Winner, General Manager,

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Madame Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Jay Winner, the General Manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District

Thank you for being here in the Lower Arkansas Valley today, and your invitation to testify.

The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project promised a golden future for the Arkansas Valley in the sweltering years of the 1950s. Already ravaged by the drought of the 1930s, the valley's residents embraced the prospect of additional water with unprecedented enthusiasm. Now, there would be a new supply of water and insurance against the droughts of the future.

Now, 45 years after the inception of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, that golden future has turned into a last stand for the communities east of Pueblo, the apparent losers so far in a race to develop increasingly scarce water resources in the Arkansas Valley.

Has the project met its purpose? For the major population centers of the valley, Colorado Springs and Pueblo, the project has done an admirable job. It has provided the storage that allows these cities to continue to grow.

The Western Slope has benefited as well, with compensatory storage that has allowed for stable flows to aid the environment and a new source of water for its people.

For the farms east of Pueblo, it has provided a temporary source of water that merely replaced other, more difficult-to-maintain sources of water. In fact, the conversion of Twin Lakes from an agricultural buffer to a municipal reservoir was hastened by the promise of Fry-Ark water.

But farms have not prospered as intended by the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas authorizing legislation. Irrigated acreage has decreased since the project began, Despite significant imports, transfers have permanently removed 65,000 acres of farmland from irrigation since 1955. canals continue to be short in supply and the ditches are the targets of unceasing raids on their water supply for municipal and industrial uses. Approximately 121,520 acre-feet were sold for use outside the main

« PředchozíPokračovat »