make the contract good for forty years?" The answer is two-fold: First, 40 years is a long time, a professional life-time, practically permanent from the view point of a resident of the Arkansas Valley. Second, after forty years, when Aurora has become dependent on Arkansas River water, contract renewal will be politically mandatory. Once again, thank you for inviting me to testify. I am available to answer any questions you may have. List of Attachments 1. Map of Project Area 2. Map of District Boundaries 3. Exchange Schematic 4. Reclamation Commissioner John W. Keys III April 3, 2003, letter to James Broderick of the Southeastern District 5. Regional Director Bach August 20, 2003, letter to James Broderick of the Southeastern District 6. Cumulative Effects of contract exchanges on stream flow As you are aware, the Bureau of Reclamation has been reviewing the authority to issue a long-term matrace to the City of Aurora, Colorado for the utilization of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities. Our review is complete and we have concluded that such authority exists. The arrangements with the City of Awauta will not adversely affect Reclamation's contract with the Southeastern Colorado Water L'uservancy District. 1-ast year we worked diligently with the District, the city and others on an amendment in the nature of a substitution, to HR 3881 introduced last year. While we did collaborate on substitute language, we all understand that there are still some issues with the substitute language which require resolution. Even wil, clarification on the authority to enter into a long-term contract with the City of Aurora, legislation is desirable for a number of reasons, including to meet the projected increase of water storage needs, and to claufy disposition of revenues. The alternatives derived from the substitute language will offer lower cost and anore environmentally friendly solutions to water usera than building new facilities, I believe the proponents of the legislation will be able to resolve the remaining differences and stand ready to work 10 bring an agreed upon solution back to the Congress. By this letter I am requesting Ma. Maryanne Back, Regional Director, Great Plains Region to take the necessary steps to initiate contract negotiations with the City of Aurora. She will be contacting you regarding this matter. If you have questions, please contact her at 406-247-7600, Subject: Response to Your Letter Regarding the Review of the Authority to Issue Long- Dear Mr. Commissioner John Keys has asked that I respond to your recent questions concerning the The term "Reoperations" has been used by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (SECWCD) to represent a series of actions contemplated in the SECWCD's Preferred Storage Options Plan (PSOP). Your use of the term "Reoperations" would include the storage, conveyance, and/or exchange of non-project water in Fry-Ark facilities. We advise it is more appropriate to use the term "excess capacity". We are concerned that the term "Reoperations" is a term used to refer to the operation of a facility or the entire Fry-Ark Project. The legal distinction is significant. This letter is intended to clarify Reclamation's authority to issue longterm storage, conveyance and/or exchange contracts, i.e. "excess capacity" contracts, and should not be interpreted to address the other aspects of Reoperations described in the PSOP, or aspects of the overall operations of the Fry-Ark Project. Our review concludes that existing Reclamation law provides the general authority to issue longterm storage, conveyance and/or exchange contracts to entities within the Fry-Ark Project service area. The request for any such contracts, however, will be reviewed for authority and evaluated on a case-by-case basis as we discussed in your April 30, 2003, meeting with the Commissioner. The contracting process must be in accordance with all applicable law and requirements, including open public negotiations. A Century of Water for the West Attachment #5 Last year we worked diligently with SECWCD, the City of Aurora, and others on an amendment, in the nature of a substitute to HR 3881 as introduced last Congress. We understand that the SECWCD has been working on a further redraft of the legislation. We remain hopeful that all interested parties, will be able to resolve the remaining differences, as the Commissioner stands ready to support a proposal if it represents the consensus of all involved. "Definitions: Ave 935 934 10.11% 1137 1132 -8 -0.44% 637 640 3 0.47% 955 20 2.14% 1138 1 0.09% 663 26 4.08% Estimated changes in streamflow and reservoir storage for representative locations in the study area are described below. The figures show the effects for overall mean years only The following is a description of the hydrologic classification used to classify the years in the study period. Overall Mean 1 Mean of all years in the 1982-2002 study period Mean Dry Mean of the driest 30 percent of years in the study period (1988-1990, 1992, 2000, 2002). Mean Wet Mean of the wettest 30 percent of years in the study period (1982, 1984, 1986 and 1995-1997). Cumulative Effects per EA 42.51. pp. 20-21, world include increased mascipal use, BWP storage in Pueblo Res Mr. LAMBORN. The Chairwoman will have her Attachment # 6 questions as soon as she gets back. I'll go ahead with the next questions for myself and then we will continue on down the line. Mr. Thiebaut, I enjoyed the years that you and I spent in the legislature, but I've got to ask you these questions though. Given that pollution spills have occurred in your own counties, but you have not filed suit against those responsible, while you have sued the City of Colorado Springs for the same thing, wouldn't you agree that there's a double standard at work? Mr. THIEBAULT. Well, first of all, it's a thrill to see all of my former colleagues in the legislature one more time. That's not such a thrilling question, but 2 |