Mr. THIEBAULT. I think that Representative Salazar's bill would be helpful. Mr. WINNER. Like I said before, we must learn from the past so we don't lose the future, so I support Representative Salazar's bill. Mr. WHITE. Me too. Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mayor? Mr. RIVERA. I would agree with Terry Scanga. I think we need to do the feasibility study patterned after Lamborn's bill and then we would discuss socioeconomic needs after that feasibility study. Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. This will conclude the second panel, gentlemen. Thank you for your testimony. It is appreciated and you will have additional questions sent to you. We appreciate your reply within ten days if at all possible. And again, for those in the audience who have questions, you may submit them for the record and on behalf of this committee, and I will call for a five-minute break. Five minutes. I think some people have been waiting patiently. Five minutes from now. [recess.] Mr. LAMBORN. OK. The third panel will now resume. We have The Honorable Ed Tauer, Mayor of Aurora. We have Drew Peternell from Trout Unlimited; Chris Treese from the Colorado River Conservancy District-Conservation District, excuse me; and Wally Stealey of Pueblo. OK, Mr. Tauer, Mr. Mayor, you are the first one on the third panel. If you could present your testimony, please. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD J. TAUER, Mr. TAUER. OK. Thank you. Madam Chairperson, thank you very much for having us this afternoon-this morning. We appreciate you coming and hope you have time to enjoy Colorado for a little bit while you're here. My name is Ed Tauer, and I'm the mayor of the City of Aurora. It's a city on the eastern side of the Denver metro area, and our current population is about 310,000 people. You know, I was listening to some of the testimony earlier, and if somebody isn't from Colorado, they may not understand, in Colorado, water is life. It's so important that we actually have about half of the water lawyers in the country practicing in our state. We're one of the few states that have actual water court, special courts to decide water issues. It's a very emotional issue. First, last, and always, it's important to the people of Colorado. And we've heard what water can do in the valley, but I wanted to point out quickly some of the things that it's doing in the city of Aurora. It's allowing us to bring in great jobs for the people of Colorado, like with employers like Raytheon and Northrop-Grumman. It's allowing the extension of Buckley Air Force and projects like the redevelopment of the former Fitzsimons Army Hospital that Congressman Salazar has been so helpful with. This is a time for us to look at the issues of water with cool heads and do the best for all of the people of Colorado. We've been involved with the Fry-Ark Project since its early days. You know, the Fry-Ark Project is very simply a series of pipes, pumps, and buckets that allow the movement of water from one basin to another. And during the early development of the project, something very unique happened at the Bureau of Reclamation. The people working at the Bureau saw that there was another project nearby that had a similar purpose and they saw that by working together, those two projects could be better for everybody. That's a very unique thing to have happen in government. I think it's something that should be encouraged. And it was allowed because the original concept of the Fry-Ark Project was to be a multi-purpose project. So early on in the construction phase, before any of the construction was even begun on the Eastern Slope, the Bureau of Reclamation entered into discussions with Colorado Springs and Aurora about how to expand the use of the project. In fact, I believe the first contract was entered into in 1965. The intent and the rationale for this was reconfirmed by the Bureau in the '80s. I've heard somebody say that it wasn't part of the original intent, and that may be in a very, very narrow sense true, but I believe that it's the legacy of Congress and of the Bureau of Reclamation to maximize the investments of the taxpayers of the United States. And that's exactly what the Bureau has done through these agreements. For when you do that, it's important that you do it in a way that doesn't injure the original intent of the project, and it goes to your point earlier, Madam Chairperson, in one of your questions. The Bureau of Reclamation has managed the project so that Aurora has what's called an “if and when" contract. What that means is that we can store water in project facilities when, and only when, there's space available. Whenever an in-basin user needs space, if our water is in there, there isn't room for them as well, our water does spill out of the project. It does not change Colorado water law. We're still only allowed to move water per Colorado water law. And because we're an outof-basin user, quite appropriately, we have to pay more for the usage of those facilities. And as a result we are the third-largest payer for the repayment back to the Federal government for this project. We believe that we have responsibility to be a good neighbor, and that's why we've entered into six different agreements with inbasin parties, most recent of which is the 2004 agreement which is sometimes called the 6-Party Agreement. Under that agreement, we agreed to work with our partners to protect some of the flows in the river, some of which were already mentioned by Mr. Scanga, to participate financially in future storage, but also to limit the amount of water that Aurora can take out of the valley. We have to use water responsibly in Aurora. That's why we have some very innovative conservation programs and why we are leading the state in the reuse and recapture of water. I'd like to point out that the 40-year agreement that's under study and we hope to enter into soon with the Bureau does not change any of this. It's not a new agreement. It's a reconfirming of the year-to-year agreements that we've had. It doesn't change any of the conditions, the "if and when" aspects, the limits or any obligations that we have. And it also doesn't change Colorado water law. We hope that in the future, we're on the edge of something different in Colorado, that we're not talking about one basin against another. We think it's time for us to change that conversation and talk about how do we work together, people in cities and farms, people in one basin and another. There's a new process in Colorado, the 1177 Process, that aims to do just that. Especially in a year where Congress has so little money that's discretionary and available, it's time for us to maximize the investments of America's taxpayers, and cooperative uses like our involvement in the Fry-Ark Project are one way to do that. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Tauer follows:] I. Background Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Tauer, The City of Aurora is the third largest municipal water provider in the State of Colorado and serves the needs of 300,000 people and businesses within its service area. The City operates a complex and integrated water system to reliably serve its customers with a safe drinking water supply. As a part of that water system, the City of Aurora derives about one quarter of its source water from the Arkansas River basin and has had a long-standing and productive relationship with the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project since its very inception in the 1960's. All water sources have been developed under the State's water laws and operating agreements with the federal government and local agencies. Aurora is the third largest financial contributor to Fryingpan- Arkansas Project repayment, subsidizing the repayment obligations of local agricultural and municipal users while helping to retire the public debt at an earlier time. Aurora trails only El Paso County and Pueblo County, who contribute to project repayment obligations through the payment of ad valorem taxes on property within the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Aurora History in the Fryingpan—Arkansas Project In the early 1960's, Aurora joined with Colorado Springs in the purchase and development of the Homestake Project. The Homestake Project imports water from the Eagle River, a tributary to the Colorado River and delivers water to the South Platte River basin through the Homestake Reservoir outlet and tunnel to Turquoise Lake and Twin Lakes which are both Fry-Ark facilities. Water is piped and pumped from Twin Lakes through the Otero Pump Station to Spinney Mountain Reservoir and then by gravity to the City of Aurora. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was proposed as a source of supplemental water for agricultural and municipal entities within the Arkansas basin. However, recognizing the economies of scale that could be realized where two projects, i.e., Homestake and Fry-Ark which were simultaneously in the planning and development stages, the Bureau of Reclamation entered into discussions with Colorado Springs and Aurora in an attempt to coordinate efforts and thereby minimize costs and maximize efficiencies. In 1965, prior to the construction of the East Slope components of the Fry-Ark Project, both Aurora and Colorado Springs executed a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. That contract acknowledged that “it will be economically feasible to transport all or part of the Homestake Project water through the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities for delivery to the cities." The contract was designed to “provide...for_the_coordinated operation of the two Projects, and to provide a method of payment for the use of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities." In particular, the contract identified how Fry-Ark facilities would "provide carriage of Homestake water...and storage for Homestake water...," and contained flow rate limits as well as a storage of 30,000 acre-feet cap for Homestake water to be stored in East Slope Fry-Ark Project facilities. The 1965 contract went on to state: 10(b) The United States hereby grants an option to the cities to negotiate for additional storage service in the eastern slope project works over and above the 30,000 acre-feet contemplated by this agreement, if and when there may be capacity in the system unused by the Project or uncommitted by prior agreements. See attached. The storage space option referenced in the above paragraph was specifically not limited to Homestake water and could include native Arkansas Valley waters that were legally developed by Aurora for municipal purposes. In response to subsequent questions concerning the Bureau's ability to contract with an out-of-basin entity, such as Aurora, for the use of excess capacity in FryArk facilities, the Bureau has, on two separate occasions, concluded that such authority indeed exists. These statements were issued in 1986 and in 2003. See correspondence of Ray Whelms and John W. Keys attached hereto. However, reference to such participation by Aurora was previously made as early as 1964 in the Bureau's memorandum on the proposed water service contract for the Fry-Ark Project and subsequently in the operating principles for the Project. II. Aurora's Water Acquisitions in the Arkansas Valley Beginning in the late 1970's, Aurora received numerous sale offers from Arkansas Valley farmers who wanted to sell their decreed agricultural water rights. Aurora has since acquired and subsequently received State decrees for approximately 26,000 acre-feet of water from a number of farmers, ranchers and ditch shareholders. The City of Aurora has completed the necessary Colorado water court adjudications required to change the water rights to municipal use, ensuring "no injury" to other water rights and agreeing to a number of decree terms and conditions as related to the individual adjudications. These have included yield limitations and revegetation requirements. The City has operated an office in the lower Arkansas Valley near Rocky Ford and maintained an ongoing community presence that addresses water administration, revegetation, local watershed protection issues and other Arkansas Valley water management matters. III. Intergovernmental Agreements In order to implement the various operating agreements and work cooperatively within the Arkansas basin, Aurora has executed a number of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) with entities within the area served by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, as well as entities within the Upper Arkansas basin. The provisions of these agreements extend far beyond the requirements of state law in preventing injury and providing mitigation for water transfers. These include the following: • 2004 Regional (6-Party) IGA • 2003 Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District IGA • 1994, 2001 and 2005 Otero County IGA's • 2005 Rocky Ford School District IGA ⚫ 2003 Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District IGA A summary sheet for each of the above referenced IGAS is attached hereto. Of particular note, in those documents Aurora voluntarily agreed to the following: • To support Preferred Storage Options Plan (PSOP) legislation in a form as referenced in the 2004 Regional IGA. • To refrain from the additional purchase and permanent transfer of agricultural water rights from the basin for 40 years, with specific agricultural fallowing and leasing opportunities during drought recovery periods. • To make multi year, multi-million dollar payments for the use of unused and available space in Fry-Ark facilities. To curtail water diversions and exchanges in support of a flow program and for the aquatic and recreational benefit of the river reach below Pueblo Reservoir. • To make payment in lieu of taxes (PILT payments) and other tax loss payments (due to differential land and property tax assessments) to Otero County. • To compensate the Rocky Ford School District in the sum of $1.5 million dollars as mitigation for perceived losses resulting from changes in their tax base—Aurora will complete payments over a five year period rather than the negotiated 99 year payout to provide the School District with substantial and effective cash payments in the near future. • To provide an Upper Basin replacement or softening pool of water. IV. Additional Cooperative Activities Aurora has also extended its comprehensive local community programs through a variety of additional cooperative activities in the Arkansas Valley. These include: • Investment in a "continued-farming, drip irrigation" project (approximately $2 million) whereby Aurora assists local farmers with $1,400.00 per-acre for the installation of drip irrigation systems, $50.00 per planted acre for ten years, and 1/2 acre-foot per acre of augmentation water annually. • Creation of a partnership with Lake County including the formation of the Lake County Open Space Initiative (LACOSI) designed to enhance recreation, historic preservation and wildlife activities along the upper Arkansas River riparian corridor. • Conduct of a fen (wetland) research project to investigate, in cooperation with others, tools for wetland mitigation for this endangered high-altitude flora environment To date, under the various Bureau contracts, IGAs, and other governing documents, Aurora has spent almost $35 million dollars on its operations in the Arkansas Valley and estimates that it will potentially spend, in the next 40 years, an additional $150 million dollars. See attached expenditure summary. Aurora is fully vested in ensuring a successful relationship with the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the people of the Lower Arkansas Valley. V. Leasing and Sustainable Water Use In the recent severe drought of the last five years, Aurora's water storage fell to unacceptably low levels. As a part of an integrated program to recover the reservoirs, Aurora developed and implemented a highly effective short-term leasing program for fallowed agricultural water supplies within the Arkansas Valley. Aurora entered into a contractual leasing/fallowing relationship with the Rocky Ford Highline Canal Company whereby 37% of ditch acres were temporarily fallowed and, in exchange, almost $11 million dollars was placed into the local economy at a time when drought conditions already precluded an adequate water supply for crop production. Aurora's financial arrangement with the farmers, which also included soil stabilization, weed control and canal structural improvements, was overwhelmingly embraced by local shareholders and Aurora was only able to subscribe about one-half of all the water offered to the program. Aurora believes that the temporary leasing/fallowing concept, which it has supported legislatively, is a valuable and viable option to the "buy and dry" practices of the past. Though it is a complicated undertaking which is not easily implemented, with the ditch companies input and cooperation, in coordination with the use of storage facilities such as those of the Fry-Ark Project, it is a mechanism that can be employed to the benefit of both municipal and agricultural entities in the Valley. Aurora has been a statewide leader in both water conservation and reclamation. The City's comprehensive water conservation policies and continuing mandatory watering restrictions have greatly reduced per capita consumption. In addition, it is ensuring the maximum utilization of previously developed water supplies, having embarked on the $750 million dollar Prairie Waters Project. This Project is designed to make successive reuse of its fully consumable return flows in the South Platte River. Those project facilities include a series of alluvial wells downstream from the City that will divert water to a 34 mile pipeline and a state-of-the-art water treatment plant. Indeed, Aurora is mindful of its responsibility to avoid waste, thereby minimizing and delaying its need for additional agricultural supplies and transbasin imports. VI. Forty-year Contract Request Since 1986, Aurora has executed a series of year-to-year contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation for the storage and exchange of water within the Fry-Ark system. These annual operating contracts have always been the subject of NEPA reviews. Most recently, consistent with the provisions of the aforementioned IGAs and Bureau policy, Aurora has requested a forty-year contract from the Bureau in lieu of the year-to-year arrangement. This long-term contract will provide additional water supply certainty to the City. Aurora has spent approximately four years and over $1.5 million dollars working with the Bureau in the conduct of an environmental analysis (EA) which examined the environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with this long term extension of the existing practice. This effort, which included extensive modeling of potential hydrologic and water quality impacts and numerous opportunities for public comment, concluded that there would be no significant impact from the proposed action. A FONSI was recently issued by the Bureau. The final contract terms are now being circulated for further public comment, though the contract was the subject of public negotiation sessions. The following facts ensure that there can be no harm to the Fry-Ark Project or its beneficiaries as a result of the long-term contract. • Aurora will receive, and has received in the past, no Project water under the Bureau contracts. • If there is insufficient storage capacity i.e. Aurora water cannot be stored at the same time as Project water or Project beneficiary water, Aurora is the "first to spill". No Project water is displaced by the City's use of empty and excess space in the facilities. • Aurora's contract exchange opportunities under the contract are subordinate to all present and future exchange requests of in-district entities. |