Testimony of Bill Long

President, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District

on S. 1106

A bill to provide a cost-sharing requirement for the construction of the
Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado

Before the Subcommittee on Water and Power

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

September 21, 2006

\[Madame Chair\] My name is Bill Long, president of the Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, and I am testifying today in
support of S. 1106, a bill to provide a cost-sharing requirement for the
construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado. I
would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today. I also thank Senators Allard and Salazar for their leadership in
introducing this legislation and the Subcommittee for holding this
hearing today.

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Southeastern) is
the local sponsor of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project (the Fry-Ark
Project), a multipurpose project constructed by the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) that stores and delivers water for municipal
and agricultural use within the nine-county service area of the
District, Arkansas River basin, Colorado. Southeastern, through its
Water Activity Enterprise, has agreed to manage and organize the efforts
necessary to make this project a reality.

The Fry-Ark Project was originally authorized by Congress in 1962 and
that authorization was amended in 1978. The goal of the legislation was
to provide a supplemental supply of water, and storage for native
agricultural and municipal water supplies. Both the 1962 and 1978 Acts
contemplated the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit.

Like many other regions in the western United States, southeastern
Colorado is growing. The need for the Arkansas Valley Conduit is driven
by projected population growth, the economically-disadvantaged nature of
the lower Arkansas Valley, and increasingly costly water treatment
requirements being experienced by certain water providers in the basin.
In addition to population growth pressures, the District's smaller
communities, especially those east of Pueblo, Colorado, who rely on
groundwater for their main water supply, need to develop a higher
quality drinking water supply for their residents. As early as 1953, the
Secretary of the Interior acknowledged that additional quantity and
better quality of domestic and municipal was critically needed for the
Arkansas Valley, and in particular for those towns and cities east of
Pueblo. House Document 187, 83d Congress, 1^st^ Session, and the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Final Environmental Statement dated April 16, 1975
("1975 FES"), both of which have been incorporated by reference into the
Fry-Ark Project Act, recognized that the Arkansas Valley Conduit would
be an effective way to address this need. The local water available from
the Arkanas River alluvium has historically been high in Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS), sulfates, and calcium, and has objectionable
concentrations of iron and manganese. Additionally, various water
suppliers have recently reported measurable concentrations of
radionuclides in their water. This extremely poor groundwater quality,
combined with increasingly stringent water quality regulations of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, has caused several local water suppliers to
invest in expensive water treatment facilities to assure a reliable
water supply for their customers.

Generally, all drinking water systems in the Lower Arkansas River Basin,
from St. Charles Mesa in eastern Pueblo County to Lamar in Prowers
County, are concerned with the poor water quality in this region. Many
of the water providers do not satisfy, or only marginally satisfy,
current drinking water standards. More than 40 water providers in the
Lower Arkansas River Basin could benefit from this project, if
implemented.

All communities must meet the state and federal primary drinking water
standards through treatment or source replacement. Less documented,
however, is the potential burden placed upon communities by high raw
water concentrations of various unregulated water quality constituents
such as iron, manganese and hardness. These constituents can cause
accelerated infrastructure decay and loss of tax base and economic
impacts associated with factories and businesses locating elsewhere.

To address these issues, representatives of local and county
governments, water districts and other interested citizens of the Lower
Arkansas River Basin formed a committee in 2000 to consider a
feasibility study of the Arkanasas Valley Pipeline. These interested
parties formed the Water*Works!* Committee and, along with Southeastern,
began to review the feasibility of developing the Arkansas Valley
Pipeline. Some of the relevant conclusions reached are as follows:

-   The cost of the project compares favorably with any "no action
    alternative," which would still require the communities involved to
    make substantial financial investments to address current water
    quality and safe drinking standards.

-   The financial capabilities of the participating agencies are
    estimated to be inadequate to fund the construction of the proposed
    Arkansas Valley Conduit, under a 100 percent funding requirement,
    but Conduit participants could afford to pay the 20 percent
    cost-share provided in S. 1106.

-   There is an adequate water supply to make the Arkansas Valley
    Conduit feasible.

As mentioned above, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was included in the
originally Fry-Ark reports integrated into the Fry-Ark Act. The project
was not built because communities in the Lower Arkansas River Basin
could not fully fund the Conduit project. A study of the Arkansas Valley
Conduit was prepared for Southeastern, the Four Corners Regional
Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation in 1972. The report's
recommendations for construction of a water treatment plant, pumping
station and conduit to serve 16 communities and 25 water associations
east of Pueblo were not implemented at that time due to the lack of
federal funding. Evaluations on the quantity of water needed to satisfy
long-range objectives for water users in the Southeastern District area
were prepared in 1998. Additionally, an update of the estimated
construction costs presented in the 1972 report was prepared in 1998.

The citizens and communities of the Lower Arkansas River Basin have
waited 30 to 50 years for this project that will improve their water
quality and supply. The need for this project has been well established
for more than 50 years. S. 1106 fulfills the promise of the Arkansas
Valley Conduit nearly 45 years ago with the passage of the Fry-Ark Act
by providing the one thing that has been missing for all of these years:
a realistic acknowledgement of these communities' ability to pay and a
partnership to allow this much-needed project to move forward.

I understand that there are some who have concerns with this legislation
as it is currently written. Southeastern and the other project
proponents are prepared to work with anyone who has realistic concerns
and suggestions for improving this legislation. It is my hope that, to
the extent there are issues regarding conflicts of funding and
priorities between and among federal agencies, the Administration, with
the help of our fine Senators, would quickly bring these agencies
together to resolve these interagency issues.

I urge this Subcommittee to act quickly to move this legislation towards
enactment. I would be happy to answer any questions the Chair or
Committee members may have on this legislation.