Thursday, February 23, 2006

More storage for Pueblo Reservoir? The Preferred Options Storage Plan is the subject of this article from the Colorado Springs Gazette. They write, "The addition of two words may push a long-stalled Pueblo Reservoir bill through Congress. "Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and 3rd District Congressman John Salazar, D-Colo. - a longtime opponent of the bill - met Wednesday with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board to discuss the bill. The board oversees the reservoir. "Neither of the Salazars committed to move ahead with the bill, which is considered vital to meeting Colorado Springs' water needs for the next 40 years. But both said they were pleased with the progress of negotiations with organizations that have fought the legislation. "Congressman Salazar, who represents the Pueblo area, was impressed with Colorado Springs' willingness to include water quality as an aspect of the study. John Salazar and Pueblo officials have been angry over Colorado Springs Utilities sewage spills into Fountain Creek, which flows into Pueblo County." Category: Colorado Water 5:53:07 AM     Arkansas Valley Conduit The various groups involved are making progress on the Arkansas Valley Conduit and hope to have the study of cost and participation finished by July 1st, according to the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article, "Bent County Director Bill Long, chairman of the Southeastern District's enterprise committee for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, explained progress on the conduit to Salazar and his brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar. "The Salazars, both Democrats, along with Republicans U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard and U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave all support the conduit. But they questioned whether the communities can afford the 20-25 percent local share of the $300 million-plus project and whether there would be enough water to fill the pipeline. "The conduit could serve a population of about 50,000 in 42 towns or water districts from St. Charles Mesa to Lamar. "Long said the local cost of the project would be between $1.50 and $2.20 per 1,000 gallons, based on a $150,000 study by Black & Veatch. The total cost of the project could be anywhere from $212 million for minimum deliveries to $362 million to meet full projected demand by 2050. "The study also found potential shortages of 1,000 acre-feet annually in the early years of the project to 10,000 acre-feet annually by the year 2050. However, there are enough potential sources of water to make up the gap, Long said." Category: Colorado Water 5:45:37 AM

© Copyright 2006 John Orr. Last update: 12/29/06; 11:11:34 AM.