[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S6260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 1058. A bill to provide a cost-sharing requirement for the 
construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, an historian and poet once penned that the 
history of Colorado would be written in water. In the midst of 
Colorado's worst drought in 300 years, this prediction has proven an 
accurate account of life in the headwater State and has proven a strong 
reminder that water is indeed our most precious natural resource. Yet 
in Southeastern Colorado, home of the Arkansas River, finding clean, 
inexpensive water, can be difficult. That is why today I am introducing 
legislation that will ensure the expedited construction of the Arkansas 
Valley Conduit--a pipeline that will provide the small, financially 
strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, 
clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal/Local cost share formula 
to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation 
will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado.
  By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally 
authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share 
provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the 
Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate 
to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation 
of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the 
Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to 
use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal government 
has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards.
  In order to comply with these standards, the region's municipalities 
have begun exploring options for water treatment, some of which are 
estimated to cost between $20 million and $40 million. Taken together, 
the municipalities alone are facing potential expenditures of up to 
$640 million simply to comply with federally mandated water quality 
standards. Construction of over a half a billion dollars worth of water 
treatment facilities is simply not a feasible alternative for the 
financially strapped farming communities along the Arkansas River. With 
the Conduit, the communities will not need to build new water treatment 
facilities.
  In an effort to resurrect the Conduit, last year, Senator Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell and I, worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of 
Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this 
effort, the people of the valley are beginning to realize that the 
Conduit is much more than just a pipedream, and that Congress is 
serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
  According to the draft feasibility study, the Conduit is estimated to 
cost $200 million. My legislation calls for a 75/25 Federal/Local cost 
share, meaning that the local communities will be required to come up 
with at least $50 million to pay for their share. This is a sizeable 
sum, but is a far cry from the $640 million it would cost to build the 
new treatment facilities that would be required if the Conduit is not 
built. This will leave $150 million for the Federal government's share. 
However, I would like to point out that this $150 million undoubtedly 
would be exceeded if the communities were forced to seek Federal grants 
to help build new treatment plants.
  The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens 
of valley communities and thousands of people along the river. The 
local sponsors of the project have initiated and are nearing the 
completion of an independently funded feasibility study of the Conduit, 
and have developed a coalition of support from water users in 
Southeastern Colorado. They continue to explore options for financing 
their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the 
organization that will oversee the Conduit project.
  With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty 
years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a 
reality.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1058

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT FOR THE ARKANSAS VALLEY 
                   CONDUIT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of Public Law 87-590 (76 Stat. 
     393) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 7.'' and inserting the following: 
     ``SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.'';
       (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``There is hereby 
     authorized'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Construction.--There is authorized'';
       (3) in the second sentence, by striking ``There are also'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Operations and Maintenance.--There are''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Arkansas Valley Conduit.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to pay the Federal share of the 
     costs of constructing the Arkansas Valley Conduit in 
     accordance with subsection (a) of the first section, which 
     Federal share shall be nonreimbursable.
       ``(2) Non-federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the total costs 
     of construction (including design and engineering costs) of 
     the Arkansas Valley Conduit shall be not more than 25 
     percent.
       ``(B) Form.--Up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share may 
     be in the form of in-kind contributions.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to any costs of constructing the Arkansas Valley 
     Conduit incurred during fiscal year 2002 or any subsequent 
     fiscal year.
                                 ______